Is tournament play the biggest problem with 40k

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.

**ERJAK**

Eldarsif wrote:
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

40k is the only game where that's not always the case - the person across from you may just be using you as a test bed for the next GT. You're just a face and an arm moving things for them to kill. It's a very strange sensation, and reminds me a lot of card games, which of course have a huge tournament scene because cards are well-suited to that sort of thing.

Kind of sounds that your local gaming group is relatively unfriendly to players.

I just know that in my gaming groups - some who can be very competitive - people are always chatting and getting to know each other.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
40mm cylinder of nothingness smells like tournament to me

I'm with Daedalus on that one. It allows players to create cool objective markers within the tournament ruleset. Something I'd think casual players would like. I at least like it for narrative gaming.

That's 100% a fluff rule. Most tournament players just use the mousepad circles these days.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
So, you guys are saying that it's perfectly narrative to have a 40mm cylinder of nothingness in the center of the battlefield that you cannot fly over?

I have plenty of objective markers that are very narrative and can be flown over.

Just fail to see how this can be spun as narrative.

Pretty painted objective markers. That's really what it's for. Makes no difference to tournament play except in weird edge cases with units like knights.

**EightFoldPath**

Racerguy180 wrote:
So, you guys are saying that it's perfectly narrative to have a 40mm cylinder of nothingness in the center of the battlefield that you cannot fly over?

I have plenty of objective markers that are very narrative and can be flown over.

Just fail to see how this can be spun as narrative.

When you say centre of the battlefield are you not understanding that this will apply to all the objective markers (4~6 per map, often without one in the centre)?

When you say can't be flown over, are you talking about the FLY keyword and the various rules? Or are you talking about not being able to finish a move on the 40mm marker? Do you currently believe a Space Marine "can't be flown over" because you can't finish a move on their base as well?

Have you seen the 10th edition rules somewhere as currently we know only a very limited amount about this new rule based on the demo games at Warhammer Fest?

**Wayniac**

I am okay with *some* concessions in the name of a balanced game, even if they aren't "truly" narrative. What I don't want is something entirely the Warmachine route which, while I loved the solid rules, I felt that anything not tournament play felt awkward at best. The missions were all awful and bland, and basically completely "game" driven.

Besides, missions should be the easiest thing for them to standardize for general play, and although we haven't seen the full 10th edition format yet as far as I'm aware, it should be the easiest thing for any narrative gamer worth their salt to modify for the games.

**Daedalus81**

Racerguy180 wrote:
So, you guys are saying that it's perfectly narrative to have a 40mm cylinder of nothingness in the center of the battlefield that you cannot fly over?

I have plenty of objective markers that are very narrative and can be flown over.

Just fail to see how this can be spun as narrative.

Who said you can't fly over them? You can't stop on them, but you can't stop on your own models, either so I'm not sure what the rub would be there.

**TangoTwoBravo**

catbarf wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I am saying that the effort to balance for competitive play benefits all, even if there are some drawbacks which I have previously pointed out.

I'm a pretty big proponent of improving balance in casual play, but I will always challenge the three assumptions inherent to the idea that balancing for competitive play benefits everyone:

1. It assumes that the competitive and casual metas are aligned, because otherwise balance changes that improve competitive play may not actually result in better casual balance. I've seen this come up repeatedly with units that overperform when used with a particular subfaction or particular buff combo, and the resulting nerfs tone them down for competitive play but gut them in casual lists that aren't going for the wombo-combo. Similarly, there are units where taking one is just okay but three at once are overpowered, and a nerf that makes the trio okay for competitive play probably makes the singleton bad in quasi-highlander casual. Or, if you have one faction dominating tournaments and every other army has to adjust to counter them, that's going to produce odd results for counter-meta armies (see: hordes doing better when Knights were the meta in 8th) that may not have any applicability to more casual play.

2. It assumes that the fundamental structure of competitive play is the same as casual, and often that isn't the case. Competitive players build lists in a vacuum with no idea of what they'll be up against; casual players in small gaming groups quickly get a sense for what their buddies are likely to field. High-level competitive players often build lists and then buy and paint the models to suit them; casual players often assemble lists based on what they already have in their collections. I'm painting with a broad brush here and there's a lot of overlap, but the people at the extreme ends aren't playing the same game. Being able to list tailor or having only a limited collection to work with both have massive balance implications that tournament play does not account for.

