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.

 Overread wrote:
Positivity is only seen as toxic by those who generally think that only constant overt negativity will force GW to improve balance.

Positivity =/= toxic positivity. You can enjoy a thing without raging at everyone who says anything even mildly critical of it, banning all negative comments, etc.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Positivity is only seen as toxic by those who generally think that only constant overt negativity will force GW to improve balance.

Positivity =/= toxic positivity. You can enjoy a thing without raging at everyone who says anything even mildly critical of it, banning all negative comments, etc.

I don't see that as toxic positivity; I see that as moderation to discourage negativity that has set in in a big way within a community and gained a dominance; resulting in a backlash against it from some segments of the community including those who moderate it.

In general the moderation weeds out the most toxic; things settle down and thing people eventually return to a calm medium where positive is dominant and people provide critical viewpoints

 Overread wrote:

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.

The only way we affect sales data is by expressing our negative take on things to the community.

 Overread wrote:
I don't see that as toxic positivity; I see that as moderation to discourage negativity that has set in in a big way within a community and gained a dominance; resulting in a backlash against it from some segments of the community including those who moderate it.

In general the moderation weeds out the most toxic; things settle down and thing people eventually return to a calm medium where positive is dominant and people provide critical viewpoints

You honestly don't think banning people for saying things like "I like the kit overall but I wish it had a helmet option instead of just a bare head" is toxic positivity?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I don't see that as toxic positivity; I see that as moderation to discourage negativity that has set in in a big way within a community and gained a dominance; resulting in a backlash against it from some segments of the community including those who moderate it.

In general the moderation weeds out the most toxic; things settle down and thing people eventually return to a calm medium where positive is dominant and people provide critical viewpoints

You honestly don't think banning people for saying things like "I like the kit overall but I wish it had a helmet option instead of just a bare head" is toxic positivity?

Again I never said critical viewpoints weren't valid.
Nor did I outline any specific arguments or such.

I simply stated an overall stance and position. Specific examples and situations are going to vary in how one might judge things. Yes taken in isolation that post is totally innocent and pretty much a neutral comment. It's neither positive nor negative in total.

But we aren't talking about that one example, but general community trends and moderation policies



And yes some communities do have bad/poorly skilled mods. It's an unpaid volunteer position or a community they chose to setup themselves (often for free or low cost) So yeah some are run by people or organised by people who do not have the right skillsets.

I do think sales data changes GW and enough negativity changes sales data.

We wouldn't have had an 8th edition without 7th edition taking a dump, and the Internet and social media and whatnot had a lot to do with 7th edition taking a dump (netlisting, fighting about Eldar/competitive play/playing the game wrong/"everything is fine, honest!")

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do think sales data changes GW and enough negativity changes sales data.

We wouldn't have had an 8th edition without 7th edition taking a dump, and the Internet and social media and whatnot had a lot to do with 7th edition taking a dump (netlisting, fighting about Eldar/competitive play/playing the game wrong/"everything is fine, honest!")

I didn't post much back then but I read and God help us there was true outrage back then

Rightfully so, no questions asked!

 Overread wrote:
But we aren't talking about that one example, but general community trends and moderation policies

Moderation policies where comments like my example comment would get you banned for "negativity". That is where toxic positivity creates echo chambers and ruins communities.

I can't help but feel that the 7th angst is what is causing so many people to not even give a darn about 10th. Everyone complained endlessly about 7th because it was awful. Almost universally dislike as a whole and it actually started to effect GW's bottom line.

They gave us 8th in response which was better, but still had a lot of problems. We hit a very similar place with 9th in regards to 7th so now they blow the game up again and give us 10th. I am beginning to feel that GW really is incapable of actually learning a damn thing and will continue this trend of trying to shake things up every other edition because they just can't stick to one vision.

GW as a game creator really seems to have no focus, no one seems to be in charge and the company just kind of shrugs when it comes to the game. Which of course some people will trot out the old line of, "They are a model company, not a game company" despite being called GAMES Workshop and costing at least $100 for the minimum rules to play one army.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I can't help but feel that the 7th angst is what is causing so many people to not even give a darn about 10th. Everyone complained endlessly about 7th because it was awful. Almost universally dislike as a whole and it actually started to effect GW's bottom line.

They gave us 8th in response which was better, but still had a lot of problems. We hit a very similar place with 9th in regards to 7th so now they blow the game up again and give us 10th. I am beginning to feel that GW really is incapable of actually learning a damn thing and will continue this trend of trying to shake things up every other edition because they just can't stick to one vision.

GW as a game creator really seems to have no focus, no one seems to be in charge and the company just kind of shrugs when it comes to the game. Which of course some people will trot out the old line of, "They are a model company, not a game company" despite being called GAMES Workshop and costing at least $100 for the minimum rules to play one army.

