Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 10:35:22
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:If somebody has a cool idea that makes it work, why should there be restrictions to stop them?
Because there's more to the game then "invent some fluff and put your toys on the table". Some people actually play the game as a game, and those restrictions you hate are important to making the game balanced and interesting. The fact that GW's staggering incompetence has pretty well destroyed that game doesn't make the decision to trash it even more a good one.
If the restrictions are gone, everyone wins.
Except the people who have to play against the combination. People who focus on the gameplay lose because the idea of each army having its own identity with strengths and weaknesses is damaged, and balance is broken by stuff like mandatory divination inquisitors in every imperial army, Tau allying with Tau to spam more Riptides, etc. Meanwhile people who focus on the fluff have to put up with playing games against "unfluffy" combinations, destroying their ability to enjoy the story behind the game.
this about sums it up.
this and also carebears. i didnt realize all the factions were a bunch of hand holding carebears. i thought it was grimdark where they all hated each other.
as for creativity. no thanks. i dont think anyone is interested in homemade stories about how your necrons and grey knights polish eachother's armor decoration after a tough battle.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 10:36:07
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
West Midlands (UK)
|
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Games Workshop cannot possibly micro-manage the rules to the point where non-flavourful armies no longer exist.
Nonsense. GW has plenty of tools. They can remove non-fluffy options from the army list, impose prerequisites to take units (such as taking an appropriate HQ to unlock another unit), impose penalties for taking units (such as having a HQ choice make another unit 0-1 or even entirely unavailable), impose limits on how many of a particular unit you can take to eliminate spamming "rare" units, etc. And outside of those hard limits they can adjust the power level of units/combinations so that the fluffiest combinations are also the most appealing for gameplay reasons, which pushes even players who don't care much about fluff into playing fluffier armies.
Sure they could.
Or you could do it yourself, if you think those limits are fluffy and still leave the game open for people to play without those restrictions, if they don't think they are fluffy or helpful at all, for the game/campaign/story they are playing.
Again, win-win.
Not having those restrictions hard-coded into the game does nothing to prevent you from not exercising an option. You don't NEED to take more than 0-1 of one unit for a given HQ Choice if you don't want to. All those restrictions would do is hinder people who would want to go that way.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 10:38:33
Subject: Re:Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
i have a feeling this is going to be the guitar hero of Table top games.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 10:43:29
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Zweischneid wrote:Or you could do it yourself, if you think those limits are fluffy and still leave the game open for people to play without those restrictions, if they don't think they are fluffy or helpful at all, for the game/campaign/story they are playing.
Don't move the goalposts. You said that GW can't possibly do it, not that they shouldn't.
Not having those restrictions hard-coded into the game does nothing to prevent you from not exercising an option. You don't NEED to take more than 0-1 of one unit for a given HQ Choice if you don't want to. All those restrictions would do is hinder people who would want to go that way.
And, again, you're missing the point that people who care about fluff have to play against those armies. Yes, you can voluntarily decline to ally BT and Tau even though it would give you a strategic benefit, but when your opponent shows up with a BT/Tau army because they wanted assault troops to protect their Riptides and don't really care about the fluff they're trampling your enjoyment of that game is going to be severely damaged. And if you constantly refuse to play against people because you don't like their army's fluff you'll find yourself playing by yourself while everyone else has fun.
So yeah, this is clearly a better situation than GW creating rules that represent the fluff instead of destroying it...
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 10:46:58
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
West Midlands (UK)
|
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Or you could do it yourself, if you think those limits are fluffy and still leave the game open for people to play without those restrictions, if they don't think they are fluffy or helpful at all, for the game/campaign/story they are playing.
Don't move the goalposts. You said that GW can't possibly do it, not that they shouldn't.
I said they can't possibly do it in a way that satisfies everyone. They probably could do it with the restrictions YOU think are fluffy, but that would obviously leave out all the people who'd disagree with you on those. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:
And, again, you're missing the point that people who care about fluff have to play against those armies. Yes, you can voluntarily decline to ally BT and Tau even though it would give you a strategic benefit, but when your opponent shows up with a BT/Tau army because they wanted assault troops to protect their Riptides and don't really care about the fluff they're trampling your enjoyment of that game is going to be severely damaged. .
If they bring these combinations, it might be a clue that they don't enjoy the restrictions you want Games Workshop to enforce for you. Making these combinations illegal would thus be trampling on their enjoyment of the game.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/03 10:48:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 10:52:11
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Sneaky Striking Scorpion
South West UK
|
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Or you could do it yourself, if you think those limits are fluffy and still leave the game open for people to play without those restrictions, if they don't think they are fluffy or helpful at all, for the game/campaign/story they are playing.
