(You MUST take at least 25% of your army in Troops. You may take UP TO 25% in each category of HQ, Elite, Fast Attack, and.or Heavy Support)
Would dedicated transports count as troops? SHOULD they?
Where do Fortification and Lords of War come from? Do we get a 25% for them as well and call it a day?
How should it come together?
DTs would be fine if Wave Serpents had a small change:
Serpent Shields are One Shot Only, and have a 24" range. That pretty much solves most of the issues with them pretty quick.
(You MUST take at least 25% of your army in Troops. You may take UP TO 25% in each category of HQ, Elite, Fast Attack, and.or Heavy Support)
Would dedicated transports count as troops? SHOULD they?
Where do Fortification and Lords of War come from? Do we get a 25% for them as well and call it a day?
How should it come together?
DTs would be fine if Wave Serpents had a small change:
Serpent Shields are One Shot Only, and have a 24" range. That pretty much solves most of the issues with them pretty quick.
I'd be all for something that makes assaulting much more risky, like giving the defenders +1BS if they didn't move in their last turn, or giving them the choice of a good defensive shot (normal BS) or preparing for the assault (say +1WS on the first round).
In my opinion that would be absolutely awful. There are currently plenty of armies that do nothing aside from stand behind an ADL and mindlessly pour fire onto the entire board. Some of them don't even need line of sight. Why would you give them further incentive to stay put?
(You MUST take at least 25% of your army in Troops. You may take UP TO 25% in each category of HQ, Elite, Fast Attack, and.or Heavy Support)
Would dedicated transports count as troops? SHOULD they?
Where do Fortification and Lords of War come from? Do we get a 25% for them as well and call it a day?
How should it come together?
DTs would be fine if Wave Serpents had a small change:
Serpent Shields are One Shot Only, and have a 24" range. That pretty much solves most of the issues with them pretty quick.
Capstone that with, "Once fired, they don't regenerate for the game" (Thus the defensive side is also down) and color it golden. Now, it's an actual tactical choice.
soupfly wrote: that would be fine if they didn't cost as much much as a proper tank. Half the points cost and then it is viable.
Half the points cost for an AV12 skimmer transport with MBT shooting (even with the shield being one-shot) that still has the option to be harder to kill with Lascannons than a Land Raider? Get real.
soupfly wrote: that would be fine if they didn't cost as much much as a proper tank. Half the points cost and then it is viable.
Half the points cost for an AV12 skimmer transport with MBT shooting (even with the shield being one-shot) that still has the option to be harder to kill with Lascannons than a Land Raider? Get real.
Haha madness, with these changes the serp actually does become over costed... By about 10pts... Big woop.
soupfly wrote: that would be fine if they didn't cost as much much as a proper tank. Half the points cost and then it is viable.
Half the points cost for an AV12 skimmer transport with MBT shooting (even with the shield being one-shot) that still has the option to be harder to kill with Lascannons than a Land Raider? Get real.
Haha madness, with these changes the serp actually does become over costed... By about 10pts... Big woop.
It still has a shield that downgrades pens to glances at no real cost so there is the 10 points right there.
To be honest, at this rate, I am starting to want a "7th" edition. Personally I would rather spend like $70 on a book and have it contain all of the rules I need, instead of having to buy $40 rules supplements if I want to play escalation and stronghold assault. I am starting to have to carry a lot of books around with me now when I am going to a game. Thoughts?
Brother SRM wrote: I don't buy it. There's actually no way for the Marines to kill 5 Meganobz in that kit, and while the starter sets haven't been perfectly balanced, that seems a bit harsh. That and typical Faeit salt needs to be applied. All that and Dark Vengeance is still available on the website.
So? Was AOBR ballanced? Tons of Marines, Terminators, a cybot vs. a bunch of orks, 5 nobs and the deffcoptas. I made the calculation, even without equipment it was like 400 pts Orks vs 750 pts marines IIRC.
Yes, but in the case of AOBR it was the Marines walloping the damn xenos.
In this new case, Xenos walloping the Marines? In the demo game? Ha, I think not!
Back in third DE had absolutely no way to down the SM landspeeder. Yes splinter cannons were str4 back then, but even with that, you just werent gonna bring it down.
DV is also pretty skewed to DA. Chaos has a plasma pistol, a power axe, a power fist and the helbrute to do through a ton of 2+ saves.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
I hope so, that would be nice to not have to learn a lot more
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
I really like this. One of the things I think slows down the game is the number of separate times you might need to move a unit, I think a small rules change like this will really help horde armies while still being compatible with the current rules for the most part
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
initiative
fething awesome. Although it doesn't solve all the assault problems it really takes out a lot of the handicap for assaulting for units. Big improvement. In addition super elite units without grenades dont get screwed over anymore
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
I like it. Still very good against vehicles, but not point and click remove units like it was
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
This I highly doubt and wouldnt solve any problems
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a
fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal
category
Highly doubt this as well
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
This one might be possible but once again I highly doubt it
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting
just like chariots, but can attacked back
Doubt it
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
I can see the rules being there but more likely as an addendum instead of for a standard game. Even then I still dont see people allowing them at tournaments or most casual play
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three
to ballistic
If it is both combined, I like it. Just one or the other is kinda meh
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot
overwatch again
I doubt they are going to bring back consolidate into combat, but it would be interesting to see if it happened.
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
Doubt it
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
Doubt it
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
Doubt it
I think they are definitely going to do something with walkers(just a hunch) since they got the shaft this edition and there are a lot of plastic kits that would start flying off the shelfs if they fixed them again. Imagine if the walkers only lost hull points and then destroyed? That would make them useable while not being over the top.
ductvader wrote: As soon as I saw War Walkers get it, I thought all of them would...a 5+ invulnerable.
Why? They're no more durable than any other vehicle so why should they get a special boost when others don't? What they need to do is equalize the damage systems between "organic" models and vehicles. As it stands right now, vehicles can be one shotted or gimped in effectiveness with each shot whereas organic toughness models can't. Either that needs to go or they need to incorporate some sort of penalty for losing wounds to make it a bit more equitable for a walker to fight a monstrous creature. Something like -1 to all stats if at less than half or less wounds would be simple and might work. A monstrous creature like a riptide fights at full effectiveness despite being almost dead but a vehicle like a dread can be made useless (CC dread who is immobilized) with a single shot and most of its hull points remaining. I personally think that a complete overhaul would be better but really doubt that would ever happen so I'm just hoping they do something to equalize the damage systems.
Bronzefists42 wrote: Assault has so many risk factors currently that it has invalidated almost every assault list.
Agreed, and sadly even if you try and help that a bit by having a lot of los blockers and dense terrain you still have to contend with overwatch and terrible luck on the charge.
I think they have to change how charging works, make it either 6 or your choice of trying a "heroic" charge that is 2d6.
That or at the very least make the minimum charge of a unit its initiative value then give the option for "heroic" charge of 2d6.
Charging being a fixed number of inches+a random number of inches might work. 6+D6" seems a little too much, with fleet units that would statistically give 10"+ charges 2/3 of the time.
The problem for me is it's kinda stupid to take like 50% casualties just to make it into combat, likely the only one said unit will get into this game and then they fail like a 3-4 inch charge, I mean you already have the variable of overwatch to contend with.
Don't even get me started on how move through cover apparently does nothing for charges, that seems like a bit of an oversight.
That or at the very least make the minimum charge of a unit its initiative value then give the option for "heroic" charge of 2d6.
Oh, I like that idea! What about charge range is equal to your initiative stat + d6?
Would make my Wyches not complete crap.
Daemon Princes start cackling and rubbing their hands together....
Then add a cap (max 6" from Initiative). Or allow that warp-born supernatural demi-gods are good at smashing face. As are coked-out space elves who live to fight in death arenas.
I'd like see something that makes assault more brutal, so we don't have the usual tarpits (like a squad of assault marines getting tied up by a squad of tactical marines for four turns because the rolls suck). Maybe give some sort of bonus in the next round to whoever wins the combat.
I would also like to be able to actually shoot with the pistols on my assault marines. Currently, I never get to fire the pistols before I charge, because I don't dare actually kill one of the opposing models and make the charge range even longer.
Captain America, le soldat de l'hiver en streaming 6+D6 wirks like in fantasy , so its not a bad idea.
You can do an average of the same distance with 2D6, but then at the critical moment when you need to make 3 or 4" to enter in contact in open terrain so no obstacle and you manage to make a 2, thats what is really ridiculous...
So a sure 6" because its the short distance that a unit can easely run without any problems, the +D6" is if they are really motivated and in the momentum.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I'd like see something that makes assault more brutal, so we don't have the usual tarpits (like a squad of assault marines getting tied up by a squad of tactical marines for four turns because the rolls suck).
It exists, it is called sweeping advance. But stupid marines that make up to almost half of the stupid armies in this stupid game are stupidly immune to it. And fearless unit too, but those are usually either something that will be able to put a fight rather than just block you in combat, or are dedicated to tarpitting, so it is somehow normal they are able to do it.
Slayer le boucher wrote: Captain America, le soldat de l'hiver en streaming 6+D6 wirks like in fantasy , so its not a bad idea.
Uh, what ? So, why not going to see in a theater rather than on a tiny computer screen, with a tiny sound system ?
Tannhauser42 wrote: I would also like to be able to actually shoot with the pistols on my assault marines. Currently, I never get to fire the pistols before I charge, because I don't dare actually kill one of the opposing models and make the charge range even longer.
That mechanic has been dumb ever since 3rd ed was launched. Its younger but even dumber cousin ("don't do *too* much damage in the first round of CC") is even more prevalent now that consolidation into assault isn't legal.
a "must remain anomymous" source on faeit212 wrote:-7th edition will come in June
-New fortification rules and Lords of War will both be in the new rulebook as standard, there are some changes from what we have now.
-There will be a new phase added to the game, a psychic phase.
a "must remain anomymous" source on faeit212 wrote:-7th edition will come in June
-New fortification rules and Lords of War will both be in the new rulebook as standard, there are some changes from what we have now.
-There will be a new phase added to the game, a psychic phase.
Wouldn't adding another phase slow things down a little more- although if it happens before movement that could clarify a lot of issues with timing.
7th edition is a make-or-break point for 40k. Right now, the game is in a desasterous state balance-wise, at a point, where balance seems completely random and all over the place with no clear rule besides "Make everything cheaper so people buy more models!". On top of that, Escalation / Lords of War further escalated (ha!) the conflict by adding D weapons to regular 40k, further introducing downright broken crap like the Transcendent C'tan.
Not to mention that releasing a new edition so soon after 6th is nothing but a mere cash-in by GW, realizing that WHFB is better off left behind, focusing on 40k.
Not completely convinced we will see 7th in June, it just seems so unlikely to be released so soon after the previous one.
a "must remain anomymous" source on faeit212 wrote:-7th edition will come in June
-New fortification rules and Lords of War will both be in the new rulebook as standard, there are some changes from what we have now.
-There will be a new phase added to the game, a psychic phase.
Uh... why do we need a psychic phase? o.O
Some are shooting attacks... seems weird to do witchfires in a different phase. (unless... it's not a shooting attach?)
If it's like WHFB, the psychic phase (ugh) would come before the shooting phase. My guess would be that models using a witchfire psychic power can't shoot in the shooting phase, although I suppose it's possible they're removing that restriction entirely (i.e., allowing a model using a psychic power to also shoot).