3. It assumes that improving balance for competitive play doesn't come at the cost of anything casual players value. It is well known that points alone can only do so much for balance; it's design changes first and foremost that contribute to balance, and historically that often takes the form of reduced unit options, arbitrary but gameplay-driven restrictions, predictable mission design, player-chosen kill objectives, more deterministic mechanics, and so on. Points are one thing, but changing gameplay has the greatest risk of being contentious.

A game designed, redesigned, or optimized for competitive play isn't automatically going to be a great ruleset for casual play too. Warmachine is a good example of a game that (at least when I played it) made for a tight and well-balanced competitive ruleset, but the balance broke down if you chose armies based on fluff or collection rather than mechanical synergy, and the ruleset's suitability for narrative was poor. It gradually leaned harder and harder into competitive play as the only way to play, because that's all it was ever designed around.

I don't consider competitive play a 'problem'. I just think it needs to be recognized that competitive tournaments, casual pick-up games, and hobby club narrative campaigns are all different play environments with different design and balance implications. It's not a zero-sum game, but it's not perfect alignment either, and using tournament results alone to drive development would be a mistake.

Anyways, you asked for examples of un-fluffy competitive-oriented rules, so I'll throw in my two cents and nominate Hammer of the Emperor: A transparent band-aid fix for a competitively underperforming army that requires logical backflips to justify why Guardsmen do more damage to tanks than Marines. Frankly, it killed my interest in playing my Guard, because it felt like such a hack.

A good post!

There are going to be unintended effects to all balance actions. I recognize that not all balance fixes are going to be without cost to "non-competitive" players, but neither are they going to benefit all competitive players. The rules team are juggling factors and I think they are often faced with tough choices. I don't think that there are perfect solutions, and I still think they should attempt to balance the game off of tournament results.

While the recent nerf to Deathwing hurt me at my last tournament (and it could have been handled somewhat differently), I think the big, cheap Deathwing Terminators squads were becoming unfun for competitive play and pick-up games. Daemon Flamers, Tyrranids for early 2022 and Harlies all needed action for the good of both communities. Drukhari proved resilient to nerfs and they could absolutely be seen in pick-up games doing lots of damage due to their raw power.

One adjustment that did cause a lot of collateral damage was the Rule of Three. They needed to take action but they could have also been a little more judicious in the application.

Hammer of the Emperor certainly got folks stirred up, but I think it was getting upset over possibilities as opposed to what was actually happening on the tabletop. Still, I take your point that it could ruffle the fluff! They did finally nerf the new Karskin strat that was doing very well on the competitive scene. I also saw that at pick-up games as well, so it wasn't some obscure wombo-combo that only the elites could employ.

**catbarf**

Daedalus81 wrote:
The only thing is you have to make sacrifices. People might play the way they want, but there can't be a reasonable expectation that every single combination of units will be viable. It's literally impossible.

I think GW has kept an eye on the narrative and casual side of things with the mission set so far, but out of the changes GW has released, which are only competitive minded changes and why?

I've never, ever heard anyone say that they want to be able to throw down literally any random collection of units and upgrades that add up to 2000pts and expect a 50/50 shot of winning. That isn't a thing.

What I have heard people wish was that a unit they really liked had some value and wasn't a never-take unit. Or that they could make a fluffy, thematic list without it coming at the expense of gameplay effectiveness. Or that they could build an army based on mutually supporting roles and capabilities, rather than having to scrutinize each codex entry to determine whether the unit actually does what it says it does or whether it's a trap choice.

I don't think that those are unreasonable expectations given that many games I have played achieve them. Balance doesn't have to be '''perfect''', just good enough.

Anyways: An example of a rule solely arising from competitive play is Rule of 3. It wasn't a thing until Flyrant spam did well in tournaments, and it wasn't necessary for casual play. Plus, in the process it nixed a lot of builds that were otherwise fluffy and not breaking the game- nobody was crushing newbies by building their Astra Militarum list around Veterans, for example. Then while it was just a tournament suggestion in 8th, it became a core part of Matched Play in 9th, and appears to be the only listbuilding restriction in 10th.

So, a rule that was created to respond to tournament results, is most relevant to competitive gaming, and has some collateral damage to casual/narrative play has gradually become so integral to the game that it seems to be displacing the existing force organization system altogether. Seems a pretty cut-and-dry example of designing for the competitive crowd.