Can we consider that anyone making this claim is a stuck a few decades ago when it was actually pretty much citadel making stuff for DnD and stuff along those lines?

(wasn't even born so if any old grognard wants to correct this have a go)

People learn things, corporations are only able to learn as long as the same people are still part of the corporation, but people inevitably move around and search for new jobs.

So yeah, GW will keep trying to shake things up as people come and go, which is pretty much the same thing that happens in every long running corporate owned franchise.

 Tyran wrote:
People learn things, corporations are only able to learn as long as the same people are still part of the corporation, but people inevitably move around and search for new jobs.

So yeah, GW will keep trying to shake things up as people come and go, which is pretty much the same thing that happens in every long running corporate owned franchise.

You're right to point this out, we all go screaming GW GW but sometimes I think we also lose from sight this simple but important fact!

 kodos wrote:
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?

Yeah roughly that, I think the datasheet changes are supposed to be limited and they suggested 10% or 20% in an interview.

I can already see how they will technically stay within their "rules" while not keeping to the spirit of them. Something like the step change they made for Chapter Tactics going from one special rule to two special rules to three special rules. Or the way mortal wound strategems in 9th roughly went from 1 CP = 2 MWs with hoops to jump through > reliable 3 MWs > reliable 6 MWs.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Overread wrote:
But we aren't talking about that one example, but general community trends and moderation policies

Moderation policies where comments like my example comment would get you banned for "negativity". That is where toxic positivity creates echo chambers and ruins communities.

is that an actual thing that happened (the helmet comment) or is it a theoretical?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
is that an actual thing that happened (the helmet comment) or is it a theoretical?

Literally those exact words? No, I'm not going back to find an exact quote from deleted posts. Very similar content expressing a mildly negative opinion? Absolutely yes. Bans, deleted posts, downvote spam on reddit, etc.

AuspexTactics did an interesting experiment with comments on a GW YouTube channel where you can see toxic positivity in action.

It is the GW YouTube channel. That is pretty much a GW controlled space so of course they are going to mess around with the comments.

The problem has always been that the people whinging on forums tend to represent a tiny % of GW sales.

The Peachy Video from a few weeks ago ("contrast paints saved GW") was great for bringing up the "big end of the trumpet" quote - but hidden in there was also the statement (somewhat skipped over) - that the average "GW customer" only plays for a year or two. Which, looking back on my own play experience, is probably about right.

There's a core of people in the hobby for the long term - but there's lots of people who join and shortly afterwards quit.

Which I think is partly why edition churn exists. Its a great time to start 40k. Get hold of the "not a starter" (or the actual starters) for cheap models, and go from there. If you burn out in 18~ months that's fine, you'll be replaced by the next wave. Odds are in that 18 months you'll barely assemble a "proper army". You'll hardly be effected by the trials and tribulations of the tournament scene.

The issue for 7th (which I'd argue has its roots earlier - in 6th and I'm afraid, contrary to some internet lore, even later 5th) was this mantra of "do not start 40k". I feel from around 2012 the message was "Its too late for us - but go start X-Wing. Go start Warmahordes."

Today, while there are undoubtedly people who hate 40k (and to a degree GW), there doesn't seem to be a unifying "other" to go play instead. I'm not sure there has been for years.

Basically the whole tournament scene is just marketing. If its very negative I think its bad - because interest falls, and you have more negativity. But in terms of hard sales its not a 1:1 relationship.

EightFoldPath wrote:

 kodos wrote:
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?

Yeah roughly that, I think the datasheet changes are supposed to be limited and they suggested 10% or 20% in an interview.

I can already see how they will technically stay within their "rules" while not keeping to the spirit of them. Something like the step change they made for Chapter Tactics going from one special rule to two special rules to three special rules. Or the way mortal wound strategems in 9th roughly went from 1 CP = 2 MWs with hoops to jump through > reliable 3 MWs > reliable 6 MWs.

I'm pretty sure that they said new detachments would give you different ways to play an army, not more powerful ways to play them. Giving new detachments better rules would be a violation of what they said they would do with 10th Edition.

The Space Marine and Tyranid codices should give us a good idea of how well they start off executing their vision of the edition. There will be new units which means new packs of data cards to sell. There will be some limited errata, hopefully catching at least the obvious bugs in the original cards. The question is how many data card changes are not just error fixes?

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Everyone complained endlessly about 7th because it was awful. Almost universally dislike as a whole and it actually started to effect GW's bottom line.

They gave us 8th in response which was better, but still had a lot of problems. We hit a very similar place with 9th in regards to 7th so now they blow the game up again and give us 10th.

This stupid idea that GW "sees an issue in a running edition and reacts to it with a new edition" really needs to die. This is not how GW works, and people should know by now.

