new balance data slate update this Thursday

[phandaal]

20 minutes ago, tinpact said:

At least as far as indexes being a stopgap - at the current rate they're releasing codexes, for a fair few armies their index may as well be their codex for this edition unless they do something like they did for AoS and publish supplements in White Dwarf.

 

Yep. There are many armies that do not even have a spot on the roadmap yet.

 

For those armies, people will experience 10th edition mainly through the lense of their Index.

 

19 minutes ago, Kallas said:

Where did people ask for "perfectly balanced" anything? People want reasonable balance where stuff isn't absolute garbage or insanely overpowered. Expecting this from Indexes is reasonable - sure it's free, but that doesn't mean quality should be a dumpster fire.

 

I would settle for just a finished product. The Votann Index is a beta, draft-quality document.

 

Sure, the Index is free... but so are other game systems' rules, and they actually manage to put out reasonably balanced, complete rules for their fans. GW is just riding high on the strength of their IP and miniatures, as always, and the rules team gets dragged along behind like a lead weight.

[Kallas]

5 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

The only data we have is from tournaments/competitions

Sure. If casuals want to report their experiences, they have the means to do that just like competitive players - we actually have no idea how many people do do that, because GW doesn't report on anything like that, though it's presumably very low. So without much feedback, what other data is there to act upon?

 

Further, while cutthroat mentality exists at tournaments, it still exists in casual/PUG/LGS players/groups - and the opposite is true: not all tournament players are cutthroats who only bring the absolute strongest, game-warping options. Hell, off the cuff I'd wager that kind of cutthroat player is in the minority of overall tournament attendees, but I ain't wading through however many bajillions of lists there are on BCP to try and work it out - feel free though! 

 

13 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

What data do you have to back up the claim that the game is an "unbalanced mess" other than that which exists in a competitive wrapped vacuum? 

Ah yes, let's ignore the data we actually have! What a fantastic idea!

 

You're right, we don't have much data from other sources, but that doesn't mean it should be entirely ignored. The game has/had serious balance outliers at launch (eg, several Eldar units) that were identified day of release, and the data that we actually have shows/showed some major issues that need/needed addressed.

[Oxydo]

44 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

 

*Sigh*

The only data we have is from tournaments/competitions; where unfair advantages are leveraged and anecdotal evidence from anyone who decides to cry about their experiences not meeting their expectations. 

How many people in this hobby do you think actually take the time to participate in online forum shenanigans? Those that do become partakers in the echo chamber that the online community develops and takes that back with them to their local community. And the cycle just continues. 

What data do you have to back up the claim that the game is an "unbalanced mess" other than that which exists in a competitive wrapped vacuum? 
 

Imbalances will affect the casual player more than the competitive tournament player. Why?!, I hear you cry out.

Because a tournament player can and will pivot to the better factions and/or units and hence suffer less from factions being terrible.

Meanwhile, a casual player, myself included, are more likely to play less factions and have access less units meaning that we can't switch over to running lists that aren't terrible or overpowered nearly as easily. Furthermore, we are also a lot less likely to be aware of what units and factions are oppressive or terrible which can cause lots of feels bad moments when someone literally can't win a game because GW couldn't be bothered to put in the effort to even remotely balance anything.

 

I can only speak for myself but one-sided victories are so boring regardless of which side of the equation I'm on.

 

Tournaments don't cause imbalances, they merely highlight them. And having a balanced (decently, inb4 pErFeCtLy BaLaNcEd) game is in everyone's interest,

As for proof of issues. Let's assume that two people are playing the same faction and have a game using equal number of points. We can agree that they should have a roughly even chance to win, yes? Especially if they are both using the exact same units in the exact same number, no?

Except, Player 1 has sponsors on all his 6 Leman Russ, HKs on every vehicle and HWT/Specials in all his squads. The other one doesn't. Do we still think Player 1 and Player 2 have an equal chance of winning?

Spoiler

This is a trick question, of course they don't.

 

Tl dr: People should be able to run their current collections without them being unbeatable or unable to put up a fight.

 

[Malakithe]

Im getting tired of GWs ridiculous codex release schedule. Theres no reason other then to drip feed cash as to why they cant release them all at the same time that way everyone has the entire edition to use and give feedback on the rules

[Warden-Paints]

On 9/7/2023 at 9:44 PM, Orange Knight said:

 

Haven't got the part. Also the way it attached means it can't actually be replaced easily. I need a whole new backpack.

 

I don't actually want to use the Vengor launcher.

 

And frankly, I shouldn't have to source bits for brand new units bought directly from GW,  built correctly as per official GW instructions.

