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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Hetelic, you'd better watch that f-word. Lots of people aren't into Warhammer for that. It is a requirement for some that GW make these armies as balanced as possible so that everyone has a fair chance at winning in tournaments. People who believe in the f-word don't know what Warhammer is all aboit. This is a serious business...

These are.also the same people who believe that poker and blackjack don't favor the house.

Yeah, because being well balanced for competitive tournaments and being fun are mutually exclusive. Ignore the companies that produce balanced competitive games that are also fun. Do not question the GW Hobby. Buy more GW Products like a good little customer.

But thats because these companies want to produce rules sets that are balanced and suitable for competative play. Gw dont want to. They couldn't care less. They want to make pretty models, then sell you some rules that make you buy said pretty models. They've never said anything different.

You can criticise GW for not making balanced rules, but they've never set out to do that. If you have a problem with that, find a different game.

I don't really know of a single game company, outside of Wizard$ of the Coa$t that develops any of its rules for solely competitive play. However, some people take 40k too far and believe GW is screwing them out of a chance to take gold (or free models) because they can't get their act together and build a balanced system. Some people enjoy a challenge, some enjoy the feeling of gwtting their armies updated, and some just enjoy the game and don't care either way.

And some can't enjoy a game for the simple fact that its a game, it has become an occupation.

Hetelic wrote:
But thats because these companies want to produce rules sets that are balanced and suitable for competative play. Gw dont want to. They couldn't care less. They want to make pretty models, then sell you some rules that make you buy said pretty models. They've never said anything different.

Of course. I'm not disputing the fact that GW is run by incompetent idiots who wouldn't last 15 minutes at a real game company. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's reasonable to hold them to the standard that other companies are able to meet (producing a game that is both fun and balanced), and that their failure to meet that standard is because they are incompetent idiots, not because the standard is an impossible one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I don't really know of a single game company, outside of Wizard$ of the Coa$t that develops any of its rules for solely competitive play.

WOTC doesn't develop their rules solely for competitive play. Because the company (or at least the MTG side of it) is run by competent game designers they ensure that they produce a game that is both balanced for high-level competitive play AND fun for "casual" players.

However, some people take 40k too far and believe GW is screwing them out of a chance to take gold (or free models) because they can't get their act together and build a balanced system.

Sure. Some people overreact like that, but I prefer the more reasonable position that GW is producing an inferior product that could be much better, and it's unfortunate that they have no competition and people are forced to either settle for that inferior product and accept its flaws or give up entirely.

Some people forget that games are fun, not business. Some people enjoy a challenge, some enjoy the feeling of gwtting their armies updated, and some just enjoy the fame and don't care either way.

Of course there are different reasons for enjoying a game. A competent game designer is capable of producing a game that appeals to those people while simultaneously making it balanced for competitive play.

 Peregrine wrote:

Hetelic wrote:
But thats because these companies want to produce rules sets that are balanced and suitable for competative play. Gw dont want to. They couldn't care less. They want to make pretty models, then sell you some rules that make you buy said pretty models. They've never said anything different.

Of course. I'm not disputing the fact that GW is run by incompetent idiots who wouldn't last 15 minutes at a real game company. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's reasonable to hold them to the standard that other companies are able to meet (producing a game that is both fun and balanced), and that their failure to meet that standard is because they are incompetent idiots, not because the standard is an impossible one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I don't really know of a single game company, outside of Wizard$ of the Coa$t that develops any of its rules for solely competitive play.

WOTC doesn't develop their rules solely for competitive play. Because the company (or at least the MTG side of it) is run by competent game designers they ensure that they produce a game that is both balanced for high-level competitive play AND fun for "casual" players.

However, some people take 40k too far and believe GW is screwing them out of a chance to take gold (or free models) because they can't get their act together and build a balanced system.

Sure. Some people overreact like that, but I prefer the more reasonable position that GW is producing an inferior product that could be much better, and it's unfortunate that they have no competition and people are forced to either settle for that inferior product and accept its flaws or give up entirely.

Some people forget that games are fun, not business. Some people enjoy a challenge, some enjoy the feeling of gwtting their armies updated, and some just enjoy the fame and don't care either way.

Of course there are different reasons for enjoying a game. A competent game designer is capable of producing a game that appeals to those people while simultaneously making it balanced for competitive play.

A competent games designers sets out to create a game within a set of given parameters. If "competative/ balanced" isn't one of these parameters, he's not incompetent.

If his parameters are Fun, Dramatic, Narrative, and he creates a game that is fun, has moments of drama, and a story running through the game, then he's fully competent, and has achieved success in his aims.

Because you later decided you want a competative game, and Warhammer isn't it doesnt mean the designer failed to deliver. It means your playing the wrong game.

Thank you, Hetelic. Some of us have been trying to convince Peregrine and others like him for quite a while now. He'd also claim that D&D is also poorly writtwn jusr because of its inability to be a competitive game...

Hetelic wrote:
A competent games designers sets out to create a game within a set of given parameters. If "competative/ balanced" isn't one of these parameters, he's not incompetent.

If his parameters are Fun, Dramatic, Narrative, and he creates a game that is fun, has moments of drama, and a story running through the game, then he's fully competent, and has achieved success in his aims.

Of course he's incompetent, assuming he's doing it for a job and trying to make money. A competent game designer meets the "fun, dramatic, narrative" requirements and satisfies the potential customers that want those things, and ALSO meets the "balanced and competitive" requirements and satisfies the potential customers that want those things. Because they are competent at their job they produce a game that appeals to a wider audience than just the first group, and have more sales and higher profits than the single-group game would get.

Obviously this is not true if you're designing a game as a hobby, but GW is a business, not a hobby. Their refusal to produce a higher-quality product and earn better profits is a sign of incompetence.

Because you later decided you want a competative game, and Warhammer isn't it doesnt mean the designer failed to deliver. It means your playing the wrong game.

