Big FAQ has dropped.

[Ishagu]

But it can be for Space Marines. There are now 10 or more units that aren't in the codex as they were released after, alongside various rule adjustments and a new psychic discipline.

 

Also, GW are 100% fully aware that GK and Astartes factions are under-performing.

[Leif Bearclaw]

GW is outright making the game better with each update, often at the expense of potential sales.

 

The rule of 3 was a gameplay decision that would lower sales.

Same thing with the Eldar soup nerf.

 

Would it though? Or did GW decide that the changes to make the game more balanced (let's assume they are getting it right for now) would offer more log term benefits (and therefore sales) from new players and existing players staying with the game, rather than milking a small group of whales for 4/5 'OP kit du jour'.

 

To me these changes aren't GW being kind to us at the expense of sales, but them finally realising that they can make more money from cultivating a community and not taking their fans for granted, rather than the 'slash and burn, like it or leave' approach of previous editions.

[Ishagu]

I would be running 6 twin Las Cannon Mortis Contemptors right now if it wasn't for the rule of 3 so yes, they are losing money with this rule.

[Panzer]

 

Chaos got a new codex it's safe to assume everyone will

How is it safe to assume that? Chaos had a massive new model revamp to justify their codex. The same cannot be said for Grey Knights for example.

 

The other side of it is that even if they do print a new codex for everyone the expectation that it will vastly improve certain armies seems based on nothing but hope. GW’s track record suggests they don’t think those armies are that weak and thus don’t need a big boost. If they do produce new codexes I don’t think much will change in them.

 

 

Not to mention that the new CSM Codex only added new stuff and ignored most of the stuff that's already been in there and required some polish as well.

[Petitioner's City]

 

 

...

Time for stats on 2d6

 

And bring back the hey day of Terminator armour saves?  Away with thee Rogue Trader, 'lest thy influence expand to the reintroduction of turning radius' for vehicles   

 

Ha, I sadly don't have memory of that hallowed ruleset, merely its influence on N17. Definitely my favourite thing about Cool, Willpower, Intelligence and, indeed, Leadership, is that 2 dice make them more granular compared to other stats. 

 

Although I do remember 3+ terminator armour, and Abaddon's 2+, on 2d6. Happy days. 

[MARK0SIAN]

Also, GW are 100% fully aware that GK and Astartes factions are under-performing.

That’s not the impression they give, certainly not to the amount they’re underperforming by. I can only go by their actions and they’ve had 18 months and several significant publications with which to address the problems with Grey Knights (a faction who were bottom tier against armies that still only had an index for nearly a year) and they’ve done almost nothing.

 

That’s not giving me the impression they’re aware of just how much help some factions need.

[Sloeberjong]

I would be running 6 twin Las Cannon Mortis Contemptors right now if it wasn't for the rule of 3 so yes, they are losing money with this rule.

 

Now you buy other models to fill in the points. They lose nothing. They could even be selling more different kits with maybe even higher profitmargins. The rule of 3 doesn't impact their sales whatsoever. If anything, it promotes people buying more different kits.

 

I like that GW is at least trying to consistently improve the game. It might be hit and miss since they have forever been terrible at rules writing and it's marginally better, but at least they're trying. Personally I'm bothered with the lack of logic more than actual effect on the game, but here we are...

[Captain Idaho]

=][= I'm just shipping this off to Amicus as it is no longer a rumour. =][=

[redmapa]

If the CSM codex is anything to go by then a new codex wont fix GK or give SM good stratagems or other playstyles besides UM gun lines, GW actually thinks the WB legion rules are good! I believe this is not only supported by how GW has always treated failed armies but by how GK have been treated in every FAQ and CA, so I wouldnt expect the likes of GK to get anything good in an updated codex because in 2 years and 5 balance patches GW has done nothing but play whack a mole with the tournament scene.

[Biscuittzz]

GW is outright making the game better with each update, often at the expense of potential sales.

 

The rule of 3 was a gameplay decision that would lower sales.

Same thing with the Eldar soup nerf.

 

Some people need to show a lot more appreciation than they are. I think this topic has become a great illustration of how a lot of hobbyists literally cannot see beyond their own noses, and their unreasonable attitudes don't deserve attention in some cases.

 

If that was true, the castellan would have seen the shield change in FAQ 1 and the points increase in CA 1, not in FAQ 3. But that didn't occur as they wouldn't dare nerf a brand new kit. I'd say the Castellan kit has sold as much as it ever will now and that is why it's happened.

 

GW will only balance a unit once it has balanced their accounts. Anything else is just poor business practice and since we've all been keen to applaud GW's recent business practices, you can be very sure that they know exactly what they're doing.

 

Just have a look at the Chapter Tactics issue with vehicles at the moment. On quick counting (so I may be slightly off) 18/20 new primaris kits are infantry, 1 is a dreadnought and the last is the repulsor. If vehicles had CTs they would eat into the sales of these new kits as people would be buying predators and whirlwinds instead of aggressors etc.

