Switch Theme:

Has GW abdicated responsibility for game balance?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Zagman wrote:
Pointing to Grey Knights in 5th as proof the edition was terribly balanced it a bit problematic, GK was the second to last codex of the edition followed by Necrons, both were heralds of the new edition. GK brought us the Brotherhood of Psykers, Power Weapons(Soon to be AP3) on everything, Over costed Storm Raven(BA was first, but costed appropriately as a Flyer), the Dreadknight(first 90x120mm MC), etc. One of 5th's biggest failing was GK was BA+1 and BA was SM+1 and vehicles were too durable. I still remember some of the closest, most enjoyable, and best games from 5th edition, 6th and 7th have effectively killed of 40k in my city. I really wish we would have had every codex updated for 5th edition, and not had GK and Necrons powered up for 6th.


SR is still overcosted, just not as badly.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






 Smacks wrote:
I had an idea a while ago that GW could include some "fixed" army lists for each race, as an alternative game "mode" to unbound. The lists would specify exactly what units and weapons make up the force, with very few options for customization. The idea being that each "fixed" list could be playtested and balanced in a more controlled way, then be "approved" for tournament play against other fixed lists (regardless of the actual points value).

While it sounds oppressive at first, it would have a lot of great benefits.

1: It would be much easier for the developers to balance (rather than trying to balance the whole game unbound, which might not even be possible).
2 It would make life much easier for tournament organizers, and for pick up gamers.
3: It would allow every race, and a much greater variety of units to be viable at a tournament level. Since every faction would have at least one (but possibly many) approved lists.
4: It would take some of the heavy focus off "list building" in strategy discussions, and get people talking about how to actually deploy and maneuver with each army.
5: It would allow players and TOs to be much more familiar with the rules and capabilities of each army. (harder to cheat)
6: It would be good for new players, since they could collect a list that includes models they like, without having to worry about it sucking.
7: It might encourage greater customization in terms of painting and modeling, as people look for new ways to make their army "unique".
8: It would remove barriers for new players (and some old) to get into the competitive scene, as they won't get instagibed by some cheese list in the first round.
9: We might see a lot more fluffy lists at tournaments.
X: I think it would be good for GW. I know I would be much more likely to buy a one click army, and even a second army if I knew there was a whole tournament scene built around that box.

It also wouldn't have to be the end of list building. You could still have something like "fixed list + 500pts" pick up games and tournaments, which would allow people to work in more units around a more balanced "take all comers" core. And of course for everything else there is always unbound.



Make it easier -- just play Kill Team

One of the stores locally that I don't visit often has a group that loves Kill Team. If you aren't familiar, a KT detachment is 0-2 troops, 0-1 elite, and 0-1 FA. There are other restrictions like, only models with 3 wounds or less, there must be at least 4 non-vehicle models, and any vehicles must have total AV (add them all together) of 33 or less. Oh, no flying units too, and a lot of the specials are changed (like, you can't ever spawn another model by any means). Probably some major other things I forgot.

It's much more skirmishy too, because other than list creation, every model is its own unit in the game; no unit cohesion, you can deploy them anywhere you want, they shoot separately, et cetera.

It's not really my "thing" because I prefer the big battles on big tables, but it is definitely a fun game with potential -- in the next edition of 40k, it should be integrated into core rules as a possible ruleset/play mode. By nerfing a bunch of the really powerful stuff, and essentially eliminating anything really big and scary, you de-escalate the game to a point where it's just a much smaller scale.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/13 05:40:22


 
   
Made in ro
Dakka Veteran




Assuiming you take the 'it's all about putting models on the tablenot about balanced rules' at face value rather than just a lousy apology fir incompetence/crappy marketing maneuvers, why does GW use point costs then?

If you're still supposed to talk it through with your opponent beforehand and 1850 points of Eldar will always be better than 1850 points of Dark Angls, doesn't that defeat the base point of point costing (balancing against a common metric)?
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Talys wrote:
I suspect there are other like-minded players who care more about the playing the game and reveling in the awesomeness of the models than they are in exploiting the latest, curb-stomping netlist; for these people, balance is simply not THE deciding factor on where to spend their time.


What's your point? The fact that some people aren't hurt as much as others by poor balance doesn't mean that the poorly balanced game is good. A balanced game helps everyone, and failure to provide one is incompetent game design.

