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.

 Eldarsif wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I have no idea why some posters here are praising Nephilim. The missions aren't ground breaking and the CP cut + paid Relic and Warlord trait was a straight nerf to armies that didn't need the nerf to begin with, simply because the best armies don't NEED the free stuff, it was merely a cherry on top.

I recommend trying out the current game to see why people like it; especially tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Their whole seasons idea and regular campaign/crusade books has obviously not worked out for them.

Not only did they massively underprint the Nephilim GT pack, but uh, remember back before Nachmund when they announced the whole seasons thing.... they mentioned every season would have its Chapter Approved GT pack and an associated Warzone book + the smaller Crusade books to go along with it.

Notice how Warzone: Nephilim has not been announced at all and we're two months into this new season? Notice how they've completely stopped doing the small Crusade books too? In fact, remember how they revealed the first few Warzone books with nice animated trailers in their Twitch streams but the last couple were just quietly announced on Warcom in midweek articles?

All of those things, plus every LGS I know not ordering them for sale at all after Charadon, really does point to a product idea and roll-out that failed completely.

This is not to say that Tournament play dried up, far from it actually, but this stupid roll-out of updates has just pushed people further into using The Russian Site over actually purchasing GW's books.

EDIT: Especially when they post this with firm dates of content being made irrelevant and outdated, it's hardly a good advertisement for their books.

Frequent update of tournament rules was something that I think a lot of tournament people appreciated. For narrative and casual players the campaign and crusade books were just too frequent with very little gameplay addition and often priced way too high. We had a Crusade campaign in the beginning of the year and the amount of books and narrative progression was just too swift or did not fit the current factions in the group.

One big campaign book that has everything for the season would be nice instead of the several campaign books followed with extra Crusade books we got.

They......really don't, and for the reasons I listed. I did try them, and the missions aren't much different to what we've already gotten all on top of not actually hurting the top armies, let alone bringing up the bottom ones.

And tournament players like updates, but not constant ones that need to be paid for to rectify mistakes that GW should've caught to begin with.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

They......really don't, and for the reasons I listed. I did try them, and the missions aren't much different to what we've already gotten all on top of not actually hurting the top armies, let alone bringing up the bottom ones.

And tournament players like updates, but not constant ones that need to be paid for to rectify mistakes that GW should've caught to begin with.

Your definitely not alone. The missions are a perfectly fine update, nothing mind blowing, and I liked the start with 6cp and gain 1 each turn.

But I really disliked the pay for 1st Warlord trait and Relic, and most people I have played the Nephilim mission with at our local store have asked me if we could just ignore it.

I have basically just switched to doing the Tempest Mission cards and using the 6cp rule without paying for the WL or Relic. It seems to work out pretty well and opponents are happy with those games.

 Noir Eternal wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

They......really don't, and for the reasons I listed. I did try them, and the missions aren't much different to what we've already gotten all on top of not actually hurting the top armies, let alone bringing up the bottom ones.

And tournament players like updates, but not constant ones that need to be paid for to rectify mistakes that GW should've caught to begin with.

Your definitely not alone. The missions are a perfectly fine update, nothing mind blowing, and I liked the start with 6cp and gain 1 each turn.

But I really disliked the pay for 1st Warlord trait and Relic, and most people I have played the Nephilim mission with at our local store have asked me if we could just ignore it.

I have basically just switched to doing the Tempest Mission cards and using the 6cp rule without paying for the WL or Relic. It seems to work out pretty well and opponents are happy with those games.

It's one thing to do either/or, but they went and did both instead of actually looking at the problems themselves. It's the flyer fix all over again and the Rule of Three fix all over again. GW shouldn't be doing constant updates if they're not gonna bother to do them correctly.

Toofast wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It was never hostility, only stupidity. Kirby was proud to state GW did nonmarket research.

"We don't care what our customers want" is definitely open hostility. Would you eat at a restaurant if the server interrupted your order with "We don't care what you want, the chef will make you what he wants and you're expected to like it or go somewhere else next time."?

I find this to be a flattering interpretation, implying a certain degree of awareness and choice. My opinion on his management isn't that high; I don't think Kirby was even cognizant of the concept that customers want to be asked.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It was never hostility, only stupidity. Kirby was proud to state GW did nonmarket research.

