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.

MWHistorian wrote:
Mutilators, Penitent Engines, Warp Talons, Howling Banshees, Flayed Ones, etc.
I believe these and other units do not accomplish their purpose to any degree of regularity or efficiency. Basically, they cost far more than they're worth and you're actively hurting your army by taking them instead of something else and giving free points to the enemy.

Of those, I'm confident I could take 3 to a game and get something good from them, only Mutilators and PE I'm not sure of simply add I'm not familiar with their exact workings, but I'm certain there are ways to make them accomplish something.

Rysaer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Let's face it, anyone who builds a SerpentSpam or Triptide list for anything other than a tournament knows the opponent is probably not expecting it, and likely will not enjoy playing it as much as a well rounded, mixed, themed and unique list.

I see, so in your world nobody buys lots of Riptides because they love giant anime robots and the Riptide is an awesome giant anime robot model, or continues to play their 5th edition Wave Serpent army once GW makes it overpowered. Nor does anyone disagree with your opinion that such an army is "unfluffy". They're all just WAAC TFGs who love nothing more than crushing an opponent who has no real hope of winning or even challenging them.

I think you are maybe missing the point or I may be interpreting it wrong but I think what he is trying to say is, if someone were to run one of these triptide or serpentspam lists or whatever else, it would be unexpected for the opponent outside of a tournament, I certainly wouldn't be expecting it. People may love anime robots or have remains of old Eldar lists, but that doesn't mean it isn't surprising when they play these kinds of lists in a casual game. If someone set a Triptide/Serpentspam list down to play against me in a casual game, I will admit the first thing I'd be thinking is they are a WAAC player, as in my opinion there would be a fairly low percentage in comparison who would be doing it for fluff/love/cost reasons etc. I'm not saying that it is right to think that way but its how I would think and how I know many others in the hobby would respond also.

If they are doing it for fluff/cost/love reasons or whatever else then all the power to them and I'll support them all the way in that endeavour, I don't care how anyone plays the game or builds their list (as long as they are happy.), it doesn't mean I can't think it's surprising or make such an initial 'bad' judgement based on what they pick.

Anyone I've ever met who has played one of these kinds of lists against me has been a WAAC player (and most are happy to admit they are.) and I've played a fair few of these types, so its my go to response when I see them, but I suppose that makes me wrong too.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. While I very much doubt you'd get three Tides or 3+ Serpents in a fluff list, if someone did have that setup purely on aesthetics and/or fluff then I'd be fine with that. But really, I think you'd be hard pressed to find such a list built for such a reason. And if someone did have a list like that purely for fun, I think they would also recognise that the opponent may not enjoy facing it, and would be more open to toning down to ensure the opponent has more fun, whereas a competitive player is likely to be far less receptive to such a suggestion and will simply expect you to come back with a better list.

"Not all units are created equal. Some just suck." - Mauleed, old, old Dakkanaught.

What I keep finding myself coming back to is this statement:

The Warhammer Armies books are written to allow players as wide a choice as possible in selecting forces. This was done to free up players and allow for the construction of themed armies, for use in scenarios and the like. However this does allow certain individuals to produce armies that are created simply to win games, with no credence towards the character of the race it is supposed to represent.

The thing is, it's not freedom of choice that results in those armies produced 'simply to win games'. It's having choices that are clearly superior to others.

All that GW has to do to eliminate that problem is not make units like Wave Serpents so stupidly good that you would be silly to not take multiples of them.


This problem is nothing whatsoever to do with having lists that are flexible enough to make themed armies, and everything to do with lists that aren't properly balanced. It's that simple. No amount of ranting about people not playing their games the way they expect them to be played will change the fact that more people would play the game the way they expect it to be played if they actually made that a good thing to do.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think a lot of us here are of the opinion that if the rules were well written then articles such as the one quoted in the OP wouldn't be necessary. If Codices were written in a way that made all unit types viable, rather than some being obvious and objectively better/worse than others, then such labels like "beardy", "WAAC", and so on wouldn't need to exist.