Now, to Andy Chambers balance comments: it's really, really hard to balance an ecosystem with units, terrain, and fortifications as complex as 40k, because not everyone plays the same way. Certain units may excel on foothills and be junk in a maze of city buildings. Those Eldar jetbikes? Garbage in an urban board where there are no straight lines exceeding 12". Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, and other Titans? Junk on a busy fortification-rich board, where there are very limited spaces that are large enough for a Titan base.


Well yes, of course it's hard. But since when is "it's too difficult" an excuse when you're talking about spending $100+ on rulebooks just to start playing the game? A good game designer accepts the difficulty and invests the required effort to make a balanced game. An incompetent rule author like GW employs says "it's too hard" and doesn't even try.

Also: does anyone really get into 40k thinking it is balanced game, cheap game or cheap hobby? If so, I pity them.


Of course they do. If you see 40k in a store and don't spend time researching its flaws you might expect it to be a balanced game, since the other games you've played have been balanced and that's what's expected in the gaming industry. Your assumption would be wrong, of course, but you might not discover that until you've already invested a lot of money.

I don't believe GW is **incapable** of better balance; I think that better balance contradicts its vision of a scifi universe in which the ancient civilizations are more powerful, and to the detriment of its corporate bottom line (because it's a customer losing position), it keeps these factions in alignment with their fluff.


Then why do they keep getting units so badly wrong in ways that don't fit that concept? Some units from the "advanced ancient civilizations" are so weak that nobody ever uses them, while units from the "weaker" civilizations are blatantly overpowered. Remember the good old days of "leafblower" IG and the army of WWI tanks wiping "advanced civilizations" off the table in 2-3 turns of shooting?

The more likely explanation here is that GW simply doesn't care about writing good rules. If the rule author for the new Eldar codex gets a bit too excited and gives them D-weapons everywhere then that's what the final version is going to be. Nobody is going to playtest it and catch the mistake, because the rules don't matter.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

Check the GW homepage.
In former days, there was a button ''Gaming''.
It has been replaced by ''Painting and Modeling''.
The gaming aspect plays obviously no longer a dominating role.
They want to reach collectors, painters and modelers.
But collectors collects usually just one item of each unit.
No spamming which is quite common for players.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/13 07:54:28


Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's much more skirmishy too, because other than list creation, every model is its own unit in the game; no unit cohesion, you can deploy them anywhere you want, they shoot separately, et cetera.

since new eldar dex it is more or less unplayable. no one can beat an army of jetbikes, when melee is out of the option and they outshot everything else, while points limits remove the option of surviving their shoting as an option to win a game.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




Matlacha, FL

 wuestenfux wrote:
Check the GW homepage.
In former days, there was a button ''Gaming''.
It has been replaced by ''Painting and Modeling''.
The gaming aspect plays obviously no longer a dominating role.
They want to reach collectors, painters and modelers.
But collectors collects usually just one item of each unit.
No spamming which is quite common for players.


Also, competitive players change up their list frequently. I bought $400 just in models when the new eldar codex came out. A collector could've bought the new release bundle and been happy. Competitive players are always going to be more profitable than casual players in any game.

Roll Tide! Beat everyone!  
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Toofast wrote:
Competitive players are always going to be more profitable than casual players in any game.


Not necessarily. Competitive MTG players rarely buy cards outside of the secondary market, while casual players are more likely to impulse buy some random packs. And competitive X-Wing players are only going to buy the best ships with specific lists in mind, while casual players are more likely to do things like buy 150 points of x-wings to make their fluffy "rogue squadron" list. Even in 40k the "competitive players are more profitable than casual players" rule isn't necessarily true, since a casual player who builds a 50,000 point Apocalypse army is going to spend way more than a competitive player who never plays above 1850.

The better rule would be the following: in a game like 40k painters are less profitable than casual players since they just want one of each thing for their display shelf and are less likely to buy whole armies.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Peregrine wrote:
The better rule would be the following: in a game like 40k painters are less profitable than casual players since they just want one of each thing for their display shelf and are less likely to buy whole armies.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules. Painters sometimes paint whole armies, and are just as likely to blow thousands on stuff like forgeworld. I think painters, gamers, and collectors are all equally addicted to plastic crack, and will (generally speaking) buy as much as they can afford, which will obviously depend on their situation.

I think the important point was that gamers do spend money, and represent a significant portion of the customer base (especially for things like rules). They don't deserve to be forgotten about.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/13 09:40:19


 
   
Made in us
Cog in the Machine




Missouri

 Smacks wrote:
I had an idea a while ago that GW could include some "fixed" army lists for each race, as an alternative game "mode" to unbound. The lists would specify exactly what units and weapons make up the force, with very few options for customization. The idea being that each "fixed" list could be playtested and balanced in a more controlled way, then be "approved" for tournament play against other fixed lists (regardless of the actual points value).

