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.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"

Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"

Completely unrealistic. Each player will flip any number of Citadel™ FineCoins™ which can be purchased for $99.99 each and whoever wins the most flips wins the game. Any deviation from the 50% win rate will be explained by players not understanding the format and it will be shown with FineStatistics™ that only the top 5% of competitive players should be counted in the data set.

I agree with the sentiment, but what other data is GW supposed to use for balancing? Beer and pretzels gamers playing garagehammer don't exactly submit data about their games for analysis.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"

Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"

Completely unrealistic. Each player will flip any number of Citadel™ FineCoins™ which can be purchased for $99.99 each and whoever wins the most flips wins the game. Any deviation from the 50% win rate will be explained by players not understanding the format and it will be shown with FineStatistics™ that only the top 5% of competitive players should be counted in the data set.

I agree with the sentiment, but what other data is GW supposed to use for balancing? Beer and pretzels gamers playing garagehammer don't exactly submit data about their games for analysis.

Using tournament data is fine, the issue is the self-congratulatory nonsense of only looking at faction win rates. According to GW a faction with a 50% win rate is in a perfect position and requires no balancing action even if it's limited to a single list that abuses a single overpowered unit while the rest of the codex is F-tier trash. Similarly, a faction that gets a 50% win rate by cleaning up the losers bracket but never makes the top tables is fine according to GW. And if that one-dimensional faction gets up to a 60% win rate by abusing their one good unit GW thinks the solution is to nerf the one overpowered thing and do nothing to help the rest of the faction. There are various ways of doing a more detailed analysis of the tournament data that will be far more informative about these issues but GW is content to do the laziest possible analysis and call it good enough.

As an example of this look at the latest marine buff. Not only is giving free upgrades everywhere profoundly stupid design on a conceptual level it's also the kind of thing that guarantees we'll see a self-congratulatory Metawatch article from GW while marines continue to be a miserable gaming experience for most players. The change will almost certainly mean an increase in win rates, but only for a handful of chapters and units that can best exploit the several hundred points worth of free gear they suddenly get and/or the ability to stay in a single doctrine (probably devastator doctrine) all game. I'm sure the Iron Hands players spamming free heavy weapons will win some games, and who cares if there's zero list diversity or balanced distribution of win rates as long as space marines hit the magic 45-55% number. GW will congratulate themselves on fixing the problem and see no reason to make any further improvements. Meanwhile the advanced statistics will tell you the real story, that the faction is still fundamentally broken and in desperate need of help.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Using tournament data is fine, the issue is the self-congratulatory nonsense of only looking at faction win rates. According to GW a faction with a 50% win rate is in a perfect position and requires no balancing action even if it's limited to a single list that abuses a single overpowered unit while the rest of the codex is F-tier trash. Similarly, a faction that gets a 50% win rate by cleaning up the losers bracket but never makes the top tables is fine according to GW. And if that one-dimensional faction gets up to a 60% win rate by abusing their one good unit GW thinks the solution is to nerf the one overpowered thing and do nothing to help the rest of the faction. There are various ways of doing a more detailed analysis of the tournament data that will be far more informative about these issues but GW is content to do the laziest possible analysis and call it good enough.

As an example of this look at the latest marine buff. Not only is giving free upgrades everywhere profoundly stupid design on a conceptual level it's also the kind of thing that guarantees we'll see a self-congratulatory Metawatch article from GW while marines continue to be a miserable gaming experience for most players. The change will almost certainly mean an increase in win rates, but only for a handful of chapters and units that can best exploit the several hundred points worth of free gear they suddenly get and/or the ability to stay in a single doctrine (probably devastator doctrine) all game. I'm sure the Iron Hands players spamming free heavy weapons will win some games, and who cares if there's zero list diversity or balanced distribution of win rates as long as space marines hit the magic 45-55% number. GW will congratulate themselves on fixing the problem and see no reason to make any further improvements. Meanwhile the advanced statistics will tell you the real story, that the faction is still fundamentally broken and in desperate need of help.

I agree with all of this. I actually think that an official VTT version of the game would be amazing as it could gather deeper data from thousands of extra games most of which probably won't feature the 'ardest meta lists around.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"

Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"

Completely unrealistic. Each player will flip any number of Citadel™ FineCoins™ which can be purchased for $99.99 each and whoever wins the most flips wins the game. Any deviation from the 50% win rate will be explained by players not understanding the format and it will be shown with FineStatistics™ that only the top 5% of competitive players should be counted in the data set.

I agree with the sentiment, but what other data is GW supposed to use for balancing? Beer and pretzels gamers playing garagehammer don't exactly submit data about their games for analysis.

The garagehammer players don't exactly have an obvious route to submit data about their games through, should they wish to do so, without cluttering up the Customer Services or FAQ mailboxes.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"

Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"

Completely unrealistic. Each player will flip any number of Citadel™ FineCoins™ which can be purchased for $99.99 each and whoever wins the most flips wins the game. Any deviation from the 50% win rate will be explained by players not understanding the format and it will be shown with FineStatistics™ that only the top 5% of competitive players should be counted in the data set.

I agree with the sentiment, but what other data is GW supposed to use for balancing? Beer and pretzels gamers playing garagehammer don't exactly submit data about their games for analysis.

The garagehammer players don't exactly have an obvious route to submit data about their games through, should they wish to do so, without cluttering up the Customer Services or FAQ mailboxes.

