Quantifying fun, balance, and offering trials to opponents.

[Damo1701]

With all the talk of Chapter Approved recently, I was wondering how people find a little extra fun and balance with their Raven Guard. Especially if the basic marine nerfs are proved right?

 

I was thinking about the next time I go to the gaming club, and it occurred to me that the biggest handicap Marines have been facing this edition, over and above any previous editions, is the fact, AFAIK, we are the only faction that doesn't get our specific traits on our vehicles.

 

I'm planning on asking any opponents I manage to line up about whether they would be happy to trial this with me. Now, our CT could be argued are one of the best, giving us -1 at 12"+. I usually end up facing Guard, and their traited vehicles are rather brutal. To the point where it's almost impossible to find a balance during a game. At least for me and where I play.

 

I would hope it doesn't come across as though I want "my cake and to eat it," I am trying to find the perfect spot of fun for both and balanced armies on the table.

 

My current all-comers list doesn't include any flyers, and only has 2 tanks, and two Razorbacks, so I don't think I'm asking for too much?

 

What is your opinion? Should we have Chapter Tactics on our vehicles? If not, why? If so, again, why?

 

Cheers.

[Mileposter]

The biggest problem with the demand that Chapter Tactics apply to all our units is that the only drive for it has been "Because they have it". It completely ignores other avenues of balance and comes across as the "But I want to play with his toy!" argument.

 

Chapter Tactics not applying to our vehicles is not a negative thing inherently. All it means is that our vehicles need something else to bring them on par. If they had an average toughness higher than other people's tanks, an average of stronger weapons, or an average of more wounds, or if they were just flat cheaper, etc. - these would all be valid balancing points. The whole picture needs to balance rather than just "They have it, so we should too".

 

That's not to say that our tanks are fine where they are. I do agree that Space Marines vehicles need a bit... More. I personally think the wound boost on all of them is the most thematic and balanced approach, but nifty abilities wouldn't be unwelcome. The "If you have three of these, then you can do X" abilities of 7th are good examples, but with how much more expensive vehicles are in this edition, I don't think they'd be a good guideline.

 

I firmly believe that this will be addressed in the mid-year game update after there's a data collection on how Dark Angels and Blood Angels perform. It's possible that we could see an update with the FAQ for either codex, but unlikely. I expect we'll see statistical changes to our vehicles rather than an adjustment to Chapter Tactics.

 

If trialing out having the -1 to your tanks is what makes the game fun for you in the meantime, I say go for it. Point is to have fun, after all. I'd be interested in hearing if it affects your game performance and how. I merely caution against getting stuck on this as the fix.

[seriade]

Chaos do not have the -1 on their vehicles either. Eldar and admech are the only ones that have -1 on all there vehicles.  Eldar are an exception but admech all the vehicles are walkers and we also get the -1 on our dreds so for all the imperial stuff it is uniformly applied.

[Damo1701]

I'm not opposed to facing Heretic Astartes using their Legion traits if we used our Chapter Tactics.

 

I'm not just pointing out the -1 here, there is the fact Guard vehicles benefit from their traits, as do Eldar, Ad Mech etc. However, if it is any form of marine, it gets left far behind.

 

The main reason for focussing on the -1 is that that is the Raven Guard tactic, which is what I play.

 

I have thought about other balancing factors, however, I did feel that allowing marine vehicles access to CT's was the easiest thing for both myself and my opponent to remember. Stat changes get too complicated and can cause more problems in finding a 'fair' number between you.

 

"Can we trial Chapter Tactis applying to my vehicles please? I feel that they were left out as a hold over from previous editions. The reasoning behind this is that every other army released allows it's vehicles to benefit in greater variety."

 

"Sure, it will be something interesting to try, and we can feed that back to GW."

 

Or

 

"No, I don't like that idea, it seems too powerful for now."

 

Hopefully, experimentation will win out, data fed back to GW, and it gets brought in. I've seen it asked for an awful lot recently.

[duz_]

Wait did I miss something? What "basic marines nerfs" are in CA? 

[Shadow Captain Vyper]

I think as far as trialing with an opponent goes, I would say that it's your game, and play it in the way that enables you to have the most fun. However, remember it is your opponents game as well. There are so many different levels at which to appreciate this game - from design and balance to aesthetic and artistry. Some opponents would hear what you ask and might agree to it but because they don't have the same level of passion/understanding as you, might not really understand what they are agreeing to. Some might understand exactly what you ask, but disagree with you. Some might find your plight curious and want to test it. It really just depends on the person, and you understanding that the game is a social contract and what type of person each of your opponents is.

 

I have a good friend that I have been playing the game with for a while now, and I know he would be interested in testing this, and would approach it with an open mind. I also have a friend that I learned this game with nearly two decades ago, and if I asked him, he would say yes, and he would test it with me. However, after a game or two, if he ends up losing, he might look at this as the major/sole cause of what was being tested, and start to feel that it is unfair, and it would take away from his enjoyment.

 

We as people are complex creatures, and I always try to err on the side of a good game and happy opponent, unless of course its a tournament setting, then its a completely different beast.

 

As for the balance issues itself, I spend a lot of time wondering what Games Workshop does in terms of balance and design that is intentional and what is an accident.

Wait did I miss something? What "basic marines nerfs" are in CA? 

Was wondering the same thing...

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

"Because they have it" IS good enough.  Lets think about this for a second!

 

If a wave serpent having -1 to hit is balanced, then a rhine or razorback having it is also.

If a Wrathknight having -1 to hit is balanced, then a land raider having it is also.

 

etc etc

 

What this issue amounts to is "feel badsies" which is entirely avoidable. 

[thewarriorhunter]

"Because they have it" IS good enough.  Lets think about this for a second!

 

If a wave serpent having -1 to hit is balanced, then a rhine or razorback having it is also.

If a Wrathknight having -1 to hit is balanced, then a land raider having it is also.

 

I would disagree. If that logic is used across all armies then we have a very stale game with the only difference being aesthetics. I'd much rather see asymmetrical attempts to balance the game. Sure Aeldari have -1 to hit but all SM vehicles have more wounds or no penalty to shoot after moving, reroll one failed save, etc.

