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.
U are missing the point so much it’s funny. I DONT care if I win or lose. I want a fun game set in the universe and setting I have known for years and love. The idea of judging a list as “better” or worse is ridiculous to me. It baffles me how you can’t look at something from someone else perspective. I don’t play the same way as u. To me it’s a game, not a competion. If someone played well and beat me I applaud that. I used to play o-line in my younger days and loved a pancake and getting another one in the win column. Not in toy soldiers though. The story element is most important, characters and units are named and have histories and battles take place in a context. The list is a means to an end. It’s the cast, not the film. It’s not a moral high ground either. It’s just you sound very unhappy with the game. I’m not. I like it. It works for me. You are asking for the game to be changed to suit you but it would make it worse for me. That’s all. I’m not better or doing it right, I’m just happy with it at the minute.
And my fluffy list are so damn fluffy. It’s like a meme about unicorns from despicable me. They’re probably not as “good” as ones you can download but the are fun as heck and full of flavour.
Well it also sounds like you aren't interested in playing in tournements, which is the only place that these kinds of matched play rules are needed. So what's the problem?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: An army of mostly hellhounds (or whatever the FW version of them is) just won a GT this weekend.
Yep, rule of 3 really works well for curbing spam...
They won't nerf princes until an army of 12 wins a couple tournaments. Then they'll do something crazy which will really hurt the game for "casual" players (+100 points for all DPs...)
GW has little to no idea how their game really plays and is stuck in a knee-jerk reaction cycle to what players are "doing to their game." Conscripts, Fire-raptor buff then nerf, rule of 3, commander nerf, SM nerfs (multiple guilliman nerfs), Ynarri nerf, incoming DE buffs (I kid)...
Again, I like the rule of 3 but it's not solving the problem that GW thought it would (poorly designed/balanced units) but it does show that they are trying (which is something new for sure).
I think they will fix these units one at a time, and each time they do the game will get better.
I commented because he claimed the rule of 3 was used universally and was the standard and wanted changed made to the game for everyone because he didn’t like it, then said I was a liar because I’m not trying to have willie measuring contest every time I play 40k. Hence my reply. The conversation does seem to have moved on now and I believe he has form for complaining. Pretty new here so will learn not to take the bait. Basically I only came here to say that it isn’t a rule it’s a suggestion for organised events. But it seems to have gone all over the place now and street fighter is going on and scrubs.
Yeah, I think something we tend to lose sight of is that everyone is coming at these conversations from very different places.
Everyone's idea of what they want from the hobby, the competitive nature of their community, and general out look on the game can be very different while being perfectly valid.
The issue, as I see it, is that GW needs to balance the game so that it works in tournements. They need to do this because tournements are a large part of the hobby, are good for business, and are growing.
A tight set of matched rules are also helpful when playing pick up games, as they can already assume the other player, often a complete stranger, knows the same rules and that the game will be fairly evenly matched, and enjoyable for both players as much as the ruleset can assist that. Gimmick lists and spam lists, be they powerful, fluffy, terrible, or unfluffy, are typically not very fun to play against, some more than others.
In a closed group where you play the same people over and over, plan fluff plots, campaigns, and so on, restrictions are rarely needed because it's not difficult to match the competitive culture of the group and avoid bringing lists your opponents won't enjoy. Literally anything you can both agree on is allowed and is awesome, and GW will still you this all day long. It's why they invented power level, open play, etc.
But in pick up games and tournements it's up to GW to make sure that all legal armies are enjoyable to play against, and go along with their idea of what the game should look like. You can't really blame tournement players for wanting to win, and using any legal means to do so (thus the scrub conversation). It is however up to GW, and in some ways the community as a whole, to decide if things like mass first turn assault and 7 of the same unit is good for the game at a competitive level. I think it's pretty clear they make the game worse, and these sorts of fixes make it better.
I have to disagree, I think making one game to satisfy tournament players isn’t good for the game at all. Hence my earlier opinion that there needs to be two serarate rule sets, a tournament edition if you like. The tournament scene is so obsessed with winning and maximaising yiur lists that it bears no relation to the universe the game is set in. And the setting is what makes 40k so great. It dictates the models we see and the army’s we have to play with. It appears irrelevant to tournament list builders which army or units the use as long as the are good. So make the rules so tight, which can mean restrictive could suck the flavour out of the game. I admit the tournament scene is very vocal but I doubt they are the biggest part of GWs income compared to all other gamers, collectors and random purchases. Hence why they push the 3 ways to play.
