Switch Theme:

Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 VladimirHerzog wrote:


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.


But we still got 2 Factions in 60s and Druckari are in the 40s. ... And it is one outlier ALREADY, we both know that the codex cycle will include creep because the GW ink isn't even dry when the next ruleswriter in his silo get's pushed to throw out another 3 factions by XYZ date.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Not Online!!! wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:


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.


But we still got 2 Factions in 60s and Druckari are in the 40s. ... And it is one outlier ALREADY, we both know that the codex cycle will include creep because the GW ink isn't even dry when the next ruleswriter in his silo get's pushed to throw out another 3 factions by XYZ date.


You're looking at the weekend% instead of the winrate since dataslate

Right now, only Aeldari sits at a 56% winrate, with csm at 55%. So there is one problematic army.

If we look at the armies that underperform (which are inherently a smaller issue considering they negatively affect less player, but should still be fixed) we have
Space Marines 44%
Necrons 43%
Custodes 42%
Imperial knights 42%

out of those, marines just got a new codex so the data is kinda insignificant for now.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 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.


Based on tournament winrates. Which brings us back to "8th/9th/10th are built for the competitive playerbase without regard for what would be fun for casual players."

Tournament winrates don't help people who want to use the models they own/like without having to go out and buy all new stuff because when played against the stuff their buddy owns/likes one of them just gets blown off the table in two turns.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/24 14:29:01


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 AnomanderRake wrote:

Based on tournament winrates. Which brings us back to "8th/9th/10th are built for the competitive playerbase without regard for what would be fun for casual players."


ok but honestly, what the feth other source of data would you use to balance the game? I get that hating competitive players is the trend on here but come on....

And anecdotally, my local community (which IS casual centric) has never had that many games fire up weekly. 10th edition has something that is great for casual players : it's approachable (rules-wise, not money-wise) and simple to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Tournament winrates don't help people who want to use the models they own/like without having to go out and buy all new stuff because when played against the stuff their buddy owns/likes one of them just gets blown off the table in two turns.


that doesn't actually happen tho.... if it does, you as a player fethed up somewhere (terrain, or decision-making during the game usually)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/24 14:31:12


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




The main issue with tournament win rates is when the participation level gets so low that just a few "good players" (or "bad players") skew the % dramatically. This is arguably more true the more balanced the broad meta (i.e. early tournament rounds) happens to be.

Its difficult for instance without lots of checking to consider how the 12 DE players last weekend got a 54% win rate - while the 11 DE players the weekend before last got a 38% win rate. Has the meta shifted so dramatically that DE have gone from trash to almost being OP?

Probably not. The issue is more likely that when the playerbase is so tiny, having 8 "above average" players play DE (that go say 3 wins in 5) that weekend will shove the average up, and having 8 "below average" players (1-2 wins in 5) would shove it down. But trying to account for that is incredibly difficult without doing loads of research. (And frankly, we have seen some people try, and it just provokes "I don't believe you anyway" from various people with axes to grind.)

When Eldar are the most popular faction (itself usually a flag) and scoring a 70% win rate, its kind of obvious they are busted. When Eldar are still (I think?) the most popular tournament faction (90 and 80 players respectively), and floating around 57-59% (so more taking out mirrors etc) then there's probably still a problem - but less of one than before.

CSM are likewise doing well on the same metrics. Plenty of players and a high win%.

A good example of a faction that seems in real trouble is Necrons. Plenty of players, and a low win%.
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






ok, but again: What else than tournament results can GW use to decide what changes to make to armies?
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 VladimirHerzog wrote:
ok, but again: What else than tournament results can GW use to decide what changes to make to armies?

The outcry of complainers social media
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Tittliewinks22 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
ok, but again: What else than tournament results can GW use to decide what changes to make to armies?

The outcry of complainers social media


lol, i asked one of my IRL friends what he would use and he said the same thing
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Based on tournament winrates. Which brings us back to "8th/9th/10th are built for the competitive playerbase without regard for what would be fun for casual players."


ok but honestly, what the feth other source of data would you use to balance the game? I get that hating competitive players is the trend on here but come on....

I think tournament data is absolutely the best starting point for balancing the game. The problem I have with GW's approach is I don't think they really understand the data and I don't think they analyse deeply enough. They've also been dismissive in the past of data that doesn't fit their preconceived ideas. For example, they dismissed low SM win rates as being down to too many casuals playing them at tournaments, which led to a lot of analysis that showed that likely wasn't the case.