[Shadow Captain Vyper]

"Because they have it" IS good enough.  Lets think about this for a second!

 

If a wave serpent having -1 to hit is balanced, then a rhine or razorback having it is also.

If a Wrathknight having -1 to hit is balanced, then a land raider having it is also.

 

etc etc

 

What this issue amounts to is "feel badsies" which is entirely avoidable. 

 

 

 

"Because they have it" IS good enough.  Lets think about this for a second!

 

If a wave serpent having -1 to hit is balanced, then a rhine or razorback having it is also.

If a Wrathknight having -1 to hit is balanced, then a land raider having it is also.

 

I would disagree. If that logic is used across all armies then we have a very stale game with the only difference being aesthetics. I'd much rather see asymmetrical attempts to balance the game. Sure Aeldari have -1 to hit but all SM vehicles have more wounds or no penalty to shoot after moving, reroll one failed save, etc.

 

 

See the thing is:

 

Games Workshop has (in the past and present) made design choices based on how something should feel, which doesn't always line up with balance, in fact, there have been many instances of these issues where the design aesthetic is in direct contradiction to balance/equality. To me when I look at this issue, I interpret one of 3 ways:

 

1) Codex Space Marines comes out first, the Chapter Tactic is designed, tested, balanced, and published. The decision is made to only include Infantry/Walkers for internal balance testing issues. Months later Eldar codex is approaching publication, and the decision to include all units is made because "Eldar are more agile and have a natural predisposition towards stealth, so it makes sense for this buff to apply to all of their units"

 

2) Codex Space Marines comes out first, the Chapter Tactic is designed, tested, balanced, and published. The decision is made to only include Infantry/Walkers for internal balance testing issues. Months later Eldar codex is approaching publication, and it gets published with their buff applying to all units, simply as an editing mistake.

 

3) Codex Space Marines comes out first, the Chapter Tactic is designed, tested, balanced, and published. The decision is made to only include Infantry/Walkers for internal balance testing issues. Months later Eldar codex is approaching publication, and it gets published with their buff applying to all units, this change is made intentionally because they intend to re-balance the Space Marines in the near future, or they don't because they don't think it's a big deal.

 

Community management is a difficult gig. We as consumers see one side of the chess board, but we are woefully under-informed on the other side. I'm sure a lot of us here play video games, and maybe even have a bit of a competitive streak when it comes to them. We may even be finding ourselves comparing Games Workshop to some of those companies. When you look at companies that put great effort into community feedback and management (Blizzard) and companies that put little to no effort into community management (Valve/Bioware), you can see that both can and have worked, and both can and have failed, but for drastically different reasons.

 

A couple of notes/thoughts:

 

1] We simply don't know Games Workshop's development cycle, specifically as it pertains to balance/play testing. In most game design, the Balance/Play test team is on a completely different (Shorter) development cycle than the rest of the design team. I think its fair to say in the past that GW's approach to balance & design has been slower than the market. The product is so unique though that there is very limited competition. Maybe size/scope the closest comparison is Wizards of the Coast and Magic (to just compare to a physical game with analog components).

 

2] While we don't know their development cycle, so we can't know what to expect, what we do know is that this new approach to design and balance is just that, new. They didn't go out and hire 30 new game developers and 60 new play testers to accommodate this new design philosophy. While it would be nice if they did, they simply don't have the revenue stream. That means that right now there are a wealth of people at the company doing double or triple duty to accommodate this new philosophy. This extra workload is being done in the context of learning and growth. For most of them this is new territory.

 

3] At some point, they, as a company, have to choose how to allocate resources. Do you make decisions for the future (which has short term growing pains)? Or do you make decisions for the current (which is very stable but also stagnant)? It's a tough row to hoe. I think they as a company have made the right decision to have a forward thinking approach to accommodate all sectors of their target demographic (Casual, Narrative, and Matched Play). I think it's important to remember that for nearly 10 years the company considered the "competitive" demographic metaphorically dead to them. For a game that is inherently flawed when considering a competitive market, its an admirable cause (albeit a bit foolish at times).

 

I'm sure a lot of what I wrote is going to sound like I'm defending a company I don't work for, but rather I am a consumer for, and I suppose that's fair. Ultimately at the end of the day i'm just a guy that loves game design and wishes he had made it his career path, and have experienced decades of anecdotal evidence as part of that culture.

Edited November 30, 2017 by ltvyper

[MajorNese]

I'm not opposed to facing Heretic Astartes using their Legion traits if we used our Chapter Tactics.

 

I'm not just pointing out the -1 here, there is the fact Guard vehicles benefit from their traits, as do Eldar, Ad Mech etc. However, if it is any form of marine, it gets left far behind.

My best bet would be, it's a design decision rather than development cycle artifacts (6 months, too many codexes and too little time to print for rewriting stuff). Guard centers around massed infantry or massed tanks in fluff, penalizing half of the playstyles "because marines don't get that rule too" doesn't add up. Some regiment tactics have different rules for infantry and tanks, which marks it explicitly as a design choice, not lazyness.

 

Marines in contrast are always depicted as power-armoured super soldiers, centered around great heroes, while vehicles only fulfill a support role in that picture. My guess would be intentionally not promoting an astartes tank company, though it seems bad compared to other factions. Most marine lists (since FAQing flyers) revolve around dudes being buffed by heroes (as it should be in fluff), being cranked up to eleven with Robert Girlyman blobs.

 

Marines get easy access to all kinds of character-based buff auras for CT-buffed infantry, guard uses orders (infantry) or tank buffs, Eldar get...well, everything, because Eldar. The problem is not who gets which rule or not (marines don't get orders, tau don't get psykers by the dozen, guard doesn't get markerlights), the problem is putting an appropriate price tag on it, or weakening the rules. For example, Eldar vehicles could have gotten that -1 on 18" or 24", instead of flat out getting the same 12" as RG non-vehicles.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

That is fair speculation of how things might get designed at GW.  I think the main point of the recent griping from space marine players is that GW can and should make adjustment to C:SM that will remove all the "feel badsies" from our codex without creating a power disparity.  Again, Wraithknights get 6+ FNP with craftworld attributes, Iron Hands Land Raiders do not... unacceptable.   