 

Now with the rumour of CTs affecting vehicles in a coming update, I wouldn't be surprised to see it coincide with the release of the full garage of primaris vehicles - flyer, battle tank, light vehicle etc. How nice of GW to give us some new shiny vehicles that CTs will work with. 

 

You have to be incredibly naive to think that any game balancing decision makes it past upper management without some sort of input from corporate/finance.

[sairence]

And I thought I was a cynic...

[ERJAK]

I would be running 6 twin Las Cannon Mortis Contemptors right now if it wasn't for the rule of 3 so yes, they are losing money with this rule.

No they aren't. It's a net wash. For every person that can ONLY run 3 of expensive units, there's another guy that gets stuck running expensive units they didn't want because they're his best option.

 

The rule of three was cash neutral. Also a stupid patch job rule that helped GW keep their 'only 2 good units per codex unless Eldar' philosophy intact.

[ERJAK]

 

 

GW is outright making the game better with each update, often at the expense of potential sales.

 

The rule of 3 was a gameplay decision that would lower sales.

Same thing with the Eldar soup nerf.

 

Some people need to show a lot more appreciation than they are. I think this topic has become a great illustration of how a lot of hobbyists literally cannot see beyond their own noses, and their unreasonable attitudes don't deserve attention in some cases.

If that was true, the castellan would have seen the shield change in FAQ 1 and the points increase in CA 1, not in FAQ 3. But that didn't occur as they wouldn't dare nerf a brand new kit. I'd say the Castellan kit has sold as much as it ever will now and that is why it's happened.

 

GW will only balance a unit once it has balanced their accounts. Anything else is just poor business practice and since we've all been keen to applaud GW's recent business practices, you can be very sure that they know exactly what they're doing.

 

Just have a look at the Chapter Tactics issue with vehicles at the moment. On quick counting (so I may be slightly off) 18/20 new primaris kits are infantry, 1 is a dreadnought and the last is the repulsor. If vehicles had CTs they would eat into the sales of these new kits as people would be buying predators and whirlwinds instead of aggressors etc.

 

Now with the rumour of CTs affecting vehicles in a coming update, I wouldn't be surprised to see it coincide with the release of the full garage of primaris vehicles - flyer, battle tank, light vehicle etc. How nice of GW to give us some new shiny vehicles that CTs will work with.

 

You have to be incredibly naive to think that any game balancing decision makes it past upper management without some sort of input from corporate/finance.

There's one fundamental flaw in the is argument (there's actually a lot of flaws like 'why are primaris STILL s**t then?' But the biggest flaw is GW incompetence.

 

GW straight up does not understand the game well enough to employ a strategy like this. Just look at Primaris marines to see this in action. Or flyers. Half the flyers in the game have gone MULTIPLE EDITIONS as unusable trash. Tell me, when did the blackstar balance its books? What about the Tau flyer no on knows the name of?

 

You'd have to INCREDIBLY naive to think thay GW upper management spends enough time on the game to know what any balance decision would actually DO.

 

Even if this is their INTENTION they're so terrible at it, who cares? They're failing more often than they're succeeding anyway.

[Hantheman]

 

GW is outright making the game better with each update, often at the expense of potential sales.

 

The rule of 3 was a gameplay decision that would lower sales.

Same thing with the Eldar soup nerf.

 

Some people need to show a lot more appreciation than they are. I think this topic has become a great illustration of how a lot of hobbyists literally cannot see beyond their own noses, and their unreasonable attitudes don't deserve attention in some cases.

 

If that was true, the castellan would have seen the shield change in FAQ 1 and the points increase in CA 1, not in FAQ 3. But that didn't occur as they wouldn't dare nerf a brand new kit. I'd say the Castellan kit has sold as much as it ever will now and that is why it's happened.

 

GW will only balance a unit once it has balanced their accounts. Anything else is just poor business practice and since we've all been keen to applaud GW's recent business practices, you can be very sure that they know exactly what they're doing.

 

Just have a look at the Chapter Tactics issue with vehicles at the moment. On quick counting (so I may be slightly off) 18/20 new primaris kits are infantry, 1 is a dreadnought and the last is the repulsor. If vehicles had CTs they would eat into the sales of these new kits as people would be buying predators and whirlwinds instead of aggressors etc.

 

Now with the rumour of CTs affecting vehicles in a coming update, I wouldn't be surprised to see it coincide with the release of the full garage of primaris vehicles - flyer, battle tank, light vehicle etc. How nice of GW to give us some new shiny vehicles that CTs will work with. 

 

You have to be incredibly naive to think that any game balancing decision makes it past upper management without some sort of input from corporate/finance.

 

 

Yeah, i've heard this from people who know game testers/rules designers

[Ishagu]

lol some of you guys are so negative. Why are you playing this game?

 

You might just be people who enjoy whinging incessantly. If that's the case take it somewhere else

[Panzer]

And you should stop whiteknighting GW at every possible chance. There's lots of valid criticism you dismiss as whining (not 'whinging' btw).

