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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Cuz if Mike says it, it must be true.

Actually that's kind of how it works considering he's an official representative of the company.

Companies never lie, just ask Wayland Yutani.

Racerguy180 wrote:
If the core design philosophy is strictly for tourneys...umm I don't know how to put it to you.

But it's not? GW puts out a gakload of content for Crusade and narrative content, and the default playstyle is PL. Even with 2 CA books a year, there's far more casual content than there is for tournaments.

I’m fine with the comp thing, if it means buffing up/entirely retooling factions that are behind. There’s so much in the ork codex that could use massive points cuts, or optimally reworks. Same with nearly every codex really.

 kodos wrote:
ok, 8.000 is not that far off the assumed 5.000 and it looks like you can say those are the competitive part of the playerbase

Yes, but I don't think going off reddit subs is really going to get a reasonable assumption for active playerbase.

The WarhammerCompetitive subreddit has nearly 80K people and has been alive for four years. The Warhammer40K sub has been around 11 years.

20K per year of existence vs 42K per year makes the influence of competitive gaming a lot higher. That's a gakky rough metric though.

Note that the huge bump on 40K coincides with the very first Chapter Approved -- not the start of 8th.

Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.

Cuz if Mike says it, it must be true.

In this case, very much yes.

MVBrandt wrote:

Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.

Cuz if Mike says it, it must be true.

In this case, very much yes.

Oh snap.

Hah, someone got called out.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
ok, 8.000 is not that far off the assumed 5.000 and it looks like you can say those are the competitive part of the playerbase

Yes, but I don't think going off reddit subs is really going to get a reasonable assumption for active playerbase.

The WarhammerCompetitive subreddit has nearly 80K people and has been alive for four years. The Warhammer40K sub has been around 11 years.

20K per year of existence vs 42K per year makes the influence of competitive gaming a lot higher. That's a gakky rough metric though.

Note that the huge bump on 40K coincides with the very first Chapter Approved -- not the start of 8th.

Warhammer competitive also covers more than 40k as well.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yes, but I don't think going off reddit subs is really going to get a reasonable assumption for active playerbase

active playerbase is impossible to tell, for events we have numbers, but overall players no chance is even with sub to FB or Reddit, no one knows who really plays or is just there for the pics
and than there are those who play but don't let others know about it

Dudeface wrote:
Warhammer competitive also covers more than 40k as well.

Very true, but it's pretty rare to see AoS in the mix of posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yes, but I don't think going off reddit subs is really going to get a reasonable assumption for active playerbase

active playerbase is impossible to tell, for events we have numbers, but overall players no chance is even with sub to FB or Reddit, no one knows who really plays or is just there for the pics
and than there are those who play but don't let others know about it

Yea it's quite hard, because you also have just straight hobbyists that never play the game.

MVBrandt wrote:

Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.

Cuz if Mike says it, it must be true.

In this case, very much yes.

I love the wording...

Racerguy180 wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.

Cuz if Mike says it, it must be true.

In this case, very much yes.

I love the wording...

I could say something about GW that is true, without any personal influence over whether it remains so. In this case, it's the opposite. But I love it too, thanks!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But also, why do casual players care if the tournament side is getting love?
Casual players, showing you dont care about units performance and just play fluffy lists(Whatever that means lol) shouldnt care because you will just play what you want whether is broken busted or UP or OP.

They want to play fluffy lists and have a chance against GT winning lists...but also they don't care about being competitive. Yea, I don't get it either.

5000 players influencing how the game works has to be compared with... what? Half a dozen or so people deciding how the game works?

Depends. I mean, we do have Warmachine as a cautionary tale of what happens when tournament-play is driving the game design.

Tyel wrote:
5000 players influencing how the game works has to be compared with... what? Half a dozen or so people deciding how the game works?

The article says that "top ITC finishers" and TOs will be involved in the balance dataslates. That isn't 5000. It's perhaps, what? Another couple of dozen?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
5000 players influencing how the game works has to be compared with... what? Half a dozen or so people deciding how the game works?

The article says that "top ITC finishers" and TOs will be involved in the balance dataslates. That isn't 5000. It's perhaps, what? Another couple of dozen?

Of wonderful, like-minded people who have nothing but the best intentions for the ga(competitive version)me...

People are acting like the only outcome is top players are going to whisper "make this strong unit stronger" and completely ignore the possibility that some of these players/TOs may want to be able to bring other models.