I don’t believe this mythical balance that everyone is after is better for everyone as has been said on here so many times, if that were the case I would be playing games like x-wing or shadespire. But I dint. They hold no interest for me as they seem bland and lack character, they might be more tactically deep and balanced but they don’t tell a story.
The rule book has narrative and open play rules in it, that I believe might be what you are looking for. Have you tried playing that way with friends? Are those systems lacking something that you feel would improve them? Do you see another way for strangers to play each other easily and without any complex conversation in a way that is scalable to large events other than having a tight set of matched play rules?
Genuinely curious.
Matched play is fine I don’t use it. I use narrative and open play, that’s my point. When using those the game works fine as long as you all aren’t silly about it. As for how strangers play each other use matched play, the problem is that people seem to think you have to make the game entirely match play like to have a good game and this isn’t true at all. If people start imposing match play rules through out or make sweeping changes to make the game play better at tournaments at the detriment of casual players that’s where the mistakes lie. Match play is not the be all and end all. For some of us 40k works fine. Hence angin why I think a fully different tournament edition could be made that suits tournament play and leaves the rest of us to enjoy the open game. I suggest this as it appears so many people are unhappy with how 40k plays at tournements, how abusable it is. No need to ruin the fun because some people can’t play nice.
Yeah people don't want to play stuff other then matched play, because the armies they have are bought with what majority of what other people play. Lets say I convince someone to drop the rule of 3 by playing open play or narrative. I don't know how those 2 work, but am assuming they are now free to pick they army, so they will get the best stuff only now without the 0-3 limitation.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Those armies can be written by the same people because THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT LOOKING AT THE SAME DATA.
The first five codexes released into the game were released before the index lists were even released. Asking "how can GW make Disintegrators cost 15 points while my thing costs nearly twice as many" is ridiculous because at the time your thing that costs twice as many points was released, disintegrators were 30 points, not 15.
Multi-damage weapons, particularly in the mid-range, and armor saves were very obviously overpriced in an edition where (on the surface at least) it appeared that armor saves were about to get a pretty big boost because now you'd be getting a 5+ or a 4+ save against something that previously would have gone straight through your armor.
"we're in charge of the GK codex, what should we change from the index? Well what data do we have to look at between codex and index? Oh right, NONE. We have had no additional playtesting time, no tournament results to look at, no player feedback, because the index has not been released."
.
how can they not be looking at the same data. The index were ready before any of the codex. So when they were making lets say the IG or eldar codex, they didn't read their own books? they didn't notice that a unit of termintors costs as if they were dark reapers, and that is before not having negative modifires for moving or hiting stuff outside of LoS, or the ability to shot twice with the same unit or buff it with other stuff. I mean if this was w40k 1st ed, and the design people were made out of a mix of people that never made games, I would get it that they could have not know something. But this is the 8th ed, w40k is what 20 years old ? Plus some stuff is middle school tier problems to notice. A bs 4+ , because it has to move to get in to weapon range, unit that costs 300pts and has few shots vs 300pts of reapers is suppose to be balanced?
I also don't get the argument that they didn't change nothing in GK between the index and the codex. If GK were not played in 6th,7th and 8th ed, so that no one could remember how they armies were played, then one thing they should have not do is leave the things unchanged, because it is and was clear that with the existing rule so few people played them, that there was no data on them from tournaments. Point cost should have been drasticly changed, rules should have been added, I don't know I am not a designer, but they should have done something. But from what I was told, the "changes" they did was to rise the points cost of all GK units worth taking, because they were also used by normal marines. Only with normal marines those units were problematic because of re-roll and HQ synergy,and GK do not have those. What is worse a few months later they make a custodes codex which is nice. Instead of making those they should have made GK better, or just give the jetbike dudes to GKs.
You aren't wrong that this happens, but I think it's incorrect that this is GWs intention. I think it's apparent they are at least trying to make things better, and I'm hopeful that CA will help things improve even more. If it doesn't, I'll likely rethink my involvement again, but I have generally liked most of the changes so far.