This.

Games Workshop is a company that says things, because it's easier than actually doing them.

e.g. Writing rules that naturally create narrative games might require a lot of effort, so instead we'll just write "Forge the Narrative!" several hundred times and pretend they're the same thing.

Balancing units is also hard, so we'll just shift the burden of balancing armies to the players.

 Paradigm wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW wants you to play fluffy, themed armies, but then punish you with crappy units that will lose you the game.

I honestly can't think of a single unit that, if not spammed, will have a major impact on your chances of winning or losing a game. OK, a list with 3 Penitent Engines against one with 3 Riptides is going to have a bad day, but one of each will not hugely imbalance the game. On the whole, imbalance is only a major factor when it is exacerbated by taking the maximum possible amounts of the imbalanced units, and that's exactly what GW want you to avoid doing.

Then why allow people to spam at all? Isn't it kind of stupid for GW to allow you to take literally whatever you want if you're really not "supposed" to anyway, or to take units in greater numbers than they "intended"?

Honestly, I don't see the point in having the freedom to field literally whatever I wanted, if I don't actually have the freedom to field whatever I wanted, because of unwritten rules or peer pressure from fellow gamers brought on due to rampant, horrid imbalance. I would much prefer if the game had more restrictions and I only had to concern myself with making a legal list that I liked, instead of taking whatever I wanted and having to wonder whether or not anyone will even want to play with me, if that were the case. Like it was said earlier, if wood elves are all about archers then why aren't archers a required purchase? If you aren't "supposed" to field elves without archers then why can you? And worst of all, why is it in some cases that not fielding those units that those armies are supposed to be all about, ends up giving you a much better army in the end? Wouldn't it make more sense if those units were actually...you know...good?

And yeah, I'm sure GW didn't "intend" for people to spam riptides. No, sure they didn't...that's why it was the most expensive of all the new Tau kits, got the most "advertising" and was practically the sole focus of the entire Tau release, and why all supplemental material for the Tau codex has opened up the way for taking them in ever greater numbers. GW is clearly doing the opposite of what they claim they "intend", going out of its way and releasing supplements and a formation specifically designed to allow Tau players to take more riptides than the base codex allowed, which already allowed you to take up to three of them in the first place. It's not impossible to field an army with up to 6 of the fethers without even running Unbound, and of course there's Unbound on top of that. And now you have FW putting out riptide variants you can add on top of that. But no, clearly, you were supposed to just buy the one.

Or no, I guess maybe you are actually supposed to buy 6 of them, because GW released it and it's just so awesome you need to buy 6, but you're only supposed to use one at a time. The rules are designed to make you want to buy them in large numbers, but only a dick who doesn't understand The Spirit of the Game would actually want to use them. Makes sense to me!

Then you get into the whole thing about how everyone interprets the fluff differently, or how not everyone can even agree that this or that is actually "broken" or "overpowered" to begin with...a lot of people out there just throw out the "OP" label when they simply lose to something they didn't expect to lose to. Hard to tell the difference sometimes when people are just sour because they're used to curb-stomping (insert xeno here) and suddenly they start getting their asses kicked again, and when there's a legitimate problem.

Anyway, personally I just like how "spammy" armies look on the table more than the "highlander" style game you seem more fond of. I don't like "armies" that have one of everything, it looks incoherent to me and doesn't look very "realistic", either. In my opinion it's way more fluffy for a Tau army to have three hammerheads, or three squads of broadsides, than a mishmash with one hammerhead, one sky ray, and one squad of broadsides (with rail rifles obviously because you're not "allowed" to use the better and obvious "must-take" option...because freedom).

 Peregrine wrote:
...and the Riptide is an awesome giant anime robot model...

Well, that's debatable, really. I think it's a crappy design from the waist up and costs way too much money for what you get.