There's also the issue of vetting that data. Tournament data can be considered accurate because there are judges and rules but a submission from a rando internet user could easily be nonsense and you'd have no way to tell. Data self reported from casual games could actually be worse than no data at all.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Using tournament data is fine, the issue is the self-congratulatory nonsense of only looking at faction win rates. According to GW a faction with a 50% win rate is in a perfect position and requires no balancing action even if it's limited to a single list that abuses a single overpowered unit while the rest of the codex is F-tier trash. Similarly, a faction that gets a 50% win rate by cleaning up the losers bracket but never makes the top tables is fine according to GW. And if that one-dimensional faction gets up to a 60% win rate by abusing their one good unit GW thinks the solution is to nerf the one overpowered thing and do nothing to help the rest of the faction. There are various ways of doing a more detailed analysis of the tournament data that will be far more informative about these issues but GW is content to do the laziest possible analysis and call it good enough.

As an example of this look at the latest marine buff. Not only is giving free upgrades everywhere profoundly stupid design on a conceptual level it's also the kind of thing that guarantees we'll see a self-congratulatory Metawatch article from GW while marines continue to be a miserable gaming experience for most players. The change will almost certainly mean an increase in win rates, but only for a handful of chapters and units that can best exploit the several hundred points worth of free gear they suddenly get and/or the ability to stay in a single doctrine (probably devastator doctrine) all game. I'm sure the Iron Hands players spamming free heavy weapons will win some games, and who cares if there's zero list diversity or balanced distribution of win rates as long as space marines hit the magic 45-55% number. GW will congratulate themselves on fixing the problem and see no reason to make any further improvements. Meanwhile the advanced statistics will tell you the real story, that the faction is still fundamentally broken and in desperate need of help.

A counter-example is Drukhari, where they nerfed one overpowered list and buffed units that weren't in that list only to create an equally powerful new list. When an army is as strong as Drukhari relative to the rest of the meta, a nerf should be the only thing done because there could be many hidden dragons in the codex that are suppressed by the more powerful and obvious meta build. I think the problems with tonnes of completely unviable units stem from GW never doing the foundational math needed to create a balanced game. It's not really a problem if each faction only has one tournament build, as long as the non-tournament builds aren't awful. Internal balance is already being increased just by nerfing the most overpowered list, any options and datasheets that don't start showing up after nerfing the most overpowered list can be buffed a year later in the next pts update.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Using tournament data is fine, the issue is the self-congratulatory nonsense of only looking at faction win rates. According to GW a faction with a 50% win rate is in a perfect position and requires no balancing action even if it's limited to a single list that abuses a single overpowered unit while the rest of the codex is F-tier trash. Similarly, a faction that gets a 50% win rate by cleaning up the losers bracket but never makes the top tables is fine according to GW. And if that one-dimensional faction gets up to a 60% win rate by abusing their one good unit GW thinks the solution is to nerf the one overpowered thing and do nothing to help the rest of the faction. There are various ways of doing a more detailed analysis of the tournament data that will be far more informative about these issues but GW is content to do the laziest possible analysis and call it good enough.

As an example of this look at the latest marine buff. Not only is giving free upgrades everywhere profoundly stupid design on a conceptual level it's also the kind of thing that guarantees we'll see a self-congratulatory Metawatch article from GW while marines continue to be a miserable gaming experience for most players. The change will almost certainly mean an increase in win rates, but only for a handful of chapters and units that can best exploit the several hundred points worth of free gear they suddenly get and/or the ability to stay in a single doctrine (probably devastator doctrine) all game. I'm sure the Iron Hands players spamming free heavy weapons will win some games, and who cares if there's zero list diversity or balanced distribution of win rates as long as space marines hit the magic 45-55% number. GW will congratulate themselves on fixing the problem and see no reason to make any further improvements. Meanwhile the advanced statistics will tell you the real story, that the faction is still fundamentally broken and in desperate need of help.

AOS side at least tries to claim they are also looking at % each warscroll/artefact etc is used to adjust internal balance.

Whether that is true or not is another thing...

But in theory at least in AOS if one warscroll is op and spammed it would get adjusted.

 vict0988 wrote:
A counter-example is Drukhari, where they nerfed one overpowered list and buffed units that weren't in that list only to create an equally powerful new list. When an army is as strong as Drukhari relative to the rest of the meta, a nerf should be the only thing done because there could be many hidden dragons in the codex that are suppressed by the more powerful and obvious meta build. I think the problems with tonnes of completely unviable units stem from GW never doing the foundational math needed to create a balanced game. It's not really a problem if each faction only has one tournament build, as long as the non-tournament builds aren't awful. Internal balance is already being increased just by nerfing the most overpowered list, any options and datasheets that don't start showing up after nerfing the most overpowered list can be buffed a year later in the next pts update.

2-weeks can feel like an eternity when your main character in an online game is behind the power curve, why should it be acceptable to have an army that you paid hundreds of dollars for and invested weeks or free time into building and painting have to suffer for months or years? GW has the resources to gather better data and release bi-weekly patches like we've come to expect from video games, and we should hold them to that standard.