[Damo1701]

That is fair speculation of how things might get designed at GW. I think the main point of the recent griping from space marine players is that GW can and should make adjustment to C:SM that will remove all the "feel badsies" from our codex without creating a power disparity. Again, Wraithknights get 6+ FNP with craftworld attributes, Iron Hands Land Raiders do not... unacceptable.

This exactly.

 

Why shouldn't Raven Guard vehicles have Electronic Counter Measures or some other form of stealth technology? Or even some method of misdirecting the enemy?

 

Why wouldn't the Iron Hands have superior self/temporary repair mechanisms Etc?

 

Only 2 Vehicles (off the top of my head) in Codex Space Marines have PotMS, the Land Raider and the Storm Raven.

 

All other vehicles suffer the -1 to hit for moving.

 

As to basic Marine Nerfs... did we miss the points hike on the Space Marine stuff leaked from CA? Stuff that isn't over-powered in itself, but in combination with a Primarch, becomes so. Or the fact that taking a fun unit get penalised because some gimp in the ITC circuit decided to spam it when GW were looking...

 

Sure... Marines have B.S. 3+... so what? Vehicles largely suffer still. There is no request to make their turrets fire twice is there? No request for order ability or something similar to marker lights...

 

All some of us are asking for is the basic trait system that is being applied to the newer codexes, pretty much anything that doesn't feature marines.

 

However, with the Blood Angels landing soon, will they see Overcharged Engines? Something different?

 

That's ignoring the fact that for some reason, Marines can no longer leap out of a moving storm raven, unlike valkyries/ogrns...

 

Do I want same rules with different models? No.

 

Do I want some basic trait rules that apply effectively and equally? Yes.

 

So, there is a difference, honestly. The fact that a growing number of factions are getting traits that apply to their army, as a whole, shows that all Astartes, Adeptus or heretic, are getting left behind... again.

[seriade]

You guys do realize that all the codexes would have been written as a group at the exact same time and the only reason we are getting drip fed them is because of marketing reasons?

 

Also it is more likely that eldar will loose the -1 on there tanks compared to us gaining them if it ends up over the long run proving to be a  problem.  People are screaming power creap left right and center when every army so far basically uses slight variations of the same rules. The most powerful eldar list atm does not even use tanks.  Yea them having -1 to hit on there tanks is nice but they can not take a ton of tanks compared to a marine army.  So a wraith knight is -1 to hit so is a leviathan.  We have a dread that gives every infantry unit that is within 6 of it  5++. We have multiple vehicles that offset the -1 to hit,  as more and more armies come out the meta will change and you will need to do things differently and adapt.

[Shadow Captain Vyper]

 

That is fair speculation of how things might get designed at GW. I think the main point of the recent griping from space marine players is that GW can and should make adjustment to C:SM that will remove all the "feel badsies" from our codex without creating a power disparity. Again, Wraithknights get 6+ FNP with craftworld attributes, Iron Hands Land Raiders do not... unacceptable.

As to basic Marine Nerfs... did we miss the points hike on the Space Marine stuff leaked from CA? Stuff that isn't over-powered in itself, but in combination with a Primarch, becomes so. Or the fact that taking a fun unit get penalised because some gimp in the ITC circuit decided to spam it when GW were looking...

 

From my post here: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/341701-chapter-approved-and-the-rgraptors/?p=4943031

 

14 Units got Cheaper

7 Wargear Options got Cheaper

 

2 Units got more Expensive

4 Wargear Options got more Expensive

 

I'm not going to speak to Bobby G, as I firmly believe that for his purpose he is relatively balanced model and this is a Raven Guard forum.

 

All 14 unit choices that were discounted were units where little/no armies were utilizing it, so the cost came down to make it more attractive.

 

The 2 units that got more expensive were simply under-costed. Saying things like:

 

because some gimp in the ITC circuit decided to spam it when GW were looking...

 

You really are taking a legitimate issue and laying the blame for that on a handful of scrupulous gamers who realized these units were under-costed, and took advantage of that. That's one of the tenets of competitive play: understanding game balanced and utilizing tools that are under costed or over powered to your advantage.

 

Regardless of what that competitive scene may or may not have done, you can't deny that the Twin AC Razorback was the clear choice (when compared to other transports in the SM Codex) and also that weapon load out was the superior option just based on pricing.

 

Same thing for the Storm Raven: At release, that unit was simply too cheap for what it could achieve on the game field. It's stats, durability, transportation capability, firepower, and PotMS. It needed to have its cost adjusted.

 

I would much rather the units cost get adjusted than its Data Sheet get changed (and the unit play differently).

 

You guys do realize that all the codexes would have been written as a group at the exact same time and the only reason we are getting drip fed them is because of marketing reasons?

 

Also it is more likely that eldar will loose the -1 on there tanks compared to us gaining them if it ends up over the long run proving to be a  problem.  People are screaming power creap left right and center when every army so far basically uses slight variations of the same rules. The most powerful eldar list atm does not even use tanks.  Yea them having -1 to hit on there tanks is nice but they can not take a ton of tanks compared to a marine army.  So a wraith knight is -1 to hit so is a leviathan.  We have a dread that gives every infantry unit that is within 6 of it  5++. We have multiple vehicles that offset the -1 to hit,  as more and more armies come out the meta will change and you will need to do things differently and adapt.

 

While I understand that this has been thrown around in the community on and off since 8th Edition launch, its naive to think that all of the codices were ready to publish simultaneously. I am sure that each army/faction started as its Index equivalent, then as time wore on, more and more of them became fleshed out. 

 

It's silly to think that as the timeline progressed on each of these codex launches that no balance changes were implemented before publishing (See: Guard Conscripts, The Entire Tyranid codex).

