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.

Trasvi wrote:

Tyel wrote:

I think its a fair observation - but character protection (or not in some cases) and LOS aside - killing these is not that difficult.

I'm not sure what points say grots should be - 4 points, 3 points - but I can see the argument that if you could just blob down 360 of them, get them onto enough objectives turn 2 and just deny your opponent the primary... it potentially breaks the game. At 3 points you'd have near half your army to mess around with too.

With say Guardsmen - you can argue (by degree) that you are limited to 10 in a squad, and so if you want to bring more than 120, you are paying a CP tax.

But tbh. I have to wonder whether anyone seriously tested "what if I bring all the grots/cultists/conscripts etc and just hope they can't kill me in time so my obsec is forever". It seems doubtful.

As i wasn't on the playtest team for 9th i can't say for certain if they did or didn't playtest this theory.
However, throughout 8th it proved to be a recurringly strong tactic, that people found unfun to play against.
Index 40k saw Brimstone or Razorwing spam.
Later on Gant carpet, green tide or plaguebearer spam.

Its a tactic I've seen in other games too. For a while when i played Warmachine there were armies that just ran hordes of cheap infantry and relied on the idea that you literally couldn't roll dice fast enough to kill them in a timed turns format.

If anything, these examples kind of demonstrate my theory - for certain tasks, simply existing on the board is useful enough to justify a small points expenditure.

Thought experiment: if GW made a T1, W1 slotless character with no save, weapons, attacks or abilities, how much should it cost? Its obviously worse than a Mek or a Shaper... but in the scheme of things its approximately as difficult to kill, and does approximately the same job.

I think there was a small amount of testing that showed that bodies holding space had more value than their combat prowness, but I don't know if everything was dialed in properly and it'll take a lot of games to properly to really get a feel for things.

I stubbornly think that hordes aren't as dead as people say because there is value in holding board space, and MSU builds with T3 bodies opens you up to give out more VP from Attrition or Grind Them Down. I just don't see the impact of blasts being as deadly as people have said, and I feel like the push to MSU by the playtesters was prompted by their own biases towards that build over the game pushing you to play that way.

That said, I can always be wrong. I'm not the smartest person to ever play this game after all, I've just been kind of doing my own thing for some time. When I got into Sisters with the Witch Hunters codex I got told Immolator Spam was the best way to play, but I loaded up on 10 model units into Rhinos, along with a unit of Melta Dominions, Repentia and three Exorcists and had a pretty decent army. Sometimes you got to lean into your strengths and play what you're good at over what the internet tells you is best.

That poll doesn't support ANYTHING you are saying auticus. I strongly want a balanced game, and even I voted for quality of miniatures because that's the first thing that draws me in. For all you know, 100% of people who voted in that poll also strongly want balance, absolutely nothing there says otherwise. Your inability to understand data explains a lot as to how wrong you are.






To ANYONE, who is still buying into auticus's baseless narrative (I might as well just @spoletta here because I'm pretty sure it's just him), let's just expose the bs for what it is right here.

 auticus wrote:
Correct. I literally said people said that very thing because ... they said that very thing. About 10% of the people using it complained about it being boring and bland because it made listbuilding not matter and that it was too much like chess.

I'm not arguing that people dont' want balance. I'm saying its not high enough priority for most people (I said it comes out to be about 50% of an entire poll almost always) to stop shelling out a ton of cash to keep playing. There is another significant portion (roughly 25%) that will say they don't care about balance at all and/or will direct one to go play chess if they want balance.

Ok. So it's only 10% of people now (a number you're STILL unable to source)?.

What about what you said here?

 auticus wrote:

I'm with you here. I'm not sure I understand what Auticus means about points being about "structure" vs balance.

Let me break it down.

Most 40k gamers I know don't give a damn about balance. They try to actively make a 2000 point list into a 5000 point list so that they can win based off of their list. Thats normal behavior pretty much everywhere.

When AOS dropped in 2015 there was no points and there was a lot of rage. People felt bad that while they could bring their 3 keeper of secrets and gate in their entire model collection and win, it didn't feel clever or good because there was no structure.

Then AOS put points in. And you could play your 3 keeper of secrets. And gate in your entire model collection. And that was great. Because you had the structure the points provided and you could then go about making your 2000 point structure function like a 5000 point list again.