Don't move the goalposts. You said that GW can't possibly do it, not that they shouldn't.
Not having those restrictions hard-coded into the game does nothing to prevent you from not exercising an option. You don't NEED to take more than 0-1 of one unit for a given HQ Choice if you don't want to. All those restrictions would do is hinder people who would want to go that way.
And, again, you're missing the point that people who care about fluff have to play against those armies. Yes, you can voluntarily decline to ally BT and Tau even though it would give you a strategic benefit, but when your opponent shows up with a BT/Tau army because they wanted assault troops to protect their Riptides and don't really care about the fluff they're trampling your enjoyment of that game is going to be severely damaged. And if you constantly refuse to play against people because you don't like their army's fluff you'll find yourself playing by yourself while everyone else has fun.
So yeah, this is clearly a better situation than GW creating rules that represent the fluff instead of destroying it...
See this of course already exists to a degree. But what GW seem to be doing recently, is widening that degree rather dramatically. I mean I accept that there's a slight trade-off in sticking with a whole-Eldar army when I could be a little more effective by bringing in some allies. But I'm willing to make that trade-off. I like the feel of an all-Eldar army. But recently it seems that the trade-off is becoming a worse and worse deal. And there comes a point for many where it goes from tolerable to intolerable. The concern is that we're reaching that point for more and more people. I don't want to face Scout-nerfing Divinating Inquisitors every battle, but it seems to be where I'm going. I don't want every battle to include Riptides and I certainly don't want to find that every other battle my Eldar are coming up against Imperial forces with Wraith Knights (which I suspect will be the next formation). That's just smashing the narrative to bits.
And lets face it - narrative is a major part of the draw for WH40K. If we were just after well-balanced and reasonably priced wargaming, none of us would be here!
|
What is best in life?
To wound enemy units, see them driven from the table, and hear the lamentations of their player. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 10:53:29
Subject: Re:Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon
|
So far i only read about these releases. Im playing in a friendly game only meta with laid back long time players. Ive yet to play against any digital release other than the Sisters Codex (we have 2 regular sisters players in our group) and i enjoyed it.
I think for a competitive format its stressfull and although i was always interested in playing more in competitive formats all the new rules made it more and more a chore to keep up.
I dont want my new SW codex in piecemeal and i want it to be playable without having to add the new FOTM.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 10:54:53
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Sneaky Striking Scorpion
South West UK
|
Zweischneid wrote:If they bring these combinations, it might be a clue that they don't enjoy the restrictions you want Games Workshop to enforce for you. Making these combinations illegal would thus be trampling on their enjoyment of the game.
Flawed assumptions. It may be (and almost certainly is) that they are motivated primarily by winning / effectiveness, rather than "oh, I just love the feel of RipTides and Space Marines fighting side by side". Ergo, they may be able to satisfy that motivation with any army list so long as the restrictions are universal.
|
What is best in life?
To wound enemy units, see them driven from the table, and hear the lamentations of their player. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 11:14:37
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Zweischneid wrote:They probably could do it with the restrictions YOU think are fluffy, but that would obviously leave out all the people who'd disagree with you on those.
No, I'm talking about the restrictions GW thinks are fluffy. Figure out what a fluffy army is, make rules that represent that army.
If they bring these combinations, it might be a clue that they don't enjoy the restrictions you want Games Workshop to enforce for you. Making these combinations illegal would thus be trampling on their enjoyment of the game.
I don't think you really understand how people like that work. Making one combination illegal means they just move to the next winning strategy and are just as happy. And basing your game design decisions on fear of making the people using the most overpowered stuff unhappy that their overpowered toys have been taken away is a really bad idea. For the good of the game as a whole you have to accept that a tiny minority will be unhappy that they can't win as easily anymore and make that change.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/03 11:16:23
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 11:32:02
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Wow just wow.....so here is where I fall on the release thing.
I feel like it is GW going... Beginning of 6th Ed ..."This game is not meant for Competitive play."
See tournaments happening....and arguments online etc....
Start releases
"What part of THIS IS NOT FOR COMPETITIVE PLAY did you guys not understand"
As for the fluff ally thing...whether I have an issue with the allies matrix or not I have issue with the argument about restrictions not needing be on the game because....THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ALREADY.
Saying well I can come up with a way for Tau and SM to work together...great I can come up with a ways for DE and Tyranids or CSM and Space Marines to work together...but wait your choice is legal and mine is not....unless I house rule it...and that is the point.
The ally matrix should reflect the fluff better because it is not evenly unrestricted they chose some restrictions to be along fluff...so if you are going to restrict along fluff lines you need to be consistent...which they are not at all.
Furthermore, since a non-competitive environment can include anything players agree to putting restrictions in place to stop horrible power gaming is a good thing....but then GW is again stating...we don't cater to competitive play whether it exists or not...so we have no issue if unfun pickup games happen because guys show up with power gamer lists....because that will never happen because everyone will play like we do here in Nottingham.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 18:53:06
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).
looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 19:00:22
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
gossipmeng wrote:I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).
looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.
See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 19:09:39
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I feel like people can't be happy.
Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.
Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.
I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords. Automatically Appended Next Post: Blacksails wrote: gossipmeng wrote:I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).
looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.
See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.
I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/03 19:10:28
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 19:48:59
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:I feel like people can't be happy.
Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.
Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.
I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: gossipmeng wrote:I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).
looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.
See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.
I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.
You must not have read black legion then
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 19:49:35
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Akiasura wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:I feel like people can't be happy.
Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.
Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.
I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: gossipmeng wrote:I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).
looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.
See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.
I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.
You must not have read black legion then
I didn't. But I have Raukaan and I have seen all the others. *shrug*
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 21:04:18
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:Akiasura wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:I feel like people can't be happy.
Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.
Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.
I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: gossipmeng wrote:I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).
looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.
See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.
I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.
You must not have read black legion then
I didn't. But I have Raukaan and I have seen all the others. *shrug*
And you can say that iyanden/Raukaan are comparable to C:I? Supplements seem fine and dandy if you are imperial, but everyone else is watching their codex get relatively weaker in comparison.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 21:08:25
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Akiasura wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Akiasura wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:I feel like people can't be happy.
Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.
Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.
I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: gossipmeng wrote:I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).
looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.
See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.
I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.
You must not have read black legion then
I didn't. But I have Raukaan and I have seen all the others. *shrug*
And you can say that iyanden/Raukaan are comparable to C:I? Supplements seem fine and dandy if you are imperial, but everyone else is watching their codex get relatively weaker in comparison.
Well weakness/strength in the game has little to do with quality, imo. I'm almost positive GW doesn't use the weakness/strength of a codex/rulesset as a QA measurement.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 21:16:02
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:Akiasura wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Akiasura wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:I feel like people can't be happy.
Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.
Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.
I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: gossipmeng wrote:I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).
looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.
See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.
I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.
You must not have read black legion then
I didn't. But I have Raukaan and I have seen all the others. *shrug*
And you can say that iyanden/Raukaan are comparable to C:I? Supplements seem fine and dandy if you are imperial, but everyone else is watching their codex get relatively weaker in comparison.
Well weakness/strength in the game has little to do with quality, imo. I'm almost positive GW doesn't use the weakness/strength of a codex/rulesset as a QA measurement.
I suppose that's why I see it differently. Been playing for long enough that, unless they change established fluff, everything seems somewhat rehashed. I judge the quality of a supplement on what it does for the parent army, and from that standpoint, it's been very heavily slanted towards imperials.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 21:27:53
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Akiasura wrote: I suppose that's why I see it differently. Been playing for long enough that, unless they change established fluff, everything seems somewhat rehashed. I judge the quality of a supplement on what it does for the parent army, and from that standpoint, it's been very heavily slanted towards imperials. I've been playing for a while too, and everything does seem rehashed. And I agree with you there, the supplement power levels have been all over the place. When people say "quality" I usually think of like, formatting, coloration, grammar mistakes, etc. For me, something is low quality if it is bound badly, has coffee stains on some pages, and every other word is misspelled (ok, yes, a bit of hyperbole  ). As for power level, you're right - if you include power level as a determinator of price, then some of the supplements' prices come out of left field.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/03 21:28:07
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 21:50:34
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Executing Exarch
|
Zweischneid wrote: Vaktathi wrote: Talore wrote:Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.
So in essence you're saying there should be no allies restrictions at all then basically? Everyone should be able to be battle brothers with everyone?
If yes, then we've just got a fundamental disagreement about how the game should interact with the fluff. If no, then there certainly isn't any reason why the Space Marines should be more eager to join with Tau than with, say, the Sisters of Battle. Let's not forget the Tau work ceaselessely to undermine the Eastern Fringe while the SM's took part in a crusade which, if successful, would have led to the complete genocide of the Tau race. Seeing Tau as Battle Brothers with SM forces and other such sillyness is a real killer for the immersion, and lets face it, this game is what it is because of its fluff, not its rules.
The game is what it is because it promotes creativity.
There is creativity and there is a mangled monstrosity of stupidity and trying to force it down other peoples throats because you think what you came up with is special. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Games Workshop cannot possibly micro-manage the rules to the point where non-flavourful armies no longer exist.
Nonsense. GW has plenty of tools. They can remove non-fluffy options from the army list, impose prerequisites to take units (such as taking an appropriate HQ to unlock another unit), impose penalties for taking units (such as having a HQ choice make another unit 0-1 or even entirely unavailable), impose limits on how many of a particular unit you can take to eliminate spamming "rare" units, etc. And outside of those hard limits they can adjust the power level of units/combinations so that the fluffiest combinations are also the most appealing for gameplay reasons, which pushes even players who don't care much about fluff into playing fluffier armies.
The only reason GW doesn't do more to force everyone to use fluffy armies is their unbelievable laziness and incompetence.
That sounds a lot like that balance thing Peregrine, I will have none of it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/03 21:52:26
Rick Priestley said it best:
Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! The modern studio isn’t a studio in the same way; it isn’t a collection of artists and creatives sharing ideas and driving each other on. It’s become the promotions department of a toy company – things move on!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 21:53:57
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Vaktathi wrote:to be fair, the whole white scars "scout up, oh look I'm in immediate optimum range for everything turn 1" thing probably deserved a bit of a knockback 
Compared to what? Compared to Taudar? I think not.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/03 23:05:27
Subject: Re:Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
I'm all for 40k light (33% less fat)
1 freakin army (no allies, no inq, no formations)
choose warlord trait
no fortifications
no random objectives
One army vs another, no bs
It's a good jumping off point at least. It doesn't limit the directions you can collectively take the game in, but things remain relatively sane and a bit easier to process given the breakneck speed of releases.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/04 00:41:47
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 02:52:37
Subject: Re:Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Crablezworth wrote:I'm all for 40k light (33% less fat)
1 freakin army (no allies, no inq, no formations)
choose warlord trait
no fortifications
no random objectives
One army vs another, no bs
It's a good jumping off point at least. It doesn't limit the directions you can collectively take the game in, but things remain relatively sane and a bit easier to process given the breakneck speed of releases.
Oh c'mon, you can't really mean that? That's not cinematic enough! GW needs to make rules so not only can anyone use any unit from any army, but allow people to use their creativity and put any model in ANY SQUAD! How cool would that be? Now those broadsides can stand side by side with long fangs and centurions in the SAME SQUAD!!! That land raider crusader can bring some really creative combos like that berzerker/wych cult/hammenator/nobs hybrid!!
Limitations suck, after all.
Can't wait for the next series of supplements, starting with Codex: Infiltration (but only on Tuesdays)!!!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 05:13:57
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator
|
Siphen wrote: Already, we can take an Imperial Guard army (codex) using a Baneblade (escalation) and forgeworld models (imperial armour) with inquisition support (digital codex), allied to a Chaos Space Marine army (codex) led by Be'Lakor (digital release). This will only become more and more common as we get more mini-codices, individual special character updates, and supplements.
Peregrine wrote: If this "buy a unit for $4" plan succeeds then you can expect a lot more of the same in the future.
"What is this?" I say to myself, "This is the first I've heard of things like this . . . I should do some digging to find out more."
and so I did.
*blinks*
. . . I had no idea.
Good Lord, has GW recruited it's marketing department from an MMO? Are we now playing a mico-transaction, table-top game? (With Macro-transaction to spice it up of-course). Of course, there is no subscription (unless you count WD :p) so micro-transactions are the obvious choice. But, well, I would not have predicted this 12 months ago. I don't really know what to think. It will be interesting to see if this pans out, and what it might give rise to.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 06:20:22
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Repentia Mistress
|
My reaction to these releases is the same as literally everyone elses, disgust.
It's really disruptive to the game when I have to learn the rules for someone like Bel'akor mid-game in a tournament but at the same time I can't afford to spend 5$ on a single characters rules assuming they come out with a few of these characters. It also supports piracy which I'll admit to using, buying the books I end up loving.
I own BA, 5th and 6th Tau, GK and the old SM book. Hopefully new Eldar too come this xmas.
