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.

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

jcd386 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 plark wrote:
If you like Grey Knights play Grey Knights. The game foes through power spikes. Grey Knights could be horrible now, but in 9th edition or 8.5, they could be the next powerhouse. You're the one building and painting them, make sure you play what you enjoy. If you're playing to win and playing to be competitive then you're going to be spending a lot more and swapping armies between events.

Only the spikes seem to happen for GK in 2-3 editions intervals aka GK are god every 7-8 years. Telling someone who just have to wait that long, and maybe then they will be good is crazy. Most people don't even play the game that long.

If you bring Grey Knights and you play someone at your local store and say, hey man I'm playing Grey Knights and not looking for a competitive game, do you mind next time playing without your Castellan? More so then none people will gladly put away their competitive META army to have a fun game.

And at my store all opponents would tell me that they have one 2k pts army and in that army castellan is a substential part of the points, and they don't want to play less then 2000pts. May as well go around and try to ask around to find people that play narrative games. In UK that maybe a thing, but in Poland I have heard of narrative games only mentioned as part of making fun of odd western meta.

Karol we've all been over this with you ad nauseum.

Your gaming group sounds like the most toxic one in existence. It's not a valid representation of the community in general. It's not uncommon for people to want fun less competitive games.

GW has changed significantly in the last year or so. None of the previous editions can be used as evidence for how GW will handle things in the future. It's clear they are working to balance the game in a way they never have before.

By the time it would take a normal person with a job and a mild social life to buy, build and paint an entire GK army, it's very likely GK will be better than they are now. In fact it's almost impossible that they wouldn't be.

They do need a full codex rewrite, but it's very plausible that a year from now they'll have one.

Yeah we play both competitive and narrative games in my area... for the less comptetive games we even tend to run each other list by each other before we play the game to make sure that we think each others list was capable of hacing a close game against each other since the prevaling opinion is blowing out your opponent just due to list/army strength makes for a boring game.

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

I say this is partly true as someone that vehemently defends his proposed rules. Sometimes I just miss the mark ya know?

 Marmatag wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

Saying you can fix problems while creating others is like moving a pile of trash 3' to the left then saying you cleaned it up.

 Marmatag wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

Well that's hardly any good now is it?
"Oh, good news, I solved the roach infestation by burning down the house. The bad news is that I don't have a house."

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

Well that's hardly any good now is it?
"Oh, good news, I solved the roach infestation by burning down the house. The bad news is that I don't have a house."

As long as each fix moves is towards a better game state I think it's fine. As you fix each thing new things would come up, but it would still be better than before.

GW is doing what is likely the smart thing and only changing things a few times a year so people aren't afraid to buy stuff and have time to change with the meta. It's frustrating at times but if they continue on this course and don't do anything too crazy they're going to have a pretty great game a year or so from now, and it's already the best state the game has ever been in.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You people are so pedantic. GK Strikes are not worth twice a Tactical Marine, even with all of their bling, because their bling is situationally useless. If it with just down to Stormbolters versus Bolters, the Bolters win due to 2 Tacticals having twice the Wounds as 1 Strike. The Psychic power system in 8th is hot garbage for GK, making that portion of the inflated cost useless. And without the same rules as other melee oriented armies, GK Force weapons are an equally useless cost inflation. Two Tacticals might not be worth 26 points, but a Strike is definitely not worth 22 points. That is the crux of the problem.

GK are point costed and balanced around not being targetable outside of 24”. Unfortunately, they have no rules that make them hard to target at range.

GK are point costed and supposedly balanced around getting into melee, but don’t have the ability to get into melee without getting thorn apart before the Charge, a strong chance of failing the Charge, and not enough base attacks to make the Charge worth attempting despite the other two problems. Simply the put, GK are missing rules they are paying for.

The fix GK is either a realignment of points to more realistically represent what they can do, or the addition of rules to support what they are already paying for. GW have failed so far to produce either.

SJ

Epic reading failure on your part if you think somebody here claims they are worth double. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT! What people are saying is that tacticals and grey knights are not worth identical which should be obvious. Storm bolter>bolter. Stats identical. GK's are psychics which IS worth something and while better h2h weapon isn't something that comes up every day it comes up time to time.

