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.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

As for "dlc", I prefer to have something like the looted wagon come out as a little extra thing. you don't have to buy the White dwarf, but someone who likes the looted wagon might still want it

You mean the same looted wagon they removed from the book, then sold back to their players?

It's better than loosing it completely and having the playerbase winge about it imho

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
It's better than loosing it completely and having the playerbase winge about it imho

Should they applaud?

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
It's better than loosing it completely and having the playerbase winge about it imho

And statements like this are why GW gets away with treating its customers like magpies attached to wallets.

 vipoid wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
It's better than loosing it completely and having the playerbase winge about it imho

And statements like this are why GW gets away with treating its customers like magpies attached to wallets.

as I said it's my humble opinion. there are no benefits to having the looted wagon in an army, and the same effect could be achieved through ally shenanigans. I just like how they added it later even if it was taken out of a book because it had no models besides custom built ones.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

as I said it's my humble opinion. there are no benefits to having the looted wagon in an army, and the same effect could be achieved through ally shenanigans. I just like how they added it later even if it was taken out of a book because it had no models besides custom built ones.

1) Many people don't like using allies.

2) I'm sure many people built custom models for said Looted Wagon - just as many people have converted Special Characters with no models - so taking out that unit is a massive slap in the face to them.

Here's the thing - I'm not arguing that the Looted Wagon is a great unit or anything, but if you don't want to use it then having it in the codex anyway is hardly hurting you. Conversely, if you do want to use it - for whatever reason - then GW removing it and demanding that you pay extra for its rules are a massive slap in the face.

I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved in this thread

your probably right, so i'm not arguing against you any more and I wash my hands of this thread.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

You did not put the D&D community into the "pool of whiney malcontents" that are impossible to please (and if you are, it makes your point totally invalid because you were using them to contrast the 40k fanbase). Your point wasn't that "D&D and 40k players whine just as much about silly things, but in D&D you can ignore them". You were specifically complaining about the wargaming community is the "bigg[est] pool of whiney malcontents".
.

and yet...you'rte wrong and need to read again.

all things are a matter of degree. did i need to EXPLAIN that to you? okay. Here's me explaining what is obvious: things are a matter of degree. War gamers have a LOT higher propensity to whine and complain and further, MORE OF THEM do it online. that isn't...I thought obviously...to say D&D players do not. what I told you was there is a DM to STOMP on it.

As DM I know i do. Ive been playing it since 1984 and i do indeed wear an iron gauntlet when it comes to that stuff. I dont have that power or freedom in Wargaming, the other guy knows it and the social contract forces me to put up with his crap a LOT more because there arent as MANY wargamers as their are role players. So its different.

So lets just be straight: a) lots of whiny gamers in Wargaming. B) almost enough to make me not want to keep playing. Almost. c) has gotten worse because the internet has grown by leaps and bounds and d) GW cant win no matter what they do, but Unbound isn't to blame for any of the alleged blandness fo the codex. it has more to do with trying to maximize the number of NON Donkey Caves they can please with more balance and less models that make people feel like they can never catch up.

Remember: allies and multiple Detachments do nearly enough damage on their own as tomake Unbound essentially kind of unnecessary in a LOT of the cases,

...you must have missed gaming forums when 4E dropped. Though that wasn't whining, that was legitimate complaints. I'm sure 4E is a great game, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. 40K doesn't have a GM or a Ref, so both players are pretty much on equal footing when it comes to settling disputes. Hence "roll for it".

 Psienesis wrote:
...you must have missed gaming forums when 4E dropped. Though that wasn't whining, that was legitimate complaints. I'm sure 4E is a great game, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. 40K doesn't have a GM or a Ref, so both players are pretty much on equal footing when it comes to settling disputes. Hence "roll for it".

Rouge Trader did and honestly I feel the game does play better when a third party arbitrates (like a judge does in tournaments). That said a tighter rule set that has less gray areas is always a good thing and I do sincerely hope that 8th edition, when it inevitably rolls out, will be a tighter edition than we have now. I also hope it isn't rushed and wouldn't mind if every codex got a second round d of updates later in the edition with new models/ units and the return of some of what was previously lost.