You know from what I have been told, could have been lied to though, it seems to me that GK were bad for like 3 editions. They weren't good when other marines were good, they weren't good out of the index, their codex didn't fix anything, and the CA they already made just nerfed them, as did all the FAQs afterwards. But I do not know enough about GW history to go 100% realist mode. Was there ever a time in w40k history that GW took a bad army and fixed it rules and point costs in a faq?
First off, when you hit "quote" to reply to someone, do all your typing below all the text. Otherwise, what you type appears in the quote box and it makes it really hard to read what you said.
second, while the indexes were ready before any codex, you have to send books to proofreading and the printers before you release them. We know from GW confirming this that the first five codex books were all written BEFORE the indexes were released to the public. This means that even though to you, you had the index, and then a couple months later you had the GK book, to GW there wasn't that 2 months. They had to write the index, then IMMEDIATELY decide "what do we add with the codex."
To me, the biggest mistake with GW handling Grey Knights was choosing to release them so early, but even that I can understand. They probably knew that GK would feel like crap to play with half a psychic power list, but releasing them so early, they had no idea how several things they'd done to the game were going to affect balance. Doubling the wounds on Terminators, AND releasing a whole army with access to mortal wounds (a brand new mechanic) both at the same time led them to be massively overly cautious with the initial GK statlines, and because they didn't have any time to see how GK would perform in the wide world before they put out their codex, that over cautiousness went straight from their index to the codex.
There were obviously a number of lessons learned between GK and the other psyker-focused Marines, Thousand Sons, though they still have not figured out marine pricing. They realized they need to have many more than 6 powers available for a psyker-focused faction to feel good in 8th. They realized that the characters of a faction should have regular psychic damage output even if they give the mooks wimpy-smite.
If you look at the GK stratagems, relics, warlord traits etc they don't actually look that bad. Stratagems especially, GK have some that could be pretty solid if the army itself were good. It's really the psychic issue (characters having wimpysmite, and also only access to 6 powers) and the hideous over-costing of each and every unit and piece of wargear that hold them back. That could be fixed in a chapter approved pretty easily, especially if it were released alongside a Marine Codex 2.0 that fixes a lot of the shared units/stratagems and improves the Librarius discipline. Give GK access to a librarius discipline with more than 2 useful spells in it, give their characters full smite, and for gods sake fix the point costs of their units and suddenly, they're an army again.
Ok, but if they update the GK codex at the re-work run of lets say the next edition, what is going to change really? Let say they give GK new psychic powers, but decide that psychic powers were to strong in 8th, and GK get a nerfed psychic power book, but this time with extra stuff. Then 2-3 codex roll up, GW decided that 9th ed should be all about tanks, and GK codex doesn't have any of those. So they will be bad once again, and then what wait another year that they fix it? People told me on this forum that GK were bad whole 7th ed, if they end up bad in 8th, what is the chance that they get the rules right next time? And I doubt they will let people return their GK armies for something that works.
Also I still am not getting why when an index and a codex was done matters. They couldn't have done the codex without having the edition rules, because they wouldn't be able to test them at all. And even lets say it was a rush job and they droped the ball hard, why then instead of making people buy and index, which I didn't buy, and then an identical and bad codex, why didn't they just put the rules online after they realised the index is bad, and they don't know how to make a good codex, but they have a release date they have to fill with something. This way people at least would know that something is wrong with the army. I also don't get the keeping a close watch on GK psychic powers thing, from what I have been told the early 8th ed was ruled by armies that spamed real smite for cheap, and eldar had it more or less till the last points nerf to all of their casters. So they kept watch on GK, which they knew were bad, and which they knew had a bad index and a bad codex, but they were ok with a powerful codex like eldar to have normal smite spam and superior psychic powers? They would have to be borderline incompetent to do that, and I don't think a big company like GW can be that
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Those armies can be written by the same people because THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT LOOKING AT THE SAME DATA.
The first five codexes released into the game were released before the index lists were even released. Asking "how can GW make Disintegrators cost 15 points while my thing costs nearly twice as many" is ridiculous because at the time your thing that costs twice as many points was released, disintegrators were 30 points, not 15.