 Paradigm wrote:
While I very much doubt you'd get three Tides or 3+ Serpents in a fluff list

Why? The fluff supports it. Especially serpent spam because that's essentially just a Saim Hann list, just add some bikes.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW wants you to play fluffy, themed armies, but then punish you with crappy units that will lose you the game.

I honestly can't think of a single unit that, if not spammed, will have a major impact on your chances of winning or losing a game. OK, a list with 3 Penitent Engines against one with 3 Riptides is going to have a bad day, but one of each will not hugely imbalance the game. On the whole, imbalance is only a major factor when it is exacerbated by taking the maximum possible amounts of the imbalanced units, and that's exactly what GW want you to avoid doing.

Then why allow people to spam at all? Isn't it kind of stupid for GW to allow you to take literally whatever you want if you're really not "supposed" to anyway, or to take units in greater numbers than they "intended"?

Because, as I say, they've chosen absolute freedom combined with trust rather than a system of restrictions that can, in some way, stop someone making the list they want. They want you to be able to make any list you can possibly think of, they trust you to take into account your opponent and how they will enjoy the game.

I find the original post odd.

"We created a wide open system... but you're not actually supposed to use it like that, you're supposed to adhere to the narrow vision we made for the army (even if that narrow vision is wrong**) otherwise you're being a beardy player". ...wtf?

Or, yaknow, they could just write rules that didn't have terrible fething balance or a just a giant expensive game of rock paper scissors.

**I say the vision is narrow because they used the example of a skeleton horseman army, but that's perfectly fluffy if the theme is a Bretonnian mounted knight/yeoman themed army. And the example of an archerless WE army, which is perfectly in theme with a Forest Spirit army.

It's also funny that the article was written, I believe, just before 3rd edition 40k came out? The edition of great simplifications and more narrow choices. And '98 I think was when the Bretonnian and Lizardmen boxed set was around?

Honestly if it was a first edition of a rules system I might be more forgiving, but here we are 16 years later and they still haven't gotten their act together to create a decently balanced system and they still leave gaping holes in the rules which they don't FAQ (actually they've gotten even worse on this front).

 Paradigm wrote:

Because, as I say, they've chosen absolute freedom combined with trust rather than a system of restrictions that can, in some way, stop someone making the list they want. They want you to be able to make any list you can possibly think of, they trust you to take into account your opponent and how they will enjoy the game.

That makes no sense to me.

You're either giving players freedom or you're not.

If you're making restrictions and just not bothering to tell players what they are, then that's not freedom - it's just a shallow illusion of freedom.

I'll add to what I said previously and mention that was written about WHFB, I don't think WHFB has ever had as bad balance as 40k has had because the rules are inherently more biased to how well you play rather than how you build the army.

Well it does give people a chance to sit on a high horse and preach about forging the narrative to others. GW seems to be keen on that.
And imagine the feeling of superiority one can have, if your codex has almost no bad units. You could take an army of units with max one or two same squads and forge away , at those people whos codex is made out of 4 unit types and maybe a transport.

 Paradigm wrote:
Because, as I say, they've chosen absolute freedom combined with trust rather than a system of restrictions that can, in some way, stop someone making the list they want. They want you to be able to make any list you can possibly think of, they trust you to take into account your opponent and how they will enjoy the game.

Kings of War is a quite well balanced game with a great tourney scene and you're allowed to ally pretty much anything as long as it fits into the 'good with good/nutral - evil with neutral/evil' alignments in an unbound like fashion.

GW offering options should have no bearing on the actual quality of the rules. it might make it harder to write well but professionals can't simply use 'it was hard' as an excuse for not doing their job.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'll add to what I said previously and mention that was written about WHFB, I don't think WHFB has ever had as bad balance as 40k has had because the rules are inherently more biased to how well you play rather than how you build the army.

Yes. At the time the article was written it was 5th edition fantasy aka "Herohammer" so you would sometimes see armies made entirely of elite type troops. The whole thing about playing to the background was a common thing at the time, mostly in the WHFB context. You didn't usially see those types of articles for 40k, for reasons unknown.