 

I think its safer to assume the "codices" were all their index statlines, with Warlord Traits, Relics, and a handful of "traits" when rollout of codices started, and as the publishing timeline progressed, more traits were added/balanced and Data Sheets were re-balanced.

 

On a more personal note: When you say things like "You guys do realize...??" it comes across as contemptuous to me, and while it isn't my place to say that it does for all frater, I can say that to me personally it seems a bit confrontational. One of the things I love about the B&C (and this forum in particular) is we have a culture that supports tolerance, understanding, and open discussion. Just an observation though, no offense meant.

[Damo1701]

So, I lose the use of what I enjoy in a casual game, due to being pointed out of lists because I can't shave elsewhere, but I should accept that, because only a minority of people abused it?

 

Like being told that 8th edition would be the best thing to ever hit the tables?

 

Like being told that 7th edition was the worst ever!!?

 

All 8th has really done is highlight the polarisation of hobbyists.

 

People who will only play points and refuse to acknowledge PL at all. People who think Primaris are the best ever despite having awful models, and mediocre stats/options at best. The fact Power Creep is far higher and more obvious in this edition?

 

There are, currently, many things that I am disappointed about. Some are relevant, some aren't. The trouble is, it all blends in to one on occasion, and I end up feeling like people are :cuss on me, and telling me it's rain.

 

Vehicles are already expensive, and there is still little to show for the investment. High numbers of shenanigans combined with Mortal Wound spam and multiple damage weaponry still haven't made vehicles overly survivable. Or vehicles being vehicles.

 

Perhaps it's time to investigate other systems? I really don't know anymore.

[Mileposter]

I, for one, have always appreciated that you represent the minority, Damo. Someone must.

 

I suspect, however, that you may have hit a divergence of expectations.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

Calling primaris models awful is certainly a tiny minority opinion... wouldnt even surprise me if only 1 person thought that.  The only thing about them that could even be considered awful is the lack of wargear options and even that criticism is a bit extreme.  

 

You want to talk awful models... lets compare the Primaris line with most of the chaos marine kits or eldar kits.  That is a true horror show.  

[Shadow Captain Vyper]

So, I lose the use of what I enjoy in a casual game, due to being pointed out of lists because I can't shave elsewhere, but I should accept that, because only a minority of people abused it?

 

Like being told that 8th edition would be the best thing to ever hit the tables?

 

Like being told that 7th edition was the worst ever!!?

 

All 8th has really done is highlight the polarisation of hobbyists.

 

People who will only play points and refuse to acknowledge PL at all. People who think Primaris are the best ever despite having awful models, and mediocre stats/options at best. The fact Power Creep is far higher and more obvious in this edition?

 

There are, currently, many things that I am disappointed about. Some are relevant, some aren't. The trouble is, it all blends in to one on occasion, and I end up feeling like people are on me, and telling me it's rain.

 

Vehicles are already expensive, and there is still little to show for the investment. High numbers of shenanigans combined with Mortal Wound spam and multiple damage weaponry still haven't made vehicles overly survivable. Or vehicles being vehicles.

 

Perhaps it's time to investigate other systems? I really don't know anymore.

 

This is a lot of frustration from a lot of different pain points all rolled into one. Rather than look at the whole picture maybe a better approach is to look at these elements as they relate to you.

 

So, I lose the use of what I enjoy in a casual game, due to being pointed out of lists because I can't shave elsewhere, but I should accept that, because only a minority of people abused it?

 

 

 

While I can sympathize with part of this mentality ("Why should I be 'punished' when I didn't abuse it?"). The reality was if you were playing these units, even in a casual setting, you were still "part of the problem" (if you want to think of it that way. Albeit a watered down version because you didn't spam it, which exacerbates the issue. Just because something never felt overpowered to you doesn't mean it wasn't.

 

None of these changes are so sweeping and drastic that they are going to cause you to "lose the use of what I enjoy". These are minor changes. Ill illustrate with an example:

 

If your 2k list was this:

 

Lieutenant x 2

Scout Squad x 3

Twin AC Razorback x 5

Stormraven Gunship x 4 (with Twin AC and Twin Hurricane Bolter sponsons)

 

The above list comes to ~1900 points pre-chapter approved. This list I basically tossed together to fulfill a battalion, pick the biggest offenders of the points changes (nerfs you are referring to), and then exacerbate the hell out of it.

 

Post Chapter approved, assuming worst-possible weapon configuration (Twin Assault Cannons all around, Hurricane Bolter Sponsons on the Stormraven), this same list gets 234 points more expensive.

 

That's a 12% increase. On a blown-out-of-proportion example. 

 

These changes don't prevent you from playing what you love, your mindset is.

 

Like being told that 8th edition would be the best thing to ever hit the tables?

 

 

This is pretty out of context, but ill give it a whirl anyway. No one told you this. What was said is that its the best stride the company has made towards progressing to a balanced game than it ever has in its history. And it is. That doesn't take away from some of the game systems ever present flaws:

 

1) Its a game system that still uses "open world" for setting, in the sense that we use 3-D playing fields and tape measures (and dice). The variance and accuracy means inherently this game will forever be flawed because those measurement and randomization metrics are not strong in terms of supporting a competitive game.

 

2) The rules (while better) are still highly subjective and not written in a structured manner. If you want an example of what that looks like, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_rules

(Tip: It involves giving clear definitions of everything so as to avoid ambiguity in interpretation, much like a law journal or scientific paper)

 

3) There are no floor rules. Floor rules are present in most competitive games, and they are what judges and tournament organizers use to appropriately interpret and assign penalties for issues. Now as a casual player this point isn't really relevant, but as we move more towards trying to love this game for its Matched Play ideology, this component is something that Games Workshop will need to consider (the ITC gentlemen don't even really have this, they just confer on the fly and decide as they go, and it has caused some major drama in the past, see: multiple threads on dakkadakka)

 

Like being told that 7th edition was the worst ever!!?

 

 

The subjective categorization of "worst ever" isn't really a thing. Every edition has good things about it that have been learned from and added back into the game we are currently playing. Every edition has awful things that we hopefully never see again. Its a general progression. Things are never really better or worse, but simply different.