Edit: On the (salty) chance the rumor is true, it would make Dominion a much weaker power for Tyranids. IB tests are done at the start of the movement phase; you wouldn't be able to get Dominion in place in time to prevent IB checks.
I am calling malarkey.The last reliable rumor we had was simply that 7th would be escalation and stronghold rolled into one and that it would come no sooner than may but before fantasy 9th. Fantasy 9th was supposedly shelved though so that could mean may 2014 to may 2020... just before the whispers of 7th we heard that 6th would be around for a long time... Give me a break people. The only reason I even read or keep up with this stuff is because i like to read fantasy so much...
Ahtman wrote: It has been awhile since I played, but didn't 2nd have a separate Psychic phase?
Yes it did, and it happened IIRC at the very start before Movement, but it might have been after I don't 100% remember. I actually liked the old "mini-game" of Magic/Psychic phases. Do you spend all your Dispels (I forget the name in 40k) or do you save them in case your opponent got the uber-card? On the downside though you were basically forced to have at least a level 1 psyker to counter spells, so I don't think that's going to come back. I have fond memories in WHFB of decimating my enemy's major unit with... i forget the spell but it was Dark Magic and was this cloud that moved and instakilled anything it touched. Total Power = Undispellable = FTW.
Lords of War in the core book, yay. So they learn nothing.
Ahtman wrote: It has been awhile since I played, but didn't 2nd have a separate Psychic phase?
Yes it did, and it happened IIRC at the very start before Movement, but it might have been after I don't 100% remember. I actually liked the old "mini-game" of Magic/Psychic phases. Do you spend all your Dispels (I forget the name in 40k) or do you save them in case your opponent got the uber-card? On the downside though you were basically forced to have at least a level 1 psyker to counter spells, so I don't think that's going to come back. I have fond memories in WHFB of decimating my enemy's major unit with... i forget the spell but it was Dark Magic and was this cloud that moved and instakilled anything it touched. Total Power = Undispellable = FTW.
Lords of War in the core book, yay. So they learn nothing.
They learned that people buy big models when they can use them more often.
Ahtman wrote: It has been awhile since I played, but didn't 2nd have a separate Psychic phase?
Yes it did, and it happened IIRC at the very start before Movement, but it might have been after I don't 100% remember. I actually liked the old "mini-game" of Magic/Psychic phases. Do you spend all your Dispels (I forget the name in 40k) or do you save them in case your opponent got the uber-card? On the downside though you were basically forced to have at least a level 1 psyker to counter spells, so I don't think that's going to come back. I have fond memories in WHFB of decimating my enemy's major unit with... i forget the spell but it was Dark Magic and was this cloud that moved and instakilled anything it touched. Total Power = Undispellable = FTW.
Lords of War in the core book, yay. So they learn nothing.
They learned that people buy big models when they can use them more often.
But not that people prefer games that are balanced and isn't an arms race
streamdragon wrote: Edit: On the (salty) chance the rumor is true, it would make Dominion a much weaker power for Tyranids. IB tests are done at the start of the movement phase; you wouldn't be able to get Dominion in place in time to prevent IB checks.
But our Maledictions would get an effective 6"+ range due to coming after movement...paroxysm and the horror become much better...especially as you could use it from reserves.
Personally, I figure 7th won't come out this year. Too many bad rumors. I am reminded of how sure everyone was of the Inquisition specialist game last year.
pretre wrote: Personally, I figure 7th won't come out this year. Too many bad rumors. I am reminded of how sure everyone was of the Inquisition specialist game last year.
a "must remain anomymous" source on faeit212 wrote:-7th edition will come in June
-New fortification rules and Lords of War will both be in the new rulebook as standard, there are some changes from what we have now.
-There will be a new phase added to the game, a psychic phase.
Wouldn't adding another phase slow things down a little more- although if it happens before movement that could clarify a lot of issues with timing.
As opposed to having them spread out amongst every other phase and even before any phases so that people frequently forget and then need to ask to backtrack? I'm fine with a single psychic phase to rule them all. Getting it all over with at the same time is an improvement IMO with the whole army UGOIGO system. It would be a different case if the game had a unit activation system but obviously that will never happen.
pretre wrote: Personally, I figure 7th won't come out this year. Too many bad rumors. I am reminded of how sure everyone was of the Inquisition specialist game last year.
Never heard of it...
Exactly.
edit:
Spoiler:
Big Box Release - July 2013 Everyone and their mother claims it will be Bloodbowl 2013, sadly I have news for you it ain't coming. TRUE Warhammer 40k: Inquisition FALSE Inquisition is designed for 2-4 players and each side will use custom cards and dice. FALSE
Army sizes consist of about 5-10 models per side. A whole new set of models drawn from Blanche artwork will accompany. The game should be flexible as you can make and design your own Inquisitorial retinue. As for rules complexity that is anyone's guess, but the general marketing goal for Inquisition is a gateway game into the greater Warhammer 40k universe. FALSE Beyond that GW, seems to be taking cues from Kickstarter projects like Sedition Wars and home-brewed rules like Inq28 for Inquisitor. This also might not end up as a limited edition run, but that all depends on sales, and if any support is continued will be done through digital expansions and updates. As it is that is all I have for now, but if my sources hold true expect more information as it comes! FALSE
a "must remain anomymous" source on faeit212 wrote:-7th edition will come in June
-New fortification rules and Lords of War will both be in the new rulebook as standard, there are some changes from what we have now.
-There will be a new phase added to the game, a psychic phase.
Wouldn't adding another phase slow things down a little more- although if it happens before movement that could clarify a lot of issues with timing.
As opposed to having them spread out amongst every other phase and even before any phases so that people frequently forget and then need to ask to backtrack? I'm fine with a single psychic phase to rule them all. Getting it all over with at the same time is an improvement IMO with the whole army UGOIGO system. It would be a different case if the game had a unit activation system but obviously that will never happen.
You let them backtrack? That's the problem right there.
Seriously though I can see how it might speed things up a bit(or a least keep it the same), but it sounds very unlikely to me.
a "must remain anomymous" source on faeit212 wrote:-7th edition will come in June
-New fortification rules and Lords of War will both be in the new rulebook as standard, there are some changes from what we have now.
-There will be a new phase added to the game, a psychic phase.
Wouldn't adding another phase slow things down a little more- although if it happens before movement that could clarify a lot of issues with timing.
As opposed to having them spread out amongst every other phase and even before any phases so that people frequently forget and then need to ask to backtrack? I'm fine with a single psychic phase to rule them all. Getting it all over with at the same time is an improvement IMO with the whole army UGOIGO system. It would be a different case if the game had a unit activation system but obviously that will never happen.
Sounds reasonable and plausible to me, like a number of the 7th edition rumors.
But I still wonder if this "7th edition in 2014" stuff is being fueled more by the desire for GW to ride in on a white horse to "save" 40K, rather than genuine information.
streamdragon wrote: Edit: On the (salty) chance the rumor is true, it would make Dominion a much weaker power for Tyranids. IB tests are done at the start of the movement phase; you wouldn't be able to get Dominion in place in time to prevent IB checks.
But our Maledictions would get an effective 6"+ range due to coming after movement...paroxysm and the horror become much better...especially as you could use it from reserves.
True enough. I focused on Dominion because it is the Primaris and thus always available.
Also because Instinctive Behaviour is such a gak rule.
Necron are not the only one missing psykers. So do Tau, Dark Eldars, Black Templars and Sisters of Battle.
Doesn't mean there can't be a mechanic for use to counter Psychic Powers (Adamantium Will for one, perhaps a system like WFB's Magic system were we get dice to help counter their manifestation of powers, maybe a way to create bonus dice, perhaps "not psychic powers" that manifest during the same phase for these armies (Acts of Faith for Sisters for instance. Yes I just said it, please put the rocks down, it was just an idea). Necrons would be very adept at manifesting things that LOOK like sorcery through science perhaps.
Sigvatr wrote: I don't think that there seriously is anyone wishing for GW to "white horse" 40k - they were the ones to completely break it.
I am. At this point, I would like nothing more than for GW to push through a 7th edition that fixes the things that I don't like about 6th. Because those things I dislike about 6th have finally reached the point where I'm no longer interested in the game as is.
It wouldn't be the first time... I stopped playing in 4th edition for the same reason, and 5th brought me back.
Ahtman wrote: It has been awhile since I played, but didn't 2nd have a separate Psychic phase?
Yes indeed, but the phases were quite different:
Movement, including Charges and Overwatch fire from your enemy.
Shooting.
Combats.
Psychic.
Rally, when you rally your units, unless they broke that turn.
You had to spend cards to cast powers, and the opponent could Nullify, but there was a limit on how many cards were in use, depending on the number of Psykers in play.
I think a Psychic phase could fit in well to 40k at the moment, and I think it would be nice for them to possibly add in a little more complexity to the psychic mechanics. I'd be very interested to see where they would place it though.
I just want 7th edition to keep most things the same. tighten up the rules/address some of the conflicts.
I am personally finding that a lot of the problems I have been having with the deathstars is pretty easily mitigated by things like the new incremental missions that people are play testing. Adds a new tactical level to the game as well as makes it so a lot of the shenanigans that people get up to wont work well.
Leth wrote: I am personally finding that a lot of the problems I have been having with the deathstars is pretty easily mitigated by things like the new incremental missions that people are play testing. Adds a new tactical level to the game as well as makes it so a lot of the shenanigans that people get up to wont work well.
There's only so much you can balance with missions... In a system that gives you an automatic win for wiping out your opponent, over-powered lists can just ignore the mission.
Ahtman wrote: It has been awhile since I played, but didn't 2nd have a separate Psychic phase?
Yes indeed, but the phases were quite different:
Movement, including Charges and Overwatch fire from your enemy.
Shooting.
Combats.
Psychic.
Rally, when you rally your units, unless they broke that turn.
You had to spend cards to cast powers, and the opponent could Nullify, but there was a limit on how many cards were in use, depending on the number of Psykers in play.
I think a Psychic phase could fit in well to 40k at the moment, and I think it would be nice for them to possibly add in a little more complexity to the psychic mechanics. I'd be very interested to see where they would place it though.
If they were shooting to make the game more like WFB, after movement but before shooting would be when to do it.
Actually thinking about it the psychic phase could work identically to the magic phase from WFB down to how powers are manifested and countered. It's a pretty good system that would allow psykers really to feel strong, or just pop their own heads in a gory explosive mess.
Leth wrote: I am personally finding that a lot of the problems I have been having with the deathstars is pretty easily mitigated by things like the new incremental missions that people are play testing. Adds a new tactical level to the game as well as makes it so a lot of the shenanigans that people get up to wont work well.
There's only so much you can balance with missions... In a system that gives you an automatic win for wiping out your opponent, over-powered lists can just ignore the mission.
O I agree, I was just saying for myself. Also terrain saturation really REALLY helps.
Ahtman wrote: It has been awhile since I played, but didn't 2nd have a separate Psychic phase?
Yes indeed, but the phases were quite different:
Movement, including Charges and Overwatch fire from your enemy.
Shooting.
Combats.
Psychic.
Rally, when you rally your units, unless they broke that turn.
You had to spend cards to cast powers, and the opponent could Nullify, but there was a limit on how many cards were in use, depending on the number of Psykers in play.