For both 40K and AoS (and WHF before) work on the following edition starts pretty much the moment the current one is released. There might be slight adjustments to whatever "the next editions thing" is planned to be due to things coming up during an editions first or maybe even second year. Overall though the framework is pretty much set at the start, then tweaked over time - anything "the people demand" and make their voice heard about during an edition is reacted to two editions later at the earliest. If at all.

8th has been in the works long before 7th was showing signs of crash'n'burn, same for 9th to 10th.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
GW as a game creator really seems to have no focus, no one seems to be in charge and the company just kind of shrugs when it comes to the game. Which of course some people will trot out the old line of,"They are a model company, not a game company" despite being called GAMES Workshop and costing at least $100 for the minimum rules to play one army.

Again, another stupid conception to die sooner rather than later. Any ruleset GW does is a marketing vehicle first, and getting a good game out of it is a lucky coincidence. As long as the rules are good enough to provide some halfway decent gaming experience, everything is fine from GWs point of view.

As for that bolded part: this is pants-on-head lunacy. The company is called Games Workshop because they started as a games publisher in the 70s. They developed over time, evolving into what they have basically been since the 90s: a model maker first, second and third with some attached games studio as more of an afterthought. GW is all about the models, their games are meant to facilitate sales of said models, nothing more.

By your logic I should expect fruit sales in an Apple store...

 Darnok wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Everyone complained endlessly about 7th because it was awful. Almost universally dislike as a whole and it actually started to effect GW's bottom line.

They gave us 8th in response which was better, but still had a lot of problems. We hit a very similar place with 9th in regards to 7th so now they blow the game up again and give us 10th.

This stupid idea that GW "sees an issue in a running edition and reacts to it with a new edition" really needs to die. This is not how GW works, and people should know by now.

For both 40K and AoS (and WHF before) work on the following edition starts pretty much the moment the current one is released. There might be slight adjustments to whatever "the next editions thing" is planned to be due to things coming up during an editions first or maybe even second year. Overall though the framework is pretty much set at the start, then tweaked over time - anything "the people demand" and make their voice heard about during an edition is reacted to two editions later at the earliest. If at all.

8th has been in the works long before 7th was showing signs of crash'n'burn, same for 9th to 10th.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
GW as a game creator really seems to have no focus, no one seems to be in charge and the company just kind of shrugs when it comes to the game. Which of course some people will trot out the old line of,"They are a model company, not a game company" despite being called GAMES Workshop and costing at least $100 for the minimum rules to play one army.

Again, another stupid conception to die sooner rather than later. Any ruleset GW does is a marketing vehicle first, and getting a good game out of it is a lucky coincidence. As long as the rules are good enough to provide some halfway decent gaming experience, everything is fine from GWs point of view.

As for that bolded part: this is pants-on-head lunacy. The company is called Games Workshop because they started as a games publisher in the 70s. They developed over time, evolving into what they have basically been since the 90s: a model maker first, second and third with some attached games studio as more of an afterthought. GW is all about the models, their games are meant to facilitate sales of said models, nothing more.

By your logic I should expect fruit sales in an Apple store...

I don't think you could have done a better job of exemplifying my point while completely missing it at the same time.

You are going out of you way to insult me and attribute your own annoyances to me.

A model company that sells 65$ core rule books, ~$50 faction books and endless supplements. An entire model line that exist to facilitate their very own games. Not like they are making models that don't have any game rules, do they? They have numerous specialty games with more coming, but somehow they are a model company?

Some of us remember when editions would last 5+ years. The more recent churn and burn of 8th/9th/10th might be the way you describe but I also doubt that GW starts writing the quality of rules they produce years in advance. Especially when mid edition design paradigms swing about randomly in response to more recent codex releases.

Also, your ridiculous Apple non-argument would be more apt if you claimed that they were a software company while ignoring all of the hardware they make.

DnD 5th edition and 40K 7th edition both came out in 2014.

DnD is still in 5th edition, doing open playtesting of systems for their next update of the system as an iteration on the framework of 5th, meanwhile 40K is now on 10th and has undergone 2 major revisions of the fundamental framework of the game (8th, then 10th).

Sarigar wrote:
Things like the Wraithknight and Yncarne will get nerfed in September. Other stuff will likely get hit as well such as the Nightspinner and Fire Prism.

All that stuff already got nerfed, and it brought Eldar all the way down to a...checks notes...68% win rate over the weekend. What a fantastic job the balancing team is doing!

 Darnok wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Everyone complained endlessly about 7th because it was awful. Almost universally dislike as a whole and it actually started to effect GW's bottom line.

They gave us 8th in response which was better, but still had a lot of problems. We hit a very similar place with 9th in regards to 7th so now they blow the game up again and give us 10th.