The same experience was had either way. One had no points the other had points. Same basic armies. One was bad. One is good. The difference is the structure.

Neither example has any balance in it. At all. One example is slagged. The other is celebrated and worshipped as the most fun evah.

Same deal in 40k. People aren't after balance. They are after the structure. They want the 2000 points to min max within. The structure is the 2000 points to build the most powerful list they can that functions as a 5000 point list.

Listbuilding games where listbuilding is the primary focus cannot exist with balance, otherwise listbuilding is not as important. The more balance that exists, the more viable exists, and the more viable exists, the less your clever listbuilding and powerlisting matters.

this is you UNMISTAKABLY claiming that it's a majority of 40k players who want this.

But just in case that wasn't too much for you to attempt to further backpedal out of, here's some other choice quotes:

 auticus wrote:
To put it back on topic... competitive players (of which I used to belong to that group so I am speaking from my own desires and experience as one) want the opposite of balance. They actively seek imbalance, they build lists to skew balance so hard in their favor that they win by virtue of their list. Thats the goal of listbuilding and a game that reinforces listbuilding. To skew the game as hard as you can in your favor. To actively IMBALANCE the game as hard as you can.

Want to try an experiment? Make a tournament, supply the armies, and have the armies be the same. Thats as balanced as you can get. Everyone has the same tools, like a chessboard. And you will see it raged on and dismissed. You'd think tournaments should be about showing skill and who can play better, but we have infused listbuilding skews as equally tactical as playing the game. And that will NEVER change.

 auticus wrote:
I think competitive players enjoy imbalance. Without imbalance there are no skew lists. Without skew lists, they are "bored". If there was actual balance in the game, more things would be viable and listbuilding wouldnt' be as impactful.

 auticus wrote:
am I saying EVERYONE is like this? Obviously no, it repels me to my core, and I know there are people like me but we are not in any way very well represented)

 auticus wrote:

I think balance doesn't sell. Excitement for things being strong, exciting, player power fantasy is real. If they make things balanced, there isn't easy to find or abuse outliers, people don't get excited and that doesn't move product.

You are spot on. Balanced games are seen as "boring". Few people really want balance.

 auticus wrote:
Also notice, there are no competitive players in these threads trying to say otherwise that they want balance. Because they know they don't really want balance. They want to seek to skew the game with listbuilding and make the game as imbalanced as they are allowed. We had a painting thread get to 39 pages of back and forth so I know its not that they aren't reading this, its that there is little to argue against.

auticus wrote:I don't think the bad balance and bad rules longterm improve 40k and its community as a whole either. But as you've seen, that seems to be something no one cares about and in fact people fight very passionately to enforce and support.

Please, never ever accuse anyone of "moving the goalposts" again. Look where yours started and where they are now. There is absolutely nothing logical, or honest about your entire stance here. You just want to rip on competitive players like you have some insider knowledge, when in reality you have nothing. You do not understand list building, because you think every option being equally viable means there is no longer strategy within it. You haven't actually played a well balanced game before, and you cannot source a single one of your endless statistics.



Debate over.

What is the debate again?

It appears to be about Auticus claim that some people actually don’t want balance in 40K.

 alextroy wrote:
It appears to be about Auticus claim that some people actually don’t want balance in 40K.

The way I've been reading it was that some people don't want perfect balance, and that a game that is too balanced can turn off part of the community.

I don't see this as impossible as some people like a system they can game over one that's completely evenly matched. It makes them feel smart to find the weird edge cases and unintended combos that give them a leg up in games, and taking that away could turn that part of the community off of the game.

That said, I think the balance GW should be aiming for is more about assigning each unit a role, giving them rules and points for that role, and then giving the subfactions rules that work better with certain roles over others. Then we get a varied army build meta that allows people to play to the flavor of their armies while not being punished if they want to take something that doesn't lean into their army's special rules because they need a little bit of X to balance out the meta's Y.

Basically the game needs to be built so that the codexes are like toolboxes and not everything in it is a hammer.