I think one of gws biggest fears is people realising they prefer a digital copy of the game. Its silly of course because the vast majority of players would have got into it because of the miniatures to some extent. I reckon it does influence how they approach things though and officially working with tts would likely be a bridge too far for them

 vict0988 wrote:
A counter-example is Drukhari, where they nerfed one overpowered list and buffed units that weren't in that list only to create an equally powerful new list. When an army is as strong as Drukhari relative to the rest of the meta, a nerf should be the only thing done because there could be many hidden dragons in the codex that are suppressed by the more powerful and obvious meta build. I think the problems with tonnes of completely unviable units stem from GW never doing the foundational math needed to create a balanced game. It's not really a problem if each faction only has one tournament build, as long as the non-tournament builds aren't awful. Internal balance is already being increased just by nerfing the most overpowered list, any options and datasheets that don't start showing up after nerfing the most overpowered list can be buffed a year later in the next pts update.

The problem is GW inevitably react to data late. This may change in a more quasi-digital rule set, but its always been an issue.

But in say this case of Drukhari - we had a lot of people go "everything's good in this codex except Talos". And this became a strange sort of orthodoxy for six months or so both on forums like this and amongst the influential professional circuit.
So inevitably, as GW were setting up for their second round of Drukhari nerfs, the feedback they were getting was "Talos=bad".
But this was wrong - partly due to the meta shifting. Sort of relevant to the thread, the meta of "cracking Marines" which dominated the first period of 2021 was over. Ad Mech, mass Ork Buggies and GK (GMNDKs) were making Talos with Heat Lances much more attractive rather than the somewhat unreliable overkill they were before. Talos started to appear in top tournament lists.
And then they got a 10~ point reduction, which made them a standout choice.

The problem with balancing based on say tournament rules, is that the meta inevitably warps what's "viable" or not. Unit X can have reasonable "foundational maths" - but if half the lists people are currently running are the "anti-X", then it won't appear very good. So inevitably you end up buffing X to the point its viable in that meta - which changes that meta - which then leaves it overpowered.

Basically you need to have a complicated eco-system. Which to be fair, was largely achieved in the last season, due to having multiple "top lists", that were all top in different ways.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
A counter-example is Drukhari, where they nerfed one overpowered list and buffed units that weren't in that list only to create an equally powerful new list. When an army is as strong as Drukhari relative to the rest of the meta, a nerf should be the only thing done because there could be many hidden dragons in the codex that are suppressed by the more powerful and obvious meta build. I think the problems with tonnes of completely unviable units stem from GW never doing the foundational math needed to create a balanced game. It's not really a problem if each faction only has one tournament build, as long as the non-tournament builds aren't awful. Internal balance is already being increased just by nerfing the most overpowered list, any options and datasheets that don't start showing up after nerfing the most overpowered list can be buffed a year later in the next pts update.

2-weeks can feel like an eternity when your main character in an online game is behind the power curve, why should it be acceptable to have an army that you paid hundreds of dollars for and invested weeks or free time into building and painting have to suffer for months or years? GW has the resources to gather better data and release bi-weekly patches like we've come to expect from video games, and we should hold them to that standard.

The problem is that this isn't a video game, so downloading an updates isn't a case where the game does all the work for you and you don't have to think much about it. When Warmachine Mk3 started to tank one of the reasons people stated for its failings was that it was updating too frequently, making what rules were current to hard to follow.
Do GW need to do more with their rules updates? Absolutely. Do they need to be as frequent as even monthly? Not at all. Every 6 months is a good time frame for releasing updates. Its frequent enough that armies don't languish but not so frequent that people lose track of whats what. We even have a precedent. When Psychic Awakening was a thing the books were coming out so quickly that it was incredibly difficult to keep track of the changes and updates and these were full on books, not digital documents with minor adjustments.

Aecus Decimus wrote:


Using tournament data is fine, the issue is the self-congratulatory nonsense of only looking at faction win rates. According to GW a faction with a 50% win rate is in a perfect position and requires no balancing action even if it's limited to a single list that abuses a single overpowered unit while the rest of the codex is F-tier trash. Similarly, a faction that gets a 50% win rate by cleaning up the losers bracket but never makes the top tables is fine according to GW. And if that one-dimensional faction gets up to a 60% win rate by abusing their one good unit GW thinks the solution is to nerf the one overpowered thing and do nothing to help the rest of the faction. There are various ways of doing a more detailed analysis of the tournament data that will be far more informative about these issues but GW is content to do the laziest possible analysis and call it good enough.

As an example of this look at the latest marine buff. Not only is giving free upgrades everywhere profoundly stupid design on a conceptual level it's also the kind of thing that guarantees we'll see a self-congratulatory Metawatch article from GW while marines continue to be a miserable gaming experience for most players. The change will almost certainly mean an increase in win rates, but only for a handful of chapters and units that can best exploit the several hundred points worth of free gear they suddenly get and/or the ability to stay in a single doctrine (probably devastator doctrine) all game. I'm sure the Iron Hands players spamming free heavy weapons will win some games, and who cares if there's zero list diversity or balanced distribution of win rates as long as space marines hit the magic 45-55% number. GW will congratulate themselves on fixing the problem and see no reason to make any further improvements. Meanwhile the advanced statistics will tell you the real story, that the faction is still fundamentally broken and in desperate need of help.

