new balance data slate update this Thursday

[tzeentch9]

3 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Because after we all paid $100's for unpainted unassembled models, bought the supplies, built and painted them, made our own tables and terrain, bought a $60 core rule book and $40 individual rule books for our faction's every edition, we kind of hoped the billion dollar company we all paid over a $1,000 to would make their own rules fun and playable. So yeah, "I don't want to do GW's job for them".

Well then play the game that they have made and stop complaining or play the game how you want to play it. Don’t like the game? Don’t play it, sell your stuff etc etc 

[Bloody Legionnaire]

Experience from the last time I posted along these lines tells me otherwise 

 

People need to not feel purposefully attacked because their favorite way to play is a big part of the problem.. it certainly isn’t their fault individually or any individuals fault period, it’s a community issue..

 

I’m just glad I’m not alone in being able to see it. I don’t even hate on actual competitive play and look forward to getting to those realms myself eventually, but competition certainly isn’t the only facet to this game or hobby.. that for one excuse or another get’s lost very often from what I can see. I really do think it’s the microchasm that is the online forum community that makes competitive 40k receive much more emphasis than there probably is per capita.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Captain Idaho
Reference to removed content removed

[Bloody Legionnaire]

4 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Because after we all paid $100's for unpainted unassembled models, bought the supplies, built and painted them, made our own tables and terrain, bought a $60 core rule book and $40 individual rule books for our faction's every edition, we kind of hoped the billion dollar company we all paid over a $1,000 to would make their own rules fun and playable. So yeah, "I don't want to do GW's job for them".

 

I'm sorry, but nah...

You cannot blame GW for not catering to your niche for how their game should be played. GW does not design nor market WH40k to be a game geared towards competitively play only. Their rule system has been adapted by many to be used in that format.. 

If you want the game to be completely balanced.. then a lot of the army flavor needs to go away and you wind up with something like chess. I think entirely too much is being asked of and being expected from GW in regards to what the rules *should be* with the excuse being "well I spent a lot of money on this."
...No one forced you to spend that money and it's not like it was unethically marketed as something that was supposed to be competitive that wound up not being so. Fun is subjective, and as a company.. as a rule writing department, they can not be expected to ensure everyone has fun in their individual way with the broad reaching rules that they are writing. I think GW does a lot to make things more fair and more balanced, but they cannot be held responsible for those players in the community that purposefully look for every unfair advantage they can find within the umbrella of rules legality in order to gain an edge competitively. 

I've posted it once, I'll post it again, GW constantly gives us the key for how to play and have fun:

 

[Arbedark]

5 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

So the whole "simplified, not simple" thing is 100% a response to One Page Rules' Grimdark Future, yeah?

 

Well, even in that game they still have points costs for wargear.

 

And in fact, GW did not do what they said they were going to do. They said - no more Power Levels, only Points. Straight up, no beating around the bush. Then, instead of that, they did the opposite.

 

Okay, @Arbedark, which part do you respectfully disagree with? "Simplified not simple" being a response to OPR, Grimdark Future having points for wargear, GW saying in a community article that Power Levels are going away, or our army building system for 10th being Power Levels?

 

Only the first one of those is an opinion.

 

 

10th is in no way a response to One Page Rules. 

 

10th definitely still uses points, not power level, no matter how hard you claim otherwise. 

 

And as a bonus:

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with the system of free wargear (the actual implementation in 10th is admittedly problematic). 

[jaxom]

6 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

A casual gaming group, ignoring for a moment will have competitive minded players also, need a balanced ruleset arguably more than ever simply because they're casual - if my group has to balance your game for you then we'll go play a game that is less hard work.

I don't want to make assumptions; would you be okay with a stable ruleset with about 10-20% variance of "power"? Like everyone knows one or two armies have a bit of an edge, but it's not so bad that a good plan and some good dice rolls can get over that edge?

 

1 hour ago, Arbedark said:

10th definitely still uses points, not power level, no matter how hard you claim otherwise. 

It uses power level in regards to the core idea: a unit has one cost and any changes (like additional members) occur in metric intervals of that cost (3 people is 30, 6 people is 60, and 9 people is 90). What's different is the level of precision. We've gone from two significant figures to three significant figures. I think "points" has become shorthand for "balancing upgrade options by their points cost" rather than each upgrade being equal and balanced by their rules.

