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.

Martel732 wrote:
BA can't get the grav within range without dying. We have no skyhammer, no invis.

You have Drop Pods. Grav in Drop Pods is the answer to WK that GW has handed you on a silver platter. There is literally no better way that I can think of to kill a WK with Space Marines. The only thing I can think of that might be better at killing a WK, is another WK.

I've never used Skyhammer or Invisibility.

Here is the thing, forcing your opinion in a poll and depriving poll takers of options is bad, really bad. Players can agree with you that the game is unbalanced, but don''t have to agree at all about your there is no good all knowing omnipotent GW god rhetoric or on your simplistic view on the causal nature of the disbalance.

There is also no notion that a portion of this disbalance is good thing or has its place. I for one believe that part of the balance differences are on purpose*. Some customers of GW like to have an easy mode army and enjoy nothing more than kicking the opponent in the dirt with their collection of cleverly selected toys, while others enjoy other aspects of the game. Why would GW deprive the players of this option. It seems not more than fair to cater to these players by offering armies with different strengths.

*I do agree that the total sum of power creep, changes in design philosophy and intended power balance differences has added up to undesirable differences over the years.

Mostly B...I guess? with a bit of C

Balance is not an issue because the ghosts of RP and BA game design are still at large.

Using the rules as guidelines for narrative play must have been ideal in a post investment scenario. You can be lazy and slapdash with your rules writing AND pass your editing mistakes, ambiguity, and lack of context to your customers under the guise of having fun.

Discussing a homebrew statline before a game is easier than picking through what effects stack and whether a bunker can teleport or fly. YMMV

I feel for Simon Grant and Phil "Medicine Cabinet" Kelly. They hardly have playtesters, GW don't want living rulesets, and they're making rules for hundreds of units that can potentially be combined. GW doesn't particularly care for game balance, but I wouldn't say they're exactly competent either. Some of the rules are just straight up terrible. A certain degree of new models get better rules does exist too.