This stupid idea that GW "sees an issue in a running edition and reacts to it with a new edition" really needs to die. This is not how GW works, and people should know by now.

For both 40K and AoS (and WHF before) work on the following edition starts pretty much the moment the current one is released. There might be slight adjustments to whatever "the next editions thing" is planned to be due to things coming up during an editions first or maybe even second year. Overall though the framework is pretty much set at the start, then tweaked over time - anything "the people demand" and make their voice heard about during an edition is reacted to two editions later at the earliest. If at all.

8th has been in the works long before 7th was showing signs of crash'n'burn, same for 9th to 10th.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
GW as a game creator really seems to have no focus, no one seems to be in charge and the company just kind of shrugs when it comes to the game. Which of course some people will trot out the old line of,"They are a model company, not a game company" despite being called GAMES Workshop and costing at least $100 for the minimum rules to play one army.

Again, another stupid conception to die sooner rather than later. Any ruleset GW does is a marketing vehicle first, and getting a good game out of it is a lucky coincidence. As long as the rules are good enough to provide some halfway decent gaming experience, everything is fine from GWs point of view.

As for that bolded part: this is pants-on-head lunacy. The company is called Games Workshop because they started as a games publisher in the 70s.

Not quite accurate.... But yes, they did evolve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_Workshop

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.

People giving them a pass on the 10th edition of a game they've been making for 40 years will excuse absolutely anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

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).

Several Facebook pages have rules like "1. No negativity, we have GW employees here and need to respect them. Saying anything negative about GW, rules, or prices will result in immediately being tarred, feathered, branded, and kicked out of the group", usually followed by a rule that disallows anything 3D printed being in view anywhere in the photos you post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
GW really is incapable of actually learning a damn thing and will continue this trend of trying to shake things up every other edition because they just can't stick to one vision. GW as a game creator really seems to have no focus

Their vision is "people like rolling dice, right? So...more dice rolling = more fun! Let's make EVERYTHING POSSIBLE into a random dice roll!"

Toofast wrote:

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.

People giving them a pass on the 10th edition of a game they've been making for 40 years will excuse absolutely anything.

And yet, despite all the on-line hate some of you have for GW &/or the current edition.....
1) Most players don't seem all that bothered by 10e. It's "Good Enough". Many fun games have been had here in July & August. Many more will follow.
2) For all the bitching? You complainers are still here & playing. Indeed, YOU specifically were complaining just a few days ago how you're now playing more 40k than you care to. If it was really so bad, why would you be playing that much?

For what it’s worth, I don’t like 10th. So I haven’t played it and have not bought anything from GW since it released.

ERJAK wrote:
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.

What's the alternate reality you live in like? It can't be anything like ours, where everything in the quote above didn't happen.

ccs wrote:

1) Most players don't seem all that bothered by 10e. It's "Good Enough". Many fun games have been had here in July & August. Many more will follow.

because it is a new game, were everything start from zero
it is similar to 8th Index Phase, were we already saw problems and GW tried actively to get them under control and people were positive about the game
it was not until several Codices were released that people saw it as not that good (and than it was only those without one)

similar here now, that the Indices are badly written without a plan is seen as a problem of the tournament community not a problem of the game itself
until the Codices draw a different direction for the game than the Indices suggest (like with 8th) this won't change as a local group does not care of Eldar, GSC or Votan have problems as long as no one there plays them

Toofast wrote:
All that stuff already got nerfed, and it brought Eldar all the way down to a...checks notes...68% win rate over the weekend. What a fantastic job the balancing team is doing!

do we know if the 1 person they hired for balancing already started working or are they still in the interview phase?

because by the deadline for application and how the interview process works, my guess is that there balancing team does not exist at the moment

 kodos wrote:

ccs wrote:

1) Most players don't seem all that bothered by 10e. It's "Good Enough". Many fun games have been had here in July & August. Many more will follow.

because it is a new game, were everything start from zero
it is similar to 8th Index Phase, were we already saw problems and GW tried actively to get them under control and people were positive about the game
it was not until several Codices were released that people saw it as not that good (and than it was only those without one)

similar here now, that the Indices are badly written without a plan is seen as a problem of the tournament community not a problem of the game itself
until the Codices draw a different direction for the game than the Indices suggest (like with 8th) this won't change as a local group does not care of Eldar, GSC or Votan have problems as long as no one there plays them

Toofast wrote:
All that stuff already got nerfed, and it brought Eldar all the way down to a...checks notes...68% win rate over the weekend. What a fantastic job the balancing team is doing!

do we know if the 1 person they hired for balancing already started working or are they still in the interview phase?

because by the deadline for application and how the interview process works, my guess is that there balancing team does not exist at the moment

Can you evidence that there is a "balancing team"? It certainly feels like any balance passes are done in between other jobs by the codex writing teams.