While it sounds oppressive at first, it would have a lot of great benefits.

1: It would be much easier for the developers to balance (rather than trying to balance the whole game unbound, which might not even be possible).
2 It would make life much easier for tournament organizers, and for pick up gamers.
3: It would allow every race, and a much greater variety of units to be viable at a tournament level. Since every faction would have at least one (but possibly many) approved lists.
4: It would take some of the heavy focus off "list building" in strategy discussions, and get people talking about how to actually deploy and maneuver with each army.
5: It would allow players and TOs to be much more familiar with the rules and capabilities of each army. (harder to cheat)
6: It would be good for new players, since they could collect a list that includes models they like, without having to worry about it sucking.
7: It might encourage greater customization in terms of painting and modeling, as people look for new ways to make their army "unique".
8: It would remove barriers for new players (and some old) to get into the competitive scene, as they won't get instagibed by some cheese list in the first round.
9: We might see a lot more fluffy lists at tournaments.
X: I think it would be good for GW. I know I would be much more likely to buy a one click army, and even a second army if I knew there was a whole tournament scene built around that box.

It also wouldn't have to be the end of list building. You could still have something like "fixed list + 500pts" pick up games and tournaments, which would allow people to work in more units around a more balanced "take all comers" core. And of course for everything else there is always unbound.


This actually seems like a really cool idea. The shop I work at just started carrying 40k and we were trying to figure out how to do tournaments once we've built a player base, we might actually give this a try.

~Appear strong when you are weak and weak when you are strong~ 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






 Peregrine wrote:

The better rule would be the following: in a game like 40k painters are less profitable than casual players since they just want one of each thing for their display shelf and are less likely to buy whole armies.


That's not true. First of all, a lot of 40k painters model entire armies (they might be playable, but often they would be a horrible army). Remember that Task Force Coetz or whatever in a recent White Dwarf? It has black, red and white Taurox Primes and Scions that looked awesome (made me want to go out and buy Taurox primes... but I resisted! lol...). But also, when I model for a faction I don't play, I still do entire squads, because even in a display case, 30 painted miniatures (in the same theme) look better than 1. It just takes 30 times longer Ok, not quite, but you get the idea I stopped playing Grey Knights ages ago, but still paint up GK Purgation, Interceptor and Paladin squad models when I feel like it. I have a couple of Dreadknights and a Hellbrute on my queue that I want to get around to, but I will probably never play them. They just look cool, and it's not like the next two will be modelled identically to the last two.

Plus, I almost never field a Stormraven, anymore, yet I have 5 now - 1 GK, 1 Ultramarine, 3 Blood Angels -- and I'm working on a 4th BA one. I will admit that I have the 3 BA Stormravens for Angel's Fury, which I played like, twice, but there is no gaming reason for #4, other than just wanting to model one in a different way. It's not like my other 3 are awful or rush jobs. Drop pods -- I can't count how many I have in different paint schemes -- and Rhino-chassis vehicles, I keep painting those up to add to my collection, too.

I also paint up cheap Space Marines models (clearance, snapfit, etc.) sometimes just to see what a paint scheme would look like. The model might never even get finished; just painted partway so that I can get an idea of what colors look like on plastic, or what a different highlight would achieve -- without using it on a "real" model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Smacks wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
The better rule would be the following: in a game like 40k painters are less profitable than casual players since they just want one of each thing for their display shelf and are less likely to buy whole armies.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules. Painters sometimes paint whole armies, and are just as likely to blow thousands on stuff like forgeworld. I think painters, gamers, and collectors are all equally addicted to plastic crack, and will (generally speaking) buy as much as they can afford, which will obviously depend on their situation.

I think the important point was that gamers do spend money, and represent a significant portion of the customer base (especially for things like rules). They don't deserve to be forgotten about.



Yes, this

And, as has been pointed out by MWHistorian, a more balanced game does not harm anyone, including people to whom hobby is more important. It's not like the guy sculpting models has to take a break to go and help the guy writing the codex, right?

But anyhow, I think it's all wishful thinking. 40k was not, is not, and probably never will be a balanced wargame You can hope for it, pray for it, hate GW for it... I doubt it will change. We have 25+ years of history and 7 editions of a game that seem to indicate that.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/13 22:26:53


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Runnin up on ya.