I would disagree with it being a horrible design decision. It wasn't a good one either, I admit. And, of course, they also didn't REALLY give free upgrades everywhere. The first places I thought of for that sort of thing actually didn't get free upgrades. Vanguard Vets still pay for a bunch of choices for example and one of the first things I thought of was Dante and a metric ton of Jump Elites- Vanguard Vets, Death Company, Sanguinary Guard. Vanguard Vets and Death Company still pay for jump packs and (some) upgrades - especially the big ones in Fists and Hammers. Sanguinary Guard always have Jump Packs, so I'd assume the cost of that was already baked into their base cost. Most of the big winners from this change are ones that weren't getting much usage. Plasma Inceptors, Centurion Devs. And I'm pretty sure Dakka Inceptors to Plasma Inceptors was much closer to a side-grade than the upgraded price would have suggested. Likewise, Centurion Devs compared to a Gladiator Valiant are still a tough sell. The Devs Cost more and are Infantry, but the Valiant has M10, T8, and more/better-ish but shorter range shots. Neither is CORE, so the main advantage the Cent Devs would have - joining a big block of Moving Castle doesn't matter.

I haven't really done much list building since at least two Points Updates ago. Very little in my list(s) are going away. Most of my 2000 point lists from then dropped roughly 300-500ish points. The rare unit I'm deleting is leaving because I want to shrink the overall footprint of the Deathstar. Because of rules changes - Sticky Objectives for example - I want to include some Troops Unit in the Deathstar ball to sticky the objective the moving castle plows under so they can move on to the next one with it still capped. That added bodies to the Deathstar - likely 5 Gravis Heavy Intercessors. So I dropped the 5 Gravis Eradicators and looked at what else I could add. I'm not finished but I'm leaning towards two Stormstrike Speeders and two Gladiator Tanks.

But freebie upgrades and potential points drops only made "I wish..." units good enough, they didn't make them outstanding, and they didn't make bad units even close to good enough. Centurion Assault Squads are still bad. Ridiculously bad. Sniper Scouts are (probably) still better than Eliminators but still not quite good enough to take. Devastator Squads get free Heavies of (almost) any variety. But the 5 ablative marines cost more than the weapons would have(and in fact went up more than you gained from the freebie weapons). 10 Devs with four Plasma Cannons are 230. 8 Hellblasters with roughly equivalent but more plasma Somethings is 240. Min squad with 4 MultiMeltas are 155, vs 3 Eradicators with double shoot and Gravis Armor for 135. Two sets of 5 Devs with 4MM and 4 LC and 20 T4 Wounds are 270 points. 1 Gladiator Valiant with 2MM and 4 Lastalon shots on a T8 12W platform is just over half that cost. In other words the best option for a Dev Squad is a throw away Alpha Bomb, and not only do I not really like that gimmick, but there are also less fragile uses for roughly similar points.

The only one so far - as I go through the list - that's a head scratcher is the Boltstorm Aggressors. I mean the Flamestorm Aggressors are (usually) terribad. I'm not sure the Boltstorm Aggressors are Model per Model less valuable than Bladeguard. I'm not sure they're more valuable either. But tack a 5PPM cost for Boltstorm upgrades and then we're starting to get into some understandable territory. I'm definitely sure Centurion Assaults are not worth twice as much as an Aggressor. Give an Aggressor a shoulder mounted flamer, +1 Armor Save, and Super Master Crafted Boltstorm Gauntlets (Melee) and are you paying double for them? Even with CORE?

Bladeguard Captain and Lieutenant Upgrades for free is more than a little bit of a headscratcher. Of course on a Limit 1 kind of character like the Captain its hard to get worked up over. The endless parade of Primaris Lieutenant models are probably not happy, but lets be honest few people were taking them anyway the Bladeguard LT upgrades were one of the first places you padded your points to hit exactly 2000. Which is ironically MUCH harder to do now. There's going to be a lot of 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 lists going forwards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Got interrupted at the end of that, and forgot one of the points I wanted to make:

The health of a faction isn't it's win %. A faction is healthy by the variety of lists that win. Using tournament lists/results is fine but they need to look at what's in the list, what changes and how drastic the change is.

 Sim-Life wrote:
The problem is that this isn't a video game, so downloading an updates isn't a case where the game does all the work for you and you don't have to think much about it. When Warmachine Mk3 started to tank one of the reasons people stated for its failings was that it was updating too frequently, making what rules were current to hard to follow.
Do GW need to do more with their rules updates? Absolutely. Do they need to be as frequent as even monthly? Not at all. Every 6 months is a good time frame for releasing updates. Its frequent enough that armies don't languish but not so frequent that people lose track of whats what. We even have a precedent. When Psychic Awakening was a thing the books were coming out so quickly that it was incredibly difficult to keep track of the changes and updates and these were full on books, not digital documents with minor adjustments.

A VTT that handles the rules would solve that almost entirely and I suspect that it would be a 90/10 split between games played online and games played on the table after that launches. To help folks who are playing with plastic instead of pixels GW would need to support a robust army builder that catches list-building errors and points changes, a self-updating set of living rules that can be accessed on any device, and a commitment to getting release balance right so most patches are minor. You could even go an augmented reality route if VR ever becomes ubiquitous where models on the table are moved to match moves made on the VTT and effects like units shooting are projected over the IRL table and terrain.

I think that most Wargames and TTRPGs are going to need alignment between digital and physical to stay relevant in the emerging market.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
The problem is that this isn't a video game, so downloading an updates isn't a case where the game does all the work for you and you don't have to think much about it. When Warmachine Mk3 started to tank one of the reasons people stated for its failings was that it was updating too frequently, making what rules were current to hard to follow.
Do GW need to do more with their rules updates? Absolutely. Do they need to be as frequent as even monthly? Not at all. Every 6 months is a good time frame for releasing updates. Its frequent enough that armies don't languish but not so frequent that people lose track of whats what. We even have a precedent. When Psychic Awakening was a thing the books were coming out so quickly that it was incredibly difficult to keep track of the changes and updates and these were full on books, not digital documents with minor adjustments.