[Antaonix]

Because we love the setting, design, and models.

 

but horrible rules and balance ruins all of it. If you cannot win against anyone with your army, how can you love this game and your own army?

 

i'm not GK player, but i absolutely understand their rage. Gk has trash rule, and some of the subfactions also. They're just copy and paste rules and change nothing.

 

My friend plays GK. but he never wins since 8th edition release. I'd even beat him with my Admech index. He lose interest about 40k, and i don't think he will come back. He blamed GW so much and saying that GW abandoning old army for selling new models.

 

Who can give a credit to GW if they keep balancing like this? why they always treat old models like trash and give good rules only to new models?

[Panzer]

Who can give a credit to GW if they keep balancing like this? why they always treat old models like trash and give good rules only to new models?

That's definitely not true though. Eldar have some of the oldest models around and have been a top tier army for several editions now. Obliterators used to have absolutely fugly models as well but it was the go-to unit for competetive CSM for a long time now.

The balancing is just super random, that's all.

[Antaonix]

 

Who can give a credit to GW if they keep balancing like this? why they always treat old models like trash and give good rules only to new models?

That's definitely not true though. Eldar have some of the oldest models around and have been a top tier army for several editions now. Obliterators used to have absolutely fugly models as well but it was the go-to unit for competetive CSM for a long time now.

The balancing is just super random, that's all.

Well, all i saw was just a Strong Eldar lists with relatively New Eldar models. Only exception was Dark Reaper.

 

Have anyone seen Strong Eldar list with banshee or Scorpion or Fire dragon?

 

I'm curious that if my army(SW) receive new codex, would there be a place for old marines? or just a bunch of SW specific primaris marines with Overpowered rules?

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

Who can give a credit to GW if they keep balancing like this? why they always treat old models like trash and give good rules only to new models?

That's definitely not true though. Eldar have some of the oldest models around and have been a top tier army for several editions now. Obliterators used to have absolutely fugly models as well but it was the go-to unit for competetive CSM for a long time now.

The balancing is just super random, that's all.

Well, all i saw was just a Strong Eldar lists with relatively New Eldar models. Only exception was Dark Reaper.

 

Have anyone seen Strong Eldar list with banshee or Scorpion or Fire dragon?

 

I'm curious that if my army(SW) receive new codex, would there be a place for old marines? or just a bunch of SW specific primaris marines with Overpowered rules?

 

 

That is on the model designers, not the rules developers, because GW does their product development chain exactly backwards.

[Ishagu]

Wage Serpents and Fire Prisms are old but have fantastic rules. Ea

[Antaonix]

 

 

 

 

Who can give a credit to GW if they keep balancing like this? why they always treat old models like trash and give good rules only to new models?

That's definitely not true though. Eldar have some of the oldest models around and have been a top tier army for several editions now. Obliterators used to have absolutely fugly models as well but it was the go-to unit for competetive CSM for a long time now.

The balancing is just super random, that's all.

Well, all i saw was just a Strong Eldar lists with relatively New Eldar models. Only exception was Dark Reaper.

 

Have anyone seen Strong Eldar list with banshee or Scorpion or Fire dragon?

 

I'm curious that if my army(SW) receive new codex, would there be a place for old marines? or just a bunch of SW specific primaris marines with Overpowered rules?

That is on the model designers, not the rules developers, because GW does their product development chain exactly backwards.

at least rules develpoers can give some power to oldmarines regardless of new models so that oldmarines won't lose their position in the faction.

 

But everytime watching new release or codex change, all i can see is just strong push for new models. If they jusy acting like servant of Model design team, is there any need for rules developers?

[Dracos]

Anyone feeling “rage” over a game of toy soldiers to check themselves into a clinic. Dissatisfaction disappointment sure but rage?

 

Highly suggest anyone feeling that level of emotional dispruption and anger try at least funnel it in a productive manner. Contact GW and let them know but the constant back and forth of angst being tossed around on the B&C isn’t going to have anything but a negative effect on our environment. Just asking whether we ageee or not with each other we try to look for solutions with each other instead of tearing each other down.

[Marshal Rohr]

Yes, because sculptors and CAD designers don't have a hand in the rules. If you didn't have the rules designers you'd just have models. Models get new rules when they are updated from older versions, when the factions codex is updated, or when Chapter approved comes out. GW alters rules based on feedback. If no one takes fire prisms or Swooping Hawks, they wont get rules updates until they get new models and they will only get new models if a designer feels like making some new ones. 

[Panzer]

New models don't necessarily get good rules either.

Primaris are okay-ish at best. The new Vanguard Primaris stuff is even a bit on the meh side. New Terminators and Chaos Marines still have crappy old rules. The new Keeper of Secrets is super unviable in 40k due how squishy and expensive it is. I don't see Speed Freakz Ork armies dominating either. The three Ynnari characters have been rather underwhelming too.

Actually if we are objective most of the new models in 40k are weaker than what's already played in competetive lists. ;)