So I went back to 7th edition.

[BitsHammer]

I'd argue the game exists for competitive play as high level competitive players spend the most money on the hobby. Between wanting every codex to buying new units or armies to capitalize on the meta they are what drives the game more than the rest of us do. Basically, 40k relies largely on the same thing a lot of mobile games do: whaling. They rely on smaller numbers of "whales" who spend larges amounts of money to support most of the business. This means competitive play needs to be addressed more seriously by the rules team and that they really need to work on tighting up the rules to deal with when the whales have an unfair advantage over everyone else.

 

After all, just because we have whales around doesn't mean they should be allowed to scare off all the fish.

[Marshal Rohr]

Gonna need to see some stats for that 'most money claim'

[Ishagu]

I certainly spend more when I'm in the mood for chasing the meta.

[BitsHammer]

Gonna need to see some stats for that 'most money claim'

Apply some basic logic here: who needs to buy more models, a tournament player chasing the meta like a coke addict chasing the white dragon, or a casual player who doesn't need to change their army list nearly as much?

 

Unless the casual player is also someone (like me) who likes to burn money doing conversions for their army (like smashing Necromunda and GSC models together to make more units with unique looks) the tournament player is going to spend more money. And that means while the diehard tournament players make up a smaller portion of the hobby, they're spending the most on it overall.

[Marshal Rohr]

It may sound logical to you, but to make that claim you need hard data. That kind of thinking is logical, don't get me wrong, but so is lots of stuff that turns out not to be the case. If I remember correctly a few years ago they did release data, and one time buyers were the largest purchasers.

[BitsHammer]

It may sound logical to you, but to make that claim you need hard data. That kind of thinking is logical, don't get me wrong, but so is lots of stuff that turns out not to be the case. If I remember correctly a few years ago they did release data, and one time buyers were the largest purchasers.

And they've made it cheaper for one-time buyers with all the box sets they've put out. Plus I know many competitive players can easily make just as many of those purchases across several armies. Heck, when I played competitively in 5th (local only, not GT stuff for me) I had bought into almost every army there was at the time. Which meant easily dropping a few hundred bucks across multiple purchases. Why? Because I was looking for that edge to win more games with, which meant spending more money.

[MysticTemplar]

 

 

 

It has always been my opinion that the tournament scene is not the best place to see if the game is balanced, especially in the system like 40k. Why? Because tournament players are a very specific breed of player - because they look for every edge they can get, they are looking for an edge that can't be countered. In other words they are actively trying to break the system. In 7th you had captain smashfrakker in 8th you have captain slamguinius.

 

 

I feel like this is the exact opposite of how one should judge balance.  The tournament scene is not just a good place to look to judge balance, but it is the *best* place to look, because the tournament scene is where you will generally see people pushing the system to its limits for advantage.  Players being able to break the system is problematic, because a balanced system *should not break*.  It's important to understand that improving internal and external balance at the top end does improve it at the low end, too - relying on list moderation to solve issues with the system is what is generally called the 'Rule Zero Fallacy' in the tabletop roleplaying game world - just because you can house rule the problem away (and relying on list moderation is, in itself, a form of house ruling, because you're avoiding the problematic areas) doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

 

 

But that is the problem, isn't it? A good system shouldn't break, but 40k will break, because of the number of different codices, supplements and combinations is impossible to perfectly balance. In 7th you can easily "fix" certain problems with rules like "CAD only", in 8th you can't because the edition was built around spamming units and broken combos (take a shot every time GW marketing writes something as "combined with this strategem it is a powerful combo"). 8th was "Best 40k edition evar" when played with index because it is a very simple system that works with equally simple rules - start adding rules, superpowers, traits and system brakes. 8th ed won't get better than it is now. Unless GW rewrites core rules and half of the codices. It just won't happen.