 Smacks wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
The better rule would be the following: in a game like 40k painters are less profitable than casual players since they just want one of each thing for their display shelf and are less likely to buy whole armies.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules. Painters sometimes paint whole armies, and are just as likely to blow thousands on stuff like forgeworld. I think painters, gamers, and collectors are all equally addicted to plastic crack, and will (generally speaking) buy as much as they can afford, which will obviously depend on their situation.

I think the important point was that gamers do spend money, and represent a significant portion of the customer base (especially for things like rules). They don't deserve to be forgotten about.




A valid observation but it begs the question; why would a company knowingly reduce the attractiveness of its product to the wider market in order to cater to the whims of a smaller market? If you're gearing your entire business model to satisfy collectors and modelers while generating shoddy rules that push away an arguably larger gaming segment of the consumer base, you're going to lose market share and revenue. GW's last few years' financial records strongly indicate that the company can not functionally depend upon modelers and collectors for their business; as unhappy gamers walk away as a result of shoddy rules writing and an increased market presence of more viable options, revenue has declined at a fairly brisk pace. Yes, GW is factually making money but it's only through cost-cutting measures and to be quite honest, there isn't any fat left to trim and at a much lower rate than would be possible were they to actively support and promote their "game" products.

It continues to boggle me why they're leaving money on the table and, what's worse, letting existing revenue streams decline and die off as they ignore the game. I think that GW realizes that they're losing money and in danger of losing their spot as top-dog in the miniature wargamming marketplace, this is evidenced by the greatly increased release cycle, but they continue to show that the people running the company have no idea how to actually expand marketshare and seem to be just "throwing poop at the wall and hoping something sticks." I think 7th edition made some positive changes to the game but it was released too soon and with zero communication to the consumer so it disaffected a not insubstantial population or previously happy spenders (or only mildly disgruntled). This compounded with their continued silence on future releases fails to generate any buzz in the community (boards like Dakka are a microcosm); people just walk into a store one week and find out that their army is completely invalidated or seriously compromised and then walk away rather than spend several hundred dollars more in order to stay competitive in the local meta. They've become completely dependent upon White Dwarf as their marketing vehicle and then they only let people know what's coming a week in advance; this is practically unheard of in the wargaming industry or anywhere else for that matter.

Just a few thoughts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Talys wrote:

Yes, this

And, as has been pointed out by MWHistorian, a more balanced game does not harm anyone, including people to whom hobby is more important. It's not like the guy sculpting models has to take a break to go and help the guy writing the codex, right?

But anyhow, I think it's all wishful thinking. 40k was not, is not, and probably never will be a balanced wargame You can hope for it, pray for it, hate GW for it... I doubt it will change. We have 25+ years of history and 7 editions of a game that seem to indicate that.


Well, that's alright then. If we assume that GW has basically thrown in the towel when it comes to rules writing then the fact is that they'll continue to decline in marketshare and revenue until they become what upper management seems to desire, a boutique model company that happens to have some shoddy, thrown-together rules in case you need a reason to put your pretty models on a table...you know to display them and share them with your friends. Other games systems are growing marketshare at an accelerated rate and as more people who are interested in something beyond a grim-dark universe full of tired fantasy and sci-fi tropes but attached to a great collection of models, you'll continue to see GW shrink into obscurity.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/14 12:45:13


Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




It continues to boggle me why they're leaving money on the table and, what's worse, letting existing revenue streams decline and die off as they ignore the game. I think that GW realizes that they're losing money and in danger of losing their spot as top-dog in the miniature wargamming marketplace, this is evidenced by the greatly increased release cycle, but they continue to show that the people running the company have no idea how to actually expand marketshare and seem to be just "throwing poop at the wall and hoping something sticks." I think 7th edition made some positive changes to the game but it was released too soon and with zero communication to the consumer so it disaffected a not insubstantial population or previously happy spenders (or only mildly disgruntled). This compounded with their continued silence on future releases fails to generate any buzz in the community (boards like Dakka are a microcosm); people just walk into a store one week and find out that their army is completely invalidated or seriously compromised and then walk away rather than spend several hundred dollars more in order to stay competitive in the local meta. They've become completely dependent upon White Dwarf as their marketing vehicle and then they only let people know what's coming a week in advance; this is practically unheard of in the wargaming industry or anywhere else for that matter.

