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.
Grimtuff wrote: If by "good" you mean bunches of self-aggrandising "pro" 40k players that are so far up their own backsides they cannot see how much of a cancer they are to this hobby.
I should have made the sarcasm more obvious
Excellent then! Glad you see it for the cringefest it will be.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Excellent then! Glad you see it for the cringefest it will be.
That remains to be seen, but the basic concept of opening up a invitational World Championship to people that can rank in a subjective 'Best Overall' category seems not entirely thought out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/06 22:10:30
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
I've been out of 40K for a while. Is this really where we are? Complaining about better game balance? GW games just stunk in terms of balance and an unbalanced book would break an edition.
These updates seem somewhat flawed. AOC doesn't seem like it was a good patch to a problem to begin with with lots of knock-on balance effects. That's not good game design because it affects certain things more than others (AP1 guns are more expensive than AP0 but effectively the same due to most armies having AOC). And it doesn't seem like removing AOC has been replaced with points adjustments in any kind of systematic way (CSM seem to simply have got nerfed).
But yes it's good that GW are at least patching the points values, holy cow yes it is good. Let's not wish for unchanging unbalanced codexes back.
W40K suffered through 6th and 7th edition because they were just inherently bad editions, not because they were “beer and pretzels”. There is also a square peg, round hole situation.
Previous editions of W40K were not designed for competitive play, but with the proliferation of competitive play thanks to the ITC and Nova, a non-competitive rules set (square peg) was being forced to do something it was never intended to do, provide balanced game play for competition (round hole).
8th edition, while not perfect, hit a much needed reset switch with its complete overhaul and reinvigorated a lot of dismayed players and was also fun and simplified and so drew in a lot of new players. 8th edition also did it best spreading appeal to the various audiences as evenly as possible, across narrative, matched and competitive play. 8th had a play mode called Organized Play that was specifically for competitive play. 9th combined Matched and Organized and standardized on one mission design structure for all modes of play, which has been a HUGE mistake.
9th edition combined Matched and Organized because the players naturally gravitated towards Organized rules even when playing Matched games. Tournament rules have always trickled down into casual, not because GW forces it but because it is a natural phenomenon of meta evolution.
I mean, 9th edition has way more missions than just the tournament ones. It has several narrative mission packs and the randomized Tempest of War missions, yet the playerbase still gravitates towards the tournament mission packs. GW definitely isn't forcing them to play tournament rules, there are official alternatives, yet people still want to play tournament rulesets.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
I've been out of 40K for a while. Is this really where we are? Complaining about better game balance? GW games just stunk in terms of balance and an unbalanced book would break an edition.
Better game balance? Where? The balance is still terrible, it just breaks at a faster rate while we pay more for the rules.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
FaQs are fine at a fast pace. It's edition changes that are the problem. 8th was pretty good on points towards the end/ before Marines 2.0. Then GW felt the need to repoint everything despite 9th hardly changing core rules and just introducing new missions. And they want to sell you a new codex every 2-3 years.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
FaQs are fine at a fast pace. It's edition changes that are the problem. 8th was pretty good on points towards the end/ before Marines 2.0. Then GW felt the need to repoint everything despite 9th hardly changing core rules and just introducing new missions. And they want to sell you a new codex every 2-3 years.
Fair enough, FAQs are indeed a different case to points and rule changes.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
If you're seeing that, it's an issue with your community and players. That's not even an across the board true thing for events.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/06 18:24:40
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
FaQs are fine at a fast pace. It's edition changes that are the problem. 8th was pretty good on points towards the end/ before Marines 2.0. Then GW felt the need to repoint everything despite 9th hardly changing core rules and just introducing new missions. And they want to sell you a new codex every 2-3 years.
Fair enough, FAQs are indeed a different case to points and rule changes.
Sweeping, and borderline arbitrary, points changes look a lot like stirring the meta for the sake of it. On the face of it the diffrence in points reductions for losing AOC between SM and CSM does not make a lick of sense and it's very hard to see a coherent approach behind it.