A VTT that handles the rules would solve that almost entirely and I suspect that it would be a 90/10 split between games played online and games played on the table after that launches. To help folks who are playing with plastic instead of pixels GW would need to support a robust army builder that catches list-building errors and points changes, a self-updating set of living rules that can be accessed on any device, and a commitment to getting release balance right so most patches are minor. You could even go an augmented reality route if VR ever becomes ubiquitous where models on the table are moved to match moves made on the VTT and effects like units shooting are projected over the IRL table and terrain.

I think that most Wargames and TTRPGs are going to need alignment between digital and physical to stay relevant in the emerging market.

You're basically asking GW to turn into a software developer now. People don't play Warhammer (or any analogue game) because they want to play a video game. People like that the game is tactile and social. If you REALLY think 90% of Warhammer games would take place online all I can ask is why the board game market is so massive, with hundreds of physical games released every year when Tabletop Simulator exists? Its cheap, makes playing games smoother by leaving set up to a script, cheaper because most games are free mods and more convenient because you can play with other people without leaving the house. So why do a majority of people still play with physical games and in person? Why is the board game market still so huge when a thing exactly like what you describe as wanting GW to make exists and hasn't killed it?

 Sim-Life wrote:

You're basically asking GW to turn into a software developer now. People don't play Warhammer (or any analogue game) because they want to play a video game. People like that the game is tactile and social. If you REALLY think 90% of Warhammer games would take place online all I can ask is why the board game market is so massive, with hundreds of physical games released every year when Tabletop Simulator exists? Its cheap, makes playing games smoother by leaving set up to a script, cheaper because most games are free mods and more convenient because you can play with other people without leaving the house. So why do a majority of people still play with physical games and in person? Why is the board game market still so huge when a thing exactly like what you describe as wanting GW to make exists and hasn't killed it?

I'd postulate he's closer to accurate than you think. They still play the physical games in person because GW has generally been VERY careful not to put their tabletop game directly on the computer. The closest is probably Total War II - and they didn't do that until after they'd changed from WHFB to Age of Sigmar.

 Sim-Life wrote:
You're basically asking GW to turn into a software developer now. People don't play Warhammer (or any analogue game) because they want to play a video game. People like that the game is tactile and social. If you REALLY think 90% of Warhammer games would take place online all I can ask is why the board game market is so massive, with hundreds of physical games released every year when Tabletop Simulator exists? Its cheap, makes playing games smoother by leaving set up to a script, cheaper because most games are free mods and more convenient because you can play with other people without leaving the house. So why do a majority of people still play with physical games and in person? Why is the board game market still so huge when a thing exactly like what you describe as wanting GW to make exists and hasn't killed it?

Look at how popular sites like foundry and Roll20 have been in the TTRPG space. Then factor in that a VTT game of 40k is likely to turn a multi-hour game into something that can be finished in an hour as the software rolls dice, calculates casualties, and groups models to move as a unit. It can even help players remember to use special rules by prompting them when a stratagem has been triggered and could go so far as to display odds on attacks XCOM style to help players make certain choices more quickly instead of having to do the mental math.

GW could still monetize their models, which seems to be 99% of what they actually care about, by including an NFC card in each box and selling a reader both standalone and in start collecting boxes. You scan the card and have access to one of that unit with all its accessories and options in the VTT. VTT-only cards could be sold cheaper in blind pull packs, like MtG, which seems like something GW would salivate at being able to sell.

As for board games, look at how many games get a digital release and/or are played on various VTTs. These products wouldn't be produced if they didn't get a good return so people are clearly buying and playing them. I would also like you to prove that the majority of games played are done with cardboard around a table because it sounds like conjecture that fits your own personal bias.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
There's also the issue of vetting that data. Tournament data can be considered accurate because there are judges and rules but a submission from a rando internet user could easily be nonsense and you'd have no way to tell. Data self reported from casual games could actually be worse than no data at all.

While I agree there could be issues vetting data from casual games, I disagree that you can reach the conclusion that tournament games are better than casual ones in that regard.

As I see it, there are two areas where tournaments have an advantage - you can confirm the games happened, and you can make some inferences on the terrain used (not that I suspect GW looks that deeply into the results). We've seen enough examples of problematic gameplay in streamed tournament games - from mistakes through to observed cheating - that I would be very hesitant to claim that tournament gameplay was much more accurate than casual.

 Dysartes wrote:
While I agree there could be issues vetting data from casual games, I disagree that you can reach the conclusion that tournament games are better than casual ones in that regard.

As I see it, there are two areas where tournaments have an advantage - you can confirm the games happened, and you can make some inferences on the terrain used (not that I suspect GW looks that deeply into the results). We've seen enough examples of problematic gameplay in streamed tournament games - from mistakes through to observed cheating - that I would be very hesitant to claim that tournament gameplay was much more accurate than casual.

I'd argue that even with the imperfect gameplay tournament players like get the rules right at a higher rate than non-tournament players. People will still do everything you see in tournament games in home games because some people like to win more than they like to play by the rules. There's also the fact that this data can't be spammed by bots and/or trolls to produce absurd results, look at what happens with public naming polls and sports All-Star voting for examples of what people will do even with nothing at stake.