No, it means that GW's game designers are incompetent because they failed to do a complete design job and left out large groups of potential customers in exchange for no benefit to the company besides being able to continue to employ incompetent designers.

Now, can we agree that this tiresome thread has bwcome hopelessly sidetracked from pointlessness into extreme pointlessness?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Now, can we agree that this tiresome thread has bwcome hopelessly sidetracked from pointlessness into extreme pointlessness?

Of course.

 Peregrine wrote:

Hetelic wrote:
A competent games designers sets out to create a game within a set of given parameters. If "competative/ balanced" isn't one of these parameters, he's not incompetent.

If his parameters are Fun, Dramatic, Narrative, and he creates a game that is fun, has moments of drama, and a story running through the game, then he's fully competent, and has achieved success in his aims.

Of course he's incompetent, assuming he's doing it for a job and trying to make money. A competent game designer meets the "fun, dramatic, narrative" requirements and satisfies the potential customers that want those things, and ALSO meets the "balanced and competitive" requirements and satisfies the potential customers that want those things. Because they are competent at their job they produce a game that appeals to a wider audience than just the first group, and have more sales and higher profits than the single-group game would get.

Obviously this is not true if you're designing a game as a hobby, but GW is a business, not a hobby. Their refusal to produce a higher-quality product and earn better profits is a sign of incompetence.

Because you later decided you want a competative game, and Warhammer isn't it doesnt mean the designer failed to deliver. It means your playing the wrong game.

No, it means that GW's game designers are incompetent because they failed to do a complete design job and left out large groups of potential customers in exchange for no benefit to the company besides being able to continue to employ incompetent designers.

Nah, im no finished yet

GW isn't a rules company. It''s a minatures company. Their priority has always been sculpting and selling minatures; that they produce a rules set that alows you to use those minatures is just a bonus, in reality. You keep returning to the point of "balanced and competativeness requires", but you're essentially adding in your personal requirement to the design brief. You have no way of knowing if "balanced and competativeness" was ever part of the design brief, however much you want it to be so. Any designer will tell you that they are given a specific plan to implement, and all they do is design around that plan.

Now it stands to reason, that if "balanced and competative" was part of the design brief, then GW would never have released the game, as the designer wouldnt have delivered on the brief, and would have been incompetent in his practice; HOWEVER, GW -did- release the game, suggesting to me that they (as a company) were happy with the finished design, thusly implying they were (at least) content that the game was neither "balanced" or "competative".

This point is further reinforced with the 6th edition rule book. It continually and repeatedly directs the reader to portions entitled "Forging the narrative", implying that this is the direction the designers made the game to take. This is -FURTHER- reinforced by white dwarf, where armies are repeated based on "fun" choices, or player's "favourite" models, along side showcasing new releases to the range. If GW had an inclination to make 40k a competative game, they would focus on optimal/ efficient army builds anf combinations.

Now Peregrin, neither you nor me can say with any certainty what the design brief for warhammer 40k has been, we haven't been privy to seeing the brief, attending the design meetings, or seeing any editorial changes to an edition. What we can do is look at all the avialable evidence, and draw a conclusion. That conclussion, for me, is that GW have no real interest in producing a "balanced" ruleset that lends itself to the MINORITY ((Yes, people who play competative/ tournament warhammer are by far the smallest group of players)) who play warhammer 40k competative or in tournaments. What GW do, and do well, is produce a varied and fun game for the MAJORITY of "garage" players (Beer and pretzel players as your patronisingly put it); the added bonus to this is simple. If you -want- to play competatively, it isnt a long haul to alter and add a few house rules that allow you to do this.

**editted for some emperor-awful spelling**

I'd recommend replacing 'miniatures' company with 'toy' company.

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course, I'd love it if GW learned how to design and balance a game properly, but that's not what we have here. This isn't one step in a comprehensive plan to reform GW's game design methods and balance every army, it's a demand to fix a single unit with a threat to stop buying it if GW doesn't. There's no attempt to serve the greater good of the game, it's just another "make my army powerful" whine, but with a new expensive model's sales at stake. If GW gives in and changes the rules to make sure they don't lose any sales they set a dangerous precedent where anyone who wants a more powerful army just has to whine loud enough and GW will make their new toys more powerful, regardless of what impact it will have on overall game balance.

Do you hear yourself? You're trying to tear down my effort to fix one tiny piece of the game because I'm not enacting a master plan to fix the WHOLE game. Just stop and think for a sec. If everyone complained about every badly designed unit, and every badly designed unit got fixed, then the whole game would indeed get fixed. I'm trying to start with the first piece of the puzzle. All you're doing is complaining that I'm not trying to simultaneously put all the pieces together at the same time. The problem isn't mine, it's yours. I'm the one advocating for a fix to the thing I care about. If you advocated for a fix for the things you cared about, then we could work together and make the game better. But instead, all you care about is stopping me from getting what I want, ignoring the fact that if all you do is try and tear down your fellow players, then NOBODY is better off. You claim that you agree with me that it would be nice if GW would make a more balanced game. But instead of trying to push them to make that happen, all you do is attack your fellow players. You've got an awfully funny way of supporting game balance--by defending a lack of balance.

Yes, there could be problems if GW fixes their weak units and makes them good. But there are ALREADY problems with GW releasing weak units that aren't worth using. It's a problem for them, since it hurts their sales, and it's a problem for us, since it hurts our fun. But all you want is for everything to stay the same. Or, at least, for nobody to work for change. Are you scared of change? Is that it? You admit that GW produces games that are full of balance problems, so why are you against asking them to fix them? And again, just because I'm asking them to fix one unit does not mean I'm somehow advocating that they fix no other unit. They should fix all bad units. We just have to take it one step at a time.

 Ixe wrote:
You're trying to tear down my effort to fix one tiny piece of the game because I'm not enacting a master plan to fix the WHOLE game.

Exactly.

How many games have you played to test the Nephilim?

How many games have you played with the new codex as a whole?