**H.B.M.C.**

catbarf wrote:
It wasn't a thing until Flyrant spam did well in tournaments...

Something we're still paying for...

catbarf wrote:
... and it wasn't necessary for casual play.

And it was a fantastic example of GW applying a general solution to fix a specific problem.

And it's why I'm sick of tournaments determining what changes for the entire game. My Tyranid Codex was obsolete before it even hit shelves in Australia because of the changes borne of tournament results before the delayed book reached my shores.

**catbarf**

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
A good post!

There are going to be unintended effects to all balance actions. I recognize that not all balance fixes are going to be without cost to "non-competitive" players, but neither are they going to benefit all competitive players. The rules team are juggling factors and I think they are often faced with tough choices. I don't think that there are perfect solutions, and I still think they should attempt to balance the game off of tournament results.

While the recent nerf to Deathwing hurt me at my last tournament (and it could have been handled somewhat differently), I think the big, cheap Deathwing Terminators squads were becoming unfun for competitive play and pick-up games. Daemon Flamers, Tyrranids for early 2022 and Harlies all needed action for the good of both communities. Drukhari proved resilient to nerfs and they could absolutely be seen in pick-up games doing lots of damage due to their raw power.

One adjustment that did cause a lot of collateral damage was the Rule of Three. They needed to take action but they could have also been a little more judicious in the application.

Hammer of the Emperor certainly got folks stirred up, but I think it was getting upset over possibilities as opposed to what was actually happening on the tabletop. Still, I take your point that it could ruffle the fluff! They did finally nerf the new Karskin strat that was doing very well on the competitive scene. I also saw that at pick-up games as well, so it wasn't some obscure wombo-combo that only the elites could employ.

Oops. Not only did you get that in while I was typing a response to Daed, but you even pre-empted my example of Rule of 3.

To be clear- I don't think making changes in response to tournament data is a bad thing at all. I remember how things used to be ('oh, your codex sucks? see you in three years, good luck until then') so it's fantastic to see GW being both proactive about balance adjustments and taking advantage of the massive amount of data that internet-enabled tournaments provide.

I just don't think it's the be-all and end-all, or that balancing around tournament data alone will provide an ideal play experience for everyone via trickle-down effects. Ideally, I'd like for GW to use tournament data for raw performance metrics, but also use another form of user research (representative interviews, demographic sampling, in-house testing, etc) to gather information on how more casual play is faring, and then rectify the two as best as they can. I'm aware that that's a tall order, especially with how complex 40K is nowadays, and don't expect them to get it perfect. I just don't want to see exclusively one type of player at the reins, be it competitive or casual or narrative, because those groups all have disparate interests.

**Hecaton**

catbarf wrote:
1. It assumes that the competitive and casual metas are aligned, because otherwise balance changes that improve competitive play may not actually result in better casual balance. I've seen this come up repeatedly with units that overperform when used with a particular subfaction or particular buff combo, and the resulting nerfs tone them down for competitive play but gut them in casual lists that aren't going for the wombo-combo. Similarly, there are units where taking one is just okay but three at once are overpowered, and a nerf that makes the trio okay for competitive play probably makes the singleton bad in quasi-highlander casual. Or, if you have one faction dominating tournaments and every other army has to adjust to counter them, that's going to produce odd results for counter-meta armies (see: hordes doing better when Knights were the meta in 8th) that may not have any applicability to more casual play.

If a unit is overpowered when used in a "wombo-combo," then that wombo-combo needs to be nerfed, in casual or competitive play. GW batting overpowered things down and then not fixing internal codex balance is definitely an issue that competitive players would love to see solved too. At least the majority of us; I've met some absolute nuts on the ork discord.

catbarf wrote:
2. It assumes that the fundamental structure of competitive play is the same as casual, and often that isn't the case. Competitive players build lists in a vacuum with no idea of what they'll be up against; casual players in small gaming groups quickly get a sense for what their buddies are likely to field. High-level competitive players often build lists and then buy and paint the models to suit them; casual players often assemble lists based on what they already have in their collections. I'm painting with a broad brush here and there's a lot of overlap, but the people at the extreme ends aren't playing the same game. Being able to list tailor or having only a limited collection to work with both have massive balance implications that tournament play does not account for.