 

 

This isn't really an argument against my core point, though - which is that when you're trying to determine what is broken, and what to do to fix it, the higher end of the competitive spectrum is the way to look, because the people performing at the highest end are significantly more likely to using anything that is vastly over the curve to get there.

 

I understand that 40k will never be perfectly balanced - in an asymmetric game this sprawling, it's nigh impossible to be, and while it's unfortunate, it's not unreasonable.

 

Even symmetric games can have issues, as well (typically with turn advantage) - the most recent data point I could find for Chess in the modern era suggests a 10 percentage point difference in win rates between white and black (37.5% vs. 27.6%).

[Noserenda]

I still take part in a few small scale Heresy Zone mortalis events and every single time it hammers home how godawful 7th was and why all my Heresy Projects have stalled out because anything bigger than 1k games gets increasingly awkward and ass backwards even in the relatively tighter environment of heresy games. Id go as far as to say most of my opponents were feeling the same too.

[Robbienw]

 

 

Gonna need to see some stats for that 'most money claim'

Apply some basic logic here: who needs to buy more models, a tournament player chasing the meta like a coke addict chasing the white dragon, or a casual player who doesn't need to change their army list nearly as much?

 

Unless the casual player is also someone (like me) who likes to burn money doing conversions for their army (like smashing Necromunda and GSC models together to make more units with unique looks) the tournament player is going to spend more money. And that means while the diehard tournament players make up a smaller portion of the hobby, they're spending the most on it overall.

Dont forget people who are just in it (or mainly just in it) for the models, the miniature collectors. They spend huge amounts.

[lokkorex]

give it time, gw made 7th and gw made 8th, i have no doubt in my mind that once 9th or 10th shows up, some people will say good riddance to 8th and the bloated mess it in their minds would become.

[Aothaine]

I can see the argument for the competitive side driving the market which would then determine who the game should be designed for. However, I'm pretty sure that GW develops the game for narrative play then has added matched play for people that want to be competitive. Remember when 8th launched they were pushing the Power Level game play way more than they were pushing matched play. 

 

Do both need to be balanced? Yes. 

 

Are they making efforts to do this? Yes.

 

Do I think the rules should be designed around competitive play? Maybe? This is a very difficult question to answer. Because this hobby has a wide player base and the only part of it that is recorded is the competitive scene. 

 

I honestly think that GW really looks into the changes they decide to make and take into account all aspects of their decisions. We really should have more faith in them and their decisions. Especially this new GW with it's player base outreach.

[Irbis]

 

Every edition has its pros and cons. We'll see you back in 8th once you guys start taking formations.

We used formations! (but not the broken ones)

 

So, you dumped all the broken bits from 7th, added good fixes from 8th, played two armies of similar power level, and didn't loaded army with alpha strike units. Gee, I have no idea why anyone would think 7th is good after that. It's like saying flaming dumpster on fire isn't that bad once you wait for the blaze to die down, spend months renovating it and giving it new coats of paint, then ignore all the soot and rust still on the surface, instead of just grabbing new, better one for tenth of the money and effort...

 

Now, maybe face the Necron splatbook formations, or Eldar aspectwing with windwing, or that completely broken nonsense Tau had with units leaving table on your turn, or on the other hand go play orks or IG, then go back and report the results to us?

 

Oh, and then spend an hour debating which facing the model standing on diagonal line through tank can hit, what is cover save on it, if the gun on side is sponson or turret and if it can hit a target half a degree out of position, spend two hours resolving blasts from even small unit of mortars or missiles, compete with arguments what the blast actually hit, have your vehicles all auto-deleted by torrent of Str D, face anything with invisibility, rerollable 2++ with FNP, or superfriend deathstar, etc, etc, then come back with more convincing tale, because you know, people still remember how it actually looked like in practice. No amount of lipstick (or repeating 'CAD only') will save that pig

 

Flamers auto hitting flyers.

 

You know, I have seen that bogeyman so many times yet I have yet to meet anyone who actually hit a flyer with a flamer, never mind did any real damage to it in such a way.