Multi-damage weapons, particularly in the mid-range, and armor saves were very obviously overpriced in an edition where (on the surface at least) it appeared that armor saves were about to get a pretty big boost because now you'd be getting a 5+ or a 4+ save against something that previously would have gone straight through your armor.
"we're in charge of the GK codex, what should we change from the index? Well what data do we have to look at between codex and index? Oh right, NONE. We have had no additional playtesting time, no tournament results to look at, no player feedback, because the index has not been released."
.
how can they not be looking at the same data. The index were ready before any of the codex. So when they were making lets say the IG or eldar codex, they didn't read their own books? they didn't notice that a unit of termintors costs as if they were dark reapers, and that is before not having negative modifires for moving or hiting stuff outside of LoS, or the ability to shot twice with the same unit or buff it with other stuff. I mean if this was w40k 1st ed, and the design people were made out of a mix of people that never made games, I would get it that they could have not know something. But this is the 8th ed, w40k is what 20 years old ? Plus some stuff is middle school tier problems to notice. A bs 4+ , because it has to move to get in to weapon range, unit that costs 300pts and has few shots vs 300pts of reapers is suppose to be balanced?
I also don't get the argument that they didn't change nothing in GK between the index and the codex. If GK were not played in 6th,7th and 8th ed, so that no one could remember how they armies were played, then one thing they should have not do is leave the things unchanged, because it is and was clear that with the existing rule so few people played them, that there was no data on them from tournaments. Point cost should have been drasticly changed, rules should have been added, I don't know I am not a designer, but they should have done something. But from what I was told, the "changes" they did was to rise the points cost of all GK units worth taking, because they were also used by normal marines. Only with normal marines those units were problematic because of re-roll and HQ synergy,and GK do not have those. What is worse a few months later they make a custodes codex which is nice. Instead of making those they should have made GK better, or just give the jetbike dudes to GKs.
You aren't wrong that this happens, but I think it's incorrect that this is GWs intention. I think it's apparent they are at least trying to make things better, and I'm hopeful that CA will help things improve even more. If it doesn't, I'll likely rethink my involvement again, but I have generally liked most of the changes so far.
You know from what I have been told, could have been lied to though, it seems to me that GK were bad for like 3 editions. They weren't good when other marines were good, they weren't good out of the index, their codex didn't fix anything, and the CA they already made just nerfed them, as did all the FAQs afterwards. But I do not know enough about GW history to go 100% realist mode. Was there ever a time in w40k history that GW took a bad army and fixed it rules and point costs in a faq?
First off, when you hit "quote" to reply to someone, do all your typing below all the text. Otherwise, what you type appears in the quote box and it makes it really hard to read what you said.
second, while the indexes were ready before any codex, you have to send books to proofreading and the printers before you release them. We know from GW confirming this that the first five codex books were all written BEFORE the indexes were released to the public. This means that even though to you, you had the index, and then a couple months later you had the GK book, to GW there wasn't that 2 months. They had to write the index, then IMMEDIATELY decide "what do we add with the codex."
To me, the biggest mistake with GW handling Grey Knights was choosing to release them so early, but even that I can understand. They probably knew that GK would feel like crap to play with half a psychic power list, but releasing them so early, they had no idea how several things they'd done to the game were going to affect balance. Doubling the wounds on Terminators, AND releasing a whole army with access to mortal wounds (a brand new mechanic) both at the same time led them to be massively overly cautious with the initial GK statlines, and because they didn't have any time to see how GK would perform in the wide world before they put out their codex, that over cautiousness went straight from their index to the codex.
There were obviously a number of lessons learned between GK and the other psyker-focused Marines, Thousand Sons, though they still have not figured out marine pricing. They realized they need to have many more than 6 powers available for a psyker-focused faction to feel good in 8th. They realized that the characters of a faction should have regular psychic damage output even if they give the mooks wimpy-smite.
If you look at the GK stratagems, relics, warlord traits etc they don't actually look that bad. Stratagems especially, GK have some that could be pretty solid if the army itself were good. It's really the psychic issue (characters having wimpysmite, and also only access to 6 powers) and the hideous over-costing of each and every unit and piece of wargear that hold them back. That could be fixed in a chapter approved pretty easily, especially if it were released alongside a Marine Codex 2.0 that fixes a lot of the shared units/stratagems and improves the Librarius discipline. Give GK access to a librarius discipline with more than 2 useful spells in it, give their characters full smite, and for gods sake fix the point costs of their units and suddenly, they're an army again.
