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.

tag8833 wrote:
I've always doubted that they use the rules to sell models, because frequently brand new models suck. For instance, the Maleceptor is the worst unit available to any army, and a new model this edition. Another example is the Gortkanaunt and Morkanaunt. Fabulous models. Insane price. Crappy rules.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
- Poor Math Skills : is more than clear now that many people in the team have a very poor grasp of probability and statistics. Many monsters are underpriced because the designer did not get the basic math behind the chance to hit, wound, and saves. Think about the Riptide. Jeremy Vetock cannot do math, full stop. He has to go back. In school.

On the Twitch Feed Yesterday this was fairly obvious. Simon Grant the rules writer behind Fall of Cadia, and Wrath of Magnus said he isn't a "Math Guy", and at one points asked if anyone in the chat was good at math and statistics.

Some other things we learned. The entire rules team for all game systems is 5 people. Those 5 people are given instructions by the model design group, and the narrative writing group, and Jervis Johnson is the supervisor.

The do do playtesting, but implied that they used houserules while playtesting. He spoke about the 1st tests of Magnus the Red having set the points at 450, only to find that he killed more than that in 2 turns.

Simon Grant appeared a bit more comfortable discussing Age of Sigmar.

The interview was heavily steered away from detailed process discussion, and a night and day contrast to the Heavy Metal interview that followed which discussed process in detail.

I see, so the model design group does tell the rules writers what to do.
That explains a lot of the problems. That is not a particularly logical way of designing a game.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
I've always doubted that they use the rules to sell models, because frequently brand new models suck. For instance, the Maleceptor is the worst unit available to any army, and a new model this edition. Another example is the Gortkanaunt and Morkanaunt. Fabulous models. Insane price. Crappy rules.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
- Poor Math Skills : is more than clear now that many people in the team have a very poor grasp of probability and statistics. Many monsters are underpriced because the designer did not get the basic math behind the chance to hit, wound, and saves. Think about the Riptide. Jeremy Vetock cannot do math, full stop. He has to go back. In school.

On the Twitch Feed Yesterday this was fairly obvious. Simon Grant the rules writer behind Fall of Cadia, and Wrath of Magnus said he isn't a "Math Guy", and at one points asked if anyone in the chat was good at math and statistics.

Some other things we learned. The entire rules team for all game systems is 5 people. Those 5 people are given instructions by the model design group, and the narrative writing group, and Jervis Johnson is the supervisor.

The do do playtesting, but implied that they used houserules while playtesting. He spoke about the 1st tests of Magnus the Red having set the points at 450, only to find that he killed more than that in 2 turns.

Simon Grant appeared a bit more comfortable discussing Age of Sigmar.

The interview was heavily steered away from detailed process discussion, and a night and day contrast to the Heavy Metal interview that followed which discussed process in detail.

I see, so the model design group does tell the rules writers what to do.
That explains a lot of the problems. That is not a particularly logical way of designing a game.

Yeah, they are like "We made this new Tau model its a giant robot suit with big guns" and the design team need to make it fit into the game. From what I've heard/read elsewhere, the design team has zero input into this. The model is made before it ever has rules, with only thought to how it looks/how it will sell, and it's up to the rules guys to "make it work".

Wayniac wrote:
2) The model is designed before rules and then just handed to the designers and told "Here make rules for this", which is fundamentally wrong to a game (see below) since the model is designed without regard for how it plays in the game, and then the rules need to be warped to fit how the model looks e.g. if a model has a huge gun, the rules need to reflect a huge gun, so rules tend to appear ad hoc.

I don't think this is a real problem at all. A rules writer can easily balance this work flow process and still create useful rules.

It wasn't new models that broke warp spiders. It wasn't new models that broke Wraith Knights. The new models for jetbikes would have been fine if scatter lasers were correctly pointed. The psychic phase is a mess, and that has nothing to do with models. Gladius doesn't give out excessive formation buffs because of new models.

I hear this over and over again, and I just don't see where this counter-intuitive myth originates. Is it the designers themselves making excuses? Give yourself a little exercise. Take a Warmachine model and write rules for it to be used in your 40K army. Does it feel like the fact that you didn't get to design the model means that you can't write good rules?