Edited September 8, 2023 by jaxom
Added second quotation

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Arbedark said:

10th definitely still uses points, not power level, no matter how hard you claim otherwise.

 

It is Power Levels renamed to Points. That kind of "technically I didn't do the thing I did" doesn't even work when little kids try it. It is insulting to everyone's intelligence, including yours, to pretend otherwise.

 

For the OPR thing, fair enough. My assessment is based on the way they bill themselves, and the way GW chose to bill 10th, and the similarities between the two. It is possible that Games Workshop came up with all of this stuff independently though.

 

1 hour ago, Arbedark said:

There's nothing inherently wrong with the system of free wargear (the actual implementation in 10th is admittedly problematic). 

 

That is nice, but not part of my post.

[Sea Creature]

Well looks like LoV made out like bandits… so hopefully less q—q here now. :D

[caladancid]

53 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

It is Power Levels renamed to Points. That kind of "technically I didn't do the thing I did" doesn't even work when little kids try it. It is insulting to everyone's intelligence, including yours, to pretend otherwise.

 

For the OPR thing, fair enough. My assessment is based on the way they bill themselves, and the way GW chose to bill 10th, and the similarities between the two. It is possible that Games Workshop came up with all of this stuff independently though.

 

 

That is nice, but not part of my post.

 

No as @Arbedark said, it is definitely NOT power levels. It shares nothing in common with a system where you can upgrade units by increasing them a set number of models with a correspondingly set value. It certainly looks nothing like the 'old' power level system where upgrade to said unit cost no additional points. Totally, completely different and how dare you.

 

You know how I know this? Because its divisble by 5 and power levels could be anything. Math and science win again.

[jaxom]

6 minutes ago, caladancid said:

 

No as @Arbedark said, it is definitely NOT power levels. It shares nothing in common with a system where you can upgrade units by increasing them a set number of models with a correspondingly set value. It certainly looks nothing like the 'old' power level system where upgrade to said unit cost no additional points. Totally, completely different and how dare you.

 

You know how I know this? Because its divisble by 5 and power levels could be anything. Math and science win again.

Question because writing doesn’t have tone and I just had to explain what significant figures were today… is this sarcasm?

[Captain Idaho]

11 hours ago, jaxom said:

I don't want to make assumptions; would you be okay with a stable ruleset with about 10-20% variance of "power"? Like everyone knows one or two armies have a bit of an edge, but it's not so bad that a good plan and some good dice rolls can get over that edge?

 

Nah.

 

• 20% is massive. 10% is substantial.

• The win rates even GW acknowledges suggest the problems are LESS than they really are.

 

The Eldar win rate in tournaments is against top tier opposition, so it would be much higher if it was full against each faction fairly. If that was the case, they'd have an even higher win rate. 

 

Similarly, the likes of Death Guard are bottom of the table and thus up against weaker opponents than the mid table and top tier factions.

 

Just imagine what the win rate of the likes of Eldar maintain against Death Guard, for example.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Captain Idaho
Words

[Toldavf]

One of the larger problems with free wargear is the hold over from other editions where certain squads might say start with a bolt pistol and chain sword but with the option for any member to take a power fist and a plasma pistol.  The only fair way to cost a unit like that is at the higher end with the best options which I guess means they might as well not have options at all.  Beyond returning to the old system there is no fix I can see beyond adding more restrictions.

That might invalidate allot of people collections but that is one thing GW doesn't seem too shy about right now. 

[Evil Eye]

4 hours ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

I can't believe that their plan in 2023 is still to make people buy physical books.

I'd happily buy physical books if the contents were worth the paper they were printed on; I don't have a tablet, and I don't want to buy one as its only use would be for accessing rules. Books are in many ways superior to digital rules; they don't need batteries or internet, they can't be DRM'd, etc. I actually abhor the philosophy of "just patch it bro" and would much rather that the balance patch cycle was abandoned in favour of GW just taking the time to get things even close to right the first time around.

 

As is I wouldn't touch the rules GW is putting out if they were free. The fact they expect us to pay for them too is laughable.

[Orion]

3 hours ago, Arbedark said:

 

10th is in no way a response to One Page Rules. 

 

10th definitely still uses points, not power level, no matter how hard you claim otherwise. 

 

And as a bonus:

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with the system of free wargear (the actual implementation in 10th is admittedly problematic). 

Would you just use it less then? 

