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.
2023/09/08 13:37:28
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 10e September balance update
bullyboy wrote: I don’t get all the rejoicing over this fix, it’s like people forgot how GW run their business. The game is designed to break within 3 years, requiring a new edition. Each new codex will come with its own set of problems and the rules team will play whack-a-mole with patches to try and keep a resemblance of balance, even though we know they cannot do that competently (otherwise a reset game would be balanced at the onset).
I wouldn’t mind these updates if I knew that nothing new was coming, because they would be balancing a preset group of rules/models and eventually find a pretty good place , but with each new codex will come new minis, new rules and new broken interactions that will need fixing. The ruleset and armies will be mostly indistinguishable from what it is right now, and to be honest, that churn is getting kind of old.
Then again...looking at 1st codex changes with codex aren't all that big. Some points change but as is could play index list almost as is.
But sure. Better option to leave problems as is? No point changes and rule changes beside codexes ever?
Is that REALLY what you would prefer? Seriously? So basically as codexes aren't changing much we now already would know who will win next 3 years.
That REALLY better?
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2023/09/08 13:42:38
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 10e September balance update
Your post sounds like blaming the player for GW's rules. Somebody starting fresh into Warhammer with an Eldar combat patrol should neither be held responsible for them stomping the available competition, nor should it be required to research before the purchase wether it would be "ok" to play against others. Even long time players might not have the necessary collection to switch out problematic units or adapt to somebody else's list.
While I totally encourage to talk with the other player beforehand what kind of game you want to have, the need to do it in the first place arises in no small parts thanks to the "take whatever you want, but no more than 3x the same" coupled with not enough expertise or attention for internal and external balance between factions.
It is my choice to play Eldar and bring a Wraithknight, it is GW's responsibility to ensure I don't roflstomp everybody else.
2023/09/08 13:43:14
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 10e September balance update
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
2023/09/08 13:49:09
Subject: Warhammer 40k 10e September balance update
H.B.M.C. wrote: The change to Dev Wounds is generally bad because it creates a new way if bypassing armour/invuls when the game already has such a mechanic! Y'know, Mortal Wounds.
This is, at best, a quick fix. A leaking band-aid solution that highlights how fething terribad GW are at writing rules and that they should have figured this out before going into print.
2 years of development my ass...
If this was "at best, a quick fix" that creates a new mechanic that basically already exist, what was the better fix? The books are already published, so it is too late for "doing it right before publication" to be a solution for the existing problem.
2023/09/08 13:54:04
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 10e September balance update
1) A codex and what is now a rulebook should be background/minis/painting etc. hobby stuff only, available both as dead tree and PDF, and changed/updated (because new minis/background) no sooner than at least every 5 years.
2) All rules should be free and digital only, be it PDF or Apps thus allowing for the constant updates without invalidating any printed material.
3) Editions should last at least 5 years.
2023/09/08 13:59:43
Subject: Warhammer 40k 10e September balance update
The GMG video sums up exactly how I feel about this. I cannot get over how fundamentally bad for players changing the core rules less than 3 months into the edition is.
Dudeface wrote: People complain things need changing/fixing. They fix them. People then complain their book is no longer correct. Pick one.
The new edition is when you change/fix things.
The new edition should be sufficiently tested that it doesn't need to be altered within weeks of release.
We all know that you actually understand this, by the way...
Just the same as we all know you understand nothing will be printed without a typo, need altering or a clarification at a later date.
Once again, downside of printed media.
This isn't about a typo or a clarification though, is it.
This is GW straight up changing rules. This isn't fixing an error.
It is a rules, they're correcting a problem that by all accounts shouldn't be there. The root cause is both inadequate dev time and reliance on printed media.
However, we are where we are now. People want the game state improved, they have 2 choices, implement a change and invalidate a paragraph somewhere, or leave it as it is.
I won't disagree people are attacking the root cause, but we're past the point that can be changed. What people then do is whine when GW what they can now as if they have a choice now.