It seems we're at the point in the conversation where I point out that the objective for 40K isn't working towards a state of improved balance but to maintain a constant flux of power variations in order to drive model sales.
If you're hoping for a balanced game, or even one that's moving towards balanced, you probably need to at least look at one of GWs smaller scale games, which seems to suffer somewhat less, or another title from another studio.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Better game balance? Where? The balance is still terrible, it just breaks at a faster rate while we pay more for the rules.
Better does not mean ideal, but at least there are signs of improvement. Many points changes made seem very reasonable, for example the Necron point changes all seem logical.
That's a whole lot better than Necron Warriors being overcosted for like 5 years between codexes.
Like... how is this up for debate at all? We had 20 years of 40K where a printed cost stayed no matter what problems it caused. We know what the alternative is.
Azreal13 wrote:It seems we're at the point in the conversation where I point out that the objective for 40K isn't working towards a state of improved balance but to maintain a constant flux of power variations in order to drive model sales.
I've heard many such claims over the years and it isn't clear to me that (a) competitive players are driving GW's model sale strategies or that they care at all and (b) that this is a winning strategy over just trying to make all armies and units perfectly balanced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/06 18:45:25
Yes, but you're still expected to pay 50 dollars for a book that's quickly rendered obsolete. That's the main point of contention. If the rules were free, then yes the rapid updates are great. They aren't free though, so you effectively pay for rules that have an incredibly short life-span.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/06 18:53:13
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Azreal13 wrote:It seems we're at the point in the conversation where I point out that the objective for 40K isn't working towards a state of improved balance but to maintain a constant flux of power variations in order to drive model sales.
I've heard many such claims over the years and it isn't clear to me that (a) competitive players are driving GW's model sale strategies or that they care at all and (b) that this is a winning strategy over just trying to make all armies and units perfectly balanced.
I'd say there's 2 major outlets for models - shelf warmers and competitive players who won't bat an eyelid at dropping a grand on the new hotness. The middle ground of people who collect one or two factions and pick up the new codex and releases when they roll around every few years aren't keeping the lights on. Neither casuals or shelf warmers are likely to make purchases informed by the game state, so that just leaves the competitive gamers as a significant spending group who care.
The trouble with a balanced game (let's not be bringing the P word into it, that's a theoretical at best in an asymmetric game) is it's an end point, a destination. Once you've solved most of the problems then you're left tweaking the frilly bits around the edges. You're then left relying almost entirely on new product to drive sales as there's no reason for existing customers to buy any old product.
Also, most games, assuming a relatively competent design team and reasonable resources seem to solve the most egregious issues within an edition, maybe even an errata. yet 40 years on, 40K balance swings wildly multiple times each edition. Given we have seen former GW designers prove themselves to be competent outside of GW, and given nobody has the resources that GW does in this sector, Occam's Razor says it's deliberate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/06 19:14:42
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Mike Brandt = The worst thing to have ever happened to Warhammer.
The worst thing that has happened to Warhammer so far...
Why is the event organiser and relations guy the worst thing to have happened so far? Pretty sure the mission pack and everything else goes from/through/past Stu at this point.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
I've been out of 40K for a while. Is this really where we are? Complaining about better game balance? GW games just stunk in terms of balance and an unbalanced book would break an edition.
These updates seem somewhat flawed. AOC doesn't seem like it was a good patch to a problem to begin with with lots of knock-on balance effects. That's not good game design because it affects certain things more than others (AP1 guns are more expensive than AP0 but effectively the same due to most armies having AOC). And it doesn't seem like removing AOC has been replaced with points adjustments in any kind of systematic way (CSM seem to simply have got nerfed).
But yes it's good that GW are at least patching the points values, holy cow yes it is good. Let's not wish for unchanging unbalanced codexes back.
