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.

IIRC my 40k anecdotal statistic data, most of the current players joined after 5th.

In fact taking my current group as evidence I wouldn't be surprised if most players this days joined during 8th and later.

And while the average casual player is not a cutthroat competitive player, they are also not a "forging the narrative" narrative player. They seem to be more in a middle spot, in that it is a game, not a tournament but also not a wargame, to them.

My biggest issue with Crusade is it isn't actually a narrative system.

I have played in about 6 crusades so far, and in almost all of them, about three people were making narrative choices, writing narratives after games, and really evolving the story of their characters.

The other twenty were furiously playing games to level up as fast as possible so they could win.

"Why is my Imperial Guard fighting the Space Marines? Why, because it was the only game I could try and my character is only 6XP from the Heroic rank."

Crusade feels like an MMO where the non-narrative "grinding" overwhelms the truly narrative battles. It doubles down on this by playing for progression without a world. My daemons and my buddy's daemons are playing the great game... With themselves. Khorne is winning in his, Slaanesh is winning in mine. He wanted to decouple ours because he didn't like being debuffed - and the rules don't even recommend they should be coupled, so of course he declined my house rule suggestion.

My Imperial guard were sorting and planning logistics on a planet the tau had conquered while the Dark Eldar fought Space Marines to advance their territory in Comorragh - and don't forget it was a Sister of Battle who put that Space Marine chaplain in his Dreadnought after the Blood Angels - wait, sorry, red blood-angel cosplaying Ultramarines - orbitally struck her warlord inquisitor off the table. Don't worry, the Inquisitor was fine though - passed the out of action check, so turns out Space Marine Battle Barge Bombardment Cannons just mean you can get up again.

Actually, maybe it is narrative 40k, in the worst way possible: there's lots of gak going on that makes no sense

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Well, they called them agendas but it's not that different .

No, but the fact that they have ZERO impact on whether or not you win the game, and instead only contribute to the XP of those who achieve them is a HUGE difference.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I have played in about 6 crusades so far, and in almost all of them, about three people were making narrative choices, writing narratives after games, and really evolving the story of their characters.

But the fact that those three were making narrative choices implies that the system facilitates the ability to make narrative choices. You can't say the game isn't a narrative game- for the people actually doing narrative play, the system gives them tools.

If they choose to ignore the narrative tolls that other players use, how is that the game's fault?

Now sure, I think it's fair to say that with a few additional tweaks, GW could have made it more difficult to avoid using the narrative tools. I also always thought that GW should have published a Big Book of Campaign play that talks about organizing narrative links between games. Certainly we did see this kind of thing in 9th- Octarius was all about multi-player games and tree campaigns, with a shout out to narrative linkages between 40k and Kill Team. The other campaign settings basically just suggested using end-of-phase missions and GM. They could have gone a lot further than they did on that front, and I'll be the first to admit it.

It's also fair to say that some factions didn't get the awesome bespoke content that others got. I like GSC, Sisters, Nids, Tau, and Drukhari, all of whom had awesome next-level Crusade content. Marines kinda got shafted for Crusade content- other than the injured becoming dreads, they didn't really have a lot of cool stuff.

Uptonius wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If experimentation isn't viable for a business the size of GW why do they keep burning down their game and starting over with the beta of a new game every three years?

That's not experimentation, that's just their business model.
If they really wanted to experiment we would see a complete change to the game, not some rewording and reprinting.
Something like dropping the IGUG turns, adding more than D6s, more layers to turns and more phases would be experimental. Changing how combi-weapons works isn't an experiment.

So...adding and then deleting a "psychic phase", changing whole resolution steps for every attack in the game, drastically altering how unit types work or if unit types exist, rewriting the terrain rules, rewriting the win conditions of the game...?

Whether or not GW does your pet changes or not they're still keeping their game in perpetual beta by making massive core rules changes to their game on a regular basis.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My biggest issue with Crusade is it isn't actually a narrative system.

:snip:

Actually, maybe it is narrative 40k, in the worst way possible: there's lots of gak going on that makes no sense

Yes, very much so.

I was really excited for crusade when it was launched. But as soon as I read the rules and realized it was a progression system for the sole purpose of winning I was immediately turned off.

