More 11th Edition Boxset Rumours

[Mmmmm Napalm]

In my opinion tournament play has made the game vastly less interesting, and the mindset it encourages is anathema to many traditional aspects of the hobby. I lament the state of things.

[Marshal Reinhard]

3 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Yeah right. This forum is for complaints only. 

If you do something other than complain, like say constructive dialouge, then are you really a fan?

[Mogger351]

14 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Right, so blaming tournament players for GW's attempts to make a tighter rule set make no sense. 

The company are chasing those players wants and wishes. The issue is that many of the fun silly stuff gets removed/ignored/complained about in the name of tournament balance.

14 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Right, so blaming tournament players for GW's attempts to make a tighter rule set make no sense. 

The company are chasing those players wants and wishes. The issue is that many of the fun silly stuff gets removed/ignored/complained about in the name of tournament balance.

[Karhedron]

5 minutes ago, Mmmmm Napalm said:

In my opinion tournament play has made the game vastly less interesting, and the mindset it encourages is anathema to many traditional aspects of the hobby. I lament the state of things.

 

Can you be more specific? I have found that the use of tournament data to highlight broken units and underperforming armies has led to better balance updates. While not perfect, I feel the inter-faction balance is the best I can recall since coming back to the game at the start of 8th edition.

 

Tighter wording results in fewer RAW vs RAI conflicts which is good for everyone. Terrain is a bit prescriptive and I am not a huge fan of the pre-defined maps but I find those are easy to ignore if both players are happy to play without them.

 

The only thing I am really missing is customised characters. I liked my old Jump Pack Sanguinary Priest as I have been running a variation of the character since around 4th edition. I like the new character creation rules and it is a shame that they are not for competitive play but that is my only real gripe.

[SteveAntilles]

I dunno, I feel like there's been tons of narrative and crusade books. The last few multi-book things have been super fun for narrative players. It really does depend on your group though.

[DemonGSides]

11 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

The company are chasing those players wants and wishes. The issue is that many of the fun silly stuff gets removed/ignored/complained about in the name of tournament balance.

 

So if something is busted but it's "fun silly stuff" that's fine?  I guess I just don't see "when I get to play broken things it means the game is fun and silly, when GW doesn't let me get away with borderline cheating it's soulless" as a great argument.

 

The constant refrain that the game is less flavorful is perhaps the weirdest complaint and it never comes with anything concrete outside of changes that occured back when the 8th paradigm ticked over.  If that's your bag then sure, but just stay out of modern discussions of the game. Simple as that. I don't roll up into the third edition thread and complain about the lack of primarchs. 

 

9 minutes ago, SteveAntilles said:

I dunno, I feel like there's been tons of narrative and crusade books. The last few multi-book things have been super fun for narrative players. It really does depend on your group though.

 

But you see, that would require people to actually interact with the game and that's not anywhere near as fun as shouting on the internet, and that's where their dopamine comes from.  Easier to be grumpy online than it is to try new things!

 

But I agree. The tournament companion does not exactly scream "full of 40k flavor". But it's also not supposed to. It's a different way of playing the game, aimed at a more competitive style of getting as many games in a day as possible while trying to play a clean game with regards to the rules.  But the game is just a viable, and very fun, at a less competitive mindset, especially if you lean on some of the books and missions that Mr. Antilles above mentioned, or even the stuff in White Dwarf.

 

You don't have to play WAAC tournament style when you're just having fun rolling dice and making up stories with some friends. I don't believe anyone who says that they can't get a local group together that just want to play for fun. They may not want to put the effort into doing so, but it's VERY easy to find a game being played the way you want to, even if it's older editions. Never been easier to find games, really. 

[Mogger351]

11 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

So if something is busted but it's "fun silly stuff" that's fine?  I guess I just don't see "when I get to play broken things it means the game is fun and silly, when GW doesn't let me get away with borderline cheating it's soulless" as a great argument.

 

The constant refrain that the game is less flavorful is perhaps the weirdest complaint and it never comes with anything concrete outside of changes that occured back when the 8th paradigm ticked over.  If that's your bag then sure, but just stay out of modern discussions of the game. Simple as that. I don't roll up into the third edition thread and complain about the lack of primarchs. 

You're projecting things that weren't ever said or implied.

 

Take the shokk attack gun that's historically had weird, quirky fun rules that range from amazing to why bother. It retained that variability and fun for most of it's life.

 

Then it gets dialled back to a standard blast anti-medium thing gun with a mundane stat line. That was to make it more compatible with tournament play so the outcomes can be more predictable and the level of variance within acceptable boundaries for people to use it in their tournament lists.

 

It's always the same "it's not reliable enough", "it's too niche", "it doesnt have enough output to kill X points of Y". That's pure tournament drivel diluting the fun down to a spreadsheet in the name of balance.

