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.

 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.

Are you new to the internet?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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

And if they (and in all probability will) ignore you, then what?

 Fajita Fan wrote:

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.

1) They have already shown that they respond to the community.
2) Most people don't need to buy models to play the game.

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...

A more important newsflash: Marines only just became the most powerful faction after more than 2 years into the edition, which ruins that entire premise.

And have been bad more than theyve been good

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 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!".

Not on the internet there isn't. It never ceases to amaze how often what appears to be a perfectly reasonable point is vehemently objected to by some parties. Every thread will ultimately go through multiple life stages until it's just the most entrenched and adamant from both camps flinging pooh at each other. Then the thread is locked if it devolves too far, or the concerned parties simply run out of ammo.

Don't take any of it seriously, don't expect to achieve anything and certainly don't expect to change people's minds.

Which armies were better? As long as I've been in the game since 3rd if you took any Xenos codex and built the best possible anti 3+ save list you could do well because marines/CSM were the most popular armies. If we're going by tournament results then it absolutely behooves any Xenos player to bring an anti-marine list but which books have been overall better over the years with most possible "good" builds? Necrons? Dark Eldar? Orks (giggle)? Those books had mostly one build (the old disappearing Monolith trick, Venomspam, Nob bikers, etc).

They responded to the community by *gasp* actually advertising their product line more than a week out like every other entertainment company does. They added comics to the website. They have Duncan, God love him, telling you week after week how to apply two thin coats. They released OMG PLASTIC SISTERS. Yippee. Have they given you the tight ruleset and balanced, competitive army books people have demanded?

You can mail as many letters as you like and they'll tell you they're taking your feedback into account when they sell you the next Chapter Approved. Maybe in 2020 they'll actually edit the damn book. They'll make a new rulebook and still follow the same codex release schedule and the player base will continue to find new min/maxed army lists that break the game. This will always be the pace until sales tell them otherwise.

 Azreal13 wrote:


Not on the internet there isn't. .

Sure there are. I have them all the time.

It's just a matter of letting go of the idea that arguing and disagreeing are the only things "worth" doing on a webforum or social media or whatever, and not thinking of disagreements as a "fight" you have to "win".

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Have they given you the tight ruleset and balanced, competitive army books people have demanded?

They got the closest they've even been before the new marine books came out.

I'm not demanding of perfection, either, when they pushed out 23 codexes, a number of 'white dwarf' codexes in under two years, and campaign books that interact with the armies in a non-trivial way. I don't care who you are - there is no time in the world to balance all of that especially when new units are hitting the table constantly.

Marines had a lot of consistent problems, such as poor throw weight. As assault was eroded slowly and firepower went up, marines degraded as well.

 Sim-Life 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.

Are you new to the internet?

Oh, these two comments are awesome.
The thread achieves discussion, perspective on what is important to us like maybe some do not care about a competitive environment.
Also, why "save" the vitriol? It needs to be timely and we may explode from it being pent-up.
As to having "nothing to gripe about in 4-6 months when 9th drops"... many have played this goat rodeo out a few editions.

There is always hope that the right people may see a convincing argument and you hope you may be one of the people that may help bring out some positive change: you can never know who is reading.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Not on the internet there isn't. .

Sure there are. I have them all the time.

It's just a matter of letting go of the idea that arguing and disagreeing are the only things "worth" doing on a webforum or social media or whatever, and not thinking of disagreements as a "fight" you have to "win".

This isn't the area of the site that lends itself to that sort of conversation. Threads where people offer their opinion on things inevitably attract people who disagree. What you're doing is suggesting that some sort of parliament all sit down and get along when it is comprised of many people representing many views. The best you can realistically hope for is an honest debate.

 Azreal13 wrote:
This isn't the area of the site that lends itself to that sort of conversation. Threads where people offer their opinion on things inevitably attract people who disagree. What you're doing is suggesting that some sort of parliament all sit down and get along when it is comprised of many people representing many views. The best you can realistically hope for is an honest debate.

One other item to keep in mind is the relative level of knowledge.
Someone who develops games for a living and has a few university level courses on "game theory" under their belt would have an "opinion" that may be more helpful and getting to the heart of the matter better than most of us.
I deal with "process systems" a great deal and played all manner of games for some 3-4 decades so may be able to have a couple helpful suggestions in game design and testing (design of experiments anyone?).
Most of these conversations boil down to "I do NOT like it." or "I DO like it!".

I like a "competitive environment".
The more we can split up the alternating decision making in the game the better.
The my whole army goes then yours is just too much of an advantage.

Many Stratagems give cover saves for those who go second which is a very direct means of mitigating the pain.
Unit activation is a preferred trend to me, even X-wing where the pilot skill breaks activation up a bit is helpful.
The game also relies on more dice rolling than a specific tactical decision in a given circumstance.
Committing limited resources in a timely way is a bit more interesting.
Army selection is still a HUGE element to the game and that may never change.