 

It's wild to me that someone would disagree with this. Like, which part is unreasonable? 

[Mogger351]

4 hours ago, Malakithe said:

Im getting tired of GWs ridiculous codex release schedule. Theres no reason other then to drip feed cash as to why they cant release them all at the same time that way everyone has the entire edition to use and give feedback on the rules

Have you not noticed what just happened when they released 1/6 of each faction at once?

[Karhedron]

11 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

thats a good catch. Bit of a weird one too tbh, Leaders already dont benefit from any direct defensive benefits they have till they're the last model standing and now they probably dont even when they are

 

Leaders get a marginal benefit in that rules like -1 Damage or Half Damage work against Devastating Wounds but not Mortal Wounds. However there are not many Leaders with that rule (Gravis Captain and maybe 1 or 2 others). 

[sandrorect]

6 hours ago, Malakithe said:

Im getting tired of GWs ridiculous codex release schedule. Theres no reason other then to drip feed cash as to why they cant release them all at the same time that way everyone has the entire edition to use and give feedback on the rules

 

Two things:

 

1º GW lauch all armies at the same time now with the index... and the results are not very good.

 

2º For GW is much better to lauch the codex little by little for two reason: A they can lauch physical copies (GW can´t make and lauch 24 books at the same time and also make books for other systems) and B (and more important) they can generate hype with the new rules and units.

 

And this is very important for a group of the player base: continuous updates so the game has new things. If there not new options every few months, they get bored and go to another game.

 

Of course GW can launch all armies at once and later lauch new units and rules for the armies (now they launch a space marine, ork and death guard units this month, other month they launch a imperial guard, eldar and a demon units...) but i think this option is not what you want.

[Madao]

3 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Have you not noticed what just happened when they released 1/6 of each faction at once?

This is why they need to incorporate open beta-tests of new rules. Community would spot all weird interactions and balance breakers, so they can be fixed before going 'official'. More and more video gaming companies are going that route, with Larian and their BG3 taken to the extreme (it was in open testing stage for about 3 years before the release) - I don't see any reason tabletop games could't do that (and they are in fact - new semi-edition of D&D is in open tests right now with large community feedback about the rules and constant tweaks before they release it).

[Mogger351]

16 minutes ago, Madao said:

This is why they need to incorporate open beta-tests of new rules. Community would spot all weird interactions and balance breakers, so they can be fixed before going 'official'. More and more video gaming companies are going that route, with Larian and their BG3 taken to the extreme (it was in open testing stage for about 3 years before the release) - I don't see any reason tabletop games could't do that (and they are in fact - new semi-edition of D&D is in open tests right now with large community feedback about the rules and constant tweaks before they release it).

There'd be a lot more push back against paid rules at that point and notably less value in the paid rules as a result. Which is likely terrible for GW and given people were spelling doom of 40k due to 2 months of poor balance I doubt it'd be well received. Then there's the issue that people will likely want to play the "new" rules which aren't released and you'll have tournaments running beta rules which leads to feelsbads in a lot of cases, or other tournaments on the old format with lower attendance. You then have to ask how they support and sell content/models for the current edition when the next edition is out free for 6+ months to "beta test".

 

It's really not simple or easy for them from a business perspective and would absolutely divide the community to people on the PTR server vs those on live.

[Redcomet]

3 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

There'd be a lot more push back against paid rules at that point and notably less value in the paid rules as a result. Which is likely terrible for GW and given people were spelling doom of 40k due to 2 months of poor balance I doubt it'd be well received. Then there's the issue that people will likely want to play the "new" rules which aren't released and you'll have tournaments running beta rules which leads to feelsbads in a lot of cases, or other tournaments on the old format with lower attendance. You then have to ask how they support and sell content/models for the current edition when the next edition is out free for 6+ months to "beta test".

 

It's really not simple or easy for them from a business perspective and would absolutely divide the community to people on the PTR server vs those on live.

Several ttrpg companies do beta tests 12-18 months before. And have no trouble selling the books upon release. I have been involved with Paizo playtests since they started doing it, and every single thing teated has become better because of it.

[Madao]

24 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

There'd be a lot more push back against paid rules at that point and notably less value in the paid rules as a result. Which is likely terrible for GW and given people were spelling doom of 40k due to 2 months of poor balance I doubt it'd be well received. Then there's the issue that people will likely want to play the "new" rules which aren't released and you'll have tournaments running beta rules which leads to feelsbads in a lot of cases, or other tournaments on the old format with lower attendance. You then have to ask how they support and sell content/models for the current edition when the next edition is out free for 6+ months to "beta test".