Gw going from one unbalance to other for sake of making players change armies isn't something to cheer.
Gw isn't interested in balance as it hurts their profit. Making people buy new models to replace old? That's what they are interested at. You still play imbalanced game. You just pay more for it...
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
I've been out of 40K for a while. Is this really where we are? Complaining about better game balance? GW games just stunk in terms of balance and an unbalanced book would break an edition.
Better game balance? Where? The balance is still terrible, it just breaks at a faster rate while we pay more for the rules.
I would dare to say that in therms of balance I don't remember ever before GW public apologising like they just did after the release of Votann... to then update points in a heartbeat and then update it again in just a few months. I mean to me it sounds the more GW tries balancing and competitive the more frustrating it is for who ever invests in these expensive rulebooks. So it's not balanced at all.
Basic rules and dexes should be free download and the hardcover physical books with all the nice things optional, in that case it's a fair game these speedy updates.
In the current context I think it's unhealthy because this alienates the majority of people who still buy rules. Besides reboot the rules to often and not even competitive players will keep up with what version each codex is, its such a mess that only serves to destroy the game.
Competitive pro players keep the lights on? Not sure about that since errrr no one played during covid and yet product was flying...
tneva82 wrote:Gw going from one unbalance to other for sake of making players change armies isn't something to cheer.
Gw isn't interested in balance as it hurts their profit. Making people buy new models to replace old? That's what they are interested at. You still play imbalanced game. You just pay more for it...
If things don't improve over time, sure. But many of the points changes with this update are better, no? E.g. Necron points changes all seem most reasonable. You really think that's not an improvement? I think CSM got shafted but overall I think there's improvement.
Things don't have to be perfect, just better. Iterative improvement is still improvement.
Azreal13 wrote:
I'd say there's 2 major outlets for models - shelf warmers and competitive players who won't bat an eyelid at dropping a grand on the new hotness. The middle ground of people who collect one or two factions and pick up the new codex and releases when they roll around every few years aren't keeping the lights on. Neither casuals or shelf warmers are likely to make purchases informed by the game state, so that just leaves the competitive gamers as a significant spending group who care.
The largest demographic is still teenage boys who buy stuff and play at GW shops and spend a bunch before they get into other interests. They don't care about balance either, just into cool rules and throwing dice and having fun. GW have been pitching to this demographic as their bread and butter since the dawn of time.
I think we've seen some shift in recent years that competitive players are more of a slice and for some places like the US it's quite a big slice of the market and that might explain why GW is catering a little bit with GT packs and stuff. And there's more competition these days for wargames. But their core market is still IMO the above.
The trouble with a balanced game (let's not be bringing the P word into it, that's a theoretical at best in an asymmetric game) is it's an end point, a destination. Once you've solved most of the problems then you're left tweaking the frilly bits around the edges. You're then left relying almost entirely on new product to drive sales as there's no reason for existing customers to buy any old product.
Also, most games, assuming a relatively competent design team and reasonable resources seem to solve the most egregious issues within an edition, maybe even an errata. yet 40 years on, 40K balance swings wildly multiple times each edition. Given we have seen former GW designers prove themrlves to be competent outside of GW, and given nobody has the resources that GW does in this sector, Occam's Razor says it's deliberate.
I think there's a variety of reasons for this. (1) They're pitching to the demographic described above, and having errata or anything where the book they get for their army is incomplete is a problem. (2) Their designers have historically just not cared about balance. Competitive play is not in the spirit of the game, in the view of most of the designers over the last 20 years. And the bean counters don't consider it a priority (competitive players just are such a small if vocal slice of the revenue stream). (3) It's stunningly hard to really balance such a complex system, especially when introducing a new/revised army every few months. Certainly impossible to adequately playtest a new army before release with the resources GW put in to developing new releases. Designers have a day job, actually balancing previous releases has always been a side-project for them at best.
