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.

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Its just that casual lists don't min/max armies so flaws that only happen when you bend optimization to breaking point don't exist in casual games, so our game is a bit more balanced for it.

'Press X to doubt'

You personally, perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that all people who play casually don't enjoy stomping face and adhere to some unwritten set of rules.

Then they're not casual players

"No True Scotsman"

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
What is someone gonna do, give a point handicap?

That certainly is an option.

The problem is that it shouldn't NEED to be one.

nou wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


You were arguing that removal of the myriad bespoke codices that differentiate subfactions means sacrificing characterization/feeling/fluff from the subfactions. I argue that this is simply not true; it's just a matter of using broader, simpler effects that achieve the same 'feel' as more complex ones while being dramatically easier to balance. Design for effect.

And yeah, if AK-47 Republic can make Navy SEALs and Somali militia feel radically different despite drawing from the same core army list, I'm going to go ahead and say Drukhari/CWE/Exodites can be the same way. For that matter, do Chaos Marines with ten thousand years of experience and ancient weapons and armor currently play much differently from loyalist Space Marines with ten years of experience? I'd argue that for all the books and supplements layering on special rules, the core mechanics fail to meaningfully differentiate factions through statlines or army organization. It comes down to an avalanche of special rules and stratagems, and still at the end of it all a group of rag-tag Genestealer Cult insurgents and a crack squad of highly-disciplined Cadians still play and feel virtually identical to one another.

Streamlining the game, in the process providing design space for fluffy faction/subfaction rules, can make the game both fun for narrative players and better for competitive play. That's all I've been saying.

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

I was around then, and I honestly felt the opposite (to be fair though I was like 17). Although I felt that 3rd edition BRB army lists were bland, it was also way more balanced than any gak in 2nd edition. Just then, like now, it spiraled out of control with more and more and more being added to the mix.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
What is someone gonna do, give a point handicap?

That certainly is an option.

The problem is that it shouldn't NEED to be one.

Yes, I'm sure we all agree on that.

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

And sales took off in 3rd edition but I wonder if the exposure and quality of Dawn of War helped that sales bump (it came out roughly around then). Sales have also been good since AoS and 8th dropped. The demand for models has been inelastic with price or balance issues and sales grow each time they dumb it down.

Warmachine got a huge bump early by being a crunchy skirmish level game that touted its balance and I still have yet to see Privateer Press have the means to open their own retail outlets. FWIW I made three Warmahordes armies.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

And sales took off in 3rd edition but I wonder if the exposure and quality of Dawn of War helped that sales bump (it came out roughly around then). Sales have also been good since AoS and 8th dropped. The demand for models has been inelastic with price or balance issues and sales grow each time they dumb it down.

Warmachine got a huge bump early by being a crunchy skirmish level game that touted its balance and I still have yet to see Privateer Press have the means to open their own retail outlets. FWIW I made three Warmahordes armies.

Having your own retail outlet is BAD. There's a reason barely anyone does it and relies on independent stores. The retail chains are a huge part of why prices are so ridiculous. So even if other companies could do it the wouldn't.

Wayniac wrote:
Having your own retail outlet is BAD. There's a reason barely anyone does it and relies on independent stores. The retail chains are a huge part of why prices are so ridiculous. So even if other companies could do it the wouldn't.

This is a niche hobby and GW does the entire hobby a huge favor by exposing the general public to it regularly.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

And sales took off in 3rd edition but I wonder if the exposure and quality of Dawn of War helped that sales bump (it came out roughly around then). Sales have also been good since AoS and 8th dropped. The demand for models has been inelastic with price or balance issues and sales grow each time they dumb it down.

Warmachine got a huge bump early by being a crunchy skirmish level game that touted its balance and I still have yet to see Privateer Press have the means to open their own retail outlets. FWIW I made three Warmahordes armies.

But I'm not in any way arguing the oposite - only that the narrative capacity of a system is in direct oposition with blind balance and that cutting down on option and detail does result in blandness.