It could be two things. The owner is old, so maybe he doesn't care what happens in 5 or 10 years, or what was going on the last two editons, He just wanted to cash in as much as he could from a fairly good brand. The other option would be that somewhere in GW HQ, someone decided that warham is going to be a ferrari. Not a game, games are for kids. It is a hobby, and as far as a hobby cost goes, man can spend ton of cash on a pice of paper. So maybe their goal is to have single kits costing 200 or 300$+, and hope that they somehow lure in the collectors, and that those someone won't buy recasts, because who in their right mind would show off a fiat panda with a ferrari bodywork.

But anyhow, I think it's all wishful thinking. 40k was not, is not, and probably never will be a balanced wargame

But why can't it be at least fun, like it was in 5th or start of 6th ed ?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/14 14:01:56


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Runnin up on ya.

Makumba wrote:

It could be two things. The owner is old, so maybe he doesn't care what happens in 5 or 10 years, or what was going on the last two editons, He just wanted to cash in as much as he could from a fairly good brand. The other option would be that somewhere in GW HQ, someone decided that warham is going to be a ferrari. Not a game, games are for kids. It is a hobby, and as far as a hobby cost goes, man can spend ton of cash on a pice of paper. So maybe their goal is to have single kits costing 200 or 300$+, and hope that they somehow lure in the collectors, and that those someone won't buy recasts, because who in their right mind would show off a fiat panda with a ferrari bodywork.


I think that you're partially correct. Kirby is very good at manipulating numbers on paper to have kept GW in the black while they're hemorrhaging sales volume year on year. It actually speaks volumes that he's thus far been able to turn a situation that could easily have resulted in the implosion of the company into a sort of controlled dive. That said, he is old and very proud of being out of touch with consumers; one need only read his Chairman preambles to get a feel for how he feels about his customers.

One of the real problems that GW will have to address if they want to survive as a company for much longer is the current identity crisis that they're exhibiting. Some in higher management state that they're in the business of selling toys to kids but others like Kirby constantly compare the company to Apple and state that they're a collectible, boutique miniatures company. You can't be both, unless of course there are so many more rich kids in the UK than there are in every other country willing to throw hundreds of dollars down on analog products when 99% of the younger generation only care about digital products. It's interesting to watch the slow death of a company that I've cared a bit about over the years; I've owned a fair amount of stock off and on and even corresponded with Kirby and Wells on occasion. I had planned to attend an annual shareholders meeting at some point but sold my stock last year when the stock tanked; it's rebounded quite nicely since but it's sitting at an unsustainably high level right now which leads me to believe that one of the institutional investors is maneuvering to take in a big chunk with the next dividend and then sell off a fair amount of shares later.

Like I said, interesting; I'll be watching and I might swoop in when the stock inevitably tanks again and buy again if I feel that they're still in a position to continue paying out dividends and recover. I fully expect the next financial report to show a small uptick in sales since it will represent an established accelerated release schedule. If I'm wrong, and sales volume continues to slump, I'll not buy a single share because at that point GW will most certainly be in a death spiral that will more than likely see them out of business in 3-5 years. Time will tell and there's always a great deal that can happen to pull themselves out, if they have the will to do so.

Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do 
   
Made in us
Smokin' Skorcha Driver





Honestly, this was the big reason for my exodus years ago. I just couldn't stand the lack of competitive support. WIth the outdated release schedule, and total imbalance in the tournament scene, it was enough to call it quits.

I do want to point out....GW is basically second to none in quality of their miniatures, it's for this reason alone I might be coming back in....just not as a competitive player, I have other systems for that now.


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter




Seattle

Not anymore. Once upon a time, yes, GW had the best miniatures on the market, bar none... but that hasn't been true for several years now.

It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. 
   
Made in gb
Instigating Incubi




The dark behind the eyes.

The other issue is that GW doesn't just charge high prices for quality models - they also charge extortionate prices even for their poor quality ones.

Worse still they charge premium prices for models that bar required en massse.

I mean, their potatoe-faced guardsmen are, what, about £18 for 10 models? And you'll need 50 of them for a mere 2 infantry platoons.

Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"



 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Don't worry. If somebody is playing Unbound, just ask them politely not to bring too many crazy stuffs.

If somebody plays Necron with Decurion though, tell them to feth off.
   
Made in gb
Instigating Incubi




The dark behind the eyes.

Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"



 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

bibotot wrote:


If somebody plays Necron with Decurion though, tell them to feth off.


That's a healthy attitude to have.