 

All 8th has really done is highlight the polarisation of hobbyists.

 

The exact opposite really. Narrative and Open play formats have given the casual hobbyist a means to play the game at a level that is much more suitable to their needs, in a much less intimidating package. There are great examples of this all around us, so ill let you find your own testimonials.

 

People who will only play points and refuse to acknowledge PL at all. People who think Primaris are the best ever despite having awful models, and mediocre stats/options at best. The fact Power Creep is far higher and more obvious in this edition?

 

 

People only playing points and not PL is an exaggeration. Your playgroup may not use PL, but there are playgroups that that's all they do, it is unfortunate that yours is not. 

 

People who think Primaris are the best ever despite having awful models, and mediocre stats/options at best.

 

 

First off using sweeping categorizations is a quick way to earn enemies, so I would refrain from doing that. Secondly, you feeling that Primaris are awful models is very subjective. The line has sold very well, so in this regard I would say you are in the minority. It's important to remember the demographic you are apart of if you want to stay apart of it.

 

The fact Power Creep is far higher and more obvious in this edition?

 

 

This is your opinion and I don't think I can really say anything to change that, but I will say that I don't think we have hardly enough data yet to draw this conclusion. When I look at these codex releases, I don't see a steady upwards creep, I do however see some isolated balance and tuning issues which seem off-putting.

 

There are, currently, many things that I am disappointed about. Some are relevant, some aren't. The trouble is, it all blends in to one on occasion, and I end up feeling like people are on me, and telling me it's rain.

 

 

I can understand this. When you get to a point with anything in life where your feelings gravitate towards contempt, it becomes very difficult to stay objective and compartmentalize the issues. While I don't see all of your dealings everywhere you go, in whatever you do, I can say for a fact that no one here in this forum is taking a proverbial whiz on you and telling you its nothing but the rain. I personally have read every one of your posts and found many of them engaging and enjoy the debate we have revisited many times over.

 

Vehicles are already expensive, and there is still little to show for the investment. High numbers of shenanigans combined with Mortal Wound spam and multiple damage weaponry still haven't made vehicles overly survivable. Or vehicles being vehicles.

 

I don't think the design intent was to ever make vehicles more durable, per se. I think the intent was to make them feel less prone to "death by luck". The old vehicle damage chart involved a certain level of RNG whereby vehicles could just fall over dead to a lucky shot. The AP changes moving from 3rd Edition on to 7th tried to minimize that (by making a roll of a 7+ result in the explodes field), but that still did not remove this negative mechanic entirely.

 

The new rules have mostly solved that. Simply put, nearly every weapon in the game does D6 damage or less, and every vehicle has more than 6 HP. This means "that one lucky shot" never kills your tank, but rather it feels more like a war of attrition. This coupled with giving vehicles an armor save has helped that.

 

Vehicles did get more expensive (relatively), but they also got more durable (relatively). I think the disconnect is in how much more expensive vs how much more durable. You could say it didn't meet your expectations.

 

Perhaps it's time to investigate other systems? I really don't know anymore.

 

 

Only you really know the answer to that question. If every time you find yourself getting frustrated playing a game or reading anything about changes with the game, you might be better off not involved with the game. I know I personally have done the same thing, with other game systems.

 

There was a time, after playing World of Warcraft for nearly 5 years, when new patch notes would come out, I would go directly to the Warrior section (my class), read those notes, focus negatively on just the nerfs, and ignore everything else, and this would add to and amplify my feelings. Overall my feelings towards the game were apathy and disappointment, but this wasn't due to the game's balance (or my class), this was due to the effect the game was having on my life (mainly negatively).

Just wanted to add and say that I started this post nearly 3 hours ago, so timeline was it was started before I saw SG/Pen's responses.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

Ok Damon... you are basically mad that GW didnt MAXIMALLY satisfy all YOUR expectations for 8th. 

 

Question:  If GW had satified you 100%, wouldn't that automatically mean that someone else or many others would be unsatisfied?

 

As someone that has been aware of 40k and paid attention to it for some years, 7th edition was repellent to me in ways that 8th edition doesnt even begin to approach.  Also, as a newcomer to the hobby I have encountered many other newer players of the same opinion.  By even the most conservative measures, GW has made great strides in attracting new players.  That was probably their main and overarching objective with 8th edition.  What is there really to be THAT discontent about?  I write all kinds of criticism about 40k on these forums but overall I can't say things are less than "pretty good".  You list went up in points?  That should be your excuse to try new things.  Get used to your army having to change as GW adjusts points costs and/or rules.  In fact, Chapter Approved is likely to introduce more sweeping changes in the future since this year it came out before all the codicies were released. 

[Damo1701]

 

So, I lose the use of what I enjoy in a casual game, due to being pointed out of lists because I can't shave elsewhere, but I should accept that, because only a minority of people abused it?

 

Like being told that 8th edition would be the best thing to ever hit the tables?

 

Like being told that 7th edition was the worst ever!!?

 

All 8th has really done is highlight the polarisation of hobbyists.

 

People who will only play points and refuse to acknowledge PL at all. People who think Primaris are the best ever despite having awful models, and mediocre stats/options at best. The fact Power Creep is far higher and more obvious in this edition?

 

There are, currently, many things that I am disappointed about. Some are relevant, some aren't. The trouble is, it all blends in to one on occasion, and I end up feeling like people are on me, and telling me it's rain.

 

Vehicles are already expensive, and there is still little to show for the investment. High numbers of shenanigans combined with Mortal Wound spam and multiple damage weaponry still haven't made vehicles overly survivable. Or vehicles being vehicles.

 

Perhaps it's time to investigate other systems? I really don't know anymore.

 

This is a lot of frustration from a lot of different pain points all rolled into one. Rather than look at the whole picture maybe a better approach is to look at these elements as they relate to you.

 

So, I lose the use of what I enjoy in a casual game, due to being pointed out of lists because I can't shave elsewhere, but I should accept that, because only a minority of people abused it?