2023/09/08 14:04:33
Subject: Warhammer 40k 10e September balance update
People complain things need changing/fixing. They fix them. People then complain their book is no longer correct. Pick one.
There's no need to have a physical book, especially not one that costs what GW charge. There's also the seemingly mind-blowing concept of actually testing your game properly before you release it. This isn't a typo or some minor wording clarification in an obscure rule. It's fundamental changes to the core rules of the game within 3 months of release.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/09/08 14:07:05
2023/09/08 14:10:42
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 10e September balance update
feth it, we're not about pragmatism here, it's just be aimlessly angry at GW thread the 27th. You're right. They had infinite funds, time and staff to produce this ruleset, the only issue is the competency of the writers. Likewise its irrelevant looking at immediate fixes to the current situation, let's just piss and whine at abstracts and unknown variables.
2023/09/08 14:44:12
Subject: Warhammer 40k 10e September balance update
Dudeface wrote: feth it, we're not about pragmatism here, it's just be aimlessly angry at GW thread the 27th. You're right. They had infinite funds, time and staff to produce this ruleset, the only issue is the competency of the writers. Likewise its irrelevant looking at immediate fixes to the current situation, let's just piss and whine at abstracts and unknown variables.
Surely you can see why people are upset at having products they bought not being correct less than three months after purchase.
Dudeface wrote: feth it, we're not about pragmatism here, it's just be aimlessly angry at GW thread the 27th. You're right. They had infinite funds, time and staff to produce this ruleset, the only issue is the competency of the writers. Likewise its irrelevant looking at immediate fixes to the current situation, let's just piss and whine at abstracts and unknown variables.
Surely you can see why people are upset at having products they bought not being correct less than three months after purchase.
Of course I can, but there's a lot of talk out there about how 40k is on a precipice of dying and having a mass exodus depending on the quality of the fixes they put in. So instead here we are rehashing about how printed GW products have a shelf life of negative days and they shouldn't use them at all really.
Which, is obviously a brand new conversation and we should all be shocked by this sudden unprecedented behaviour from them /s
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/09/08 15:03:49
2023/09/08 15:07:07
Subject: Warhammer 40k 10e September balance update
How much of the book has been changed? One page worth of edits for the core rules. It’s not like 3rd where you needed a binder of WDs as most of the core book had been updated/replaced near the end.
Yes, it would be better if GW could release a more polished product, but a couple pages of changes does not make the whole book obsolete.
Dudeface wrote: feth it, we're not about pragmatism here, it's just be aimlessly angry at GW thread the 27th. You're right. They had infinite funds, time and staff to produce this ruleset, the only issue is the competency of the writers. Likewise its irrelevant looking at immediate fixes to the current situation, let's just piss and whine at abstracts and unknown variables.
Surely you can see why people are upset at having products they bought not being correct less than three months after purchase.
Sure. Of course since change is page worth of stuff its so little that if that is too much we are back to how it was before. No changes in edition except codexes. Which don't do huge change now. So baslcallw 10th would be same all edition.
And then players complain too few changes.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2023/09/08 15:28:27
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40k 10e September balance update
More like: GW doesn't fix problems. Players complain. GW makes changes to try to fix problems and in the process creates new problems, players say "No, not like that".
Tyran wrote: What is a horde army within this context?
Because I mean Kyn are still T5 Sv4+ even at their most disposable. They are pretty much as elite as the Sisters of Battle, which is as elite as you can get without being Marines.
They are not a horde army.
Profiles don't determine if its a horde army or not, points do. At 11ppm for their basic batteline option, they are a borderline horde army - you can easily build lists with 100-120 models @ 2000pts if you lean heavy into their infantry choices. The consensus is that they are still underpowered and overpriced, which means that unless GW does something more dramatic, they are facing another round of points cuts, which puts them more definitvely into horde territory.
Remember, the last 10 years people have been screeching at GW to embrace digital, balance their game, and respond to the community.
Now they're doing that and some of y'all mad about it. Incredible.
GW hasn't really embraced digital - their app requires you to buy a physical analog product in order to function.