I think a Psychic phase could fit in well to 40k at the moment, and I think it would be nice for them to possibly add in a little more complexity to the psychic mechanics. I'd be very interested to see where they would place it though.
If they were shooting to make the game more like WFB, after movement but before shooting would be when to do it.
Actually thinking about it the psychic phase could work identically to the magic phase from WFB down to how powers are manifested and countered. It's a pretty good system that would allow psykers really to feel strong, or just pop their own heads in a gory explosive mess.
I don't think it'd work, and therefore won't happen that way, cause you would have to introduce casting values for all Psychic Powers in the game currently. Which would require updating more than just the BRB - Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines, Eldar, Tyranids, all have their own unique powers.
Ahtman wrote: It has been awhile since I played, but didn't 2nd have a separate Psychic phase?
Yes indeed, but the phases were quite different:
Movement, including Charges and Overwatch fire from your enemy.
Shooting.
Combats.
Psychic.
Rally, when you rally your units, unless they broke that turn.
You had to spend cards to cast powers, and the opponent could Nullify, but there was a limit on how many cards were in use, depending on the number of Psykers in play.
I think a Psychic phase could fit in well to 40k at the moment, and I think it would be nice for them to possibly add in a little more complexity to the psychic mechanics. I'd be very interested to see where they would place it though.
If they were shooting to make the game more like WFB, after movement but before shooting would be when to do it.
Actually thinking about it the psychic phase could work identically to the magic phase from WFB down to how powers are manifested and countered. It's a pretty good system that would allow psykers really to feel strong, or just pop their own heads in a gory explosive mess.
I don't think it'd work, and therefore won't happen that way, cause you would have to introduce casting values for all Psychic Powers in the game currently. Which would require updating more than just the BRB - Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines, Eldar, Tyranids, all have their own unique powers.
I could see it happening anyways. And it'd definitely balance the powers a lot more than they currently are.
rollawaythestone wrote: I don't think it'd work, and therefore won't happen that way, cause you would have to introduce casting values for all Psychic Powers in the game currently. Which would require updating more than just the BRB - Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines, Eldar, Tyranids, all have their own unique powers.
GW have already shown with Hull Points and Mastery Levels that they have no problems with adding in game-wide rules that affect codex entries in a new rulebook.
7th edition coming soon is very believable. GW speeds up dexes and throws out piles of supplements/books which players buy and then puts out 7th edition to 'fix' the mess they created - players again open their wallets - to start the process again with probably another quick release of books/supplements that were messed up by 7th edition and so on and so on. And maybe new editions will then come out every 2 years instead of 4 years.
Just depends on how far GW figures it can push players and keep them buying even if they grumble about this or that.
Ventus wrote: 7th edition coming soon is very believable. GW speeds up dexes and throws out piles of supplements/books which players buy and then puts out 7th edition to 'fix' the mess they created - players again open their wallets - to start the process again with probably another quick release of books/supplements that were messed up by 7th edition and so on and so on. And maybe new editions will then come out every 2 years instead of 4 years.
Just depends on how far GW figures it can push players and keep them buying even if they grumble about this or that.
Plus it has the ability to invalidate everything they've released.
sirlynchmob wrote: Can we do a kickstarter to hire a lawyer to proof read the rules first?
Have an exalt for that. Also, while we're at it, let basic spellcheck run over it, since I haven't seen a GW release without typos every other page in all of 6th edition.
sirlynchmob wrote: Can we do a kickstarter to hire a lawyer to proof read the rules first?
So wait, we're supposed to pay for someone who does the job the manufacturer is supposed to do himself while still releasing low quality, overpriced products?
You don't need a lawyer, you need an active competitive scene that is interested in balancing the game. WHFB has been balanced to an almost perfect degree by its competitive players in a huge collaborative effort - why wouldn't it be possible for 40k as well? We already see some very good steps in such a direction e.g. by banning Escalation, it just takes a few more steps. Quite a few actually.
sirlynchmob wrote: Can we do a kickstarter to hire a lawyer to proof read the rules first?
So wait, we're supposed to pay for someone who does the job the manufacturer is supposed to do himself while still releasing low quality, overpriced products?
You don't need a lawyer, you need an active competitive scene that is interested in balancing the game. WHFB has been balanced to an almost perfect degree by its competitive players in a huge collaborative effort - why wouldn't it be possible for 40k as well? We already see some very good steps in such a direction e.g. by banning Escalation, it just takes a few more steps. Quite a few actually.
yeah cos banning escalation is a GREAT idea..... i cannot dissagree with you more. how about ballance the rules for STR D. thats the only change needed.... bigger problems than a tank that cost as much as 3 predators, shoots as much and dies just as easy...
the game has well bigger problems than that. and btw the competitive scene hasnt ALL banned them, your meta may have but thats not world wide....
6th edition needs a fix urgently ... because the current game designers ruined it with a flood of unbalanced rules pushing expensive products down our throat. Can't see current game designers fixing that though, so it will be another obvious and desperate money grap bringing even more people to quit.
I still hope this rumour is not true. It would be as stupid as renaming, say, Imperial Guard!
Kosake wrote: Also, while we're at it, let basic spellcheck run over it, since I haven't seen a GW release without typos every other page in all of 6th edition.
As part of my job application for a GW job (I think it was editor or rules writer or similar, something which ought to have responsibility for that stuff, among other things), I sent in, at my own behest, a list of the typos and grammatical errors in the first ten or so pages of the then newly released 5th Edition Tyranid Codex. I also pointed out some of the obvious rules imbalances with it. And I pointed out that I could be improving all their codexes that way, if they'd just give me the job...
Needless to say I didn't get called for interview. Hadn't really expected to. I felt a bit like an elaborate troll.
Kosake wrote: Also, while we're at it, let basic spellcheck run over it, since I haven't seen a GW release without typos every other page in all of 6th edition.
As part of my job application for a GW job (I think it was editor or rules writer or similar, something which ought to have responsibility for that stuff, among other things), I sent in, at my own behest, a list of the typos and grammatical errors in the first ten or so pages of the then newly released 5th Edition Tyranid Codex. I also pointed out some of the obvious rules imbalances with it. And I pointed out that I could be improving all their codexes that way, if they'd just give me the job...
Needless to say I didn't get called for interview. Hadn't really expected to. I felt a bit like an elaborate troll.
The trolling part may or may not have been an issue, but did you write that you actually cared for warhammer? Had players experience in their games? Were integrated in the community? I think any of those is a surefire way to be set on permanent ignore. We can't have people communicating with the customers, now can we? Also, increased risk of leaks.
Kosake wrote: Also, while we're at it, let basic spellcheck run over it, since I haven't seen a GW release without typos every other page in all of 6th edition.
As part of my job application for a GW job (I think it was editor or rules writer or similar, something which ought to have responsibility for that stuff, among other things), I sent in, at my own behest, a list of the typos and grammatical errors in the first ten or so pages of the then newly released 5th Edition Tyranid Codex. I also pointed out some of the obvious rules imbalances with it. And I pointed out that I could be improving all their codexes that way, if they'd just give me the job...
Needless to say I didn't get called for interview. Hadn't really expected to. I felt a bit like an elaborate troll.
Don't you read GW's statements? GW doesn't hire for competence, they hire for attitude! And you insinuating to them that they have somehow released a flawed product, in any way, is definitively the wrong attitude for a GW employee.
Kosake wrote: Also, while we're at it, let basic spellcheck run over it, since I haven't seen a GW release without typos every other page in all of 6th edition.
As part of my job application for a GW job (I think it was editor or rules writer or similar, something which ought to have responsibility for that stuff, among other things), I sent in, at my own behest, a list of the typos and grammatical errors in the first ten or so pages of the then newly released 5th Edition Tyranid Codex. I also pointed out some of the obvious rules imbalances with it. And I pointed out that I could be improving all their codexes that way, if they'd just give me the job...
Needless to say I didn't get called for interview. Hadn't really expected to. I felt a bit like an elaborate troll.
I personally think everything will work out for the best no matter what GW does with its changes to pricing or rules/releases.
With the nature of the internet and the online community even if GW was to go belly-up (which I doubt) there would still be re-casting/3D printing/Kickstarter companies that could easily fill the demand for new mini's.
Not to mention, an online-open-source approach to the Rules and fluff would benefit almost everyone, in my humble opinion.
streamdragon wrote: Edit: On the (salty) chance the rumor is true, it would make Dominion a much weaker power for Tyranids. IB tests are done at the start of the movement phase; you wouldn't be able to get Dominion in place in time to prevent IB checks.
But our Maledictions would get an effective 6"+ range due to coming after movement...paroxysm and the horror become much better...especially as you could use it from reserves.
True enough. I focused on Dominion because it is the Primaris and thus always available.
Also because Instinctive Behaviour is such a gak rule.
I'm guessing you just want to use your hormagaunts again?
They're the only unit I can't run effectively due to IB and lack of mobility in this book.
sirlynchmob wrote: Can we do a kickstarter to hire a lawyer to proof read the rules first?
Have an exalt for that. Also, while we're at it, let basic spellcheck run over it, since I haven't seen a GW release without typos every other page in all of 6th edition.
I have textbooks far more expensive than GW's books with typos, and have seen Military Regulations full of them too. It's not just GW, the whole damn world needs to learn how to spell.
Sigvatr wrote: WHFB has been balanced to an almost perfect degree by its competitive players in a huge collaborative effort - why wouldn't it be possible for 40k as well?
Because 40k has an vastly quicker release schedule bloated with shovelware DLC that redefine the metagame every few weeks:
A special codex full of cheap psykers that don't count as real allies
A codex with the competitive builds buried in add-on DLC
A new codex that exclusively uses super-heavy walkers
An updated codex with incredibly cheap Divination and cheap AV14
At this rate every codex will be able to take cheap ranged Str D weapons by next year, and GW will have to start the cycle again by nerfing shooting in favour of assault.
streamdragon wrote: Edit: On the (salty) chance the rumor is true, it would make Dominion a much weaker power for Tyranids. IB tests are done at the start of the movement phase; you wouldn't be able to get Dominion in place in time to prevent IB checks.
There are a few powers in other codexes and the BRB that interact with start-of-turn actions, such as reserve rolls. That change would break much more than synapse without some decent errata.
Sigvatr wrote: WHFB has been balanced to an almost perfect degree by its competitive players in a huge collaborative effort - why wouldn't it be possible for 40k as well?
Because there are like 10 WHFB players in the world...
Seriously, I've met like a handful of people who actually play it.
Sigvatr wrote: WHFB has been balanced to an almost perfect degree by its competitive players in a huge collaborative effort - why wouldn't it be possible for 40k as well?
Because there are like 10 WHFB players in the world...
Seriously, I've met like a handful of people who actually play it.
Seriously? There are a huge number of people that play fantasy. It isn't as big as 40k, but it is still a massive game.
AlTzeentch wrote: I personally think everything will work out for the best no matter what GW does with its changes to pricing or rules/releases.
With the nature of the internet and the online community even if GW was to go belly-up (which I doubt) there would still be re-casting/3D printing/Kickstarter companies that could easily fill the demand for new mini's.
Not to mention, an online-open-source approach to the Rules and fluff would benefit almost everyone, in my humble opinion.
The problem with that is that it needs GW to be the only game in the hobby for that to really be true, and the market has far more games in it than ever before.
40k is not going to survive no mater what GW do, because everything GW do wrong is pushing more people towards other games.