I think GW often misses the mark when it comes to why factions are doing well or badly. They've tinkered with Eldar a lot, for example, and made some game-wide changes that have helped reduce the win rates at the top. But they usually don't consider how blanket changes affect less powerful factions. They also miss the core reason many things are broken - in Eldar's case, the faction and detachment rules are both among the best in the game and Eldar will remain very good (verging on broken) while that remains the case.

Fundamentally, we can already see that 10th is suffering from a lack of playtesting. We've had major changes to Towering and Devastating Wounds within the first few months of its existence. That's not the sign of a properly tested system. I suspect we'll continue to see ongoing problems for a long time yet. One positive thing so far is that neither of the Codices released for 10th seem to have broken the game or massively increased the power level of their armies. In the case of SM it may actually have lowered it. I'm not convinced GW can maintain that trend, but so far it looks like a good start.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




my gaming group has been loving it. Games almost always seem close and balanced up until the very end. The main missions being a randomized card deck was an excellent idea. Makes the game easy to jump into and get started. My only gripe about the edition is loss of points for various weapon options but honestly its not too big of a deal. I know locally its never been easier to find a game and people are tending to have a great time. I think the most complaining ive heard has been from the competitive players but thats not surprising that those looking to break the game end up breaking it and making themselves miserable
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Game balance can be achieved in a variety of ways, and GW's way is just gakky.

Imagine the following:
1) the scenario is one of a very few in a list with a single clear, simple objective for each player, but they are asymmetric

2) all missions can be won in a single way - but not by killing the enemy. Rather, they are won by breaking their force's morale, which is achieved via a variety of means other than killing (in addition to the objectives)

3) boards are not symmetrical

4) players do not have a deployment zone; rather; there is a mini wargame in advance depicting scouting units maneuvering about the space and setting conditions for the battle (frex dueling over critical terrain pieces).

5) only the core of the list (troops and HQ) is set; everything else is paid for based on the mission and terrain *at the table* and based on a random roll for points (as defined by the scenario). Relative force power ratings are used here to achieve balance.

This way, game balance is not a matter of the designer but a matter of a series of player choices made AT THE TABLE as part of the mission. The designer's only way to screw up balance would be to have the force power ratings in step 5 for core units being WAY off, like way way off. Every single other issue is up to the players.

It's also a more narrative system than anything 40k has ever produced :p as far as mission design.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/24 16:17:12


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Based on tournament winrates. Which brings us back to "8th/9th/10th are built for the competitive playerbase without regard for what would be fun for casual players."


ok but honestly, what the feth other source of data would you use to balance the game? I get that hating competitive players is the trend on here but come on....

And anecdotally, my local community (which IS casual centric) has never had that many games fire up weekly. 10th edition has something that is great for casual players : it's approachable (rules-wise, not money-wise) and simple to play...


If you wanted to use tournament winrates to balance the game in a way that would meaningfully trickle down to casual play I think you need to start analyzing things like unit pick rates and win rates. You need to realize that balance isn't just about controlling the top few of all possible lists, it's about making sure that all options are worth using. GW can't/won't actually do that, because that would involve putting effort into supporting minis that people already have, rather than trying to get people to buy new armies with the random balance roulette they are using.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Based on tournament winrates. Which brings us back to "8th/9th/10th are built for the competitive playerbase without regard for what would be fun for casual players."


ok but honestly, what the feth other source of data would you use to balance the game? I get that hating competitive players is the trend on here but come on....

And anecdotally, my local community (which IS casual centric) has never had that many games fire up weekly. 10th edition has something that is great for casual players : it's approachable (rules-wise, not money-wise) and simple to play...


If you wanted to use tournament winrates to balance the game in a way that would meaningfully trickle down to casual play I think you need to start analyzing things like unit pick rates and win rates. You need to realize that balance isn't just about controlling the top few of all possible lists, it's about making sure that all options are worth using. GW can't/won't actually do that, because that would involve putting effort into supporting minis that people already have, rather than trying to get people to buy new armies with the random balance roulette they are using.


The AoS team does this, so it's not beyond GW's ability to do nor something that GW doesn't want to do.