This:

chaos0xomega wrote:
It was a genius move on GWs part, the top tier of competitive players are more or less on GWs payroll at this point - not necessarily literally as I doubt any of them are really getting paid, but they get early access looks to upcoming stuff, playtesting, and I believe in the past GW has flown out some playtesters and competitive players to Nottingham for special events, etc - so maybe they get all expenses paid vacations out of it too. I'm sure they also get some free stuff and swag out of it. Even if they don't have to sign some sort of policy that gags their ability to speak negatively, they still have a compelling reason to stay on GWs good side and be cheerleaders for everything GW does, lest they lose the minor luxuries and status that GWs patronage affords them, as a result GW gets to leverage the soft-power afforded over the community by way of the influence and clout these guys have in the community as a result of their status as major competitors (I mean, i'll be honest I've never heard of these dudes because IDGAF about competitive play, and even if I did I have better things to do than feed some dudes ego over toy soldiers, but I recognize that there are others in the community that put a lot of stock into what top-tier players think).

Voss wrote:
I'm not terribly shocked. When they started naming 'playtesters and top tournament players' in the faction focus articles, I kinda chuckled to myself. It seemed like they were presenting ready-made scapegoats, and here we are.

I'm surprised no one else has made these points in this thread. It's painfully obvious that GW has been trying to take total control over the competitive market, and the next step in doing that is to kill it. 9th edition will have significantly worse balance than 8th to filter out and drive away community leaders who are not totally loyal to GW and will never threaten their market share. They used 8th to bolster a growing competitive scene and 9th will be a round of weedkiller.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Are there even any major GTs going on in 2020, given the coronavirus situation and the fact we're all broke right now?

All things considered, this is not a bad time for GW to move into the next edition. It's just kind of silly they released a half-baked points rebalance instead of taking their time and communicating that they're still in the process of evaluating units. It strikes me as the influence of executives following a mandated release schedule, rather than a goal of the design team.

Though I was only a BL reader for a long time, I never assume GW is or will ever be a well-managed company out to produce a good product. Their board is pretty new and mostly accountants, hardly entrepreneurs who understand their product. The fact that their share price is over $100 USD is mind-bogging, $35 is generous.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The way I've been reading it was that some people don't want perfect balance, and that a game that is too balanced can turn off part of the community.

I don't see this as impossible as some people like a system they can game over one that's completely evenly matched. It makes them feel smart to find the weird edge cases and unintended combos that give them a leg up in games, and taking that away could turn that part of the community off of the game.

That said, I think the balance GW should be aiming for is more about assigning each unit a role, giving them rules and points for that role, and then giving the subfactions rules that work better with certain roles over others. Then we get a varied army build meta that allows people to play to the flavor of their armies while not being punished if they want to take something that doesn't lean into their army's special rules because they need a little bit of X to balance out the meta's Y.

Basically the game needs to be built so that the codexes are like toolboxes and not everything in it is a hammer.

Sounds like the kind of balance you are aiming for is called balance. It's about building the army you want with each unit having a potential place with pluses and minuses for common situations.

Well, first off your claim that GW is trying to kill off competetive play is just silly. That was a Kirby era sort of approach and all it did was make a strong independent tournament scene.

And yes, what I do want is "balance" but it's a specific flavor of balance that favors lists that can't plug all their holes (or if they can they have to spread thin and basically take a rainbow list) and incentivises players to lean into lists that are geared towards a specific playstyle and having a game that allows armies of various playstyles (say, Mech heavy, infantry heavy, mobilility heavy, elite focused, ect) to still engage with the core missions of the game and have a means to win that isn't purelu based on killing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
It appears to be about Auticus claim that some people actually don’t want balance in 40K.

The way I've been reading it was that some people don't want perfect balance, and that a game that is too balanced can turn off part of the community.

@Auticus doesn't believe in perfect balance, neither do I, how can he be arguing that people don't want perfect balance when he believes it is literally impossible to have perfect balance? The question is whether people want more or less balanced 40k and I'd say that anyone that uses pts for 40k want more balanced, otherwise they'd play number of wounds or PL. I'm also one of the people that did not vote "balance is the most important" despite constantly whinging about balance on Dakka, my friend designed a card game and it was super fun despite not being playtested. I played Yugioh and Hearthstone for years, although I have quit now, I've been playing 40k more or less since 5th, balance is not what is most important to me, but more balance is still better. I have played the games I mentioned despite balance issues, not because of balance issues. When I quit these games some of the time it was caused by balance issues and it has never been caused by a game being too balanced. My most important factor is getting games when I want to get games and having something to share with my friends, I don't want to collect two armies and go out and find someone who is willing to play using one of my armies, that's too big of an ask for me, so I play a game where I can expect people to have their own collections.