If GW don't turn around their current financial situation and go belly up people will continue to play 40k but nowhere near as many people will be getting into it, instead they will get into Warmachine or Infinity or another game, and 40k will be reduced to something that only the old vets even really know about or bought up by another company.
I'm not saying I want that to happen or anything, but it seems to me the way it's heading. And that holds especially true if GW really do feel the need to cut down the time on the edition cycle, put fantasy on the back burner and push out a new edition of 40k.
Sigvatr wrote: WHFB has been balanced to an almost perfect degree by its competitive players in a huge collaborative effort - why wouldn't it be possible for 40k as well?
Because there are like 10 WHFB players in the world...
Seriously, I've met like a handful of people who actually play it.
Seriously? There are a huge number of people that play fantasy. It isn't as big as 40k, but it is still a massive game.
I've heard that the Midwest and America has a whole has a very different ratio of 40k to fantasy players. So that's probably it, we're all sci-fi nerds I suppose.
Kosake wrote: Also, while we're at it, let basic spellcheck run over it, since I haven't seen a GW release without typos every other page in all of 6th edition.
As part of my job application for a GW job (I think it was editor or rules writer or similar, something which ought to have responsibility for that stuff, among other things), I sent in, at my own behest, a list of the typos and grammatical errors in the first ten or so pages of the then newly released 5th Edition Tyranid Codex. I also pointed out some of the obvious rules imbalances with it. And I pointed out that I could be improving all their codexes that way, if they'd just give me the job...
Needless to say I didn't get called for interview. Hadn't really expected to. I felt a bit like an elaborate troll.
Yeah, it should be said that pointing out a company's "errors" based on *your* assessment of their needs isn't exactly the path to success in an application/interview situation.
Perhaps all of the hardback codices were written with 7th in mind? Is it all that unreasonable for them to finish the what 5? codices without a hard back book? orks, ba sw, de, and gk? don't get me started on sisters inquisition or any other "secondary" army that was never going to get a hardback book to begin with.
Oh, I wasn't really expecting to get hired, 'cos I have game design and rules writing experience that I didn't get at GW. But I'd tried the more straight approach before, and got as far as an interview but didn't get the job 'cos I wanted too much money...
rothrich wrote: Perhaps all of the hardback codices were written with 7th in mind? Is it all that unreasonable for them to finish the what 5? codices without a hard back book? orks, ba sw, de, and gk? don't get me started on sisters inquisition or any other "secondary" army that was never going to get a hardback book to begin with.
According to some stuff that was in a massive rumor dump: no. All the books are solely written for the edition they're in.
Kosake wrote: You know, pointing out inconsistencies and straight errors should be kind of a plus in a prospect writer...
But on the flipside very few people get hired by telling a prospective employer "you're wrong, and here's why".
There's obviously a right and a wrong way to do it, but, done correctly, there's absolutely no reason why that wouldn't work. If I was approached by someone who was effectively saying "here's some weaknesses I've identified and here's some ways I can fix them" then they'd have my attention.
Of course, if the prospective employer has a massive ego, a history of apparent hubris and a bat gak crazy attitude over skills recruitment policy, then all that goes out the window....
Kosake wrote: You know, pointing out inconsistencies and straight errors should be kind of a plus in a prospect writer...
But on the flipside very few people get hired by telling a prospective employer "you're wrong, and here's why".
There's obviously a right and a wrong way to do it, but, done correctly, there's absolutely no reason why that wouldn't work. If I was approached by someone who was effectively saying "here's some weaknesses I've identified and here's some ways I can fix them" then they'd have my attention.
Of course, if the prospective employer has a massive ego, a history of apparent hubris and a bat gak crazy attitude over skills recruitment policy, then all that goes out the window....
Don't funnel the entire company's public image down on that poor HR department (which seems to be like 3 people). With GW's digital means of accepting CVs for positions now I wouldn't be surprised if there was a machine that did most of the screening work.
rothrich wrote: Perhaps all of the hardback codices were written with 7th in mind? Is it all that unreasonable for them to finish the what 5? codices without a hard back book? orks, ba sw, de, and gk? don't get me started on sisters inquisition or any other "secondary" army that was never going to get a hardback book to begin with.
According to some stuff that was in a massive rumor dump: no. All the books are solely written for the edition they're in.
rothrich wrote: Perhaps all of the hardback codices were written with 7th in mind? Is it all that unreasonable for them to finish the what 5? codices without a hard back book? orks, ba sw, de, and gk? don't get me started on sisters inquisition or any other "secondary" army that was never going to get a hardback book to begin with.
According to some stuff that was in a massive rumor dump: no. All the books are solely written for the edition they're in.
Link please. What rumor dump by whom?
No name, it was a document on pastebin that is either half of a chat conversation with someone, or is a very good hoax (my favorite detail is the comment in there: "Warhammer is not supposed to be about min/maxing.")
If I was approached by someone who was effectively saying "here's some weaknesses I've identified and here's some ways I can fix them" then they'd have my attention.
Depends. Dakka's freakish obsession with "balance" notwithstanding, it's not a "weakness" in game design, but simply a choice (which you don't have to agree with as a consumer... buy something else... but which you should agree with if you want to get hired).
Read .. for example ... Jervis Column from the White Dwarf Weekly #9, where he specifically notes how "balanced tournament" play is a house-rule-tweak that some gaming-groups may pursue at their leisure, but certainly not a job for the game designers, who have a broader audience to consider.
You're not getting hired by Coca Cola, if you keep harping on how they are wrong by making their labels red, and add to your application how you'd like them to use more blue like Pepsi.
1) "Balance" as an objective quality does not exist in point-systems/wargaming/asymetrical armies. It's always subjective to people what "feels" balanced or "unbalanced".
2) Even if "Balance" as an objective quality would exist, it should not be the ambition of game designers to pursue it, because it makes games boring.
If you're not down with both 1) and 2), you'll never get hired as a game designer, not for any company out there worth their salt.
As part of my job application for a GW job (I think it was editor or rules writer or similar, something which ought to have responsibility for that stuff, among other things), I sent in, at my own behest, a list of the typos and grammatical errors in the first ten or so pages of the then newly released 5th Edition Tyranid Codex. I also pointed out some of the obvious rules imbalances with it. And I pointed out that I could be improving all their codexes that way, if they'd just give me the job...
Needless to say I didn't get called for interview. Hadn't really expected to. I felt a bit like an elaborate troll.
Easy to see who Mr. Ian Sturrock, while clearly a dedicated fan, knowns absolutely nothing about game design.
Why would he ever be hired as a game designer/rules writer/rules editor/whatever?
Easy to see who Mr. Ian Sturrock, while clearly a dedicated fan, knowns absolutely nothing about game design.
Why would he ever be hired as a game designer/rules writer/rules editor/whatever?
Because most of GW's designers have no formal experience/training when they were hired?
Formal experience/training is something different than a seemingly pre-conceived and deeply emotionally embedded and ultimately misguided idea of how to "improve" the game.
Formal experience/training is not required, but in the specific case of Mr. Ian Sturrock, designing a few (commercially successful) games might help him free himself of the quixotic Dakka-obsession over "balanced".
Easy to see who Mr. Ian Sturrock, while clearly a dedicated fan, knowns absolutely nothing about game design.
Why would he ever be hired as a game designer/rules writer/rules editor/whatever?
Because most of GW's designers have no formal experience/training when they were hired?
Formal experience/training is something different than a seemingly pre-conceived and deeply emotionally embedded idea of how to "improve" the game.
Formal experience/training is not required, but in the specific case of Mr. Ian Sturrock, designing a few (commercially successful) games might help him free himself of the quixotic Dakka-obsession over "balanced".
So you're either disagreeing with word choice used, are drunk or are being sarcastic. I don't know which it is.
So you're either disagreeing with word choice used, are drunk or are being sarcastic. I don't know which it is.
Not sure I am following you.
I disagree with the general sentiment here that GW made a "mistake" by turning down said application by an applicant who applied with "recommendations to better balanced/"improve" the game.
Application A: "I don't have formal experience, but I am eager and quick to learn"
Application B: "I don't have formal experience, but this is what you've been doing wrong"
These are two very different applications, even if they have the same (lack of) "experience" on their resume.
Oh, I was not sure anymore. So yeah, that is a good example. I still think it does not make much sense, as then how are anti-psychic stuff helping against tyranid powers ? It was even worse when the tyranid had access to the BRB psychic powers.
Zweischneid wrote: 1) "Balance" as an objective quality does not exist in point-systems/wargaming/asymetrical armies. It's always subjective to people what "feels" balanced or "unbalanced".
2) Even if "Balance" as an objective quality would exist, it should not be the ambition of game designers to pursue it, because it makes games boring.
If you're not down with both 1) and 2), you'll never get hired as a game designer, not for any company out there worth their salt.
So, Privateer Press is not worth their salt. But seriously, the big difference between Warmachine/Horde and 40K or Battle is that in the former, people actually disagree on what is most powerful. In the latter, people do not, because the power gap is just so obvious that the imbalance is not that subjective, really.
Easy to see who Mr. Ian Sturrock, while clearly a dedicated fan, knowns absolutely nothing about game design.
Why would he ever be hired as a game designer/rules writer/rules editor/whatever?
Because most of GW's designers have no formal experience/training when they were hired?
Formal experience/training is something different than a seemingly pre-conceived and deeply emotionally embedded idea of how to "improve" the game.
Formal experience/training is not required, but in the specific case of Mr. Ian Sturrock, designing a few (commercially successful) games might help him free himself of the quixotic Dakka-obsession over "balanced".
So you're either disagreeing with word choice used, are drunk or are being sarcastic. I don't know which it is.
Neither, he is simply being Zweischneid, its better just to nod at whatever dumb thing he is saying at the time and just move along quickly because otherwise you'll find yourself in the depths of a "discussion" (that is nothing more than Zweischneid ignoring whatever facts that don't agree with whatever rambling he chose to engage in), that would make the Twilight Zone blush with embarrassment at its 'convolutedness'.
rothrich wrote: Perhaps all of the hardback codices were written with 7th in mind? Is it all that unreasonable for them to finish the what 5? codices without a hard back book? orks, ba sw, de, and gk? don't get me started on sisters inquisition or any other "secondary" army that was never going to get a hardback book to begin with.
According to some stuff that was in a massive rumor dump: no. All the books are solely written for the edition they're in.
Link please. What rumor dump by whom?
No name, it was a document on pastebin that is either half of a chat conversation with someone, or is a very good hoax (my favorite detail is the comment in there: "Warhammer is not supposed to be about min/maxing.")
2) Even if "Balance" as an objective quality would exist, it should not be the ambition of game designers to pursue it, because it makes games boring.
This just makes me shiver. Anyone who is going into a competition and who is afraid of a well-met opponent clearly isn't ready for said competition. You only fear balance if you fear not being able to keep up with your opponents. There is no more perfect competition than a competition where everyone had the same requirements and everyone would theoretically be able to defeat his opponent by pure personal skill.
With all due respect, and I do not refer to you personally here, but anyone who considers a balanced state to be "boring" is afraid of balance as it means not being able to relate failure to anyone but yourself.
2) Even if "Balance" as an objective quality would exist, it should not be the ambition of game designers to pursue it, because it makes games boring.