 

Plus, if that is the worst anti-8th people can find, I will take it over the above any day, TYVM

 

Vehicles shooting from the left track because weapons facing doesn't mean anything anymore.

 

I like how people repeating this ignore their own really strong doublethink ignoring the fact infantry and creatures already did so and that was somehow fine. What is (gasp!) abstraction or the fact game round doesn't exactly last six seconds? The tank just moved into firing position, shot, then went back to previous spot, there, problem solved.

[Ficinus]

Who are these people who argue about vehicle facings and blast templates? Who cares that much? It's a game. Yeah, be competitive and try to win, but don't be a jerk.

 

I've also never understood the justification of the tank being able to move out of cover for shooting out of the corner of a track when a vehicle moving makes it shoot with reduced accuracy.

 

And as a Sisters player, I've shot down many fliers with flamers. It's my primary anti-flyer tactic.

[Ishagu]

Lol I've literally had 10 - 20 minute discussions about vehicle facings and blast templates. Get that crap away from me.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

 

 

 

And Mat Ward too !!!

I think Ward left sometime around late 6th, early 7th and I don't think it's because of the game itself as much as his changing interests. He started focusing on writing more and less on game design.

 

Which is fair, you gotta pursue your dreams, right?

 

That said, Ward wasn't a bad guy in my book. Enthusiastic and in need of an editor to keep his fluff in line and a play testing team to keep the crunch in line (and no releasing codexes designed for a later edition during the earlier one) but that said, you can make similar arguments for all the staff.

 

 

I heard he was virtually tossed out by the scruff . He was Kirby's boyo..

I doubt that to be the case since he was invited back around the time of Gathering Storm/8th to help work on something and Kelly has mentioned that Ward basically invented Battle Focus for the Eldar meaning he at least collaborated well with others.

 

I mean, it's not impossible, but Ward left before Kirby, not after him. If he was Kirby's guy (and let's be honest, it's not impossible since I've heard rumors of some new hires basically being drones who only do what the higher-ups want them and don't try to create or add to the setting/game on their own) he should have been tossed out after Kirby left.

 

Also I want to point out that Kirby was all about GW being a model collector's company and not gaming company, something that doesn't fit with how Ward wrote stuff in the game.

 

 

 

Fulkes it is okay to be wrong sometimes and it doesn't make me think any less of you.

[Schlitzaf]

So be clear, you avoided playing the dumb lists of 7th? And somewhat avoiding the power gaming, and then changed the rules of 7th dramatically. And then by extension, in addition to that, you rather delibaretly hamstring your lists and claim to love Templates and facing cause immersion?

 

And then accuse the issues of 8th when players are in contrast to your little ideal world, not delibaretly hamstringing themselves, claiming the need of 32 gaurdsman (which outside of competitive you don’t need that. Most armies do fine with a Battlelion + Speciality worth of CP). You feel facings losing was mass immersion breaking but had no issues with monsters not having that and being just better vehicles?

 

Secondly you worry about flamers hitting flyers? Which just so we are clear if you play that by raw is actually incredibly hard. As the flyer stands is 6”-7” inch high, and most cases you need to touch the model not the base. So your flamers need to be literally directly under the model in most cases. And then you have templates vs d6 when in reality against competent opponents you only got 2-3 models at best. Because spacing, then you go to accuse “but bubble wrapping”. When a proper bubble wrapping only matters turn 1 and would should happen organically. As about breaking your center and anchor. Your anchor should normally just have chaff and be near your center anyways so that denies the vulnerable spot anyways. And furthermore if enemy deep strikes in front of you, that is where they be anyways so it doesn’t matter.

 

So okay? What your point? You have your tastes based on arbitrary set of likes and dislikes? And have your own little sphere of personal immersion vs gamebreaking, and that means 7th > 8th? To which all I have to say.