You know I wonder how much of 8th edition putting GW back on the map was due to their smoke and mirrors marketing approach. Since it very clearly was all lies since they really didn't learn anything and the game is right back in the dumpster. New GW my ass. Same gw but the head isn't in the sand.

Yet I recall the waning days of 7th when GW was actually declining And then all of a sudden eighth comes and everyone magically forgets


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My biggest issue with Crusade is it isn't actually a narrative system.

:snip:

Actually, maybe it is narrative 40k, in the worst way possible: there's lots of gak going on that makes no sense

Yes, very much so.

I was really excited for crusade when it was launched. But as soon as I read the rules and realized it was a progression system for the sole purpose of winning I was immediately turned off.

yeah that's definitely a problem. Like I was expecting an actual narrative campaign framework.

What's really funny is AOS seems to have done this properly with path to glory. Or at least better

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My biggest issue with Crusade is it isn't actually a narrative system.

:snip:

Actually, maybe it is narrative 40k, in the worst way possible: there's lots of gak going on that makes no sense

Yes, very much so.

I was really excited for crusade when it was launched. But as soon as I read the rules and realized it was a progression system for the sole purpose of winning I was immediately turned off.

I've never played a game of Crusade to win. I've only ever played to achieve a goal (Penance and Redemption for Repentia if I was playing Sisters, Territories in Commorragh if I was Drukhari, System control if I was Tau, Insurrection when I was GSC and Consumption of Biomass when I was Nids). Winnning or losing a particular game was always the least of my priorities.

The few times when winning DID cross my mind, it was because all of our games were also part of a map-based campaign, and there were a few times that a controlling particular territory made it more important to the narrative to win than completing Agendas.

Crusade facilitates this by disconnecting many of the advancement mechanics from victory conditions and linking them instead to Agendas instead. If you focus only on winning a Crusade game, typically only one unit grows (as a result of being marked for greatness). Now if a player chooses to mark the same unit for greatness in order to get an advance whether or not they actually distinguished themselves in the battle, well that's not the fault of the rules.

Nor is taking a prestige class in 3.5 ed D&D just for power without linking it to the characters story the fault of D&D rules, but that happened all the time. Difference is people didn't expect the rules to bend over backwards to make powergaming impossible. Instead, when someone powergamed, we said "That dude is a douche" rather than "This game sucks".

Wayniac wrote:
You know I wonder how much of 8th edition putting GW back on the map was due to their smoke and mirrors marketing approach. Since it very clearly was all lies since they really didn't learn anything and the game is right back in the dumpster. New GW my ass. Same gw but the head isn't in the sand.

Yet I recall the waning days of 7th when GW was actually declining And then all of a sudden eighth comes and everyone magically forgets


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My biggest issue with Crusade is it isn't actually a narrative system.

:snip:

Actually, maybe it is narrative 40k, in the worst way possible: there's lots of gak going on that makes no sense

Yes, very much so.

I was really excited for crusade when it was launched. But as soon as I read the rules and realized it was a progression system for the sole purpose of winning I was immediately turned off.

yeah that's definitely a problem. Like I was expecting an actual narrative campaign framework.

What's really funny is AOS seems to have done this properly with path to glory. Or at least better

No, the AoS PTG is not better. And it's definitely not done properly. The raw idea is there. But it's execution....
Completing the quests are 100% non-reliant upon anything going on in a game (including W/L). If you win? You'll complete your chosen quest more quickly. If you lose? It'll just take you longer.
And depending upon what type of force you're looking to play you're virtually locked into selecting certain quests.
All it turns into is a bunch of fiddly paperwork to eventually play the force you want.

Late to the party but I'll add my post to the count. My gaming group is cooked. 10th edition killed the desire to brew and play. Sadly I doubt they will "go backwards" on many of the changes so I have just moved on although I'll check in here at times. I'd be open to some games of 9th or even earlier editions if we could dredge up the desire but currently the interest is not there.
Regarding dakka negativity I feel it's an accurate sentiment towards the game. I believe the only sites that are truly positive towards the state of the game are those that profit from this mess. Goon and their gang for example..
Smoke and mirrors marketing as someone else stated.
Honestly I hope GW goes under with this economy and everyone returns to an earlier edition. Selfish as that sounds. Good day.