 Dysartes wrote:
claim that tournament gameplay was much more accurate than casual.

Not the gameplay, the reporting. The people who report their faction was tabled on turn one by the faction they hate the most while their minis collect dust.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
You're basically asking GW to turn into a software developer now. People don't play Warhammer (or any analogue game) because they want to play a video game. People like that the game is tactile and social. If you REALLY think 90% of Warhammer games would take place online all I can ask is why the board game market is so massive, with hundreds of physical games released every year when Tabletop Simulator exists? Its cheap, makes playing games smoother by leaving set up to a script, cheaper because most games are free mods and more convenient because you can play with other people without leaving the house. So why do a majority of people still play with physical games and in person? Why is the board game market still so huge when a thing exactly like what you describe as wanting GW to make exists and hasn't killed it?

Look at how popular sites like foundry and Roll20 have been in the TTRPG space. Then factor in that a VTT game of 40k is likely to turn a multi-hour game into something that can be finished in an hour as the software rolls dice, calculates casualties, and groups models to move as a unit. It can even help players remember to use special rules by prompting them when a stratagem has been triggered and could go so far as to display odds on attacks XCOM style to help players make certain choices more quickly instead of having to do the mental math.

GW could still monetize their models, which seems to be 99% of what they actually care about, by including an NFC card in each box and selling a reader both standalone and in start collecting boxes. You scan the card and have access to one of that unit with all its accessories and options in the VTT. VTT-only cards could be sold cheaper in blind pull packs, like MtG, which seems like something GW would salivate at being able to sell.

As for board games, look at how many games get a digital release and/or are played on various VTTs. These products wouldn't be produced if they didn't get a good return so people are clearly buying and playing them. I would also like you to prove that the majority of games played are done with cardboard around a table because it sounds like conjecture that fits your own personal bias.

lol wut
My data is that most companies don't actually bother releasing their games in any virtual way at all or make official mods for TSS. Almost everything on Tabletop Simulator is driven by fan creations. You know you can also play 40k on it right? You can also play 40k on Vassal, which also never really took over physical games either. 3000 board games are released every year, so claiming that somehow making them virtual would be the market's prefered way of playing is clearly wrong.

But if you want raw numbers sure. Here's a comparison of board games with dedicated apps to owners of physical copies listed on Board Game Geek
Wingspan, one of the most popular board games of the last few years has 10k downloads on the Google Play store. The all time peak on Steam was 1470 users. Meanwhile on BoardGameGeek 112k people own the physical version.

Terraforming Mars
Google Play - 50k downloads
Steam All Time Peak - 1600ish
BGG Owners - 119k

Root
Google Play - 10k downloads
BGG owners - 62k

Are you seeing a pattern?

 Sim-Life wrote:
lol wut
My data is that most companies don't actually bother releasing their games in any virtual way at all or make official mods for TSS. Almost everything on Tabletop Simulator is driven by fan creations. You know you can also play 40k on it right? You can also play 40k on Vassal, which also never really took over physical games either.

Most companies in the board game space are tiny indies that are lucky to get a single production run of their game produced. Among the companies that can afford to make a digital game pretty much everything gets a conversion.

Among the top-5 companies Hasbro puts basically everything to digital for every platform they can reach, Asmodée has their entire catalogue open for licensing into digital versions, Goliath B.V. doesn't seem to do digital but they're more into the arts and crafts side of the hobby and their products don't look as if they would translate well, Grand Prix International is a company that produces products for external IP holders so don't really fit the mold, and Ravensburger is mostly known for puzzles but even they have gone digital. So 3 of the top 5 companies in the space are heavily invested in digital versions of their game and the two that don't either don't have their own IP or don't make traditional board games.

On steam over 2,000 titles are categorized as board games.

I don't think that it could be more clear that board games are increasingly going digital and that companies that can afford to invest are seeing huge reasons to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
lol wut
My data is that most companies don't actually bother releasing their games in any virtual way at all or make official mods for TSS. Almost everything on Tabletop Simulator is driven by fan creations. You know you can also play 40k on it right? You can also play 40k on Vassal, which also never really took over physical games either. 3000 board games are released every year, so claiming that somehow making them virtual would be the market's prefered way of playing is clearly wrong.

But if you want raw numbers sure. Here's a comparison of board games with dedicated apps to owners of physical copies listed on Board Game Geek
Wingspan, one of the most popular board games of the last few years has 10k downloads on the Google Play store. The all time peak on Steam was 1470 users. Meanwhile on BoardGameGeek 112k people own the physical version.

Terraforming Mars
Google Play - 50k downloads
Steam All Time Peak - 1600ish
BGG Owners - 119k

Root
Google Play - 10k downloads
BGG owners - 62k

Are you seeing a pattern?

How does BGG verify ownership of a game? How do they verify the number of people who actively play the games they own? Why are Steam numbers shown in peak player count instead of purchases? Why aren't you including games like Monopoly?

