What should 11th look like?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Harrowmaster said:

I would like to see some sort of subfaction rules, either 8th edition style or 4th edition type doctrines/chapter tactics. 

If it’s just the doctrines and no detachment rules, plus war lord traits, plus enhancements, plus unit rules, plus wargear special rules, or strats, I’d love that.

 

 

[Vassakov]

Genuine question to the fellow grognards here... and in the interests of disclosure I started with the 3rd Ed Space Wolves pamphlet, dropped out early 6th Ed owing to life then returned in early 8th and have started about 4 40k armies since coming back. And a HH force and currently also have Tomb Kings on the desk. I also started playing on the UK tournament circuit in 9th, and since have probably done a dozen or more GT events and quite a few RTT/1 day events in 40k (and a handful of Horus Heresy events as well.

 

So, if 10th edition is so dreadful and poor as a game system then why is the tournament scene absolutely exploding? Again, I'll take the UK as that's what I'm familiar with but the UKTC seems to be adding events every other week, then there's a wide array of other GT level events including Goonhammer, Twisted Dice, Glasshammer... and then all the RTTs. Not to mention GWs own events. And they all seem pretty well attended, and basically every one I tend to bump into both people I've exclusively at these events & people who are at their first - but often see them again. 

 

Again, I acknowledge fully that people can dislike or even loathe 10th Ed and the changes it's brought, and even further back the sweeping reforms to 8th... but to argue that the game is "objectively bad" seems utterly contradicted by the evidence of the games growth, as well as GW's growth and success as a business.

Edited July 13 by Vassakov
Grammar fixes. Curse typing on smartphones.

[Karhedron]

My personal feeling is that we don't need big changes for 11th edition. I think that overall 10th is better than 8th/9th. The balance between factions is better, the bloat of stratagems has been reigned in and vehicles are actually worth taking again.

 

Now I am not going to pretend 10th is perfect. The faction balance was broken as heck at launch and it feels like it has taken nearly a year of beta testing it for them to get it where it should have been in the first place. I am also annoyed at fixed squad sizes and the disappearance of points upgrades. I feel in their desire to streamline, GW threw the baby out with the bathwater when it came to srmy building. 

 

But overall I am enjoying 10th a lot more than 9th. My armies feel like they play more thematically as I am no longer trying to daisy chain stratagems together. Durability has gone up a bit and going second is no longer a death sentence. I am in no hurry for 11th as I feel that 10th is finally in decent shape after a rather rocky start.

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Vassakov said:

Snip

 

Regarding tournaments, maybe the game is good for tournament players. That would be for others to decide, since I never do those. It stopped feeling good for me about 15 months ago, which is when I started using other rulesets. To be blunt, if I tried to describe how little I care about the tournament scene, it might actually sound like I care, so...

 

Regarding game success, that has very little to do with the rules, and a great deal to do with models and the price for those models. My impression has always been that the quality of the rules does not drive the financial success of Games Workshop. The vast majority of people who are interested in 40k and/or collecting are not actually playing 40k, as evidenced many times by surveys.

 

It is fun to toss ideas back and forth, but what many people are starting to find out is that the old rules and alternative rulesets still exist, and finding other people who want to use them is easier than ever.

 

So in the end, no one has to prove that the game is objectively bad with 10th edition. People can just sort of not pick up the rules and pick up a different set of rules instead. We all understand that objective statements require objective definitions, and a "bad" set of wargame rules depends on who you ask.

 

And in the interest of full disclosure, I state things as fact sometimes just because it seems to tick off the people who think "that's just your opinion, man" is a fresh new take. I am not a saint. 

 

If anyone would like to be objectively right all the time though, they are more than welcome to agree with me.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Vassakov said:

Genuine question to the fellow grognards here... and in the interests of disclosure I started with the 3rd Ed Space Wolves pamphlet, dropped out early 6th Ed owing to life then returned in early 8th and have started about 4 40k armies since coming back. And a HH force and currently also have Tomb Kings on the desk. I also started playing on the UK tournament circuit in 9th, and since have probably done a dozen or more GT events and quite a few RTT/1 day events in 40k (and a handful of Horus Heresy events as well.