The playtesters need to be sent like a pack of dogs to go after broken abilities and costs in the game and bite and break whatever that isn't rock solid. Playtesters should not be told to play around with the finished 9th pts and then have no ability to offer feedback on it before it gets sent out or get urged to play balanced lists with a little bit of everything. When I played my buddy's unfinished card game my match took forever because I instantly went for a game-breaking combo deck in order to try and make him change the rules, what rules have the playtesters helped change? The missions? They don't seem to have been affected by playtesters, they're just a Frankenstein of different competitive formats and it seems like they're going to be heavily favouring some types of armies over others from what I've heard from playtesters and the people here on Dakka playing the new edition. Did it take the playtesters to point out the Monolith should not get a 15% increase? Or was it the model department that let the game designers know to go easy on Warriors and Monoliths? Because I'm almost certain that most people know that the Obelisk (voted worst unit in 40k on Reddit) did not need any kind of pts increase.

@ClockworkZion
I think you misunderstood and I wasn't very clear. I'm not saying 9th will be unplayable, but I am saying better balance will not be a goal of 9th in the least and it will suffer for that. TO's who stand by GW, keeping their missions and not using house rules, will be rewarded as FLG has and more. Those who don't and attempt to fix 9th's obvious flaws (the same way ITC tried to fix 8th's terrain rules) will be ignored and fail to grow the way officially sanctioned tournaments grow.

It's possible that they are trying to work on narrative play and this competitive debacle is a happy side effect. But poor balance is arguably worse for narrative players than competitive players. So long as a faction has one or two possible competitive lists, it could still get a high spot on a tier list; compared to narrative players who often actively try to use a bit of everything. Narrative play demands as much interal balance as external balance, if not more, while competitve play seems to fine with little in the way of interal balance as long as the external balance is there.

I feel you're missing the mark. The design studio has shown us during 8th edition in how they want a game that is enjoyable for people at all levels. That means balance passes, points adjustments and now Power Level adjustments.

Saying they have some imagined bias against competetive is laughable at best and frankly should be tossed out. If GW is screwing something up it isn't part of some grand master conspiracy but because the people involved are human beings who are fallible and prone to are as much as the rest of us shaved apes.

 auticus wrote:
Wow you guys are something else. (y)

Fwiw, I remember azyr comp being a thing, and also remember it being too balanced being seen as negative. I don't have numbers, but it registered as one of the largest criticisms of the system.

What does matter here is Bosskelot's post; there are multiple ways to achieve balance. I don't remember nearly enough of azyr comp to provide any opinions on its approach (other than thankfulness for trying given the gakshow that was AoS at launch).

For the record, what I want when discussing balance is meaningful choices that don't feel over- or underpowered compared to others (the autotake or nevertake categories). What I fear is a chess-like "a pawn is a pawn" approach. I think it's important to define which type of balance is being discussed when doing polls or anything.

Just going to say that I was hanging around all the AoS internet communities back when Azyr Comp was a thing and certainy recall Auticus getting a lot of flack for the reasons he says.

He was getting plenty of flak for many of the reasons shown in this thread mostly.

Trasvi wrote:

Spoiler:

Tyel wrote:

I think its a fair observation - but character protection (or not in some cases) and LOS aside - killing these is not that difficult.

I'm not sure what points say grots should be - 4 points, 3 points - but I can see the argument that if you could just blob down 360 of them, get them onto enough objectives turn 2 and just deny your opponent the primary... it potentially breaks the game. At 3 points you'd have near half your army to mess around with too.

With say Guardsmen - you can argue (by degree) that you are limited to 10 in a squad, and so if you want to bring more than 120, you are paying a CP tax.

But tbh. I have to wonder whether anyone seriously tested "what if I bring all the grots/cultists/conscripts etc and just hope they can't kill me in time so my obsec is forever". It seems doubtful.

As i wasn't on the playtest team for 9th i can't say for certain if they did or didn't playtest this theory.
However, throughout 8th it proved to be a recurringly strong tactic, that people found unfun to play against.
Index 40k saw Brimstone or Razorwing spam.
Later on Gant carpet, green tide or plaguebearer spam.
[snip]
If anything, these examples kind of demonstrate my theory - for certain tasks, simply existing on the board is useful enough to justify a small points expenditure.