I think it's generally poor form to list tailor, but how useful list tailoring is is a balance issue, for sure.

catbarf wrote:
3. It assumes that improving balance for competitive play doesn't come at the cost of anything casual players value. It is well known that points alone can only do so much for balance; it's design changes first and foremost that contribute to balance, and historically that often takes the form of reduced unit options, arbitrary but gameplay-driven restrictions, predictable mission design, player-chosen kill objectives, more deterministic mechanics, and so on. Points are one thing, but changing gameplay has the greatest risk of being contentious.

Points can do a *lot* more than GW has done. GW already has arbitrary restrictions (9e Plague Marine Datasheet) but those don't come from competitive players - but rather from the suits at the top, so don't blame us for that gak. You don't need to implement the gakky parts of competitive play in the way GW does it - the secondary system is an abomination, I'll be honest.

It's possible to create a tournament system that is less deterministic, where success comes, in part, from reacting to changing conditions rather than implementing a deterministic game plan.

catbarf wrote:
A game designed, redesigned, or optimized for competitive play isn't automatically going to be a great ruleset for casual play too.

If the balance is trash it's going to be bad for both, though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
So, you guys are saying that it's perfectly narrative to have a 40mm cylinder of nothingness in the center of the battlefield that you cannot fly over?

I have plenty of objective markers that are very narrative and can be flown over.

Just fail to see how this can be spun as narrative.

It's one of those gameplay concessions that just makes sense.

If you have modeled objectives, you can't park a unit on top of them.

**Canadian 5th**

catbarf wrote:
What I have heard people wish was that a unit they really liked had some value and wasn't a never-take unit.

This is a balance issue. Every unit should have a clearly defined role and be efficient at that role. That doesn't mean they're going to be good into the meta, if tanks are a big threat then anti-infantry troops won't be a good pick no matter how you buff them, but when a 'bad unit' meets its preferred target it should feel effective.

Or that they could make a fluffy, thematic list without it coming at the expense of gameplay effectiveness.

This is essentially asking for every unit to be equally effective and for their random fluffy 2000 points to go toe-to-toe with any other 2000-point list. You can't account for poor on-table synergy on account of somebody building a fluff first list.

Or that they could build an army based on mutually supporting roles and capabilities, rather than having to scrutinize each codex entry to determine whether the unit actually does what it says it does or whether it's a trap choice.

That's what building a good list is. You find synergies and build around them. It would be nicer if these synergies weren't as far above non-synergistic picks and fit an army's fluff but the idea of building a list where each unit supports the next and all works towards a gameplan is 100% supported as things stand.

**kodos**

Canadian 5th wrote:
Or that they could make a fluffy, thematic list without it coming at the expense of gameplay effectiveness.

This is essentially asking for every unit to be equally effective and for their random fluffy 2000 points to go toe-to-toe with any other 2000-point list. You can't account for poor on-table synergy on account of somebody building a fluff first list.

no it is not, asking for random lists to be equal strong

a "fluff" list means that if the books says, the typical Crimson Fists Strike force consists of 3 times unit A and 2 times unit B, while unit C is not available, it is about making that list actually playable and not that unit A needs the support of units C to be worth it

either change the fluff or change the rules, but writing fluff that results in traps for new players to waste money on units that are the "core" but will never see the table because of bad synergy should not be accepted

Hecaton wrote:
If a unit is overpowered when used in a "wombo-combo," then that wombo-combo needs to be nerfed, in casual or competitive play. GW batting overpowered things down and then not fixing internal codex balance is definitely an issue that competitive players would love to see solved too. At least the majority of us; I've met some absolute nuts on the ork discord.

problem here is that GW rather changes the core rules to adjust that wombo-combo than put out a specific nerf for a tournament

**Canadian 5th**

kodos wrote:
a "fluff" list means that if the books says, the typical Crimson Fists Strike force consists of 3 times unit A and 2 times unit B, while unit C is not available, it is about making that list actually playable and not that unit A needs the support of units C to be worth it

That is essentially aksing for any random force to be good into any other random force or scenario.

Step away from the game world and consider real-life units that fought and won real-life battles. Most of those forces wouldn't do well outside of the actual role they played in that battle. A light foot company wouldn't do well assaulting a fortified position and a tank company would do a poor job taking and holding a hill. It doesn't mean they're bad forces, just specialized and not suited to the sorts of battles that happen when any force can be assumed to blunder into any other force at random.