 

 

 

While I can sympathize with part of this mentality ("Why should I be 'punished' when I didn't abuse it?"). The reality was if you were playing these units, even in a casual setting, you were still "part of the problem" (if you want to think of it that way. Albeit a watered down version because you didn't spam it, which exacerbates the issue. Just because something never felt overpowered to you doesn't mean it wasn't.

 

None of these changes are so sweeping and drastic that they are going to cause you to "lose the use of what I enjoy". These are minor changes. Ill illustrate with an example:

 

If your 2k list was this:

 

Lieutenant x 2

Scout Squad x 3

Twin AC Razorback x 5

Stormraven Gunship x 4 (with Twin AC and Twin Hurricane Bolter sponsons)

 

The above list comes to ~1900 points pre-chapter approved. This list I basically tossed together to fulfill a battalion, pick the biggest offenders of the points changes (nerfs you are referring to), and then exacerbate the hell out of it.

 

Post Chapter approved, assuming worst-possible weapon configuration (Twin Assault Cannons all around, Hurricane Bolter Sponsons on the Stormraven), this same list gets 234 points more expensive.

 

That's a 12% increase. On a blown-out-of-proportion example. 

 

These changes don't prevent you from playing what you love, your mindset is.

 

Like being told that 8th edition would be the best thing to ever hit the tables?

 

 

This is pretty out of context, but ill give it a whirl anyway. No one told you this. What was said is that its the best stride the company has made towards progressing to a balanced game than it ever has in its history. And it is. That doesn't take away from some of the game systems ever present flaws:

 

1) Its a game system that still uses "open world" for setting, in the sense that we use 3-D playing fields and tape measures (and dice). The variance and accuracy means inherently this game will forever be flawed because those measurement and randomization metrics are not strong in terms of supporting a competitive game.

 

2) The rules (while better) are still highly subjective and not written in a structured manner. If you want an example of what that looks like, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_rules

(Tip: It involves giving clear definitions of everything so as to avoid ambiguity in interpretation, much like a law journal or scientific paper)

 

3) There are no floor rules. Floor rules are present in most competitive games, and they are what judges and tournament organizers use to appropriately interpret and assign penalties for issues. Now as a casual player this point isn't really relevant, but as we move more towards trying to love this game for its Matched Play ideology, this component is something that Games Workshop will need to consider (the ITC gentlemen don't even really have this, they just confer on the fly and decide as they go, and it has caused some major drama in the past, see: multiple threads on dakkadakka)

 

Like being told that 7th edition was the worst ever!!?

 

 

The subjective categorization of "worst ever" isn't really a thing. Every edition has good things about it that have been learned from and added back into the game we are currently playing. Every edition has awful things that we hopefully never see again. Its a general progression. Things are never really better or worse, but simply different.

 

All 8th has really done is highlight the polarisation of hobbyists.

 

The exact opposite really. Narrative and Open play formats have given the casual hobbyist a means to play the game at a level that is much more suitable to their needs, in a much less intimidating package. There are great examples of this all around us, so ill let you find your own testimonials.

 

People who will only play points and refuse to acknowledge PL at all. People who think Primaris are the best ever despite having awful models, and mediocre stats/options at best. The fact Power Creep is far higher and more obvious in this edition?

 

 

People only playing points and not PL is an exaggeration. Your playgroup may not use PL, but there are playgroups that that's all they do, it is unfortunate that yours is not. 

 

People who think Primaris are the best ever despite having awful models, and mediocre stats/options at best.

 

 

First off using sweeping categorizations is a quick way to earn enemies, so I would refrain from doing that. Secondly, you feeling that Primaris are awful models is very subjective. The line has sold very well, so in this regard I would say you are in the minority. It's important to remember the demographic you are apart of if you want to stay apart of it.

 

The fact Power Creep is far higher and more obvious in this edition?

 

 

This is your opinion and I don't think I can really say anything to change that, but I will say that I don't think we have hardly enough data yet to draw this conclusion. When I look at these codex releases, I don't see a steady upwards creep, I do however see some isolated balance and tuning issues which seem off-putting.

 

There are, currently, many things that I am disappointed about. Some are relevant, some aren't. The trouble is, it all blends in to one on occasion, and I end up feeling like people are on me, and telling me it's rain.

 

 

I can understand this. When you get to a point with anything in life where your feelings gravitate towards contempt, it becomes very difficult to stay objective and compartmentalize the issues. While I don't see all of your dealings everywhere you go, in whatever you do, I can say for a fact that no one here in this forum is taking a proverbial whiz on you and telling you its nothing but the rain. I personally have read every one of your posts and found many of them engaging and enjoy the debate we have revisited many times over.

 

Vehicles are already expensive, and there is still little to show for the investment. High numbers of shenanigans combined with Mortal Wound spam and multiple damage weaponry still haven't made vehicles overly survivable. Or vehicles being vehicles.

 

I don't think the design intent was to ever make vehicles more durable, per se. I think the intent was to make them feel less prone to "death by luck". The old vehicle damage chart involved a certain level of RNG whereby vehicles could just fall over dead to a lucky shot. The AP changes moving from 3rd Edition on to 7th tried to minimize that (by making a roll of a 7+ result in the explodes field), but that still did not remove this negative mechanic entirely.

 

The new rules have mostly solved that. Simply put, nearly every weapon in the game does D6 damage or less, and every vehicle has more than 6 HP. This means "that one lucky shot" never kills your tank, but rather it feels more like a war of attrition. This coupled with giving vehicles an armor save has helped that.

 

Vehicles did get more expensive (relatively), but they also got more durable (relatively). I think the disconnect is in how much more expensive vs how much more durable. You could say it didn't meet your expectations.

 

Perhaps it's time to investigate other systems? I really don't know anymore.

 

 

Only you really know the answer to that question. If every time you find yourself getting frustrated playing a game or reading anything about changes with the game, you might be better off not involved with the game. I know I personally have done the same thing, with other game systems.