Wayniac wrote:

nou wrote:

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

I was around then, and I honestly felt the opposite (to be fair though I was like 17). Although I felt that 3rd edition BRB army lists were bland, it was also way more balanced than any gak in 2nd edition. Just then, like now, it spiraled out of control with more and more and more being added to the mix.

How people feel about that shift may be affected by what armies they were playing. At that time I had Craftworld Eldar and Dark Angel armies. My Dark Angels fared pretty well. Sure, some options were lost and that was annoying, but mostly it was just streamlining and the overall feel and flavour of the army was mostly still there. And of course the new rules were way more functional, just like 8e core rules are more functional than 7e. However, my poor Eldar! They were utterly butchered. The playstyle was gone, the flavour they had was gone. I dropped the army; the faction loved just didn't exist any more. The Eldar have never recovered from that, They have of course often been very good army, but compared to their 2nd edition incarnation they remain hollow and soulless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

But I'm not in any way arguing the oposite - only that the narrative capacity of a system is in direct oposition with blind balance and that cutting down on option and detail does result in blandness.

In certain extent that is true, but I really do think they have gone overboard with all sorts of supposedly thematic bonus rules. I really don't think that White Scar and Dark Angel tactical marines need to be super different from each other and have a ton of unique bonus rules and stratagems. Some of that flavour can just exist in our heads.

 Crimson wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

nou wrote:

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

I was around then, and I honestly felt the opposite (to be fair though I was like 17). Although I felt that 3rd edition BRB army lists were bland, it was also way more balanced than any gak in 2nd edition. Just then, like now, it spiraled out of control with more and more and more being added to the mix.

How people feel about that shift may be affected by what armies they were playing. At that time I had Craftworld Eldar and Dark Angel armies. My Dark Angels fared pretty well. Sure, some options were lost and that was annoying, but mostly it was just streamlining and the overall feel and flavour of the army was mostly still there. And of course the new rules were way more functional, just like 8e core rules are more functional than 7e. However, my poor Eldar! They were utterly butchered. The playstyle was gone, the flavour they had was gone. I dropped the army; the faction loved just didn't exist any more. The Eldar have never recovered from that, They have of course often been very good army, but compared to their 2nd edition incarnation they remain hollow and soulless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

But I'm not in any way arguing the oposite - only that the narrative capacity of a system is in direct oposition with blind balance and that cutting down on option and detail does result in blandness.

In certain extent that is true, but I really do think they have gone overboard with all sorts of supposedly thematic bonus rules. I really don't think that White Scar and Dark Angel tactical marines need to be super different from each other and have a ton of unique bonus rules and stratagems. Some of that flavour can just exist in our heads.

This is why consolidation is important. It helps with updates and overall balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
What is someone gonna do, give a point handicap?

That certainly is an option.

The problem is that it shouldn't NEED to be one.

Yes, I'm sure we all agree on that.

Tell that to the people here saying they're happy doing GWs job for them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Tell that to the people here saying they're happy doing GWs job for them.

Well, the options are either to do that or forever be angry about it. The former seems eminently more productive.

nou wrote:
I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

Yes, I was. Index-era 3rd Ed wasn't bland simply because it simplified the core mechanics, it was bland because it simplified the core mechanics and simultaneously failed to offer any lightweight replacement for the special rules that had been retired, nor sufficient design space to differentiate units. All the armies were defined by a fairly simplistic statline, using a limited set of common weaponry, with a minimum of special rules at either a unit level or army level. Everything used the same FOC, everything had the same (nonexistent) command and control, so there was no differentiating armies above the level of individual units. Of course if you just strip down the rules without adding anything, you're going to lose flavor.

If you look at Epic: Armageddon, released around the same time, E:A gave the armies a lot of flavor through additional depth to the core mechanics. The activation roll, for example, made a horde of Orks dramatically harder to coordinate than an elite strike force of Space Marines, allowing the latter to punch well above their weight. Throw in the differences in composition between Ork and Marine formations, and the morale mechanic, and you get two armies that feel very different on the tabletop despite having similar combat stats and few special rules.