Your data seems purposefully biased toward the conclusion you want, your methodology is dishonest, and there are no trends shown for purchase rates of physical versus digital copies of games.

https://www.statista.com/outlook/dmo/app/games/board-games/worldwide

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/07/19/2482068/0/en/Board-Games-Market-to-Attain-Value-of-30-93-Billion-By-2028-Thanks-to-Increased-Popularity-of-Online-Gaming-and-Entry-of-New-OTT-platforms-In-Board-Gaming.html

https://www.modernretail.co/retailers/how-board-games-are-going-digital/

When Netflix is looking to invest in digital board games the writing is pretty clearly on the wall.

 vict0988 wrote:

A counter-example is Drukhari, where they nerfed one overpowered list and buffed units that weren't in that list only to create an equally powerful new list. When an army is as strong as Drukhari relative to the rest of the meta, a nerf should be the only thing done because there could be many hidden dragons in the codex that are suppressed by the more powerful and obvious meta build. I think the problems with tonnes of completely unviable units stem from GW never doing the foundational math needed to create a balanced game. It's not really a problem if each faction only has one tournament build, as long as the non-tournament builds aren't awful. Internal balance is already being increased just by nerfing the most overpowered list, any options and datasheets that don't start showing up after nerfing the most overpowered list can be buffed a year later in the next pts update.

 Dysartes wrote:

While I agree there could be issues vetting data from casual games, I disagree that you can reach the conclusion that tournament games are better than casual ones in that regard.

As I see it, there are two areas where tournaments have an advantage - you can confirm the games happened, and you can make some inferences on the terrain used (not that I suspect GW looks that deeply into the results). We've seen enough examples of problematic gameplay in streamed tournament games - from mistakes through to observed cheating - that I would be very hesitant to claim that tournament gameplay was much more accurate than casual.

Tournament games are better than casual ones if we are judging those games based on a balance analysis. "I brought out my Flashgitz army! but I lost spectacularly to the IG player" ok well in a vacuum that is meaningless, but when you start getting thousands if not tens of thousands of similar reports of beer and pretzel games where players bring crap lists that don't function or have synergy you are in essence getting corrupt data that will not help in the analysis on balancing units both internally or externally.

The better analysis from GW should be which units are being taken in faction lists and then giving buffs to the units that aren't seeing regular gameplay in order to bring them up to a more balanced level. Look at the Stompa for example, its not appeared in a single ork list that placed well in tournaments, GW should have then adjusted the points value of it or gave it a rules buff to encourage its use. Same for most units, conversely if you see a Custodes list that is taking Trajann 99 times out of 100...well you might need to look at toning him down a bit.

Instead we get GW's hamfisted balance attempts. Marines now get free wargear and pts cuts and again, mark my words, they will be top meta army to finish out 9th edition. We also then got Deathguard and Thousand sons....two under performing factions who were relying heavily on AoC to stay relevant, they got almost nothing to compensate for them losing that buff. And having played both DG and TS recently in tournaments and friendly games I can tell you, they did not need a nerf.

 Canadian 5th wrote:


When Netflix is looking to invest in digital board games the writing is pretty clearly on the wall.

Someone better tell all those companies publishing physical games to pack it in then cause Netflix is coming!

There is a big issue I think that gets glossed over, one thing with the balance debate with 40k isn’t just the ballance.

But how army’s feel to play, which I think is much more important to casual players.
A lot of the game can feel bloated and complex for little return wether it’s balanced or not, and that can be very important and I think GW drops that ball more than the balance itself right now.

They just kinda suck at both.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Someone better tell all those companies publishing physical games to pack it in then cause Netflix is coming!

Please quote where I said that I advocate for companies to stop producing physical board games. I've merely advocated that the clear trend is towards digital versions of physical board games and supposed that a digital version of 40k specifically would explode in popularity due to its faster pace and ease of play.

You're shoving words down my throat and providing terribly sourced numbers that show only niche games from relatively small companies to support your position. GW isn't Fryxgames, they're Hasbro so compare apples to apples.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
There is a big issue I think that gets glossed over, one thing with the balance debate with 40k isn’t just the ballance.

But how army’s feel to play, which I think is much more important to casual players.
A lot of the game can feel bloated and complex for little return wether it’s balanced or not, and that can be very important and I think GW drops that ball more than the balance itself right now.

They just kinda suck at both.

The upcoming patch for League of Legends is addressing this for the ADC role. The data shows that the role is balanced but player perception is that the role is weak and play rates are low. The response is to give buffs to areas that ADC players feel impact them highly while overall not increasing power by a large amount. One example of this approach is allowing an item that many ADCs want to use to be better earlier so people get to buy and use a fun item sooner. This is only a 4% actual buff to its effectiveness but it feels good and allows for people to buy 2 generically good items first which gives more time to see which of the more focused items to build 3rd.

GW could emulate this by adding power to basic troops, which pretty much every army should be running front and center, while nudging down other roles that would otherwise push troops out of their niche. Make the core strong and then add elites or fast attack as your game plan requires. This combined with things like free upgrades and aiming to give each army standard prices for units could lead to being able to sideboard in units pregame to further even out match-ups and make the core portion of your army the thing to build around.

Ohh that’s super cool to know Canadian 5th.

To look at board game stats, the Armello board game on steam sold in the million or two so there is lots of interest in digital board games.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Someone better tell all those companies publishing physical games to pack it in then cause Netflix is coming!.

Please quote where I said that I advocate for companies to stop producing physical board games. I've merely advocated that the clear trend is towards digital versions of physical board games and supposed that a digital version of 40k specifically would explode in popularity due to its faster pace and ease of play.

You're shoving words down my throat and providing terribly sourced numbers that show only niche games from relatively small companies to support your position. GW isn't Fryxgames, they're Hasbro so compare apples to apples.