I didn't include it but the article did say that it was okay to do, for example, a cavalry and chariot army if you were doing a force to represent a particular theme from the background (the example it gave was the "Kindred of Equos" for Wood Elves and Chrace for High Elves) but you should let your opponent know beforehand that your'e doing a theme so they know you aren't fielding a typical army.

Also of note is some sidebars from the designers that give their own viewpoints of it, in particular from Nigel Stillman who basically said that his viewpoint is something like build a 2,000 point army and never deviate from it, never add anything else ("Play in larger games with just your 2,000 points, odds be damned"), and let the only surprise be how you play it on the battlefield so that when you win, there will be no question as to you being the superior general.

There was also a counter-argument from Graham Davey who said that he played in a group that liked to play more competitively, and the one-upsmanship and trying to bring a hard counter what you expected them to bring was fun. He does add this gem though:

Of course this only works because everyone in the group knew what to expect. To be considered a fair player the important thing is to find out what your opponent expects from the game, and make an effort not to disappoint them.

That, at least, still rings true to this day.

Here is another gem of a quote from Jim Butler:

A Warhammer battle isn't a game of chess, it's a story. As long as the story is exciting, it doesn't really matter who wins. If you only enjoy playing when you win, you are never going to get the most out of the hobby.

So it seems that even back (and likely before) then there was this idea that Warhammer wasn't a game but a way for a couple of mates to get together and use their miniatures. And this design has permeated every aspect of GW ever since. Like everything else, the studio plays in a particular way with particular choices and cannot fathom that anyone out there plays differently (or they don't care). It's always been the case that the studio played fluffy armies that would generally be considered uncompetitive, but true to the article they would pick things that fit the army background rather than just things that would win them games. It was extremely rare to see a battle report with someone that fielded a list that would be considered competitive at the time, although a lot of times this was due to them using the Studio armies which were specifically built to showcase all of the models of the range and not for winning, but even when they would have battle reports using a staff member's own army they had choices that made the list fluffy but that was it.

All that goes to reinforce the notion that you can pick "subpar" units as long as you're playing in a group that doesn't care about picking subpar units, because then it sort of evens out (not enough, but still it evens out a bit). Unless they were lying in battle reports (a possibility as I do recall them saying a couple of times that they had to refight a battle report because it went too lopsided to be able to print) then most of them were still fairly close even using those subpar units.

 Paradigm wrote:

Of those, I'm confident I could take 3 to a game and get something good from them, only Mutilators and PE I'm not sure of simply add I'm not familiar with their exact workings, but I'm certain there are ways to make them accomplish something.

Agreed, personally I find 65 points for a T5 2W 2+/5++ Ld9 small footprint unit that has a decent toolbox and can deep strike isn't crazy bad. At worse it will absorb a few units worth of fire for a turn (a worthy distraction), if it survives it is capable of deleting a few vehicles/support units in the enemy back field. That said, I've only used single model squads of nurgle mutilators; With only T4 they would loose a lot of their survivability to melta, lascannon, etc.

Obviously, obliterators can do a lot of what mutilators do (but at range) and some of what they can do in combat (but fewer attacks/weapons, worse I for escaping sweeping advance), but that doesn't mean mutilators can't be made to work.

I think its important to get away form the mindset that some people have where units that with less use are useless.

nareik wrote:
I think its important to get away form the mindset that some people have where units that with less use are useless.

The issue is that everything is a trade-off. Do I take Unit A that costs me 120 points or Unit B that costs me 150 points? What roles do each of them perform? If Unit A and Unit B are both close-combat units, but Unit A can do more damage and survive longer, then why would I ever take Unit B for any reason other than aesthetics or fluff? I would be paying more and getting less (which seems like a familiar strategy )

That's the underlying issue. The gap between good and bad in 40k is way too large, sometimes among the same kinds of units. In Warmachine, for example, the gap between good and bad is very small to where the "bad" choice often is just bad because the "good" choice is better for general-purpose use and the bad choice is more specialized. In 40k the bad unit often is too fragile or not good enough to do its intended role, while the good choice can do the role (if not more).

