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.

I have a suggestion for balancing. A modified form of the campaign book.

Each year they would release a campaign book. The campaign book would be some specific story setting. It would include formations for every army. Playing the campaign would require you to follow the formations presented. This would (hopefully) make it easier for them to balance them. every formation would have a couple "extra" slots you could slide in things not otherwise allowed, for straight point cost.

All armies would be presented, even the ones not actively participating in the story. The extra would be a "if they suddenly dropped in" option to the existing storyline. Each year they could release a new limited edition campaign book and a set of limited edition models relating directly to that setting. They'd be able to craft more balance into the formation options as they went, based on feedback.

I'd also suggest they go over the main rules set with a hatchet, because it is one bloated mess. Very hard to learn in my opinion. But I do think most of the trouble comes from army special rules.

Rosebuddy wrote:
What the feth is it with people who read "I'd like balanced rules" and think that this means that every single choice of unit and upgrade should be equally viable in all situations and combinations? Nobody means that! Everyone uses "balanced" to mean a system where there isn't a single overwhelming game tactic and that allows for multiple approaches that do decently enough. So a balanced game wouldn't have shooting-based eldar dominate utterly but would allow for every faction to have a couple of combat styles that, while they might have their good and bad match-ups to varying degrees, are reasonable choices. Nobody asks for perfect, just close enough.

A thousand times yes to this. And it wouldn't be that hard...being 5-10 pts off is better than being 25-100 pts off (cough cough Eldar).

 argonak wrote:
I'd also suggest they go over the main rules set with a hatchet, because it is one bloated mess. Very hard to learn in my opinion. But I do think most of the trouble comes from army special rules.

What the designers need to do is be willing to say "ok, this rule is close enough for fluff purposes" rather than "this trait requires an entirely new rule cause it's ever-so-slightly different than Rage!"

I would go fully digital and make the rule book a living document that would be constantly tweaked and rebalanced as issues are discovered.

Find a way to lower the prices and be more open to allowing retailers to sell what they want and how they want. The investment for a store to start holding GW products is way too high for a small store. As it is, the community has to somehow arrive before the product and that just doesn't work out very often.

WoW is a gak show compared to Starcraft because they don't have a set hierarchy of which class should be best at what. Furthermore, they try to balance PvP and PvE which is a mistake.

Even still, I'd take Blizzard's attempts over GW's any day.

BA are already space marines nerfed by 25% (actually more in practice)

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I would go fully digital and make the rule book a living document that would be constantly tweaked and rebalanced as issues are discovered.

I wished they would just google doc that lols!