dominuschao wrote:
Late to the party but I'll add my post to the count. My gaming group is cooked. 10th edition killed the desire to brew and play. Sadly I doubt they will "go backwards" on many of the changes so I have just moved on although I'll check in here at times. I'd be open to some games of 9th or even earlier editions if we could dredge up the desire but currently the interest is not there.
Regarding dakka negativity I feel it's an accurate sentiment towards the game. I believe the only sites that are truly positive towards the state of the game are those that profit from this mess. Goon and their gang for example..
Smoke and mirrors marketing as someone else stated.
Honestly I hope GW goes under with this economy and everyone returns to an earlier edition. Selfish as that sounds. Good day.

I don't get it.
1) If you & yours don't like 10th, why is that stopping you from just continuing playing whatever edition you did like?
2) What's stopping you from seeking out & playing with different people?
3) If you've moved on to other games/companies, why would you hope GW goes out of business? So they made an edition of 40k you don't like? So what? It's not your problem anymore. Meanwhile there ARE people who like current 40k - and other games they produce. It'd also be really inconvenient for alot of our local game shops

dominuschao wrote:

I believe the only sites that are truly positive towards the state of the game are those that profit from this mess. Goon and their gang for example..

B&C is a positive first place with no GW affiliations and is also well moderated. They make no money off thile state of the game, they just moderate more than here.

Honestly I hope GW goes under with this economy and everyone returns to an earlier edition. Selfish as that sounds. Good day.

This isn't selfish, it's just stupid.

If they go under there won't be an "everyone" to return to an earlier edition. Moreover why don't you just play that earlier edition now? You say the desire isn't there but is the manufacturer going under suddenly going to give you a nihilistic burst of energy or something?

If they stay in business you get new sculpts to play 5th or whatever with. If they go out of business you'll never get new players in to a dead game where they can't buy the resources and the minis will become scarcer over time.

Never mind the fact you've wished a lot of people become jobless purely so you can do something you can't be arsed to do now but could.

Dudeface wrote:

Never mind the fact you've wished a lot of people become jobless purely so you can do something you can't be arsed to do now but could.

Oh no, how will he live with himself.

shortymcnostrill wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Never mind the fact you've wished a lot of people become jobless purely so you can do something you can't be arsed to do now but could.

Oh no, how will he live with himself.

I don't know, but I hope they don't have unemployment forced/wished upon them due to a strangers laziness.

Dudeface wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Never mind the fact you've wished a lot of people become jobless purely so you can do something you can't be arsed to do now but could.

Oh no, how will he live with himself.

I don't know, but I hope they don't have unemployment forced/wished upon them due to a strangers laziness.

how about due to continued incompetence? It's not like this song and dance is new.

Also do you really think it's easy to get people to just play old obsolete editions? If it's nearly impossible to get people to play other games it's even worse to get them to play an old version of the game that's no longer supported.

Wayniac wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Never mind the fact you've wished a lot of people become jobless purely so you can do something you can't be arsed to do now but could.

Oh no, how will he live with himself.

I don't know, but I hope they don't have unemployment forced/wished upon them due to a strangers laziness.

how about due to continued incompetence? It's not like this song and dance is new.

Also do you really think it's easy to get people to just play old obsolete editions? If it's nearly impossible to get people to play other games it's even worse to get them to play an old version of the game that's no longer supported.

And I suppose it'll be easier once the company closes as postulated?

Yes.

As absurd as this sounds, these people would probably fluorish under a less olgipolistic market represented by GW's dominance and would have the opportunity to use their skills for competing in it.

The issue is though that GW will shed it's actual workers before the incompetent management that is actually responsible for the nonsense going on.
Certainly not the ruleswriters and workers and designers are in favour of a 3 year / edition cicle of constant churn material. AND more importantly the market is completly curbed due to IP law issues, so even with GW going under we wouldn't necesserly be better off.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Yes.

As absurd as this sounds, these people would probably fluorish under a less olgipolistic market represented by GW's dominance and would have the opportunity to use their skills for competing in it.

The issue is though that GW will shed it's actual workers before the incompetent management that is actually responsible for the nonsense going on.
Certainly not the ruleswriters and workers and designers are in favour of a 3 year / edition cicle of constant churn material. AND more importantly the market is completly curbed due to IP law issues, so even with GW going under we wouldn't necesserly be better off.

There is nothing stopping that group from playing 9th or 2nd ed or whatever they want now, the failure of the company will not make that any more or less likely than they presently have available to them, it'll simply result in increased scarcity and less traction recruiting new players.

I do agree it is 100% the managerial staff who are likely the biggest issue, the corporate bigwigs and woe me middle managers likely doing what they're told for their bonus at the end of the year. But you're right, the people who work there who care and actually deliver the stuff we enjoy (or not) will likely be the first casualties.

The death of GW simply cannot and will not be beneficial to 40k in any short term or even medium term. The only slim chance is that it results in a take-over by a firm that run them better, but that's ignoring a decade long downward spiral of losing players and slower releases that would precede it, then the multi-year takeover and correction period and then the building the brand back up. And that's IF it was bought by someone who could run it better.

Besides that, still never cool to wish people get made redundant because someone is not personally engaged with a product, especially one they visit a forum for due to having an vested interest, enjoyment and/or passion for the game/setting. That's the sort of stereotype that feeds the "dakka is a negative cesspit" reputation.

Wayniac wrote:
how about due to continued incompetence? It's not like this song and dance is new.
.

Pfft. Gw make plenty boneheaded decisions but players are just as bad. players moaning and stewing is nothing new either.

Gw's 'incompetence' is still orders of magnitudes more successful in terms of engagement, player base and sales than any of their competitors...

In any case, on the ground, whilst i cant be bothered with mass-battle 40k, kill team is great fun and their modern minis are and will remain outstanding.

Wayniac wrote:

Also do you really think it's easy to get people to just play old obsolete editions? .

The answer depends entirely on your group.

Wayniac wrote:

Also do you really think it's easy to get people to just play old obsolete editions? If it's nearly impossible to get people to play other games it's even worse to get them to play an old version of the game that's no longer supported.

This sounds a lot less to do with gw and another more to it being a 'your group' problem Wayne.

Take us. Last games we played in the last few months were Firestorm Armada, 40k: kill team, couple of games of mk2 warmachine (they'd never played), bit of 90s-necromunda, more than a few bolt action and currently doing a musket-and-broadsword homebrew that owes a lot to test of honour - I call it clash of clans...men due to the minis being Scottish highlanders/jacobite. Myself and one of the guys also dug out shadespire for a game when it was just us. And two of them have scheduled biweekly painting nights to work through several english civil war factions (royalist and parliament) alongside that. I'd love to join them, but greyhounds to walk...

Only thing stopping you is you and your group.

PenitentJake wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Well, they called them agendas but it's not that different .

No, but the fact that they have ZERO impact on whether or not you win the game, and instead only contribute to the XP of those who achieve them is a HUGE difference.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I have played in about 6 crusades so far, and in almost all of them, about three people were making narrative choices, writing narratives after games, and really evolving the story of their characters.

But the fact that those three were making narrative choices implies that the system facilitates the ability to make narrative choices. You can't say the game isn't a narrative game- for the people actually doing narrative play, the system gives them tools.

If they choose to ignore the narrative tolls that other players use, how is that the game's fault?

Now sure, I think it's fair to say that with a few additional tweaks, GW could have made it more difficult to avoid using the narrative tools. I also always thought that GW should have published a Big Book of Campaign play that talks about organizing narrative links between games. Certainly we did see this kind of thing in 9th- Octarius was all about multi-player games and tree campaigns, with a shout out to narrative linkages between 40k and Kill Team. The other campaign settings basically just suggested using end-of-phase missions and GM. They could have gone a lot further than they did on that front, and I'll be the first to admit it.

It's also fair to say that some factions didn't get the awesome bespoke content that others got. I like GSC, Sisters, Nids, Tau, and Drukhari, all of whom had awesome next-level Crusade content. Marines kinda got shafted for Crusade content- other than the injured becoming dreads, they didn't really have a lot of cool stuff.

Yeah, so...

1) earlier editions had a progression system
2) earlier editions had more narrative codexes and core rules (in the sense that immersion and verisimilitude - "soul" was higher)
3) earlier editions had campaign frameworks, with descriptions of how to run map, ladder, node-and-spoke, and rolling campaign types.
4) earlier editions had narrative recommendations for battle setup ("why would Grey Knights show up to slaughter Orks?
Then: "3 different reasons suggested"
Now: "shut up and play!")