Have you used a wide variety of mission types/opponents/etc in this testing?

Have you been able to win despite the Nephilim not being top-tier, or has its below-average performance ensured a poor win record?

Have you done the same level of playtesting with each of your proposed rule changes?

Have you playtested a complete metagame and analyzed the impact of making these changes, at every level from casual to hardcore competitive?


I'm guessing the answers to these questions are not the right ones, and you're doing this as a reflex "make my army better or I won't buy it" whine instead of the result of comprehensive testing to discover whether the Nephilim boost is required to keep DA competitive, not necessary but also not going to be damaging to the game, or a major boost in power to an army that is already dominating the game. What you're doing is a short-sighted demand for a better unit, not a legitimate balance plan that accounts for the health of the game as a whole.

Are you scared of change?

I'm afraid of RECKLESS change. I'm afraid of setting a precedent where GW hands out major increases in power to anyone who whines loud enough, regardless of the actual state of game balance. I'm afraid of setting a precedent where GW immediately increases the power of a new unit if there's any threat to its sales. I'm afraid of setting a precedent where GW makes changes based on impulse whines without waiting long enough to see if those changes are really needed.

Currently game balance is not that great, but it's STABLE. It is NOT an improvement to change the situation to balance-by-democracy and make major and completely untested balance changes based on who is whining loudest at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hetelic wrote:
GW isn't a rules company. It''s a minatures company. Their priority has always been sculpting and selling minatures; that they produce a rules set that alows you to use those minatures is just a bonus, in reality.

I know that's how GW works. That's why I say GW is run by incompetent idiots. They deliberately lower their standards, release an inferior product, and lose sales they would have made with a proper game. The fact that they do it deliberately doesn't make it any less stupid.

Consider what would have happened if one of the MTG designers submitted a set that was "fun" (as GW see it) but balanced as badly as 40k. They'd be told to get back to work and fix it, and if they insisted that it was a finished product and ready for sale they'd probably lose their job. And as a result of this policy WOTC sells to both the casual AND competitive markets, and gets more profit than selling to just one market.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ixe wrote:
You're trying to tear down my effort to fix one tiny piece of the game because I'm not enacting a master plan to fix the WHOLE game.

Exactly.

How many games have you played to test the Nephilim?

How many games have you played with the new codex as a whole?

Have you used a wide variety of mission types/opponents/etc in this testing?

Have you been able to win despite the Nephilim not being top-tier, or has its below-average performance ensured a poor win record?

Have you done the same level of playtesting with each of your proposed rule changes?

Have you playtested a complete metagame and analyzed the impact of making these changes, at every level from casual to hardcore competitive?


I'm guessing the answers to these questions are not the right ones, and you're doing this as a reflex "make my army better or I won't buy it" whine instead of the result of comprehensive testing to discover whether the Nephilim boost is required to keep DA competitive, not necessary but also not going to be damaging to the game, or a major boost in power to an army that is already dominating the game. What you're doing is a short-sighted demand for a better unit, not a legitimate balance plan that accounts for the health of the game as a whole.

It's a simple proposition. It's not worth 180 points, because there are better things in the codex for 180 points. I never said it makes the army unplayable, or that I couldn't win without it. All I said is, it's a pretty model and I'd love to have some reason to buy it. I've proposed some changes, other people have proposed other changes, and I've never demanded that any particular change be made. It needs to be fixed; I don't really care what the fix is, as long as it doesn't stay the least efficient unit in the book aside from the Vengeance. I'm asking GW to fix the Nephilim, not asking them to allow me to participate in the design process. I've put forward some ideas to prod them into acting, but I'm under no illusions that my ideas for fixing it are the best ideas. They're just some ideas that I think might work, reasonable minds could differ.

Here's a question for you: would a Nephilim that was worth its points materially change the overall balance of the game? It wouldn't, would it? It would give Dark Angels more build diversity, but would not shift the balance of power between codices unless it REALLY got jacked up. Part of the problem is you're assuming that I want the flyer to destroy game balance, but that's not what I want. I just want it to be worth buying. How many times do I have to repeat that?

Also, do you have to keep accusing me of "whining?" All I'm doing is making rational arguments about a) why it should be fixed and b) why it's not wrong to ask for it to be fixed. Do you recognize that using words like "whining" to describe my arguments is actually belittling and very rude? I've tried not to belittle you or be rude to you, and if I have been I apologize. Do you think it's appropriate for you to continue being rude to me?

Are you scared of change?

I'm afraid of RECKLESS change. I'm afraid of setting a precedent where GW hands out major increases in power to anyone who whines loud enough, regardless of the actual state of game balance. I'm afraid of setting a precedent where GW immediately increases the power of a new unit if there's any threat to its sales. I'm afraid of setting a precedent where GW makes changes based on impulse whines without waiting long enough to see if those changes are really needed.

Currently game balance is not that great, but it's STABLE. It is NOT an improvement to change the situation to balance-by-democracy and make major and completely untested balance changes based on who is whining loudest at the moment.

Fortunately, I'm not arguing for reckless change. I've proposed ideas for fixing the Nephilim, they haven't been playtested but they're just ideas. Your assumption seems to be that if I get what I want, GW will just publish the most popular fan-suggested rules change, no matter how broken. That's not what I'm asking them for. I'm asking for them to fix it. That requires them to recognize their mistake and correct it in whatever way they see fit, such that it doesn't destroy game balance. They already failed at game balance by making it vastly underpowered for its points, maybe if they tweaked it a little they could get it right this time. If we don't tell them how badly they failed, and if we don't show them by not buying their sub-par product, they'll be like George Lucas after Episode I, totally convinced that everyone just loved Jar-Jar. The Nephilim is this book's Jar-Jar, and "thank you sir may I have another?" is not the correct response.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hetelic wrote:
GW isn't a rules company. It''s a minatures company. Their priority has always been sculpting and selling minatures; that they produce a rules set that alows you to use those minatures is just a bonus, in reality.

