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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.

This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.

They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).

To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.

And if that proves to be true, fine, but I'd rather fix the units that need fixing rather than a blanket approach that only feths over the lesser units.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.

And if that proves to be true, fine, but I'd rather fix the units that need fixing rather than a blanket approach that only feths over the lesser units.

I'd rather have a blanket approach that over-nerfs the 5% of the codex that isn't overpowered than several cycles of GW nerfing the top-performing units only to have the next thing in line immediately replace it without any drop in win rate. Targeted nerfs are appropriate when it's isolated units causing problems, it's an inadequate approach when the entire codex appears to have been designed by someone who had no clue what the power level of the rest of the game was and any units that aren't overpowered are purely an accident. If a couple of units are underpowered post-nerf they can be fixed in the next update.

I provide a mostly sarcastic solution and this is what you get. A conversation of sorts, but does it really advance anything? Nobody is really talking because GW needs to get in there and solve the issues with the problematic codices, weak and strong, in at least a somewhat targeted way.

Aeldari certainly need to have all their good units nerfed, but the question becomes what isn't good? I hope GW has a clue on that front.

You came into a thread to tell everyone there's nothing to talk about, people kept talking, and now you're complaining that we're talking.

Leave the thread if you have nothing to discuss or don't wish to discuss the things people are talking about. Not that hard.

 alextroy wrote:
I hope GW has a clue on that front.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, the discussion should ramp up, not down, the longer the state of affairs lasts. People should be discussing other ways to play the game, or developing a community ruleset, or even just discussing letting 10th be in the rear view mirror.

But I think there is a general "don't be negative" attitude on a lot of platforms, and some of the others have awkward censorship applied...

....and then there is the nerd tendency to "double down". I have a hunch that when the game is actually bad, certain personalities become extremely *positive*, and when the game is going well, they're more able to be balanced/negative.

Then again when you aren't silly enough to pretend playing competitively like emperor pretended to have amazing clothes while being stark naked game is fun.

tneva82 wrote:
Then again when you aren't silly enough to pretend playing competitively like emperor pretended to have amazing clothes while being stark naked game is fun.

Honest question: do you ever post anything other than "I hate competitive play and you're all idiots if you like it" and "GW is greedy and will always greed"?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
I'd rather have a blanket approach that over-nerfs the 5% of the codex that isn't overpowered than several cycles of GW nerfing the top-performing units only to have the next thing in line immediately replace it without any drop in win rate. Targeted nerfs are appropriate when it's isolated units causing problems, it's an inadequate approach when the entire codex appears to have been designed by someone who had no clue what the power level of the rest of the game was and any units that aren't overpowered are purely an accident. If a couple of units are underpowered post-nerf they can be fixed in the next update.

The problem with a blanket approach is that it indicates GW have not thought about the problem for more than 5 minutes.

But in practice I tend to agree. You aren't going to bring a 70%~ win rate faction down to 45-50% with a few minor knocks. (And saying "but you can't nerf storm guardians" doesn't change that something very much needs to be done.)

There probably needs to be a combination of pruning. A reroll to hit and wound for each unit is too powerful as a detachment ability and should be changed. This would nerf the good units and the bad, but would give a more reasonable basis to then look at targeted nerfs. As you say, we have seen Eldar lists without Wraithknights, the Yncarne, Fire Prisms and Night Spinners do well - so targeted nerfs to those units would not automatically stop the Eldar dominance. Especially if (as would presumably be the case) these nerfs would be happening at the same time as targeted hits to GSC and other top performers.

The other option is that the Tyranid and Marine codexes instantly elevate these factions so they have a 60% win rate into today's Eldar, and 90%+ into the "have nots" - causing the meta to move on and the Eldar win% to fall. But I'm not sure that's any better for the game.

One reason we're not seeing as much hate towards Eldar as we did towards other broken armies in 8th and 9th may be down to how early we are in the cycle of the edition. I think the early parts of any edition tend to be pretty tumultuous as far as the meta goes, with broken combos being discovered and subsequently nerfed relatively quickly.

I think in this case GW have been far too slow. I'd actually much rather they try some fairly radical approaches now to see what works before moving to more moderate and considered changes as the edition evolves. It would have been much more preferable for them to have done that before the new edition came out, of course, but we're past that point now. I wouldn't mind GW coming out and saying there are going to be some fairly big nerfs to the top armies and buffs to the bottom armies, with the understanding they'll then likely pare those back in September. It feels like waiting until September is pointless. Eldar are broken. Everyone knows it. There are multiple possible fixes that could easily be implemented. Instead we'll get a bunch of half-hearted changes that will probably shuffle things a little bit but I don't think they'll bring the game closer to balance. This edition seems sop poorly thought out from the start that I think once Eldar get nerfed there will likely be another army with similar win rates at the top.

