Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2019/12/20 11:45:44
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Desubot wrote: I hate to break it too you but the competitive scene is probably not the majority of the customer base.
Apparently locally we have more painters than players, it caused my FLGS to re-work their displays to show more 'cool models' rather than names players know.
2019/12/20 12:40:28
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Holy gak, as someone with a philosophy degree in undergrad I am embarrassed to be even in the same category as Ozymoto.
I can't wait for the solipsism argument to come out (which he has bordered on already with the "balance is subjective" thing). Something like "balance is a construct of the human mind and doesn't objectively exist."
Well yes it does mother . You can measure it, juggle it, you could get a grant to write research papers on it.
How important balance is to someone is subjective, but that is a tautology. "That rock is/isn't important" is subjective. "That rock exists" is not.
40k is objectively, measurably, mathematically less balanced than Chess.
How important that is to you is subjective.
It is the height of stupidity, though, to come into a subjective discussion leading with "I disagree that your concerns should be discussed because I don't find them important." Like, okay, some people *do* find them important, and should be allowed to discuss them. Saying "it is okay that 40k is imbalanced as it is" is not the argument being made anyways...
...urg, sorry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/20 12:40:50
2019/12/20 12:52:21
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
I'm not done reading the whole thread yet but some thoughts:
The major issues is that GW seemingly doesn't TRY. They claim that they have playtesters, who are apparently tournament organizers, but either their testing isn't testing anything meaningful or they ignore feedback. Since it's all under NDA we have no way of knowing, which is also a big overall issue in that everything isn't transparent enough to determine where it works and where it needs to be improved.
People don't want a perfectly balanced game, which doesn't exist anyways (even chess isn't perfect). But the combination of bloated product lines, bloated factions (some of which don't really need to be totally separate) and now bloated rules along with seemingly a lack of being able to put 2 and 2 together and figure out that X + Y + Z ability is really really good means that the game, while it might be fun, is a mess.
Pickup games are part of the issue since it's random if you get someone who is primarily a collector and threw together some models from their collection for a game, someone preparing for a tournament and bringing a filth list, an donkey-cave who just likes to crush people, or anything in between. But it's not the only issue and a big part of the problem is that there is so little internal and external balance that your army can be amazingly good or total doggak seemingly at random (and sometimes fluctuate between the two every edition/update).
Warhammer is one of the only games I'm familiar with where the balance is SO bad that one of the following things often happens:
1) You pick the units you like the look/fluff of and they are the OP cheese du jour so you curbstomp players just because you happened to like the "good" units, and risk being lumped in the WAAC player category through no fault of your own and/or people don't want to play you because your army isn't fun, despite you not actually intending to build a top-tier army. 2) You pick the units you like the look/fluff of and they are awful trash, and you lose every single game you play often before even getting a chance to do anything because they are so bad. 3) You ignore 90% of the book to focus on the broken 10% which is immediately apparent to be broken within minutes of looking through the book, despite at least some unknown period of time being devoted to playtesting 4) You lucked out and GW fethed up your book in some way, meaning your entire army is trash until they get around to fixing it, if they ever do. 5) You hit the lottery and GW, for whatever reason, made your book insanely good and no matter what you pick it's probably going to be better than your opponent. 6) They hit the sweet spot and your book actually isn't bad, but since very little else also hit the sweet spot you're actually at a disadvantage since you don't have any crazy combos like everybody else has.
No other game I've seen has this level of issue; sure every game has problems. But a lot of it is self-created: The combination of an emphasis on models above rules, whch seems to indicate that the models are designed with zero input or communicaton with the rules team and the rules team get thrown the finished model and told to come up with how it fits, the bloated release schedule which has to eat into design and testing time resulting in sloppy work, the fact the design team apparently does not communicate with each other but writes books in isolation, resulting in totally missing synergies between books, and the bloated rules where it's been shown that GW often forgets their own rules or errata they've done to the rules all combines to make things worse than they really should be.