GW seems to have a more casual focus for 40k that has been pretty consistent for the last decade... we may have to throttle back our expectation of trying to make it what it is not.

 Azreal13 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Not on the internet there isn't. .

Sure there are. I have them all the time.

It's just a matter of letting go of the idea that arguing and disagreeing are the only things "worth" doing on a webforum or social media or whatever, and not thinking of disagreements as a "fight" you have to "win".

This isn't the area of the site that lends itself to that sort of conversation. Threads where people offer their opinion on things inevitably attract people who disagree. What you're doing is suggesting that some sort of parliament all sit down and get along when it is comprised of many people representing many views. The best you can realistically hope for is an honest debate.

But an honest debate without any intent or culminative effect towards either consensus or learning is just a shouting match. Those are for children or drunkards ;-)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

Sure, offering critique is a good idea. I have emailedto GW numerous times as well. Though if you want to be listened to I hope you are less hostile and hyperbolic when contacting GW than you're here.

As for voting with the wallet, this is mainly a modelling hobby to many so the quality of the rules is not the primary consideration for purchasing decisions.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
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.

There's kinds of conversations besides arguments, you know.

I am blown away by the irony of someone aggressively labeling an expression of personal preference as 'entitlement', then turning around and lecturing about how forums can have discussions that aren't I'm-right-you're-wrong arguments.

But while I'm here: 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 8th if you like it better [than the hypothetical Apoc-influenced 9th]?

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.

this describes 80% of the players I know. the rest play tourneys. I might have a "fun" game against a competitive player, but I will have FUN playing another casual narrative player.

this is never a problem @ my flgs. And worst thing that could happen is I dont play but get to paint instead.

 catbarf wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
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.

There's kinds of conversations besides arguments, you know.

I am blown away by the irony of someone aggressively labeling an expression of personal preference as 'entitlement', then turning around and lecturing about how forums can have discussions that aren't I'm-right-you're-wrong arguments.

But while I'm here: Why does YOUR favourite version of the game have to be the default one, with everyone else's being the "optional", "spin off" versions?

1) I'm not labelling a personal preference "entitlement". I'm saying that insisting that one's preferences, which are already readily available to enjoy, have to be made the 'default' for people to be happy, comes across to me as entitled. The simple fact that you prefer competitive play or prefer Apocalypse or whatever is 100% fine and normal, I'm 100% cool with it. What I'm NOT cool with, and think is entitled, is such people demanding that the game be designed specifically around their needs, without respect for the numerous other approaches to the hobby and the game. Or even for what the designers themselves set out to do with their game and want from it.

2) It doesn't. In MOST games I play my preferred mode isn't the default. But I'm not the one asking for 40k to be changed to suit my particular preferences. I'm not the one asking it to be changed so the default is my preference. I'm not the one saying a game that already exists and is available should be made the default just because it's the one I like best and what I like best should be the "main" version. Your comparison would only make sense if I were in this thread saying stuff like "default 40k should be a >1000 point oriented skirmish game with lots of options for campaigns, and tournament play actively discouraged".

Martel732 wrote:
Marines had a lot of consistent problems, such as poor throw weight. As assault was eroded slowly and firepower went up, marines degraded as well.

I’m trying to remember the last time I met a Xenos player who thought any then-current marine codex was underpowered the possible exception of Dark Angels.

 Aestas wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Not on the internet there isn't. .

Sure there are. I have them all the time.

It's just a matter of letting go of the idea that arguing and disagreeing are the only things "worth" doing on a webforum or social media or whatever, and not thinking of disagreements as a "fight" you have to "win".

This isn't the area of the site that lends itself to that sort of conversation. Threads where people offer their opinion on things inevitably attract people who disagree. What you're doing is suggesting that some sort of parliament all sit down and get along when it is comprised of many people representing many views. The best you can realistically hope for is an honest debate.

But an honest debate without any intent or culminative effect towards either consensus or learning is just a shouting match. Those are for children or drunkards ;-)

Don't drag innocent drunkards into this!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Marines had a lot of consistent problems, such as poor throw weight. As assault was eroded slowly and firepower went up, marines degraded as well.

I’m trying to remember the last time I met a Xenos player who thought any then-current marine codex was underpowered the possible exception of Dark Angels.

Well… Grey Knights are marines…

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Marines had a lot of consistent problems, such as poor throw weight. As assault was eroded slowly and firepower went up, marines degraded as well.

I’m trying to remember the last time I met a Xenos player who thought any then-current marine codex was underpowered the possible exception of Dark Angels.

Should be most of them, or maybe just marine haters. The starcannon ended the marine party in 3rd then csm 3.5 threw them in the street. By 5th, marines were target practice unless you were a snowflake sw ba or gk.

GW traditionally has no idea how the game is actually played. I'm sure gw thinks marines are strong every edition even as ap2 grew cheaper and more plentiful. Idiots.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Marines had a lot of consistent problems, such as poor throw weight. As assault was eroded slowly and firepower went up, marines degraded as well.