There's a far simpler Occam's Razor: they don't care as much as you do about this stuff.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yes, but you're still expected to pay 50 dollars for a book that's quickly rendered obsolete. That's the main point of contention.
If the rules were free, then yes the rapid updates are great.
They aren't free though, so you effectively pay for rules that have an incredibly short life-span.
That is a separate issue. Personally I'd prefer a better and more often updated game over caring about the books but I feel like 40K needs to at a minimum have some system where points are able to be updated. X-wing made that shift and it definitely helps maintain a healthy meta.
And updating points and errata'ing books are two separate things. You can achieve a lot with just points changes and you can let the army builder software deal with that. Errata is more intrusive as it changes the rules in the books. I'd still prefer fix the problem at the source.
Having come back to 40k after a hiatus I will say finding stuff to play is freaking crazy. There's so many places to find rules and changes, it's overwhelming. Never mind actually learning all other armies' rules. Wahpedia is an absolute godsend in that regard. I personally never understood why GW doesn't give the rules away for free. Get people playing with lowest barrier to entry and make money on models. But I've thought that for 20+ years and no sign of things changing.
But none of that is to say that updating rules/points regularly is a bad thing. It's great.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.
It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.
I've been out of 40K for a while. Is this really where we are? Complaining about better game balance? GW games just stunk in terms of balance and an unbalanced book would break an edition.
These updates seem somewhat flawed. AOC doesn't seem like it was a good patch to a problem to begin with with lots of knock-on balance effects. That's not good game design because it affects certain things more than others (AP1 guns are more expensive than AP0 but effectively the same due to most armies having AOC). And it doesn't seem like removing AOC has been replaced with points adjustments in any kind of systematic way (CSM seem to simply have got nerfed).
But yes it's good that GW are at least patching the points values, holy cow yes it is good. Let's not wish for unchanging unbalanced codexes back.
Gw going from one unbalance to other for sake of making players change armies isn't something to cheer.
Gw isn't interested in balance as it hurts their profit. Making people buy new models to replace old? That's what they are interested at. You still play imbalanced game. You just pay more for it...
Ergo why they did the Day 0 patch for Votaan after hearing tournaments and stores would ban Votaan from being played. Nobody to buy their new darlings because nobody will play against them = lost money.
I would dare to say that in therms of balance I don't remember ever before GW public apologising like they just did after the release of Votann... to then update points in a heartbeat and then update it again in just a few months. I mean to me it sounds the more GW tries balancing and competitive the more frustrating it is for who ever invests in these expensive rulebooks.
WFB Chaos Daemons in 8th edition just broke the game. It spawned a whole host of patches such as simply giving daemon players less points (in some cases 2000 points where beastmen got 2800), or complicated comp systems. Competitively that one book just busted the whole game and GW never tried to fix it. People left the game in droves.
GW fixing a newly-released problematic army immediately after release sure seems better than that.
And one other factor is that people can always play with power levels right out of the book if they don't care that much about balance. And for those of us that do, we can use the latest points release. Isn't that the best of both worlds?
Daedalus81 wrote: Swapping a chainsword for a lascannon doesn't immediately make you a more effective model in all circumstances.
... then you go and say something like that.
This isn't about whether something is effective. It's about replacing base equipment with upgraded equipment for no cost. Your Chainsword to Lascannon example doesn't even really make any sense, because I can't think of many units that start with Chainswords that can upgrade to Lascannons.
But if you want to go with Chainswords, there are now tons of Marine/CSM models that can swap out Chainswords for Power Fists, Power Swords, Power Axes and sometimes even Thunder Hammers for free. Why wouldn't you? Ditto for Bolt Pistols to Plasma Pistols. They are straight upgrades and you lose nothing in the exchange.
Daedalus81 wrote: You still have a choice to make an effective list and it probably isn't stuffing as much melta as you can, which means free upgrades isn't as simple as it might appear on it's face.
This isn't about effectiveness. It's about the fact that you can get hundreds of points worth of stuff for free. There's no reason not to take every upgrade possible when every upgrade - regardless of whether it's "effective" - is free.