 

So, if 10th edition is so dreadful and poor as a game system then why is the tournament scene absolutely exploding? Again, I'll take the UK as that's what I'm familiar with but the UKTC seems to be adding events every other week, then there's a wide array of other GT level events including Goonhammer, Twisted Dice, Glasshammer... and then all the RTTs. Not to mention GWs own events. And they all seem pretty well attended, and basically every one I tend to bump into both people I've exclusively at these events & people who are at their first - but often see them again. 

 

Again, I acknowledge fully that people can dislike or even loathe 10th Ed and the changes it's brought, and even further back the sweeping reforms to 8th... but to argue that the game is "objectively bad" seems utterly contradicted by the evidence of the games growth, as well as GW's growth and success as a business.

Since 8th GW has been catering matched play specifically to the tournament scene.

seems to me like everything they do is meant to buoy the tournament scene (in regards to the actual game itself)

 

 

[DuskRaider]

1 hour ago, Vassakov said:

Genuine question to the fellow grognards here... and in the interests of disclosure I started with the 3rd Ed Space Wolves pamphlet, dropped out early 6th Ed owing to life then returned in early 8th and have started about 4 40k armies since coming back. And a HH force and currently also have Tomb Kings on the desk. I also started playing on the UK tournament circuit in 9th, and since have probably done a dozen or more GT events and quite a few RTT/1 day events in 40k (and a handful of Horus Heresy events as well.

 

So, if 10th edition is so dreadful and poor as a game system then why is the tournament scene absolutely exploding? Again, I'll take the UK as that's what I'm familiar with but the UKTC seems to be adding events every other week, then there's a wide array of other GT level events including Goonhammer, Twisted Dice, Glasshammer... and then all the RTTs. Not to mention GWs own events. And they all seem pretty well attended, and basically every one I tend to bump into both people I've exclusively at these events & people who are at their first - but often see them again. 

 

Again, I acknowledge fully that people can dislike or even loathe 10th Ed and the changes it's brought, and even further back the sweeping reforms to 8th... but to argue that the game is "objectively bad" seems utterly contradicted by the evidence of the games growth, as well as GW's growth and success as a business.

Because the tournament scene is what GW favors now among all others. The rules are literally written specifically for it and for expedient games. Whether they actually accomplished that or not I can’t tell you, but this is one of the major reasons we lost the rules I have listed previously… or at least that’s what I think. 
 

I also have a feeling a lot of the people playing in that particular group are also relatively new to the hobby (post-8th). At least in my immediate area the game scene expanded exponentially ever since 8th was launched, which was definitely helped by a boom in advertising and marketing the likes of which had never been seen. 
 

 

I am objectively correct all of the time as well. 

Edited July 13 by DuskRaider

[crimsondave]

18 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Since 8th GW has been catering matched play specifically to the tournament scene.

seems to me like everything they do is meant to buoy the tournament scene (in regards to the actual game itself)

 

 

I echo this.  The tournament scene exploding is not a positive for the way I play.  Hey, if the majority do the tournament scene and GW makes money, I guess I can’t fault them for it.  I mean, they make a pile of money off me because I love modeling, lore, and painting so I’m not super negative on GW in all aspects.  I just really hate the game itself.

Things like devastating wounds and lethal hits make it more video game like to me.  That probably helps move things along for tournaments but it’s my least favorite thing about 10th to the point I don’t want to play it at all.  Obviously, I’m the minority.  In hindsight, as much as I liked the start of 8th, the end of WS and the start of mortal wounds was a sign of things to come.  But then, I hate 7th edition more than any edition so maybe I’m impossible to please.