IF GW is playtesting internally then I doubt anyone on the team is really competent enough to pick up on the potential issues or they simply don't have enough time to test it properly. Allegedly they have external playtesters who are tournament people (FLG has outright stated they are playtesting but can't go into more detail) but from the bits and pieces that have been gleaned the testing is less about finding combos and more about if the rules interactions fit. In other words they don't let playtesters build armies to demonstrate that X+Y+Z is a broken combo, but instead want them to see if X, Y and Z work in isolation. Which is important but totally misses the bigger picture. Thre is a fundamental issue with your testing if broken combos are found within minutes when your supposedly professional team of designers completely missed it.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/12/20 14:05:01
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/12/20 14:01:37
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
But a game with army books is going to be inherently asymmetric in at least a good chunk of games. Think about it - if two codices are just about equal in power but each have three different builds we can probably assume that only one build from each army versus each other will produce a close game. If you take a more extreme build from each book you’ll probably get a stomp, that’s means in this hypothetical example that 2/3 of games probably won’t be close before we add probability of dice rolls.
To put it another way: what if GW invests their modicum of balance testing with the intention of producing close games if each player goes with pretty generic WD battle report style armies? Trying to balance a couple dozen army books with all the possible permutations that could fit into the old traditional 1-2 HQs, 2-6 troops, 0-3 elites, 0-3 fast attack, and 0-3 heavy supports force org would be a pretty daunting task for anyone. Add in a community of mouth breathing Internet neckbeards like us clamoring that our spam-of-the-month list isn’t as powerful as someone else’s and it’s no wonder GW walked away from official tournament support.
/shrug
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/20 14:09:15
2019/12/20 14:13:38
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Fajita Fan wrote: But a game with army books is going to be inherently asymmetric in at least a good chunk of games. Think about it - if two codices are just about equal in power but each have three different builds we can probably assume that only one build from each army versus each other will produce a close game. If you take a more extreme build from each book you’ll probably get a stomp, that’s means in this hypothetical example that 2/3 of games probably won’t be close before we add probability of dice rolls.
To put it another way: what if GW invests their modicum of balance testing with the intention of producing close games if each player goes with pretty generic WD battle report style armies? Trying to balance a couple dozen army books with all the possible permutations that could fit into the old traditional 1-2 HQs, 2-6 troops, 0-3 elites, 0-3 fast attack, and 0-3 heavy supports force org would be a pretty daunting task for anyone. Add in a community of mouth breathing Internet neckbeards like us clamoring that our spam-of-the-month list isn’t as powerful as someone else’s and it’s no wonder GW walked away from official tournament support.
/shrug
There is something to be said about the fact that 40k was more or less shoehorned into a competitive game. Sure they had GTs before, but they were much more low-key affairs and not as serious as today. The desire to make everything a competitive almost-sport with grand tournaments and cash prizes and livable wages has sort of corrupted the idea (and this isn't a joke, there are actually people who want to make 40k/AOS a "t-sport" with sponsorships and such). But even back in the day, it was commonly known GW's battle reports used terrible armies (mostly due to them using studio armies which were built to show the range not build a good army for gaming). It's actually been lessened now that it's usually the person's personal army so they tend to have more good options.
I think the major double-edged sword here is that there is just too much to balance properly. Too many options, too many factions, too many rules. It's a surefire sign things are bloated, but Pandora's box has been opened and even if GW wasn't focused on models above everything, there would be no way to "go back". That said though things were still pretty crazy when there were only like 10 factions, not however many we have today, so there's no guarantee even if they were able to get rid of the bloat (they can't, but hypothetically speaking) that it would fix anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/20 14:16:33
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/12/20 14:23:59
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Ultimately trying to balance for WAAC level where people intentionally try to break the game is futile. Unless the variety of units and options is massively curtailed there always will be edgecase combos that will be anomalously powerful.
The balancing should be focused on casual TAC level, and this is why I think many of the marine supplements are a problem. They're just massive universal power boosts to the whole army. You don't need to intentionally try to build a power combo; merely using a perfectly average marine collection with the IH book will result very lopsided games against casual collections of many other factions.