The numbers are sourced from the best sources I could find while sitting the car while going around the shops. Though I find no reason do doubt them. If you want official numbers here:
As of April 2022 Wingspan had sold 1,410,539 copies according to Stonemeier's official reports.

https://wingsplain.com/ufaq/how-many-copies-has-wingspan-sold/#:~:text=In%20November%20of%202021%2C%20Elizabeth,Wingspan%20has%20sold%201%2C410%2C539%20units.

Kind of makes the 10k downloads on the Google Play store seem even worse now right. Like, dude, you're asking me why I didn't include Monopoly in a discussion about why people choose to play a tactile version of a niche hobby over a digital one.

People do not play 40k for the gameplay. They play it for the tactile experience of owning models and having something they can touch and build. Its like saying if Lego VR was a thing people would just stop playing with Lego.

 Sim-Life wrote:
The numbers are sourced from the best sources I could find while sitting the car while going around the shops. Though I find no reason do doubt them. If you want official numbers here:
As of April 2022 Wingspan had sold 1,410,539 copies according to Stonemeier's official reports.

https://wingsplain.com/ufaq/how-many-copies-has-wingspan-sold/#:~:text=In%20November%20of%202021%2C%20Elizabeth,Wingspan%20has%20sold%201%2C410%2C539%20units.

Kind of makes the 10k downloads on the Google Play store seem even worse now right.

That's a single platform that is likely to appeal to a more casual audience and a single game. That's an anecdote.

Why don't you look at the industry-wide data I posted and refute the pronounced growth curve and adoption by major players projecting revenue from digital board games?

People do not play 40k for the gameplay.

I'm going to have to ask for proof of this claim.

Its like saying if Lego VR was a thing people would just stop playing with Lego.

That's patently false because I never said people would stop playing the physical game, in fact, I never even suggested that the physical game market share would shrink. I am simply projecting that a version of 40k that is faster to play and more accessible would be, in my opinion, likely to eclipse the physical game. You have rebutted by misconstruing my position and providing facts that do not fit the argument.

Also, I can point to the entire [Mundane Task] Simulator genre to show that people have an appetite for digital versions of things that can be replicated IRL.

As for Lego: https://www.mecabricks.com/ that and those little games like Lego Star Wars that seek to offer a different take on the brand that focuses more on play than building.

In these cases, the digital version probably won't eclipse the physical one for the foreseeable future in one case because the simulator genre replicates real-life tasks many of which are needed for society to keep existing, and the other because Lego is a toy and not a game which makes me wonder why you'd compare it to 40k.

The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.

Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.

Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.

SemperMortis wrote:


Tournament games are better than casual ones if we are judging those games based on a balance analysis. "I brought out my Flashgitz army! but I lost spectacularly to the IG player" ok well in a vacuum that is meaningless, but when you start getting thousands if not tens of thousands of similar reports of beer and pretzel games where players bring crap lists that don't function or have synergy you are in essence getting corrupt data that will not help in the analysis on balancing units both internally or externally.

Why are beer and pretzel games less worthy of being balanced? Shouldn't these lists be equally plausible targets for balance and synergy? Especially if they're fluffy?

The better analysis from GW should be which units are being taken in faction lists and then giving buffs to the units that aren't seeing regular gameplay in order to bring them up to a more balanced level. Look at the Stompa for example, its not appeared in a single ork list that placed well in tournaments, GW should have then adjusted the points value of it or gave it a rules buff to encourage its use. Same for most units, conversely if you see a Custodes list that is taking Trajann 99 times out of 100...well you might need to look at toning him down a bit.

I'm on board with the concept here, but I'm still unclear on why the Beer and Pretzel Stompa isn't worthy of buffing until it goes to a tournament. I'd also like to know why Trajann needs to be toned down instead of additional options need to be added. How many Datasheets is Trajann fighting for space with? How many of them are a named Special Character which usually provide better-for-cheaper or unique-shenanigan-potential?

Instead we get GW's hamfisted balance attempts. Marines now get free wargear and pts cuts and again, mark my words, they will be top meta army to finish out 9th edition. We also then got Deathguard and Thousand sons....two under performing factions who were relying heavily on AoC to stay relevant, they got almost nothing to compensate for them losing that buff. And having played both DG and TS recently in tournaments and friendly games I can tell you, they did not need a nerf.

Which free wargear and points cuts specifically do you think are a problem? Centurion Assault Squads went down 10ppm. Did you see a lot of them before? Will you see a lot of them now? But they get Meltaguns and Hurricane Bolters for free. Devastators went up about 5PPM and a 10 model squad now likely costs more than it did before they got free heavies. The obvious units to cheer about getting free wargear actually didn't. Vanguard Vets (etc.) still pay for jump packs and Thunderhammers. A price dropped Gladiator Valiant averages 88% of the anti-tankish shots, for roughly 80% of the points after the Centurion Devastator Squad got its freebie upgrades AND points drop. So even though their price per model drop was impressive IF that drop makes them viable is still questionable. Should this test balloon have been expanded to the rest of the factions? Probably. And in some ways it was. Look at your Predator price now. Your sponsons are cheaper/free just like the loyalists. Your Havoc Missile too. Your Plague Marines are freebie Upgrades now. Your Foetid Bloat Drones. Strangely the base Chaos Havoc's and bikers still pay, as do the TS Terminators and Vindicators. I'm kind of hoping they come out with another one of these on the 19th with the rest of the things they forgot. It feels like this release was not the final draft. Or Not Supposed to be the final draft.