Overall though I think adding new options to the game is good and especially if they change up some of the underplayed models with recent rules changes (I'm disappointed in Black Legion supplement because it didn't do this)
Really we have to wait and see how tournaments get impacted to REALLY tell how the new rules impact stuff.
Formations don't bother me too much as a player in my local won't come to a 40k night with 3 different races and put on a straight face at the same time.
Not worried about the superheavies thing as it just won't get implemented into tournaments or even regular nights.
Patiently waiting for a cool GK update, some uniqueness to the codex would be appreciated after Inquisition.
|
hey what time is it?
"Try looking on page 12 of the FAQ."
-Ghaz |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 09:58:49
Subject: Re:Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I think the main problem is that decisions are made by managers who have no idea what gaming is about. They have no concept of game balance and what makes gaming fun. That's why they think they can get away with "buying miniatures is the hobby" and "who pays most this month wins". Such an unforgiving attitude is common among managers, but far from what children or other customers want and need. Second time you got bullied by a flood of expensive superheavies, you won't play that opponent again or even quit the game. IMHO this is the basis of alienation between GW and customers.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 10:14:30
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Sneaky Striking Scorpion
South West UK
|
Pendix wrote:Good Lord, has GW recruited it's marketing department from an MMO? Are we now playing a mico-transaction, table-top game? (With Macro-transaction to spice it up of-course). Of course, there is no subscription (unless you count WD :p) so micro-transactions are the obvious choice. But, well, I would not have predicted this 12 months ago. I don't really know what to think. It will be interesting to see if this pans out, and what it might give rise to.
I think you might not be far wrong there, regarding MMO influence. I can well see someone giving a presentation to the board on "What we can learn from MMOs",. Downloadable content, pay to get an advantage.
I mean you always could get an advantage to some extent if you had more money, because it gave you more choice. But there are degrees of things that are tolerable and degrees that are not.
I've yet to read everything people are talking about, but the Inquisitors is sufficient to displease me already.
|
What is best in life?
To wound enemy units, see them driven from the table, and hear the lamentations of their player. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 12:28:58
Subject: Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:I feel like people can't be happy.
Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.
Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.
I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: gossipmeng wrote:I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).
looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.
See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.
I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.
Supplements would be fine if they were of decent quality, didnt cost an arm and leg and werent released in such an early state they could have been in the primary codex from the get go and the fluff as low carb even Kate Moss went home hungry.
Noone would have a problem of the supplements if the quality reasonably reflected the cost of them and added more to the game than a simple faq update could accomplish.
|
A Dark Angel fell on a watcher in the Dark Shroud silently chanted Vengance on the Fallen Angels to never be Unforgiven |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 23:25:53
Subject: Re:Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Kroothawk wrote:I think the main problem is that decisions are made by managers who have no idea what gaming is about. They have no concept of game balance and what makes gaming fun. That's why they think they can get away with "buying miniatures is the hobby" and "who pays most this month wins". Such an unforgiving attitude is common among managers, but far from what children or other customers want and need. Second time you got bullied by a flood of expensive superheavies, you won't play that opponent again or even quit the game. IMHO this is the basis of alienation between GW and customers.
I'm no commie but it seems capitalism tends to ruin things. I never cared for apoc because of the pay to win nature of it all, there's no escaping that in so much that models will always cost money but it bleeding down into 40k is really dissapointing.
|
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 23:30:14
Subject: Re:Is our game becoming a hodgepodge of releases?
|
 |
Sneaky Striking Scorpion
South West UK
|
Crablezworth wrote: Kroothawk wrote:I think the main problem is that decisions are made by managers who have no idea what gaming is about. They have no concept of game balance and what makes gaming fun. That's why they think they can get away with "buying miniatures is the hobby" and "who pays most this month wins". Such an unforgiving attitude is common among managers, but far from what children or other customers want and need. Second time you got bullied by a flood of expensive superheavies, you won't play that opponent again or even quit the game. IMHO this is the basis of alienation between GW and customers.
I'm no commie but it seems capitalism tends to ruin things. I never cared for apoc because of the pay to win nature of it all, there's no escaping that in so much that models will always cost money but it bleeding down into 40k is really dissapointing.
It's not so much capitalism, as short-termism. Used to work okay before the market became a frenzy of piranhas desperate for an increase in earnings every quarter. By okay, I mean, not perfect, but as well or better than anything else.
|
What is best in life?
To wound enemy units, see them driven from the table, and hear the lamentations of their player. |
|
 |
 |
|