How do you not understand this yet?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/06 21:18:32
But none of that is to say that updating rules/points regularly is a bad thing. It's great.
Tell that to the guys that got Votann cool box set to see their books replaced by those 'great' updates days after. Even greater was that the following non collector book that came after and is still sold with the wrong points.
Great
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/01/06 20:54:30
Ergo why they did the Day 0 patch for Votaan after hearing tournaments and stores would ban Votaan from being played. Nobody to buy their new darlings because nobody will play against them = lost money.
So you're saying they balanced the new army because a balanced game generates more money? In some way this is a bad thing?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yes, but you're still expected to pay 50 dollars for a book that's quickly rendered obsolete. That's the main point of contention.
If the rules were free, then yes the rapid updates are great.
They aren't free though, so you effectively pay for rules that have an incredibly short life-span.
My Adepta Sororitas Codex idea released in June 2021.
It as 1 item in the Balance Dataslate
The FAQ was last updated in April 2022
It has three erratas in it, two were from initial launch
It has one FAQ question answered
Is this an obsolete codex because they updated points and power level along with these?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/06 20:58:22
Tell that to the guys that got Votann cool box set to see their books replaced by those 'great' updates days after. Even greater was that the following non collector book that came after and is still sold with the wrong points.
Great
Yes, it's great. We have a more balanced army entering the meta. It's a good thing! We know what happens when an OP book breaks the meta without fixing and it can suck the fun out of the game for years.
What sucks is GW didn't playtest enough to avoid errata. But it's definitely the lesser of two evils.
I don't know why this is an issue if this is just points. Points are not even on the datasheets. Power levels are. Points should be updated regularly and probably shouldn't be in print at all (like x-wing). Errata'ing datasheets and rules for balance reasons is another matter, I would agree, but I would still be in favour of fixing a broken rule than leaving it.
I would dare to say that in therms of balance I don't remember ever before GW public apologising like they just did after the release of Votann... to then update points in a heartbeat and then update it again in just a few months. I mean to me it sounds the more GW tries balancing and competitive the more frustrating it is for who ever invests in these expensive rulebooks.
WFB Chaos Daemons in 8th edition just broke the game. It spawned a whole host of patches such as simply giving daemon players less points (in some cases 2000 points where beastmen got 2800), or complicated comp systems. Competitively that one book just busted the whole game and GW never tried to fix it. People left the game in droves.
GW fixing a newly-released problematic army immediately after release sure seems better than that.
And one other factor is that people can always play with power levels right out of the book if they don't care that much about balance. And for those of us that do, we can use the latest points release. Isn't that the best of both worlds?
Depends on what you measure the best to be.
Personally such mistakes should not be printed, but if they are they should be replaced with new books and clients refunded or replace the books. Yet same books on the shelfs ( arguments about its impractical they cant turn it around fast enough a reprint is too expensive... well mistakes have consequences)
See for me, if the rules were free, and the books optional I would not need refund and its fair play.
But - here's a book, sorry we made a big mistake so dont use those points use these instead... and then just a few months do it again thats quite frustrating.
I fear that like others said its not about balancing at all.
tneva82 wrote:Gw going from one unbalance to other for sake of making players change armies isn't something to cheer.
Gw isn't interested in balance as it hurts their profit. Making people buy new models to replace old? That's what they are interested at. You still play imbalanced game. You just pay more for it...
If things don't improve over time, sure. But many of the points changes with this update are better, no? E.g. Necron points changes all seem most reasonable. You really think that's not an improvement? I think CSM got shafted but overall I think there's improvement.
Things don't have to be perfect, just better. Iterative improvement is still improvement.