This just makes me shiver. Anyone who is going into a competition and who is afraid of a well-met opponent clearly isn't ready for said competition. You only fear balance if you fear not being able to keep up with your opponents. There is no more perfect competition than a competition where everyone had the same requirements and everyone would theoretically be able to defeat his opponent by pure personal skill.
With all due respect, and I do not refer to you personally here, but anyone who considers a balanced state to be "boring" is afraid of balance as it means not being able to relate failure to anyone but yourself.
I am not afraid of competition. But playing about 40K isn't about competition. It's about free-time, relaxation and enjoyment (possibly to unwind from a competitive job, etc..). It's also, explicitly said so by GW, about creating narratives, like it or not.
2) Even if "Balance" as an objective quality would exist, it should not be the ambition of game designers to pursue it, because it makes games boring.
This just makes me shiver. Anyone who is going into a competition and who is afraid of a well-met opponent clearly isn't ready for said competition. You only fear balance if you fear not being able to keep up with your opponents. There is no more perfect competition than a competition where everyone had the same requirements and everyone would theoretically be able to defeat his opponent by pure personal skill.
With all due respect, and I do not refer to you personally here, but anyone who considers a balanced state to be "boring" is afraid of balance as it means not being able to relate failure to anyone but yourself.
I am not afraid of competition. But gaming isn't about competition. It's about free-time, relaxation and enjoyment (possibly to unwind from a competitive job, etc..).
Exactly! And what is more enjoyable than playing a games and find that your unit selections are woefully inadequate at performing compared to your opponents, and being soundly beaten in the first couple turns of the game?
But you can't complain! Think of the narrative! Imagine your forces fighting that dramatic last stand and lose with all the dignity and honor you hold in yourself!
And when you grow tired of all of the "last-stand" style game and look at all the money you spent on those units and how you'll have to spend a bunch more money on units that *do* seem to perform better, realize that is the fun of the HHHobby! After all, what is the cost of the game compared to the excitement of your imagination! *pew pew*
I am not afraid of competition. But playing about 40K isn't about competition. It's about free-time, relaxation and enjoyment (possibly to unwind from a competitive job, etc..). It's also, explicitly said so by GW, about creating narratives, like it or not.
Precisely my point. What is more fun? Crushing someone because you spent more money than your friend (Escalation) / spent hours checking internet forums for the currently most overpowered combo (ho, Seerstar) or because you can directly relate your success to your very own general skills?
Well, Q-tips are not meant for drying or cleaning your ears, brake fluid and simple green aren't meant for paint stripping, the barell-cleaning chain I use as a keychain wasn't meant to be used like that... lots of things are used in a different fashion than the company who made it wants us to.
For any each and any game, there should be some ballance. It's not about competition, it's just as you said, about enjoyment. If you know you are on the losing end, no matter what, you won't enjoy your game. Any wargame or strategy game I know aspires to be ballanced. If I want pure storytelling about unequal forces, well, I'll read a book or watch a movie or play some single-player video game.
Fun fact: vaseline is a decent weapon lubricant for cold weather above -20 °C.
I am not afraid of competition. But playing about 40K isn't about competition. It's about free-time, relaxation and enjoyment (possibly to unwind from a competitive job, etc..). It's also, explicitly said so by GW, about creating narratives, like it or not.
Precisely my point. What is more fun? Crushing someone because you spent more money than your friend (Escalation) / spent hours checking internet forums for the currently most overpowered combo (ho, Seerstar) or because you can directly relate your success to your very own general skills?
Well, than don't.
If you're truly feeling the "competitive" itch, you can pick up an old chess-set at any pound-store and you can win millions in a tournament. Or get yourself a tennis racket and start training for Wimbledon.
Your tournament earnings will quickly make your 40K spending look like a pittance.
And then come back to to 40K - if you like - and play it with your opponent, not against him.
Or are you to timid to test your skill in an environment that is meant to be competitive (which 40K is not)?
There is a place for everything. But 40K isn't the place for being "competitive", and as you correctly point out, it offers little to no enjoyment to people playing it "to win".
rothrich wrote: Perhaps all of the hardback codices were written with 7th in mind? Is it all that unreasonable for them to finish the what 5? codices without a hard back book? orks, ba sw, de, and gk? don't get me started on sisters inquisition or any other "secondary" army that was never going to get a hardback book to begin with.
According to some stuff that was in a massive rumor dump: no. All the books are solely written for the edition they're in.
Link please. What rumor dump by whom?
No name, it was a document on pastebin that is either half of a chat conversation with someone, or is a very good hoax (my favorite detail is the comment in there: "Warhammer is not supposed to be about min/maxing.")
Ahh yes I remember this... I am fairly confident that it is a hoax. IMHO we have not had any real info since hastings and 40k radio went down.
The detail about Warhammer not being about min/maxing was something that made me chuckle as if it is a hoax it's not something you'd think to put in.
Hastings just got tired of everything and quit. No idea what happened to Harry, he just kind of wandered off. And 40k Radio seems to have been C&D because they were basically going too far with their info.
If you're truly feeling the "competitive" itch, you can pick up an old chess-set at any pound-store and you can win millions in a tournament. Or get yourself a tennis racket and start training for Wimbledon.
Wrong definition of "competition". Any sort of game you play with anyone, for whatever reason, is a competition and thus needs thought and effort put into it in order to satisfy all participants. If you don't think that there should be rules, why would we even need those army books / codices anyway? Why not let everyone randomly shove their minis around? That'd be pretty laid-back
Wrong definition of "competition". Any sort of game you play with anyone, for whatever reason, is a competition and thus needs thought and effort put into it in order to satisfy all participants. If you don't think that there should be rules, why would we even need those army books / codices anyway? Why not let everyone randomly shove their minis around? That'd be pretty laid-back
No.
Not all games are about competition, and neither are rules only needed for competitive games. Lastly, not all participants would be satisfied with a rule-set made to please competitive gamers, notably those not interested in competitive gaming.
Again, there are literally thousands of games out there that cater to and "satisfy" those seeking competition. If I am looking to tell a good visual narrative, I won't be picking up a Chess-set. If I want a tightly balanced, competitive match, I won't be picking up 40K.
The idea that "all games" cater to the same principle/priority is ludicrous. If it were true, humanity would only ever need a single game.
Balanced games are better for all play types. Period.
When a game is balanced there is no such thing as WAAC, fluffy, competitive, casual, etc. as defined as player subgroups in 40k. They simply are all just players of the game because it works. And balance is not "boring" unless you've already played every other major skirmish game and found them all rote.
Here's an article from a gentleman who may know a thing or two about running events and having a good time:
Bonus: A designer from Malifaux is directly talking to Mr. Brandt about the game in the comments section. When has any of the game writers from 40k been let out of their Ivory Tower to do so?
Laughable. If you aren't balancing a game, you aren't game designing.
The idea that "all games" cater to the same principle/priority is ludicrous. If it were true, humanity would only ever need a single game.
Just like all of humanity only ever needs one type of food?
Good game design involves balanced rules by its very definition alone. Any game design that is not aimed at balance and clearly favors one side is bad game design for everyone except those who directly profit from it, namely those making the rules up...in this case, GW.
What negative aspects are there to balanced gaming? "Boredom" is not a negative aspect as boredom is a fully subjective, perceived condition. Total balance means a game that's completely fair for everyone participating in it. If you think that a fair game is something bad...well...you catch my drift.
/e: Actually yeah, sorry, way off topic :/
My last word on this: good game design is balanced game design, anything else is a waste of time.
ductvader wrote: *senses danger of thread lockdown due to being way off topic.*
I don't think it's drastically off-topic. Game balance has always been a topic hotly contested in regards to 40k; I would posit it is even more heavily debated now than any time in the past with the releases over the last six months.
It is always a question what direction GW will take the next edition of this game, and not surprising that people would bring up their personal hopes for its future.
Laughable. If you aren't balancing a game, you aren't game designing.
Not true. Balance has both advantages and disadvantages. Plenty of games are designed with purposeful imbalances. There are trade-offs to balance.
With anything involving trade-offs, choices can fall along a wide continuum of possibilities.
Now, some games will try to emphasize balance (and they are popular, no doubt), some games will try to get a good "middle-ground", some games will stray very far from the idea of balance to explore the advantages offered by imbalance. 40K, arguably, is among the latter. It might not be your flavour, but that doesn't mean it is a "mistake".
Great Zweischneid manages to take the smallest comment out of context and utterly derail another thread.
Fun fact, opinions may vary and that's ok!
People can play any game they want for any number of reasons, forcing your personal standard for the hhhobby onto someone else is useless and inappropriate.
Just agree to disagree guys.
We all have wants from GW, lets respect those opinions and stop telling the other he's wrong.
TheKbob wrote: When has any of the game writers from 40k been let out of their Ivory Tower to do so?
I've had some back and forth with Kelly in the past about Sisters and I'm compiling more stuff for submission on things (I also sent in the "One use only, 24" range" Serpent Shield thing I've talked about before with an in depth explanation on why it needs to be done (mostly talking about Spirit of the Game), but I haven't gotten a response on that yet thanks to the Easter Holiday).
I think I would agree with you Zwei, and I imagine many others would, if the rules for 40k were not priced at such a premium price.
Compared to most other games, 40k rules are exceptionally more expensive. The recent supple-codexes priced at full codex prices really exacerbates this problem. People pay a lot for the rules, and I think many (myself included) expect more than just pretty artwork and high production quality...heck, if that were the case I'd just buy Dark Heresy books since they are very good quality and usually packed with background!
Accolade wrote: I think I would agree with you Zwei, and I imagine many others would, if the rules for 40k were not priced at such a premium price.
Compared to most other games, 40k rules are exceptionally more expensive. The recent supple-codexes priced at full codex prices really exacerbates this problem. People pay a lot for the rules, and I think many (myself included) expect more than just pretty artwork and high production quality...heck, if that were the case I'd just buy Dark Heresy books since they are very good quality and usually packed with background!
I don't disagree.
I am not saying the prices aren't whacky.
I am not even saying 40K couldn't be a "better" game and that there would be no ways to improve the rules (starting with typos... lol).
All I am saying is that "more balance = better" is, at best, a subjective preference about which games you enjoy (and which games you don't enjoy). Which leads to two conclusions.
A) Games Workshop's game designers very obviously aren't subscribing to this preference. If you prefer more balanced games, GW Games probably aren't for you. If, for your money, you are better off with PP or Dark Heresy, that is what you should buy.
B) Games Workshop's game designers very obviously aren't subscribing to this preference. If you try to get a paycheck from them as a rules-writer, you should probably try to see things their way (or seek employment as a game designer for a game-company making games more to your liking).
Now, for the "I've got so much money invested"-argument... well, it goes both ways. Other people have just as much invested into 40K because it is not a balanced game.
Whichever way you change it, some people will get shafted.
To get back to the topic of a new edition:
Whenever GW is bringing out new Editions for 40K or Fantasy, I am pretty sure they'll be pushing the "narrative" emphasis even further. It's what they do. If you don't like that style of gaming and have nothing but scorn for the "narrative" idea.... you'll just burn yourself out further by sticking around.
EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.
I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.
I disagree with the general sentiment here that GW made a "mistake" by turning down said application by an applicant who applied with "recommendations to better balanced/"improve" the game.
Application A: "I don't have formal experience, but I am eager and quick to learn"
Application B: "I don't have formal experience, but this is what you've been doing wrong"
These are two very different applications, even if they have the same (lack of) "experience" on their resume.