Battlefleet Gothic is another good example and, again, from around that time period. The game has very few special rules for ships or factions- most Imperial and Chaos ships have no special rules at all, and the fleets are differentiated primarily by design philosophies. Chaos ships are faster and have longer-ranged guns, Imperial ships have tougher front armor and prow-mounted torpedoes and nova cannon. This makes them play very differently on the table, as a natural result of their statlines. That's good design.

A system whose basic mechanics are deep enough to provide the design space to differentiate units, coupled with a very limited number of army-wide special abilities, is always going to be easier to design for and easier to balance than a simple game that needs wheelbarrows full of special rules to give it depth, while still being able to capture the feel of its subject matter.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Tell that to the people here saying they're happy doing GWs job for them.

Well, the options are either to do that or forever be angry about it. The former seems eminently more productive.

He's got you there, Slayer. Faced with the choice of doing GW's job for them or just bitching about it and having nothing get done (because GW won't do it) seems like an obvious one. Especially if you remove the third choice (don't play GW games) for all of the usual reasons.

 Crimson wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

nou wrote:

I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.

I was around then, and I honestly felt the opposite (to be fair though I was like 17). Although I felt that 3rd edition BRB army lists were bland, it was also way more balanced than any gak in 2nd edition. Just then, like now, it spiraled out of control with more and more and more being added to the mix.

How people feel about that shift may be affected by what armies they were playing. At that time I had Craftworld Eldar and Dark Angel armies. My Dark Angels fared pretty well. Sure, some options were lost and that was annoying, but mostly it was just streamlining and the overall feel and flavour of the army was mostly still there. And of course the new rules were way more functional, just like 8e core rules are more functional than 7e. However, my poor Eldar! They were utterly butchered. The playstyle was gone, the flavour they had was gone. I dropped the army; the faction loved just didn't exist any more. The Eldar have never recovered from that, They have of course often been very good army, but compared to their 2nd edition incarnation they remain hollow and soulless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

But I'm not in any way arguing the oposite - only that the narrative capacity of a system is in direct oposition with blind balance and that cutting down on option and detail does result in blandness.

In certain extent that is true, but I really do think they have gone overboard with all sorts of supposedly thematic bonus rules. I really don't think that White Scar and Dark Angel tactical marines need to be super different from each other and have a ton of unique bonus rules and stratagems. Some of that flavour can just exist in our heads.

I played Eldar, losing Harlequins entirely, Avatar going from a terryfiyng demigod to a very true fluff representation of a Worf effect with only a 5++ save, Warlocks and Exarches becoming seargants, etc was simply too much. I stayed only till Codex dropped and did nothing to bring any flavour back.

And of course overdoing layers upon layers of special rules does not necessarily increase narrative capacity. What GW is doing with 8th doesn't exactly work for me either (as I wrote before already).

@catbarf: while you are obviously right, that deeper core rules allow for more differences between faction to come from core rules, I think you confuse differences with narrative character. If one army is fast, one is durable and the other is shooty it does not mean, that the core rules are doing a good job conveying an interesting narrative. And with 40K you are trying to differentiate between couple of fast factions, couple of tanky factions, couple of shooty factions etc... Looking at Eldar subfactions alone, you have four/five fast factions that all should have a very different feel to them. Just look how flavourfull 7th ed Corsairs were, all based mostly in special rules, from unique organization down, through altered psychic phase to wargear options. And with all due respect - I have played Battlefleet Gothic, and while this is a fine game it is tiny in comparison and very limited in narrative scope due to very nature of the game.

Wayniac wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Tell that to the people here saying they're happy doing GWs job for them.

Well, the options are either to do that or forever be angry about it. The former seems eminently more productive.

He's got you there, Slayer. Faced with the choice of doing GW's job for them or just bitching about it and having nothing get done (because GW won't do it) seems like an obvious one. Especially if you remove the third choice (don't play GW games) for all of the usual reasons.