I know that's how GW works. That's why I say GW is run by incompetent idiots. They deliberately lower their standards, release an inferior product, and lose sales they would have made with a proper game. The fact that they do it deliberately doesn't make it any less stupid.

Consider what would have happened if one of the MTG designers submitted a set that was "fun" (as GW see it) but balanced as badly as 40k. They'd be told to get back to work and fix it, and if they insisted that it was a finished product and ready for sale they'd probably lose their job. And as a result of this policy WOTC sells to both the casual AND competitive markets, and gets more profit than selling to just one market.

See, you're on my side. You recognize that GW does things that are made of fail. And yet you argue in favor of stability; you want to preserve a status quo that you admit is sub-par, just because you fear any change to it might unbalance it. Well guess what? They're already making changes. Just recently, they released the Heldrake, a relatively overpowered and underpointed flyer. Then, they FAQ'd it to be better. So you see, the system is NOT stable. They've got their fingers in the pie, they're monkeying with it, and if we don't give them any feedback, how are they gonna know when they've screwed the pooch? All of your arguments about why GW sucks are arguments IN MY FAVOR. If you actually want them to stop sucking, you will do something about it. You will give them a piece of your mind about whatever game balance issue is the most important. If everyone follows this model of behavior, we might actually see them move in a positive direction. As customers, we are not powerless. Stop acting like we are.

 Ixe wrote:
Here's a question for you: would a Nephilim that was worth its points materially change the overall balance of the game?

Of course it could. If DA are already winning and the best army then giving them a better flyer makes them even more powerful and removes one of their disadvantages. On the other hand, if DA are the weakest army then giving them Vendettas wouldn't break the game. But first you need to establish what the current balance situation is, and you aren't doing that. You're demanding a "fix" to a single unit in isolation without considering the game as a whole.

Fortunately, I'm not arguing for reckless change.

Yes you are. The current codex hasn't been out long enough to give enough testing time to determine proper changes.

The problem with all this, and most arguments for stuff that is broken or under powered, is that people but them in a competitive situation, and then expect GW a model company, to make rules which appease their competitive nature. This simply will not happen. Games workshop don't care about your tournaments, nor do they care about your 'balance'.

This applies the other way, a codex isn't broken. The players break it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ixe wrote:
Here's a question for you: would a Nephilim that was worth its points materially change the overall balance of the game?

Of course it could. If DA are already winning and the best army then giving them a better flyer makes them even more powerful and removes one of their disadvantages. On the other hand, if DA are the weakest army then giving them Vendettas wouldn't break the game. But first you need to establish what the current balance situation is, and you aren't doing that. You're demanding a "fix" to a single unit in isolation without considering the game as a whole.

Fortunately, I'm not arguing for reckless change.

Yes you are. The current codex hasn't been out long enough to give enough testing time to determine proper changes.

And you didn't respond to where I called you out for rudeness. But you stopped being rude, so that's a win, I guess.

I reject the idea that you can't tell a bad unit without extensive testing, though. Low firepower for the points compared to other units in the book = weak unit. That's what the Nephilim is. The question is internal balance--is the Nephilim good enough that, given the other choices in the book, a wise player would take it? No. As long as it's internally balanced, it's virtually impossible that it would break the game. If it's no better for the points than the other stuff in the book, then it's not going to break the game unless the book, as a whole, was already going to break the game. And I don't think there's any reasonable argument that DA was going to do that. Grey Knights, which is stuffed to the gills with MUCH more beardy stuff, hasn't ruined the game yet, so DA isn't gonna, fixed Nephilim or not.

Your idea that we can't figure this out without months of testing just serves your preferred outcome of not letting the army get any better. In the short term, GW might realize that they made a mistake with S6 Blacksword missiles and release a quick errata or addendum. But in the long term, they never will. If we're slow about it, you win. So you can understand why that's not the route I've taken. You can also understand that your arguments are moot--I've already called, I've already e-mailed, I've already sent in the results of my survey, and now we see if they do anything.

 Ixe wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ixe wrote:
Here's a question for you: would a Nephilim that was worth its points materially change the overall balance of the game?

Of course it could. If DA are already winning and the best army then giving them a better flyer makes them even more powerful and removes one of their disadvantages. On the other hand, if DA are the weakest army then giving them Vendettas wouldn't break the game. But first you need to establish what the current balance situation is, and you aren't doing that. You're demanding a "fix" to a single unit in isolation without considering the game as a whole.

Fortunately, I'm not arguing for reckless change.

Yes you are. The current codex hasn't been out long enough to give enough testing time to determine proper changes.

And you didn't respond to where I called you out for rudeness. But you stopped being rude, so that's a win, I guess.

I reject the idea that you can't tell a bad unit without extensive testing, though. Low firepower for the points compared to other units in the book = weak unit. That's what the Nephilim is. The question is internal balance--is the Nephilim good enough that, given the other choices in the book, a wise player would take it? No. As long as it's internally balanced, it's virtually impossible that it would break the game. If it's no better for the points than the other stuff in the book, then it's not going to break the game unless the book, as a whole, was already going to break the game. And I don't think there's any reasonable argument that DA was going to do that. Grey Knights, which is stuffed to the gills with MUCH more beardy stuff, hasn't ruined the game yet, so DA isn't gonna, fixed Nephilim or not.

Your idea that we can't figure this out without months of testing just serves your preferred outcome of not letting the army get any better. In the short term, GW might realize that they made a mistake with S6 Blacksword missiles and release a quick errata or addendum. But in the long term, they never will. If we're slow about it, you win. So you can understand why that's not the route I've taken. You can also understand that your arguments are moot--I've already called, I've already e-mailed, I've already sent in the results of my survey, and now we see if they do anything.