 

The Latin: De Gustibus non est Disputandum

Or art is in the eye of the beholder

(Literally it means in matter of tastes their can be no dispute. Basically meaning everyone has their own individual preferences)

[Panzer]

You guys get way too worked up about this. He'll get reminded soon enough why people disliked 7th edition in the end ... or not and he's going to enjoy playing 7th edition games. Doesn't really matter anyway as long as you know what you like best. ^^

[Ficinus]

Lol I've literally had 10 - 20 minute discussions about vehicle facings and blast templates. Get that crap away from me.

Can I ask why? Not why did that situation arise, but why did you choose to do that? Because ultimately, you chose to have a 10-20 minute discussion about blast templates and vehicle facings. This question isn't just for Ishagu, but to everyone who has had these experiences.

[BitsHammer]

 

Fulkes it is okay to be wrong sometimes and it doesn't make me think any less of you.

 

I never said I had to be right, I was just stating why I was doubting the claim that he was driven out.

[Panzer]

 

Lol I've literally had 10 - 20 minute discussions about vehicle facings and blast templates. Get that crap away from me.

Can I ask why? Not why did that situation arise, but why did you choose to do that? Because ultimately, you chose to have a 10-20 minute discussion about blast templates and vehicle facings. This question isn't just for Ishagu, but to everyone who has had these experiences.

 

 

Because it often happened that both player were 100% convinced that they're right which often is caused by looking at things from different angles. Also because while actually arguing about such things you rarely expect for the argument to take this long to resolve when it's this clear to you that you're right.

I can't count the number of times we had to resolve such things on a roll of 4+ in 7th edition games which NEVER felt satisfying to either party.

[kombatwombat]

 

Lol I've literally had 10 - 20 minute discussions about vehicle facings and blast templates. Get that crap away from me.

Can I ask why? Not why did that situation arise, but why did you choose to do that? Because ultimately, you chose to have a 10-20 minute discussion about blast templates and vehicle facings. This question isn't just for Ishagu, but to everyone who has had these experiences.

Exactly this. 7th never held you hostage to arguing over whether you hit 3 or 4 models with a frag grenade. You chose to make an argument out of it. If you decide the best use of your limited hobby time is having an argument then the problem is you, not the game.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

Lol I've literally had 10 - 20 minute discussions about vehicle facings and blast templates. Get that crap away from me.

Can I ask why? Not why did that situation arise, but why did you choose to do that? Because ultimately, you chose to have a 10-20 minute discussion about blast templates and vehicle facings. This question isn't just for Ishagu, but to everyone who has had these experiences.

Exactly this. 7th never held you hostage to arguing over whether you hit 3 or 4 models with a frag grenade. You chose to make an argument out of it. If you decide the best use of your limited hobby time is having an argument then the problem is you, not the game.

 

In tournaments that arguement can be because it could make or break your turn. :/

[kombatwombat]

In tournaments that arguement can be because it could make or break your turn. :/

Different mindsets I guess. I go to tournaments for fun, and my fun is not determined by a scorecard; to me, that’s just a piece of paper people get worked up over. And I have enough pieces of paper people get worked up over in my professional life, I don’t need that kind of negativity in my hobby time.

[Morticon]

The tone in this thread is shirty and acerbic and sees three or four frater making barbed and unproductive snarky comments. 

 

Gentlemen, clean your game your game up, please. 

 

Your comments create an environment wherein other frater no longer want to engage - that's not the community we've been building for years at the B&C. 

 

Post with higher quality, standards and consideration for fellow board members or take it elsewhere.  

 

[N1SB]

Brother Ubikator, thanks for sharing your impressions.

 

While our meta is still pretty satisfied with 8th (looking back, I guess our main issue wasn't the ruleset but the bloat and formations), during the transition from 7th we had a contingency plan to focus on 30k had we not liked 8th.

 

Thus, I'm just curious with your current thinking, if you hadn't considered 30k before, would you do so now?  Not pushing an idea, just curious.