 Kanluwen wrote:
6) At some point through the lifespan of 7th edition(purportedly, it was when they started working towards the Tau books, they didn't want to put out a full Codex Update without doing a full Codex rewrite and instead they just added in the new campaign material as a stopgap measure with the reprints of the Tau book) they decided it was a lameduck and rather than fully update the books and adjust points and other necessary changes, they would just do add some new bits and bobs and release the material they already had done until 8th.

And yet still, with much less ambitious objectives, they didn't improve their quality control or rules design.

I'm not expecting them to fix their previous mistakes. I'm expecting them to stop making new ones. Instead we have new ones that are much more obvious, and cavalier than the old ones. The mistakes keep getting made, and harder, and harder to justify without a rules design process that has non-workable procedures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Different rules writers. Each with their own ideas of what is balanced, internally & externally.

I am a software designer. I work alongside other software designers, and we frequently release products that interact with one another. Just because we are different people doesn't mean that our products don't work together. We have built in training, procedures, and quality control to ensure that they do.

My guess is that the GW procedures are poorly developed, and ad hoc, and obviously their quality control process is unacceptably bad. Their project management skills are lacking, because of poor leadership and supervision.

Adding more people to a team raises the stakes for management, but if the team isn't achieving the desired results, the blame is on the management, not the team.

tag8833 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Different rules writers. Each with their own ideas of what is balanced, internally & externally.

I am a software designer. I work alongside other software designers, and we frequently release products that interact with one another. Just because we are different people doesn't mean that our products don't work together. We have built in training, procedures, and quality control to ensure that they do.

My guess is that the GW procedures are poorly developed, and ad hoc, and obviously their quality control process is unacceptably bad. Their project management skills are lacking, because of poor leadership and supervision.

Adding more people to a team raises the stakes for management, but if the team isn't achieving the desired results, the blame is on the management, not the team.

The difference between design of a dice game and software is that software HAS to work together. Otherwise it just doesn't work.
I can write the rules for codex:Lizardmen in Space right now and I do not need any information about a codex you are writing. I only need to adhere to the basic rules.
So when my codex is released, it may be good for a month or so, but if you & I do not discuss our rules together first, your codex could come out later and make mine worthless.

I expect that the rules team do indeed talk with each other about the stuff they are writing, but since it is not a necessary part of the process to get the product finished, it is like you said: the project management does not place any value on it.

-

tag8833 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
2) The model is designed before rules and then just handed to the designers and told "Here make rules for this", which is fundamentally wrong to a game (see below) since the model is designed without regard for how it plays in the game, and then the rules need to be warped to fit how the model looks e.g. if a model has a huge gun, the rules need to reflect a huge gun, so rules tend to appear ad hoc.

I don't think this is a real problem at all. A rules writer can easily balance this work flow process and still create useful rules.

It doesn't help though. They have to shoehorn in a model into a game that doesn't need it. Its compounded by the fact that they aren't particularly talented to begin with.
A brilliant rules writer might be able to shoehorn in a model in such a way that it somehow fits, in the same way that a master chef might be able to incorporate a turnip into a sweet cake. These are not brilliant writers.

I'd argue that the free vehicles in gladius is marketing's doing, not the rule's team. They probably told them to come up with a way to increase space marine transport sales.
I suspect the formation rules as a whole is to marketing, really.

tag8833 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
2) The model is designed before rules and then just handed to the designers and told "Here make rules for this", which is fundamentally wrong to a game (see below) since the model is designed without regard for how it plays in the game, and then the rules need to be warped to fit how the model looks e.g. if a model has a huge gun, the rules need to reflect a huge gun, so rules tend to appear ad hoc.

I don't think this is a real problem at all. A rules writer can easily balance this work flow process and still create useful rules.

It wasn't new models that broke warp spiders. It wasn't new models that broke Wraith Knights. The new models for jetbikes would have been fine if scatter lasers were correctly pointed. The psychic phase is a mess, and that has nothing to do with models. Gladius doesn't give out excessive formation buffs because of new models.

I hear this over and over again, and I just don't see where this counter-intuitive myth originates. Is it the designers themselves making excuses? Give yourself a little exercise. Take a Warmachine model and write rules for it to be used in your 40K army. Does it feel like the fact that you didn't get to design the model means that you can't write good rules?