He did not get me there, because that's choosing not to fight back. You do NOT have to lay back and accept it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

He did not get me there, because that's choosing not to fight back. You do NOT have to lay back and accept it.

So what exactly does this fight entail and when should we be expecting to see the results?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Tell that to the people here saying they're happy doing GWs job for them.

Well, the options are either to do that or forever be angry about it. The former seems eminently more productive.

He's got you there, Slayer. Faced with the choice of doing GW's job for them or just bitching about it and having nothing get done (because GW won't do it) seems like an obvious one. Especially if you remove the third choice (don't play GW games) for all of the usual reasons.

He did not get me there, because that's choosing not to fight back. You do NOT have to lay back and accept it.

And I agree, but what is the alternative? There are in effect only 3 options:

1) Houserule/adjust the rules yourself ("do GW's job for them")
2) Keep pointing out the rules are bad and hope GW does something to fix it, only to yell more when they don't
3) Play a different game

I suppose there's option 4: Convince everyone else to not buy and have a repeat of 7th edition, but that's about as likely as GW is to fix all the issues in the game.

So what exactly is the option you would pick?

Why not both?

Why not house rule / comp / etc and hold GW accountable?

Wayniac wrote:

3) Play a different game

Reader, I chose it.

It really is a wonderful place out there, full of interesting games in different scales, and all sorts of compelling licences and fabulous minis.

My only regret is I have to be incredibly strict with myself about the ones I choose, it's futile to sink money, time and effort into something that nobody else wants to play or that simply gets crowded out by preferred options.

I simply restrict myself to games that I will be content to collect and paint or that have an incredibly low bar to pick up, and there's still lots of choice.

Best thing is, you don't have to drop GW/40K, you simply add to your options.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

He did not get me there, because that's choosing not to fight back. You do NOT have to lay back and accept it.

So what exactly does this fight entail and when should we be expecting to see the results?

It entails voting with your wallet, sending them emails expressing displeasure, and ultimately getting other people to do it. Refer to this Onion article for the power of numbers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/how-bad-for-the-environment-can-throwing-away-one-plast-1819571260/amp

 catbarf wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Serious question:

Those of you saying that Apocalypse should be the "default version"...

Why?

Because it's a better game. I'd like to see GW take their better ruleset and run with it, rather than continue to prop up the bloated mess of the current one.

It would need modification to function well in the 1000-2000pt range, particularly as it fails to model things like special weapons that have historically been important to unit identities, but the core of a better game- an actual C&C mechanic, alternating activation, better implementation of the Stratagem concept, and much faster combat resolution- are all there already.

It's a better game in your opinion for the kinds of things you want out of the game.

So again: why does YOUR favourite version of the game have to be the default one, with everyone else's being the "optional", "spin off" versions? Why is it you can't just play Apocalypse if you like it better?

That is the entitlement I'm talking about.

Nothing in this thread will achieve anything, and I advise you all to save your vitriol, or you'll have nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Its just that casual lists don't min/max armies so flaws that only happen when you bend optimization to breaking point don't exist in casual games, so our game is a bit more balanced for it.

'Press X to doubt'

You personally, perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that all people who play casually don't enjoy stomping face and adhere to some unwritten set of rules.

Then they're not casual players

"No True Scotsman"

"Scotsman keep walking around their Yorkshire hometowns, talking in their northern accents, eating their pork pies…"

"Um… you're not describing Scotsman, those are Englishmen…"

"NO TRUE SCOTSMAN"

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Why not both?

Why not house rule / comp / etc and hold GW accountable?

Give us one possible scenario for the latter affecting their bottom line. A reduction in sales is the only way for them to deviate from their plan and even then you're assuming they'll attribute the lack of sales to competitive balance "at the top tables." [you all have no idea how much I hate that expression] They will attribute the lack of sales to many things and try to remedy the easiest things first (more starter or start collecting sets, reduction of points, sell more narrative campaign books, change the fiction, etc) but the very expensive option of investing in heavy playtesting to consolidate their product line and reduce redundant SKUs will most likely be the last resort short of dropping prices (LOLOLOLOL).