Ok, but if they update the GK codex at the re-work run of lets say the next edition, what is going to change really? Let say they give GK new psychic powers, but decide that psychic powers were to strong in 8th, and GK get a nerfed psychic power book, but this time with extra stuff. Then 2-3 codex roll up, GW decided that 9th ed should be all about tanks, and GK codex doesn't have any of those. So they will be bad once again, and then what wait another year that they fix it? People told me on this forum that GK were bad whole 7th ed, if they end up bad in 8th, what is the chance that they get the rules right next time? And I doubt they will let people return their GK armies for something that works.
Also I still am not getting why when an index and a codex was done matters. They couldn't have done the codex without having the edition rules, because they wouldn't be able to test them at all. And even lets say it was a rush job and they droped the ball hard, why then instead of making people buy and index, which I didn't buy, and then an identical and bad codex, why didn't they just put the rules online after they realised the index is bad, and they don't know how to make a good codex, but they have a release date they have to fill with something. This way people at least would know that something is wrong with the army. I also don't get the keeping a close watch on GK psychic powers thing, from what I have been told the early 8th ed was ruled by armies that spamed real smite for cheap, and eldar had it more or less till the last points nerf to all of their casters. So they kept watch on GK, which they knew were bad, and which they knew had a bad index and a bad codex, but they were ok with a powerful codex like eldar to have normal smite spam and superior psychic powers? They would have to be borderline incompetent to do that, and I don't think a big company like GW can be that
I think you may have me mistaken for a GW rules team. I'm just a person who does not tend to see intent and conspiracies when they are not evident.
The timing of when something was released matters immensely, because as anyone who's ever playtested a video game release will gladly tell you, no matter how much in-house playtesting you do, you cannot replicate the thousands of people testing your game out on release.
And again, you're doing the VERY SAME thing: Comparing CODEX: Eldar, which was released after they had data from tournaments, the playerbase, etc, and not INDEX: Eldar. In the index, you saw the very same over-cautious pricing of psychic powers and mortal wounds, because again, mortal wounds were a brand new concept for 40k and were obviously very powerful. The full-smite Spiritseers everyone complained about spamming smites post codex were priced at 66 points in the index, and were generally considered to be pretty terrible...they dropped, in the codex, by 21 points. Nearly a third of their cost.
The Eldar INDEX was released with the same playtest data as the GK CODEX, and the Eldar index was pretty much terrible outside of Dark Reapers which saw play in Ynnari lists at the time. IIRC the ynnari lists we saw during the flyer-spam era were mostly Harlequins with fusion blasters for troops, Yvraine and maybe a naked Autarch for HQs, and Dark Reapers in the back receiving the shoot twice power.
So when you ask "how could they, how COULD they release a codex they KNEW would be terrible just to penalize poor old grey knight players and then release an Eldar codex that's not terrible" - you're assigning intent based on no evidence of intent. They realized post-index that they overshot on pricing for Mortal Wound access and multi-wound models, and the Eldar codex, as well as every other codex released based on that play data, received buffs based on those findings.
If marine players have to wait all the way until next edition to see buffs I will personally eat my shoe. You guys are the whales of GWs business model and the combined tears of the current marine playerbase are such that I'm amazed GW hasn't had to deal with flooding in their mail room.The point of Chapter Approved as stated by GW is to fix exactly these kinds of issues.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
I think there is difference between having a bug here and there in a game, and getting something like the last mass effect.
And am comparing index to index, and codex to codex. The GK index was worse then the eldar index, and same about the eldar/GK codex. You say eldar had only one way of playing under the index that was good. What was the comperable GK build with the index? I think there was non, because the GK index and codex both seem weaker then the eldar index lists.
In also don't get the supposed later fix, they knew that the eldar index list was better then other faction codex lists. How can the anwser to that be bufffing of eldar. They should have either fixed points costs and rules of the weaker armies, and leave the eldar the way they were in index, I don't know they should have done something.