Fix is NOT make them cost same as tacticals. That's just silly, stupid and attitude stinks of "We have been poor so let others be worse than us for a change. REVEEEEEENGE!".

Please tell me why people would take tactical when they could take GK then? Huh? Any good reason? You seriously think those two are identical?

tneva82 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You people are so pedantic. GK Strikes are not worth twice a Tactical Marine, even with all of their bling, because their bling is situationally useless. If it with just down to Stormbolters versus Bolters, the Bolters win due to 2 Tacticals having twice the Wounds as 1 Strike. The Psychic power system in 8th is hot garbage for GK, making that portion of the inflated cost useless. And without the same rules as other melee oriented armies, GK Force weapons are an equally useless cost inflation. Two Tacticals might not be worth 26 points, but a Strike is definitely not worth 22 points. That is the crux of the problem.

GK are point costed and balanced around not being targetable outside of 24”. Unfortunately, they have no rules that make them hard to target at range.

GK are point costed and supposedly balanced around getting into melee, but don’t have the ability to get into melee without getting thorn apart before the Charge, a strong chance of failing the Charge, and not enough base attacks to make the Charge worth attempting despite the other two problems. Simply the put, GK are missing rules they are paying for.

The fix GK is either a realignment of points to more realistically represent what they can do, or the addition of rules to support what they are already paying for. GW have failed so far to produce either.

SJ

Epic reading failure on your part if you think somebody here claims they are worth double. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT! What people are saying is that tacticals and grey knights are not worth identical which should be obvious. Storm bolter>bolter. Stats identical. GK's are psychics which IS worth something and while better h2h weapon isn't something that comes up every day it comes up time to time.

Fix is NOT make them cost same as tacticals. That's just silly, stupid and attitude stinks of "We have been poor so let others be worse than us for a change. REVEEEEEENGE!".

Please tell me why people would take tactical when they could take GK then? Huh? Any good reason? You seriously think those two are identical?

Epic read failure seems like o be yourself. Anyone given a choice would take a Tactical over a Strike, as they are cheaper. It’s the same reason why people take Scouts over Tacticals.

SJ

tneva82 763597 10149907 wrote:


Please tell me why people would take tactical when they could take GK then? Huh? Any good reason? You seriously think those two are identical?

Chapter tactics, plasma, better support character, you can't run a slamginius if your troops are GK etc. I found four without thinking that deep or being in possesion of a deep space marine knowladge. As mr Jeffersonian said. 2 bolters on 2 bodies > 1 stormbolter on 1 body , unless some ultra specific rules are included. Which lo and behold GK do not possess, but various marines do in form of speciall ammo for free etc

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
[
Epic read failure seems like o be yourself. Anyone given a choice would take a Tactical over a Strike, as they are cheaper. It’s the same reason why people take Scouts over Tacticals.

SJ

Uuuhh...We are talking about idea of STRIKE COSTING SAME AS TACTICAL!

How much tactical cost? Now put that price to strike. Why take tactical?

Seriously read what people are writing. I have been from the go against the silly idea of having grey knights cost same as tactical. We arent' talking about strike current price vs tactical. We are talking about GREY KNIGHTS WHO COST SAME AS TACTICAL!

Sheesh at the dakkadakka. Tacticals and grey knigths costing same, shootas and big shootas costing same(despite big shoota having superior stats with zero downsides). People always want to push their own army and to hell with what's good for the game.

tneva82 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
[
Epic read failure seems like o be yourself. Anyone given a choice would take a Tactical over a Strike, as they are cheaper. It’s the same reason why people take Scouts over Tacticals.

SJ

Uuuhh...We are talking about idea of STRIKE COSTING SAME AS TACTICAL!

How much tactical cost? Now put that price to strike. Why take tactical?

Seriously read what people are writing. I have been from the go against the silly idea of having grey knights cost same as tactical. We arent' talking about strike current price vs tactical. We are talking about GREY KNIGHTS WHO COST SAME AS TACTICAL!

Sheesh at the dakkadakka. Tacticals and grey knigths costing same, shootas and big shootas costing same(despite big shoota having superior stats with zero downsides). People always want to push their own army and to hell with what's good for the game.

Dude, pop your head out. No one is asking for Strikes to cost the same as Tacticals. Those are doing cost breakdowns start with Tacticals as a base, and then compare usefulness of GK addons versus the cost of those addons. Tacticals should be cheaper, but Strikers should be better, they just aren’t.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
[
Epic read failure seems like o be yourself. Anyone given a choice would take a Tactical over a Strike, as they are cheaper. It’s the same reason why people take Scouts over Tacticals.

SJ

Uuuhh...We are talking about idea of STRIKE COSTING SAME AS TACTICAL!

How much tactical cost? Now put that price to strike. Why take tactical?

Seriously read what people are writing. I have been from the go against the silly idea of having grey knights cost same as tactical. We arent' talking about strike current price vs tactical. We are talking about GREY KNIGHTS WHO COST SAME AS TACTICAL!

Sheesh at the dakkadakka. Tacticals and grey knigths costing same, shootas and big shootas costing same(despite big shoota having superior stats with zero downsides). People always want to push their own army and to hell with what's good for the game.

Dude, pop your head out. No one is asking for Strikes to cost the same as Tacticals. Those are doing cost breakdowns start with Tacticals as a base, and then compare usefulness of GK addons versus the cost of those addons. Tacticals should be cheaper, but Strikers should be better, they just aren’t.

SJ

*cough*

 Quickjager wrote:
Until GK cost the same as Vanilla marines, while retaining all their rules and equipments, they will never be anything more than literal bottom of the barrel.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

Well that's hardly any good now is it?
"Oh, good news, I solved the roach infestation by burning down the house. The bad news is that I don't have a house."

Great point, balance is a binary state. It is either perfect, or awful, with 0 middle ground. It is impossible to make iterative improvements to a game. Since GW cannot make the game perfect in 1 update, they should logically never make updates, because it's wasted energy. At least, according to Dakka Dakka.

 Marmatag wrote:
Great point, balance is a binary state. It is either perfect, or awful, with 0 middle ground. It is impossible to make iterative improvements to a game. Since GW cannot make the game perfect in 1 update, they should logically never make updates, because it's wasted energy. At least, according to Dakka Dakka.

That's what most of the complaints about the rule of 3 seem to boil down to on here. Complaining about how even though it dealt with stuff like flyrant spam they should do away with it because it didn't solve every problem with unit balance.

 IronBrand wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Great point, balance is a binary state. It is either perfect, or awful, with 0 middle ground. It is impossible to make iterative improvements to a game. Since GW cannot make the game perfect in 1 update, they should logically never make updates, because it's wasted energy. At least, according to Dakka Dakka.

That's what most of the complaints about the rule of 3 seem to boil down to on here. Complaining about how even though it dealt with stuff like flyrant spam they should do away with it because it didn't solve every problem with unit balance.

That's because Rule Of Three doesn't fix units that are broken.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You people are so pedantic. GK Strikes are not worth twice a Tactical Marine, even with all of their bling, because their bling is situationally useless. If it with just down to Stormbolters versus Bolters, the Bolters win due to 2 Tacticals having twice the Wounds as 1 Strike. The Psychic power system in 8th is hot garbage for GK, making that portion of the inflated cost useless. And without the same rules as other melee oriented armies, GK Force weapons are an equally useless cost inflation. Two Tacticals might not be worth 26 points, but a Strike is definitely not worth 22 points. That is the crux of the problem.

GK are point costed and balanced around not being targetable outside of 24”. Unfortunately, they have no rules that make them hard to target at range.

GK are point costed and supposedly balanced around getting into melee, but don’t have the ability to get into melee without getting thorn apart before the Charge, a strong chance of failing the Charge, and not enough base attacks to make the Charge worth attempting despite the other two problems. Simply the put, GK are missing rules they are paying for.

The fix GK is either a realignment of points to more realistically represent what they can do, or the addition of rules to support what they are already paying for. GW have failed so far to produce either.

SJ

Epic reading failure on your part if you think somebody here claims they are worth double. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT! What people are saying is that tacticals and grey knights are not worth identical which should be obvious. Storm bolter>bolter. Stats identical. GK's are psychics which IS worth something and while better h2h weapon isn't something that comes up every day it comes up time to time.

Fix is NOT make them cost same as tacticals. That's just silly, stupid and attitude stinks of "We have been poor so let others be worse than us for a change. REVEEEEEENGE!".

Please tell me why people would take tactical when they could take GK then? Huh? Any good reason? You seriously think those two are identical?

Epic read failure seems like o be yourself. Anyone given a choice would take a Tactical over a Strike, as they are cheaper. It’s the same reason why people take Scouts over Tacticals.

SJ

No - that is inaccurate. Strike squads are actually quite capable units. They do about twice the damage per point of a tactical. Natural deep strike ability. Psychic denial as well. Basically if you could take strikes over tacs in the space marine army - everyone would do it.

Gk problems are more fundamental than space marines - they don't have an effective way to kill super shooting units quickly. For some reason their psychic powers are worse than space marine powers...Nothing in their army is cheap and everything is slow - though - doing damage is easy for them when they get there.

The both have overcosted units. Thing is - if you are paying too much for something - it mights as well...IDK...do things?

 Marmatag wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

Well that's hardly any good now is it?
"Oh, good news, I solved the roach infestation by burning down the house. The bad news is that I don't have a house."

Great point, balance is a binary state. It is either perfect, or awful, with 0 middle ground. It is impossible to make iterative improvements to a game. Since GW cannot make the game perfect in 1 update, they should logically never make updates, because it's wasted energy. At least, according to Dakka Dakka.

Or you could do a proper job and solve most problems before the product is released, instead of playing whack a mole over constant releases.
Its almost as if designing and balancing a game takes more than 5 seconds.
If a company claims they are the best ever and charge their products at a high price, I expect them to do a proper job and make sure the game is mostly balanced, instead of releasing something that's dead on arrival. That's called being a professional.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
[
Epic read failure seems like o be yourself. Anyone given a choice would take a Tactical over a Strike, as they are cheaper. It’s the same reason why people take Scouts over Tacticals.

SJ

Uuuhh...We are talking about idea of STRIKE COSTING SAME AS TACTICAL!

How much tactical cost? Now put that price to strike. Why take tactical?

Seriously read what people are writing. I have been from the go against the silly idea of having grey knights cost same as tactical. We arent' talking about strike current price vs tactical. We are talking about GREY KNIGHTS WHO COST SAME AS TACTICAL!

Sheesh at the dakkadakka. Tacticals and grey knigths costing same, shootas and big shootas costing same(despite big shoota having superior stats with zero downsides). People always want to push their own army and to hell with what's good for the game.

Dude, pop your head out. No one is asking for Strikes to cost the same as Tacticals. Those are doing cost breakdowns start with Tacticals as a base, and then compare usefulness of GK addons versus the cost of those addons. Tacticals should be cheaper, but Strikers should be better, they just aren’t.

SJ

All power armor with 1 wound deserves about a 3 point drop. Strikes are due for the same cost drop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

Reemule wrote:

There needs to be a Goodwin's law, or a Moore's law of gaming. Call it the gamer Law. Players are terrible at balance. And they don't think they are.

Rosewater's law, players are great at finding problems but terrible at finding solutions.

More like terrible at agreeing on solutions.

I can solve the current set of problems in 5 seconds. I might create new and different problems, but I would solve the current ones.

Well that's hardly any good now is it?
"Oh, good news, I solved the roach infestation by burning down the house. The bad news is that I don't have a house."

Great point, balance is a binary state. It is either perfect, or awful, with 0 middle ground. It is impossible to make iterative improvements to a game. Since GW cannot make the game perfect in 1 update, they should logically never make updates, because it's wasted energy. At least, according to Dakka Dakka.

I almsot didn't realize you were being sarcastic there. Well done. Agreed.

I think the main thing is the minutia on people’s balance disagreements and the ideas they have for them to get balanced and what they would need to do.

If there is a spectrum between stop the presses on Orktober, while all available GW staff re-write Grey Knights for emergency publication, to well eventually 2 days before 9th is announced they get a 1 line fix in some distant faq…

GW has proven time and time again that they prefer to:

1. Wait a problem out. Maybe incompetence, maybe they know some other product is coming that makes stuff better. But just wait and see how it is in 6 months.
2. Most minimal conceivable change to make a very gentle fix. Run of 3 that is so panned is an example. In a world of all those loopholes and ways it doesn’t help at all.. it actually combined with the proposed CP by Detachment might just fix soup.

So with that information, why do people just keep coming out screaming about how something needs a codex rewrite? All things show you should be hoping for Strike teams to get a couple points shaved off, and Land Raiders to get the ability to fall back and fire. That leads to the hostility.

I have seen the old GK codex, it doesn't look much different then the index or the last codex. I has a bit more options, but from what I understand about differences between 7th and 8th is that GW decided to cut a lot of options from a lot of books. So considering the books are almost the same, and GK were bad in 6th, 7th and are bad in 8th, I have a question about the part about waiting it out, because there is something coming up in six months. Since GK were in 6th ed how many years pasted 4-5? that is between 8 and 10 6months reflection times for GW staff. I think it is understandable that with that much time, people kind of a expect to see something tangible, other then some smoke and mirrors stuff about needing another 6-12 months.

GKs had some amazing options in 5th that where cut, proably only fair as it was nesscary but a lotta the cuts also ruined what made the army work, in 7th they did OK as they had access to some amazing deep strike, but 8th removed that option so... yeah GKs are hurting, due to a number of little changes to the core rules as well as removal of elements of GKs, GKs really need a ground level rethink IMHO. problem is a near total reboot of the codex would piss as many people off as it'd help as it would likely mean a MASSIVE amount of change. and 40k players ultimately wanna run the same list from edition to edition and be top tier powerful. (don't get me wrong they accept it's not possiable but that IS the ideal)

BrianDavion wrote:
. problem is a near total reboot of the codex would piss as many people off as it'd help as it would likely mean a MASSIVE amount of change.

Then do it? If it needs a massive overhaul then give it a massive overhaul. No half measures. So what if it pisses off a lot of people? If it works then it works.
As long as it works and GW didn't take 5 seconds to come up with some half-arsed solution whilst not considering any problems that may arise, it should be fine.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
. problem is a near total reboot of the codex would piss as many people off as it'd help as it would likely mean a MASSIVE amount of change.

Then do it? If it needs a massive overhaul then give it a massive overhaul. No half measures. So what if it pisses off a lot of people? If it works then it works.
As long as it works and GW didn't take 5 seconds to come up with some half-arsed solution whilst not considering any problems that may arise, it should be fine.

I mean... That is the philosophy of 8e, for better and for worse.

Stux wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
. problem is a near total reboot of the codex would piss as many people off as it'd help as it would likely mean a MASSIVE amount of change.

Then do it? If it needs a massive overhaul then give it a massive overhaul. No half measures. So what if it pisses off a lot of people? If it works then it works.
As long as it works and GW didn't take 5 seconds to come up with some half-arsed solution whilst not considering any problems that may arise, it should be fine.

I mean... That is the philosophy of 8e, for better and for worse.

Not really. They didn't do enough.
If they did enough, so many armies and rule interactions wouldn't be having problems right now. Its as if they gave up half-way. And a lot of the changes were poorly thought out.
Grey Knights wouldn't be in the situation they are in, Monoliths would work as intended, 3+ armor saves are still lackluster unless wound bloated, fall back would have actual penalties, flyers wouldn't be useless in practice, CP farms wouldn't be a thing, etc.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Stux wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
. problem is a near total reboot of the codex would piss as many people off as it'd help as it would likely mean a MASSIVE amount of change.

Then do it? If it needs a massive overhaul then give it a massive overhaul. No half measures. So what if it pisses off a lot of people? If it works then it works.
As long as it works and GW didn't take 5 seconds to come up with some half-arsed solution whilst not considering any problems that may arise, it should be fine.

I mean... That is the philosophy of 8e, for better and for worse.

Not really. They didn't do enough.
If they did enough, so many armies and rule interactions wouldn't be having problems right now. Its as if they gave up half-way. And a lot of the changes were poorly thought out.
Grey Knights wouldn't be in the situation they are in, Monoliths would work as intended, 3+ armor saves are still lackluster unless wound bloated, fall back would have actual penalties, flyers wouldn't be useless in practice, CP farms wouldn't be a thing, etc.

Primaris was a massive shake up with both lore and on the tabletop. The general rules for 8th are also the biggest shakeup since 3e.

It pissed a lot of people off, but they decided that big shakeup would be worth it in the long run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what... Saying that, they're blatantly going to do Primaris GKs eventually. That will be a huge shakeup.

Stux wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Stux wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
. problem is a near total reboot of the codex would piss as many people off as it'd help as it would likely mean a MASSIVE amount of change.

Then do it? If it needs a massive overhaul then give it a massive overhaul. No half measures. So what if it pisses off a lot of people? If it works then it works.
As long as it works and GW didn't take 5 seconds to come up with some half-arsed solution whilst not considering any problems that may arise, it should be fine.

I mean... That is the philosophy of 8e, for better and for worse.

Not really. They didn't do enough.
If they did enough, so many armies and rule interactions wouldn't be having problems right now. Its as if they gave up half-way. And a lot of the changes were poorly thought out.
Grey Knights wouldn't be in the situation they are in, Monoliths would work as intended, 3+ armor saves are still lackluster unless wound bloated, fall back would have actual penalties, flyers wouldn't be useless in practice, CP farms wouldn't be a thing, etc.

Primaris was a massive shake up with both lore and on the tabletop. The general rules for 8th are also the biggest shakeup since 3e.

It pissed a lot of people off, but they decided that big shakeup would be worth it in the long run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what... Saying that, they're blatantly going to do Primaris GKs eventually. That will be a huge shakeup.

So? They still did a poor job. I will not deny that it was a shake up, but I will not accept that they couldn't have done more or better, or that it wasn't a half-arsed job. There so many oversights and ports of the worst of 7th that the game doesn't feel finished.

They introduced hit modifiers, but kept overwatch hitting only on 6s from 6th and 7th ed, and didn't add any positive modifiers

They kept flyers, but didn't work them so that they don't die due to running out of space to move.

They added a psychic phase, but didn't give every faction some sort of psy-defence so they have something to do during the opponent's psychic other than take a bunch of mortal wounds.

They added the option of leaving combat, but didn't really add penalties or attacks of opportunity. So the falling back squad can't shoot back...unless they are ultramarines, have FLY, and as they left combat in their turn the squad they were engaged with is now exposed to be shot. Wooo, what a penalty! Ironically, the initiative stat, which they removed, could have been used here.

There's probably more, but that's from the top of my head. And that's just the core rules.
Introducing primaris means nothing in terms of gameplay. Its just another type of marine to be sold, like they've always been doing. Its only significant in terms of lore.

Wow. That's a lot of salt to process!

Whether you like it is not terribly relevant to me. In fact it's precisely my point. You said you didn't care if the shakeup pissed some people off. Well welcome to 8e, the edition that shook everything up, pissed some people off, but is generally still regarded on balance to be a very positive step.

So yeah, they will shake up GKs. They'll give them a bunch of Primaris based new units, and it'll be a big change to the available tactics and army builds. And judging from attitude you'll probably hate it in the face of most people having a blast.

Stux wrote:
Wow. That's a lot of salt to process!

Whether you like it is not terribly relevant to me. In fact it's precisely my point. You said you didn't care if the shakeup pissed some people off. Well welcome to 8e, the edition that shook everything up, pissed some people off, but is generally still regarded on balance to be a very positive step.

So yeah, they will shake up GKs. They'll give them a bunch of Primaris based new units, and it'll be a big change to the available tactics and army builds. And judging from attitude you'll probably hate it in the face of most people having a blast.

Only if they don't do a good job. You seem to misunderstand. Its not the change I don't like. Its that they didn't do it right.
Considering how mediocre GK are right now, it would be hard to screw it up more though.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Stux wrote:
Wow. That's a lot of salt to process!

Whether you like it is not terribly relevant to me. In fact it's precisely my point. You said you didn't care if the shakeup pissed some people off. Well welcome to 8e, the edition that shook everything up, pissed some people off, but is generally still regarded on balance to be a very positive step.

So yeah, they will shake up GKs. They'll give them a bunch of Primaris based new units, and it'll be a big change to the available tactics and army builds. And judging from attitude you'll probably hate it in the face of most people having a blast.

Only if they don't do a good job. You seem to misunderstand. Its not the change I don't like. Its that they didn't do it right.

For its flaws, I'd still disagree. All in all I think they did a great job with 8e. They didn't do SOME things right. GK's current state being one of them. But overall for me it is a massive step forward from 7e.