I think the main problem that is pointed out here is when stuff is created that doesn't fit inside the current rules, like the big Models (Knights etc). Thats when problems start occuring. On the one hand such models should need their own rules to represent them fairly, on the other this models change the landscape for all the other models and thus the balancing (for example Knight only armies). So yeah it can be a problem when models are created without regard to the rules.

 Galef wrote:
Different rules writers. Each with their own ideas of what is balanced, internally & externally.

I am a software designer. I work alongside other software designers, and we frequently release products that interact with one another. Just because we are different people doesn't mean that our products don't work together. We have built in training, procedures, and quality control to ensure that they do.

But for this to work you need a general design choices, if everything is possible chaos is the result. In your software design you set certain rules up to make sure everybody is on the same page, for the most important stuff like programing language, interfaces , frameworks etc.. Without it stuff will start burning (like 40k rules), because everyone has different view on matters that should be the same with everyone, which results in even more chaos.

Blaming players has never worked and will never work. Players are not being paid to balance the game. Game writers are.

Just to reiterate, the imbalance is due to no single cohesive vision for the game.

Game writers are given different projects to work on with no obligation to share and discuss with other writers working on other projects.
This seems to be getting better lately, but we still have so many holdovers from previous editions that we still have a long way to go. Or just AoS the game (please no)

None of the above.

tag8833 wrote:

I don't think this is a real problem at all. A rules writer can easily balance this work flow process and still create useful rules.

It wasn't new models that broke warp spiders. It wasn't new models that broke Wraith Knights. The new models for jetbikes would have been fine if scatter lasers were correctly pointed. The psychic phase is a mess, and that has nothing to do with models. Gladius doesn't give out excessive formation buffs because of new models.

I hear this over and over again, and I just don't see where this counter-intuitive myth originates. Is it the designers themselves making excuses? Give yourself a little exercise. Take a Warmachine model and write rules for it to be used in your 40K army. Does it feel like the fact that you didn't get to design the model means that you can't write good rules?

I agree with that. Is a problem of coordination, perhaps due to poor work environment, lack of management. And lack of care.
Also, how are these people hired in the first place? How can someone hired to design a game with dice, be not good with probability and statistics?
Who made this decision? They liked his face? Is the first cousin of the friend of the wife's brother? WTF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
None of the above.

And instead is....?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Setting aside the fact that GW is a model company, not a game company (despite their name indicating otherwise), there is really only 1 reason why 40K has poor balance:

Different rules writers. Each with their own ideas of what is balanced, internally & externally.

If you need a good example of this, just go pick 5 random topics in the Proposed Rules on this very forum. There is almost never a consensus on what is balanced. Sure some ideas might come close, but at least 1 person will disagree.
The GW rules writers are almost assuredly the same. They like the army they are working on and think the rules they come up with are good, cool, balanced, and/or reflective of the fluff. Some of the writers may care more about one of these factors more than the others. And often some writers have no idea what others may be working on (they may have an idea, but no specifics)

So what we end up with is a bunch of armies with wildly different "power levels" and since we, the players, assume GW has one cohesive vision (they don't, but it seems to be getting better) we blame them as a company for making an unbalanced game.

-

I see your point, but there's a difference - I have to spend most of my wake time working. Wargaming is an hobby.
We can propose rules on the forum, but we are not all in the same room playtesting and trying out lists. Furthermore, some of us could be inexperienced or just plain dishonest (i doubt, but still).

These are professionals. Fix the rules is their job. Is their job stay in the same room, discuss, and then write lists and play until it is right. This will never reach perfect balance and I think perfect balance should not be a final objective but we gathered enough evidence to think that the job these people are supposed to do is sloppy.
It happened more often than not to think "what the warp, did they played these models at least once?".
The conclusion I should draw that they are either over-worked, or passionless, and for sure the person coordinating them has very strange priorities in mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


I'd argue that the free vehicles in gladius is marketing's doing, not the rule's team. They probably told them to come up with a way to increase space marine transport sales.
I suspect the formation rules as a whole is to marketing, really.

I think that there is a component of imitation of Warmachine, like the warscrolls. But yes, probably marketing took over quite violently.