You and Peregrine are both partially right (and as a note, while Peregrine can come off as abrasive, he generally has a good idea about what he is talking about). You don't have to test to observe units that may potentially be outliers, I mean you don't necessarily have had to play a game to figure out that a Vendetta is probably good or Mutilators are probably bad. However, you do need testing to confirm it. To draw an example from M:tG, one of the most broken cards from recent years was Stoneforge Mystic. However, unlike some cards which are visibly powerful, Stoneforge Mystic was largely ignored until a year after its release, when a small group of players found synergies missed by the development team and managed to produce the most broken deck magic has seen since Affinity was in standard.

Basically, my point is this, you are right to identify the Nephilim as a flyer which is potentially sub-standard in terms of its performance. However, Peregrine is right that you can't really say that the Nephilim is bad until it has been tested. Additionally, I agree with Peregrine's earlier post stating that complaining about one unit being poorly balanced is not as effective as demanding more balanced rules as a whole, for several reasons. The first is that to the developers and the company you will appear less as 'one guy crying that his stuff isn't broken' and more like 'a group of paying customers who have a problem about our business model'. The second is that if you start asking for more balanced rules across the board, you would attract more players to your cause. Heck, I'm working on a DA army right now and my first impression of the Nephilim is that it is underwhelming (I would need to test one to be certain, but as I mentioned earlier, it appears to be a lower outlier), but I would not sign a petition to get just one model better rules. The third reason that you would be better off asking for better rules across the board is that asking for one model to be fixed would be treating the symptoms, not the problem. We can whine and complain all we want about the Nephilim, and even if they do make it better, what happens when the Tau or Eldar codex is released next, and they have the next game breaking or lame duck unit? We would just end up repeating the process. By asking GW to do a better job of internally moderating their rules across the board, we could fix the problems at the source and not have to deal with this issue again for years. It's like if the fan-belt in your car keeps wearing out, you can either spend an hour every week changing the belt, or 5 hours figuring out why the belt keeps breaking, then fix that instead.

Thanks for the conciliatory tone, but I don't think your making a realistic argument. How effective will it be to demand a more balanced game overall? Not effective whatsoever. We can't demand that they get better at their jobs, they're doing the best they can. What we can realistically do is find glaringly obvious mistakes in their game design and ask that they be corrected. That's the best way to get them to produce a better game overall, go after each individual mistake they make. Asking them not to make mistakes in the fist place? Yeah, not gonna do anything. They wouldn't screw up so much if they knew how not to. But what they know how to do is listen to fans who think they screwed a particular thing up and, potentially, fix it.

 Ixe wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course, I'd love it if GW learned how to design and balance a game properly, but that's not what we have here. This isn't one step in a comprehensive plan to reform GW's game design methods and balance every army, it's a demand to fix a single unit with a threat to stop buying it if GW doesn't. There's no attempt to serve the greater good of the game, it's just another "make my army powerful" whine, but with a new expensive model's sales at stake. If GW gives in and changes the rules to make sure they don't lose any sales they set a dangerous precedent where anyone who wants a more powerful army just has to whine loud enough and GW will make their new toys more powerful, regardless of what impact it will have on overall game balance.

Do you hear yourself? You're trying to tear down my effort to fix one tiny piece of the game because I'm not enacting a master plan to fix the WHOLE game. Just stop and think for a sec. If everyone complained about every badly designed unit, and every badly designed unit got fixed, then the whole game would indeed get fixed. I'm trying to start with the first piece of the puzzle. All you're doing is complaining that I'm not trying to simultaneously put all the pieces together at the same time. The problem isn't mine, it's yours. I'm the one advocating for a fix to the thing I care about. If you advocated for a fix for the things you cared about, then we could work together and make the game better. But instead, all you care about is stopping me from getting what I want, ignoring the fact that if all you do is try and tear down your fellow players, then NOBODY is better off. You claim that you agree with me that it would be nice if GW would make a more balanced game. But instead of trying to push them to make that happen, all you do is attack your fellow players. You've got an awfully funny way of supporting game balance--by defending a lack of balance.

Yes, there could be problems if GW fixes their weak units and makes them good. But there are ALREADY problems with GW releasing weak units that aren't worth using. It's a problem for them, since it hurts their sales, and it's a problem for us, since it hurts our fun. But all you want is for everything to stay the same. Or, at least, for nobody to work for change. Are you scared of change? Is that it? You admit that GW produces games that are full of balance problems, so why are you against asking them to fix them? And again, just because I'm asking them to fix one unit does not mean I'm somehow advocating that they fix no other unit. They should fix all bad units. We just have to take it one step at a time.

not really. by the sounds of it you just want to be TFG and spam the hell out of an overpowered flier.

just by virtue of being a flier is not automatically good already?

kb305 wrote:
not really. by the sounds of it you just want to be TFG and spam the hell out of an overpowered flier.

just by virtue of being a flier is not automatically good already?

Thanks. Next time you post something, I'll make sure to impugn your motives, because that's how classy people argue.

FYI, I probably couldn't fit more than one Nephilim into my army because I plan to run Black Knights and a Darkshroud. Losing either one would be a major problem for any Ravenwing list, really. And no, flyers are not automatically good. That's why nobody takes flyers except the Necron flyers, the Vendetta, the Heldrake, and the Stormraven.

 Ixe wrote:
It's a simple proposition. It's not worth 180 points, because there are better things in the codex for 180 points.

My assault marines are better at assaulting than my scouts, therefore the scouts should either be dropped in points to reflect this, or given a buff in assault?

Not every unit has to be good for every job, otherwise your codex would have one model in it that was 2000 points that was super awesome at everything and you would put your model down on the table across from the other person's 2000 point model and roll dice until one of you rolled better than the other. Then I guess you would have to complain to GW that your model wasn't powerful enough because it didn't win.

RE the issue of ballance - it is entirely possible to create a fun ruleset that allows multiple builds while remaining ballanced - Infinity's rules are, from the reports of pretty much everyone who I have spoken with about the game, fantastically well ballanced. You can take a force made up of pretty much any model configuration you want and do reasonably well. And it is a fun and relatively easy game to play once you get the mechanics down. And because of this you can play it socially or competetively perfectly easily.

So, ballance doesn't kill fun - it means I can play the models/armies I like without knowing it will be extremely hard or impossible to actually do anything. To me that means people can have fun playing the game they want to play, either social or competetive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ixe wrote:
What we can realistically do is find glaringly obvious mistakes in their game design and ask that they be corrected. That's the best way to get them to produce a better game overall, go after each individual mistake they make.

The INAT FAQ does its best to correct or make clear the hundreds of rules errors/ambiguities GW makes in every single edition they put out (and even attempts to correct their FAQ's when they don't make those suitably clear, and just shakes its head when GW rule on the completely derp side in their FAQ's, running against all common sense, logic and gameplay). That doesn't mean that the rules they are correcting are good ones to start with, and GW haven't seemed to take on board any of the issues raised by INAT or any of the other well known bodies or individuals when writing 5th or 6th editions, so I guess that pointing out, correcting and suggesting alternative ruels to GW doesn't actually change anything...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ixe wrote:
It's a simple proposition. It's not worth 180 points, because there are better things in the codex for 180 points.

Not every unit has to be good for every job, otherwise your codex would have one model in it that was 2000 points that was super awesome at everything and you would put your model down on the table across from the other person's 2000 point model and roll dice until one of you rolled better than the other. Then I guess you would have to complain to GW that your model wasn't powerful enough because it didn't win.

My assault marines are better at assaulting than my scouts, therefore the scouts should either be dropped in points to reflect this, or given a buff in assault?

I think you've misconstrued my argument into something very dumb. That was not the argument I was intending to make. I'm not sure how you got to this weird "single 2000 point model" idea from what I was arguing. You seem to have just run with that single sentence and gone waaay into left field. Obviously, I was talking about comparing apples to apples, not arguing that it's a bad unit because it isn't capable of being an army in and of itself. Compare, for instance, 180 points of Nephilim vs. 170 points of flakk missile Devastators in the role of air defense. Devastators win, they do a lot more damage to air targets. The Nephilim has a slight edge against ground targets I think, especially because it can easily side-shot stuff with its high speed and its lascannon, and the Nephilim is harder for most enemies to kill. But the Nephilim shows up on a random game turn, moves a minimum 18", and can only make 90 degree turns. The Devs fire for the whole game until they die, so I'd say they balance out against ground targets. The major difference is their utility against air targets, and the Nephilim falls short on that front. Why does it cost 10 points more than the Devastators, with anti-ground fire that is possibly equal to them, and anti-air fire that's a whole lot worse? That's just absurd on the face of the matter.

So, you get me now? I'm comparing apples to apples. Why pay 180 points for anti-air when I could spend 170 and get a better unit, Devastators, which are just as good against most ground targets? There is no possible reason.

RE the issue of ballance - it is entirely possible to create a fun ruleset that allows multiple builds while remaining ballanced - Infinity's rules are, from the reports of pretty much everyone who I have spoken with about the game, fantastically well ballanced. You can take a force made up of pretty much any model configuration you want and do reasonably well. And it is a fun and relatively easy game to play once you get the mechanics down. And because of this you can play it socially or competetively perfectly easily.

So, ballance doesn't kill fun - it means I can play the models/armies I like without knowing it will be extremely hard or impossible to actually do anything. To me that means people can have fun playing the game they want to play, either social or competetive.

Um, who are you talking to? Who said balance kills fun? I said crappy units that aren't worth using kill fun. "Being crappy" is not the same as "being balanced," those two things are opposite but you seem to be treating them as equivalent. I'm just a little bit confused. My argument is not that the Nephilim is balanced, and it needs to be buffed so that it becomes overpowered. Is that what you think I was trying to say? Because let me be clear: I think it is underpowered, and until it gets a buff, which could be a fairly minor one like S7 missiles, it will not be balanced.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ixe wrote:
What we can realistically do is find glaringly obvious mistakes in their game design and ask that they be corrected. That's the best way to get them to produce a better game overall, go after each individual mistake they make.

The INAT FAQ does its best to correct or make clear the hundreds of rules errors/ambiguities GW makes in every single edition they put out (and even attempts to correct their FAQ's when they don't make those suitably clear, and just shakes its head when GW rule on the completely derp side in their FAQ's, running against all common sense, logic and gameplay). That doesn't mean that the rules they are correcting are good ones to start with, and GW haven't seemed to take on board any of the issues raised by INAT or any of the other well known bodies or individuals when writing 5th or 6th editions, so I guess that pointing out, correcting and suggesting alternative ruels to GW doesn't actually change anything...

Does INAT try to get GW on board with any of its changes? Have they contacted the corporate office and try to open up any kind of dialogue? Not as far as I know. But you may be right, GW might be totally unresponsive when it comes to fixing glaring mistakes. That seems to be changing though--they fixed the obvious typos in Codex: Dark Angels within a couple weeks, which is WAY faster than they used to do things like that. They even fixed the typo that made Blacksword Missiles have Target Lock, they just forgot to fix the part where they remained S6.

It almost seems like the guy who wrote the unit entry didn't even know the 6th ed rules very well. He wanted to make an air superiority fighter that was also good against ground targets, so he gave it Blast missiles with target lock that could do good damage against ground targets. But to make that balanced, he had to nerf the missiles down to S6, because S7+ Target Lock blast missiles were too powerful against ground targets. But then someone told him that blast weapons can't hit flyers, so he dropped the Blast off their profile, but forgot to remove S6 and Target Lock. And hence you have the flying turdmobile that is the Nephilim. That's why I'm optimistic they'll be willing to fix it, because it looks like a literal mistake in game design, given the typo that it shipped with.

 Ixe wrote:
Why pay 180 points for anti-air when I could spend 170 and get a better unit, Devastators, which are just as good against most ground targets? There is no possible reason.

Fast attack vs. heavy support. FOC slots matter. Which just proves my point about how you're only considering the single unit in isolation instead of the context of the full game.

 Ixe wrote:
I think you've misconstrued my argument into something very dumb. That was not the argument I was intending to make. I'm not sure how you got to this weird "single 2000 point model" idea from what I was arguing.

Hyperbolic reasoning to illustrate the kind of inane "make my stuff better!" complaining that often seems to motivate these issues.

You seem to have just run with that single sentence and gone waaay into left field. Obviously, I was talking about comparing apples to apples, not arguing that it's a bad unit because it isn't capable of being an army in and of itself. Compare, for instance, 180 points of Nephilim vs. 170 points of flakk missile Devastators in the role of air defense. Devastators win, they do a lot more damage to air targets. The Nephilim has a slight edge against ground targets I think, especially because it can easily side-shot stuff with its high speed and its lascannon, and the Nephilim is harder for most enemies to kill. But the Nephilim shows up on a random game turn, moves a minimum 18", and can only make 90 degree turns. The Devs fire for the whole game until they die, so I'd say they balance out against ground targets. The major difference is their utility against air targets, and the Nephilim falls short on that front. Why does it cost 10 points more than the Devastators, with anti-ground fire that is possibly equal to them, and anti-air fire that's a whole lot worse? That's just absurd on the face of the matter.

To be honest I think the 10 point "premium" compared to Devs is very reasonable. For that you get a model with a much greater threat range, a much higher percieved threat level and a model which is generally much more diifficult to kill - many armies lack any kind of reasonably priced skyfire ability and will have to use weight of fire to take it out. While half their army is shooting at it, the rest of your army can mooch around at will.

So, you get me now? I'm comparing apples to apples. Why pay 180 points for anti-air when I could spend 170 and get a better unit, Devastators, which are just as good against most ground targets? There is no possible reason.

In your opinion, which I believe doesn't accurately reflect reality and is based more on "I want a top tier flier for my army that can take on pretty much anything, rather than have a slightly more limited role and still be good for what it does". I say it again below, but this is more an issue with fliers in general being too powerful for their points in other armies than the DA flier being "too weak".

Um, who are you talking to?

No one in particular, just addressing the issue of ballance/fun/social vs competetive play.

Who said balance kills fun?

The issue seems to be people thinking that you don't need ballance to have fun, then complaining about their units being "crappy" compared to other units that have different roles in different armies. A scout and an assault marine have different jobs, different abilities and so different points. Same here with the DA flier and other fliers.

I said crappy units that aren't worth using kill fun. "Being crappy" is not the same as "being balanced," those two things are opposite but you seem to be treating them as equivalent. I'm just a little bit confused. My argument is not that the Nephilim is balanced, and it needs to be buffed so that it becomes overpowered. Is that what you think I was trying to say? Because let me be clear: I think it is underpowered, and until it gets a buff, which could be a fairly minor one like S7 missiles, it will not be balanced.

I don't play DA so am not that clear on their codex, however the stats it has at the moment seem more than reasonable for the kinds of roles it is supposed to fill.

However, a unit can "be crappy" and "be ballanced" at the same time. A chaos cultist "is crappy" but is ballanced because it is dirt cheap and able to be taken in large squads (as a simple example and ignoring any more complex issues). What you have to consider is that the DA flier may well be ballanced to reflect its position within the DA codex (hey, it might have happened by accident! ), rather than against fliers as a whole. A rhino and a wave serpent are both transports, yet one is 35 points and the other 100+ in some cases - looking at face value the WS is massively overcosted compared to the rhino - both are transports for 10 men, the rhino has higher armour values, fire ports and soldiers can use psychic powers inside them, however, looking more closely, the WS is (generally) more survivable (although the 6th edition Eldar FAQ has taken a huge dump all over it but that is another matter ), etc... it is still IMO (and in that of many others) far too expensive for what it does and does not do, but there is some element of balance. It clearly cannot cost the same as a rhino as it has characteristics that the rhino does not which makes it more valuable.

Fliers, as a whole, are far too powerful and far too cheap in other armies. That is an issue of ballance with the other fliers relative to everything else in the game, not an issue of the DA flier being crappy.

Does INAT try to get GW on board with any of its changes? Have they contacted the corporate office and try to open up any kind of dialogue? Not as far as I know.

INAT/some members of the INAT team and other individuals was/were credited in some of the GW FAQ's. Though obviously they ignored some of the corrections suggested.

That seems to be changing though--they fixed the obvious typos in Codex: Dark Angels within a couple weeks, which is WAY faster than they used to do things like that. They even fixed the typo that made Blacksword Missiles have Target Lock, they just forgot to fix the part where they remained S6.

Wasn't that more of an issue to ensure their their digital i-codexes were fixed, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?

I'd like to see of we can bring this topic back on track...

If we are to petition GW to improve the Nephilim because its not on par with the Heldrake, can we also start a petition to improve the Predator, too? As the main battle tank of all the Marine chapters, shouldn't it be on par with the Leman Russ tanks? No AV 14 in front? No blast weapon? BS 4 doesn't make up for all that!

pg 50 " the main role for the Nephilim is as interceptor to establish air superiority over the battlefield"

So states the DA codex. Now lets build an air superiorty fighter... Arm it with TL Lascannon, 6 Black sword missiles at S6 and a TL heavy bolter. Allow it an option to switch out its single shot lascannon for a 5 shot S6 megabolter.

Alright S6 is going to affect an AV12 flyer 16% of the time and it is going to be a glance meaning I need 12 or 18 hits to kill an opposing flyer.

Now give it one bonus. If it penetrates and gets a weapon destroyed result it can switch it to an immobilize result.

Reality the bonus only affects the lascannon.

Alright now let's try to abuse it and use it as an anti-personnel fighter... 1 Lascannon, 3 Heavybolters and 2 S6 missiles... pretty ho-hum.

Finally cost it at 170 points and guess what, no one is going to play with it. Now I like the look of the model and may buy 1 but truthfully I would rather have an ork dakkajet than a nephilim for air superiority. 9 S6 shots that hit 50% of the time is equal or better than a Nephilim and at 130 points much better.

To me, the argument is looking at this as the beginning of the 6th ed flyer rules. So far we have three examples:
Helldrake AV12 flyer that decimates MEQ and gets 2 to 4 S7 shots at flyers for 170
Dark Talon AV11 Anti-GEQ flyer for 160
Nephilim AV11 Anti-flyer for 180

It is not very heartening to have two lackluster flyers with a 4+ year window for it being redressed. I will assume those Codexes without flyers will get equal or better flyers. I assume those with retrofitted skimmers turned flyers will mostly get recosted.

Now if the norm for flyers becomes AV 10, then the nephilim may be just fine. If it is AV 11, then the nephilim is very iffy at its stated role. If it is AV 12, then it absolutely sucks.

Some ways to redress it:

1. Allow the change of heavy bolters to the mega-bolter.
2. Increase the one-shot missiles to S7 or S8.
3. Rearm the nephilim and give it another special rule that makes it Skyfire only meaning it can only target ground targets with snap fire.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I don't play DA so am not that clear on their codex, however the stats it has at the moment seem more than reasonable for the kinds of roles it is supposed to fill.

However, a unit can "be crappy" and "be ballanced" at the same time. A chaos cultist "is crappy" but is ballanced because it is dirt cheap and able to be taken in large squads (as a simple example and ignoring any more complex issues). What you have to consider is that the DA flier may well be ballanced to reflect its position within the DA codex (hey, it might have happened by accident! ), rather than against fliers as a whole. A rhino and a wave serpent are both transports, yet one is 35 points and the other 100+ in some cases - looking at face value the WS is massively overcosted compared to the rhino - both are transports for 10 men, the rhino has higher armour values, fire ports and soldiers can use psychic powers inside them, however, looking more closely, the WS is (generally) more survivable (although the 6th edition Eldar FAQ has taken a huge dump all over it but that is another matter ), etc... it is still IMO (and in that of many others) far too expensive for what it does and does not do, but there is some element of balance. It clearly cannot cost the same as a rhino as it has characteristics that the rhino does not which makes it more valuable.

No, a unit cannot be both "crappy" and "balanced." "Crappy" does not denote weak, it denoes bad. A unit with low stats that's still very cheap for its abilities, is not crappy. An underpointed unit is always powerful, even if it's got weak stats, because you get more benefit out of them than they cost in points.

Fliers, as a whole, are far too powerful and far too cheap in other armies. That is an issue of ballance with the other fliers relative to everything else in the game, not an issue of the DA flier being crappy.

Fliers are too powerful and too cheap in a select few other armies -- Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, and Chaos. But you'll notice nobody ever complains about the Ork or Dark Eldar fliers, even though they're pre-6th fliers. Nobody really complains about the Stormtalon either, and it's both cheaper and more powerful than the Nephilim. The problem with the Nephilim is not how overpowered other fliers are, though. It isn't bad only when you compare it to undercosted enemy fliers. It's just bad. It's good at anti-ground, but for way more points than it's wise to spend for a single lascannon and S6 missiles. It's bad at anti-air, which is the thing the codex really needs. So it's a bad unit, not because the flier rules are bad, but because they flubbed the design of it.

Wasn't that more of an issue to ensure their their digital i-codexes were fixed, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?

No, they could have just left the typos in there, if they wanted to. And they update their FAQs a lot more often than they used to.

 Ixe wrote:
No, a unit cannot be both "crappy" and "balanced." "Crappy" does not denote weak, it denoes bad. A unit with low stats that's still very cheap for its abilities, is not crappy. An underpointed unit is always powerful, even if it's got weak stats, because you get more benefit out of them than they cost in points.

This seems to be more of an issue with how you choose to define crappy than anything else

Fliers are too powerful and too cheap in a select few other armies -- Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, and Chaos. But you'll notice nobody ever complains about the Ork or Dark Eldar fliers, even though they're pre-6th fliers. Nobody really complains about the Stormtalon either, and it's both cheaper and more powerful than the Nephilim. The problem with the Nephilim is not how overpowered other fliers are, though. It isn't bad only when you compare it to undercosted enemy fliers. It's just bad. It's good at anti-ground, but for way more points than it's wise to spend for a single lascannon and S6 missiles. It's bad at anti-air, which is the thing the codex really needs. So it's a bad unit, not because the flier rules are bad, but because they flubbed the design of it.

Ok, so it is "bad" because it doesn't cover a particular role that you feel is lacking in the rest of the codex while being good at a different role?

No, they could have just left the typos in there, if they wanted to. And they update their FAQs a lot more often than they used to.

I don't really follow how often the FAQ's are updated so can't really comment any further on this

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Ok, so it is "bad" because it doesn't cover a particular role that you feel is lacking in the rest of the codex while being good at a different role?

Close. But I don't think it's just my own "feeling" that the codex needs anti-air, since the only other unit for the job is Devastators. Scouts and Tacticals can help, but they're only any use for that purpose if you spam them. And no, the fact that outdated codices have no anti-air at all isn't relevant. New codices should have adequate anti-air; obviously codices written before "skyfire" was a thing aren't going to have any skyfire in them until they're updated.

Alot of codexes wish they had a flier to complain about and you're gonna hop up on the soapbox and complain about how your's isn't as effective as it's fluff? If there's a legitamate complaint department at GW about "fluff awesomeness vs. Table top fail" I hope the GW guy answers with "put it in line with the mandrakes, warp talons, pyrovore...(god-emperor only knows what I missed) "

Seriously, you have a new codex with a new flier. Be happy with that. There's alot worse off armies than the D.angels in age/models/points cost etc.

You're complaints seem "first world problems"ish, I'm sorry but that's how I see it.