 

It's divorced from anyone wanting their thing to be too good, as you seem to think.

[Vassakov]

44 minutes ago, Mmmmm Napalm said:

In my opinion tournament play has made the game vastly less interesting, and the mindset it encourages is anathema to many traditional aspects of the hobby. I lament the state of things.

 

Genuine question - how many tournaments have you been to? Because my experience since diving headfirst in in about 2019 (I'm going to my fifth of this year this weekend, and I've done Heresy and 40k events) is the exact opposite. Most people are there for a day or a weekend of rolling dice, pretty chill and all have well painted and fun armies, with awards for best painted armies/models/units. A lot will take those "soft" scores into account for their prizes as well. 

 

I think the "competitive" scene as described by some people doesn't really exist, except as a bogeyman. 

[Northern Walker]

41 minutes ago, SteveAntilles said:

I dunno, I feel like there's been tons of narrative and crusade books. The last few multi-book things have been super fun for narrative players. It really does depend on your group though.

The actual missions themselves are still pretty underwhelming I find because the mechanics underneath are designed for competetive and it winds up still being very abstract.

[Mogger351]

15 minutes ago, Vassakov said:

 

Genuine question - how many tournaments have you been to? Because my experience since diving headfirst in in about 2019 (I'm going to my fifth of this year this weekend, and I've done Heresy and 40k events) is the exact opposite. Most people are there for a day or a weekend of rolling dice, pretty chill and all have well painted and fun armies, with awards for best painted armies/models/units. A lot will take those "soft" scores into account for their prizes as well. 

 

I think the "competitive" scene as described by some people doesn't really exist, except as a bogeyman. 

Not the OP obviously but incredibly rarely in my case. It's been a few years personally.

 

That said, the issue isn't with the people at the events typically, we're all people. It's the mindset of that hard-core few that GW listen to and cater for which is the issue.

[01RTB01]

56 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

So if something is busted but it's "fun silly stuff" that's fine?  I guess I just don't see "when I get to play broken things it means the game is fun and silly, when GW doesn't let me get away with borderline cheating it's soulless" as a great argument.

 

The constant refrain that the game is less flavorful is perhaps the weirdest complaint and it never comes with anything concrete outside of changes that occured back when the 8th paradigm ticked over.  If that's your bag then sure, but just stay out of modern discussions of the game. Simple as that. I don't roll up into the third edition thread and complain about the lack of primarchs. 

 

 

But you see, that would require people to actually interact with the game and that's not anywhere near as fun as shouting on the internet, and that's where their dopamine comes from.  Easier to be grumpy online than it is to try new things!

 

 

That's not what's being said at all, you're seemingly being awkward for the sake of it. I never requested to play broken things and nor did anyone else. 

 

The lack of flavour isn't a weird complaint at all. As previously said:

- tables and terrain

- armies that are often seen on tables.

- options for characters 

- saturation of captains/ Warbosses etc

- lots of data sheets aren't viable as they're genuinely garbage in game

 

I'm not sure why this would mean we should stay out of "modern discussions of the game" that really is a ridiculous take. 

 

Also how do you know what I've played or not or anyone else on here? You really are just bear poking for the fun of it bordering on trolling.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, 01RTB01 said:

 

That's not what's being said at all, you're seemingly being awkward for the sake of it. I never requested to play broken things and nor did anyone else. 

 

Then people would be able to actually give an example of flavor. You don't even do a great job of it in this post. My blood angels still look and act like blood angels, even if I don't love the change to sanguinary guard. Flavor isn't rules on a page to me because I don't need my guys to be special in the game, they're special to me because of the effort I put into them.

 

1 hour ago, 01RTB01 said:

 

The lack of flavour isn't a weird complaint at all. As previously said:

- tables and terrain

- armies that are often seen on tables.

- options for characters 

- saturation of captains/ Warbosses etc

- lots of data sheets aren't viable as they're genuinely garbage in game

 

A) tables and terrain is a lack of imagination. As mentioned, you only need that "competitive terrain" if you're in a tournament. I play with all the same terrain as I played with in 9th.  We had to get a few more pieces that aren't L Shaped cuz it helped the melee armies. Hardly a big deal.

 

B) what do you mean armies that are often seen on tables?  This is a "my experiences are the same as the sum total of everyone's experiences thing"?  Cuz armies are still pretty sweet looking if you put effort into them. Not sure what 10th has to do with that.

 

C) options for characters is at least something, but you're still getting hung up on wysiwyg that's never been a requirement in the game. Make cool guys and use datasheets that make sense for them. 

 

D)I've complained about army comp before. This can be handled pretty easily by finding like minded players, which as mentioned time and time again, has never been easier.