Ah -- I am actually Applicant C: "I have several years of formal, professional game design experience, and this is what you've been doing wrong."
I recognise that *even that* is a bit trolly, so I did initially try the Applicant D approach: "I have several years of formal, professional game design experience, and I am eager and quick to learn". That didn't get anywhere.
These days I teach game design, and I suspect I have considerably better job security and pay than I would have had at GW, so I don't much mind.
Apologies -- hit 'reply' without reading the whole thing, including the stay-on-topic request -- mods, feel free to delete.
Accolade wrote: EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.
I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.
But the LE is still a good looking book!
I've got one too, but I can't say I'd be that mad if 6th does somethings to help do things like balance out the deathstar builds and generally shake the game up and not just make tiny incremental changes as the game needs some big changes made not just tiny shifts.
Accolade wrote: EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.
I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.
Hello, my name is Tom Kirby, perhaps you've heard of me. I exist as a Sauron-esque malign spirit that requires the condensed tears of tabletop gamers to live, but I would never be so duplicitous as to invalidate your overpriced hardback rulebook less than two years after you bought it, honest. Mauahahahahahaha-*ahem*, 'scuse me.
Seriously though, I just hope that any attempts GW make to bring the Allies system to heel in regards ridiculous combo units doesn't kill off the system's usefulness for representing armies GW don't put out official rules for. Being able to combine units from SM, IG, and INQ, for example, makes it much easier to put together an Adeptus Mechanicus army.
Accolade wrote: EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.
I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.
Hello, my name is Tom Kirby, perhaps you've heard of me. I exist as a Sauron-esque malign spirit that requires the condensed tears of tabletop gamers to live, but I would never be so duplicitous as to invalidate your overpriced hardback rulebook less than two years after you bought it, honest. Mauahahahahahaha-*ahem*, 'scuse me.
Seriously though, I just hope that any attempts GW make to bring the Allies system to heel in regards ridiculous combo units doesn't kill off the system's usefulness for representing armies GW don't put out official rules for. Being able to combine units from SM, IG, and INQ, for example, makes it much easier to put together an Adeptus Mechanicus army.
Changing how psychic powers work to make them more like magic in WFB would do a good job of curbing the Taudar combo. "Oh, you're going to use Fortune on your Farseer? Let me throw all my dice at preventing you from getting that off."
Accolade wrote: EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.
I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.
Hello, my name is Tom Kirby, perhaps you've heard of me. I exist as a Sauron-esque malign spirit that requires the condensed tears of tabletop gamers to live, but I would never be so duplicitous as to invalidate your overpriced hardback rulebook less than two years after you bought it, honest. Mauahahahahahaha-*ahem*, 'scuse me.
Seriously though, I just hope that any attempts GW make to bring the Allies system to heel in regards ridiculous combo units doesn't kill off the system's usefulness for representing armies GW don't put out official rules for. Being able to combine units from SM, IG, and INQ, for example, makes it much easier to put together an Adeptus Mechanicus army.
Changing how psychic powers work to make them more like magic in WFB would do a good job of curbing the Taudar combo. "Oh, you're going to use Fortune on your Farseer? Let me throw all my dice at preventing you from getting that off."
All we need is for Battle Brothers to be gone...except for same codex supplements and such.
Accolade wrote: EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.
I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.
Hello, my name is Tom Kirby, perhaps you've heard of me. I exist as a Sauron-esque malign spirit that requires the condensed tears of tabletop gamers to live, but I would never be so duplicitous as to invalidate your overpriced hardback rulebook less than two years after you bought it, honest. Mauahahahahahaha-*ahem*, 'scuse me.
Seriously though, I just hope that any attempts GW make to bring the Allies system to heel in regards ridiculous combo units doesn't kill off the system's usefulness for representing armies GW don't put out official rules for. Being able to combine units from SM, IG, and INQ, for example, makes it much easier to put together an Adeptus Mechanicus army.
Changing how psychic powers work to make them more like magic in WFB would do a good job of curbing the Taudar combo. "Oh, you're going to use Fortune on your Farseer? Let me throw all my dice at preventing you from getting that off."
Adding some Battle Brother balance in, without entirely gimping their use, would certainly be a welcome change. I just wish that GW had thought this through harder in the first place so it wouldn't be necessary to invalidate their core rulebook halfway through a typical cycle.
The LE book is really nice, I definitely agree with that. But I would have liked it to be useful rules-wise for the expected lifespan.
I think that how the rules pan out for 6.5/7 will really determine my opinion on the whole matter. If they do some things to curb the abuses running rampant right now, I will be happy. If the release is anything like the most recent supple-codices and appears to function only as a way to yank more money out of me, I will be, for the first time, truly infuriated with GW.
Accolade wrote: EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.
I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.
Don't worry, the 'new edition' will be limited print in hardback, making it a collectors edition by default.
The rest of will have to buy Ipads to see what is in the new book.
Adding some Battle Brother balance in, without entirely gimping their use, would certainly be a welcome change. I just wish that GW had thought this through harder in the first place so it wouldn't be necessary to invalidate their core rulebook halfway through a typical cycle.
If the change is to bridge 40k and WFB closer together (as rumored) to make it easier for players to learn both game systems and allow people to switch between them more effortlessly then I can see the point even if it's cutting this current edition a bit short.
Accolade wrote: EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.
I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.
Hello, my name is Tom Kirby, perhaps you've heard of me. I exist as a Sauron-esque malign spirit that requires the condensed tears of tabletop gamers to live, but I would never be so duplicitous as to invalidate your overpriced hardback rulebook less than two years after you bought it, honest. Mauahahahahahaha-*ahem*, 'scuse me.
Seriously though, I just hope that any attempts GW make to bring the Allies system to heel in regards ridiculous combo units doesn't kill off the system's usefulness for representing armies GW don't put out official rules for. Being able to combine units from SM, IG, and INQ, for example, makes it much easier to put together an Adeptus Mechanicus army.
Changing how psychic powers work to make them more like magic in WFB would do a good job of curbing the Taudar combo. "Oh, you're going to use Fortune on your Farseer? Let me throw all my dice at preventing you from getting that off."
All we need is for Battle Brothers to be gone...except for same codex supplements and such.
Except that would do exactly what I'm hoping doesn't happen; break combo-armies. I like the ability to treat BB forces as if they're essentially all chosen out of the same codex, it's one of the best things about the Allies system to my mind, it's just a shame that the mechanic also allows some pretty heinous fusions.
I can't watch the EC video at work, but I get what you're saying there. I think the broadest appeal is balance and then allow the players to "forge the narrative" with supplements that allow for the wild swings. It's a better design model that won't lead to the stinkhole GW is destined for...
... unless they get smart with the 7E release. I'd like to seem them actually take to task the answering of FAQs and have public discussion. Zion, if you're talking to Kelly, it needs to be public, IMO, for it to matter. That's what's so lacking, open dialog. If 7E comes 2 years after 6E, that's a sign something's wrong. And we all know something is wrong; the game isn't functional in much of any setting without a discussion of what's kosher. Narrative or not, all things are not equal and that's throwing off much of the game. The only events I see pressing forward are highly comped or giving a lot of discussion prior to what's legal. No other game needs this and you can still have "narratives forged".
If it is 7E (or even 6.5E) and it doesn't show a significant change in how GW conducts business with gamers, expect the GW niche to tank even further. I don't foresee them going out of business as the narrative folks and collectors will keep them trundling along, but it will be a much smaller GW.
TheKbob wrote: Zion, if you're talking to Kelly, it needs to be public, IMO, for it to matter. That's what's so lacking, open dialog.
That's a bit of goal post moving there ("Doesn't count unless everyone can yell at them!"). I'm at least trying to push things into their field of view so they see the problem. That's got to count for something there.
Seriously I got a response because I wrote up the suggestions I had, sent them by post and had included a letter inside explaining my intentions as politely as possible and an email address to contact me at about any feedback/questions he had. I just wouldn't recommend sending to Kelly for two reasons: 1) he misplaced my submission for 4 months on his desk (he's also lost Kharn and some World Eaters Chosen there too) and it took a mutual acquaintance of both of ours to motivate him to find it, and 2) he's not actively writing rules right now, but is instead writing lore.
So if people want to raise issues this seems to be the best way to do it: with well written (and polite! These are PEOPLE you are writing to, so you should treat them as such) letters.
And Cadbury chocolate to "bribe" them into responding.
TheKbob wrote: Zion, if you're talking to Kelly, it needs to be public, IMO, for it to matter. That's what's so lacking, open dialog.
That's a bit of goal post moving there ("Doesn't count unless everyone can yell at them!"). I'm at least trying to push things into their field of view so they see the problem. That's got to count for something there.
It's not moving the goal post when that's the goal post established by every single competitior. Open forums with discussions held with the writing staff. At the very least questions addressed, when necessary, with those to rule on complications or conflicts.
Count me wrong if I am, but I am saying when do you see a rules writer (and not "Games Workshop Development Team", that's a worrisome sign) actively reach out to big names in the community and hold a candid and open discussion on game decisisons such as what's seen on Mike Brandt's blog?
An edition change so fast would readily imply something is wrong with 6E. With no discussion, no communication, this will cause an exodus of players who will remember dropping a large amount of money on a rulebook not too long ago. Compound this on the frustrations of releases between IG and the December to Remember, and you aren't forecasting optimism. The IG release wasn't bad and certainly not a "Nids," but why did they delete long established characters and units? Why did they release a Codex 2 weeks prior to another that differs by a single page, or so, of rules? The Occam's Razor is greed or incompetance, neither are good.
I hope the 6.5E/7E rumors are true in that it signals real change back to better for the game. I am also worried, however, that's it's a sign crap's about to get worse.
TheKbob wrote: It's not moving the goal post when that's the goal post established by every single competitior. Open forums with discussions held with the writing staff. At the very least questions addressed, when necessary, with those to rule on complications or conflicts.
I'm actually trying to push things that are concerns I see the community raising at least. I won't claim to be a "voice of the people" but I'm at least trying to play messenger.
TheKbob wrote: Count me wrong if I am, but I am saying when do you see a rules writer (and not "Games Workshop Development Team", that's a worrisome sign) actively reach out to big names in the community and hold a candid and open discussion on game decisisons such as what's seen on Mike Brandt's blog?
With how people treat the devs behind their backs do you really think the environment would be that healthy for them to step out publicly and talk about things like that?
TheKbob wrote: Count me wrong if I am, but I am saying when do you see a rules writer (and not "Games Workshop Development Team", that's a worrisome sign) actively reach out to big names in the community and hold a candid and open discussion on game decisisons such as what's seen on Mike Brandt's blog?
With how people treat the devs behind their backs do you really think the environment would be that healthy for them to step out publicly and talk about things like that?
Cart before horse, potentially? Are they being so negatively down trodden because they aren't supporting their product? Outside of the "always on" negativity any popular item will have on the internet, I know I'd be a lot less negative towards them if they actually explained their decisions. I may choose to still not like them, but I have an understanding.
For those us of with a rational dissenting voice about what's happening to the game with 6E, I'd take real discussion. Even if it proves "hey, business decisions, you're no longer our market and here's why..." with a means for feedback, then I know I can safely sell off all my armies, shelve the figures I want, and move on to play other games.