GW did address the Brimstone thing, though, didn't they? Adjustments aside, the fact that these tactics turned out to be workable suggests (to me, at least) that the ideas were not examined during playtesting. Why does it suggest this? Because I find it impossible to believe that GW, whatever their actual intentions might be, has ever intended to market a game that was not a fun experience.

Trasvi wrote:
Thought experiment: if GW made a T1, W1 slotless character with no save, weapons, attacks or abilities, how much should it cost? Its obviously worse than a Mek or a Shaper... but in the scheme of things its approximately as difficult to kill, and does approximately the same job.

Like a servo skull, for example?

Whether 9th will have better balance than 8th is open to question - but so long as GW doesn't abandon the CA process, or starts making a complete mess of it (in before what's just happened) - then it should continue to be significantly more balanced than previous editions.

Which doesn't mean you are automatically going to have a good game if you bring a pile of random units, and someone has a top tier list. But it should hopefully avoid factions being a joke (outside of some 1 unit spam list, which isn't even possible any more) for half a decade or more.

Think the big question is whether they go for an early CA21 - maybe in February - if it turns out the points are a real problem.

Points via FAQ and missions via CA would be better. Split the two and stop charging for points because they're always out of date when they're on a print schedule.

Tyel wrote:
Whether 9th will have better balance than 8th is open to question - but so long as GW doesn't abandon the CA process, or starts making a complete mess of it (in before what's just happened) - then it should continue to be significantly more balanced than previous editions.

GW's process was shuffle broken units around to make people buy new models. IT wasn't improving balance. It was sidestepping around to change what sells.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Points via FAQ and missions via CA would be better. Split the two and stop charging for points because they're always out of date when they're on a print schedule.

Stop charging period for rules, especially not 40$ for shoddy GW quality printed in china. Full off allready obvious faults and flaws.

GW has a fething site, and if GW insists on not making coherent rules, respectively spread it artificially out so that those dexes later on are fethed regardless because the new edition will come sooner is just bad practice in order to spread earnings.

tneva82 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Whether 9th will have better balance than 8th is open to question - but so long as GW doesn't abandon the CA process, or starts making a complete mess of it (in before what's just happened) - then it should continue to be significantly more balanced than previous editions.

GW's process was shuffle broken units around to make people buy new models. IT wasn't improving balance. It was sidestepping around to change what sells.

If GW are damned if they change things, and damned if they don't, then there really isn't any solution, beyond some immaculate index which gets balance perfect and is set in stone forever and ever and ever.
I don't think its perfect - but a general approach of making things that are too good more expensive, and things which are too bad cheaper, does make a more balanced game than just letting the meta shift with dartboard codex creep.

 Eipi10 wrote:
@ClockworkZion
I think you misunderstood and I wasn't very clear. I'm not saying 9th will be unplayable, but I am saying better balance will not be a goal of 9th in the least and it will suffer for that. TO's who stand by GW, keeping their missions and not using house rules, will be rewarded as FLG has and more. Those who don't and attempt to fix 9th's obvious flaws (the same way ITC tried to fix 8th's terrain rules) will be ignored and fail to grow the way officially sanctioned tournaments grow.

Not wanting to drail the thread too much, but what do you see as 9th's "obvious flaws" at this stage?

Tyel wrote:
Whether 9th will have better balance than 8th is open to question - but so long as GW doesn't abandon the CA process, or starts making a complete mess of it (in before what's just happened) - then it should continue to be significantly more balanced than previous editions.

Which doesn't mean you are automatically going to have a good game if you bring a pile of random units, and someone has a top tier list. But it should hopefully avoid factions being a joke (outside of some 1 unit spam list, which isn't even possible any more) for half a decade or more.

Think the big question is whether they go for an early CA21 - maybe in February - if it turns out the points are a real problem.

I think the new mission set-up might provide a slight mirage of balance for a little bit until its mostly solved like ITC or WMH Steamroller

I will most like try a few games before running back to my scrubby no points and virtually no list making Guild Ball

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Points via FAQ and missions via CA would be better. Split the two and stop charging for points because they're always out of date when they're on a print schedule.

Fewer people would be buying the books, if that was the case. Having points updates in CA makes the book a good seller.

Wild Theory: Nobody using a software with pre-provided point costs to build their army list is in any way interested in such a book after it gets released (and thus, the points are publicly available).

What benefit do you see in buying the points part of CA?

