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.

Well you realize you aren't target for gw anymore anyway? You got your army. Neeext!

drbored wrote:
I love how instead of addressing the fact that a complicated product is seldom 'complete' when put out to the public, and simply understanding that simple line of logic, people start getting pedantic and instead find every way in which a video game is unlike a tabletop game, dodging the point entirely.

Those aren't facts and logic, they're the sort of excuses people make when defending a corporation that defines their lifestyle and identity.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

drbored wrote:
I love how instead of addressing the fact that a complicated product is seldom 'complete' when put out to the public, and simply understanding that simple line of logic, people start getting pedantic and instead find every way in which a video game is unlike a tabletop game, dodging the point entirely.

Those aren't facts and logic, they're the sort of excuses people make when defending a corporation that defines their lifestyle and identity.

No, it is a fact, I can't think of any complex product running any kind of software or patchable features that isn't later refined. Games? Patched. OS? Patched. PC hardware? Patched if it can be via drivers/firmware, or has an obsolescence cycle. Many books? Reprinted with better editing. Board game? Often reprinted with errors resolved or errata online. Food? Sometimes recalled due to warehouse issues.

None of those things are "good", but they're reactive measures to something being less than perfect. Which is what I think the largest majority consider to be a market standard. That bar is slowly slipping in some fields such as video game quality admittedly.

You're not offering anything in counter point, instead just running with the weird angle of trying to suggest people are brainwashed and you're some hyper advanced giga Chad who lives by nobodies rules.

tneva82 wrote:
Well you realize you aren't target for gw anymore anyway? You got your army. Neeext!

Rather rude.
I guess existing customers never buy new armies then. We're all 1 army and done.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Rather rude.

Are you surprised?

People start new armies all the time.

Dudeface wrote:

No, it is a fact, I can't think of any complex product running any kind of software or patchable features that isn't later refined. Games? Patched. OS? Patched. PC hardware? Patched if it can be via drivers/firmware, or has an obsolescence cycle. Many books? Reprinted with better editing. Board game? Often reprinted with errors resolved or errata online. Food? Sometimes recalled due to warehouse issues.

All of this is true but leaves out the small detail that GW is basically re-releasing the same product in a different engine (core rules), to stay with software analogies. Since the engine is a completely different one than before, all of the performance optimisations (balance adjustments) made are null and zilch. The advantage of the new engine? Physics (core rules) behave differently now. Not necessarily better, but different. They got rid of that one feature nobody liked anyway (stratagem bloat), but is a rewrite of everything the optimal way forward here? We got new bugs now (see this topic) that were not there before and lost features people liked (more granular points and unit options).

As others have said, no game is perfect on release. Be it a board tabletop game or video game, they all come with erratas and patches.

And I guarantee that the design and balance teams are predominantly not hyper-competitive wombles. So on the face of it, the rules look great when you're taking the average players collection of 'these guys look cool' minis. It's when you take a collection to an extreme that the rules start getting janky. Like when Orks took 180 fearless boys and won because you just couldn't kill them fast enough to get to the things that were actually dealing damage and winning games. Orks weren't broken, it was the rules being taken to a logical extreme that lots of armies couldn't handle. Same as when Knights are oppressive in the meta, it's all just skew.

And the point that the problems get found within days of release? That's because you've suddenly got millions of people suddenly looking at the rules and trying to find ways to break them.

Yeah GW designers definitely wouldn't have thought to use a Fate Dice'd 6 on a Wraithknight to suddenly turn an anti-tank gun into an all-purpose death ray.
These are the same folk that a few editions back buffed Librarians because everyone in the studio used Chaplains instead when the rest of the world considered Chaplains trash and Librarians as the best HQ choice in the Space Marine codex...

Kind of like how D&D is a complete failure as well, right? They’ve got their sixth edition coming out soon.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
As others have said, no game is perfect on release. Be it a board tabletop game or video game, they all come with erratas and patches.

And I guarantee that the design and balance teams are predominantly not hyper-competitive wombles. So on the face of it, the rules look great when you're taking the average players collection of 'these guys look cool' minis. It's when you take a collection to an extreme that the rules start getting janky. Like when Orks took 180 fearless boys and won because you just couldn't kill them fast enough to get to the things that were actually dealing damage and winning games. Orks weren't broken, it was the rules being taken to a logical extreme that lots of armies couldn't handle. Same as when Knights are oppressive in the meta, it's all just skew.

And the point that the problems get found within days of release? That's because you've suddenly got millions of people suddenly looking at the rules and trying to find ways to break them.

IIRC, when the video game Defender was in development, the top score was around 60K and the developers weren't sure if that could be beat. Then within a couple weeks of release there were players scoring into the hundreds of thousands. Not the same thing...but the point is that you can't *really* assess some things until it gets into the hands of a much larger audience including very skilled players.