A new edition so soon is a sign of something wrong. And given that sales spike at a new edition, I imagine this is more financially driven versus any sort of design decision. Even as a more gamer than hobbyist, 6E is pretty good, it just needs some love. And as a customer, I need some love, too. A new $50+ rulebook is not the love I want.
streamdragon wrote: Edit: On the (salty) chance the rumor is true, it would make Dominion a much weaker power for Tyranids. IB tests are done at the start of the movement phase; you wouldn't be able to get Dominion in place in time to prevent IB checks.
But our Maledictions would get an effective 6"+ range due to coming after movement...paroxysm and the horror become much better...especially as you could use it from reserves.
True enough. I focused on Dominion because it is the Primaris and thus always available.
Also because Instinctive Behaviour is such a gak rule.
I'm guessing you just want to use your hormagaunts again?
They're the only unit I can't run effectively due to IB and lack of mobility in this book.
Is that so wrong? I've got like, 120 of the buggers...
But seriously, it's really more that like I said, Dominion is the Primaris power so always available. I won't necessarily roll up Paroxysm or The Horror (which I still find underwhelming against pretty much any shooty army). Besides, Horror and Paroxysm already have a 24" range, whereas Synapse is generally 12" (obviously more with Warlord trait and/or Norn Crown (lol, like people take that thing) ).
streamdragon wrote: (obviously more with Warlord trait and/or Norn Crown (lol, like people take that thing) ).
For people who don't run Flyrants, I have seen Norn Crown Primes buried in Carnifex Broods as a center piece or flank holder of Synapse. It's effective. Points efficient? Another story...
The change to a Psychic phase with a chance to dispel would be huge. I'd actually be okay with that as the buffs given by BRB are not balanced. Given that players just stack casters to ensure they get the right power, it would be better just to points cost out powers. Divination should be very expensive, in general. Granting a 50man squad a 4++ save is nuts. Building an army around Scrier's Gaze could introduce a whole host of strategies never seen. Foreboding would be a cheaper power, but could be a great idea for a very shooty army that doesn't want to get into melee.
The only reason why they are "balanced" now is because of the randomness, but since when have you ever seen anyone roll on Pyromancy? I have never seen it save some newbies thinking *pew* *pew* ... and then they see what Telepathy or Divination does...
That's a change for the 7E I'd like to see return. Points costed powers. Or at least major changes to how the core powers work.
TheKbob wrote: Cart before horse, potentially? Are they being so negatively down trodden because they aren't supporting their product? Outside of the "always on" negativity any popular item will have on the internet, I know I'd be a lot less negative towards them if they actually explained their decisions. I may choose to still not like them, but I have an understanding.
I'd say some of the hyperbolic hatred for writers I've seen online is enough to encourage them to not be open, even if it would be helpful. I have a feeling that a reason why GW (namely the Board of Directors who makes these kinds of decisions) feels the need to insulate itself so much from "us" is because they don't know how to deal with the negativity productively (to be fair not many do) and turn the community interaction into something better regardless.
As for the new edition, I don't know if the only reason would be to drum up some "quick cash". 40k was still the top seller of all the wargames on the market last year (at least in the US) so I don't know how bad it's really doing, or if it's just a comparative thing, and for all our harping on GW they don't really seem to operate on the idea of the short term sale. At least not in when they actually talk about what they're doing.
Wow, I thought Zwei had been rehabilitated, first time in weeks I've seen the ole "say something ridiculous, make it all about me, derail the thread" trick.
Yet you chose a day, and a time, when I was tied up doing proper grown up things IRL so I wasn't on hand to call you on your bull gak.
TheKbob wrote: The only reason why they are "balanced" now is because of the randomness, but since when have you ever seen anyone roll on Pyromancy? I have never seen it save some newbies thinking *pew* *pew* ... and then they see what Telepathy or Divination does...
That's a change for the 7E I'd like to see return. Points costed powers. Or at least major changes to how the core powers work.
*Generally speaking*, the studio notices when certain units or options are spammed and others ignored. So I think some rebalancing of the rulebook psychic powers is inevitable in the next edition, and far more likely than a new psychic phase.
TheKbob wrote: The only reason why they are "balanced" now is because of the randomness, but since when have you ever seen anyone roll on Pyromancy? I have never seen it save some newbies thinking *pew* *pew* ... and then they see what Telepathy or Divination does...
That's a change for the 7E I'd like to see return. Points costed powers. Or at least major changes to how the core powers work.
*Generally speaking*, the studio notices when certain units or options are spammed and others ignored. So I think some rebalancing of the rulebook psychic powers is inevitable in the next edition, and far more likely than a new psychic phase.
All primaris should be a shooting attack...I think that balances them a bit right there.
Pyrovores and mandrakes have certainly come into their own with the new books.
I know you said generally speaking, but the list just goes on and on of bad units remaining bad. Most eldar aspects are still terrible, and the Falcon shouldn't even have an entry in the codex at this point. Vespids still don't ever see the table. Dreadnoughts have not received the necessary improvements to make them function in any sort of semblance to what they should be. I could spend hours describing in detail what units were bad in 5th and remain bad in 6th, and probably will in 7th.
I genuinely believe they do not play their own game. Or if they do, they play at the level of someone just getting into the hobby with no tactical wargaming experience.
Goresaw wrote: Pyrovores and mandrakes have certainly come into their own with the new books.
Most eldar aspects are still terrible, and the Falcon shouldn't even have an entry in the codex at this point.
Goresaw wrote: Pyrovores and mandrakes have certainly come into their own with the new books.
I know you said generally speaking, but the list just goes on and on of bad units remaining bad. Most eldar aspects are still terrible, and the Falcon shouldn't even have an entry in the codex at this point. Vespids still don't ever see the table. Dreadnoughts have not received the necessary improvements to make them function in any sort of semblance to what they should be. I could spend hours describing in detail what units were bad in 5th and remain bad in 6th, and probably will in 7th.
I genuinely believe they do not play their own game. Or if they do, they play at the level of someone just getting into the hobby with no tactical wargaming experience.
I am told from ex-GW guys or folks who know the ex-GW guys that the concept of "play testing" is playing a game on the clock; this is unacceptable. You must write the rules correct the first time. Play on your own time.
This sounds like a terrible rumor, but I've heard it now from three independant parties. I really hope it's something being spread on the internet as false, but there's that. We know from other industries that ineffective middle management can kill projects, so I imagine a wargame would be no different.
Zion, the release of the Storm Trooper codex prior to the IG codex feels like a short sell tactic. So does all the limited release items. With rumors that the storm trooper book now being out of print, that would all but confirm this strategy. I certainly hope not, but that would lend even further credence that the management of GW believes we're walking wallets and the hobby is buying GW stuff, not playing with it. Sorry, that's not what I signed up for years ago.
Every major entity that deals in any for of consumer affair must deal with interenet "hatred" be it warranted or unwarranted fanboy vitriol. A great majority of companies have realized that allowing this toxic behavior to breed and escalate is bad for business. Hence, many companies now have twitter, facebook, instagram, etc. type social media accounts along with forums. And they have created a new job called the "community manager". We all know video games draw the same, if not more, ire for bad business decisions. All the major large brands have these managers work as liasons to help smooth over rough spots and to make sure the consumer feels engaged with. This feeling of engagement lends to a feeling of community which leads belonging. Those emotions make a more faithful consumer base who will purchase more products and services.
By actively not having these things in the today's market, GW is hindering themselves. And a new edition without these changes in business operation will be short sighted.
True Battle Brothers are something that is much much more rare than our current game.
No farseer is going to be standing alone with some broadsides while his 2x 3 bikes and wraithknight go do their thing.
But that's not what I'm talking about. To continue the AdMech example; my army is not a Space Marine Master of the Forge, Scouts, Thunderfire Cannons, Devastator Centurions, and a Dreadnought; allied with Imperial Guard led by Straken commanding an Infantry Platoon blob, Psyker Battle Squad, and Veteran Squad; accompanied by an Inquisitor and a retinue. It's a single force comprised of a Secutor Lord, Skitarii, Ordo Reductor Thunderfire Battery, Mymidon Secutors, and a "Paragon of Iron" Castellax Battle Automata; an Archmagos Explorator, Servitor blob, Electropriest Luminen Coven, and the personal guard of Rogue Trader Hermôt Caranax III; also including Artisan Suspensor Forquoi and a unit of Murder-Servitors.
Without Battle Brothers, I could probably still put those same units down on the table, but they won't function as a single army any more, which rather defeats the purpose of using the Allies rules to construct a single army from disparate elements.
But that's not what I'm talking about. To continue the AdMech example; my army is not a Space Marine Master of the Forge, Scouts, Thunderfire Cannons, Devastator Centurions, and a Dreadnought; allied with Imperial Guard led by Straken commanding an Infantry Platoon blob, Psyker Battle Squad, and Veteran Squad; accompanied by an Inquisitor and a retinue. It's a single force comprised of a Secutor Lord, Skitarii, Ordo Reductor Thunderfire Battery, Mymidon Secutors, and a "Paragon of Iron" Castellax Battle Automata; an Archmagos Explorator, Servitor blob, Electropriest Luminen Coven, and the personal guard of Rogue Trader Hermôt Caranax III; also including Artisan Suspensor Forquoi and a unit of Murder-Servitors.
Without Battle Brothers, I could probably still put those same units down on the table, but they won't function as a single army any more, which rather defeats the purpose of using the Allies rules to construct a single army from disparate elements.
A) Bad-ass army. I love Straken, even if it's "someone else".
B) If they actively designed the game with the idea of balance, then we'd negate the bad sides of battle brothers and allow for these to come out. I agree, I can recreate the Witchhunters Codex with all the battle brother SoB have been gaining and it can be super fluffy fun time (and actually make them competitive versus a shell of a codex). However, does this outweigh all the other broken combos? I am not paying $50 for books to be responsible to also troubleshoot them with my friends/opposing players.
Most people agree that if an edition change happened, it'd need to eliminate battle brothers as they exist now. As sad as I'd be, I concur. They are utterly broken right now.
But that's not what I'm talking about. To continue the AdMech example; my army is not a Space Marine Master of the Forge, Scouts, Thunderfire Cannons, Devastator Centurions, and a Dreadnought; allied with Imperial Guard led by Straken commanding an Infantry Platoon blob, Psyker Battle Squad, and Veteran Squad; accompanied by an Inquisitor and a retinue. It's a single force comprised of a Secutor Lord, Skitarii, Ordo Reductor Thunderfire Battery, Mymidon Secutors, and a "Paragon of Iron" Castellax Battle Automata; an Archmagos Explorator, Servitor blob, Electropriest Luminen Coven, and the personal guard of Rogue Trader Hermôt Caranax III; also including Artisan Suspensor Forquoi and a unit of Murder-Servitors.
Without Battle Brothers, I could probably still put those same units down on the table, but they won't function as a single army any more, which rather defeats the purpose of using the Allies rules to construct a single army from disparate elements.
A) Bad-ass army. I love Straken, even if it's "someone else".
B) If they actively designed the game with the idea of balance, then we'd negate the bad sides of battle brothers and allow for these to come out. I agree, I can recreate the Witchhunters Codex with all the battle brother SoB have been gaining and it can be super fluffy fun time (and actually make them competitive versus a shell of a codex). However, does this outweigh all the other broken combos? I am not paying $50 for books to be responsible to also troubleshoot them with my friends/opposing players.
Most people agree that if an edition change happened, it'd need to eliminate battle brothers as they exist now. As sad as I'd be, I concur. They are utterly broken right now.