In places where you play at stores, you can't just show up with digital or printed out rules. You have to have the rules in book form.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Whether 9th will have better balance than 8th is open to question - but so long as GW doesn't abandon the CA process, or starts making a complete mess of it (in before what's just happened) - then it should continue to be significantly more balanced than previous editions.

Which doesn't mean you are automatically going to have a good game if you bring a pile of random units, and someone has a top tier list. But it should hopefully avoid factions being a joke (outside of some 1 unit spam list, which isn't even possible any more) for half a decade or more.

Think the big question is whether they go for an early CA21 - maybe in February - if it turns out the points are a real problem.

I think the new mission set-up might provide a slight mirage of balance for a little bit until its mostly solved like ITC or WMH Steamroller

I will most like try a few games before running back to my scrubby no points and virtually no list making Guild Ball

While "Technically" solvable, the CA2020 missions are much harder to solve than ITC missions. The ITC missions were designed to be easily solvable, by providing what was in fact a single mission with different deployments. Compared to that the CA2020 pack has:

- Nine missions. While the primary objectives may appear similar, they are actually quite different. They have different numbers of points with different deployments and different rules on how to score them.
- Tabling the opponent meant winning. Thanks to CA19, that is no longer true.
- Kill based secondary objectives are hard to pursue in many cases, and can only be maxed against skewed lists. Secondary points in general are harder to achieve, and will usually put you in a risky position to score them. In ITC it was usually the case that if you were winning the strenght contest, you were also scoring your secondaries. Now you have to balance these two aspects.

In short, CA2020 poses a much more difficult challenge to be solved compared to the ITC missions. Since 40K is a game of small sample sizes, if you push the difficulty to certain levels, you can be reasonably sure that it will never get solved.

Karol wrote:
In places where you play at stores, you can't just show up with digital or printed out rules. You have to have the rules in book form.

You are telling me that the store is strictly enforcing every player to have all rule books from which they will draw the rules from with them in order to play?

- Rulebook
- CA
- Codex
- Psychic Awakening

If I don't bring my core rulebook, I can't play at all, even though everybody knows the rules?
(Before you say the core rules are free, no they are not. Detachment rules are not available outside of the big book)

That aside, it's a local store policy GW has no saying about. I don't see it as a valid argument that bundling both books together would increase the sales of the mission part of CA.

@ Spoletta, indeed hence mostly solved, especially as 9-12 points is more realistic than ITC maxing expection for objectives

Ill be curious to see if GW can resist tripping over themselves trying to bring in rules that interact with objectives as "do action still be able to act normally" is only a nu-marine buff /release away

a_typical_hero wrote:

Karol wrote:
In places where you play at stores, you can't just show up with digital or printed out rules. You have to have the rules in book form.

You are telling me that the store is strictly enforcing every player to have all rule books from which they will draw the rules from with them in order to play?

- Rulebook
- CA
- Codex
- Psychic Awakening

If I don't bring my core rulebook, I can't play at all, even though everybody knows the rules?
(Before you say the core rules are free, no they are not. Detachment rules are not available outside of the big book)

That aside, it's a local store policy GW has no saying about. I don't see it as a valid argument that bundling both books together would increase the sales of the mission part of CA.

yes it did exactly that. In the case of rule book the owner didn't care as much if he knew you bought one. Could have one per two people playing, but doing stuff like 4 of us play marines and share a single marine codex was out of the question.

If CA was only narrative or open missions and let say some sort build your own land raider rules, that it had one year, and no point changes that people very well wouldn't be buying the book. Even with stuff like WD the ones that have army rules are already sold out. Ones that have non can lay in the bin for months and no one buys them, but good luck getting the one with assasin rules and stratagems when it was needed to have access to legal assasin rules.

Even with stuff like PA, anyone who plays DE can tell you that a new player can easily skip it. On the other hand playing GK without the PA book just doesn't make any sense, as without the rules the army is one of the worse armies in 8th ed.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's pretty damning that GW is still in business after 8 editions of failure. That alone says to me players care more about the setting and less about balance. Also, there is a subset that just wants to exploit the imbalance.

"Failure" to Dakka isn't exactly failure to the wider community. This site is a vocal minority -at best-.

That's kind of my point.

It's not exactly Auticus' point, but it's strongly related.

if ANYONE thinks they have ANY part of the new edition solved yet, they aren't half as good as they think they are.