**Not Online!!!**

Canadian 5th wrote:
kodos wrote:
a "fluff" list means that if the books says, the typical Crimson Fists Strike force consists of 3 times unit A and 2 times unit B, while unit C is not available, it is about making that list actually playable and not that unit A needs the support of units C to be worth it

That is essentially aksing for any random force to be good into any other random force or scenario.

Step away from the game world and consider real-life units that fought and won real-life battles. Most of those forces wouldn't do well outside of the actual role they played in that battle. A light foot company wouldn't do well assaulting a fortified position and a tank company would do a poor job taking and holding a hill. It doesn't mean they're bad forces, just specialized and not suited to the sorts of battles that happen when any force can be assumed to blunder into any other force at random.

See i agree with this.
But, for one 40k has become ever less simulationist meaning that we can't really apply above. Also we constantly have perfect intel on an enemy force leading to deployment tailoring and even to a degree list tailoring.
Unit types have also been condensed down to a point were many unit types and their counters became obsolete.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

What we’re seeing here is getting toward why GW making their own notes on what’s shaking out at tournaments is good for the wider game.

As ever, not referring to any poster here.

But player reports made online, more or less anonymously aren’t something to be blindly trusted.

For every such report that is genuine and relatively unbiased, we’ll see one where it’s “bad workmen blaming tools”, or just incredibly one sided where, apparently, they put not a foot wrong so therefore their opponents must’ve had a super powerful list in every game. And I’m sure we’ve all seen Outright Liars who didn’t even attend the event make wild claims, because apparently hating something you’re meant to be doing for enjoyment has become the sum total of their personality.

But GW sitting up and taking notice, at least seeking to understand? That is categorically a Good Thing for the game.

**Canadian 5th**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:
kodos wrote:
a "fluff" list means that if the books says, the typical Crimson Fists Strike force consists of 3 times unit A and 2 times unit B, while unit C is not available, it is about making that list actually playable and not that unit A needs the support of units C to be worth it

That is essentially aksing for any random force to be good into any other random force or scenario.

Step away from the game world and consider real-life units that fought and won real-life battles. Most of those forces wouldn't do well outside of the actual role they played in that battle. A light foot company wouldn't do well assaulting a fortified position and a tank company would do a poor job taking and holding a hill. It doesn't mean they're bad forces, just specialized and not suited to the sorts of battles that happen when any force can be assumed to blunder into any other force at random.

See i agree with this.
But, for one 40k has become ever less simulationist meaning that we can't really apply above. Also we constantly have perfect intel on an enemy force leading to deployment tailoring and even to a degree list tailoring.
Unit types have also been condensed down to a point were many unit types and their counters became obsolete.

Some fixes to mitigate this might include:

The entire unit has to shoot at the same target unless they have a leader attached and then they can split fire into an additional target. This forces units to specialize and means that mixed weapon units have a cost in target efficiency or require a leader.

Push units more distinctly into roles like units designated as screens - think guardsmen and gants - might get better overwatch and/or a fight-on-death effect, bricks - think terminators - get extreme toughness but make only a few high strength attacks per round, lines - think tactical marines - get bonuses when near objectives... This at least gives units a role and gives a suggestion for what to buff or nerf on units of that type.

You could give units slightly inefficient ways to deal with otherwise hard counters, like krak grenades to tac marines but personally I feel this homogenizes the game even further.

**kodos**

Canadian 5th wrote:
A light foot company wouldn't do well assaulting a fortified position and a tank company would do a poor job taking and holding a hill. It doesn't mean they're bad forces, just specialized and not suited to the sorts of battles that happen when any force can be assumed to blunder into any other force at random.

and it is good for the game that those special scenarios simply don't exist and you only fight battles on open ground with equal strength forces

so "fluff" lists should be the strongest armies, as the standard company with a little bit of everything is the best suited for that task
but somehow the specialist forces are better in doing the job

**H.B.M.C.**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But GW sitting up and taking notice, at least seeking to understand? That is categorically a Good Thing for the game.

I've yet to see proof that they understand the results they're getting.

As others have pointed out in the past, if they look at the tournament results and see that magical 45%-55% WR for a race, they assume everything is fine, even if that win rate is only coming from one stupid combo or bland method of playing the race.