 

There was a time, after playing World of Warcraft for nearly 5 years, when new patch notes would come out, I would go directly to the Warrior section (my class), read those notes, focus negatively on just the nerfs, and ignore everything else, and this would add to and amplify my feelings. Overall my feelings towards the game were apathy and disappointment, but this wasn't due to the game's balance (or my class), this was due to the effect the game was having on my life (mainly negatively).

Just wanted to add and say that I started this post nearly 3 hours ago, so timeline was it was started before I saw SG/Pen's responses.

 

 

I can honestly say that I do see what you are getting at.  I understand your reasoning and think you have made a lot of very good points.  You are right as well, I do enjoy a decent debate, and a discussion on whatever subject comes to mind and is interesting, whether it's one of my posts, or somebody else's.

 

During the run-up to 8th release, my "ignore" list filled up pretty quickly with people who refused to see any other point of view, and were getting rather abusive.  I'm very glad I haven't needed to do that with anybody in here, and I would like to thank everybody for giving me a small space where I can air things that are bothering me about the hobby, and either get it off my chest, or get some useful advice in trying to deal with things in a different manner.  Namely when I was having issues with my old regular opponent, who has now left the hobby.

 

As for the proverbial rain shower, I think a lot of that is coming from Games Workshop.  We are told that we will get annual updates/points balances/whatever else, and they begin 6 months after release before all books are released.  That, to me, smacks of taking hobbyists for a ride.  The frustrating thing?  People are excited and pre-ordering it too.  How will we learn to trust what GW say, when we can't restrain ourselves?

 

I have no idea about the reception my not purchasing/using anything from Chapter Approved will show at the club I attend.  I have deliberately chosen to stick with the Codex as published, including the FAQs.  I have been working on my own Battlescribe Data File to allow me to create Battle-Forged armies which include my Forgeworld units in detachments other than "Unbound" which can get messy for some gamers.  So, I don't update the data anymore and have Codex/Index points costs.

 

I've found a lot of people describe the game-type by the missions they use, rather than the "balancing factor" they have chosen, so, some narrative gamers or open gamers will still use points, which can still cause trouble if GW are constantly fiddling with them, for perceived issues which generally float around a small number of people.

 

Remember, my Raven Guard were built around the 7th Edition system, and I have been completing them in the same style.  Sure, I have bought some units that I hadn't under 7th... Why?  Because the timing was off.  I would have bought those units at the same time if we were still under 7th because I was at Warhammer World.  That doesn't mean I bought them because their rules in 8th were "awesome" I just wanted those models.  The same goes for my Razorbacks.  I already had they as Twin Assault Cannon.  I enjoy the weapon and have done since 2nd edition.

 

It's the same reason I don't have Primaris in my Raven Guard.  They simply don't fit the look and feel of my army.  That's not to mention the fluff behind them has generally been accepted as awful, the restrictions around them incomprehensible (aside from making you go and buy new things...), and the vehicles like the Astraeus and Repulsor really don't seem to fit the aesthetic of the setting.

 

It is becoming more difficult to remain excited about 40k, there are rules that are ports from AoS which don't match the setting, where the previous rule system was far superior.  The complexity and tactical thinking has left, for me.  There is now no benefit to flanking an opponent or engaging them in combat.  The "best Humanity has to offer" really feel like they are the base-line for things to walk-over, while other armies actually struggle against one another.  That, and the fact my son has lost interest in 40k and is looking very tempted by X-Wing has made me question whether there really are superior systems out there.

 

I'll leave this bit here for now.  I'm hoping that soemthing will happen soon that will prove that I've been wrong.  Playing a system I don't liek just to remain a part of the hobby is a tad draining.

 

Ok Damon... you are basically mad that GW didnt MAXIMALLY satisfy all YOUR expectations for 8th. 

 

Question:  If GW had satified you 100%, wouldn't that automatically mean that someone else or many others would be unsatisfied?

 

As someone that has been aware of 40k and paid attention to it for some years, 7th edition was repellent to me in ways that 8th edition doesnt even begin to approach.  Also, as a newcomer to the hobby I have encountered many other newer players of the same opinion.  By even the most conservative measures, GW has made great strides in attracting new players.  That was probably their main and overarching objective with 8th edition.  What is there really to be THAT discontent about?  I write all kinds of criticism about 40k on these forums but overall I can't say things are less than "pretty good".  You list went up in points?  That should be your excuse to try new things.  Get used to your army having to change as GW adjusts points costs and/or rules.  In fact, Chapter Approved is likely to introduce more sweeping changes in the future since this year it came out before all the codicies were released. 

 

What was so wrong with 7th, in your opinion?  Personally, I found it a great edition that allowed fluffy armies to be fielded, tactical thinking was required in order to make the best out of your army, and forcing morale actually made sense.

 

Of course newer players will love 8th edition, especially if that's all they've known.  What about teh people who began playing in 7th edition and actually thought it was a great system?  Is their opinion invalid because your experience is different?

 

I change my army lists around when I feel like playing different models, with different head-canon.  Not because GW decides the ITC/"Professional" group are abusing something.  If people cannot control their cheesiness, that's not down to me or my list.  Again, see above about the construction of my Raven Guard.

 

If Chapter Approved is going all "DLC" then I will give it a miss.  If I purchase a game, that's where it stops.  Unless there is something that really interests me.  Expansions?  Do I need it?  Is it going to add to my experience?  Is it just a pay-to-patch?  I don't need or require Chapter Approved.  Therefore, I lose nothing by not using it.  GW aren't goign to come along and tell me that my 8th edition Codex: Space Marines is invalid are they?  They aren't going to take it away and force me to hand over money for a patch?

 

As a customer base, there are times we should be excited, and times we should tell GW to rein it in.  An Annual Update book 6 months after release is one of those times to tell them to rein it in.

[GreyCrow]

@Damo : The perception of 7th edition is really tied to how your gaming group approaches the game :)

 

For instance, my gaming group consisted of very expert ETC players, who were experts at analyzing units, making ruthless lists and effectively playing with them.

Very soon after each codex release, you would have close to unbeatable lists popping up, and optimal lists for each codex.