But that might be more " delusion" than hope.

 Psienesis wrote:
...you must have missed gaming forums when 4E dropped. Though that wasn't whining, that was legitimate complaints. I'm sure 4E is a great game, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. 40K doesn't have a GM or a Ref, so both players are pretty much on equal footing when it comes to settling disputes. Hence "roll for it".

And i know that and said that you have to HOPE your opponent is willing to roll for it. if not you just end up caving to keeop the game going and have a miserable time. Which is... why i said that I almost shrunk back from wargaming. alomsot./

 Psienesis wrote:
...you must have missed gaming forums when 4E dropped. Though that wasn't whining, that was legitimate complaints. I'm sure 4E is a great game, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. 40K doesn't have a GM or a Ref, so both players are pretty much on equal footing when it comes to settling disputes. Hence "roll for it".

Legitimate complaints feth, it was mostly baseless fests of grognards.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
...you must have missed gaming forums when 4E dropped. Though that wasn't whining, that was legitimate complaints. I'm sure 4E is a great game, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. 40K doesn't have a GM or a Ref, so both players are pretty much on equal footing when it comes to settling disputes. Hence "roll for it".

Legitimate complaints feth, it was mostly baseless fests of grognards.

Yep, it sure was.

And I'm embarrased to say I was on the complaining side.

Until a friend finally convinced me to try it about a year ago, and what do ya know? it was fun and fluid, much more than 3.5 ever was, and far less abusable and inherently imbalanced too,
Sure, you can't customize as much, but you don't need to. and your noncasters are no longer mindless "I hit it with a stick" drones but actually got their own tricks and abilities.


What about it is NOT dungeons and dragons? its a hack-and-slash centered game with wizards, knights and mythological creatures roaming around in adventures set up by a DM or a module. pure D&D.
most of the "bizarre new races and classes that came from nowhere" are in fact direct imports from some 3.5 splatbooks that just got themselves some new mechanics, and the ones that arn't, well-its a "generic setting" book set, the generic does not need to be the SAME generic every time, nothing hurts by throwing extra options when there is an actual player who's job is to set the rules, including what races and classes actually exist.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

You did not put the D&D community into the "pool of whiney malcontents" that are impossible to please (and if you are, it makes your point totally invalid because you were using them to contrast the 40k fanbase). Your point wasn't that "D&D and 40k players whine just as much about silly things, but in D&D you can ignore them". You were specifically complaining about the wargaming community is the "bigg[est] pool of whiney malcontents".
.

and yet...you'rte wrong and need to read again.

all things are a matter of degree. did i need to EXPLAIN that to you? okay. Here's me explaining what is obvious: things are a matter of degree. War gamers have a LOT higher propensity to whine than whom? and complain and further, MORE OF THEM do it online more than what?. that isn't...I thought obviously...to say D&D players do not. what I told you was there is a DM to STOMP on it. online?

As DM I know i do. Ive been playing it since 1984 and i do indeed wear an iron gauntlet when it comes to that stuff. I dont have that power or freedom in Wargaming, the other guy knows it and the social contract forces me to put up with his crap a LOT more because there arent as MANY wargamers as their are role players. So its different. You never have that freedom online.

So lets just be straight: a) lots of whiny gamers in Wargaming. but what about D&D? B) almost enough to make me not want to keep playing. Almost. c) has gotten worse because the internet has grown by leaps and bounds and d) GW cant win no matter what they do, but Unbound isn't to blame for any of the alleged blandness fo the codex. it has more to do with trying to maximize the number of NON Donkey Caves they can please with more balance and less models that make people feel like they can never catch up.

Remember: allies and multiple Detachments do nearly enough damage on their own as tomake Unbound essentially kind of unnecessary in a LOT of the cases,

How are you simultaneously talking about communities as a whole (you have twice mentioned the internet) and on a personal, game-by-game basis? Whining about things happens primarily on forums. DMs cannot magically force people on forums to not complain, and it is not often that people will "whine" about Games Workshop while playing 40k, or whine about Wizards/4E while playing D&D. You're also talking about wargamers by using terms like "higher" and "more of". It is perfectly reasonable to assume that you are saying that wargamers "have a higher propensity" to whine than D&D players.