 

E) quite literally true of every edition and has nothing to do with 10th.

 

Like I said, the complaints about flavor are just retreads of the same complaints from the preview era of 10th.  It's just people who don't like the modern game; which is fine. But complaining endlessly to people who DO like the game isn't productive and quite literally ONLY can end in fighting. 

1 hour ago, 01RTB01 said:

 

I'm not sure why this would mean we should stay out of "modern discussions of the game" that really is a ridiculous take. 

 

Same reason I don't really give a hoot about your opinion on a lot of things. It's an uninformed take (if you don't play the game. If you do, constructive criticism and ideas on how to make the game better are always a better launching point than just "10th bad! Here's a list of words without any explanation or ideas to support a better way to do it.")

 

1 hour ago, 01RTB01 said:

 

Also how do you know what I've played or not or anyone else on here? You really are just bear poking for the fun of it bordering on trolling.

 Because a good deal of people make it a point to say how much they don't like the game, but quite literally never post about playing it or worse, post about how proud they are that they aren't playing it.   It's not trolling to literally listen to what people say and take them in for their word. 

Edited 23 hours ago by DemonGSides

[01RTB01]

Like I said, you're being contentious for the sake of it. Just because you don't agree doesn't invalidate how I feel, or my points. I'll politely bow out. 

[jaxom]

My perspective is that how tournament organizers respond to what they think is needed for enjoyable tournaments is an indicator for what isn't working in an editions zeitgeist.

 

Despite some efforts in earlier codexes, I think 10th edition is too lethal. I think tournament terrain layouts became what they are in response to previous editions being too lethal and this edition still being too lethal. I think detachments either work too narrowly because or work to broadly because of how the detachment in question interacts with what makes the game too lethal or overcompensates into being too defensive; or does not interact well with (gut-feeling says) 6 out of 10 play situations in a game.

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

 

It's always the same "it's not reliable enough", "it's too niche", "it doesnt have enough output to kill X points of Y".

Having defind roles isn't boring, it makes for better army construction. Sorry, but the randumb is not fun and no amount of whining like this will convince me that something like the Bubblechukka is "fun".

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, 01RTB01 said:

- options for characters 

I hate to tell you this, but GW took the complaint of "we shouldn't need to buy multiple boxes" as "okay, the unit is now what's in the box" outside certain exceptions. It's also to try and fight 3rd party bitz providers. 

 

That has NOTHING to do with the tournament crowd and y'all should know that by now. 

[01RTB01]

14 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

I hate to tell you this, but GW took the complaint of "we shouldn't need to buy multiple boxes" as "okay, the unit is now what's in the box" outside certain exceptions. It's also to try and fight 3rd party bitz providers. 

 

That has NOTHING to do with the tournament crowd and y'all should know that by now. 

Never said it was. I was just using it as an example of lack of flavour. 

 

Again though, I'm not surprised that you've also ignored what I've written as this is classic you behavior too. Are you running multiple accounts?...

[ThaneOfTas]

25 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Sorry, but the randumb is not fun

Absolutely! May as well just get rid of dice all together while we are at it! It's easy enough to calculate how much damage can be expected between any two units on average, just have all weapons do that every time. No messy luck or chance at all.

[Mogger351]

38 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Having defind roles isn't boring, it makes for better army construction. Sorry, but the randumb is not fun and no amount of whining like this will convince me that something like the Bubblechukka is "fun".

Sorry, it was claimed nobody could give an example of a fluffy fun rule, I did and your only stance is "it's dumb because it isn't reliable for army construction". Which is that boring tournament mindset again.

 

Also, as there seems to be  sweeping generalisations I quite like 10th and have enjoyed it. Likely my most played edition as well.

20 minutes ago, 01RTB01 said:

Never said it was. I was just using it as an example of lack of flavour. 

 

Again though, I'm not surprised that you've also ignored what I've written as this is classic you behavior too. Are you running multiple accounts?...

It's funny I was replying and hadn't even noticed it was a different account. The tone and content was so close.

Edited 21 hours ago by Mogger351
Context

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Absolutely! May as well just get rid of dice all together while we are at it! It's easy enough to calculate how much damage can be expected between any two units on average, just have all weapons do that every time. No messy luck or chance at all.

Rolling dice for sake of rolling is not fun. 

[ursvamp]

5 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

The company are chasing those players wants and wishes. The issue is that many of the fun silly stuff gets removed/ignored/complained about in the name of tournament balance.

According the GW’s own statements, at the beginning of the edition, the reason they are using tournaments as the largest part of the basis on their balancing work is because tournament provides the easiest way to get concrete, reliable, data.

 

Most casual players won’t keep records over wins, lists, scoring, which factions are played the most, etc.