"Hey, I'd never consider bringing a Gladiator Lancer, but I do like the model, maybe if..." kind of stuff.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But also, why do casual players care if the tournament side is getting love?
Casual players, showing you dont care about units performance and just play fluffy lists(Whatever that means lol) shouldnt care because you will just play what you want whether is broken busted or UP or OP.

Saw this gem and felt it needed addressing. A knight castellan, 3 blood angels captains and a guard CP battery is not fluffy. That's a list that was designed solely around abusing game mechanics.

That level of douchery has been dialled back, but I cant imagine many competitive players are sitting down going "you know what, hive fleet jormungandr sounds cool, they attack using rapid moving serpent forms and burrow attacks, I'll build an army that focuses on that". Instead they'll be abusing min-max hive guard armies and the new MC spam.

I'd love to get some form of confirmation from Mike since he's around, or anyone at GW in honesty that they are going to use these feedback groups to bring up the bottom X% just as much as they are going to reign in the top Y%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rihgu wrote:
People are acting like the only outcome is top players are going to whisper "make this strong unit stronger" and completely ignore the possibility that some of these players/TOs may want to be able to bring other models.

"Hey, I'd never consider bringing a Gladiator Lancer, but I do like the model, maybe if..." kind of stuff.

It depends how it's handled, of the feedback requested is "how do we stop drukhari having the top WR" the answer isn't going to be "make gladiators lancers good"

Rihgu wrote:
People are acting like the only outcome is top players are going to whisper "make this strong unit stronger" and completely ignore the possibility that some of these players/TOs may want to be able to bring other models.

"Hey, I'd never consider bringing a Gladiator Lancer, but I do like the model, maybe if..." kind of stuff.

That isn't much better. Just improving under performing unit (X) because some ITC winner likes it isn't going to improve the game as a whole. Gw should be focusing on bringing up all under performing units while reigning in anything that's massively over performing. They shouldn't be "playing favorites".

As an example, the devs of another wargame I play specifically asked the community "which options aren't you taking, and why?".

GW could easily use this program to ask those kinds of questions rather than just... whatever it is everybody else is suggesting they're going to do?

Dudeface wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But also, why do casual players care if the tournament side is getting love?
Casual players, showing you dont care about units performance and just play fluffy lists(Whatever that means lol) shouldnt care because you will just play what you want whether is broken busted or UP or OP.

Saw this gem and felt it needed addressing. A knight castellan, 3 blood angels captains and a guard CP battery is not fluffy. That's a list that was designed solely around abusing game mechanics.

That level of douchery has been dialled back, but I cant imagine many competitive players are sitting down going "you know what, hive fleet jormungandr sounds cool, they attack using rapid moving serpent forms and burrow attacks, I'll build an army that focuses on that". Instead they'll be abusing min-max hive guard armies and the new MC spam.

I'd love to get some form of confirmation from Mike since he's around, or anyone at GW in honesty that they are going to use these feedback groups to bring up the bottom X% just as much as they are going to reign in the top Y%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rihgu wrote:
People are acting like the only outcome is top players are going to whisper "make this strong unit stronger" and completely ignore the possibility that some of these players/TOs may want to be able to bring other models.

"Hey, I'd never consider bringing a Gladiator Lancer, but I do like the model, maybe if..." kind of stuff.

It depends how it's handled, of the feedback requested is "how do we stop drukhari having the top WR" the answer isn't going to be "make gladiators lancers good"

You're misunderstanding that first poster's point.

He's not saying, 'competitive players play fluffy' he's saying 'why do casual players care what competitive players do?' as well as 'why does it matter if a unit is too strong to a casual player that's only using it for its fluff in friendly games?'

Most balance changes should have a near zero impact on the casual/narrative community because winning shouldn't really matter to them so long as they have fun playing. A super OP combo should make precisely 0 waves (because it should be mutually agreed upon not to use it) and super OP individual units (which, lets be honest, there aren't a huge amount of units that are game warping in a vacuum anymore. Almost every top tier strategy relies on multiple layers of rules to make anything really over the top. Take those away and even things like double Volkite Contemptors are just 'good'.) should be naturally weeded out down to maybe 1 per list just via social pressure.

If anything, the casual community should be laser focused on improving bad units because that might actually have a positive impact on the feel of that army on the table. Nerfing OP stuff shouldn't really make any difference. SPECIFICALLY for casual and narrative play.

Rihgu wrote:
As an example, the devs of another wargame I play specifically asked the community "which options aren't you taking, and why?".

GW could easily use this program to ask those kinds of questions rather than just... whatever it is everybody else is suggesting they're going to do?

In almost every case that I've heard of, when the developers/producers of a game reach out to the community and actually take their input and put it into action, the game does fantastically.

It happened with DnD 5th edition when WotC reached out to big community-building DM's around the world and asked them literally "How can we make DnD good?" an put their feedback to work.

GW did a small part of that by reaching out to competitive players for input on 9th edition. I remember watching a lot of Tabletop Tactics, people that go to tournaments regularly, being really excited about the changes to 9th edition. Fast forward to now, with the latest Chapter Approved, and even getting the book free Chef and Beard couldn't recommend actually getting the book because of how little is in it.

There are other community-builders throughout the world that do more than competitive games, and it's on GW to reach out to them to ask how they can improve their game and make it more appealing. One pipeline that I'm sure GW would love to have is a way to turn casual players INTO tournament and convention-goers, since that's what builds the community they have more control over (with this ITC+GW partnership).

As it is, when someone gets into 40k, they usually determine after a couple games which camp they want to join and then stick pretty rigidly to it, thanks to their distaste of their experiences on one side of the bridge or the other.

But D&D 5th isn't good. It's a bloated mass carried along by popularity.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Depends. I mean, we do have Warmachine as a cautionary tale of what happens when tournament-play is driving the game design.

Warhammer is nowhere near that level of design given the Crusade and campaign stuff they push out. There is a risk of the wrong people influencing the direction of the game in general, but the structure seems unlikely to cause it since it isn't consolidated into one group. Being able to give feedback =/= effecting change to GW's rules writers.

 Platuan4th wrote:
But D&D 5th isn't good. It's a bloated mass carried along by popularity.

Sounds vaguely familiar, where have I heard about a game like this before...

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
But D&D 5th isn't good. It's a bloated mass carried along by popularity.

Sounds vaguely familiar, where have I heard about a game like this before...

I see some TikTok videos from a couple D&D focused people on these specific character builds that can do crazy things. It sort of confuses me, because back when I was a kid we kind of just used our imagination rather than this established set of rules.

It was an 'old man shakes fist at cloud' moment.

But, really, the core of roleplaying is still there. Now there is just more space for the people more inclined to structure. And that's what D&D rules are supposed to do - aside from providing flavor to stimulate stories. And it's better than the old THAC0 stuff.

So, yes, just like Warhammer some people just don't see the value and continue to shake their fist at the sky while claiming the popularity must be a glitch in the system, because people liking a thing must be wrong if it isn't just as they want it to be.

I dunno I stopped playing D&D during AD&D 2nd(& I loved AD&D) so I have no idea or compulsion to see what 5th is about. RT got me out of dnd & I've never looked back.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
But D&D 5th isn't good. It's a bloated mass carried along by popularity.

Sounds vaguely familiar, where have I heard about a game like this before...

I see some TikTok videos from a couple D&D focused people on these specific character builds that can do crazy things. It sort of confuses me, because back when I was a kid we kind of just used our imagination rather than this established set of rules.

It was an 'old man shakes fist at cloud' moment.

But, really, the core of roleplaying is still there. Now there is just more space for the people more inclined to structure. And that's what D&D rules are supposed to do - aside from providing flavor to stimulate stories. And it's better than the old THAC0 stuff.

So, yes, just like Warhammer some people just don't see the value and continue to shake their fist at the sky while claiming the popularity must be a glitch in the system, because people liking a thing must be wrong if it isn't just as they want it to be.

You say this, but most groups don't get playing 5th without modules or insist on playing like Critical Role.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

drbored wrote:

GW + ITC = most tournaments. You want GW support? You want a GW shop at your tournament and the exclusive GW con/event-exclusive models to be sold at your event? You gotta follow our rules. Not just for gaming, but for modeling and other things.

Brandt explicitly stated that independent tournaments would not be forced into GW only models.

And you actually think GW respects him (I'll add or anyone else for that matter) enough to keep him in on those discussions or give him final say? That's WAY, WAY above his pay grade. I am sure they told him those things, I am also sure GW will change this policy as soon as they can.

They are getting nuked from orbit by 3D printing currently. As usual, they didn't do any research or pay attention from their tower. Their annual report shows them basically being carried through 2021 on licensing.

This is a company so asinine they C&D'd free marketing from fan animation. I'm really into film and watch a lot of film analysis and reviews on YouTube and was shocked by how many new folks were introduced by Space marine, so what does GW's do? Pull it from YouTube and hide it behind a paywall. Morons. They cater to existing fans with warhammer+ they haven't gotten any new blood from that wreck.

Whats the saying HMBCD( ) likes to coin?

GW never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.