That's absolutely a game balance thing, and something that should have been addressed in 20 years of rules.

WayneTheGame wrote:

nareik wrote:
I think its important to get away form the mindset that some people have where units that with less use are useless.

The issue is that everything is a trade-off. Do I take Unit A that costs me 120 points or Unit B that costs me 150 points? What roles do each of them perform? If Unit A and Unit B are both close-combat units, but Unit A can do more damage and survive longer, then why would I ever take Unit B for any reason other than aesthetics or fluff?

The fact being that, to many and to the people GW are clearly aiming the game at, aesthetics and fluff are as good as if not better reasons for choosing a unit than how it performs on table.

 Paradigm wrote:

The fact being that, to many and to the people GW are clearly aiming the game at, aesthetics and fluff are as good as if not better reasons for choosing a unit than how it performs on table.

But why does there need to be a choice at all?

Why make players choose between nice looking models and models with good rules?

 Paradigm wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

nareik wrote:
I think its important to get away form the mindset that some people have where units that with less use are useless.

The issue is that everything is a trade-off. Do I take Unit A that costs me 120 points or Unit B that costs me 150 points? What roles do each of them perform? If Unit A and Unit B are both close-combat units, but Unit A can do more damage and survive longer, then why would I ever take Unit B for any reason other than aesthetics or fluff?

The fact being that, to many and to the people GW are clearly aiming the game at, aesthetics and fluff are as good as if not better reasons for choosing a unit than how it performs on table.

Exactly, which is part of the problem because that should not be a tradeoff. You shouldn't even have to think that Unit B performs much worse but you like how it looks so you're going to take it anyways, penalties be damned.

That is IMHO one GW's most grievous sins when it comes to game design.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW wants you to play fluffy, themed armies, but then punish you with crappy units that will lose you the game.

I honestly can't think of a single unit that, if not spammed, will have a major impact on your chances of winning or losing a game. OK, a list with 3 Penitent Engines against one with 3 Riptides is going to have a bad day, but one of each will not hugely imbalance the game. On the whole, imbalance is only a major factor when it is exacerbated by taking the maximum possible amounts of the imbalanced units, and that's exactly what GW want you to avoid doing.

Then why allow people to spam at all? Isn't it kind of stupid for GW to allow you to take literally whatever you want if you're really not "supposed" to anyway, or to take units in greater numbers than they "intended"?

Because, as I say, they've chosen absolute freedom combined with trust rather than a system of restrictions that can, in some way, stop someone making the list they want. They want you to be able to make any list you can possibly think of, they trust you to take into account your opponent and how they will enjoy the game.

But not being able to take three riptides, because the community decided they were "broken", when that's the list you want to take...that's not stopping someone from making the list they want?

I stand by what I said, it's not real freedom, it's "freedom". Choice is an illusion, and you're still bound by restrictions and rules, some of which differ from person to person and might not even be fair, that just aren't written into the rulebook. What's the point?

And as it's been said time and again, there's no reason why the game shouldn't have restrictions and balance written into it. There really isn't anything stopping someone from taking the list they want to take anyway, especially if like you say you need to take your opponent into account before every game. It's not hard to say "Wanna play without an FOC?", you get a yes or no answer, done deal...but trying to reintroduce structure into the game and playing two reasonably-balanced lists against each other, when every last semblance of balance has been thrown entirely out the window, and when the community is already pretty fractured in not only how the game "should" be played but when it comes to damn near every other aspect, like what's fluffy and what isn't, what's "overpowered" and what's reasonably good for its price, that's a little bit harder to do. It changes from person to person and trying to get people to all agree on something is way more difficult than if it was just written into the rules, plain as day; "XV104 Riptide, Elite, 0-2". As far as how GW "intends" for that unit or the game in general to be played, you can't really get any clearer than that.

 vipoid wrote:
That makes no sense to me.

You're either giving players freedom or you're not.