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://makethatgame.com

And I also make tabletop wargaming videos!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in ca
Stalwart Tribune




Canada,eh

The best way to balance a game is have play testers. You know, the folks who try to break your game to show you areas to work on and just generally put it through reps with weird lists while noting bizarre interactions. Then the rules team would read/watch and listen to the play testers and revisions would occur. Instead of stonewalling and relying on a cut of personality so you can go home ASAP at the end of the day. Because honestly, may as well let the community pay to be the play testers. FFS the complete core rules are in 3 separate documents you need to have access to now.
IMO if you reboot a game and as a result you have to recycle your game mission and index cards because proofread = hard. That tells me very clearly the derp has metastasized.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/24 16:43:06





I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
<small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>

I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.


1000pt Skitari Legion 
   
Made in us
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

I'm unsure how relevant playtesting and balance is to the overal topic.

After all GW has historically sucked at both, so balance has never been part of 40k's "soul" (whatever that is supposed to be).
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Based on tournament winrates. Which brings us back to "8th/9th/10th are built for the competitive playerbase without regard for what would be fun for casual players."


ok but honestly, what the feth other source of data would you use to balance the game? I get that hating competitive players is the trend on here but come on....

And anecdotally, my local community (which IS casual centric) has never had that many games fire up weekly. 10th edition has something that is great for casual players : it's approachable (rules-wise, not money-wise) and simple to play...


If you wanted to use tournament winrates to balance the game in a way that would meaningfully trickle down to casual play I think you need to start analyzing things like unit pick rates and win rates. You need to realize that balance isn't just about controlling the top few of all possible lists, it's about making sure that all options are worth using. GW can't/won't actually do that, because that would involve putting effort into supporting minis that people already have, rather than trying to get people to buy new armies with the random balance roulette they are using.


The problem with using tournament win rates is that they don't seem to take into account what's actually being used. So if you have six factions and each of them are within an acceptable win rate but all of them only have one build that is seen as viable, is that actually balanced? I would argue no it's not but the tournament data would say it is because the tournament players don't care if half the book is trash as long as there's a meta build which they can use.

That is the biggest problem with what they're using. The data is fine It is the fact that it's not showing the fact that there's only one build keeping the faction afloat

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

I would like to ask again-how would you go about gathering data from games outside of tournaments?

I'm with y'all that win rates are not the end-all be-all. It's a useful data point, but it's A data point, not the totality of data.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

VladimirHerzog wrote:ok, but again: What else than tournament results can GW use to decide what changes to make to armies?


Competent mixed qualitative and quantitative testing through designer testing (see if things work when used as you expect), in-house test teams (see if things work when testers deliberately try to break it), and a volunteer cadre of beta testers (see if things work in the 'real world'). Emphasis on qualitative and quantitative, because both are helpful for getting an accurate picture of the current state of the product.

This is how you test and improve any product, not just tabletop games.

As far as I'm concerned, 9th Ed was proof positive that GW was not playtesting in anything even resembling a representative environment. Too many mechanics that relied on unmanageable cognitive load, seemingly necessary play aids that don't exist, or involve rules spread out in such a disparate way that I can't imagine anyone flipping through their rulebook and then to the designer's commentary and saying 'yes, this is intuitive and playable'. And that's without getting into the obviously broken rules. At least 10th is now written around the use of play aids (stat cards), indicating that GW has finally entered the 21st century, but otherwise I do not believe that any sort of radical paradigm shift has occurred.

If you're designing a family sedan, you don't use drag race performance of last year's model as your sole metric. If you're designing a videogame, you don't use raw win rates in top-tier competitive play as your only data source either. And if you're working on a tabletop game, you really shouldn't only be using tournament results to make changes.

Yes, this is an awful lot harder than just looking at win rates and making coarse adjustments. But it can actually achieve the desired outcome.

Edit: I have an old copy of White Dwarf where Andy Chambers wrote up the entire playtest rules for what would become Battlefleet Gothic, included photocopiable ships, and invited readers to try the game out and send feedback. That was circa, what, 1998? Nowadays with digital distribution it's easier than ever to conduct large-scale testing and collect qualitative results. It's far from directly actionable data, and sorting out the wheat from the chaff is a non-negligible task, but that's why you hire a UX researcher to do that work. GW's taken baby steps in that direction with the community surveys, they just need to bring it into the iterative design process rather than a once-yearly 'how are we doing?' check-in.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/10/24 17:38:27


   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

DO PROPER PRE-RELEASE PLAYTESTING & DONT BLOW UP THE SYSTEM OFTEN.