What makes Crusade especially more narrative than the CAMPAIGNS pages in the 4th edition BRB? Is it because the word "Crusade" is more 40k than the word "Campaigns" or?

I mean here, take this example from the old IG book:
"Doctrine - Xeno Fighters: this regiment is especially experienced in fighting a single kind of enemy. Select one army from orks, Eldar, Tau, etc. and the regiment gets Preferred Enemy against the chosen force. The force *must* have some indication of this - xenos skulls on tanks, teef trophies, etc."
(Paraphrasing of course, but the rules were telling you how to build your minis to fit the narrative. GW releases Steel Legion, whose sergeants literally carried orc heads around in some cases).

Now the modern equivalent:
"Old Grudges Warlord Trait: pick an enemy unit, and units within 6" of the Warlord get +1 to wound against it". What? How many grudges do you HAVE? Why does the force have a grudge against the Space Marine Eliminators one week and the Dark Eldar Tantalus the next, then the Ridgebacks, or wait was it the Hekaton Land Fortress...

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

For every tournament player there are 5x casual collectors/players. Been all over the US and have witnessed most people who joined from 3rd-5th are very chill and took the "forging a narrative" as the main draw to the game as opposed to cutthroat competitive games like TCG's.

Balance still benefits casual players tho.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

But the fact that those three were making narrative choices implies that the system facilitates the ability to make narrative choices. You can't say the game isn't a narrative game- for the people actually doing narrative play, the system gives them tools.

If they choose to ignore the narrative tolls that other players use, how is that the game's fault?

what tools exactly? Rolling on a chart to get a random buff/debuff?

And it's not the system giving them tools, it's them taking time outside of the actual game to write a backstory that explains all their fights, which is doable with regular 40k too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:


Crusade facilitates this by disconnecting many of the advancement mechanics from victory conditions and linking them instead to Agendas instead.

Thats just 9th-ed style secondaries with a different name


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dominuschao wrote:
Late to the party but I'll add my post to the count. My gaming group is cooked. 10th edition killed the desire to brew and play. Sadly I doubt they will "go backwards" on many of the changes so I have just moved on although I'll check in here at times. I'd be open to some games of 9th or even earlier editions if we could dredge up the desire but currently the interest is not there.
Regarding dakka negativity I feel it's an accurate sentiment towards the game. I believe the only sites that are truly positive towards the state of the game are those that profit from this mess. Goon and their gang for example..
Smoke and mirrors marketing as someone else stated.
Honestly I hope GW goes under with this economy and everyone returns to an earlier edition. Selfish as that sounds. Good day.

well that was certainly a post of all time, holy moley.

Just play the old editions you want with your playgroup. If your playgroup doesn't want to, it's not because GW failed (in your eyes) with 10th.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

For every tournament player there are 5x casual collectors/players. Been all over the US and have witnessed most people who joined from 3rd-5th are very chill and took the "forging a narrative" as the main draw to the game as opposed to cutthroat competitive games like TCG's.

Balance still benefits casual players tho.

Balance benefits people who value balance in high regards. Some place higher value on factors in a game that are direct contrasts to balance (e.g. variance).

I've mentioned before, that I believe the only way GW could truly appease both the competitive crowd, and the narrative crowd is to have two entirely separate systems. I'm not talking about some add-on like crusade or a campaign book either, but a full blow separate game system.

As an example, if they kept this simplified 8th-10th core structure for the competitive crowd, but also released and supported a core ruleset that is based in 3rd-7th (such as the Horus Heresy) and marketed as a pseudo-historical game. Many people I see shelfing their 8th-10th edition armies and favoring HH are doing so because they feel the system provides more immersive gameplay. Vehicle facings, initiative, and WS checks to name a few immersive elements that have been stripped.


EDIT:
I want to iterate, I am aware that GW is likely not capable of managing two systems for the same game. This is just my opinion on the most optimal way to support competitive and narrative crowds.

dominuschao wrote:
Honestly I hope GW goes under with this economy and everyone returns to an earlier edition. Selfish as that sounds. Good day.