Plus I contest that it's "categorically a Good Thing for the game" as the end result is that GW are putting too much emphasis (and taking too many cues) from what is ultimately a tiny fraction of the player base. Quite a few of us are sick of having our factions up-ended because some goomba at a tournament found out that by spamming X it got him a good win rate.

**Wayniac**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But GW sitting up and taking notice, at least seeking to understand? That is categorically a Good Thing for the game.
I've yet to see proof that they understand the results they're getting.

As others have pointed out in the past, if they look at the tournament results and see that magical 45%-55% WR for a race, they assume everything is fine, even if that win rate is only coming from one stupid combo or bland method of playing the race.

And even then, at the end of the day, GW are putting too much emphasis (and taking too many cues) from what is ultimately a tiny fraction of the player base. Quite a few of us are sick of having our factions up-ended because some goomba at a tournament found out that by spamming X it got him a good win rate.

They DON'T, that's just it. It seems to just be kneejerk reactions "This unit was spammed by every X army across 3 tournaments, let's nerf it" and having no understanding of WHY it was spammed. Or the old "This faction has a lower win rate than we would like" so rather than look to see what can be fixed, they just drop points on a bunch of units and call it a day. That's where a big part of this anti-tournament stuff comes from in 9th. Every single balance dataslate has been a kneejerk response to the previous GT circuit in some vain attempt to appease the tournament players by going "See? We're balancing!" when A) they don't get why they're balancing and B ) The tournament players don't care and if Unit X is increased in points it will probably become "useless" and they'll spam Unit Y instead, so they don't learn either.

**Not Online!!!**

Canadian 5th wrote:

Some fixes to mitigate this might include:

The entire unit has to shoot at the same target unless they have a leader attached and then they can split fire into an additional target. This forces units to specialize and means that mixed weapon units have a cost in target efficiency or require a leader.

Push units more distinctly into roles like units designated as screens - think guardsmen and gants - might get better overwatch and/or a fight-on-death effect, bricks - think terminators - get extreme toughness but make only a few high strength attacks per round, lines - think tactical marines - get bonuses when near objectives... This at least gives units a role and gives a suggestion for what to buff or nerf on units of that type.

You could give units slightly inefficient ways to deal with otherwise hard counters, like krak grenades to tac marines but personally I feel this homogenizes the game even further.

or we finally differ profiles out again into things that require anti armor? we could call it an armor save? And then we could also make a lot of vehicles more vulnerable from the back and sides to facilitate flanking units and screening units naturally?

We could implement something like effects that lower effectiveness of shooting? Pinning?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But GW sitting up and taking notice, at least seeking to understand? That is categorically a Good Thing for the game.
I've yet to see proof that they understand the results they're getting.

As others have pointed out in the past, if they look at the tournament results and see that magical 45%-55% WR for a race, they assume everything is fine, even if that win rate is only coming from one stupid combo or bland method of playing the race.

Plus I contest that it's "categorically a Good Thing for the game" as the end result is that GW are putting too much emphasis (and taking too many cues) from what is ultimately a tiny fraction of the player base. Quite a few of us are sick of having our factions up-ended because some goomba at a tournament found out that by spamming X it got him a good win rate.

Better than them not trying at all. Plus tournaments are a source of verifiable results.

**Slipspace**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But GW sitting up and taking notice, at least seeking to understand? That is categorically a Good Thing for the game.
I've yet to see proof that they understand the results they're getting.

As others have pointed out in the past, if they look at the tournament results and see that magical 45%-55% WR for a race, they assume everything is fine, even if that win rate is only coming from one stupid combo or bland method of playing the race.

Plus I contest that it's "categorically a Good Thing for the game" as the end result is that GW are putting too much emphasis (and taking too many cues) from what is ultimately a tiny fraction of the player base. Quite a few of us are sick of having our factions up-ended because some goomba at a tournament found out that by spamming X it got him a good win rate.

Better than them not trying at all. Plus tournaments are a source of verifiable results.

I think there's a balance to be struck. It's good that GW are trying something, and generally speaking balance has been improving at a faster rate than in previous editions.