If you're making restrictions and just not bothering to tell players what they are, then that's not freedom - it's just a shallow illusion of freedom.

Yeah, exactly. Your "freedom" is a joke, and I would much rather have a more restrictive game, where I'm either forced to take units I normally never would or I'm extremely limited on how many of the "good" ones I can field, or both, and at least have something that resembles a balanced game where there's no arguing over lists and WAAC and other nonsense, than a wide open game with all this "freedom" to take any combination of units I want, but not being able to enjoy said freedom and having to restrict myself anyway.

That article is a load of bull* IMO, maybe not at the time of writing, but applied to current 40k.

1st company of a space marine chapter, all in terminator armor is a fluff list, and spectacularly bad on the tabletop.

All daemons of Tzeentch is a just as fluffy list that happens to mop the floor with about 80% of the lists it might encounter.

 Paradigm wrote:


The fact being that, to many and to the people GW are clearly aiming the game at, aesthetics and fluff are as good as if not better reasons for choosing a unit than how it performs on table.

And then be told they shouldn't bring 3 Riptides because they're too powerful, despite the player enjoying the fluff and aesthetics of Riptides.

It is of my opinion, that all of us as players, we only have limited funds and time in which to build an army list with. This WH40K hobby is quite expencive in both monetary as well as a time investment. Some folks just want to buy the units that they enjoy the aesthetics for. Some folks are only concerned with the units that are effective at what they can do.

I cant blame players for being beardy/cheesy for taking the most effective units from an army list, in attempts to be dominant on the tabletop. This is especially ever more so important in the tournament/competitive environments. I applaud those players who do their homework to come up with really wicked army lists. Especially so, in the competitive tournaments of the likes of Games Day UK, and the such.

Everything all comes down to their rules. If they want to sell units that are not selling well. Then they only have to buff the unit a bit in either stat line wise or give it a special rule or two or make it cheaper to field points wise. And likewise if they feel something is too beardy, they can do the opposite to said unit. If GW wanted to balance factions in WH40K, they would have done it by now.

I would site Blood Bowl as a perfect resemblance in what GW does for the armies of WH40K in terms of balance. But, WH40K is a little better than Blood Bowl in terms of game balance. Anyone who has played Goblins, Halflings or Amazons vs. a Dwarf team will know what I mean.

SYKOJAK wrote:


I would site Blood Bowl as a perfect resemblance in what GW does for the armies of WH40K in terms of balance. But, WH40K is a little better than Blood Bowl in terms of game balance. Anyone who has played Goblins, Halflings or Amazons vs. a Dwarf team will know what I mean.

This isn't a coincidence either, Jervis Johnson was the lead for Blood Bowl and now he's in charge of the whole studio.

Blood Bowl however at least has the decency to tell you all teams aren't made equal (well the Living rulebook does at least).

There's no spirit anymore. with unbound armys of the new big toys etc. today i have a game against 3 riptdies 3wraightknig 2dread knights and 1 knight
my fluffy spacemarine Army has no chance in fight against that. not with ever game just a death match our who can wipe out who the fastest

zilka86 wrote:
There's no spirit anymore. with unbound armys of the new big toys etc. today i have a game against 3 riptdies 3wraightknig 2dread knights and 1 knight
my fluffy spacemarine Army has no chance in fight against that. not with ever game just a death match our who can wipe out who the fastest

That is just a person who have to win with plastic toy soldiers. Why bother playing him. I would have looked at him, stared at him, say "Seriously?" Then when he gives a look I would say "Do you really need to win with plastic toy soldiers that badly?" then wait for his answer. If I don't find the answer satisfactory, I would say "You win, I won't bother playing since you really need to win so badly you will not be a fun person to play with, so take your victory and have a good day."

Unbound is about making lists you couldn't make legally but wanted to do so fluffily. Again it would depend on his answer. If there was a fluff reason for this, I would accept it, since he wanted to have fun. If he admitted he needed to win, I would accept it since he is telling the truth, but if he had to lie or make excuses, I would politely decline the game, give him his victory and think to myself this person has issues and should be felt sorry for needing to win with plastic toy soldiers. So I will give him his victory so he can feel better for himself.