Also...my stance on 40K continues to be that if GW was truly striving for balance, the game would look a lot different. It'd be a stripped-down, very simple but elegant ruleset with factions including a much more limited number of units. But that's a total non-starter. The players *want* all the rules complexity and for their models to stay playable and competitive forever. And of course they always want to sell players new kits, which means the faction sprawl is endless. GW could make a better 40K and in fact they do make better games if you play attention to the non-core products. They just don't want to, and the player base ultimately doesn't want what a better 40K would mean either.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled balance update Armageddon.

 AduroT wrote:
Kind of like how D&D is a complete failure as well, right? They’ve got their sixth edition coming out soon.

40k. Released 1987? 10 editions to 2023. Average 3.6 years between editions
D&D. Released 1974? 6 editions to 2024. Average 8.3 years between editions.

If 40k moved to 8 years per edition, I'd maybe get an army or 2 finished before it was altered.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Kind of like how D&D is a complete failure as well, right? They’ve got their sixth edition coming out soon.

40k. Released 1987? 10 editions to 2023. Average 3.6 years between editions
D&D. Released 1974? 6 editions to 2024. Average 8.3 years between editions.

If 40k moved to 8 years per edition, I'd maybe get an army or 2 finished before it was altered.

That would be fantastic, wouldn't it?

Sarouan wrote:
The rules don't stop to function if "balance" is broken...like Ash from Guerilla Miniature Games says right, not everything needs to be balanced in a game at all times...just let people adapt and find new tactics. We did that in the old days of previous editions of GW core games

yeah, except in the old days of pre-8th, the 40k community was much smaller and didnt "solve the meta" in a week. Wraithknight was OP, Dev wounds WAS overbearing in the game.

I'm sorry but i don't understand how people agree with Ash, if you play 40k ultra casually like the people he laments for, then you're probably not even aware that GW made any rules changes.

tneva82 wrote:
Well you realize you aren't target for gw anymore anyway? You got your army. Neeext!

Actually he is exactly the type of customer GW wants to have for every new edition they launch... He has 8 armies which he needs to buy codexes for and then buy more models for those same 8 armies to keep up with the updates. Look at Votann... you think you're sorted with 2000pts before?... guess again new rules means you need to buy around 300 extra points more in models...

Hell, anyone updating their armies 8 armies to this edition will cost them more than just buying one new full army.

I don't see why they had to change the core rules to fix a couple broken units. Surely the advantage of units all having 'unique' weapons is so they can adjust offending units on the fly, while leaving the core rules intact. Just take Wraithknights D-Cannons and whatever else has similar issues. Reduce Damage stat by half, but then add a rule for the weapon that against Vehicles or Monsters you do double damage. There, now they are half as lethal against infantry, while my horrendously expensive hardcover book is correct for longer than Liz Truss's Premiership.

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I don't see why they had to change the core rules to fix a couple broken units. Surely the advantage of units all having 'unique' weapons is so they can adjust offending units on the fly, while leaving the core rules intact. Just take Wraithknights D-Cannons and whatever else has similar issues. Reduce Damage stat by half, but then add a rule for the weapon that against Vehicles or Monsters you do double damage. There, now they are half as lethal against infantry, while my horrendously expensive hardcover book is correct for longer than Liz Truss's Premiership.

That fixes problem of mortal wounds only for some. Not enough. You would need to add special rule to every devastating wound weapon with damage value higher than 1...

So annoyed your broken toys got fixed?

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I don't see why they had to change the core rules to fix a couple broken units.

If they see Mortal Wounds as a cause, treating symptoms is the worst thing they can do.

tneva82 wrote:


That fixes problem of mortal wounds only for some. Not enough. You would need to add special rule to every devastating wound weapon with damage value higher than 1...

So annoyed your broken toys got fixed?

If they thought mortal wounds as a whole were an issue they'd have changed mortal wounds. I don't think rolling a 6 to wound with a Sternguard HB killing two guardsmen is that big of a problem. It was what was supposed to be dedicated anti-tank wiping whole squads. This was made too easy via the eldar index, which (outside the poor chumps that bought the Index Cards, which were known to be limited lifetime) could have just been changed via PDF.

And no, as they didn't reprint and offer me a free new copy of the hardcover rule book, they didn't 'fix' my 'broken toys'

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I don't see why they had to change the core rules to fix a couple broken units. Surely the advantage of units all having 'unique' weapons is so they can adjust offending units on the fly, while leaving the core rules intact. Just take Wraithknights D-Cannons and whatever else has similar issues. Reduce Damage stat by half, but then add a rule for the weapon that against Vehicles or Monsters you do double damage. There, now they are half as lethal against infantry, while my horrendously expensive hardcover book is correct for longer than Liz Truss's Premiership.

So add more unit-specific rules instead of fixing what nearly everyone acknowledges is the rule that's the source of the problem?