So you aren't really making any sort of point, here. What is it? That all gamers are whiny, but when you're playing the game, at least in D&D you can threaten people to shut up with rocks falling? In which case, that has absolutely no bearing on either community, so once again it is not a point because it is totally irrelevant to your original complaint. What you actually said was that wargamers are the worst, are never happy, and that D&D players do complain but not as much, and when they do it to you in person you can stop them by being a DM.

If you're going to be massively patronising, at least bother to use correct English. You don't need to "EXPLAIN" to me that things are a "matter of degree", which doesn't even make sense for you to say considering the point you're trying to iterate. Do you or do you not believe that the D&D community is better or worse than the 40k community for "whining"? DM powers are totally irrelevant.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Legitimate complaints feth, it was mostly baseless fests of grognards.

it was fun and fluid, much more than 3.5 ever was, and far less abusable and inherently imbalanced too,
Sure, you can't customize as much, but you don't need to. and your noncasters are no longer mindless "I hit it with a stick" drones but actually got their own tricks and abilities.

I played 4E. I liked 4E. Then I found out that the internet foams at the mouth whenever it is mentioned, and not in a good way. I had a serious discussion with someone whose complaint is "you spend too much time doing combat", despite the exact amount of combat and time spent is entirely up to the DM. They insisted that there was absolutely nothing in 4E that wasn't combat-geared, nothing at all, and refused to comment when I asked them how that one spell that makes a magical cylindrical curtain, large enough for one person inside, is made for combat (it's for changing clothes in privacy). They refused to believe that the insane number of character backgrounds weren't all combat bonuses.

I have played 3.5 and 5, and have not enjoyed them as much.

Well, any time is too much time in combat, when 3.5 has made people used to the fact a wizard can end a combat against pretty much anything in a single turn :\

With real powergamers-even before his turn.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
...you must have missed gaming forums when 4E dropped. Though that wasn't whining, that was legitimate complaints. I'm sure 4E is a great game, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. 40K doesn't have a GM or a Ref, so both players are pretty much on equal footing when it comes to settling disputes. Hence "roll for it".

Legitimate complaints feth, it was mostly baseless fests of grognards.

Yep, it sure was.

And I'm embarrased to say I was on the complaining side.

Until a friend finally convinced me to try it about a year ago, and what do ya know? it was fun and fluid, much more than 3.5 ever was, and far less abusable and inherently imbalanced too,
Sure, you can't customize as much, but you don't need to. and your noncasters are no longer mindless "I hit it with a stick" drones but actually got their own tricks and abilities.


What about it is NOT dungeons and dragons? its a hack-and-slash centered game with wizards, knights and mythological creatures roaming around in adventures set up by a DM or a module. pure D&D.
most of the "bizarre new races and classes that came from nowhere" are in fact direct imports from some 3.5 splatbooks that just got themselves some new mechanics, and the ones that arn't, well-its a "generic setting" book set, the generic does not need to be the SAME generic every time, nothing hurts by throwing extra options when there is an actual player who's job is to set the rules, including what races and classes actually exist.

If you played D&D before 4E, you would recognize immediately the internal logic of it was completely uh...reimagined... and while it might actually BE a fine game, it wasn't D&D. It was some kind of Fantasy game that someone "always thought would be cool" and one day they ended up in charge. Hehehe. How do we digressso fast on these threads. sigh. But I couldnt help myself on this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:


How are you simultaneously talking about communities as a whole (you have twice mentioned the internet) and on a personal, game-by-game basis? Whining about things happens primarily on forums....

If you're going to be massively patronising, at least bother to use correct English.

Grasping at straws are we? If you dont understand what I said clearly...then thats a problem I cant solve.

 BoomWolf wrote:

What about it is NOT dungeons and dragons? its a hack-and-slash centered game with wizards, knights and mythological creatures roaming around in adventures set up by a DM or a module. pure D&D.

I believe one of the aspects was that there was barely anything to do out of combat, and it was too tight to encourage creativity.

e.g. D&D3.5 had a lot of spells that were usable both inside and outside of combat.