Ozomoto wrote: Ironically nu-marines are everything that the player base requested. 1) primaris identity thing, 2)marines actually being good, 3) Being disliking soup (doctrines). etc. What people say they want isnt what they actually want, which leads into my rants about balace...on average any given person really has no idea what they are talking about or what they actually want.
I guess if you don't actually understand what people want, it can look like they're contradicting themselves. Those three things you identified were overwhelmingly praised by the community, they're not what people criticize. Heck, almost every time I see people complain about Marines being too powerful, it's usually prefaced with 'I agree they needed a boost, but'.
Specifically, nobody was asking for Marines to:
1. Be better at specialized roles than the factions that revolve around those roles, and get rules exceptions nobody else does (see: Drop Pods ignoring T1 DS restrictions, Impulsors letting you move and then disembark, WS being better at fast assault than DE/CWE), or
2. Be the most powerful army in the game by a non-negligible margin. I can understand you not getting this since for some baffling reason you don't recognize cross-faction balance as a legitimate issue, but for anyone who doesn't play exclusively mirror matches it's a problem.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/20 14:30:13
Crimson wrote: Ultimately trying to balance for WAAC level where people intentionally try to break the game is futile. Unless the variety of units and options is massively curtailed there always will be edgecase combos that will be anomalously powerful.
The balancing should be focused on casual TAC level, and this is why I think many of the marine supplements are a problem. They're just massive universal power boosts to the whole army. You don't need to intentionally try to build a power combo; merely using a perfectly average marine collection with the IH book will result very lopsided games against casual collections of many other factions.
Yes but if you don't focus on the WAAC level you miss the combos. You don't need to balance for that, but I would expect some concern about it in order to try and prevent those breaks from happening in the first place. You'll miss some (and that's why errata exists) but it feels like GW doesn't pick up on ANY, so there's so many slipping through the cracks that they can't/won't fix them all. So when they fix one thing there are still several more that didn't get touched and continue to break the game.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/12/20 14:32:28
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Sim-Life wrote: Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.
SERIOUSLY.
It couldn't possibly be more clear that 40k is meant to be a fun, narratively-oriented, mostly-casual kind of game about spectacle and cool battles and funny moments and nice memories to enjoy with friends. That's the priority. It's always been the priority. It always will be the priority. People are welcome to focus on tournaments and competition and winning, of course, but it's just so weird to keep seeing people expecting, or demanding, that the game completely alter itself into something it isn't and never has been just to better match their particular style, when they could just … go play a different game with a more technical, competitive focus to it.
This is 1000% true. Beerhammer is what its designed around, not olympic levels of competitiveness.
I'm very much a casual player (couldn't care less about tournament play), but I want my units to be balanced at a WAAC level. I take no pleasure in being either a roflstomper or a roflstompee, and tight, balanced codexes would reduce the chance of this happening unintended in the list building phase. This would give me more freedom in choosing my army.
Example
Spoiler:
I like howling banshees, striking scorpions and storm guardians. However, I know that when I field my fluffy list with these units against my friend's guardsmen horde I'll get obliterated. This is not because they're a powergamer (they aren't), or because I make intentionally bad decisions (I mostly don't), but because guardsmen are far more efficient per point than my beloved melee spelfs.
2019/12/20 15:17:58
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Unit1126PLL wrote: How important balance is to someone is subjective, but that is a tautology. "That rock is/isn't important" is subjective. "That rock exists" is not.
I made it back to the thread in time for the proper use of the word tautology! This thread delivers.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2019/12/20 15:22:47
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Eldarsif wrote:I think we are already seeing a shift at GW into a more tournament focused development. It is there in AoS despite the occasional blunders(HoS and OBR), Warcry was definitely made with tourneys in mind, and lest us not forget how both Warhammer Underworlds and even Kill Team have been very focused on it as they both received tourney kits.
In regards to Kill Team, I don't believe it was ever designed for tournament balance since the game went to great effort not to change data sheets and points (at the time Kill Team came out) from what would be found in full 40k. With Arena efforts were placed to control the battlefield and Line of Sight variables, but no changes to actually occurred among factions. So given the new battlefield conditions some factions move up in the meta playing Arena compared to a more typical game of Kill Team. But that was about it., The standard meta of faction that has access to chaff units and several powerful special/heavy weapons remained unchanged. So I would argue not much balance was added to Kill Team over full 40k, save a limited scope of units and standard Command Point generation. Which allows the game to be much more balanced, but it still has fairly well defined Upper, Mid and Lower tier factions.