Someone's been reading too many Traditio polls

And the worst poll of the year award goes to....
Seriously this poll is horrible. : \
This is set up for a guaranteed GW bashing. The only choice we have is why we would like to hate GW. While the subject of game balance and design philosophies is quite interesting and complex. Please make a new poll if you want a decent discussion on why the power balance is the way it is.

Ok, my view of why there is poor game balance.

GW has at some point decided that the best way to sell miniatures is to give special rules for certain models/groups of models.

Alternatives they could (and in my opinion should have) used:

Develop awesome background for characters and units. I remember back in 2nd you had a box for each of the main regiments (Iron Guard, Catchans, Ice Warriors, Desert Raiders, Cadian), and I suspect most IG players had at least one of each squad. They could easily do this for each race.

Look at the Horus Heresy - in 2nd it was something that had happened in the history of the universe, people weren't interested in refighting those battles, they were too busy creating their own stories. Now with the release of the Horus Heresy Books, people are more interested in the chaos space marines (and the loyalists).

Imagine if they were producing books like that for all the different races. Bring back the Inferno Magazine in some form, and create miniatures (but not special rules) for those characters and units. Hey, do it on the web and have players vote on which unit/character they want to see next. Community involvement would go along way to make players feel invested in the game.

Continually improve the quality of their models. If they did the above, I think the designers would constantly improve the quality - they would put more effort into a model or unit that they have developed an attachment to through the fluff

 oldzoggy wrote:
And the worst poll of the year award goes to....
Seriously this poll is horrible. : \
This is set up for a guaranteed GW bashing. The only choice we have is why we would like to hate GW. While the subject of game balance and design philosophies is quite interesting and complex. Please make a new poll if you want a decent discussion on why the power balance is the way it is.

And how would you write a better poll about game balance and design philosophies? Is your objection to it that it doesn't include an option to say "7th edition is well balanced, and GW does great at balance"?

I've seen so many discussions of balance and / or lack there of on these forums, and they tend to quickly devolve into arguments over what exactly does constitute good and bad balance. I wanted a more meaningful conversations about the reasons behind things, and specifically the leading factor at play.

tag8833 wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
And the worst poll of the year award goes to....
Seriously this poll is horrible. : \
This is set up for a guaranteed GW bashing. The only choice we have is why we would like to hate GW. While the subject of game balance and design philosophies is quite interesting and complex. Please make a new poll if you want a decent discussion on why the power balance is the way it is.

And how would you write a better poll about game balance and design philosophies? Is your objection to it that it doesn't include an option to say "7th edition is well balanced, and GW does great at balance"?

I've seen so many discussions of balance and / or lack there of on these forums, and they tend to quickly devolve into arguments over what exactly does constitute good and bad balance. I wanted a more meaningful conversations about the reasons behind things, and specifically the leading factor at play.

1. You're starting out the poll by assuming everybody agrees that there is poor balance. There is no room in the poll for any dissent.

2. The language of the poll is lacking in nuance, instead it's arguably inflammatory.

So don't expect reasoned debate, expect an echochamber of anti GW rage.

Merely days ago we had a poll about overall satisfaction with GW/40K, and the most ticked response by far was "mostly satisfied". So right out of the gate your poll is ignoring more than half of the community. Granted, some of those who are "mostly satisfied" might still think there is imbalance, but again, the language of "Stupid, evil, or disinterested" isn't conducive to nuance.

 Insectum7 wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
And the worst poll of the year award goes to....
Seriously this poll is horrible. : \
This is set up for a guaranteed GW bashing. The only choice we have is why we would like to hate GW. While the subject of game balance and design philosophies is quite interesting and complex. Please make a new poll if you want a decent discussion on why the power balance is the way it is.

And how would you write a better poll about game balance and design philosophies? Is your objection to it that it doesn't include an option to say "7th edition is well balanced, and GW does great at balance"?

I've seen so many discussions of balance and / or lack there of on these forums, and they tend to quickly devolve into arguments over what exactly does constitute good and bad balance. I wanted a more meaningful conversations about the reasons behind things, and specifically the leading factor at play.

1. You're starting out the poll by assuming everybody agrees that there is poor balance. There is no room in the poll for any dissent.