Well, remember they can't really afford playtesters...

Still I wonder if ChatAI would do a better job if asked

I assume we are all bottling up our rage ready for September after the first major points adjustment.

GW get a "new edition" pass but they won't get a "1,000s of games worth of data and you still can't balance it" pass.

Oh yes, I forgot that I am also saving my rage for the first codex if it breaks the "rules" they claimed to be following to avoid power creep.

I genuinely hope people are not expecting all factions will become balanced in September.

GW has not created balanced 40K armies....ever. There have always been some outliers.

Aeldari and likely GSC will get nerfed and I anticipate Thousand Sons, Custodes, or Necrons will likely become the next army people complain about.

I agree with the sentiment the armies should be balanced but GWs track record tells me otherwise.

ccs wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
But what is there to discuss? Aeldari are warping the Meta. They are too good at all the things you need to do to win missions. They need a good strong beating with the nerfbat while the below 45% factions all need a good boost.

Aeldari: Nerf the Detachment ability to 1 re-reoll to Hit or Wound per unit. 20% across the board points increase. Think that will be enough?

What do you have against my poor Rangers??

better nerf guardians/troupes/wave serpent/shadowseer/fire dragons/reapers, clearly those are broken

EightFoldPath wrote:
I assume we are all bottling up our rage ready for September after the first major points adjustment.

GW get a "new edition" pass but they won't get a "1,000s of games worth of data and you still can't balance it" pass.

Oh yes, I forgot that I am also saving my rage for the first codex if it breaks the "rules" they claimed to be following to avoid power creep.

so just waiting for GW to break all marketing promises made instead of start raging with the first one

I am waiting for the first re-print of datacards with rules changes, would be really funny if Marines and Tyranids get a new set of cards with their Codices making the old one obsolete

EightFoldPath wrote:
Oh yes, I forgot that I am also saving my rage for the first codex if it breaks the "rules" they claimed to be following to avoid power creep.

What rule are you writing about?

 vict0988 wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Oh yes, I forgot that I am also saving my rage for the first codex if it breaks the "rules" they claimed to be following to avoid power creep.

What rule are you writing about?

GW said they were not going to add bloat. Part of the “everything on one page” deal. So when they add stuff, it will not be extra layers of added rules, but more options to take. But you give up other options, so your power level remains mostly the same.

As GW has a poor record with power creep, I’m also looking forward to the first 10th codex to see how they are going to deliver.

Basically the current rule layer design is an army wide rule, a detachment wide rule, ~6 stratagems, 4-5 enhancements and all has to fit in 5 pages.

Codexes will add new detachments to increase the options of detachment rules, stratagems and enhancements but you aren't supposed to be able to mix and match those (well you kinda can in crusade but whatever).

 Nevelon wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Oh yes, I forgot that I am also saving my rage for the first codex if it breaks the "rules" they claimed to be following to avoid power creep.

What rule are you writing about?

GW said they were not going to add bloat. Part of the “everything on one page” deal. So when they add stuff, it will not be extra layers of added rules, but more options to take. But you give up other options, so your power level remains mostly the same.

As GW has a poor record with power creep, I’m also looking forward to the first 10th codex to see how they are going to deliver.

I'd expect a codex to be a bit better than an index purely through range of options in list building. Likewise the early 9th books, crons in particular, were pretty well restrained and looked OK at the time.

Need enough books to see a trend.

what were the promises made:

- faction rules will fit on 2 pages
- no rules changes, only points changes
- better balance
- quicker and easier to play
- easier to get into
- Universal Special Rules replace the factions rules which are the same but with a different name

missed anything?

 kodos wrote:
what were the promises made:
- no rules changes, only points changes

When did they promise that?

I mean, they also promised to keep the balance dataslates so there are going to be rule changes.

I don't recall GW claiming no rule changes.

GW already changed rules, at least faction wise.
- Aeldari army rule
- Wraithguard had Pistol removed

There may be others but those immediately stand out.

 kodos wrote:
was browsing thru reddit ~2 weeks ago and there was a topic about videos who criticize 10th and if people get bored by the "constant" negativity

there Goobertown was mentioned as being "toxic" who just hates 40k and I am not sure what to make of this
like people don't even watch those videos but just see a titel that might be negative about their favourite and therefore it must be a hater

and a lot of others have NDAs with GW were getting content out early is important to keep views, no one of those can make non-GW videos nor talk negative

The reddit ork discord was banning negative discussion of 10th edition. Really toxic behavior (a gakky discord anyway). I wonder how much the GW social media team has their fingers in this kind of stuff, tbh. I wouldn't be surprised if GW is modding or paying for content on the bigger reddits (not the ork one, it's not big enough).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'd say GW trained people enough to react with a: "What did you expect, this is the Index phase, it's always a mess! Remember Big bird, malefic lords and razorwing flock? We'll just have to wait and see for Codizes!"