For example, take the Lv3 spell 'Shrink Item' - which reduces an item to 1/16 of its size, after which it can be made to grow back with a command word. Out of combat there are a variety of uses (including removing a troublesome door ), and in combat creative players can easily put a shrunken item to good use.

In 4th, virtually every spell is just a blasting spell of some kind. You blast them with fire, you blast them with ice, you blast them with lightning, you blast 2 different enemies with fire, you blast adjacent enemies with ice. It's just boring. And, even if you can think of an in-combat use for what few utility spells there are, they take 10 minutes or even an hour to cast them. Good luck using that in combat.

It's a perfectly functional game system, but it just didn't feel like D&D. It was far too restrictive, had negligible opportunities or rewards for creativity, and every class just felt the same.

In 4th, virtually every spell is just a blasting spell of some kind. You blast them with fire, you blast them with ice, you blast them with lightning, you blast 2 different enemies with fire, you blast adjacent enemies with ice. It's just boring. And, even if you can think of an in-combat use for what few utility spells there are, they take 10 minutes or even an hour to cast them. Good luck using that in combat.

It's a perfectly functional game system, but it just didn't feel like D&D. It was far too restrictive, had negligible opportunities or rewards for creativity, and every class just felt the same.

Considering that letting magic be used everywhere without a casting time (Which was removed from 3E btw, it used to be a common thing to have back in 2E), effectively made anything that wasn't a caster or caster like unit be useless, it effectively made it so you had to think about what spells you casted with your rituals rather then the "Magic FIXIT" buttons.

It's a perfectly functional game system, but it just didn't feel like D&D. It was far too restrictive, had negligible opportunities or rewards for creativity, and every class just felt the same.

There wasn't much restrictive, just bad DM's for the first two, as for the third many played quite differently, they just looked somewhat similar from the way the skills were ordered.

If you played D&D before 4E, you would recognize immediately the internal logic of it was completely uh...reimagined... and while it might actually BE a fine game, it wasn't D&D. It was some kind of Fantasy game that someone "always thought would be cool" and one day they ended up in charge. Hehehe. How do we digressso fast on these threads. sigh. But I couldnt help myself on this one.

Have, infact I've been told 3E wasn't a DnD either because of all the modifiers and stat upgrades and generally the fact that it didn't "Feel like DnD" anymore, but considering most everyone apparently started with 3E instead of 2 and below they consider 4E not DnD...Because the rules don't match 3E.

 Jancoran wrote:


Grasping at straws are we? If you dont understand what I said clearly...then thats a problem I cant solve.

Just ignore everything I said and absolutely fail to address any of the actual problems that I brought up, then dismiss me as "grasping at straws". That is a fine way to participate in a discussion, especially when all you came on this thread to say was to dismiss anything other than praise for GW as "whining". Welcome to my Ignore list.

 vipoid wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

What about it is NOT dungeons and dragons? its a hack-and-slash centered game with wizards, knights and mythological creatures roaming around in adventures set up by a DM or a module. pure D&D.

I believe one of the aspects was that there was barely anything to do out of combat, and it was too tight to encourage creativity.

e.g. D&D3.5 had a lot of spells that were usable both inside and outside of combat.

For example, take the Lv3 spell 'Shrink Item' - which reduces an item to 1/16 of its size, after which it can be made to grow back with a command word. Out of combat there are a variety of uses (including removing a troublesome door ), and in combat creative players can easily put a shrunken item to good use.

In 4th, virtually every spell is just a blasting spell of some kind. You blast them with fire, you blast them with ice, you blast them with lightning, you blast 2 different enemies with fire, you blast adjacent enemies with ice. It's just boring. And, even if you can think of an in-combat use for what few utility spells there are, they take 10 minutes or even an hour to cast them. Good luck using that in combat.

It's a perfectly functional game system, but it just didn't feel like D&D. It was far too restrictive, had negligible opportunities or rewards for creativity, and every class just felt the same.