Azreal13 wrote:
I'd say there's 2 major outlets for models - shelf warmers and competitive players who won't bat an eyelid at dropping a grand on the new hotness. The middle ground of people who collect one or two factions and pick up the new codex and releases when they roll around every few years aren't keeping the lights on. Neither casuals or shelf warmers are likely to make purchases informed by the game state, so that just leaves the competitive gamers as a significant spending group who care.
The largest demographic is still teenage boys who buy stuff and play at GW shops and spend a bunch before they get into other interests. They don't care about balance either, just into cool rules and throwing dice and having fun. GW have been pitching to this demographic as their bread and butter since the dawn of time.
I think we've seen some shift in recent years that competitive players are more of a slice and for some places like the US it's quite a big slice of the market and that might explain why GW is catering a little bit with GT packs and stuff. And there's more competition these days for wargames. But their core market is still IMO the above.
The trouble with a balanced game (let's not be bringing the P word into it, that's a theoretical at best in an asymmetric game) is it's an end point, a destination. Once you've solved most of the problems then you're left tweaking the frilly bits around the edges. You're then left relying almost entirely on new product to drive sales as there's no reason for existing customers to buy any old product.
Also, most games, assuming a relatively competent design team and reasonable resources seem to solve the most egregious issues within an edition, maybe even an errata. yet 40 years on, 40K balance swings wildly multiple times each edition. Given we have seen former GW designers prove themrlves to be competent outside of GW, and given nobody has the resources that GW does in this sector, Occam's Razor says it's deliberate.
I think there's a variety of reasons for this. (1) They're pitching to the demographic described above, and having errata or anything where the book they get for their army is incomplete is a problem. (2) Their designers have historically just not cared about balance. Competitive play is not in the spirit of the game, in the view of most of the designers over the last 20 years. And the bean counters don't consider it a priority (competitive players just are such a small if vocal slice of the revenue stream). (3) It's stunningly hard to really balance such a complex system, especially when introducing a new/revised army every few months. Certainly impossible to adequately playtest a new army before release with the resources GW put in to developing new releases. Designers have a day job, actually balancing previous releases has always been a side-project for them at best.
There's a far simpler Occam's Razor: they don't care as much as you do about this stuff.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yes, but you're still expected to pay 50 dollars for a book that's quickly rendered obsolete. That's the main point of contention.
If the rules were free, then yes the rapid updates are great.
They aren't free though, so you effectively pay for rules that have an incredibly short life-span.
That is a separate issue. Personally I'd prefer a better and more often updated game over caring about the books but I feel like 40K needs to at a minimum have some system where points are able to be updated. X-wing made that shift and it definitely helps maintain a healthy meta.
And updating points and errata'ing books are two separate things. You can achieve a lot with just points changes and you can let the army builder software deal with that. Errata is more intrusive as it changes the rules in the books. I'd still prefer fix the problem at the source.
Having come back to 40k after a hiatus I will say finding stuff to play is freaking crazy. There's so many places to find rules and changes, it's overwhelming. Never mind actually learning all other armies' rules. Wahpedia is an absolute godsend in that regard. I personally never understood why GW doesn't give the rules away for free. Get people playing with lowest barrier to entry and make money on models. But I've thought that for 20+ years and no sign of things changing.
But none of that is to say that updating rules/points regularly is a bad thing. It's great.
There's a lot of argument there based on some, AFAIK, pretty baseless assumptions. If you've got any genuine data or information about GWs demographics and marketing I'd be genuinely interested to read it. In fact, I'm not even sure in store gaming is a thing in all locations any more.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Tell that to the guys that got Votann cool box set to see their books replaced by those 'great' updates days after. Even greater was that the following non collector book that came after and is still sold with the wrong points.
Great
Yes, it's great. We have a more balanced army entering the meta. It's a good thing! We know what happens when an OP book breaks the meta without fixing and it can suck the fun out of the game for years.
Thing is books dont last more than a few couple years and with the new edition around the corner the Votann book will last just months. So yes in its short lifetime we are looking at a very unhealthy rate of updates but thats just me.
~4100
~1660