I suppose where people fall on this will come down to play environment; I'd much rather they left BB alone and wait(probably in vain) for GW to work through and nerf/introduce counters to the most egregious combinations(which they could do very quickly if they wanted to via FAQs, but I'm not naive enough to believe that will happen), than gut the rules that allow people to make really characterful fluff armies, but on the rare occasions I get to play it's almost always with players who have a similar mindset so I don't tend to run into Seerstars, Taudar etc that often. I can understand that someone who has to deal with that crap on a regular basis would probably value a resolution that quickly dealt with that kind of nonsense over the hypothetical ability to use Allies "properly".
Accolade wrote: EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.
I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.
Hello, my name is Tom Kirby, perhaps you've heard of me. I exist as a Sauron-esque malign spirit that requires the condensed tears of tabletop gamers to live, but I would never be so duplicitous as to invalidate your overpriced hardback rulebook less than two years after you bought it, honest. Mauahahahahahaha-*ahem*, 'scuse me.
Seriously though, I just hope that any attempts GW make to bring the Allies system to heel in regards ridiculous combo units doesn't kill off the system's usefulness for representing armies GW don't put out official rules for. Being able to combine units from SM, IG, and INQ, for example, makes it much easier to put together an Adeptus Mechanicus army.
Changing how psychic powers work to make them more like magic in WFB would do a good job of curbing the Taudar combo. "Oh, you're going to use Fortune on your Farseer? Let me throw all my dice at preventing you from getting that off."
any improvements to psychic powers has to be a good thing. Right now they are a mess and we should be due for one last round of debates for enfeeble stacking and witchfires without a weapon profile before june
I doubt they'll get rid of BB, but they will add in escalation & stronghold assault. Which at that point they might as well just add in apoc to the mix and have one book for any game from 100 points to 100,000+ points.
TheKbob wrote: Zion, the release of the Storm Trooper codex prior to the IG codex feels like a short sell tactic.
Small army lists like this have existed since at least 3rd Edition (Kroot Mercs, Deathwatch, ect) the only difference now is that we're seeing a book that is priced as if it's a full codex (which is also something I feel is priced a bit insanely but that's from the outside looking in, I'm sure it makes sense to someone internally).
TheKbob wrote: With rumors that the storm trooper book now being out of print, that would all but confirm this strategy.
Sadly not a rumor, I've gotten confirmation from customer service that it is OOP once it runs out of stock (I shot them back an email pointing out that by not at LEAST putting it on the BL they're basically telling their customers that if they want it they have to pirate it or go out and spend a few hundred bucks on an iPad for a single book and people aren't going to do the latter). Not too unlike the old WD "Chapter Approved" armylists, but at least there are digital rules available for them instead of going OOP completely. Still a bad idea in this day and age in my opinion but I don't run a company so maybe they have some logic to it I don't know or understand from where I am. At least I hope so because otherwise they're just insane.
TheKbob wrote: Every major entity that deals in any for of consumer affair must deal with interenet "hatred" be it warranted or unwarranted fanboy vitriol.
And not every company actually deals with them. GW isn't the only company out there that isn't dealing with the consumers on a more personal level. They are the only wargaming company not communicating more publicly and my only guess is that it's based on a purely cost decision and has very little to do with anything else. I'm not saying they're right or wrong for doing it (as I can't see the whole picture they're looking at), I just know what I'd prefer.
Every major entity that deals in any for of consumer affair must deal with interenet "hatred" be it warranted or unwarranted fanboy vitriol. A great majority of companies have realized that allowing this toxic behavior to breed and escalate is bad for business. Hence, many companies now have twitter, facebook, instagram, etc. type social media accounts along with forums. And they have created a new job called the "community manager". We all know video games draw the same, if not more, ire for bad business decisions. All the major large brands have these managers work as liasons to help smooth over rough spots and to make sure the consumer feels engaged with. This feeling of engagement lends to a feeling of community which leads belonging. Those emotions make a more faithful consumer base who will purchase more products and services.
And how many of those companies do everything the players ever want and don't just do what they were going to do in the first place? Is having a community manager going to change anything the design team do? I doubt it. So what you'd effectively get is a faceless entity 'virtually' holding your hand and kissing it better. The one thing that they do of worth is sometimes shed light on why they are doing things the way they are because their design philosophy is x, y, z I'm basing this on Blizzard's community managers who do a lot of explaining and not a lot of "yes you are right and we are a bunch of dicks". And that's what Jervis does in his column. GW don't need to be touchy feely. A lot of players would love them to be but they aren't. Also they have open days throughout the year and games days where after gorging yourself on BL and FW releases you can actually talk to the designers themselves. Rather than wishing for a Community bot. (I would like to add that I realise not every one lives in the UK but then I'm sure you've got over it by now )
I still have some hand-written replies to rule queries I had made from Gav Thorpe and Jervis Johnson stashed away somewhere
That was the company they were, this is the company they are. That's it and all about it I'm afraid.
The modern GW Modus Operandi: Each new rules edition solves some queries while creating new ones, necessitating further updates. Each codex and army book regurgitates previous fluff and creative design, swaps a few stats around where necessary, chuck a new cover on the front (make it a hardback! Woo!) and get your fan-base to spend out on the latest edition. The creative process, previously the kernel of GW's rise to prominence, has been smothered by an upper management that cares little for the product beyond figures on a spreadsheet. Want to know why the Storm Raven looks like a stunted chibi-version of a flying vehicle and the Taurox also looks like a squashed-up tonka toy? It's because they were squeezed on to the smallest sprue space possible - save plastic pressing production, storage space, shipping cost. The general fan-base perception is negative, but it will make a few more pounds in profit (rather than just giving the creative people just a little bit more of the reigns) then that's the decision they make. GW aren't alone in this and of course you have to consider production costs - Mantic does the same thing for instance. But, I find it more understandable when you are dealing with a company with a staff of a dozen, rather than one with hundreds of design staff that has operating profits measured in hundreds of millions.
The 'death-knell' for the GW I remember, of one that cared what their fans thought and strove to do better, died when the company became publically owned and stopped existing 'for the customer' and instead moved its priorities to the shareholders. It's business sense no doubt, but it's brutal and ugly within an industry that had previously been so small and personable. Really, I think the sooner you acknowledge that the 'suits' that run GW don't give two hoots about what the veteran fanbase think, and that the customers are viewed solely as sheep who will stump up cash for whatever half-arsed release comes along, then the sooner you will stop shaking your head in wonder at the constant body blows of hair-brained policy decisions, DLC codex updates and nonsensical rules. When stuff like this keeps happening, then you have to look at the reality of the situation, and its causes.
If you want to know what the privately owned, GW of the 90's would look like in the modern age, look at any of the other news and discussion threads around here; Beasts of War has regular interviews with senior staff of Mantic, Corvus Belli and Battlefront; those companies have fan forums, facebook pages and twitter feeds where they interact with their customer base, and answer queries. I've just looked at a thread where a designer has actually responded directly to a post on the forum. Battlefront actually reversed a policy decision when there was outcry from the fanbase. These are just a few examples but they are everywhere when you care to look at them. I won't say anyone does these things perfectly, but at least they appear to make the effort, and perhaps more importantly the customers can have at least some feeling that they are valued by the company they chose to invest with. It wouldn't be hard - a couple of guys in the office at Nottingham doing networking, helping with promotions and marketing. It's done by companies many, many times smaller, but GW chose not to.
I'm sure, if you have got this far in this pretty long rant, you will realise by now that I'm probably not going to be picking up the latest 40k version 3.4 when it comes along. Terribly sorry for going off on one, I feel a little bit like the guy making a speech at a funeral who has made the unpopular decision (with those present) to admonish the guy lying in the grave for his decent into hedonism and untimely death. He was so lively, so imaginative, and had so much promise, but it all went into the gutter... and you're angry that so much potential has been lost..
pretre wrote: Annnd yet another thread devolves into the 'demise of GW'...
Sigh.
I blame the internet because it's the Internet's favorite topic.
Back on topic I hope CC gets balanced better so CC units can go down in points costs (change Sweeping Advances perhaps) and balance better with shooting.
Then again I want to see the game adopt a strict costing system and just push the upper limit of what is considered a balanced game up instead of dropping points all the time. It's not like people with big collections will want to go DOWN in points and play less if they can help it.
pretre wrote: Annnd yet another thread devolves into the 'demise of GW'...
Sigh.
I blame the internet because it's the Internet's favorite topic.
Back on topic I hope CC gets balanced better so CC units can go down in points costs (change Sweeping Advances perhaps) and balance better with shooting.
Then again I want to see the game adopt a strict costing system and just push the upper limit of what is considered a balanced game up instead of dropping points all the time. It's not like people with big collections will want to go DOWN in points and play less if they can help it.
Personal Note: My 5th Edition 2000pt Tyranid list clocks in the 6th Edition book at 1750ish points.
pretre wrote: Annnd yet another thread devolves into the 'demise of GW'...
Sigh.
I blame the internet because it's the Internet's favorite topic.
Back on topic I hope CC gets balanced better so CC units can go down in points costs (change Sweeping Advances perhaps) and balance better with shooting.
Then again I want to see the game adopt a strict costing system and just push the upper limit of what is considered a balanced game up instead of dropping points all the time. It's not like people with big collections will want to go DOWN in points and play less if they can help it.
Personal Note: My 5th Edition 2000pt Tyranid list clocks in the 6th Edition book at 1750ish points.
Most armies keep getting cheap with every release and it'd be better to push a large game than try and cram more in at less because it'd be easier to balance.
Personally...My biggest issue with Tyranids is the FoC...in a 2000 pt game I can fill every FoC slot and find myself needlessly taking upgrades or additional models in units to fill points.
Not true. Balance has both advantages and disadvantages. Plenty of games are designed with purposeful imbalances. There are trade-offs to balance.
With anything involving trade-offs, choices can fall along a wide continuum of possibilities.
Now, some games will try to emphasize balance (and they are popular, no doubt), some games will try to get a good "middle-ground", some games will stray very far from the idea of balance to explore the advantages offered by imbalance. 40K, arguably, is among the latter. It might not be your flavour, but that doesn't mean it is a "mistake".
And you would be perfectly right, if every unit had its good moments and was priced accordingly. Fact is, there are plenty of units, that are simply bad ruleswise. They are either completely overpriced, redundant, ineffective or any combination thereoff that it is just painfull. Certain things, like 2++ rerollable Deathstars are just broken and imbalance is created with the sole purpose to sell kits and not to keep the game fresh.
There are good examples of perfect imballance out there. League of Legends, maybe MTG, whatever. Warhammer 40k is just badly ballanced.
A %-system might shift the balance a bit back in favor of...uhm..balance after GW decided to purposefully completely break it. Especially stupid stuff like Escalation might be balanced out by simply adding a max % on each slot, making it e.g. impossible to take a Transcendent C'tan in a 1500 (or even 1000!) pts game.
On the other hand, this brings disadvantages as well - it's bad for mediocre units in a slot with strong competition. Take Necrons for example. Imagine there was a strict %-limit per each slot, including the Fast Assault one. Why would anyone ever take anything but Wraiths then? They are clearly better than the rest in the slot and while in the current system, you can still take overpriced but flavorful units (i.e.: Heavy Destroyers) but with a %-system, overpriced units become even less attractive and will be left out even more in favor of superior competitors.