Hire some of these tourney try-hard feth faces and make them play the game to their (black)hearts content.

Seems pretty easy and straightforward for a company that is worth massive dosh...

Or just make a game that works from the get go, many others seem to not have a problem.
   
Made in fi
Posts with Authority






Contemporary AI and deep learning sydtems could offer new tools for GW to tackle their "balance" issues with, since it's obvious they dont want to rely on playtesting. I've read AI systems are being used in devising new medicine, and the amount of crunch and combination of variables involved in those calculations is magnitudes higher than what exists in a game such as 40K

But then again, not sure more models would get sold either way so...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/24 18:02:50


"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems" 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 JNAProductions wrote:
I would like to ask again-how would you go about gathering data from games outside of tournaments?


There's gotta be some industry out there that specializes in market research, data collection, etc....
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Somewhere in Canada

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Yeah, so...

1) earlier editions had a progression system


Yes- I believe this started in 4th. And these systems were good for their time; we owe them a debt of gratitude. Without them, 4th and 5th might not have been able to keep me playing. But that's about as far as my praise can go. They were single, generic tables of battle honours based on unit type meaning everyone got the same potential battle honours, regarles of whether they were a six-limbed hive-minded beast, a genetically modified superhuman in power armour or a mere human in armour that's pretty much an afterthought. The only reason we thought it was good at the time is that GW hadn't given us anything better yet.

Even worse, the way you earned the XP to get those Battle Honours was the same for every army, and if I recall correctly, it was mostly by winning games or destroying units (without any stipulations on who those units were, why you were destroying them or how). Never once in previous 40k Progression Systems did a generally have to make the hard choice between winning the battle or allowing a unit to achieve its own goal.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) earlier editions had more narrative codexes and core rules (in the sense that immersion and verisimilitude - "soul" was higher)


All older dexes had better EQUIPMENT options. Won't dispute that- it's patently obvious. This is more true when comparing 10th to pre-8th, but the trend did start in 9th and I won't try to deny that either.

But once you add in subfaction traits (which only SOME armies were lucky enough to get in those previous editions you love so much), bespoke WL Traits, Relics, non-equipment unit upgrades, psychic powers, Crusade battle honours, non-battle-honour upgrades, and long-term campaign based faction goals, many of which did not exist in previous editions, the total number of customization options for EVERY army (more on this later) was far greater in 9th than any other version of 40k I've played (and please remember, I skipped 6th and 7th and so have no capacity to discuss them).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) earlier editions had campaign frameworks, with descriptions of how to run map, ladder, node-and-spoke, and rolling campaign types.


I agree, and in fact you quoted me saying that Crusade would benefit from these things. You literally quoted me saying it, and then feel compelled to write it here as if I didn't already acknowledge it. Do you read before smashing the quote button? I mean at least edit out the part of my post where I said this so you can score points for taking me out of context like Owl/Bob does. LOL.

But seriously, while I would consider buying such a Big Book of Campaign Systems if one existed, I think GW decided not to produce one for a few reasons: first, campaign systems tend to be edition agnostic- the Map based campaign system that you used in 5th probably still works with 9th, or even 10th; second, if GW did publish their Map-Based Campaign System(tm), many GMs and players would have to tweak it to meet their specific needs anyway, and finally as mentioned in the post you quoted, some campaign systems DID get published in 9th- they were just part of Campaign books.

Personally, my favourite campaign system by GW to date is the Ashes of Faith system for KT- I'm working on adapting it to 40k. But seriously, it slaps. If you didn't get Ashes of Faith, read the Goonhammer review for an idea about how it works- I think you'd really like it. I think HBMC, Blindmage, Smudge, and quite a few other notable Dakkanaughts would too. It's only flaw is that it's so specific to the world on which it occurs that you'd have to tweak and modify to use it in any other context.

Also- caveat: I never got to play Planetary Empires, and I suspect I would have LOVED it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

4) earlier editions had narrative recommendations for battle setup ("why would Grey Knights show up to slaughter Orks?
Then: "3 different reasons suggested"


I also liked this about previous editions, and would have supported more of it in 9th, but did EVERY dex from previous editions have such content, or are you just cherry picking the good ones to try and prove that the edition as a whole was better?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Now: "shut up and play!")