2. The language of the poll is lacking in nuance, instead it's arguably inflammatory.

So don't expect reasoned debate, expect an echochamber of anti GW rage.

Merely days ago we had a poll about overall satisfaction with GW/40K, and the most ticked response by far was "mostly satisfied". So right out of the gate your poll is ignoring more than half of the community. Granted, some of those who are "mostly satisfied" might still think there is imbalance, but again, the language of "Stupid, evil, or disinterested" isn't conducive to nuance.

Insectum you are right about the poll - I jumped at it with all my hate (I did not listen Master Yoda) and this poll should indeed include a positive option.

Nonetheless, if you are talking bout this poll

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/713799.page

In the very moment I am posting is:

Are you satisfied with the current state of 40k?
I am not satisfied with the current state of 40k and have quit playing. 22% [ 21 ]
I am not satisfied with the current state of 40k and I am considering quitting. 9% [ 9 ]
I am not satisfied with the current state of 40k, but not dissatisfied enough to consider quitting. 33% [ 31 ]
I am satisfied with the current state of 40k. 36% [ 34 ]
Total Votes : 95

Out of 95 votes, 61 are dissatisfied, just 50% of this 61 is not enough satisfied to quit. So I see the bias is not unilateral. Unless you are talking bout another poll, my apologies in case.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
And the worst poll of the year award goes to....
Seriously this poll is horrible. : \
This is set up for a guaranteed GW bashing. The only choice we have is why we would like to hate GW. While the subject of game balance and design philosophies is quite interesting and complex. Please make a new poll if you want a decent discussion on why the power balance is the way it is.

And how would you write a better poll about game balance and design philosophies? Is your objection to it that it doesn't include an option to say "7th edition is well balanced, and GW does great at balance"?

I've seen so many discussions of balance and / or lack there of on these forums, and they tend to quickly devolve into arguments over what exactly does constitute good and bad balance. I wanted a more meaningful conversations about the reasons behind things, and specifically the leading factor at play.

1. You're starting out the poll by assuming everybody agrees that there is poor balance. There is no room in the poll for any dissent.

2. The language of the poll is lacking in nuance, instead it's arguably inflammatory.

So don't expect reasoned debate, expect an echochamber of anti GW rage.

Merely days ago we had a poll about overall satisfaction with GW/40K, and the most ticked response by far was "mostly satisfied". So right out of the gate your poll is ignoring more than half of the community. Granted, some of those who are "mostly satisfied" might still think there is imbalance, but again, the language of "Stupid, evil, or disinterested" isn't conducive to nuance.

Insectum you are right about the poll - I jumped at it with all my hate (I did not listen Master Yoda) and this poll should indeed include a positive option.

Nonetheless, if you are talking bout this poll

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/713799.page

In the very moment I am posting is:

Are you satisfied with the current state of 40k?
I am not satisfied with the current state of 40k and have quit playing. 22% [ 21 ]
I am not satisfied with the current state of 40k and I am considering quitting. 9% [ 9 ]
I am not satisfied with the current state of 40k, but not dissatisfied enough to consider quitting. 33% [ 31 ]
I am satisfied with the current state of 40k. 36% [ 34 ]
Total Votes : 95

Out of 95 votes, 61 are dissatisfied, just 50% of this 61 is not enough satisfied to quit. So I see the bias is not unilateral. Unless you are talking bout another poll, my apologies in case.

I'm sure he's actually referring to this poll:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/713826.page

It was create in response to the bias in Traditio's poll

 Insectum7 wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
And the worst poll of the year award goes to....
Seriously this poll is horrible. : \
This is set up for a guaranteed GW bashing. The only choice we have is why we would like to hate GW. While the subject of game balance and design philosophies is quite interesting and complex. Please make a new poll if you want a decent discussion on why the power balance is the way it is.

And how would you write a better poll about game balance and design philosophies? Is your objection to it that it doesn't include an option to say "7th edition is well balanced, and GW does great at balance"?

I've seen so many discussions of balance and / or lack there of on these forums, and they tend to quickly devolve into arguments over what exactly does constitute good and bad balance. I wanted a more meaningful conversations about the reasons behind things, and specifically the leading factor at play.