Funnily enough, all of these lists were featuring the newest releases from GW. As if they were incentivizing sales :)

 

It wasn't even about playing the units you love, it was about the fact that if you didn't have specific combos for your faction, you just could leave your units in the bag and that would have the same effect as playing for 2 hours.

 

Decurions and formations even limited tactical flexibility more, and some armies just were severely lacking behind in terms of power.

Even the Gladius with the free transport spam was necessary to put the Marines on the same power level as other armies.

 

---

 

What we need to remember from Games Workshop is that they are a model company that makes money by selling models. They are not a game company that makes money by letting people play games.

 

So, ultimately, the gaming rules are mainly there to give value and interest to the models, much like the Black Library books and the fluff and the licensed items.

 

The player base will purchase models for different reasons : either they like the visuals, either they like the fluff, either they like the gaming power.

 

The challenge with 7th edition was that all of these purchasing reasons were not synergetic : the fluff sells you Marines as overpowered badasses, but rules wise they are extremely average due to how the system works.

 

For the customer, this creates a very confusing message that destroys perceived quality, and destroys retention.

As a side note, product quality can be broken down as a division : it's reality/expectations.

If expectations are high and reality is low, then you have a :cuss product. If they match, you have a good product. If reality exceeds expectations, you have an amazing product.

 

It does not matter whether the product is objectively good or bad, because you have no objectively good or bad products :P

 

8th edition is a brilliant move to switch back to a more synergetic value proposal between fluff, crunch and visuals.

It allows them to manage the reality/expectations much better due to a rule set that is statistically simpler to manage.

They also synchronize with the fluff better : the chapter tactics are similar to Chaos traits but they are packaged in a fluff way that makes sense for the Chapter.

Just check the wordings of Strike from the Shadows versus Forward Operatives for example.

 

All balance from Chapter Approved is making sure that the models sell through and match how they are sold. The balance part is there to ensure relative representation of the power levels rather than statistical balance.

[duz_]

Not to beat a dead horse Damo, but I genuinely find 8th way more tactical than 7th.

 

Sure some of the nitty gritty is gone and I hear a lot of longings for vehicle armour facings. I dont miss them though or AV values as monster creatures with toughness, armour saves and 360 firing arcs had a significant advantage which I could really justify. At least not with the HP mechanic. :ermm:

 

Outflanking and movement has become even more important given there are limited units that even have that option. Also given the changes to assault you really need to think 1-2 turns ahead to ensure youre not left exposed from a falling back unit. ;)

 

My RG list was essentially built off a TSF. For me 8th has allowed me to play even more to my RG style. Lots of close combat vets, backed by mobile infantry kitted with devastating firepower. I have no use for my rhinos and drop pods in this edition and I'm ok with that. :D

 

In my circles 8th is clearly a winner. Just yesterday some serious HH players in my area were discussing how they could port 8th into HH! :lol:

 

As primarily a guard player I have to admit the rapid fire release schedule + FAQs + Erratas + CA seems excessive right now and hard to find a groove. That's even when I've dodged most major changes with my play style. However my understanding is going forward they're going to try and limit these updates to twice yearly which should help!

 

I think its probably fair to say we appreciate your contributions here in the Ravenspire and we dont want to see yourself burn out on what should be a really fun edition.

 

At the end of the day its a hobby and designed for enjoyment. Also like many hobbies its quite expensive. If its not doing it for you and you've given it a fair chance maybe step back for a bit before you burn out?

[Damo1701]

Ok.

 

It's been a while. Not picked up a paintbrush, nor been overly motivated to find a game to play.

 

Have tried [inquisition Deletion] and found that immensely fun, so perhaps the time has come to pack the Raven Guard in my case for the foreseeable future, and give [inquisition Deletion] a go instead?

 

40k really feels like a paid DLC game now, and I've avoided those all my life. This is more than not enjoying 8th, it's gone beyond that now. I can't seem to bring myself to even try Newcromunda because of the same design philosophy as 40k, buy the rules, then buy more rules that were included in the main rules before, then buy even more rules later...

 

I've even taken to browsing the Games Workshop and Forge World websites to see if anything grabs my attention and reignites any excitement. Unfortunately, that has failed too...

 

So, long story short; not sure whether continuing 40k will be of any real interest, I do know that I'm not buying anything unless it bowls me over.

[duz_]

Its always a shame to see a fellow Raven go Damo

However its a hobby not a chore! If you're not finding pleasure or enjoyment in this expensive hobby (although what hobbies aren't?) a break could help :)

Hopefully we see you back in the Spire after some R&R :tu: :D

[Wargamer]

I think the changes being made with the points costs are akin to what we see in videogames. Think about StarCraft or some other pvp title - how many times do you really see sweeping changes? How many times do units get completely new abilities, or have abilities removed?

 

Usually, it's a matter of degrees; an ability's wind-up goes from 400ms to 600ms; rate of fire goes from 2.0 shots per second to 2.3 shots per second; mineral cost goes from 225 to 200. Very gentle changes, intended not to up-end the boat, but rather to nudge things in a slightly different direction.

 

My issue with this is that, with physical media, this kind of tweaking gets messy very quickly. We now need a whole new book or a couple of print-outs to provide correct point costs. How many times might this happen before the Codex gets reprinted? What happens if you turn up with the v1.35 point costs and your opponent is still on v1.2?

 

I admit, I've only got the SM and IG Codices right now, but it does feel like the IG book has a much clearer vision of how the core mechanics are supposed to work. The SM Codex doesn't feel "broken" or anything like that, but it seems like it was written assuming it would be facing Index lists - the IG feels like it's meant to face another Codex.

 

I'm probably rambling due to lack of proper sleep... but anyway. Chapter Tactics on vehicles? Would that be fair? Eh... I can think of worse. I would have said no before reading the IG Codex where Chapter Tactics are not only applicable to vehicles, but Leman Russ battletanks are scoring units! I would allow it in my games. In fact, that might be enough to convince me to buy a Predator or two.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Wargamer