Yeah... You should read the GK Crusade content before you think about how superior having 3 reasons why GK would fight Orks is, but my gues is you haven't. Go to the Goonhammer review, that way you don't need to pay to do it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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?


The fact that different factions have different Battle Honours is a big one. Bespoke Requisitions is another. Agendas, both bespoke and generic, especially the fact that they are decoupled from winning/losing, which allows for dynamic tension. And faction based long term goals; I know that your thoughts on this diverge from mine- you think that by defining some long term goals for a faction, you lock a player into using only those. There's a certain amount of validity to that point of view... But I see the long term goals presented by 9th ed Crusade as exemplars, so if my goal for my sisters isn't sainthood, that's fine because I can use the mechanism for achieving sainthood as a guide for creating a mechanism for my sisters to achieve their goal, whatever that may be.

In the previous editions you love so much, there were no long term goals at all, other than winning the campaign, (whether that was map-based, ladder, rolling, etc) or just maxing out your generic Battle Honours.

You may want to complain about your DE not existing in Commorragh, and therefore not benefitting from the Ascendant Lord Crusade rules, and again, there is some validity to that... But your previous editions didn't give you a way to pursue the goals of a space-faring DE Kabal either. At least the Ascendant Lord rules give you a framework. Adapt all of the listed territories to be captured enemy ships and you're good to go. In your previous eds, you'd have to build such a thing from scratch with Zero guidance.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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."


Now from the same edition as those guard rules come from, find me the awesome equivalent rule from the dexes of the other factions. You'll get them for Marines for sure. I think you'll get them for Chaos and Nids too. The point is, you can cherry pick A good flavourful, fluffy dex or two or three from every ed. And as the Prohammer players do, you can even play this faction's 3rd ed dex against that faction's 5th ed dex and another faction's 7th ed dex... Because that's what you MUST do in order to have an edition where EVERY dex has the kind of flavour you're looking for.

But if you play 9th, you know that EVERY faction is going to have bespoke subfaction traits, WL traits, Relics, Strategems, Battle Honours, Agendas, and campaign goals. Even with all of that, I'll be the first to admit that not all 9th dexes are equally cool- Tau, Sisters, GSC, Drukhari and Nids are far and away the "winners" for bespoke Crusade content. But the point is that 9th at least had a minimum standard "Every dex for every faction must have these things"

Heck, some of the editions you're praising didn't even have a dex for every faction! Think about that dude.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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...


Wait... You're honestly typing with a straight face that the equivalent to a previous edition's doctrine (which affects all <Regiment> units) is a WL Trait (which affects one dude)?

How 'bout we go apples to apples bro. When I have my dex to hand, I'll go through and look at guard subfaction traits, both the bespoke ones and the build your own regiment ones and see if there isn't something that would be at least somewhat comparable. If I don't find it there, I'll check Battle Honours (both bespoke and generic). If I don't find it there, I'll check my campaign books. If I don't find it there, I'll check my WD Flashpoints.

In the edition you cite, xeno hunter is great if that suits my dudes. One of the other regiment traits might suit them better if xeno hunter doesn't. If not, I might be able to make them what I want them to be by changing their loadout. If that doesn't work, my last resort is battlehonours, but there's only going to be six possibilities there, and they will be the same six possibilities that every other faction has access to. That's pretty much it. The Cityfight edition might have had some goodies too, but I can't say for sure.

Now read again the sources I can draw upon in 9th to make them my dudes. It's WAY more than picking from a list of regiment traits, an equipment list and six universal battle honours. Some people call it Spam, but I call it options.

   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern






On using Tournaments as a metric of balance.

It depends upon what data is being harvested, and how it’s being analysed.

For instance, a 56% win rate isn’t, in itself, terribly worrying. It’s pretty close to 50/50, and so needs greater analysis.

Is it overperforming with Really Similar Lists? If so, what is making those lists good. Now player skill not withstanding, is there an odd rule interaction allowing it to do things others just cannot counter.

And how well is it represented amongst all the entrant factions. If it’s say, 10% of all factions at the events, then it’s over performing compared to being 25% of all lists at the events.

Are the opponents skewing things? For instance, did the overall winner get an easy ride in the early rounds, and a favourable match ups in the later ones?

Example. Purely for arguments sake, let’s say I’ve skewed all my Heavy and Special type weapons into slaughtering infantry. If at a given event my luck is in, and I just don’t come up against armoured columns or mechanised infantry, then my win rate could be misleading. Because a single game against say, Knights, and I may have been squished.