Wayniac wrote:I'm not done reading the whole thread yet but some thoughts:
Spoiler:
The major issues is that GW seemingly doesn't TRY. They claim that they have playtesters, who are apparently tournament organizers, but either their testing isn't testing anything meaningful or they ignore feedback. Since it's all under NDA we have no way of knowing, which is also a big overall issue in that everything isn't transparent enough to determine where it works and where it needs to be improved.
People don't want a perfectly balanced game, which doesn't exist anyways (even chess isn't perfect). But the combination of bloated product lines, bloated factions (some of which don't really need to be totally separate) and now bloated rules along with seemingly a lack of being able to put 2 and 2 together and figure out that X + Y + Z ability is really really good means that the game, while it might be fun, is a mess.
Pickup games are part of the issue since it's random if you get someone who is primarily a collector and threw together some models from their collection for a game, someone preparing for a tournament and bringing a filth list, an donkey-cave who just likes to crush people, or anything in between. But it's not the only issue and a big part of the problem is that there is so little internal and external balance that your army can be amazingly good or total doggak seemingly at random (and sometimes fluctuate between the two every edition/update).
Warhammer is one of the only games I'm familiar with where the balance is SO bad that one of the following things often happens:
1) You pick the units you like the look/fluff of and they are the OP cheese du jour so you curbstomp players just because you happened to like the "good" units, and risk being lumped in the WAAC player category through no fault of your own and/or people don't want to play you because your army isn't fun, despite you not actually intending to build a top-tier army.
2) You pick the units you like the look/fluff of and they are awful trash, and you lose every single game you play often before even getting a chance to do anything because they are so bad.
3) You ignore 90% of the book to focus on the broken 10% which is immediately apparent to be broken within minutes of looking through the book, despite at least some unknown period of time being devoted to playtesting
4) You lucked out and GW fethed up your book in some way, meaning your entire army is trash until they get around to fixing it, if they ever do.
5) You hit the lottery and GW, for whatever reason, made your book insanely good and no matter what you pick it's probably going to be better than your opponent.
6) They hit the sweet spot and your book actually isn't bad, but since very little else also hit the sweet spot you're actually at a disadvantage since you don't have any crazy combos like everybody else has.
No other game I've seen has this level of issue; sure every game has problems. But a lot of it is self-created: The combination of an emphasis on models above rules, whch seems to indicate that the models are designed with zero input or communicaton with the rules team and the rules team get thrown the finished model and told to come up with how it fits, the bloated release schedule which has to eat into design and testing time resulting in sloppy work, the fact the design team apparently does not communicate with each other but writes books in isolation, resulting in totally missing synergies between books, and the bloated rules where it's been shown that GW often forgets their own rules or errata they've done to the rules all combines to make things worse than they really should be.
IF GW is playtesting internally then I doubt anyone on the team is really competent enough to pick up on the potential issues or they simply don't have enough time to test it properly. Allegedly they have external playtesters who are tournament people (FLG has outright stated they are playtesting but can't go into more detail) but from the bits and pieces that have been gleaned the testing is less about finding combos and more about if the rules interactions fit. In other words they don't let playtesters build armies to demonstrate that X+Y+Z is a broken combo, but instead want them to see if X, Y and Z work in isolation. Which is important but totally misses the bigger picture. Thre is a fundamental issue with your testing if broken combos are found within minutes when your supposedly professional team of designers completely missed it
.