There are still problems with how they interpret data and execute their changes. For example, CSM were "balanced" before their first nerfs hit a couple of dataslates ago. But that's actually a misleading statement because of how the data is collected. Every Legion from CoB and EC to Night Lords and Iron Warriors were represented in the bang-average 50% win-rate of CSM, but the reality was EC, CoB and Black Legion were miles ahead of other Legions. Those three, especially the first two, had problematically high win rates. So GW nerfed them, while also introducing nerfs that hit all CSM armies, including ones with a <40% win rate. The result has been the near-total collapse of CSM winrates at tournaments. If we weren't about to get a new edition GW would have to swing the pendulum the other way next time.

The problem is GW don't understand what makes something broken, so they can't properly fix it. There are other issues, such as the proliferation of sub-factions and how massively they change how an army plays. I hope that by simplifying the army selection/sub-faction rules they can make their lives easier. They should probably also look at consolidating some of the many, many overlapping units in the game but there are non-game reasons why they won't do that.

**Dai**

Bosskelot wrote:
The casual at all cost crowd is what pushed me more into the competitive scene of 40k.

Unbearably toxic, entitled, gatekeepy, authoritarian oh and they complain about balance and unfairness more than anyone else.

Whar an unbelievably toxic post whilst complaining about others toxicity. Unbelievable.

**Daedalus81**

catbarf wrote:
Anyways: An example of a rule solely arising from competitive play is Rule of 3. It wasn't a thing until Flyrant spam did well in tournaments, and it wasn't necessary for casual play. Plus, in the process it nixed a lot of builds that were otherwise fluffy and not breaking the game- nobody was crushing newbies by building their Astra Militarum list around Veterans, for example. Then while it was just a tournament suggestion in 8th, it became a core part of Matched Play in 9th, and appears to be the only listbuilding restriction in 10th.

So, a rule that was created to respond to tournament results, is most relevant to competitive gaming, and has some collateral damage to casual/narrative play has gradually become so integral to the game that it seems to be displacing the existing force organization system altogether. Seems a pretty cut-and-dry example of designing for the competitive crowd.

Ah, geez. I don't know about that one. Tournaments revealed that problem, but it wasn't a tournament only problem. Someone like Unit would be more than happy to spam tanks in 8th and become totally oppressive as a result, but...it's fluffy.

You can find lots of fluffy lists that are kittens. And lots that are absolute ballbusters. Ro3 reduces unintended consequences regardless. Veteran spam could be totally nuts in 10th - should we find out by allowing it, encouraging people to buy tons of models, and then saying 'whoops'?

Which circles back to my first point:

you have to make sacrifices

**H.B.M.C.**

Slipspace wrote:
The problem is GW don't understand what makes something broken, so they can't properly fix it.

Moreover, and I've been bringing this up since the previews for 10th started, they don't know how to fix things, just replace them with new rules/patch over them with new concepts/paradigms. They aren't doing things in an iterative fashion, but rather just throwing the thing that doesn't work out and trying something new in the hope that it'll work this time around.

That's not always the worst approach (see 9th Ed "morale" vs 10th Ed Battleshock), but it does mean that their ability to act on imbalances (perceived or real) is limited by the way they "fix" things without really dealing with the core issues.

**Daedalus81**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
As others have pointed out in the past, if they look at the tournament results and see that magical 45%-55% WR for a race, they assume everything is fine, even if that win rate is only coming from one stupid combo or bland method of playing the race.

That's exactly the opposite of what they have recently stated in a meta update. 45 to 55% is the general goal, but they realize there's still issues with some internal balance of some books.

Stu: 'So what the win rate tells you is that there is "a way" of that faction performing at a certain level. But really what you want is a variety of ways....there shouldn't be "one way" to play'

**H.B.M.C.**

And when will we see the results of said realisation?

'Cause it sure as hell ain't with 10th Edition. They write rules like two blindfolded men trying to help one another down a corridor.

**catbarf**

Daedalus81 wrote:
catbarf wrote:
Anyways: An example of a rule solely arising from competitive play is Rule of 3. It wasn't a thing until Flyrant spam did well in tournaments, and it wasn't necessary for casual play. Plus, in the process it nixed a lot of builds that were otherwise fluffy and not breaking the game- nobody was crushing newbies by building their Astra Militarum list around Veterans, for example. Then while it was just a tournament suggestion in 8th, it became a core part of Matched Play in 9th, and appears to be the only listbuilding restriction in 10th.

So, a rule that was created to respond to tournament results, is most relevant to competitive gaming, and has some collateral damage to casual/narrative play has gradually become so integral to the game that it seems to be displacing the existing force organization system altogether. Seems a pretty cut-and-dry example of designing for the competitive crowd.