Not pretend I'm a know-it-all but I see an awful lot of people demanding more balance without 1) proposing a way to make it financially expedient for GW to do anything extra or 2) any concrete, specific changes to all of the codices that will please not just the demand for competitive balance but the Timmys who get their parents to buy this stuff.

Newsflash: Marines will always be the most powerful faction because it's the faction that appeals most to the Halo crowd and is therefore the most financially successful product line. I'll give you all one guess as to why the human armies in WHFB were replaced with Sigmar's Space Marines...

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nothing in this thread will achieve anything, and I advise you all to save your vitriol, or you'll have nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops.

People aren't even taking the most basic middle ground olive branches being offered, like, "Yes, we all agree, points are a good thing, and GW could do a better job of balancing them", "Yes, ideally, all factions should have a reasonable chance of beating any other faction, assuming a normal range of player skill", "this is the way GW likes to do the game and it isn't likely to change, but you're welcome to different feelings about that", "more codexes and more units makes balancing them all more difficult to achieve", etc. It's so weird. It's like people are trying to WAAC a conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Newsflash: Marines will always be the most powerful faction because it's the faction that appeals most to the Halo crowd and is therefore the most financially successful product line. I'll give you all one guess as to why the human armies in WHFB were replaced with Sigmar's Space Marines...

OH OH OH! Was it "an intense historical and aesthetic interest in the Persian Immortals?"

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nothing in this thread will achieve anything, and I advise you all to save your vitriol, or you'll have nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops.

People aren't even taking the most basic middle ground olive branches being offered, like, "Yes, we all agree, points are a good thing, and GW could do a better job of balancing them", "Yes, ideally, all factions should have a reasonable chance of beating any other faction, assuming a normal range of player skill", "this is the way GW likes to do the game and it isn't likely to change, but you're welcome to different feelings about that", "more codexes and more units makes balancing them all more difficult to achieve", etc. It's so weird. It's like people are trying to WAAC a conversation.

If people agree, there's no conversation. Hence the things that get discussed are the things that people don't agree on. Surely that is self evident?

"Immortals - we put their name to the test."

Marines are most powerful now and in 3rd. Thats always?

 Azreal13 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nothing in this thread will achieve anything, and I advise you all to save your vitriol, or you'll have nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops.

People aren't even taking the most basic middle ground olive branches being offered, like, "Yes, we all agree, points are a good thing, and GW could do a better job of balancing them", "Yes, ideally, all factions should have a reasonable chance of beating any other faction, assuming a normal range of player skill", "this is the way GW likes to do the game and it isn't likely to change, but you're welcome to different feelings about that", "more codexes and more units makes balancing them all more difficult to achieve", etc. It's so weird. It's like people are trying to WAAC a conversation.

If people agree, there's no conversation. Hence the things that get discussed are the things that people don't agree on. Surely that is self evident?

There's kinds of conversations besides arguments, you know. And accepting a few things we can agree of in the spirit of friendliness and lowered tempers doesn't mean we all just say "Welp! Nothing left to talk about then! Happy Holidays!".

Here, I'll give you all an idea: GW crowdfunds the next edition and codices. Get on Kickstarter and give GW some money as they pledge to build a modern, tight ruleset and a companion set of playtested, balanced codices. Invite all the tournament winners to review them, playtest them, and offer feedback.

GW is continuing to operate based on current and future sales. Those of you who've already bought, assembled, painted, and played your armies who now feel disenfranchised by their lack of perceived competitive balance have already made your contribution and I'm sure GW thanks you. Your army sitting on a shelf isn't actually providing any financial reason to build a better ruleset, crowdfunding would allow the 40k playerbase to vote with our wallets what we want from the rules.

In other words I'm glad you came over to watch the football game but if I'm paying for pizza I'm ordering what I want from where I want. You want something different? Bust out your wallet.