[Cenobite Terminator]

I’ve taken a hiatus from playing actual games but 10th is a step in the right direction. It was definitely rushed to the market though.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

47 minutes ago, Cenobite Terminator said:

I’ve taken a hiatus from playing actual games but 10th is a step in the right direction. It was definitely rushed to the market though.

The last field manual update made me take a break as well.

[Karhedron]

14 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Since 8th GW has been catering matched play specifically to the tournament scene.

 

I see this as a good thing. Competitive matched play is the best environment to test and balance factions. Broken units and combos can be identified and nerfed. Underperformers can b buffed. A better balanced Competitive scene benefits everyone as even beer and pretzels players have a better time with a more balanced game. 

 

The only people who don't benefit are the narrative players but they don't really need GW's intervention since they create their own scenarios and forces anyway. There are literally no downsides to balancing the game according to the tournament scene and plenty of upsides.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I see this as a good thing. Competitive matched play is the best environment to test and balance factions. Broken units and combos can be identified and nerfed. Underperformers can b buffed. A better balanced Competitive scene benefits everyone as even beer and pretzels players have a better time with a more balanced game. 

 

The only people who don't benefit are the narrative players but they don't really need GW's intervention since they create their own scenarios and forces anyway. There are literally no downsides to balancing the game according to the tournament scene and plenty of upsides.

You can do all that with out making tournaments the main focus of the game.

[DuskRaider]

18 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

You can do all that with out making tournaments the main focus of the game.

The tournament scene has been a scourge to narrative players for quite some time and it’s the reason we’ve lost a lot of the flavor in the game. You can thank Chapterhouse for another big reason. 

[Cenobite Terminator]

The tournament are the ones who pushed for it.

[Scribe]

I dont even see this as a Tournament vs Narrative issue.

 

No adult I have played with, wants to play in a Tournament where a round is 3 hours long.

[phandaal]

49 minutes ago, Cenobite Terminator said:

The tournament are the ones who pushed for it.

 

I invoke thy true name - Black Blow Fly.

 

And thus is the ritual of Temporary Banishment complete.

 

Deus Imperator.

[Harrowmaster]

23 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

If it’s just the doctrines and no detachment rules, plus war lord traits, plus enhancements, plus unit rules, plus wargear special rules, or strats, I’d love that.

 

 

I think all the crazy detachment rules in 7th really did not help the game or its perception at all. Honestly the old force org was great and I wouldn't mind going back to that or using the Heresy version with the extra HQ and Elites slots

[DuskRaider]

2 hours ago, Scribe said:

I dont even see this as a Tournament vs Narrative issue.

 

No adult I have played with, wants to play in a Tournament where a round is 3 hours long.

Listen pal, it seems you missed my last post where I stated that I’m objectively correct all of the time. 

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, DuskRaider said:

Listen pal, it seems you missed my last post where I stated that I’m objectively correct all of the time. 

 

This is the irresistible force, and the immovable object I'm afraid because even if you are objectively correct all the time, I'm quite literally never wrong.

 

Checkmate!

[Evil Eye]

On the "tournaments create better balance" debate, the issue is that whilst drawing from tournament data gives insight into balancing for a tournament, it's useless for balancing any more casual/narrative play. If everyone is using the same few builds for their faction, there won't be any data at all for the options people aren't bringing because they aren't meta/competitive enough. Furthermore, the only data they'll be getting is how strong or weak an option is, which obviously doesn't account for more subjective (but no less important) factors like fun or fluffiness. Combined with GW's apparent inability to actually make use of their data for any credible balance and I'd argue the "trickle-down balance" system just doesn't work.

