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.

 Accolade wrote:
I think I would agree with you Zwei, and I imagine many others would, if the rules for 40k were not priced at such a premium price.

Compared to most other games, 40k rules are exceptionally more expensive. The recent supple-codexes priced at full codex prices really exacerbates this problem. People pay a lot for the rules, and I think many (myself included) expect more than just pretty artwork and high production quality...heck, if that were the case I'd just buy Dark Heresy books since they are very good quality and usually packed with background!

I don't disagree.

I am not saying the prices aren't whacky.

I am not even saying 40K couldn't be a "better" game and that there would be no ways to improve the rules (starting with typos... lol).

All I am saying is that "more balance = better" is, at best, a subjective preference about which games you enjoy (and which games you don't enjoy). Which leads to two conclusions.

A) Games Workshop's game designers very obviously aren't subscribing to this preference. If you prefer more balanced games, GW Games probably aren't for you. If, for your money, you are better off with PP or Dark Heresy, that is what you should buy.

B) Games Workshop's game designers very obviously aren't subscribing to this preference. If you try to get a paycheck from them as a rules-writer, you should probably try to see things their way (or seek employment as a game designer for a game-company making games more to your liking).

Now, for the "I've got so much money invested"-argument... well, it goes both ways. Other people have just as much invested into 40K because it is not a balanced game.

Whichever way you change it, some people will get shafted.



To get back to the topic of a new edition:

Whenever GW is bringing out new Editions for 40K or Fantasy, I am pretty sure they'll be pushing the "narrative" emphasis even further. It's what they do. If you don't like that style of gaming and have nothing but scorn for the "narrative" idea.... you'll just burn yourself out further by sticking around.

 ductvader wrote:
*senses danger of thread lockdown due to being way off topic.*

Pretty much.

Very close, actually.

Please stay on topic here - Dakka Discussions is probably a could place to debate the whole 'Balance' Issue!

EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.

I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.

 Zweischneid wrote:


I disagree with the general sentiment here that GW made a "mistake" by turning down said application by an applicant who applied with "recommendations to better balanced/"improve" the game.

Application A: "I don't have formal experience, but I am eager and quick to learn"
Application B: "I don't have formal experience, but this is what you've been doing wrong"

These are two very different applications, even if they have the same (lack of) "experience" on their resume.

Ah -- I am actually Applicant C: "I have several years of formal, professional game design experience, and this is what you've been doing wrong."

I recognise that *even that* is a bit trolly, so I did initially try the Applicant D approach: "I have several years of formal, professional game design experience, and I am eager and quick to learn". That didn't get anywhere.

These days I teach game design, and I suspect I have considerably better job security and pay than I would have had at GW, so I don't much mind.

Apologies -- hit 'reply' without reading the whole thing, including the stay-on-topic request -- mods, feel free to delete.

 Accolade wrote:
EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.

I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.

But the LE is still a good looking book!

I've got one too, but I can't say I'd be that mad if 6th does somethings to help do things like balance out the deathstar builds and generally shake the game up and not just make tiny incremental changes as the game needs some big changes made not just tiny shifts.

Assuming we do get a 7th Edition this summer.

 Accolade wrote:
EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.

I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.

Hello, my name is Tom Kirby, perhaps you've heard of me. I exist as a Sauron-esque malign spirit that requires the condensed tears of tabletop gamers to live, but I would never be so duplicitous as to invalidate your overpriced hardback rulebook less than two years after you bought it, honest. Mauahahahahahaha-*ahem*, 'scuse me.


Seriously though, I just hope that any attempts GW make to bring the Allies system to heel in regards ridiculous combo units doesn't kill off the system's usefulness for representing armies GW don't put out official rules for. Being able to combine units from SM, IG, and INQ, for example, makes it much easier to put together an Adeptus Mechanicus army.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.

I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.

Hello, my name is Tom Kirby, perhaps you've heard of me. I exist as a Sauron-esque malign spirit that requires the condensed tears of tabletop gamers to live, but I would never be so duplicitous as to invalidate your overpriced hardback rulebook less than two years after you bought it, honest. Mauahahahahahaha-*ahem*, 'scuse me.


Seriously though, I just hope that any attempts GW make to bring the Allies system to heel in regards ridiculous combo units doesn't kill off the system's usefulness for representing armies GW don't put out official rules for. Being able to combine units from SM, IG, and INQ, for example, makes it much easier to put together an Adeptus Mechanicus army.

Changing how psychic powers work to make them more like magic in WFB would do a good job of curbing the Taudar combo. "Oh, you're going to use Fortune on your Farseer? Let me throw all my dice at preventing you from getting that off."

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.

I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.

Hello, my name is Tom Kirby, perhaps you've heard of me. I exist as a Sauron-esque malign spirit that requires the condensed tears of tabletop gamers to live, but I would never be so duplicitous as to invalidate your overpriced hardback rulebook less than two years after you bought it, honest. Mauahahahahahaha-*ahem*, 'scuse me.


Seriously though, I just hope that any attempts GW make to bring the Allies system to heel in regards ridiculous combo units doesn't kill off the system's usefulness for representing armies GW don't put out official rules for. Being able to combine units from SM, IG, and INQ, for example, makes it much easier to put together an Adeptus Mechanicus army.

Changing how psychic powers work to make them more like magic in WFB would do a good job of curbing the Taudar combo. "Oh, you're going to use Fortune on your Farseer? Let me throw all my dice at preventing you from getting that off."

All we need is for Battle Brothers to be gone...except for same codex supplements and such.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.

I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.

Hello, my name is Tom Kirby, perhaps you've heard of me. I exist as a Sauron-esque malign spirit that requires the condensed tears of tabletop gamers to live, but I would never be so duplicitous as to invalidate your overpriced hardback rulebook less than two years after you bought it, honest. Mauahahahahahaha-*ahem*, 'scuse me.


Seriously though, I just hope that any attempts GW make to bring the Allies system to heel in regards ridiculous combo units doesn't kill off the system's usefulness for representing armies GW don't put out official rules for. Being able to combine units from SM, IG, and INQ, for example, makes it much easier to put together an Adeptus Mechanicus army.

Changing how psychic powers work to make them more like magic in WFB would do a good job of curbing the Taudar combo. "Oh, you're going to use Fortune on your Farseer? Let me throw all my dice at preventing you from getting that off."

Adding some Battle Brother balance in, without entirely gimping their use, would certainly be a welcome change. I just wish that GW had thought this through harder in the first place so it wouldn't be necessary to invalidate their core rulebook halfway through a typical cycle.

The LE book is really nice, I definitely agree with that. But I would have liked it to be useful rules-wise for the expected lifespan.

I think that how the rules pan out for 6.5/7 will really determine my opinion on the whole matter. If they do some things to curb the abuses running rampant right now, I will be happy. If the release is anything like the most recent supple-codices and appears to function only as a way to yank more money out of me, I will be, for the first time, truly infuriated with GW.

 Accolade wrote:
EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.

I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.

Don't worry, the 'new edition' will be limited print in hardback, making it a collectors edition by default.

The rest of will have to buy Ipads to see what is in the new book.

 ductvader wrote:
All we need is for Battle Brothers to be gone...except for same codex supplements and such.

Or just use the current Allies of Convience rules, Allies of Convience changed to be not scoring (but still denial), and leave the last level alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Accolade wrote:

Adding some Battle Brother balance in, without entirely gimping their use, would certainly be a welcome change. I just wish that GW had thought this through harder in the first place so it wouldn't be necessary to invalidate their core rulebook halfway through a typical cycle.

If the change is to bridge 40k and WFB closer together (as rumored) to make it easier for players to learn both game systems and allow people to switch between them more effortlessly then I can see the point even if it's cutting this current edition a bit short.

 ductvader wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.

I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.

Hello, my name is Tom Kirby, perhaps you've heard of me. I exist as a Sauron-esque malign spirit that requires the condensed tears of tabletop gamers to live, but I would never be so duplicitous as to invalidate your overpriced hardback rulebook less than two years after you bought it, honest. Mauahahahahahaha-*ahem*, 'scuse me.


Seriously though, I just hope that any attempts GW make to bring the Allies system to heel in regards ridiculous combo units doesn't kill off the system's usefulness for representing armies GW don't put out official rules for. Being able to combine units from SM, IG, and INQ, for example, makes it much easier to put together an Adeptus Mechanicus army.

Changing how psychic powers work to make them more like magic in WFB would do a good job of curbing the Taudar combo. "Oh, you're going to use Fortune on your Farseer? Let me throw all my dice at preventing you from getting that off."

All we need is for Battle Brothers to be gone...except for same codex supplements and such.

Except that would do exactly what I'm hoping doesn't happen; break combo-armies. I like the ability to treat BB forces as if they're essentially all chosen out of the same codex, it's one of the best things about the Allies system to my mind, it's just a shame that the mechanic also allows some pretty heinous fusions.

There is only war.

Allies are only allies up to a point.

True Battle Brothers are something that is much much more rare than our current game.

No farseer is going to be standing alone with some broadsides while his 2x 3 bikes and wraithknight go do their thing.

I can't watch the EC video at work, but I get what you're saying there. I think the broadest appeal is balance and then allow the players to "forge the narrative" with supplements that allow for the wild swings. It's a better design model that won't lead to the stinkhole GW is destined for...

... unless they get smart with the 7E release. I'd like to seem them actually take to task the answering of FAQs and have public discussion. Zion, if you're talking to Kelly, it needs to be public, IMO, for it to matter. That's what's so lacking, open dialog. If 7E comes 2 years after 6E, that's a sign something's wrong. And we all know something is wrong; the game isn't functional in much of any setting without a discussion of what's kosher. Narrative or not, all things are not equal and that's throwing off much of the game. The only events I see pressing forward are highly comped or giving a lot of discussion prior to what's legal. No other game needs this and you can still have "narratives forged".

If it is 7E (or even 6.5E) and it doesn't show a significant change in how GW conducts business with gamers, expect the GW niche to tank even further. I don't foresee them going out of business as the narrative folks and collectors will keep them trundling along, but it will be a much smaller GW.

 TheKbob wrote:
Zion, if you're talking to Kelly, it needs to be public, IMO, for it to matter. That's what's so lacking, open dialog.

That's a bit of goal post moving there ("Doesn't count unless everyone can yell at them!"). I'm at least trying to push things into their field of view so they see the problem. That's got to count for something there.

Seriously I got a response because I wrote up the suggestions I had, sent them by post and had included a letter inside explaining my intentions as politely as possible and an email address to contact me at about any feedback/questions he had. I just wouldn't recommend sending to Kelly for two reasons: 1) he misplaced my submission for 4 months on his desk (he's also lost Kharn and some World Eaters Chosen there too) and it took a mutual acquaintance of both of ours to motivate him to find it, and 2) he's not actively writing rules right now, but is instead writing lore.

So if people want to raise issues this seems to be the best way to do it: with well written (and polite! These are PEOPLE you are writing to, so you should treat them as such) letters.

And Cadbury chocolate to "bribe" them into responding.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Zion, if you're talking to Kelly, it needs to be public, IMO, for it to matter. That's what's so lacking, open dialog.

That's a bit of goal post moving there ("Doesn't count unless everyone can yell at them!"). I'm at least trying to push things into their field of view so they see the problem. That's got to count for something there.

It's not moving the goal post when that's the goal post established by every single competitior. Open forums with discussions held with the writing staff. At the very least questions addressed, when necessary, with those to rule on complications or conflicts.

Count me wrong if I am, but I am saying when do you see a rules writer (and not "Games Workshop Development Team", that's a worrisome sign) actively reach out to big names in the community and hold a candid and open discussion on game decisisons such as what's seen on Mike Brandt's blog?

An edition change so fast would readily imply something is wrong with 6E. With no discussion, no communication, this will cause an exodus of players who will remember dropping a large amount of money on a rulebook not too long ago. Compound this on the frustrations of releases between IG and the December to Remember, and you aren't forecasting optimism. The IG release wasn't bad and certainly not a "Nids," but why did they delete long established characters and units? Why did they release a Codex 2 weeks prior to another that differs by a single page, or so, of rules? The Occam's Razor is greed or incompetance, neither are good.

I hope the 6.5E/7E rumors are true in that it signals real change back to better for the game. I am also worried, however, that's it's a sign crap's about to get worse.

 TheKbob wrote:
It's not moving the goal post when that's the goal post established by every single competitior. Open forums with discussions held with the writing staff. At the very least questions addressed, when necessary, with those to rule on complications or conflicts.

I'm actually trying to push things that are concerns I see the community raising at least. I won't claim to be a "voice of the people" but I'm at least trying to play messenger.

 TheKbob wrote:
Count me wrong if I am, but I am saying when do you see a rules writer (and not "Games Workshop Development Team", that's a worrisome sign) actively reach out to big names in the community and hold a candid and open discussion on game decisisons such as what's seen on Mike Brandt's blog?

With how people treat the devs behind their backs do you really think the environment would be that healthy for them to step out publicly and talk about things like that?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Count me wrong if I am, but I am saying when do you see a rules writer (and not "Games Workshop Development Team", that's a worrisome sign) actively reach out to big names in the community and hold a candid and open discussion on game decisisons such as what's seen on Mike Brandt's blog?

With how people treat the devs behind their backs do you really think the environment would be that healthy for them to step out publicly and talk about things like that?

Cart before horse, potentially? Are they being so negatively down trodden because they aren't supporting their product? Outside of the "always on" negativity any popular item will have on the internet, I know I'd be a lot less negative towards them if they actually explained their decisions. I may choose to still not like them, but I have an understanding.

For those us of with a rational dissenting voice about what's happening to the game with 6E, I'd take real discussion. Even if it proves "hey, business decisions, you're no longer our market and here's why..." with a means for feedback, then I know I can safely sell off all my armies, shelve the figures I want, and move on to play other games.

A new edition so soon is a sign of something wrong. And given that sales spike at a new edition, I imagine this is more financially driven versus any sort of design decision. Even as a more gamer than hobbyist, 6E is pretty good, it just needs some love. And as a customer, I need some love, too. A new $50+ rulebook is not the love I want.

 ductvader wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Edit: On the (salty) chance the rumor is true, it would make Dominion a much weaker power for Tyranids. IB tests are done at the start of the movement phase; you wouldn't be able to get Dominion in place in time to prevent IB checks.

But our Maledictions would get an effective 6"+ range due to coming after movement...paroxysm and the horror become much better...especially as you could use it from reserves.

True enough. I focused on Dominion because it is the Primaris and thus always available.

Also because Instinctive Behaviour is such a gak rule.

I'm guessing you just want to use your hormagaunts again?

They're the only unit I can't run effectively due to IB and lack of mobility in this book.

Is that so wrong? I've got like, 120 of the buggers...

But seriously, it's really more that like I said, Dominion is the Primaris power so always available. I won't necessarily roll up Paroxysm or The Horror (which I still find underwhelming against pretty much any shooty army). Besides, Horror and Paroxysm already have a 24" range, whereas Synapse is generally 12" (obviously more with Warlord trait and/or Norn Crown (lol, like people take that thing) ).

 streamdragon wrote:
(obviously more with Warlord trait and/or Norn Crown (lol, like people take that thing) ).

For people who don't run Flyrants, I have seen Norn Crown Primes buried in Carnifex Broods as a center piece or flank holder of Synapse. It's effective. Points efficient? Another story...

The change to a Psychic phase with a chance to dispel would be huge. I'd actually be okay with that as the buffs given by BRB are not balanced. Given that players just stack casters to ensure they get the right power, it would be better just to points cost out powers. Divination should be very expensive, in general. Granting a 50man squad a 4++ save is nuts. Building an army around Scrier's Gaze could introduce a whole host of strategies never seen. Foreboding would be a cheaper power, but could be a great idea for a very shooty army that doesn't want to get into melee.

The only reason why they are "balanced" now is because of the randomness, but since when have you ever seen anyone roll on Pyromancy? I have never seen it save some newbies thinking *pew* *pew* ... and then they see what Telepathy or Divination does...

That's a change for the 7E I'd like to see return. Points costed powers. Or at least major changes to how the core powers work.

 TheKbob wrote:
Cart before horse, potentially? Are they being so negatively down trodden because they aren't supporting their product? Outside of the "always on" negativity any popular item will have on the internet, I know I'd be a lot less negative towards them if they actually explained their decisions. I may choose to still not like them, but I have an understanding.

I'd say some of the hyperbolic hatred for writers I've seen online is enough to encourage them to not be open, even if it would be helpful. I have a feeling that a reason why GW (namely the Board of Directors who makes these kinds of decisions) feels the need to insulate itself so much from "us" is because they don't know how to deal with the negativity productively (to be fair not many do) and turn the community interaction into something better regardless.

As for the new edition, I don't know if the only reason would be to drum up some "quick cash". 40k was still the top seller of all the wargames on the market last year (at least in the US) so I don't know how bad it's really doing, or if it's just a comparative thing, and for all our harping on GW they don't really seem to operate on the idea of the short term sale. At least not in when they actually talk about what they're doing.

Wow, I thought Zwei had been rehabilitated, first time in weeks I've seen the ole "say something ridiculous, make it all about me, derail the thread" trick.

Yet you chose a day, and a time, when I was tied up doing proper grown up things IRL so I wasn't on hand to call you on your bull gak.

Well played sir, well played!

 TheKbob wrote:
The only reason why they are "balanced" now is because of the randomness, but since when have you ever seen anyone roll on Pyromancy? I have never seen it save some newbies thinking *pew* *pew* ... and then they see what Telepathy or Divination does...

That's a change for the 7E I'd like to see return. Points costed powers. Or at least major changes to how the core powers work.

*Generally speaking*, the studio notices when certain units or options are spammed and others ignored. So I think some rebalancing of the rulebook psychic powers is inevitable in the next edition, and far more likely than a new psychic phase.

 gorgon wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
The only reason why they are "balanced" now is because of the randomness, but since when have you ever seen anyone roll on Pyromancy? I have never seen it save some newbies thinking *pew* *pew* ... and then they see what Telepathy or Divination does...

That's a change for the 7E I'd like to see return. Points costed powers. Or at least major changes to how the core powers work.

*Generally speaking*, the studio notices when certain units or options are spammed and others ignored. So I think some rebalancing of the rulebook psychic powers is inevitable in the next edition, and far more likely than a new psychic phase.

All primaris should be a shooting attack...I think that balances them a bit right there.

Pyrovores and mandrakes have certainly come into their own with the new books.

I know you said generally speaking, but the list just goes on and on of bad units remaining bad. Most eldar aspects are still terrible, and the Falcon shouldn't even have an entry in the codex at this point. Vespids still don't ever see the table. Dreadnoughts have not received the necessary improvements to make them function in any sort of semblance to what they should be. I could spend hours describing in detail what units were bad in 5th and remain bad in 6th, and probably will in 7th.

I genuinely believe they do not play their own game. Or if they do, they play at the level of someone just getting into the hobby with no tactical wargaming experience.

Goresaw wrote:
Pyrovores and mandrakes have certainly come into their own with the new books.
Most eldar aspects are still terrible, and the Falcon shouldn't even have an entry in the codex at this point.

Dem is fightin' words.

Goresaw wrote:
Pyrovores and mandrakes have certainly come into their own with the new books.

I know you said generally speaking, but the list just goes on and on of bad units remaining bad. Most eldar aspects are still terrible, and the Falcon shouldn't even have an entry in the codex at this point. Vespids still don't ever see the table. Dreadnoughts have not received the necessary improvements to make them function in any sort of semblance to what they should be. I could spend hours describing in detail what units were bad in 5th and remain bad in 6th, and probably will in 7th.

I genuinely believe they do not play their own game. Or if they do, they play at the level of someone just getting into the hobby with no tactical wargaming experience.

I am told from ex-GW guys or folks who know the ex-GW guys that the concept of "play testing" is playing a game on the clock; this is unacceptable. You must write the rules correct the first time. Play on your own time.

This sounds like a terrible rumor, but I've heard it now from three independant parties. I really hope it's something being spread on the internet as false, but there's that. We know from other industries that ineffective middle management can kill projects, so I imagine a wargame would be no different.

Zion, the release of the Storm Trooper codex prior to the IG codex feels like a short sell tactic. So does all the limited release items. With rumors that the storm trooper book now being out of print, that would all but confirm this strategy. I certainly hope not, but that would lend even further credence that the management of GW believes we're walking wallets and the hobby is buying GW stuff, not playing with it. Sorry, that's not what I signed up for years ago.

Every major entity that deals in any for of consumer affair must deal with interenet "hatred" be it warranted or unwarranted fanboy vitriol. A great majority of companies have realized that allowing this toxic behavior to breed and escalate is bad for business. Hence, many companies now have twitter, facebook, instagram, etc. type social media accounts along with forums. And they have created a new job called the "community manager". We all know video games draw the same, if not more, ire for bad business decisions. All the major large brands have these managers work as liasons to help smooth over rough spots and to make sure the consumer feels engaged with. This feeling of engagement lends to a feeling of community which leads belonging. Those emotions make a more faithful consumer base who will purchase more products and services.

By actively not having these things in the today's market, GW is hindering themselves. And a new edition without these changes in business operation will be short sighted.

 ductvader wrote:
There is only war.

Allies are only allies up to a point.

True Battle Brothers are something that is much much more rare than our current game.

No farseer is going to be standing alone with some broadsides while his 2x 3 bikes and wraithknight go do their thing.