Possibly a bit extreme just because you prefer 9th to 10th?

I've kept my 9th edition books (for now), but we're only playing 10th. Personally I think it's an improvement.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

For every tournament player there are 5x casual collectors/players. Been all over the US and have witnessed most people who joined from 3rd-5th are very chill and took the "forging a narrative" as the main draw to the game as opposed to cutthroat competitive games like TCG's.

Balance still benefits casual players tho.

That depends entirely on the cost.

Balance in terms of units and equipment being appropriately costed (insofar as possible) is great for casual players.

Balance in terms of removing swathes of options, wargear, weapons etc. because "balance are hard" is terrible for casual players.

GW abandoned the former in 9th edition and has instead moved towards the latter, with 10th flooring the accelerator.

Add D1000 pts to each 1k list and you have your variance of stomping and getting stomped. You need a lot of experience to know how to balance two random 2k lists against each other if one is actually worth 3k and the other is worth 1k. So balance should be GW's goal, not at the cost of faithfully representing the lore or making the game fun, but to the degree it's possible without stepping too much on those.

Balance is good all else being equal. Brevity in rules writing is good all else being equal, that does not mean changing a long thematic rule to +1 S on the charge, but +2S on the charge and +1S when not on the charge is bad writing.

The 40k community being split in half or the competitive community getting a containment game would be terrible when number of players is such a huge strength for 40k which gets halved the moment you have 39k and 41k. You also cannot remove the human psychology component of wanting a strong list and wanting to win from most people.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

For every tournament player there are 5x casual collectors/players. Been all over the US and have witnessed most people who joined from 3rd-5th are very chill and took the "forging a narrative" as the main draw to the game as opposed to cutthroat competitive games like TCG's.

Balance still benefits casual players tho.

I completely agree.

The problem is that GW isn't doing any better at balancing the game today than they were in, e.g., 7th.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Yes.

As absurd as this sounds, these people would probably fluorish under a less olgipolistic market represented by GW's dominance and would have the opportunity to use their skills for competing in it.

The issue is though that GW will shed it's actual workers before the incompetent management that is actually responsible for the nonsense going on.
Certainly not the ruleswriters and workers and designers are in favour of a 3 year / edition cicle of constant churn material. AND more importantly the market is completly curbed due to IP law issues, so even with GW going under we wouldn't necesserly be better off.

There is nothing stopping that group from playing 9th or 2nd ed or whatever they want now, the failure of the company will not make that any more or less likely than they presently have available to them, it'll simply result in increased scarcity and less traction recruiting new players.

You forget the cult of officialdom in that regards that has been fostered for 2 reasons (and is really all over any brand that has significant marketshare), A) Insulation of their market share and B) strengthening loyality of the custommer base. It's a religiosisation of marketing (boy i recently listened in to an Apple product stream or whatevs, i mean i am catholic but sheesh) , and it's done all over by "luxus-brands".
Of course the insulation also serves against one of GW's serious main competitors, beeing 3d printers, an issue that they created themselves of having themselves priced out of the area in which a 3d printer is a non consideration into the area in which a 3d printer is a case of concern.
Frankly it's only GW as a miniature company that has such a lively 3d printing scene, not least of which because the math already favours the printers in many cases on a single army already. An issue no other game system had.

I do agree it is 100% the managerial staff who are likely the biggest issue, the corporate bigwigs and woe me middle managers likely doing what they're told for their bonus at the end of the year. But you're right, the people who work there who care and actually deliver the stuff we enjoy (or not) will likely be the first casualties.

The death of GW simply cannot and will not be beneficial to 40k in any short term or even medium term. The only slim chance is that it results in a take-over by a firm that run them better, but that's ignoring a decade long downward spiral of losing players and slower releases that would precede it, then the multi-year takeover and correction period and then the building the brand back up. And that's IF it was bought by someone who could run it better.

The problem is the 40k IP and associated IPs are worth gold, especially to the hollow corpse that is the entertainment industry. It wouldn't get better, unless GW would go tits up in the most cataclysmic way and a breaking appart of the IP would occur.

Besides that, still never cool to wish people get made redundant because someone is not personally engaged with a product, especially one they visit a forum for due to having an vested interest, enjoyment and/or passion for the game/setting. That's the sort of stereotype that feeds the "dakka is a negative cesspit" reputation.