 

Case in point, if everyone and their dog is taking the same Eldar lists, heavily featuring, for the sake of argument, Fire Prisms and Dire Avengers, then all data will be related to those units. If Swooping Hawks are seeing no use in tournaments, there is no data to balance them with regardless of whether they're actually in a fine spot, pretty powerful in casual but outclassed by other completely broken picks for tournament play or totally unusable at any level. Likewise, Fire Prisms might actually only be super-overpowered in a particular list with a certain combination of other units and stratagems, whilst in the average game they're decent but not busted, provided you don't use them in that particular list. If GW decides to rebalance Fire Prisms around competitive play, most likely with a points hike, they might still be useable in tournaments but will become completely worthless in regular games as they've been nerfed/overcosted to accommodate for an environment most players weren't engaging in.

 

Finally, the crux of the problem is that tournament play is supposed to be an exceptional environment, not something the average game should emulate. The game balance should be focused around making the base game enjoyable. Tournament play, as an extreme "outlier", shouldn't need dedicated balancing to the core game; the whole point of tournaments is seeing who has the most skill with the tools available to them. At most, there should be dedicated rules specifically for tournaments with big red letters saying they are not intended for regular play which provide basic guidelines, scenarios etc for such an environment. Hell, if certain units are overperforming by an unwanted amount in tournaments? Restrict them from tournament play. Banlists in competitive games are nothing new, and they don't affect regular play.

 

TLDR: Balance the game for casual play, let tournaments go however they go.

[Karhedron]

4 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

The tournament scene has been a scourge to narrative players for quite some time and it’s the reason we’ve lost a lot of the flavor in the game. You can thank Chapterhouse for another big reason. 

 

The whole point of Narrative campaigns is that the players create the narrative themselves, you don't need GW to provide it. But GW do need to provide a balanced game both for competitive and pickup games. It is not fair on players who have just met to agree on a set of house rules to balance an unbalanced game. 

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

On the "tournaments create better balance" debate, the issue is that whilst drawing from tournament data gives insight into balancing for a tournament, it's useless for balancing any more casual/narrative play. If everyone is using the same few builds for their faction, there won't be any data at all for the options people aren't bringing because they aren't meta/competitive enough. 

 

If something is not getting taken in competitive lists then that clearly indicates it is not competitive and so needs a buff. GW have said that they focused initially on improving balance between factions but that they also intend to address the balance between units within factions too. Units not being taken is still data. 

[HeadlessCross]

4 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

The tournament scene has been a scourge to narrative players for quite some time and it’s the reason we’ve lost a lot of the flavor in the game. You can thank Chapterhouse for another big reason. 

Chapter house IS the primary reason. You really think it was because of tournament balance reasons that Skitarii can't triple up on the same gun anymore, and it was balance reasons why the Captain on a bike doesn't exist yet the Chaplain on a bike does?

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

Finally, the crux of the problem is that tournament play is supposed to be an exceptional environment, not something the average game should emulate. The game balance should be focused around making the base game enjoyable.

 

How then do you define an enjoyable game? For me it is one where neither side has an inbuilt advantage and each victory comes down to the skill of the players and the luck of the dice. This is exactly what a tournament setting seeks to create. You are arguing that balance for tournaments and balance for fun are somehow different. They are not, they are exactly the same.

[Jings]

10 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Chapter house IS the primary reason. You really think it was because of tournament balance reasons that Skitarii can't triple up on the same gun anymore, and it was balance reasons why the Captain on a bike doesn't exist yet the Chaplain on a bike does?

 

Literally nothing stopped GW from releasing a Biker Hero box with options for multiple character types. The chaplain would just have needed one extra sprue for the gubbins. 

 

Look at the new upgrade sprues for older units in the Kill Team boxes. They could have added codex options in those, but didn't. I think it's long past the time where we can blame Chapterhouse for these decisions. 

 

It's not because other companies were making extra bits. They're still doing that. Its an intentional design choice, probably from marketing, to make limit choices so new players can build an "optimal" unit from the box without needing extra bits or having to convert. 

Edited July 14 by Jings

[DuskRaider]

2 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

This is the irresistible force, and the immovable object I'm afraid because even if you are objectively correct all the time, I'm quite literally never wrong.

 

Checkmate!

FOILED AGAIN!