This year I have been on both ends of the spectrum with my Primaris marines going meta with the new codex and my Slaves to Darkness being played before their battletomb. I haven't made full use of the Space Marine codex and don't use Supplements, so my 40k games have been rather enjoyable since I have a dialed back army which is probably still very good since I can actually tie/win games and I am a terrible player. However, on the other end, I played my Slaves to Darkness army vs. Bonereapers and got stomped (each wound caused is a point an I lost 0-40 or something) so badly I wanted to quit wargaming all together and felt dumb buying the models. And this was from an opponent that was also relatively new to AoS who just happened to like the Bonereapers. It was only fact that I had years of wargaming experience, knowledge of how GW game work and the fact my army was getting an update in a couple weeks, I didn't pack up/sell/throw away my models. Yes, it felt that bad. When you play a game that you literally would have done better just setting your army on the table and just leaving them there where they deployed you know you had a really bad game. With the new battletome and a few more unit choices available to me, I think AoS won't be as bad.
***
As for pick-up games, I tend to go for about 3/4 strength of what I think the faction could accomplish if fully optimized. Adjusted depending on my perceived strength of the faction and any previous experience I have with them. In Kill Team I have got pretty good at building teams around this power level so they are strong but if my opponent builds a team the is very optimized/optimized the game isn't going to be a blow out. For the most part, my group has done the same. The best player in our group shelved his Thousand Sons completely since nothing was able to tackle them. This more of no one has good kill teams to face it, and for myself, I haven't solved the psybolt/rubic issue with how play. I know there is a solution, I just can't get my brain to position right to absorb them. I do feel a little bad for the Thousand Sons player, while he does have other kill teams, I know he wants to play Magnus's sons every now and again.
The point is, I think GW games work pretty well right now if players aim for a 3/4 strength, +/- the local meta. I know some players balk at that, but I don't mind it so much as it allows me to field units I like no matter how bad they are since if they are really bad, I can shore them up with really good units. At the end of the day, I am looking for close games in the small margin where my choices on the table and swings of luck decided the game more than having a mathematically better army. I think playing GW games in this strength range works out pretty well for what I want. Sure, it is possible for a new player to accidentally stumble of powerful units/combos but they are more likely to not. And that sort stuff usually works itself out over time as a gaming group matures playing each other.
Can Games Workshop games be better balanced? Absolutely. It is fairly easy to see they are not. Are they going to become better balanced through better play testing? Probably not anytime soon as I expect GW had amazing profits this year with no end on the near horizon. These profits say whatever they are doing is good enough. And you know what, I do think they are good enough. We can create all manner of sound and fury, but I really don't see anything changing so I think it is best to accept things as they are or find something else to do with one's time. It can't be healthy arguing over something you have no power to change and isn't changing.
2019/12/20 15:31:47
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Unit1126PLL wrote: How important balance is to someone is subjective, but that is a tautology. "That rock is/isn't important" is subjective. "That rock exists" is not.
I made it back to the thread in time for the proper use of the word tautology! This thread delivers.
That's like the thing from Star Wars, right?
2019/12/20 15:42:15
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: We can create all manner of sound and fury, but I really don't see anything changing so I think it is best to accept things as they are or find something else to do with one's time.
I accept this is the way things are, and it's not likely to change any time soon (it was also the intent of my post), but i sure as don't accept that this is the way things should be.
For sake we have an entire sub forum devoted to this wish listing / complaining and it doesn't every accomplish a damn thing other than remind the more competitive players how truly up this game is in terms of balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strg Alt wrote: Learn to play chess and you can have the time of your life at your precious tournaments.
As soon as Chess has a 200 ft tall murder bots i'm all over it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Unless the variety of units and options is massively curtailed there always will be edgecase combos that will be anomalously powerful.
Here's the problem i have with this argument, if they had tested their products correctly they'd catch most of these "edgecase combos".
I'll give you a recent example - anyone who saw the Iron Hands leaks knew was going to broken as hell if the rumors were true, and as soon as that GT finished with half the armies being Iron Hands they FAQd that real quick, like within a few days i believe. It would have been obvious to any competent tester, i mean it was obvious to the dozens of people that showed up with Iron Hands.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/12/20 16:19:36
2019/12/20 16:24:35
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
I find it bizarre that some people believe game balance and fairness are properties of a competitive game. It's actually the opposite: these are needed far more for a casual, fun, weekend-at-your-friends-house game. Games where one player has or can manifest an unfair advantage are *terrible* for friends to play with one another. They cause resentment and hurt feelings and friends stop playing them with one another.