I’m trying to remember the last time I met a Xenos player who thought any then-current marine codex was underpowered the possible exception of Dark Angels.

I've always felt kind of sorry for the poor expensive plods (Eldar from WD pre-codex through to present-present - day Drukhari via a brief flirtatious with Orks around Black Reach)...

 Sim-Life 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.

Are you new to the internet?

I believe in the modern jargon Sim has just won the Internet

Well… Grey Knights are marines…

All I heard about for years was how overpowered Matt Ward's GK were, then Phil Kelly's Space Wolves, how weak DE were now, OMG NO ONE PLAYS NECRONS, Orks are trash except Nob bikers, Eldar are too weak, etc. I know that plenty of codices had a good build, usually some one trick pony like Wave Serpents, but as overall books? Now marine players always believe they're at a disadvantage but when every playerbase thinks they're underpowered I find it amusing. I browse different forums and so far no one has said how overpowered they feel with CA2019, the grass is always greener in the other section.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Well… Grey Knights are marines…

All I heard about for years was how overpowered Matt Ward's GK were, then Phil Kelly's Space Wolves, how weak DE were now, OMG NO ONE PLAYS NECRONS, Orks are trash except Nob bikers, Eldar are too weak, etc. I know that plenty of codices had a good build, usually some one trick pony like Wave Serpents, but as overall books? Now marine players always believe they're at a disadvantage but when every playerbase thinks they're underpowered I find it amusing. I browse different forums and so far no one has said how overpowered they feel with CA2019, the grass is always greener in the other section.

This is part of why that tangent about advising a new player against buying a particular army they like because they're really sucky right now in competitive terms was so weird to me… which armies are "bad" and which aren't is constantly in flux. If someone sticks with the hobby for more than a year or two, chances are their preferred army will end up in a totally different "tier" then when they started. Drukhari may be a "bad" army now (though I wonder how much of that is people misinterpreting the fact that they're an unforgiving army, that requires a lot of finesse to use well), but someday it won't be, so I'm not going to let that deter me from the fact that I love their models and love their lore and love the way they play.

Someone's probably going to come in and yell some exception at me, like "SUCH-AND-SUCH ARMY HAS SUCKED EVER SINCE 5E" or something, as though outliers automatically nullify any point made about something that's generally true, but… well… at this point I'm not really writing my posts for the benefit of the people who've completely dug in their heels on 40k being an awful, irreparably broken PoS with virtually no redeeming qualities and all that.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Well… Grey Knights are marines…

All I heard about for years was how overpowered Matt Ward's GK were, then Phil Kelly's Space Wolves, how weak DE were now, OMG NO ONE PLAYS NECRONS, Orks are trash except Nob bikers, Eldar are too weak, etc. I know that plenty of codices had a good build, usually some one trick pony like Wave Serpents, but as overall books? Now marine players always believe they're at a disadvantage but when every playerbase thinks they're underpowered I find it amusing. I browse different forums and so far no one has said how overpowered they feel with CA2019, the grass is always greener in the other section.

Well, 7th ed Scatbikes, Wraithknigts, Pale Courts Warp Spiders spam pre Flicker Jump FAQ, Aspect Host or Raider mounted Fire Dragons or Wraithguard pre taxi-services FAQ were all bonkers. We had unusable gak (Storm Guardians anyone?) in our codex but there were too many straight up broken autowin-button choices, so yes, entire book was OP as hell.

Armies are in flux, but marines were so bad in 7th they had to spor them 400+ pts.

7th only lasted for like two years, though, right?

nataliereed1984 wrote:
7th only lasted for like two years, though, right?

Three, 6th lasted two.

nou wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
7th only lasted for like two years, though, right?

Three, 6th lasted two.

LONG MAY IT STAY DEAD ...Both for clarification.

But its fair to say most armies have a time in the sun, the reality is some of the lesser played factions (Necrons, GK etc.) Take longer periods between books. But it should also be said from the beginning of 6th two entire factions have been released, three factions that were in the fluff. (Kinda technically four cause chaos knights but meh) Now Xenos players are correct they receive fewer releases but they have not limited effectiveness of Xenos as a whole but rather Elder and Tau have been quite good, Orks have been playable though not diverse. Necrons are okay. Nids seem usable.

TLR Yeah space Marines are broke for now but C: SM usually sets the bar everyone reaches.

nou wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
7th only lasted for like two years, though, right?

Three, 6th lasted two.

Thanks.

Still though… it takes awhile to collect, build and paint a whole army, and aside from kids (who generally aren't tournament players anyway), and most people will stick with and enjoy the hobby and keep their army for more than a couple years ... so even if the army someone loved most was "bad" for a full three years after first investing in it or something like that, that doesn't seem like such a terrible thing?

It just seems the nature of the beast that unless you're rich enough and have enough free time to build a new army every 6 months, sooner or later you're not gonna have a "top tier" army. I don't get being that upset about it.

*shrug*