*Edit* I swear to all that is good and fluffy, if one more person ninja's me by less than 30secs, I will find you and downgrade your internet.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/14 18:23:40


Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

I laughed way too hard at this.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




bibotot wrote:
Don't worry. If somebody is playing Unbound, just ask them politely not to bring too many crazy stuffs.

If somebody plays Necron with Decurion though, tell them to feth off.

yeah, because that works. What next forcing people to let you use FW, because your army doesn't work wihtout it ?
   
Made in us
Cog in the Machine




Missouri

Makumba wrote:
bibotot wrote:
Don't worry. If somebody is playing Unbound, just ask them politely not to bring too many crazy stuffs.

If somebody plays Necron with Decurion though, tell them to feth off.

yeah, because that works. What next forcing people to let you use FW, because your army doesn't work wihtout it ?


I would just politely remind people that it's a game and games are supposed to be enjoyable for all players.

~Appear strong when you are weak and weak when you are strong~ 
   
Made in us
Frenzied Juggernaut





Colorado

There seems to be a lot of crying about now, and a lot less keeping head up and eyes forward.

DO YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THIS GAME.

Forge world is making a Warlord titan... guys, this is the direction GW is going. Bigger, no, le, even Titanic.....

Point is you cant balance it yet because they havent made the Imperator or the Emperor model.

37,500 pts Daemon Army of the Gods

35,000 pts - X - Iron Tenth

15,000pts - Firehawks

7,000 pts - Nighthaunt

Dkok - 1850
 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
There seems to be a lot of crying about now, and a lot less keeping head up and eyes forward.

DO YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THIS GAME.

Forge world is making a Warlord titan... guys, this is the direction GW is going. Bigger, no, le, even Titanic.....

Point is you cant balance it yet because they havent made the Imperator or the Emperor model.

that makes no sense.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in us
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Devon, UK

Don't drink and type people!

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in us
Frenzied Juggernaut





Colorado

Azreal13 wrote:Don't drink and type people!


My bad, got a little to blazed. Made sense in my head. Damn you Colorado


MWHistorian wrote:
 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
There seems to be a lot of crying about now, and a lot less keeping head up and eyes forward.

DO YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THIS GAME.

Forge world is making a Warlord titan... guys, this is the direction GW is going. Bigger, no, le, even Titanic.....

Point is you cant balance it yet because they havent made the Imperator or the Emperor model.

that makes no sense.



What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally. The size of the game is expanding and with it boundaries for rules will be blown out. With the release of new models such as the better knights, gargantuan creatures, and the Warlord, we will see new swings in "balance". I think they (GW and FW) are going to let things settle after they drop all these heavy additions, then figure out balance and game play. Models and money first, then gameplay second.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/15 02:32:48


37,500 pts Daemon Army of the Gods

35,000 pts - X - Iron Tenth

15,000pts - Firehawks

7,000 pts - Nighthaunt

Dkok - 1850
 
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre






Interesting concept, except GW has never once in the history of 40k put out a balanced rule set, hoping they'll fix it after they blow it up is foolish, he'll it's been multiple editions and they don't seem to realize a Tactical Terminater is not worth 40pts.

I mean, they had like a six book consecutive run before Necron that was solid...l and then they ruined Necron with Decurian... And went another step further with Eldar...

40k is 100% Skill +/- 50% Luck

Zagman's 40k Balance Errata 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe






that makes no sense.



What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally. The size of the game is expanding and with it boundaries for rules will be blown out. With the release of new models such as the better knights, gargantuan creatures, and the Warlord, we will see new swings in "balance". I think they (GW and FW) are going to let things settle after they drop all these heavy additions, then figure out balance and game play. Models and money first, then gameplay second.





I understood what you meant, I mean that your theory makes no sense. They have had gargantuan things in the game for a while and they've never attempted to balance it before.
People thought that balance was going to be leveled out with 7th edition. We saw what happened with that with Necrons and Eldar. People keep saying "wait and GW will fix it." They never do.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Toronto

With GW throwing around their IP license to pretty much every dick and jane with a development studio, I'm sort of shocked that they haven't just outsourced rules writing to other game companies.
How much of a swing would it really be to just get Fantasy Flight to handle all of the codexes and actual mechanical rules, and just have GW handle all the miniature business like they really want. FF writes great rules. They write a LOT of rules. They write a LOT of 40k rules. There's like 200 dark heresy books. Just do the same thing with codexes, and put pictures of citidel minis in them. Or at least partner up with their rules staff for the nuts and bolts and do joint-published books.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/15 06:17:44


   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: