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.

Balance wrote:I think the real point here is that players just want consistency across codexes as far as effects, so they don't have to track the differences between a SpaM Assault Cannon and a Grey Knight Assault Cannon.

Oh, I'm aware that that is what a lot of players want.

And as time shows, GW isn't willing to do this, because it forces stagnation upon the game. If the Assault Cannon is useless, then that's just as bad as if it's too good.

So GW accepts that there will be changes that trickle out from Ultramar to the outer Forgeworlds over time, and the Fandom should accept this as well. If you happen to live way out with a weak Forgeworld, that's too bad - upgrades and revisions say you're stuck. OTOH, if your FW is good, then the Inquisition will eventually come by an slap you down for non-Approved deviance from Imperial standards. And so it goes...

JohnHwangDD wrote:And as time shows, GW isn't willing to do this, because it forces stagnation upon the game.

So the same items and weapons having the same rules across a number of different armies forces 'stagnation'. Jesus DD... you'll believe anything GW spouts, won't you?

BYE

Did GW say that?

I had assumed they were just lazy.

No! Not lazy. They're avoiding stagnation! Keepin' the game fresh! Y'know!!



You're right, they didn't say that. But John thinks they did. And John's always right. Even when he's not.

BYE

You want to walk around with a large errata document for every codex and have to explain to your opponants what his wargear now does with every new release? God damn HBMC, I didn't know you were such a trooper.

If I wanted erratahammer I would play WARMACHINE. If not having to have a consistently updated massive errata document in normal play means a new codex gets new shiny things and the old ones have to wait for updates to get new stormshields then so be it. I don't care.

It's easy to win arguments isn't it Shummy, especially when you get to move straw-filled goal posts around. Who said it would be a 'large' document? And what has this got to do with erata ayway? 'Course, I never said anything about any of those - but you go on thinking that if it makes it easier for you to score 'points' in this argument.

What this is about is is getting it right first time around.

And personally I think it's far less confusing to say "A Storm Shield does X" rather than "This storm shield does X, this one does Y, this one does Y as well but costs +B more than the other one for no apparent reason..." and so on. Consistency between items in very similar Codices is not hard. Bitching about 'large' documents or... for God's sake... John's insultingly stupid 'stagnation' idea doesn't change the fact that GW is just lazy and doesn't give two sh!ts about their rules.

God, if Warrick of all people can make every IA book a Copypasta extravaganza, then it should be quite easy to keep a document where the rules for weapons are kept and they just copypaste from them.

Plus it just kinda flies in the face of what Jervis said a while back, where he saw that they had taken for granted that players knew what everything was, so when his son wasn't sure what weapon was what he decided that it would probably be a good idea to have a section in each Codex that explains what the weapons are, that way people will build up a knowledge of what things are, what they look like, and what their rules are. Now he seems to have reversed this point of view in another classic example of GW changing horses mid-race, and now we're in the opposite situation, where rather than having one set of rules for the same weapon in every book but new players not knowing what each thing is, we have pictures of everything, but different rules from book to book. And to then go on to say that keeping them the same goes in GW's 'too hard' basket? Come on.

How can this be considered a good thing, at all?

BYE

Perhaps it is a secret plan to help prevent players developing Alzheimer's disease.

Got it in one Killkrazy. They're doing us a vital medical service. Why didn't I see it!!!

BYE

It's easy to win arguments isn't it Shummy, especially when you get to move straw-filled goal posts around. Who said it would be a 'large' document? And what has this got to do with erata ayway? 'Course, I never said anything about any of those - but you go on thinking that if it makes it easier for you to score 'points' in this argument.

I'm just getting the straw from your mountainous barn sir.

What this is about is is getting it right first time around.

No, it really isn't. The precedent set by stormshields in third edition should not be maintained all the way into fifth. If they followed that logic every time they wanted to update a ruling, stat, or piece of wargear they would have to reprint every codex that it was initially in. Hellhounds don't force people to run away anymore, that change didn't get spread across all codexes evenly. It still hasn't. Yet the inferno canon is the inferno canon.

And personally I think it's far less confusing to say "A Storm Shield does X" rather than "This storm shield does X, this one does Y, this one does Y as well but costs +B more than the other one for no apparent reason..." and so on. Consistency between items in very similar Codices is not hard. Bitching about 'large' documents or... for God's sake... John's insultingly stupid 'stagnation' idea doesn't change the fact that GW is just lazy and doesn't give two sh!ts about their rules.

Stormshields were trash in 3rd through fourth. They still would be if they were still a 4+ save. Should they have kept it then? Why? Just so your dark angel force could feel like its keeping up with the joneses by continuing to never use them? That is stagnation. Thats like saying the assault canon should have never been made better because supplement codexes had a different version.

God, if Warrick of all people can make every IA book a Copypasta extravaganza, then it should be quite easy to keep a document where the rules for weapons are kept and they just copypaste from them.

Unfortunately IA caters to a totally different market then the core game. I've been playing this thing for years and I don't own a single foregworld model because my obsession doesn't run that deep. Most people in this game don't carry around faq booklets, ask any warmachine player how fun FAQing everything is and you will get an idea on why games workshop (the casual gaming company) doesn't do it.

Plus it just kinda flies in the face of what Jervis said a while back, where he saw that they had taken for granted that players knew what everything was, so when his son wasn't sure what weapon was what he decided that it would probably be a good idea to have a section in each Codex that explains what the weapons are, that way people will build up a knowledge of what things are, what they look like, and what their rules are. Now he seems to have reversed this point of view in another classic example of GW changing horses mid-race, and now we're in the opposite situation, where rather than having one set of rules for the same weapon in every book but new players not knowing what each thing is, we have pictures of everything, but different rules from book to book. And to then go on to say that keeping them the same goes in GW's 'too hard' basket? Come on.

Oh give it a god damn break. Storm shields are useful now. Would you rather they simply take them out of the book? Your argument is childish and selfish. You don't like having this one change because it probably makes one of your armies (I would guess witch/daemon hunters) a tiny bit weaker by comparison. Assault termies were trash in fourth. They were trash in third. They are still marginal at best. This change just buffed a single wargear item so that it could be useful on independant characters that already had a 4+ save and overpriced assault units. When the space wolf codex comes out it will get the updated ruling, whenever the next chaos book comes out (probably the legion books) they will get the new ruling.

AND THE WORLD WILL KEEP ON SPINNING

If they followed your little mantra we would still be using the craphat old assault canon, Stormshields would still be attached to sprues in trash bins everywhere, hellifire rounds for heavy bolters wouldn't exist, the land speeder storm would be an apoc only unit, and the hellhound would still be trying to force fearless units to run away and causing a rules mobious strip to envelop the earth in a black hole in doing so.

They don't update every single book when a new edition comes out. Trying to do so would bankrupt them and piss off the community. They also don't FAQ for balance and consistency reasons, only for rules questions. In doing so they accomplish what they set out to do, which is require a player only to have a codex rulebook and army to play a game. All things readily available on a shelf. Besides, why do you of all people even care? You don't USE the rules as written and you don't play in tournaments by your own admittence. So why the hell have you climbed on this soapbox to decry a lack of FAQing or consistency that you don't even bother with using?

ShumaGorath wrote: Your argument is childish and selfish. You don't like having this one change because it probably makes one of your armies (I would guess witch/daemon hunters) a tiny bit weaker by comparison.

Nice way of attacking HBMC instead of his argument.

Funny thing is, how powerful his Storm Shields are is not affected in the least by any chance that GW makes to the rules, as he plays by the rules that his group developed instead of the GW ones.

skyth wrote:Nice way of attacking HBMC instead of his argument.

I don't expect any more from him really. I mean, when your argument against "I want consistent rules" is "You're being selfish" you've lost already. The only thing you've got left is to attack the other side personally.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

skyth wrote:Nice way of attacking HBMC instead of his argument.

I don't expect any more from him really. I mean, when your argument against "I want consistent rules" is "You're being selfish" you've lost already. The only thing you've got left is to attack the other side personally.

Yes, being called a troll by one of the boards most longstanding and notorious trolls. If I were a lesser man the irony could well kill me where I sit. As for your argument, you aren't arguing for consistent rules, and if you are you should probably find out who has been writing your posts. What you want is consistency at the cost of balance and stagnant ruling. You are arguing for consistently bad rules. Or you want FAQ documents. I can't really tell, you're having a hard time framing an argument between the anti GW rants. Since you you have refused to believe in the stagnation angle and apparently don't think that FAQing all the codexes would be needed I can only guess that you want everything to maintain the exact same ruling in every new release. In that case I would ask what you would propose happen to things like the overpriced and bad old stormshields?

Nice way of attacking HBMC instead of his argument.

Funny thing is, how powerful his Storm Shields are is not affected in the least by any chance that GW makes to the rules, as he plays by the rules that his group developed instead of the GW ones.

And if you had read my entire post you would have seen that the last two sentences were dedicated to that single thing. But you didn't.

ShumaGorath wrote:And if you had read my entire post you would have seen that the last two sentences were dedicated to that single thing. But you didn't.

Once your post devolves into the bullying 'You're a bad person if you don't agree with me' personal attacks that are ruined the game, then there isn't much point in reading farther.

Heh. Maybe the problem is all the SM support. Large fan base = more frequent updates, which eventually = high number of confusing changes here, but not there. Give these marines this, but don't give it to those marines... yet.
Since the dawn of 2nd edition I have yearned for a way to strip space marines of their fan base and distribute it evenly to more interesting armies, so GW will be forced to give equal attention and balance to all those armies. Instead, we have these slowed problems.

Seriously guys, quit playing SMs.
Polls show that SM players are 98.6% less physically attractive to women. These women don't even know the test subjects play 40K. Whereas IG, Tau, Ork and Eldar players are shown to be 89.6% more successful at acquiring all the women they want. Is loyalty to bell-bottom wearing, religious nut-cases really worth the sacrifice?

skyth wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:And if you had read my entire post you would have seen that the last two sentences were dedicated to that single thing. But you didn't.

Once your post devolves into the bullying 'You're a bad person if you don't agree with me' personal attacks that are ruined the game, then there isn't much point in reading farther.

You must miss a lot of posts by HBMC, johnhuang, stelek, polonious, myself and a couple of others then. Don't let tough words keep you from reading, sometimes people make good points after they call a spade a spade.

Not to mention when you miss something and comment on it like you did it makes you look just as bad as the people your railing against.

ShumaGorath wrote:[

You must miss a lot of posts by HBMC, johnhuang, stelek, polonious, myself and a couple of others then. Don't let tough words keep you from reading, sometimes people make good points after they call a spade a spade.

Not to mention when you miss something and comment on it like you did it makes you look just as bad as the people your railing against.

I'm not sure how comfortable I am being in that company (although I wish I could be as funny as HBMC consistently is). I make a conscious effort to be polite but honest in my writings and I certainly do everything to avoid personal insults. As far as I can tell, you're the first person to have any sort of problem with the way I post. If there are people that have problems with me, then I'd love to hear from them.

In all honesty, you seem like the kind of guy that likes to argue every point, every time, with every person. That's fine, and it's certainly not a bad quality, but it will tend to raise people's ire; particularly when combined with forum debating techniques that are more focused on "winning" than on proving a point. You can take this as a personal attack, or you can take it as a comment on why people respond negatively to you and threads you post in tend to get locked.

ShumaGorath wrote:
- quote=H.B.M.C.
- - quote=skyth

Yes, being called a troll by one of the boards most longstanding and notorious trolls.

*gets out popcorn*
____

@Polonius: You're a great guy, and I don't think that Shuma was hinting at anything personal there. I read it more that Shuma was saying that you're not afraid to state a position and and stand by it.

You stay out of this DD. You're worse than me and Shummy put together.

Anyway, this thread has devolved into Shummy's ego demanding he respond to everything that everyone says, so I'm going to be the one who cuts and runs away now because I'm tired of this sh!t. I apologise if I offended anyone - even you Shummy - except for John, that is, as everything I've ever said about him is 100% true.

I started this thread to post a few rumours and bits of news that someone got, and to bring attention to GW's unwillingness to write consistent rules, and . Some people defended their stance (mindboggling as that may be). Ok, be happy with your inconsistent, badly constructed and unbalanced rulesets. Fine with me.

Meanwhile I'm heading over to the official site of another game company where they just released new Campaign rules - the ones they use to design their campaigns - for free, along with a new small campaign supplement for only US$5. Let's see GW do that...

I'm done.

BYE

While this thread started out with some good, though even in the eyes of the main poster's perspective, maybe questionable information the rest of this thread can really be summed up by this post alone.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Nope, actually it is is because such mathematical methods are impossible to balance. Whether games workshop is lazy or not doesn't change the fact that thats like saying I don't get to work by teleporting there because I'm too lazy to do so.

....FAIL....

soooo......
how about them space skaven then.....
=)

Stop with the hate and stop with the fear.

It occurs to me that a lot of the consistency issues could be solved if, when they release new codexes, they actually go with the 'fluff' explanation they provided a while back and incorporate it into the actual rules.

A large number of people complaining about the lack of consistency, myself included, would have been more than happy if instead of the Marine codex having rules for a 'Storm Shield' that is different to every other army's 'Storm Shirld, they had instead just included a 'MkII Storm Shield' or a 'MkIII Wrath Shield' or a 'Mk1a Coruscating Skull Shield' instead.

Changing rules in new codexes is fine. Having the same piece of equipment have different rules depending solely on whether the hand of the guy holding it is blue or green? That's confusing. And anything confusing is bad for the game, because confused people are so often angry people.

So how about it, GW? Think of the angry people, and give us different names for different equipment. 'K?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yes, being called a troll by one of the boards most longstanding and notorious trolls. If I were a lesser man the irony could well kill me where I sit.

I'm guessing you're kidding here, right?

To your point, at this point (ha!), it probably would be helpful to read just what it is the various parties are actually arguing for.

What exactly do you, ShumaGorath, want out of GW's ruleset?

You know, going forward and all that.

@Polonius: You're a great guy, and I don't think that Shuma was hinting at anything personal there. I read it more that Shuma was saying that you're not afraid to state a position and and stand by it.

Pretty much. I have nothing against any of the people I argue with. Polonius is very polite but usually politely calls a spade a spade before posting actual content. Like he just did. I love to argue. I say argue because people ignore the points I make in light of the fact that I am argumentative. I actually say things people, they are pretty consistent, and I stick too them. I also argue. Argue!

You stay out of this DD. You're worse than me and Shummy put together.

I started this thread to post a few rumours and bits of news that someone got, and to bring attention to GW's unwillingness to write consistent rules, and . Some people defended their stance (mindboggling as that may be). Ok, be happy with your inconsistent, badly constructed and unbalanced rulesets. Fine with me.

You came here to rant boyo. Don't try and play innocent now, you know what you were here for.

HBMC is rant guy
Stelek was superiority man
I'm argument guy
JohnHuang is GW can do no wrong guy
Polonius is politely call you a fool guy
etc etc

insaniak wrote:give us different names for different equipment. 'K?

Gw does that. It's a "Codex: Space Marines Storm Shield" vs a "Codex: Dark Angels Storm Shield".

ShumaGorath wrote:JohnHuang is GW can do no wrong guy

Actually:
JohnHwang is the "suck it up & deal" guy.

I thought JohnHwangDD was just, "That John Guy".

Actually:
JohnHwang is the "suck it up & deal" guy.

No, I'm the suck it up and deal guy. You said apocalypse was balanced.

Hahaha!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Gw does that. It's a "Codex: Space Marines Storm Shield" vs a "Codex: Dark Angels Storm Shield".

Right... And we all saw how well that worked for them, with all the arguments over whether or not you could take a DH Assassin with a WH Inquisitor...


Giving them the same name and different rules causes confusion. Simply putting them in different books doesn't make the difference readily apparent. Giving them different names does.

JohnHwangDD wrote:JohnHwang is the "suck it up & deal" guy.

I'm pretty sure that for you it's just everything before the "up".



Sorry, I'm going... I'm going...

BYE