GW hasn't balanced their game.O lawd they tryin', but its not there, nor has it ever really been there after years of attempts to do so over several editions.
GW is kind of responding to the community, in that they are addressing some of the issues we've been complaining about... but other issues get overlooked. Often they focus on addressing relatively minor issues with a heavy-handed approach while the things that the community demands the most get treated with gentle kid gloves that fails to actually address the problem.
Agreed. People used to complain that gw didn't watch tournaments for broken combos and overpowered armies. Whining that GW didn't update/faq rules enough. I agreed with those complaints, but now they're complaining that things get updated too quickly or frequently.
lets put it that way:
9th Edi core was broken beyond fixing that only after 3 years a full reboot with new core rules was needed
Than 10th core was broken that it needed a re-write after 3 months
And this has a long tail as it means any of the Codices written with 10th, is from this day on outdated and broken as the rules they are written for does not exist any more
Everything that already went to the printer cannot be fixed before release and everything else is delayed, if GW even care to fix them before release
So 10th already starts at the worst point of 9th
Im pretty sure the reason GW has a 3 month lag between the edition launching and the first codex is to allow them time to respond to immediate community feedback upon launch before they start sending publications to print. Printed materials are usually the last thing done before a product launch, because they have the shortest lead time and the books can be air-freighted globally in large quantities to ensure their availability on short notice.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The change to Dev Wounds is generally bad because it creates a new way if bypassing armour/invuls when the game already has such a mechanic! Y'know, Mortal Wounds. This is, at best, a quick fix. A leaking band-aid solution that highlights how fething terribad GW are at writing rules and that they should have figured this out before going into print.
2 years of development my ass...
Yeah, i've been a bit ambivalent on critical wounds vs mortal wounds myself. Its not clear to me if there is really any meaningful or significant difference between them, they are now so closely similar from a mechanical standpoint that the change basically just created bloat by having two redundant parallel mechanical concepts that accomplish essentially the same thing.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: I think the problem is less about GW writing bad rules than it is GW being unable (or unwilling) to comprehend the lengths some people will go to to abuse the rules.
This change was because cheesy players were using an anti-tank weapon to delete whole squads of infantry - which is clearly NOT what GW intended.
This ignores the existence of anti-infantry weapons that were meant to use critical wounds to delete whole squads of infantry though. Those weapons were basically wrecked by the same nerf bat as the result of the devastating wounds change, because the change to devastating wounds was actually a change to critical wounds rather than a change to how the devastating wounds rule worked itself.
Dudeface wrote: People complain things need changing/fixing. They fix them. People then complain their book is no longer correct. Pick one.
The new edition is when you change/fix things.
The new edition should be sufficiently tested that it doesn't need to be altered within weeks of release.
We all know that you actually understand this, by the way...
This. If GW actually embraced digital and did away with the rulebooks, like they should, it would be less of an issue. Rulebooks that have a designed obsolesence within 3 years of their release (and sometimes much less than that) are an awful waste of paper and ink, and at the price point GW charges for them are actually a total insult to GWs customers. That the contents of the books are in some cases now essentially invalid before they even deliver them to you is even worse. A FAQ/Errata to clarify errors is one thing, to invalidate entire pages and/or sections of the book is another.
I mean, GW is a miniatures company first and foremost, right? Why is it so married to the idea of rules publications then, its not core business - is it?
Dudeface wrote: People complain things need changing/fixing. They fix them. People then complain their book is no longer correct. Pick one.
I'm glad you seem fully aware that GW simply being competent at their job isn't an option
GW has always been the McDonalds of wargames. I'm not sure why people remain surprised.
Not really though. There's been a noticeable downturn in quality (and uptick in churn) since 5th edition.
40k has never been a well-designed wargame. Thats not to say it wasn't a fun wargame, but there have always been various fundamental issues with the core gameplay loop and system logic, as well as the general underlying design philosophy, in large part due to it being a "mass battle" style wargame built on the bones of a skirmish game.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