This game is about fun. Unbound is about fun. Sadly people just abuse everything. Even in Bounded lists people exploit to win so using Unbound is just a cop out.

Where i paly ever one builds army that are unbound so the can win like list above. i am the only player in my area that uses infantry models even the ork player uses only big model i don't rember there names he runs six of then pluse a low thing.

The whole issue I had with that article then, as now, is that it's passing responsibility for balance onto the players. It's not the players responsibility to balance the game, it's on the designers. If it's bad/wrong/unfluffy to take 3 Riptides, then you shouldn't be allowed to take three Riptides. Allowing it because you want to sell more than one Riptide to a Tau player (and let's not pretend here, that's exactly the reason why 0-1 restrictions went away) and then finger-wagging saying that the player is wrong to want that, despite being allowed, is a copout and a pathetic way to try and insulate yourself from writing properly balanced rules.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The whole issue I had with that article then, as now, is that it's passing responsibility for balance onto the players. It's not the players responsibility to balance the game, it's on the designers. If it's bad/wrong/unfluffy to take 3 Riptides, then you shouldn't be allowed to take three Riptides. Allowing it because you want to sell more than one Riptide to a Tau player (and let's not pretend here, that's exactly the reason why 0-1 restrictions went away) and then finger-wagging saying that the player is wrong to want that, despite being allowed, is a copout and a pathetic way to try and insulate yourself from writing properly balanced rules.

Fantasy example but:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer/Ogre-Kingdoms.pdf

Yeah... Jervis note pretty much validates your entire post.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
The whole issue I had with that article then, as now, is that it's passing responsibility for balance onto the players. It's not the players responsibility to balance the game, it's on the designers. If it's bad/wrong/unfluffy to take 3 Riptides, then you shouldn't be allowed to take three Riptides. Allowing it because you want to sell more than one Riptide to a Tau player (and let's not pretend here, that's exactly the reason why 0-1 restrictions went away) and then finger-wagging saying that the player is wrong to want that, despite being allowed, is a copout and a pathetic way to try and insulate yourself from writing properly balanced rules.

Fantasy example but:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer/Ogre-Kingdoms.pdf

Yeah... Jervis note pretty much validates your entire post.

Yep, that sounds like Jervis alright. You *can* do this, but you aren't intended to do it and doing it will make you a WAAC/TFG/git so don't do it, even though you're allowed to do it.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

Fantasy example but:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer/Ogre-Kingdoms.pdf

Yeah... Jervis note pretty much validates your entire post.

Why?

It demonstrates perfectly what he was saying.

We'll leave you the "freedom" to do this, but you're a bad person if you do.

So, what's the point? Either have the guts to undo your mistake, or else leave it alone. Don't just dump the problem on the players.

 vipoid wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

Fantasy example but:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer/Ogre-Kingdoms.pdf

Yeah... Jervis note pretty much validates your entire post.

Why?

It demonstrates perfectly what he was saying.

We'll leave you the "freedom" to do this, but you're a bad person if you do.

So, what's the point? Either have the guts to undo your mistake, or else leave it alone. Don't just dump the problem on the players.

Well, the Jervis quote in there consists of two parts.

A) "we" (!) decided that it does not give Ogres an unfair advantage.

B) "I personally" would recommend you don't do it for background reasons.

Seems to be clearly delineated between (a) not a problem from a pure game-play perspective (in the aggregate decision/opinion of the team), but (b) in the personal, subjective opinion of but one among several game designers, not really going with the fluff.

That isn't necessarily a bad approach to FAQ.. e.g. don't change it unless it is truly necessary from a game-play perspective, but keep it in mind background-wise for future iterations of the rules. The alternative, wild FAQs left and right for "fluff-reasons", even if they aren't strictly needed, isn't too enticing either, I find.