Ah, geez. I don't know about that one. Tournaments revealed that problem, but it wasn't a tournament only problem. Someone like Unit would be more than happy to spam tanks in 8th and become totally oppressive as a result, but...it's fluffy.

You can find lots of fluffy lists that are kittens. And lots that are absolute ballbusters. Ro3 reduces unintended consequences regardless. Veteran spam could be totally nuts in 10th - should we find out by allowing it, encouraging people to buy tons of models, and then saying 'whoops'?

Which circles back to my first point:

you have to make sacrifices

Bit of an odd example since even with Ro3 you can still take something like twenty-seven Leman Russes just by taking three per slot and taking advantage of different variants. Which goes to show that it was a scattershot fix that affects different units/factions differently, and GW didn't really make any consideration for what impact it would have outside of curbing the immediate problems they were seeing in tournaments. I'd have preferred to see see specific limits on problem units or, better yet, just adjust points so that you don't actually want to spam 4+ of the same unit.

I agree that sometimes sacrifices have to be made. But when the fix is improving competitive play at the cost of telling players with fluffy, not-at-all-overpowered armies that they can't play anymore- rather than a more targeted approach to avoid collateral damage- clearly some groups are making sacrifices so that others can benefit.

**H.B.M.C.**

I tried making that argument when the Flyer restrictions came in because certain flyers (namely Orks and AdMech) were causing a problem, yet it curbstomped those of us with Valkyrie squadrons for no good reason.

The galling part? GW did put in specific limits on Ork Buggies because they were causing issues, rather than a blanket change to all armies. It proves they can do these things, but they don't see the bigger picture when they make these non-iterative pendulum swings.

**Daedalus81**

catbarf wrote:
Bit of an odd example since even with Ro3 you can still take something like twenty-seven Leman Russes just by taking three per slot and taking advantage of different variants. Which goes to show that it was a scattershot fix that affects different units/factions differently, and GW didn't really make any consideration for what impact it would have outside of curbing the immediate problems they were seeing in tournaments. I'd have preferred to see see specific limits on problem units or, better yet, just adjust points so that you don't actually want to spam 4+ of the same unit.

I agree that sometimes sacrifices have to be made. But when the fix is improving competitive play at the cost of telling players with fluffy, not-at-all-overpowered armies that they can't play anymore- rather than a more targeted approach to avoid collateral damage- clearly some groups are making sacrifices so that others can benefit.

Right and that's your edge case. The reason LRBTs aren't as much of a problem is they died pretty quickly and didn't do much in return other than creating a terrible experience for whomever they skewed into. Smaller and cheaper units get out of hand way faster than a tank that hovered around 200 points for a long time.

Even with directed limitations you would still see "not-at-all-overpowered armies" get restrictions.

10th is going Ro3 out the gate, because there's no force org. You need something to keep it from being nutty. Adding a force org complicates other angles. I'm more the content to see them make units that are universally useful to an army and Ro3 along with no force org forces them to consider how units interact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
I tried making that argument when the Flyer restrictions came in because certain flyers (namely Orks and AdMech) were causing a problem, yet it curbstomped those of us with Valkyrie squadrons for no good reason.

The galling part? GW did put in specific limits on Ork Buggies because they were causing issues, rather than a blanket change to all armies. It proves they can do these things, but they don't see the bigger picture when they make these non-iterative pendulum swings.

And that was a tournament only set of restrictions, which takes us back to the 'pick-up game problem' and not necessarily the 'tournament rules ruin 40K' problem.

With a little more consideration on their part these sorts of mechanical issues will hopefully go away.

**EviscerationPlague**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But GW sitting up and taking notice, at least seeking to understand? That is categorically a Good Thing for the game.
I've yet to see proof that they understand the results they're getting.

As others have pointed out in the past, if they look at the tournament results and see that magical 45%-55% WR for a race, they assume everything is fine, even if that win rate is only coming from one stupid combo or bland method of playing the race.

Plus I contest that it's "categorically a Good Thing for the game" as the end result is that GW are putting too much emphasis (and taking too many cues) from what is ultimately a tiny fraction of the player base. Quite a few of us are sick of having our factions up-ended because some goomba at a tournament found out that by spamming X it got him a good win rate.

If X is broken, it needs to be fixed, competitive or casual.