Yeah, people treat GW like they can be forgiven for anything while treating the playerbase like it's their fault the balance is bad. It's really screwed up.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.

This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.

They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).

To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.

I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.

ERJAK wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.

This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.

They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).

To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.

I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.

Which ironically wouldn't impact them, might want to update your dig there.

Hecaton wrote:

 kodos wrote:
was browsing thru reddit ~2 weeks ago and there was a topic about videos who criticize 10th and if people get bored by the "constant" negativity

there Goobertown was mentioned as being "toxic" who just hates 40k and I am not sure what to make of this
like people don't even watch those videos but just see a titel that might be negative about their favourite and therefore it must be a hater

and a lot of others have NDAs with GW were getting content out early is important to keep views, no one of those can make non-GW videos nor talk negative

The reddit ork discord was banning negative discussion of 10th edition. Really toxic behavior (a gakky discord anyway). I wonder how much the GW social media team has their fingers in this kind of stuff, tbh. I wouldn't be surprised if GW is modding or paying for content on the bigger reddits (not the ork one, it's not big enough).

I very very much doubt GW pays anyone for this.

What you do get though are community managers and communities that accept there are faults (heck many of us have seen them for the best part of 20-30 years) and want to move beyond endless griping about the faults. Considering that many of them are often repeats of faults/issues that have been around for decades with GW; at some point people want to move past them.

The internet can be great, but you can get insane echo-chamber results with negative results. Heck search engines even highlight them all the more which has led to a good many content creators who peddle in negativity. Every video will have a negative slant/lean/focus.

Reddit also suffers from its structural design in being one big long single channel of threads so a negative thread can easily dominate discussion and drown out a lot of other chatter. So yeah I can see why mods on some groups will want to police the negativity.



and even if you don't want to go that far, there's also just ensuring that it remains constructive criticism. Some people go nuts and before you know it the language and insults are flying everywhere. It stops being critique of mechanics and starts being character assassination and hate for creators; other members (who perhaps don't agree with the impression). This can spiral out of control into not just creating toxic talk for an evening but actually creating a toxic community. One where complaints, grumbling and insults become so normalised that it becomes the normal way of communication and topic focus. Again this can drown out a lot of other stuff and pushes other people away from the community.


Being critical of things is important ,but there are also times when its just overdone; or is leading no where productive or even worse is driving other elements of the community and discussion away.

Dudeface wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.

This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.

They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).

To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.

I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.

Which ironically wouldn't impact them, might want to update your dig there.

Australia uses dollars, therefore it's part of North America. Might wanna do some research before you get snippy, next time.

That’s… not how it works.

North America is a northern hemisphere continent, including countries like America, Canada, and Mexico.
Australia is in the southern hemisphere.

 JNAProductions wrote:
That’s… not how it works.

...

You do understand that was a joke, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
The internet can be great, but you can get insane echo-chamber results with negative results.

And when you use the moderation approach you're talking about you get insane echo chamber positivity that is just as toxic.

I do agree that it's not GW doing this. Why would they need to when GW has plenty of eager fans who will rage over any attack on their beloved hobby and insist that their desire to be happy about everything GW does is the only thing that matters?

 Rihgu wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.

This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.

They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).

To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.

I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.

Which ironically wouldn't impact them, might want to update your dig there.

Australia uses dollars, therefore it's part of North America. Might wanna do some research before you get snippy, next time.

Who knew that ones currency determined continents....

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
That’s… not how it works.

...

You do understand that was a joke, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
The internet can be great, but you can get insane echo-chamber results with negative results.

And when you use the moderation approach you're talking about you get insane echo chamber positivity that is just as toxic.

I do agree that it's not GW doing this. Why would they need to when GW has plenty of eager fans who will rage over any attack on their beloved hobby and insist that their desire to be happy about everything GW does is the only thing that matters?

Positivity is only seen as toxic by those who generally think that only constant overt negativity will force GW to improve balance. Which is interesting because its not worked for 30 years
In general what's forced GW's hand more htan anything is sales data.

But that aside you can be very positive and still critical of something. It's just about finding a balance so that its not hyper negative and aggressive. For many a hobby is a FUN passtime so having communities that are heavily focused on the negative takes away from that.

In theory moderation aims for a happy result that balances constructive critique and positive influences and shuts down hyper negativity etc....