Competitive games are the ones that can withstand a lack of perfect balance and a constantly shifting metagame, because these attributes become features for the game to remain interesting over time. And competitive players generally don't have strong social relationships with one another that can become strained if someone milks an advantageous rule or unit for all it's worth.
2019/12/20 16:28:59
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Pointed Stick wrote: I find it bizarre that some people believe game balance and fairness are properties of a competitive game. It's actually the opposite: these are needed far more for a casual, fun, weekend-at-your-friends-house game. Games where one player has or can manifest an unfair advantage are *terrible* for friends to play with one another. They cause resentment and hurt feelings and friends stop playing them with one another.
Competitive games are the ones that can withstand a lack of perfect balance and a constantly shifting metagame, because these attributes become features for the game to remain interesting over time. And competitive players generally don't have strong social relationships with one another that can become strained if someone milks an advantageous rule or unit for all it's worth.
lol
My gaming group of 20+ years is all highly competitive 40k players, I've been a best man in a few of their weddings. But sure, I'll bet there's a ton of data out there to support your entirely pulled out of your ass anecdotal conclusion that competitive players are simply misanthropic trolls throwing gak out of the cave entrance at the rest of the community.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2019/12/20 16:31:32
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Pointed Stick wrote: Competitive games are the ones that can withstand a lack of perfect balance and a constantly shifting metagame, because these attributes become features for the game to remain interesting over time.
I love it when the thing i hate most about this game suddenly becomes a virtue ...
2019/12/20 16:33:07
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Rob Lee wrote: if "professional" Warhammer "journalists" (how did we end up with "professional" Warhammr "journalists" anyhow?!!) such as Rob Baer start deriding a particular unit/faction/ruleset GW get worried..
I was with you until this. If Rob Baer is a journalists then Spikey Bits is the National Enquirer of the Warhammer world, nothing but click bait with no real information, i get more reliable news from 4chan.
When your staff consists of people who are permanently banned from major tournaments... yeah, not really reliable. And as I understand, SB doesn't have the best reputation among actual Games Workshop honchos.
Frankly, how does anyone even read that site under the 9000 autoplaying ads anyway?
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/20 16:36:54
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
MiguelFelstone wrote: Here's the problem i have with this argument, if they had tested their products correctly they'd catch most of these "edgecase combos".
I'll give you a recent example - anyone who saw the Iron Hands leaks knew was going to broken as hell if the rumors were true, and as soon as that GT finished with half the armies being Iron Hands they FAQd that real quick, like within a few days i believe. It would have been obvious to any competent tester, i mean it was obvious to the dozens of people that showed up with Iron Hands.
They would catch more of them and they definitely should catch more of them. Some things in the unerrated IH supplement for example were so blatantly and obviously broken that it is pretty incomprehensible how no one at the GW noticed this. But still, there is always some less obvious combos. There is always the best list as long as lists are different. I am not saying that they shouldn't do better, but the perfection is nevertheless unattainable. The goal should be a balance good enough for random casual games. In casual game one faction winning 48% time and onother 52% time is close enough. It still feels that you win about half your games. But in top tier competitive environment that 48% win faction would be deemed as pointless trash.
Rob Lee wrote: if "professional" Warhammer "journalists" (how did we end up with "professional" Warhammr "journalists" anyhow?!!) such as Rob Baer start deriding a particular unit/faction/ruleset GW get worried..
I was with you until this. If Rob Baer is a journalists then Spikey Bits is the National Enquirer of the Warhammer world, nothing but click bait with no real information, i get more reliable news from 4chan.
When your staff consists of people who are permanently banned from major tournaments... yeah, not really reliable. And as I understand, SB doesn't have the best reputation among actual Games Workshop honchos.
Frankly, how does anyone even read that site under the 9000 autoplaying ads anyway?
It's cool, you can pay $5 a month and get access to their even slower and somehow more broken members only website.
Edit: Totally off topic, but Goonhammer is what Spikey Bits could have been
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/20 16:41:28
. You can measure it, juggle it, you could get a grant to write 