 

It's really not simple or easy for them from a business perspective and would absolutely divide the community to people on the PTR server vs those on live.

I don't think that any TO would decide to run competitive tournament on beta ruleset. And from GW perspective - a lot of people has 'hobby budget'. The less money they spend on books obsolete on release date, the more they will spend on minis/hobby supplies, so GW would still benefit from it. They would save money on playtesting the rules (as community would gladly do it for free, just to have a better end product).

 

And about paid rules - they should just drop it and focus on making minis (which they are good at) and keep the digital rulesets/codices free or locked behind some small paid subscription (like 1£ a month for army)

Edited September 10, 2023 by Madao

[Helycon]

With the state of the game and ongoing changes they have been making, I will not be buying any more physical copies of (rule)books.

 

I'm sad about the way the balance launched for many armies. I play very casually and have no interest in competitive play whatsoever. I do not enjoy stomping or being stomped on when I have my beer and pretzel game. Memorable games are the ones that are close, back-and-forth, where tactical decisions and maybe that last epic dice throw decides the game. 

 

I do applaud the changes GW is making to even things out. It also makes sure I'm not buying the codices, as I don't need them to look up rules that might not be correct anyway.

[sairence]

12 hours ago, Oxydo said:

Imbalances will affect the casual player more than the competitive tournament player. Why?!, I hear you cry out.

Because a tournament player can and will pivot to the better factions and/or units and hence suffer less from factions being terrible.

Meanwhile, a casual player, myself included, are more likely to play less factions and have access less units meaning that we can't switch over to running lists that aren't terrible or overpowered nearly as easily. 

*Snip*

 

12 hours ago, Oxydo said:

 

 

I want to interject here...because that really only applies to a small, but admittedly very visible fraction of regular tournament goers.

 

Most of us have 1 or 2 armies that we bring out regularly. Most people going to tournaments are casual players any other day of the week.

 

Trying to draw a giant chasm between them, with no overlap, simply doesn't accurately describe the majority of people that regularly go to tournaments.

[Oxydo]

31 minutes ago, sairence said:

 

 

I want to interject here...because that really only applies to a small, but admittedly very visible fraction of regular tournament goers.

 

Most of us have 1 or 2 armies that we bring out regularly. Most people going to tournaments are casual players any other day of the week.

 

Trying to draw a giant chasm between them, with no overlap, simply doesn't accurately describe the majority of people that regularly go to tournaments.

 

Very fair and true point.

 

I should have used "very competitive or top end tournament players" or something similiar instead. Since that's the subset of players people usually mean when they say "tournament players" in my experience, at least in this type of discussion.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

1 hour ago, sairence said:

 

 

I want to interject here...because that really only applies to a small, but admittedly very visible fraction of regular tournament goers.

 

Most of us have 1 or 2 armies that we bring out regularly. Most people going to tournaments are casual players any other day of the week.

 

Trying to draw a giant chasm between them, with no overlap, simply doesn't accurately describe the majority of people that regularly go to tournaments.

In my experiences, when you buy a codex and aren't keen on keeping up with the game state, it more negatively affects casual players.

 

In 9th between covid, working in the Hospital, and finishing up a degree I was much less involved in things. When I went to try and play a pick up game I was rudely awakened by my army being outdated and points off because I was simply going off my codex I had bought a year or so before.

 

Not owning a digital copy, and spending $50 on a lore book with invalidated rules really put me off to wanting to play. I can't remember if it was Nachmund? Nephilim? Hell I don't remember which is which.

 

It's the same thing with the data cards, I won't waste money on add ons anymore due to how often the game state is changed and updated.

 

If I weren't keeping up with the game through the app, or here...and I wanted to play Eldar based off a .pdf I downloaded 3 months ago, or data cards I bought, and haven't had time to invest in the community, or current events. I'd be doomed at locals here. In those ways the tournament player's outcomes affect the more casual player base than anyone else.

 

 

[Bloody Legionnaire]

11 hours ago, Malakithe said:

Im getting tired of GWs ridiculous codex release schedule. Theres no reason other then to drip feed cash as to why they cant release them all at the same time that way everyone has the entire edition to use and give feedback on the rules

Is it not a relative new endeavor for GW to even release complete new codexes for every faction in the game within a single edition? 

As I've said already, SW players were using a 5th edition codex from the time of release (2009) until 3 months into 7th edition (2014), and they were not the only ones using old (and you wanna talk about outdated and unbalanced) rules... 