An example:
If a new player buys a Baneblade, and wants to build it like any one of the pictures on the box.
They then show it to an experienced player who tells them they're missing out on 6 big guns by not building it like a battleship. (quad sponson)

I don't really think that's a reasonable choice to give a player.

 

There's a difference between "sub optimal" and "feels bad".

[Dont-Be-Haten]

TL:DR is GW is stretched too thin.

 

First and foremost, I believe 40k has entirely too many armies now. While many others won't agree, I believe this to be true.

 

It's the same fate WHFB spiraled into before the inevitable universe reset.

 

While I love having variability we have reached a point where it has become almost impossible to please everyone or balance the system.

 

There are currently 24 different armies with rules, and more are coming. We still need Emperor's Children to be released after all to complete the pantheon specific armies. This is entirely too many.

 

Now we are also getting 2 more game systems soon to compete with the 12 different systems we currently have in rotation.

 

I don't have faith they can really "right" the 40k ship right now. AoS is the better power level system and is more balanced.

 

Heresy is a better 40k with fewer armies. My experience has shown 10th has sent a fair player base to both of these systems recently. Even though 40k is the prized cow for their IP, it feels like they are taking it for granted.

[crimsondave]

4 hours ago, Arbedark said:

 

10th is in no way a response to One Page Rules. 

 

10th definitely still uses points, not power level, no matter how hard you claim otherwise. 

 

And as a bonus:

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with the system of free wargear (the actual implementation in 10th is admittedly problematic). 

There is, literally, not one thing you said in this post that is factually accurate.

[Dark Legionnare]

8 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

I would pay to go back to 6th or 7th but drop all of the Formation crap. This is honestly why HHv1 was one of my favorite games, it took the bones of the older, more detailed and immersive rules from 40K but cut a lot of the fat off. 
 

One of my biggest gripes with GW has always been that when something needs to be fixed, they don’t go at the issue with a fine blade or scalpel, they grab an axe and just start hacking and cutting until they’ve completely mangled their creation. 

This is what our circle of around 8 guys is doing these days and we're having a blast.

 

Just raw "combined arms" force org w/no formations allowed. At best, detachment rules like green tide for orks.

 

Then again, I've been practically preaching to all the lads (half of them new to warhammer since 8th where I'm a 3rd ed lad) that fluff and loving your army design is what matters most.

 

I'm extremely lucky to have said group of guys listen to my mad ravings and they're all averse to tournament nonsense and bring fun, varied lists of multiple units with no spamming any one thing really.

 

We've been avoiding 10th often enough because some folks (DG of note) were getting curbstomped even with that mindset in our group.

 

7th has been a fun oldhammer refuge with the formations banned.

 

We're going to sneak a bit of 5th ed in soon too, but with the multiwound shenanigans outlawed, to give them a taste of vehicles pre-hull-points even.

 

God speed getting your own local folks to try it out if citing me here might help.

 

(Side note. Three of them are listening to my crappy gospel because of me luring them into HH 1.0 too, which we also still play mostly instead of 2.0 from imbalances there too to non-marine forces, and they fell in absolute love with it.)

 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Dark Legionnare

[Special Officer Doofy]

6 hours ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

 

I'm sorry, but nah...

You cannot blame GW for not catering to your niche for how their game should be played. GW does not design nor market WH40k to be a game geared towards competitively play only. Their rule system has been adapted by many to be used in that format.. 

If you want the game to be completely balanced.. then a lot of the army flavor needs to go away and you wind up with something like chess. I think entirely too much is being asked of and being expected from GW in regards to what the rules *should be* with the excuse being "well I spent a lot of money on this."
...No one forced you to spend that money and it's not like it was unethically marketed as something that was supposed to be competitive that wound up not being so. Fun is subjective, and as a company.. as a rule writing department, they can not be expected to ensure everyone has fun in their individual way with the broad reaching rules that they are writing. I think GW does a lot to make things more fair and more balanced, but they cannot be held responsible for those players in the community that purposefully look for every unfair advantage they can find within the umbrella of rules legality in order to gain an edge competitively. 

I've posted it once, I'll post it again, GW constantly gives us the key for how to play and have fun:

 

 

I'm sorry, but nah... 

 

A majority of people preferred and played match points. GW is forcing everyone to use power levels and rename them points. Not wanting to use set unit sizes with free unbalanced wargear (power level) and wanting point costs and flexible unit sizes is not catering to my niche for how I think the game should be played, it's how it has been for every edition and how a majority want to play it...

 

10th is less balanced than the end of 9th. That's not my subjective opinion, that's objective numerical win percentages tracked and recorded by GW (and others). My issue with balance is less "Eldar too strong please nerf" and more "I could tell death guard was garbage from the faction preview without even seeing point costs, how did those garbage rules make it to print?" 

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Arbedark said:

 

10th is in no way a response to One Page Rules. 

 

10th definitely still uses points, not power level, no matter how hard you claim otherwise. 

 

And as a bonus:

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with the system of free wargear (the actual implementation in 10th is admittedly problematic). 

Looks like someone didn’t cover isomorphisms in math class 

[crimsondave]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

Looks like someone didn’t cover isomorphisms in math class 

If you don’t think of it in terms of numbers it’s an easier concept.

 

You can paint “Lamborghini” on your Corolla but you’re still driving a Toyota.

[DuskRaider]

1 hour ago, Dark Legionnare said:

This is what our circle of around 8 guys is doing these days and we're having a blast.

 

Just raw "combined arms" force org w/no formations allowed. At best, detachment rules like green tide for orks.

 

Then again, I've been practically preaching to all the lads (half of them new to warhammer since 8th where I'm a 3rd ed lad) that fluff and loving your army design is what matters most.

 

I'm extremely lucky to have said group of guys listen to my mad ravings and they're all averse to tournament nonsense and bring fun, varied lists of multiple units with no spamming any one thing really.

 

We've been avoiding 10th often enough because some folks (DG of note) were getting curbstomped even with that mindset in our group.

 

7th has been a fun oldhammer refuge with the formations banned.

 

We're going to sneak a bit of 5th ed in soon too, but with the multiwound shenanigans outlawed, to give them a taste of vehicles pre-hull-points even.

 

God speed getting your own local folks to try it out if citing me here might help.

 

(Side note. Three of them are listening to my crappy gospel because of me luring them into HH 1.0 too, which we also still play mostly instead of 2.0 from imbalances there too to non-marine forces, and they fell in absolute love with it.)

 

 

 Beautiful… absolutely beautiful. 
 

I’ve been talking with some buddies about bringing back 4th Edition along with the codices just for old times sake. I would love to crack open the holy grail of Chaos books. 
 

I will admit I did enjoy the initial Death Guard codex, they were scary but not too OP, they had some nice flavor (even though the HQ had barely any options) and it was a fun play through, but the basic rules of 8th were terrible and simplified and it’s only getting worse. I hate to say it, but I think I actually had more fun playing 5th Edition Chaos and that book was a bland nightmare. At least my Plague Marines felt like Plague Marines. 
 

I probably sound like an old man shouting at the kids to get off my lawn, but it is what it is. There are other games that GW is producing that have since captured my interest and hobby attention. 

[Dark Legionnare]

47 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

 Beautiful… absolutely beautiful. 
 

I’ve been talking with some buddies about bringing back 4th Edition along with the codices just for old times sake. I would love to crack open the holy grail of Chaos books. 
 

I will admit I did enjoy the initial Death Guard codex, they were scary but not too OP, they had some nice flavor (even though the HQ had barely any options) and it was a fun play through, but the basic rules of 8th were terrible and simplified and it’s only getting worse. I hate to say it, but I think I actually had more fun playing 5th Edition Chaos and that book was a bland nightmare. At least my Plague Marines felt like Plague Marines. 
 

I probably sound like an old man shouting at the kids to get off my lawn, but it is what it is. There are other games that GW is producing that have since captured my interest and hobby attention. 

I often sound the same despite still scraping in under 35.

 

As for 4th ed. "Beware the ides of March" (ordnance penetration table)

 

But let's not derail this thread too much. Can hit me up in PM's in you want any further cahootsing about the oldens.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

3 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

I'm sorry, but nah... 

 

A majority of people preferred and played match points. GW is forcing everyone to use power levels and rename them points. Not wanting to use set unit sizes with free unbalanced wargear (power level) and wanting point costs and flexible unit sizes is not catering to my niche for how I think the game should be played, it's how it has been for every edition and how a majority want to play it...

 

10th is less balanced than the end of 9th. That's not my subjective opinion, that's objective numerical win percentages tracked and recorded by GW (and others). My issue with balance is less "Eldar too strong please nerf" and more "I could tell death guard was garbage from the faction preview without even seeing point costs, how did those garbage rules make it to print?" 

 

But don’t you understand this is a product of appeasing those who cry for “more balance?” It’s streamlining; it’s making the game less narrative in favor of balance and simplicity which is what the comp community constantly ask GW for.. 

What “balance” are you expecting to receive? Have you possibly consider it’s your expectations that are off and not this edition?

What amount of effort do you really think geedub needs to put into *free rules* that are only *intended* to allow the community to start playing the game immediately at a *relatively* similar position?

 

Is it preferable to you for them to utilize the prior existing codexes/rules while all the new armies get new codexes dropped? 
 

I don’t think you want to do more than cry about the current state of DG and be angry at GW for not giving you what you wanted in the way you wanted it…

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Bloody Legionnaire

[Special Officer Doofy]

3 hours ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

But don’t you understand this is a product of appeasing those who cry for “more balance?” It’s streamlining; it’s making the game less narrative in favor of balance and simplicity which is what the comp community constantly ask GW for.. 

 

But don't you understand that more balance and streamlining are not the same thing? This edition is supposed to be more "streamlined" but has less balance than 9th did with all the bonkers codexes and mono bonuses.

 

Having a bolt pistol cost the same as a plasma pistol is "streamlining" but the plasma pistol is 100% better and is not balanced.

 

3 hours ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

I don’t think you want to do more than cry about the current state of DG and be angry at GW for not giving you what you wanted in the way you wanted it…

 

All I did was read their article, and said those rules suck, and the data came out and supported that yes, those rules suck. They made the slowest army even slower, made them less lethal (which was something every army got a taste of, reducing AP around the bored), and became far less durable with losing DR and toughness going up on alot of stuff for other factions. It's not that they didn't do what I wanted, it's that they made them worse at every facet of the game. I also have other armies (chaos daemons and older tau and tyranids). It was just so glaringly bad at the preview I'm surprised that GW read the DG/LoV rules and then looked at the Eldar rules and went "yeah these guys are balanced".

 

I'm upset with GW for lots of things. Terrible balance between faction's, half baked to no play testing, having to constantly update their game because they fudge it up so bad the first time, won't go digital in 2023 which would actually help them constantly having to tweak their poor rules. I'm not even talking full digital, print the books for those that want it but offer digital too. Forcing power levels on players. DG sucking is just the cherry on top for me.

 

This balance slate is a step in the right direction but with all the indexes coming out at once you would have thought you wouldn't have armies in the 30%'s and 70%'s. I'm rooting for GW and I want the game to be good, it's the only reason I'm still hanging around. You won't see me posting in the price increase threads complaining about GW because the price of everything is going up. But when they put in subpar effort into the game and the game becomes actively worse, that's an issue for me.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Special Officer Doofy

[Nephaston]

7 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

TL:DR is GW is stretched too thin.

 

First and foremost, I believe 40k has entirely too many armies now. While many others won't agree, I believe this to be true.

 

It's the same fate WHFB spiraled into before the inevitable universe reset.

 

While I love having variability we have reached a point where it has become almost impossible to please everyone or balance the system.

 

There are currently 24 different armies with rules, and more are coming. We still need Emperor's Children to be released after all to complete the pantheon specific armies. This is entirely too many.

 

Now we are also getting 2 more game systems soon to compete with the 12 different systems we currently have in rotation.

 

I don't have faith they can really "right" the 40k ship right now. AoS is the better power level system and is more balanced.

 

Heresy is a better 40k with fewer armies. My experience has shown 10th has sent a fair player base to both of these systems recently. Even though 40k is the prized cow for their IP, it feels like they are taking it for granted.

I only agree in the regard that I don't think the 40k rules team is capable of balancing it in a timely and reasonable fashion.

That said, unless they have serious crossover, it should not matter how many systems they have; AoS being good at balance sadly has and should have no impact on the 40k rules team beyond perhaps borrowing good ideas. Same with Warcry, Underworlds, 30k, Kill Team, TOW, etc.

 

Now of course I can not be certain that GW hasn't severly mismanaged that aspect of their internal work, but at this point it wouldn't surprise me.

[Lord_Ikka]

=][= Keep it on topic frater. This thread is about the balance dataslate and its implications to the game, not for talk about GW's policies or to bash each other for differing opinions. Constructive conversation is the goal. =][=