Also, what is leading to the wins? Is it kicking out so much damage I have a significant advantage after a couple of turns, or do I happen to be really good at secondaries etc, and said secondaries benefit me against a prevailing meta.

We then have the question of whether Tournaments, the best source of this info (because so much of it is reasonably verifiable), provide enough raw data, which will be linked to number of tournaments and number of participants in each, and how many rounds each has.

I mean, if you’re monitoring 5 Tournies, with 100 slots and 4 rounds each? That’s….2,000 games of info. But, if it’s 20 tournaments, with 150 slots and 5 rounds each? That’s…erm…15,000 games of info, and so a much richer source of data.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Hey look! It’s my 2025 Hobby Log/Blog/Project/Whatevs 
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





washington state USA

 Tyran wrote:
I'm unsure how relevant playtesting and balance is to the overal topic.

After all GW has historically sucked at both, so balance has never been part of 40k's "soul" (whatever that is supposed to be).


That's because it was originally not the intent in the manner we speak of it currently.

If we go back to 90s when Andy, Rick and the boys were making what would become classic 40K they used points and a framework to set up games between 2 players. the points tended to be about internal balance in a codex as in how important is this unit/war gear to your army. not to how it balances out against a different factions army.

Because the game started out as a parody of WHFBs with a bit of epic story telling that morphed into a skirmish game with tighter rules in 2nd and then to an army game in 3rd the concept of external balance was not the goal. the goal was epic thematic battles in the setting. one has but to look at the old 3rd and 4th ed codexes and to a lesser extent some of 5ths to see the focus mostly on in universe lore about how each faction fights with rules to promote that play style. there are also loads of retrospect articles we can go through where the design team was at odds with the sales team over rules VS sales.

It is also an era where building a good army list was not as important as how you used that army (generalship) on the table, taking advantages of terrain, objectives, army strengths/weaknesses, maneuver etc... there was also much focus put in the actually books at the time reminding players of the spirit of the game/community is that this is a game where BOTH players are trying to have an enjoyable time and you should play accordingly. not seal clubbing, not power gaming etc.... things like reminding players-talk with your opponent and see if they are ok with x,y, or z that you want to try out especially if it is something rare...like named characters, flyers or superheavies etc...

The reason why 10th is so bland is because the focus switched from fun social play to tournament meta play with an obsession with cross faction "balance". you effectively end up with chess were both forces are effectively the same. a bit harder to do with 40K now since they have added so many units and factions. but the effect is currently the same. and any time one faction seems to get a little bit ahead it has to be pushed back down for the sake of balance.

that is why for many people who were around prior to 8th still love going back and playing the game when it was a different experience.





GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear/MCP 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 catbarf wrote:
At least 10th is now written around the use of play aids (stat cards), indicating that GW has finally entered the 21st century, but otherwise I do not believe that any sort of radical paradigm shift has occurred.


You know that AoS has had these unit stat cards for two editions now, right?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

ccs wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
At least 10th is now written around the use of play aids (stat cards), indicating that GW has finally entered the 21st century, but otherwise I do not believe that any sort of radical paradigm shift has occurred.


You know that AoS has had these unit stat cards for two editions now, right?


Yeah, as do most of the modern Specialist Games. I meant specifically 40K, which is perpetually behind the curve at GW, let alone as far as wargames in general.

   
Made in us
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

 aphyon wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
I'm unsure how relevant playtesting and balance is to the overal topic.

After all GW has historically sucked at both, so balance has never been part of 40k's "soul" (whatever that is supposed to be).


That's because it was originally not the intent in the manner we speak of it currently.

If we go back to 90s when Andy, Rick and the boys were making what would become classic 40K they used points and a framework to set up games between 2 players. the points tended to be about internal balance in a codex as in how important is this unit/war gear to your army. not to how it balances out against a different factions army.

Because the game started out as a parody of WHFBs with a bit of epic story telling that morphed into a skirmish game with tighter rules in 2nd and then to an army game in 3rd the concept of external balance was not the goal. the goal was epic thematic battles in the setting. one has but to look at the old 3rd and 4th ed codexes and to a lesser extent some of 5ths to see the focus mostly on in universe lore about how each faction fights with rules to promote that play style. there are also loads of retrospect articles we can go through where the design team was at odds with the sales team over rules VS sales.