"We don't care what our customers want" is definitely open hostility. Would you eat at a restaurant if the server interrupted your order with "We don't care what you want, the chef will make you what he wants and you're expected to like it or go somewhere else next time."?

I find this to be a flattering interpretation, implying a certain degree of awareness and choice. My opinion on his management isn't that high; I don't think Kirby was even cognizant of the concept that customers want to be asked.

One might say it was even otiose in its niche

Exalted

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

They......really don't, and for the reasons I listed. I did try them, and the missions aren't much different to what we've already gotten all on top of not actually hurting the top armies, let alone bringing up the bottom ones.

And tournament players like updates, but not constant ones that need to be paid for to rectify mistakes that GW should've caught to begin with.

Your definitely not alone. The missions are a perfectly fine update, nothing mind blowing, and I liked the start with 6cp and gain 1 each turn.

But I really disliked the pay for 1st Warlord trait and Relic, and most people I have played the Nephilim mission with at our local store have asked me if we could just ignore it.

I have basically just switched to doing the Tempest Mission cards and using the 6cp rule without paying for the WL or Relic. It seems to work out pretty well and opponents are happy with those games.

It's one thing to do either/or, but they went and did both instead of actually looking at the problems themselves. It's the flyer fix all over again and the Rule of Three fix all over again. GW shouldn't be doing constant updates if they're not gonna bother to do them correctly.

The problem is that "correctly" is a very subjective metric. What do you consider "correctly" and can you state it a better way than saying "balanced"? Because whenever people talk about balanced and correctly we end up getting a 10 page essay that boils down to "I think". Which is why I kind of prefer measurable metrics. Otherwise GW could have just not bothered with releasing Warhammer at all in the first place as each game has had issues that portray that they didn't do things "correctly".

Remember also that Perfect is the Enemy of Good. The reason for the iterative process is that it allows GW(or any company doing similar) to move the scales of the game towards balance.

Looking at the tournament scene we are seeing winrates getting closer and closer to each other which indicates that GW's attempts are bringing the game to a nice point. Sure, internal balances in many codexes is still bad and with how GW addresses those things they will require a new codex, but overall the game is in a surprisingly good state if you are in the tournament scene. So for random pickup games that are based off the matched play/tourney system the game is in a nice spot.

Of course, if you have no interest in the tournament scene and are playing something like casual, beer & pretzel with your friends or people you know then the CA stuff really doesn't matter, especially now that the point updates have been divorced from the book update(which was an excellent thing to do by GW). This is what GW has been doing for the past few years: provide various ways and venues to play the game and with each iteration each venue is becoming better with price being the sure thing that gets progressively worse as they go up.

I just get the feeling people are not realizing that GW is serving a wide array of players. So if you are not happy with the updates it doesn't mean that the players that are affected directly by the updates are not happy. I play tournaments regularly and the Nephilim changed the game a lot. I would also add that the big change in Nephilim was not the missions, but the secondaries. The changing of secondaries changed a lot in how the game was played. If people are not playing Matched Play games or ignoring the secondaries then of course the update doesn't feel like much of a change.

The lack of balance hurts tournament players a lot less, then someone who just plays at a store. Tournament players optimise and if something is bad they will not play it. They will quit or switch, instead of being stuck with a bad army. Someone who just plays IG, because they like mass human infantry or waves of orcs are not in that position. Because the fixs to the game that GW proposes are either totaly out of the players hands. Like others had to let them tinker the rules and change them, and then allow the changes to last over a time. Or they have to level up and start playing with the stuff they don't like, don't want to use etc And even then that extra investment may just mean that an over all more powerful book will just be better anyway.

In case of nephilim the seconaries changes gave people the option, which they took up instantly, to play some armies in a very NPE way. Necron and SoB, are not more or less playing soliter. There is practicaly no interaction or ways for the opponent to stop a necron players from scoring bar ungodly luck with rolls. At the same time other factions had their secondaries chewed up and spit out, on top of changes to CP. For example ad mecha, with the changes to CP gain and use, should have some deep change to their secondaries. They are an army designed with heavy use of CP, both pre and durning game.
GW did no such thing. In fact that is probably one of the worse thing about w40k. Balance or lack of it, bad rules etc those are bad, but the idea that you could be left with a codex designed to be played in a different way then the current edition, for years sometims, is something that makes people not stay longer then an edition.

Toofast wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It was never hostility, only stupidity. Kirby was proud to state GW did nonmarket research.

"We don't care what our customers want" is definitely open hostility. Would you eat at a restaurant if the server interrupted your order with "We don't care what you want, the chef will make you what he wants and you're expected to like it or go somewhere else next time."?

Restaurants like that DO exist and people spend hundreds to go to them.

Karol wrote:
The lack of balance hurts tournament players a lot less, then someone who just plays at a store. Tournament players optimise and if something is bad they will not play it. They will quit or switch, instead of being stuck with a bad army. Someone who just plays IG, because they like mass human infantry or waves of orcs are not in that position. Because the fixs to the game that GW proposes are either totaly out of the players hands. Like others had to let them tinker the rules and change them, and then allow the changes to last over a time. Or they have to level up and start playing with the stuff they don't like, don't want to use etc And even then that extra investment may just mean that an over all more powerful book will just be better anyway.

As an IG only player (here for the tanks though), I can confirm heh. Thankfully, I have a lot of fun regardless of whether I win or lose (and my record is extremely heavily skewed towards lose heh). Granted, as I've mentioned before, we play tempest of war and don't use any of the warzone books.

I don't even think it is a question of winning or losing, those are separate from the game itself. It is the stuff like, you shouldn't have space marines in your space marine army because they are bad or if you play orks you don't want boys in your army etc Wins or chance to win will always differ, by virture of many factors, starting with model pools, their age and ending with stuff like studio interest. But if a codex give or had an option to play an X army with Y as its core, then the rules should not be rewriten mid edition to make Y an option you never ever want to take. And in those rare cases, when maybe this is warrented, the army should get something in return. Ad mecha are confusing for the regular non top table tournament player to play. We remove the confusing parts, instead the army gets this 3 things to balance it. The we remove it and now wait 2-3 years for an update is an attrocious thing to do. If a car company tried something like that, it would end up in court.

 Eldarsif wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

They......really don't, and for the reasons I listed. I did try them, and the missions aren't much different to what we've already gotten all on top of not actually hurting the top armies, let alone bringing up the bottom ones.

And tournament players like updates, but not constant ones that need to be paid for to rectify mistakes that GW should've caught to begin with.

Your definitely not alone. The missions are a perfectly fine update, nothing mind blowing, and I liked the start with 6cp and gain 1 each turn.

But I really disliked the pay for 1st Warlord trait and Relic, and most people I have played the Nephilim mission with at our local store have asked me if we could just ignore it.

I have basically just switched to doing the Tempest Mission cards and using the 6cp rule without paying for the WL or Relic. It seems to work out pretty well and opponents are happy with those games.

It's one thing to do either/or, but they went and did both instead of actually looking at the problems themselves. It's the flyer fix all over again and the Rule of Three fix all over again. GW shouldn't be doing constant updates if they're not gonna bother to do them correctly.

The problem is that "correctly" is a very subjective metric. What do you consider "correctly" and can you state it a better way than saying "balanced"? Because whenever people talk about balanced and correctly we end up getting a 10 page essay that boils down to "I think". Which is why I kind of prefer measurable metrics. Otherwise GW could have just not bothered with releasing Warhammer at all in the first place as each game has had issues that portray that they didn't do things "correctly".

Remember also that Perfect is the Enemy of Good. The reason for the iterative process is that it allows GW(or any company doing similar) to move the scales of the game towards balance.

Looking at the tournament scene we are seeing winrates getting closer and closer to each other which indicates that GW's attempts are bringing the game to a nice point. Sure, internal balances in many codexes is still bad and with how GW addresses those things they will require a new codex, but overall the game is in a surprisingly good state if you are in the tournament scene. So for random pickup games that are based off the matched play/tourney system the game is in a nice spot.

Of course, if you have no interest in the tournament scene and are playing something like casual, beer & pretzel with your friends or people you know then the CA stuff really doesn't matter, especially now that the point updates have been divorced from the book update(which was an excellent thing to do by GW). This is what GW has been doing for the past few years: provide various ways and venues to play the game and with each iteration each venue is becoming better with price being the sure thing that gets progressively worse as they go up.

I just get the feeling people are not realizing that GW is serving a wide array of players. So if you are not happy with the updates it doesn't mean that the players that are affected directly by the updates are not happy. I play tournaments regularly and the Nephilim changed the game a lot. I would also add that the big change in Nephilim was not the missions, but the secondaries. The changing of secondaries changed a lot in how the game was played. If people are not playing Matched Play games or ignoring the secondaries then of course the update doesn't feel like much of a change.

Correctly would be to actually hit the top armies or lift the bottom armies, and neither was done with those changes. Not rocket science.

Also "perfect is the enemy of good" only works when GW makes an attempt to begin with. Their sledgehammer method is NOT the definition of "good" at all, let alone worth calling an attempt.

 Eldarsif wrote:
This is what GW has been doing for the past few years: provide various ways and venues to play the game and with each iteration each venue is becoming better with price being the sure thing that gets progressively worse as they go up.

There aren't really iterating on any other game modes though - crusade is still plagued by many issues that were ironed out of matched play long ago. For example, GT went through three iteration of secondaries, plus there was a pile of new ones for every army. Crusade is still stuck with agendas that mirror the BRB secondaries.

Not to mention that there are bunch of books that are desperately need of errata/updates but aren't getting anything, and I'm not talking about balance or codex strength - just broken rules, missing keywords and the like.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It was never hostility, only stupidity. Kirby was proud to state GW did nonmarket research.

"We don't care what our customers want" is definitely open hostility. Would you eat at a restaurant if the server interrupted your order with "We don't care what you want, the chef will make you what he wants and you're expected to like it or go somewhere else next time."?

Restaurants like that DO exist and people spend hundreds to go to them.

The fancy restaurants I go to usually bend over backwards to cater to the customer. They park your car for you, take your jacket and hang it up, pull your chair out, bring a little stand to the table for your wife's purse, have internal temperature listed with the cooking options for beef, bring the dessert tray so you can see what you're actually eating instead of a picture on a menu, show you the bottle of wine and ask your approval before opening, etc. It was basically the total opposite of the "luxury boutique" GW experience where they asked your salary on the way in, took your wallet, handed you a pile of space marines, and shoved you out the door while spitting at you.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It was never hostility, only stupidity. Kirby was proud to state GW did nonmarket research.

"We don't care what our customers want" is definitely open hostility. Would you eat at a restaurant if the server interrupted your order with "We don't care what you want, the chef will make you what he wants and you're expected to like it or go somewhere else next time."?

Restaurants like that DO exist and people spend hundreds to go to them.

And those restaurants are run by a chef that is in the elite of the elite, making food on a level where you'd be an idiot to try to second-guess the chef anyway. Tell me with a straight face that GW is on that level of expertise.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Karol wrote:
As is eating, drinking and breathing. But it is hard to play the game called Life without them.

Despite what the Max Maxian world you live in may make you think, 40k is not life, and Nephelim is not one of life's (or the game's) requirements.

Actually (IMO) Nephilin is a very interesting improvement over previous "seasons".

And the factual cost of playing Nephilin rules approaches cero... Unless you are hellbent in adquiring an original document that GW dosent actually print in proper numbers.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It was never hostility, only stupidity. Kirby was proud to state GW did nonmarket research.

"We don't care what our customers want" is definitely open hostility. Would you eat at a restaurant if the server interrupted your order with "We don't care what you want, the chef will make you what he wants and you're expected to like it or go somewhere else next time."?

Restaurants like that DO exist and people spend hundreds to go to them.

And those restaurants are run by a chef that is in the elite of the elite, making food on a level where you'd be an idiot to try to second-guess the chef anyway. Tell me with a straight face that GW is on that level of expertise.

In both cases the seller believes with confidence that they know how to best serve the customer better than the customer themselves (the chef being correct in that) but they still care about what the customer wants. Kirby said he did not ASK the customer; he was expressing how confident he was in knowing what they wanted without needing to ask. It was outright delusion rather than willful disregard; actively not caring about the customer base would mean the management was largely successful, the reality is the management decisions of GWs least popular period were made in honest belief that they WERE what the customer wanted.

I can only guess as to why Aecus would want to make late Kirby-era management seem more savvy than it was, but it is certainly a well-crafted way to do it given the context of this forum.

I really like the changes in Nephilim for CP and relics/WL traits, it toned down some of the wombo combo 40k we were seeing. However I highly dislike the printed book structure for these updates. Charge me if you have to but at least let me download it so I don't have another book to bring with me and try to hunt down before it goes out of stock.

Toofast wrote:
I really like the changes in Nephilim for CP and relics/WL traits, it toned down some of the wombo combo 40k we were seeing.

Except for the top armies that don't cate to begin with. It's like y'all don't play competitive and just dislike Relics and Strats to begin with.

IMO the relic/WL change worked well at 2000 but really doesn't at 1000 which is the format I play way more often. CP being limited is fine, but being that starved for them is pretty annoying for armies relying on them.

Them costing cp is fine. Whether starting cp amount is right is another. But as long as army x has better traits/artefacts than army b it isn't fair first ones are free.

I like that the first one isn't free as it expands army options; if a player doesn't want to bring them they can choose to do so. I think it would have been received well if it didn't come alongside such a big cut to starting CP.

Army b having chracters that don't need relics or WLT to function when army x does isn't fair either.

Quite a few characters and mechanics have been written with free relics and traits in mind.

tneva82 wrote:
Them costing cp is fine. Whether starting cp amount is right is another. But as long as army x has better traits/artefacts than army b it isn't fair first ones are free.

I'd much rather see them remove all the extra WLT/relic strats so armies have to make some choices about which one to take. The current approach is OK, but feels like a band aid rather than a proper solution. It's symptomatic of the way GW operates. They often identify the right problem but they are terrible at finding the correct solution. Ironically, this is literally the opposite of how good designers should operate.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I like that the first one isn't free as it expands army options; if a player doesn't want to bring them they can choose to do so. I think it would have been received well if it didn't come alongside such a big cut to starting CP.

Unless of course you happen to play something like codex Ad Mecha where the whole design of your army is based on the idea of multiple relics, overlaping bonus rules from spending extra CP on warlords and extre relics. Then if you get no compensation, your army just got worse.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I like that the first one isn't free as it expands army options; if a player doesn't want to bring them they can choose to do so. I think it would have been received well if it didn't come alongside such a big cut to starting CP.

This literally makes no sense. Why didn't you want to bring one when it was free in the first place?

Zarkro wrote:
Well if the game is in a good place (as many seem to think it is) maybe just extend Nephelim another six months and throw in another balance slate / points adjustment for free?

The game is busted, the worst its been in years. No one around my parts will even play. They've all left for Conquest, Legion or some other game.

I have been trying to get a copy of Nephilim. I'm going to NOVA for the Trios team tournament and they're saying that at least one person needs to have a copy of all rules a team uses. Unfortunately, its a Nephilim tournament, and I wasn't even paying a little bit of attention to the releases of GW's DLC seasons, so I missed it completely and now can't get one.

I called a local FLGS to see if they had any and the owner was pretty mad at GW. According to her distributor, there were 3000 English copies printed with no intentions of a reprint. I'm not sure I 100% buy that number, but if it's even close to that it was a truly INSANE move on GW's part. While a lot of the DLC books for 9th edition have rotted on store shelves, Nephilim really shook up the game by changing army construction via command point distribution and altered the secondaries pretty good.

It's amazing to me that GW can still make seemingly rookie mistakes like this just because they're so focused on the dollar signs. Perhaps, ultimately, that says more about me than them. At this point it's like seeing a train wreck every morning and still being surprised by it...

"Hold one; Hold Two; Hold More"... Now you know every mission that has been printed for all of 9th edition W40K.

And remember... Tactical play and critical thinking are not necessary when playing 9th edition missions. All terrain on every table is identical and your Secondary Objectives never need to change. So just do the same thing over and over every game and when you're done you can compare and see who performed their repetitive loop the best.

See how easy that is?

Still laughing. Competitive play is fething cancer.

Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward

 oni wrote:
All terrain on every table is identical and your Secondary Objectives never need to change. So just do the same thing over and over every game and when you're done you can compare and see who performed their repetitive loop the best.

Just last Saturday I saw someone prepping for an upcoming tournament using those A/B Terrain layouts required by the tournament that I have ripped apart multiple times here on Dakka.

It really is terrible and creates games that are far different than any other type of play in the stores. Its really like they are playing a completely different game. Much larger shooting lanes allowing more Alpha strike potential, no obstacles or difficult terrain to slow down infantry, verticality significantly reduced, dense terrain in completely useless locations, etc...