That's the most accurate explanation of what I really disliked about 4th. I loved 3.5. Loathed 4.
And no, I do not believe gamers are more whiny than other groups, but we geeks do tend to be more passionate about our hobbies than most.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


Grasping at straws are we? If you dont understand what I said clearly...then thats a problem I cant solve.

Just ignore everything I said and absolutely fail to address any of the actual problems that I brought up, then dismiss me as "grasping at straws". That is a fine way to participate in a discussion, especially when all you came on this thread to say was to dismiss anything other than praise for GW as "whining". Welcome to my Ignore list.

Ill miss you. A lot.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Considering that letting magic be used everywhere without a casting time (Which was removed from 3E btw, it used to be a common thing to have back in 2E), effectively made anything that wasn't a caster or caster like unit be useless, it effectively made it so you had to think about what spells you casted with your rituals rather then the "Magic FIXIT" buttons.

In 3.5 mages were certainly the strongest classes (though then I've never been particularly bothered about balance in D&D. I just don't feel it's as important in a cooperative game).

In any case, the problem with 4th was that instead of giving non-wizards more things to do outside of combat, it just removed all the interesting options from wizards.

Giving utility spells a stupidly long casting time doesn't make players 'think about what spells you casted' it just stops them doing anything remotely creative with them.

"Here are your spells. You will use them only IN ZE DESIGNATED AREA."

If you liked that sort of thing, fine. But, at least understand why a lot of people like to have more interesting options, and spells that can be used in creative ways.

Or, yaknow, just let magic take a backseat for a moment and realize its not healthy to the game for it to be the answer to every possible scenario in the game.
Sometimes its time for skills or roleplay to kick in.

I don't think it's Unbound, I think it's that GW knows sales are falling and rather than actually fix the game they are trying to band-aid it (likely in the hopes they can be bought out). So codexes are bland to sell you $50 supplements and $X dataslates on top of the codex. Coupled with the move to weekly releases means that there's probably not a lot of time involved with actually writing the rules (to say nothing of playtesting). Bare minimum amount of work, and the GWombies still eat it up and can't wait for the next one.

If they really do believe that GW fans will buy anything GW produces because GW produces it, then they are likely deluded enough to test the waters and see. If people buy a lackluster Codex that barely had any work put into it, and then still eagerly await the supplements/dataslates that are little more than first day DLC, then it just reinforces their delusional idea that their "customers" buy their products because it's their products.

It's a glorified scam at this point.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Or, yaknow, just let magic take a backseat for a moment and realize its not healthy to the game for it to be the answer to every possible scenario in the game.

Nor is it healthy for magic to be dull and frequently worse than just shooting the target with an arrow. it makes you wonder why wizards even bother.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Sometimes its time for skills or roleplay to kick in.

Thing is, I still saw these work in 3.5. In fact, I saw skills and roleplaying come into 3.5 a lot more than they did in 4th.

It's not just about magic being dull, it's about the system being incredibly rigid. It's like playing one of the D&D computer games - where you can't use any spells or ability in a way that the designers didn't specifically think of and program in. Though, even they tend to have more interesting spells and more creative possibilities than 4th.

 vipoid wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Or, yaknow, just let magic take a backseat for a moment and realize its not healthy to the game for it to be the answer to every possible scenario in the game.

Nor is it healthy for magic to be dull and frequently worse than just shooting the target with an arrow. it makes you wonder why wizards even bother.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Sometimes its time for skills or roleplay to kick in.

Thing is, I still saw these work in 3.5. In fact, I saw skills and roleplaying come into 3.5 a lot more than they did in 4th.

It's not just about magic being dull, it's about the system being incredibly rigid. It's like playing one of the D&D computer games - where you can't use any spells or ability in a way that the designers didn't specifically think of and program in. Though, even they tend to have more interesting spells and more creative possibilities than 4th.

You mean you didn't? It's not like someone could've used them outside of combat. A fireball is still a fireball, it'll heat things up, a ray of frost will chill things.

As people kept thinking of fighters: "It's not hardcoded into the game, just roleplay it"

AS for skills and roleplay, once again bad players and bad DM, groups can do what they will and make sure to use things as they wish to, they just now have actual options to make combat interesting for everyone rather then "Swing, Swing, Swing, Swing, Swing, Swing" while casters have 200+ Hardcoded spells.