That data isn’t perfect, or representative of the how the game is played at large, of course (and, according to GW, they recognize it isn’t perfect, nor is it the only thing they look at). But as far as actual collected data goes, it’s the only thing that there’s a lot of that’s readily availible.

 

I also imagine using competative players as consultants on game balance is useful, since those will be the people that spend a lot of time identifying and actively seeking to make use of skewed lists and imbalances in the game (and therefore will provide a bunch of insights into what needs to be looked at and tweaked). But that’s just me speculating, I have no official statement to back that up.

 

Balance is for everybody. Not just for the comp.players. That’s just the easiest sources for info, in identifying flaws in the system.

 

5 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Take the shokk attack gun that's historically had weird, quirky fun rules that range from amazing to why bother. It retained that variability and fun for most of it's life.

 

Then it gets dialled back to a standard blast anti-medium thing gun with a mundane stat line. That was to make it more compatible with tournament play so the outcomes can be more predictable and the level of variance within acceptable boundaries for people to use it in their tournament lists.

That’s a really good example of a fun, quirky, rule that’s gone!

I totally get what you mean.

 

Though I would like to point out that Orks are (were?) a faction that’s noteworthy for having a high amount of such random, chaotic, and fun rules. But not all factions ever had stuff like that. 

And something I think is important to remember is that not all flavorful and quirky rules -are- fun.

I’m thinking of stuff like Decurion-style detachments from 7th ed., where very powerful ways to build your army, in flavorful ways, felt pretty imbalanced and unfair against those factions that never got them. Or when big blobs of Terminators led by Librarians roamed the boards with invisibility and rerolls to saves; pretty cool for imagining scenes silent strikes and elite missions! But not necissarily the most interesting gameplay for everyone.

 

!

I’d also like to add a counterpoint to the idea that everything is made for the tournament scene, and/or lacking in fun, eith the fact that a lot of detachments doesn’t seem to be written to be the most competative. But rather to allow specific flavors in the srmy, or distinct subfactions, to be represented and focused on.

Things like the Haemonculus-detachment for Drukhari, Penitent-detachment for Sister, Cultist-detachment for Chaos Knights, etc.,

It seems to me like there’ll always be 1 or 2 detachments that are the most played on a comprtative level. And a bunch of them that are just there (or primaroly there) for flavor, and to allow players to lean into different aspects of their army, even if other detachments are just objectively stronger.

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, 01RTB01 said:

Never said it was. I was just using it as an example of lack of flavour. 

 

Again though, I'm not surprised that you've also ignored what I've written as this is classic you behavior too. Are you running multiple accounts?...

You've clearly never payed attention then because I have had disagreements with Demon at certain points. 

[ThaneOfTas]

15 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Rolling dice for sake of rolling is not fun. 

I... honestly I don't even know where to go from here. Really didn't expect you to actually agree with what I thought was a completely hyperbolic position. I'm genuinely baffled. If you're trolling then good job, I haven't been gotten that well in a while, if you're serious then I'm just at a loss as clearly we just want fundamentally different and mutually exclusive things out of our game. 

[Dudley Nightshade]

23 minutes ago, ursvamp said:

According the GW’s own statements, at the beginning of the edition, the reason they are using tournaments as the largest part of the basis on their balancing work is because tournament provides the easiest way to get concrete, reliable, data.

 

Most casual players won’t keep records over wins, lists, scoring, which factions are played the most, etc.

That data isn’t perfect, or representative of the how the game is played at large, of course (and, according to GW, they recognize it isn’t perfect, nor is it the only thing they look at). But as far as actual collected data goes, it’s the only thing that there’s a lot of that’s readily availible.

<snip>

You know ... slight detour off topic here, but GW could get that info ...

 

If they made an army builder app, made it free (or included with a BRB/codex purchase), and made it so you could record your games (opponent's faction plus whether you won or lost), they could have a large pool of pretty good info. People like to track those sorts of things, so I suspect* it would be widely adopted. That would potentially capture the beer leagues plus the tournament crowd. They would not have the nuance of seeing both army lists side by side, but they could see that faction X has a high win percentage and the same units appear in most winning lists.

 

*Pure speculation. They would have to do a real study involving real statistics to understand whether the date would be truly valuable. 

[HeadlessCross]

43 minutes ago, ThaneOfTas said:

I... honestly I don't even know where to go from here. Really didn't expect you to actually agree with what I thought was a completely hyperbolic position. I'm genuinely baffled. If you're trolling then good job, I haven't been gotten that well in a while, if you're serious then I'm just at a loss as clearly we just want fundamentally different and mutually exclusive things out of our game. 

Rolling for sake of rolling is garbage game design. 

 

Would you argue that having to roll for Warlord Traits and Psyker powers was a good thing?