Dakka may be a "negativ cesspit", but enforced positivity is far more sinister in it's mechanics. That said wishing GW would get under pressure to improve isn't irrational or mean from a custommer perspective.

And the reality is, that currently GW doesn't do it's job adequatly for a multi billion dollar company with a stranglehold on the TG scene. In many smaller companies such bad leadership would've been fired but GW has reached the stage at which it's corporate structure insulates it's leadership from consequence. Hence why a wholesale bankrupticy would be required. Because despite being the dominant TG company nobody is going to break it's oligopol with law, it's basically due to the tie in with the IP borderline impossible aswell, which also means that other TG games have to compete with a company on terms that are dictated by them and in which they can't compete.

in a market that already due to community play concerns tends to centralisation and monopolisation far more than f.e. the market of other goods.

That leads to on one hand that the few other "successes" are propperly vetted on the other with the whole cultish marketing, faux hype machine and faux communication is so grating because instead of getting forced into a competiton which would force the company to actually improve (and that would be best for the community) and also lead to more smaller companies and more jobs at often better environments what you see is basically a monolith that can pay low and replace manpower at its leisure. So in a way, it's not so much wishing unemployment but being dissatisfied with the current oligopol and it's massive power.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

For every tournament player there are 5x casual collectors/players. Been all over the US and have witnessed most people who joined from 3rd-5th are very chill and took the "forging a narrative" as the main draw to the game as opposed to cutthroat competitive games like TCG's.

Balance still benefits casual players tho.

I completely agree.

The problem is that GW isn't doing any better at balancing the game today than they were in, e.g., 7th.

If youre talking about internal balance, agreed. But external balance is pretty good right now.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

For every tournament player there are 5x casual collectors/players. Been all over the US and have witnessed most people who joined from 3rd-5th are very chill and took the "forging a narrative" as the main draw to the game as opposed to cutthroat competitive games like TCG's.

Balance still benefits casual players tho.

I completely agree.

The problem is that GW isn't doing any better at balancing the game today than they were in, e.g., 7th.

If youre talking about internal balance, agreed. But external balance is pretty good right now.

Pardon but didn't we recently still have 70% winrates? Granted in an extremely questionable pool of competitive games but yeah?

The notion that balance benefits everyone is predicated on the idea that balancing for competitive play and balancing for casual play are the same thing, and that just isn't true. They're separate targets with separate concerns.

We've routinely seen units that overperform under specific conditions and with specific combos get nerfed accordingly, with the result being that they're then fair in tournaments, but outside that competitive context they're basically useless. Competitive games tend to focus on quashing overperforming outliers, while casual ones tend to focus more on making every option worth considering, and these can sometimes be opposed.

There are also issues like skill floors/skill ceilings where an army that is weak for most players overperforms in the hands of a pro, disproportionate representation (eg, casual communities have a much higher representation of Marines, which skews what a 'TAC' list looks like), and the lower tendency of casual players to acquire and spam whatever is flavor of the week. These all impact the environment that you're balancing for.

And of course competitive balance does not incorporate many of the concerns- does this match the lore, does this feel fun to play (eg early 8th infantry hordes were effective but decidedly un-fun), is my existing collection still compatible- that are much more important considerations for casual play.

They're not necessarily contradictory goals. They're just not necessarily aligned, and you can have a game that's well-balanced for LVO but a train wreck for garagehammer. And that's without even getting into the tendency for competitive-focused design to strip down player freedom to produce a more constrained and predictable environment.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

For every tournament player there are 5x casual collectors/players. Been all over the US and have witnessed most people who joined from 3rd-5th are very chill and took the "forging a narrative" as the main draw to the game as opposed to cutthroat competitive games like TCG's.

Balance still benefits casual players tho.

I completely agree.

The problem is that GW isn't doing any better at balancing the game today than they were in, e.g., 7th.

If youre talking about internal balance, agreed. But external balance is pretty good right now.

Pardon but didn't we recently still have 70% winrates? Granted in an extremely questionable pool of competitive games but yeah?

Yeah, and GW reacted and nerfed the problematic army down to a 55%. Also, 1 outlier doesn't mean the overall balance is terrible either, most games that are played won't include that one faction.