Honestly, it just sounds like your lamenting the fact that magic can't do everything anymore.

SO the D&D thing is a terrible comparison for a couple of reasons.

1.) RP groups are much more like/able to just stick with old editions, so there is no reason to complain about changes to the game...you just don't play that game. I know I stuck with 3.5 when D&D switched to 4th, I already had a ton of books...and the new edition wasn't compatible, so why buy in...when my small group of friends that I play with was fine playing the old edition.

2.) House ruling happens far more often in RP games...again because it is typically a small group that plays at somebodies house.

Wargames can function like this and some groups are still playing old editions in their home, or homebrew rules and not complaining on forums because they don't come here. But pick up play happens far more often in Wargames, and play of old editions is far less common.

All that said, I think the blandness is in part due to legal issues with model removal, and part due tothe accelerated release schedule (getting a codex every other month.). Neither of which are something players really wanted I don't think.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

You mean you didn't? It's not like someone could've used them outside of combat. A fireball is still a fireball, it'll heat things up, a ray of frost will chill things.

Oh good, I can heat and chill things. Because, fire is completely impossible to make outside of magic.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

As people kept thinking of fighters: "It's not hardcoded into the game, just roleplay it"

I've no idea what you're trying to say here. Unless every wizard is a pyromaniac, you don't exactly have much to work with.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

AS for skills and roleplay, once again bad players and bad DM, groups can do what they will and make sure to use things as they wish to, they just now have actual options to make combat interesting for everyone rather then "Swing, Swing, Swing, Swing, Swing, Swing" while casters have 200+ Hardcoded spells.

Ironically, the situation you describe is exactly what 4th boiled down to. Encounter power, encounter power, encounter power, daily (if it looks like a boss fight), then move on to At-Wills. The 4th edition techniques are interesting precisely once. After that, you quickly realise that you're just doing the exact same thing every combat.

That is simply not true.
Even as a low-level melee character in 4th I had to choose what to do every single turn, and adapted to situation in order to make the most of my tools.
One manuver is when I want to block escape, or enable my own. another for damage, a third when I'm hurt and want to play safe, etc.

In 3.5? "i attack X" was literally all a melee/archery type could do. ever-as they probably didn't have meaningful skill-wise either. (unless rouge type, who are slightly more diverse, but still stack up to "do action X to unlock extra damage dice on attack")

Oh good, I can heat and chill things. Because, fire is completely impossible to make outside of magic.

Oh good, you can make sarcasm at a few simple spells I picked for an example, maybe we should go into the utility spells, like Expeditious retreat, Feather fall, Mage Hand, light, ghost sound, prestidigiation, dimension door, disguise self, dispel magic, invisibility, levitate, wall of fog, arcane gate, and more that can be used outside of combat as well as in combat without a ritual.

I've no idea what you're trying to say here. Unless every wizard is a pyromaniac, you don't exactly have much to work with

Considering I can actually read my 4E book and see that otherwise no, this isn't exactly right, I just remember being told as a fighter I have more freedom because all I do is swing at things I can roleplay like slinging sand into a persons eyes at a horrible dice rate that it'd be better to swing instead.

Ironically, the situation you describe is exactly what 4th boiled down to. Encounter power, encounter power, encounter power, daily (if it looks like a boss fight), then move on to At-Wills. The 4th edition techniques are interesting precisely once. After that, you quickly realise that you're just doing the exact same thing every combat.

And yet you still have more customization in your build then the standard 3.5 fighters, whose feats of..Feats weren't exactly empowering. Every other thing was Stat Bonus, Mechanical bonus, even the Barbarian and other "Martials" bound down to. I suppose it's better for Wizards and them to be overpowered and have all the options at once then? I mean sure once you got to (Save or Die Spell) S&D of the right type, spell breaker, abilities that circumvent spell resistance, anti-magic, and other such things.

Ironically it just comes down to "I want a better wizard with more options then the martials hardcoded into my character".

I actually preferred the balance, I've had way to many games where I just ended up a caster sort so I wouldn't be overshadowed in every single event.