It is also an era where building a good army list was not as important as how you used that army (generalship) on the table, taking advantages of terrain, objectives, army strengths/weaknesses, maneuver etc... there was also much focus put in the actually books at the time reminding players of the spirit of the game/community is that this is a game where BOTH players are trying to have an enjoyable time and you should play accordingly. not seal clubbing, not power gaming etc.... things like reminding players-talk with your opponent and see if they are ok with x,y, or z that you want to try out especially if it is something rare...like named characters, flyers or superheavies etc...

The reason why 10th is so bland is because the focus switched from fun social play to tournament meta play with an obsession with cross faction "balance". you effectively end up with chess were both forces are effectively the same. a bit harder to do with 40K now since they have added so many units and factions. but the effect is currently the same. and any time one faction seems to get a little bit ahead it has to be pushed back down for the sake of balance.

that is why for many people who were around prior to 8th still love going back and playing the game when it was a different experience.


The issue isn't really the game though. The issue is that the community has massively changed since those days. The economic and social context is different, the available technology is different, the expectations are different.

I don't believe we can say that 10th or 9th or 8th has drained anything, but rather that they changed to reflect a different community. After all if the community was the same we would all still be playing 3rd/4th/5th, which was what happened in communities like the RTS and Grand Strategy Games in which the community has been playing the same 20 year old games (e.g. AoEII is still one of the most played RTS).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/24 19:32:06


 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Did it really change though or is it just a drawback of a culture based on social media where people feel if they're popular they have a majority voice. I don't think it's a coincidence that the majority of content creators and such also happen to be tournament players and pushing competitive play over everything else.

That alone seems to indicate that because of these people and their inevitable cult following their voices are elevated above the rest because they are looked to as having influence or authority, and the fact that a lot of their followers and people who think similarly tend to just drown out the opposite opinion doesn't help.

Also let's not pretend that Edition changes didn't happen specifically to shake things up and require you to repurchase things that you are already bought. So that's been a problem forever but it definitely feels that the past few editions GW has decided to try their hand leading the opposite direction. In 7th they basically told competitive players the game isn't meant for you and rather than accept that they basically said well I'll go make my own game with blackjack and hookers and we got ITC Edition. Now it seems like they're going the opposite way and trying to see if appeasing the competitive players and letting everyone else just deal with it will work. While I can't deny that some things may be improved by that I think it will in the end strip away everything that made the game good. This game has never been meant for being a serious cutthroat tournament game and it's entirely the fault of the players for wanting to corrupt it into being that rather than accept it for what it is. The editions of the past show That tournament play was still possible because there have been grand tournaments since 2nd edition.

Time will tell if that is the case.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/10/24 20:01:37


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
ok, but again: What else than tournament results can GW use to decide what changes to make to armies?


If only there was like... some software that you could download onto a personal computational device. You know, something small, like that could fit in your pocket, and which most people carried around with them and had available to them at all times. And this piece of software could let you build army lists in it, and then when you played a game it would let you sync with your opponent to keep track of your objectives and scoring, CP points, etc. and let you track your damage on your units, etc. And when you were done you could submit your game data to GW, and they could analyze it not just by faction but also by detachment and unit and hell even the whole army list and what strategems were used, etc....

...but that would be impossible, no such technology exists, no sir, it can't be done.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern






chaos0xomega wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
ok, but again: What else than tournament results can GW use to decide what changes to make to armies?


If only there was like... some software that you could download onto a personal computational device. You know, something small, like that could fit in your pocket, and which most people carried around with them and had available to them at all times. And this piece of software could let you build army lists in it, and then when you played a game it would let you sync with your opponent to keep track of your objectives and scoring, CP points, etc. and let you track your damage on your units, etc. And when you were done you could submit your game data to GW, and they could analyze it not just by faction but also by detachment and unit and hell even the whole army list and what strategems were used, etc....

...but that would be impossible, no such technology exists, no sir, it can't be done.


Maybe it’s my career, but you’re putting a lot of faith in people being far more honest than people actually are with that.

We’ve all played against bad losers, who’ll blame everything but their own decisions and competence. Not just in the game but in life.

Tournaments results are considerably more verifiable. Put such an app out into the wild? You’ve no way to strip out dishonesty from the submitted results. At all.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Hey look! It’s my 2025 Hobby Log/Blog/Project/Whatevs 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: