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) 2014/03/22 01:21:36
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
|
I used to have this fantasy about people having their own unique build of army, but these new bigger units, Wraithknights and Riptides in particular, seem to be homogenizing Tau and Eldar armies like never before. But then, maybe it was always like this and the big units are just noticeable enough to make me realize it.
EDIT: After giving it a bit of thought the latter really is the case, isn't it? The Eldar were all using war walkers and fire dragons before, and the Tau, well...They honestly didn't have a wide array of choices to begin with. I'm just a bit miffed that so many people don't seem to mind getting the exact same things as everybody else. Is there a peer pressure problem in this hobby?
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/03/22 01:28:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 01:38:37
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
No, there's a balance problem in this hobby. When certain units are clearly better than others those units will inevitably be more common. You're only labeling it "peer pressure" because of some bizarre idea that if you deliberately take weak units you're somehow a "better hobbyist" or "more original" rather than just playing badly.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 01:40:50
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
|
Peregrine wrote:
No, there's a balance problem in this hobby. When certain units are clearly better than others those units will inevitably be more common. You're only labeling it "peer pressure" because of some bizarre idea that if you deliberately take weak units you're somehow a "better hobbyist" or "more original" rather than just playing badly.
And this is in no way a cycle fed by the WAAC crowd.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 01:44:41
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Major
Fortress of Solitude
|
Peregrine wrote:
No, there's a balance problem in this hobby. When certain units are clearly better than others those units will inevitably be more common. You're only labeling it "peer pressure" because of some bizarre idea that if you deliberately take weak units you're somehow a "better hobbyist" or "more original" rather than just playing badly.
What does deliberately taking weak units have to do with "playing badly"?
If I play a 750 point game against someone just starting out, does not taking 3 Riptides mean that I am playing poorly?
I should think that winning with a handicap is playing well.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 01:44:41
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Its more because of the trend rather than peer pressure. Its the trend to take whats best all the time unfortunately, nobody is pressured as much as its hard not to if everyone else is doing it.
Which kind of sounds like peer pressure...
I personally see it as a problem but I dont think peer pressure is to blame. The way a lot of people play it is not how the game was overly intended to be played as, so problems arise such as what you mentioned. Which really just comes down to the individual.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 01:51:52
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
|
Swastakowey wrote:Its more because of the trend rather than peer pressure. Its the trend to take whats best all the time unfortunately, nobody is pressured as much as its hard not to if everyone else is doing it.
Which kind of sounds like peer pressure...
I personally see it as a problem but I dont think peer pressure is to blame. The way a lot of people play it is not how the game was overly intended to be played as, so problems arise such as what you mentioned. Which really just comes down to the individual.
Why are humans flawed?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 01:53:48
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Quarterdime wrote: Swastakowey wrote:Its more because of the trend rather than peer pressure. Its the trend to take whats best all the time unfortunately, nobody is pressured as much as its hard not to if everyone else is doing it.
Which kind of sounds like peer pressure...
I personally see it as a problem but I dont think peer pressure is to blame. The way a lot of people play it is not how the game was overly intended to be played as, so problems arise such as what you mentioned. Which really just comes down to the individual.
Why are humans flawed?
Because we are rich westerners (for the most part) who see it fit to buy plastic at high price while millions suffer because they cant even get bread (something we happily throw at ducks). So my only answer is, we are privileged into stupidity.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 02:04:23
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Cosmic Joe
|
Swastakowey wrote: Quarterdime wrote: Swastakowey wrote:Its more because of the trend rather than peer pressure. Its the trend to take whats best all the time unfortunately, nobody is pressured as much as its hard not to if everyone else is doing it.
Which kind of sounds like peer pressure...
I personally see it as a problem but I dont think peer pressure is to blame. The way a lot of people play it is not how the game was overly intended to be played as, so problems arise such as what you mentioned. Which really just comes down to the individual.
Why are humans flawed?
Because we are rich westerners (for the most part) who see it fit to buy plastic at high price while millions suffer because they cant even get bread (something we happily throw at ducks). So my only answer is, we are privileged into stupidity.
Yes, we're all horrible people for spending money that we earned. Noble sentiment, but ignorant.
|
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 02:10:01
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
MWHistorian wrote: Swastakowey wrote: Quarterdime wrote: Swastakowey wrote:Its more because of the trend rather than peer pressure. Its the trend to take whats best all the time unfortunately, nobody is pressured as much as its hard not to if everyone else is doing it.
Which kind of sounds like peer pressure...
I personally see it as a problem but I dont think peer pressure is to blame. The way a lot of people play it is not how the game was overly intended to be played as, so problems arise such as what you mentioned. Which really just comes down to the individual.
Why are humans flawed?
Because we are rich westerners (for the most part) who see it fit to buy plastic at high price while millions suffer because they cant even get bread (something we happily throw at ducks). So my only answer is, we are privileged into stupidity.
Yes, we're all horrible people for spending money that we earned. Noble sentiment, but ignorant.
I wasnt being overly serious dude. If I where being serious id move to one of the countries and do something.
But you cant blame people for not "earning" money based on their country etc. That I would also call ignorant.
So for anyone else wanting to defend their lucky place in the world, I was just joking...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 02:36:42
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Hacking Proxy Mk.1
|
Quarterdime wrote: Peregrine wrote:
No, there's a balance problem in this hobby. When certain units are clearly better than others those units will inevitably be more common. You're only labeling it "peer pressure" because of some bizarre idea that if you deliberately take weak units you're somehow a "better hobbyist" or "more original" rather than just playing badly.
And this is in no way a cycle fed by the WAAC crowd.
Yes, the WAAC crowd push this mindset, but rule imbalances are the only thing that allow it.
In a well balanced game WAAC players are just a few jerks you encounter once in a long while who argue that no he can see 51% of that model and you can only see 49% of his or that dice is a tiny bit crooked so yes you have to reroll.
As it is the WAAC players are allowed to bring 3 riptides or wraithknights or whatever and you end up with a gaming scene like my local area where you can bring netlists and cheese or go home.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 03:09:22
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
|
Quarterdime wrote: Peregrine wrote:
No, there's a balance problem in this hobby. When certain units are clearly better than others those units will inevitably be more common. You're only labeling it "peer pressure" because of some bizarre idea that if you deliberately take weak units you're somehow a "better hobbyist" or "more original" rather than just playing badly.
And this is in no way a cycle fed by the WAAC crowd.
Yeah, it isn't. It's fueled by bad game design.
If other units were viable and codexes had anything even remotely resembling internal codex balance, people would be able to play the units they want to play, even at the competitive or tournament level, rather than the handful of units that are actually viable within a given codex.
This would promote diversity in listbuilding while making the game more balanced at the same time, and it would actually allow people to, y'know, actually play the models that they want to play based on aesthetics and playstyle rather than just what they've been shoehorned into buying/playing based on what GW wants.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 03:14:06
Subject: Re:Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Executing Exarch
|
Well to be fair the new big models are pretty great kits and take well to most paint jobs. I have three riptides but I run them with standard Tau codex rules and no markerlights to tone it down a bit (always ask if the opponent want to play such a spammy list it can become horribly unfun if surprising people). I actually like the model myself and would have preferred less powerful rules so I actually got to play my triptides more than 1-2 times a year...  This is why I don't remember my Tau rules.
Funnily enough there are actually a pretty broad list of armies and combinations within that are winning tournaments. However most people don't work out these more esoteric synergies and don't have the models so you don't see them as much. Instead you get "vogue" armies that are the rage at the time and then everybody quite.
BTW this is not unique to western culture at all. Anthropologists and historians have found this behavior all around the world and at all times. It is human nature to copy what we perceive to work best. The reason this often gets tied to western culture is our own egotism and the sheer individual power and freedom western cultures have. ie because we can and we can on a massive level.
Peer pressure is an effect of this overall phenomenon.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 03:14:14
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
I know nobody that plays units because people say they have to be taken. It comes down to player choice. Not entirely the rules fault.
Personally I see it as the fault of the player to blame the rules for everything.
Obviously everyone has a different opinion but at some point people have to ask themselves "is it my fault for playing the game this way, or are the rules making me?"
Im not taking the blame fully away from the rules, as I see their fault, but I blame players more than rules.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 03:20:29
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Stoic Grail Knight
|
Peregrine wrote:
No, there's a balance problem in this hobby. When certain units are clearly better than others those units will inevitably be more common. You're only labeling it "peer pressure" because of some bizarre idea that if you deliberately take weak units you're somehow a "better hobbyist" or "more original" rather than just playing badly.
Just as Peregrine said. Everyone goes into the game wanting to win, nobody goes in thinking "I just really want to lose this game." Sure, the importance of winning differs dramatically from person to person, but this is a competitive game pitting two armies against each other.
People will naturally gravitate towards better lists. They might play less tactically-sound units from time to time, but their core army will often be built in ways to give a significant chance of victory.
I think there are people who go out of their way to get something of a moral victory by running lists that aren't tactically sound, usually in the name of fluff. In this way they always win, because at least they play the game the "right" way.
These two difference extremes in players wouldn't be very prominent if there was reasonable balance between units. But GW game designers don't even have a universal point system for pricing models, they go off a general "feel." (source: Jervis Johnson in talking about the new Imperial Knight in WDW 4). And that ends up making huge problems.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 03:28:21
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Using Inks and Washes
St. George, Utah
|
Peer pressure is a natural part of anything social.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 03:54:00
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
Accolade wrote:
These two difference extremes in players wouldn't be very prominent if there was reasonable balance between units. But GW game designers don't even have a universal point system for pricing models, they go off a general "feel." (source: Jervis Johnson in talking about the new Imperial Knight in WDW 4). And that ends up making huge problems.
Which, in and of itself actually isn't a problem, within a framework of solid play testing and communication between different writers and developers. One has to start somewhere after all. The problem arises because this appears to be the only mechanism for ascribing a points value to a unit, and the only people that the developers speak to less than the customers are each other.
While WAAC remains a playstyle and not an attitude in 40K because of the rules, then, with a few exceptions within social play groups rather than wider clubs or store based gaming, lists will inevitably gravitate towards similar looks, as those who feel compelled to go all out to win dictate what those who simply don't like getting their face smashed every time must do to keep pace.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 05:58:44
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
|
Accolade wrote: Peregrine wrote:
Everyone goes into the game wanting to win, nobody goes in thinking "I just really want to lose this game." Sure, the importance of winning differs dramatically from person to person, but this is a competitive game pitting two armies against each other.
If it is, then it's not a very good one. And by the way, "going in" to what? The game or the hobby? Everyone goes into the game wanting to win, that's the point. But if you're making your first purchases with victory in mind.... I think you may enjoy chess better. But even the biggest WAAC player knows deep down that they're not playing because of the game. They're playing for the same reason that Mr. Thousand Sons-only is playing. In a word, I'd call it theatre.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 06:17:00
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Nope, because taking good lists isn't WAAC. People that cheat/rules lawyer/etc have nothing to do with whether unit X is obviously good and should be in your list.
ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:If I play a 750 point game against someone just starting out, does not taking 3 Riptides mean that I am playing poorly?
Exactly. You're deliberately playing badly so that the newbie can have a fun learning game without getting crushed.
I should think that winning with a handicap is playing well.
Not really. You're playing "well", but only to compensate for your deliberate bad decisions earlier. TBH that's not really brag-worthy since you're insulting your opponent by saying "I can give myself a handicap and still beat you".
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 07:14:20
Subject: Re:Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Nope, because taking good lists isn't WAAC. People that cheat/rules lawyer/etc have nothing to do with whether unit X is obviously good and should be in your list.
while am not saying no , the problem is that a large part of w40k playing people , think that taking any unit they see as unfair is cheating . And they can think of any unit or army being so. I have seen people call SoB and tyranids OP and people playing them being WAAC. In the end a WAAC player is anyone who is not your friend and won against you or didn't lose high enough against you to give you a higher place and better prize.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 21:25:20
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon
|
Quarterdime wrote:I used to have this fantasy about people having their own unique build of army, but these new bigger units, Wraithknights and Riptides in particular, seem to be homogenizing Tau and Eldar armies like never before. But then, maybe it was always like this and the big units are just noticeable enough to make me realize it.
EDIT: After giving it a bit of thought the latter really is the case, isn't it? The Eldar were all using war walkers and fire dragons before, and the Tau, well...They honestly didn't have a wide array of choices to begin with. I'm just a bit miffed that so many people don't seem to mind getting the exact same things as everybody else. Is there a peer pressure problem in this hobby?
Tau armies were quite homogeneous before. Battlesuits-kroot-broadsides. CSM were Lash Princes with the requisite troop to grab objectives and little else. Necrons (you forgot to mention) were the epitome of boring until their late 5th ed codex hit. Eldar were a bit like Orks are now: They had ONE and only one good build, but that didn't keep Eldar players from trying other combinations, only to be brutalized by just every other army. And most Eldar players I know, much like Orks today, didn't quite care. They just loved their pointy-eared space hippies, so even if they positively sucked, they carried on regardless.
Now? Well, you see certain repeative builds, that's for sure. But 40k now hardly reaches the level of boring sameness it did on mid-5th edition, now with extra Grey Knights. And if you want to tone down the optimizing, you have plenty of options to choose from without that suboptimal unit being the millstone around your neck that makes you instantly lose.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 22:25:40
Subject: Re:Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
Rule of thumb for me in this would be look around your club, if you are seeing several Riptides, don't feel bad about getting some knights.
But always play to have fun for both sides of the table.
|
Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
>Raptors Lead the Way < |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 22:34:15
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General
We'll find out soon enough eh.
|
ImotekhTheStormlord wrote: Peregrine wrote:
No, there's a balance problem in this hobby. When certain units are clearly better than others those units will inevitably be more common. You're only labeling it "peer pressure" because of some bizarre idea that if you deliberately take weak units you're somehow a "better hobbyist" or "more original" rather than just playing badly.
What does deliberately taking weak units have to do with "playing badly"?
If I play a 750 point game against someone just starting out, does not taking 3 Riptides mean that I am playing poorly?
I should think that winning with a handicap is playing well.
It depends, some people like Peregrine see building the list as part of the actual game, and building the most ludicrously cheesetacular list you can just another "move" like deploying your force a certain way or deepstriking a unit in a certain place. Other people, myself included, think that's a pretty limited and boring way to go about things, and that it's far more enjoyable and challenging to build armies to a theme and then play the actual game on the actual table, rather than with a pen&paper. The difference only causes issues if you can't find people of a similar view to play with.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/22 23:09:03
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
The difference only cause issues because the rules are so badly lop sided in favour of certain factions/units that this situation is able to exist you mean?
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/23 12:31:01
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
Yodhrin wrote: ImotekhTheStormlord wrote: Peregrine wrote:
No, there's a balance problem in this hobby. When certain units are clearly better than others those units will inevitably be more common. You're only labeling it "peer pressure" because of some bizarre idea that if you deliberately take weak units you're somehow a "better hobbyist" or "more original" rather than just playing badly.
What does deliberately taking weak units have to do with "playing badly"?
If I play a 750 point game against someone just starting out, does not taking 3 Riptides mean that I am playing poorly?
I should think that winning with a handicap is playing well.
It depends, some people like Peregrine see building the list as part of the actual game, and building the most ludicrously cheesetacular list you can just another "move" like deploying your force a certain way or deepstriking a unit in a certain place. Other people, myself included, think that's a pretty limited and boring way to go about things, and that it's far more enjoyable and challenging to build armies to a theme and then play the actual game on the actual table, rather than with a pen&paper. The difference only causes issues if you can't find people of a similar view to play with.
The problem is that 40k is massively biased toward list building. The game is rock-paper-scissors, but it has too many facets and is horribly unbalanced, so unfortunately list building IS part of the game, a very big part of it.
Personally, I'm a mathematically minded person. I look at a list of options and naturally figure out which is mathematically the best in different situations, decide which situation I'll see the most often and take that option. I don't see it as being cheesy or whatever, it's just simply looking at a unit and deciding whether or not it's worth taking in the role I intend to take it in. I'm not " WAAC", I'm not a sore loser when I lose and I don't gloat if I win... it's just my nature to actually look at the stats and figure out what will work best to achieve the goal.
This is a game with rules after all. There is a chance at victory with a winner and a loser, we aren't just sitting on opposite sides of a table going "pew pew pew! My Ork Slugga Boy just shot the hose that supplies the coolant to your titan and killed it!!".
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/23 12:57:04
Subject: Re:Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I used to run an Emperor's Children dual lash prince list as I read on the net that it was a strong option. I bought models to fit the list, and painted everything in garish pink.
When the new dex dropped, half of my models were now considered useless when compared to the new net lists coming out, so I shelved my army and started a new one [and made some pretty angry posts about it on here, some of them quite recent!].
After being invited to dust my Slaanesh off for an upcoming game, I've realised that the problem wasn't the dex, it was me. I had invalidated half of the options in the dex without even trying them out. I also realised that it was really silly for me to not take a unit that I love the fluff for and/or had spent hours painting because they were sub-optimal. I've now put together a fully fluffy ECs in units of 6 or 12 [led by Doomrider!] and can't wait to try it out.
If my opponent wants to put together a 'cheese list' full of the most optimal units that's up to him. If I get tabled by turn 3 then so what, I got to use the models/units that I really like, and they'll all [mostly!] be painted and look great on the tabletop. And who knows, those units that everyone on here says are terrible might not be as bad as people say and I might sneak a win. Either way, win or lose, I'm going to have a good day.
Back OT, I think there can be internet peer pressure to only take optimal lists. I assume that some people experience peer pressure from their gaming group. My advice is to ignore it and take the units and models that you want to.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/23 13:00:03
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/23 17:17:13
Subject: Re:Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA
|
<- This guy is an Eldar player that has no intention of buying a Wraithknight. I am perfectly fine with my Saim-Hann themed army, with lots of jetbikes and only two grav-tanks.
Peer pressure is not enough to make me spend that much on a single kit, sorry.
And nope, no Imperial Knight in sight for me, either.
|
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/23 17:31:04
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
That's the kind of philosophical question that far outstrips the mandate of this board.
|

"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/24 02:22:38
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Cosmic Joe
|
No, its because we should all feel guilty for being born in western civilization.
Or maybe there are different types of players who are looking for different things when they play. Some are looking to win and a less optimized list would be meaningless to them. Some are looking to re-create epic battles from the fluff. But they still don't want to be curb-stomped.
|
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/24 03:27:11
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
MWHistorian wrote:No, its because we should all feel guilty for being born in western civilization.
"America thinks of itself as a meritocracy, so people have more respect for success and more contempt for failure. In Britain, by contrast, we still think that class plays a part in determining a person's life chances, so we're less inclined to celebrate success and less inclined to condemn failure. The upshot is that it's much easier to be a failure in Britain than it is in America."
Toby Young
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/24 04:50:53
Subject: Peer Pressure and Wraithknights
|
 |
Wraith
|
Except for the true, pure hobby folks, there will be a gravitation to both "new and shiny" and "best" units.
We all have limited resources. So will you spend them on new Banshees and a Falcon or a Crimson Hunter or Wraithknight? New, shiny, and better units.
Don't hate the players, hate the game. While it's not a justification for abusing women, it's realistic in a game of plastic army men. People should be able to bring what they want that looks cool. If someone loves Wraithknights, Riptides, etc. and wants to get their mecha on, then it's a douche move just because they are good, right?
Inversely, why should someone be punished into essentially handicapped choices for models/units they like in either appearance or fluff because GW can't make them good? Mandrakes. Awful, but probably some of the coolest models in 40k. Repentia. They got WORSE with the new release, but their fluff (and models, ooo la la!) are awesome... try an effectively use something with a 6+ save and costs nearly 2.5 orks with no guns, no assault vehicle, and strikes at I1 always.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/24 04:51:37
Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb
|
|
 |
 |
|