It wasn't until about 9th that I realized that was a thing of the past and GW was trying to (or it was expected of them) have all of their codexes finished within one edition. I mean, I don't like defending GW for all the screwed up, but are we really about to turn a blind eye to history and just expect that they *should* be able to get all of that done within 1 edition, willy nilly (and early enough within that edition for everyone to get the same playtime)? Let's not forget there's now more individual factions than we have had in the past. Attempting to meet the communities (unrealistic?) demand while biting off more than you can chew, sounds like a sure way to wind up with more crap rules and less game quality for all of us in the hobby. 

[LSM]

16 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

...And at that rate a 1/3 of the armies will be using the indexes for over 2 years, which is a majority of the 3 year edition cycle...

 

Agreed with this post, but just wanted to mention that 3rd edition Age of Sigmar managed to get out battletomes (codexes) for all of its armies by the two year mark (except Cities of Sigmar and Flesh Eater Courts, both of which are, and seem to be, getting pretty hefty range revamps). The way they were rapid-releasing them in the spring made it seem like a purposeful effort.

 

We might see the same from the 40k team.

[Kallas]

22 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

but are we really about to turn a blind eye to history

Nobody is turning a blind eye to history: that state of affairs was awful and pretty much always criticised. Just because back then was worse, it doesn't mean now gets a free pass on its issues.

 

23 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

expect that they *should* be able to get all of that done within 1 edition

If they can't handle it in three years, then they should be altering their release schedule/edition length to account for it, rather than punishing some players for having the temerity to own an army that only gets a Codex at the end of an edition.

 

25 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

the communities (unrealistic?) demand

Was it unrealistic for Guard and World Eaters players to want to use their Codexes for longer than a handful of months before 10th Edition released? Pretty sure GW are the unreasonable ones here, not the community.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

46 minutes ago, Kallas said:

Nobody is turning a blind eye to history: that state of affairs was awful and pretty much always criticised. Just because back then was worse, it doesn't mean now gets a free pass on its issues.

 

If they can't handle it in three years, then they should be altering their release schedule/edition length to account for it, rather than punishing some players for having the temerity to own an army that only gets a Codex at the end of an edition.

 

Was it unrealistic for Guard and World Eaters players to want to use their Codexes for longer than a handful of months before 10th Edition released? Pretty sure GW are the unreasonable ones here, not the community.

Repeating patterns of behavior each time expecting different results is a working definition of insanity. 

You are saying "should" a lot. By what standard are you operating from that you have an expectation for, or an experience from that has led you to this conclusion? It's not like this is something  GW has  gotten right in the past and it doesn't appear to be a thing they are getting right in the present, thus the indications are they will not get it right in the future. If it's their claim that they can get it right and they don't, then that is on GW as a company. If the community continues to expect them to get it right, because it's something they can conjure up or conceive in their (communities) own minds as a possible or desirable reality, then the community is wrong. There is no basis for that standard that "should" exist. Please continue to argue with me, but you're not right, nor is anyone else in these regards. Re-read insanity...
 

Again.. I was very surprised that the shift happened and really had no expectation for GW fitting all their codexes within one edition. To me, from my POV a company who hasn't been able to do it in the past is attempting a huge undertaking in attempting to do it. It's an admirable goal.. good luck getting that much grace from this community... 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Bloody Legionnaire

[Kallas]

4 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

Repeating patterns of behavior each time expecting different results is a working definition of insanity. 

What's this even in reference to?

 

2 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

You are saying "should" a lot

You brought up these hypotheticals.

 

3 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

By what standard are you operating from that you have an expectation for, or an experience from that has led you to this conclusion? It's not like this is something  GW has  gotten right in the past and it doesn't appear to be a thing they are getting right in the present, thus the indications are they will not get it right in the future.

Because it's better for the consumer? Rather than practicing predatory capitalist practices, GW could actually value their customers and not seek to squeeze them for every penny possible. You're right that they haven't done it well before, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be the aim, nor that it shouldn't be the demand from the consumers. 

 

You're putting words in my keyboard - I am not expecting GW to do things right, but I do think they should be doing things a better way than they are currently.

 

8 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

If the community continues to expect them to get it right, because it's something they can conjure up or conceive in their (communities) own minds as a possible or desirable reality, then the community is wrong.

Someone doing something a bad way round just because they have failed to acheive something before is not a good reason to not try for the better option.

 

Hell, people have been wanting GW to do digital releases for a while. They have made an attempt, but it's been pretty botched by being half-hearted. Does that mean GW should just ditch digital altogether, like they did before when they ditched PDF Codexes? No, not at all - they should pay attention to the things the community is asking for, and not try and parse it through profit-only-and-forever filters to make it a drudgery of a product - like the 40k App, which could have become a cornerstone of the community, but instead they tucked it behind a fixed size paywall with additional buy-ins required.