1. You're starting out the poll by assuming everybody agrees that there is poor balance. There is no room in the poll for any dissent.

2. The language of the poll is lacking in nuance, instead it's arguably inflammatory.

So don't expect reasoned debate, expect an echochamber of anti GW rage.

Merely days ago we had a poll about overall satisfaction with GW/40K, and the most ticked response by far was "mostly satisfied". So right out of the gate your poll is ignoring more than half of the community. Granted, some of those who are "mostly satisfied" might still think there is imbalance, but again, the language of "Stupid, evil, or disinterested" isn't conducive to nuance.

The game has both IG and BA and Eldar and Tau. It's not even close to balanced. I know you have your convoluted reasons why that's not the case, but it is.

 EnTyme wrote:

I'm sure he's actually referring to this poll:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/713826.page

It was create in response to the bias in Traditio's poll

That's the one!

Martel732 wrote:

The game has both IG and BA and Eldar and Tau. It's not even close to balanced. I know you have your convoluted reasons why that's not the case, but it is.

You are welcome to your opinion. But just because your opinion is different than mine, doesn't mean. . .

A: Mine is wrong

But more importantly B: That I don't exist.

You like to bring a lot of unused units into the discussion. So it's a big point of view problem.

Martel732 wrote:
You like to bring a lot of unused units into the discussion. So it's a big point of view problem.

Is this really where you're going with this? My opinions are invalid because I have a different experience than you?

Invalid is too strong. I just think you are overlooking the fact that there is no mechanic preventing people from reducing the Eldar codex to four units. That fact objectively disbalances the situation. Allowing people unrestricted access to mathematically unbalanced units is an unbalanced situation.

My answer is B, with the incompetence being "design by committee" alongside isolation.

If GW writes rules to sell models, there are a lot of "new units" that show the exact opposite result. The Maleceptor alone shows that new kits don't necessarily mean OP rules, or even functional rules. Not to mention the new Rubric Marines.

I blame a combination of 'ask your opponent' and fluff.

'Ask your opponent' has to die as a rules philosophy if you want to build an actually balanced game.

Then fluff rules like split that are made with an eye to the fiction and not the tabletop compound things and make them worse.

ERJAK wrote:
I blame a combination of 'ask your opponent' and fluff.

'Ask your opponent' has to die as a rules philosophy if you want to build an actually balanced game.

Then fluff rules like split that are made with an eye to the fiction and not the tabletop compound things and make them worse.

Because your opponent is usually in the business of making you pick your models up.

Martel732 wrote:
Invalid is too strong. I just think you are overlooking the fact that there is no mechanic preventing people from reducing the Eldar codex to four units. That fact objectively disbalances the situation. Allowing people unrestricted access to mathematically unbalanced units is an unbalanced situation.

Okay, but here is where nuance comes in.

I can say that's imbalanced, but I can say that on the whole, the overall game is pretty solid. And instead of saying "OMG GW is so dumb, I ragequit!!", I can say, "Unit X could go up a few points, and the WK should be less accessible."

But it doesn't ruin my gaming experience anyways, because not every game I have is against the hypercompetetive type.. And when people do pull out the super competetive lists, I just see it as a challenge. And I know I have access to some counters.

I'm getting burned out on the same units over and over and over. It's beyond challenging at this point. It's into futility. I have no mathematically effective counter to Wraithknight. And I can't stop them from taking a Wraithknight. In fact, I can't stop them from having as many as they want.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm getting burned out on the same units over and over and over. It's beyond challenging at this point. It's into futility. I have no mathematically effective counter to Wraithknight. And I can't stop them from taking a Wraithknight. In fact, I can't stop them from having as many as they want.

A: I'm sorry you're in that type of meta.

B: You have Grav right?

BA can't get the grav within range without dying. We have no skyhammer, no invis.

7th edition has poor balance because: balancing the game was not a business priority in the rules design (or a strong consideration).
The game designer proclaims he is not a "math guy" made me cringe, just shoot me now.
Let us then surmise that game designers get the tail end of the budget allowance: you get what you pay for.
So yeah, just shop around for a fan-base rule-set but then that defeats the purpose of playing pickup games at a FLGS.