But that's not what I'm talking about. To continue the AdMech example; my army is not a Space Marine Master of the Forge, Scouts, Thunderfire Cannons, Devastator Centurions, and a Dreadnought; allied with Imperial Guard led by Straken commanding an Infantry Platoon blob, Psyker Battle Squad, and Veteran Squad; accompanied by an Inquisitor and a retinue. It's a single force comprised of a Secutor Lord, Skitarii, Ordo Reductor Thunderfire Battery, Mymidon Secutors, and a "Paragon of Iron" Castellax Battle Automata; an Archmagos Explorator, Servitor blob, Electropriest Luminen Coven, and the personal guard of Rogue Trader Hermôt Caranax III; also including Artisan Suspensor Forquoi and a unit of Murder-Servitors.

Without Battle Brothers, I could probably still put those same units down on the table, but they won't function as a single army any more, which rather defeats the purpose of using the Allies rules to construct a single army from disparate elements.

 Yodhrin wrote:

But that's not what I'm talking about. To continue the AdMech example; my army is not a Space Marine Master of the Forge, Scouts, Thunderfire Cannons, Devastator Centurions, and a Dreadnought; allied with Imperial Guard led by Straken commanding an Infantry Platoon blob, Psyker Battle Squad, and Veteran Squad; accompanied by an Inquisitor and a retinue. It's a single force comprised of a Secutor Lord, Skitarii, Ordo Reductor Thunderfire Battery, Mymidon Secutors, and a "Paragon of Iron" Castellax Battle Automata; an Archmagos Explorator, Servitor blob, Electropriest Luminen Coven, and the personal guard of Rogue Trader Hermôt Caranax III; also including Artisan Suspensor Forquoi and a unit of Murder-Servitors.

Without Battle Brothers, I could probably still put those same units down on the table, but they won't function as a single army any more, which rather defeats the purpose of using the Allies rules to construct a single army from disparate elements.

A) Bad-ass army. I love Straken, even if it's "someone else".

B) If they actively designed the game with the idea of balance, then we'd negate the bad sides of battle brothers and allow for these to come out. I agree, I can recreate the Witchhunters Codex with all the battle brother SoB have been gaining and it can be super fluffy fun time (and actually make them competitive versus a shell of a codex). However, does this outweigh all the other broken combos? I am not paying $50 for books to be responsible to also troubleshoot them with my friends/opposing players.

Most people agree that if an edition change happened, it'd need to eliminate battle brothers as they exist now. As sad as I'd be, I concur. They are utterly broken right now.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

But that's not what I'm talking about. To continue the AdMech example; my army is not a Space Marine Master of the Forge, Scouts, Thunderfire Cannons, Devastator Centurions, and a Dreadnought; allied with Imperial Guard led by Straken commanding an Infantry Platoon blob, Psyker Battle Squad, and Veteran Squad; accompanied by an Inquisitor and a retinue. It's a single force comprised of a Secutor Lord, Skitarii, Ordo Reductor Thunderfire Battery, Mymidon Secutors, and a "Paragon of Iron" Castellax Battle Automata; an Archmagos Explorator, Servitor blob, Electropriest Luminen Coven, and the personal guard of Rogue Trader Hermôt Caranax III; also including Artisan Suspensor Forquoi and a unit of Murder-Servitors.

Without Battle Brothers, I could probably still put those same units down on the table, but they won't function as a single army any more, which rather defeats the purpose of using the Allies rules to construct a single army from disparate elements.

A) Bad-ass army. I love Straken, even if it's "someone else".

B) If they actively designed the game with the idea of balance, then we'd negate the bad sides of battle brothers and allow for these to come out. I agree, I can recreate the Witchhunters Codex with all the battle brother SoB have been gaining and it can be super fluffy fun time (and actually make them competitive versus a shell of a codex). However, does this outweigh all the other broken combos? I am not paying $50 for books to be responsible to also troubleshoot them with my friends/opposing players.

Most people agree that if an edition change happened, it'd need to eliminate battle brothers as they exist now. As sad as I'd be, I concur. They are utterly broken right now.

I suppose where people fall on this will come down to play environment; I'd much rather they left BB alone and wait(probably in vain) for GW to work through and nerf/introduce counters to the most egregious combinations(which they could do very quickly if they wanted to via FAQs, but I'm not naive enough to believe that will happen), than gut the rules that allow people to make really characterful fluff armies, but on the rare occasions I get to play it's almost always with players who have a similar mindset so I don't tend to run into Seerstars, Taudar etc that often. I can understand that someone who has to deal with that crap on a regular basis would probably value a resolution that quickly dealt with that kind of nonsense over the hypothetical ability to use Allies "properly".