 

Should, should, should. Because they should be trying to make a better product, because that's what makes people stay; better quality models make people buy more initially, but a better game and system keeps people playing, which in turn generates more purchases from those people and increases exposure to others, who then get caught up and pulled in - it's pretty much why GW still runs brick-and-mortar stores instead of operating purely online, because that actual, visual, physical exposure is massive.

 

13 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

you're not right

Spoiler

Just saying "I'm right" doesn't make it so. 

[Rogue]

4 hours ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

As I've said already, SW players were using a 5th edition codex from the time of release (2009) until 3 months into 7th edition (2014), and they were not the only ones using old (and you wanna talk about outdated and unbalanced) rules... 
 

 

From memory, this (in general) was at least partly because editions weren't the significant changes we see fairly frequently at the moment - a codex wasn't invalidated by the shift from one edition to the next. So you could use a 5th edition  codex in 6th edition fairly easily, for example.

 

The jump into 8th was a big one (when Marines went from BS4 to BS3+, as I recall), and rendered all the codices obsolete at once, hence the need for indices and a rapid codex release schedule. Moving into 10th has felt equally significant (lose of certain phases, for example), exacerbated by GW doing the index thing all over again. So I suspect that has contributed to the expectation that we'd get an equally rapid set of codices.

 

Personally, I'd love to see a slower edition churn. Get the rules sorted, iron out the kinks, deal with the errata and FAQ, and then leave it for a bit. Release big boxes, release new game modes (like boarding actions), release new units and variant army lists to put them in (once all the codices are out) - do fun stuff, but don't mess with the rules you just spent several years sorting out.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

8 minutes ago, Rogue said:

 

From memory, this (in general) was at least partly because editions weren't the significant changes we see fairly frequently at the moment - a codex wasn't invalidated by the shift from one edition to the next. So you could use a 5th edition  codex in 6th edition fairly easily, for example.

 

The jump into 8th was a big one (when Marines went from BS4 to BS3+, as I recall), and rendered all the codices obsolete at once, hence the need for indices and a rapid codex release schedule. Moving into 10th has felt equally significant (lose of certain phases, for example), exacerbated by GW doing the index thing all over again. So I suspect that has contributed to the expectation that we'd get an equally rapid set of codices.

 

Personally, I'd love to see a slower edition churn. Get the rules sorted, iron out the kinks, deal with the errata and FAQ, and then leave it for a bit. Release big boxes, release new game modes (like boarding actions), release new units and variant army lists to put them in (once all the codices are out) - do fun stuff, but don't mess with the rules you just spent several years sorting out.

 

You are at minimum partly correct, but to my point.. this a change that requires some adjustment for GW as well, that's something that the community probably needs to be a little more understanding of. 

Marines always essentially hit on 3+. WS/BS 4 meant hitting on a 3+. WS/BS 3 meant hitting on a 4+. There was no mechanic change for SM armies (with some nuance like blood claws). The change was in making things easier to read. 

I agree, I would like to see slower edition turnover, as well. 

[Rogue]

Yes, I understand the mechanics of the hit roll.

 

What I was getting at was that the transition from 7th to 8th was a significant restructuring (and simplification) of the rules. The BS change being one example - rather than BS having a numerical score that increased in line with a model's skill (necessitating a conversion to a hit number), the base format that had endured since 1st edition was changed to directly show the required score. I'm sure there were other changes too, but it was a while ago now.

 

At that point, all the codices went very obviously out of date, and whilst everyone could do the basic maths to switch from one to another, that's not the way GW wanted to play it, and they introduced the indices.

 

When we jumped from 8th to 9th, tweaks were minor, and codices rolled over. Now they've reset again. That gives us three complete resets of the game, with two coming in the last three editions. That's why codices don't roll over any more, and is at least partly why GW have to repeatedly churn them out (just pretty slowly, apparently).

[Lemondish]

On 9/7/2023 at 9:56 AM, Dark Legionnare said:

Just joking of course, give ya something to smile about; we all (or at least most of us) know that pain. GW has been very hamfisted very often over the years.

 

It's honestly why I absolutely love the switch to the "no model, no rules" paradigm they've seemed to shift to since 8th. Back then, in 8th edition, my Deathwatch Vets were best fielded equipped with chainswords and storm bolters, neither of which are available in the actual box. To do otherwise meant you were selecting such insanely inefficient picks that it almost wasn't worth running the unit.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Lemondish