Plus I don't have to use just the eldar example. You say they didn't knew how to make a good GK codex, because they had no data. Ok, lets say that it was true, and that they didn't want to get the data themselfs by doing list testing. How come they were later able to do a good custodes codex? they had 0 data on those. Or how about deathwatch, they aren't meta breaking, but are fun to play and make primaris actually good to play. There weren't many more deathwatch tournament lists then GK ones. Plus GK were more or less the same between the codex and the index, while deathwatch pre new codex, did not mixed primaris squads.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
This isnt the first time that a army has been severely underpowered, and it will certainly not be the last. Im guessing youre a new player, but plenty of xenos armies have gone YEARS without a playable codex (I think DE went something like 9 years at one point).
I agree with you that GK and other weaker armies need to be buffed, and this edition it seems more likely than ever with their CA and FAQS cadence. That being said, there is always going to be a codex that is weak for a long time (orks have gotten the short end of the stick on multiple occasions, including in 6th when we were the first codex to come out not dis-similar to the situation that you and other SM players are complaining about right now).
As for your point about Custodes and DW getting decent codexes but no index: they learned how players from all armies played, what works and doesnt in with the mechanics of the new edition and applied it to those codexes. Its a fairly common thing to do in any kind of development.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/27 16:06:04
What, specifically, is it that more casual players are afraid of, were the ruleset to be balanced? How exactly would balancing the game for tournaments, or even to make pick-up games less one sided be guaranteed to remove flavor?
It's also why at this point, asking for a 9th edition as a solution would be disastrous. They've got a good base to build and refine on. Tearing up the canvas and starting over just repeats the cycle and gives us all these problems again in another form.
Karol wrote: I think there is difference between having a bug here and there in a game, and getting something like the last mass effect.
And am comparing index to index, and codex to codex. The GK index was worse then the eldar index, and same about the eldar/GK codex. You say eldar had only one way of playing under the index that was good. What was the comperable GK build with the index? I think there was non, because the GK index and codex both seem weaker then the eldar index lists.
In also don't get the supposed later fix, they knew that the eldar index list was better then other faction codex lists. How can the anwser to that be bufffing of eldar. They should have either fixed points costs and rules of the weaker armies, and leave the eldar the way they were in index, I don't know they should have done something.
Plus I don't have to use just the eldar example. You say they didn't knew how to make a good GK codex, because they had no data. Ok, lets say that it was true, and that they didn't want to get the data themselfs by doing list testing. How come they were later able to do a good custodes codex? they had 0 data on those. Or how about deathwatch, they aren't meta breaking, but are fun to play and make primaris actually good to play. There weren't many more deathwatch tournament lists then GK ones. Plus GK were more or less the same between the codex and the index, while deathwatch pre new codex, did not mixed primaris squads.
It's mostly luck, I think.
Custodes happen to have invul saves and more than 2 wounds, which let's them actually be durable since it ignores the AP system and not die to 1 shot from most guns. They still only have about 2 good units, though.
Deathwatch are a perfect example of GW having a general idea how their game works now with the newer books, as their abilities and strategems are decent. You can see how they were more than just a direct port from the index like SM and GK were. They are still very glass cannony, have about 3 good units, and tons of useless units, but the ammo and deepstrike strat go a long way to help them when you throw in FW dreads.
LunarSol wrote: It's also why at this point, asking for a 9th edition as a solution would be disastrous. They've got a good base to build and refine on. Tearing up the canvas and starting over just repeats the cycle and gives us all these problems again in another form.
Blastaar wrote: What, specifically, is it that more casual players are afraid of, were the ruleset to be balanced? How exactly would balancing the game for tournaments, or even to make pick-up games less one sided be guaranteed to remove flavor?
THANK you for this post
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Blastaar wrote: What, specifically, is it that more casual players are afraid of, were the ruleset to be balanced? How exactly would balancing the game for tournaments, or even to make pick-up games less one sided be guaranteed to remove flavor?
That's literally what this thread is about. Balancing the game mandates removing flavor.
Karol wrote: I think there is difference between having a bug here and there in a game, and getting something like the last mass effect.
And am comparing index to index, and codex to codex. The GK index was worse then the eldar index, and same about the eldar/GK codex. You say eldar had only one way of playing under the index that was good. What was the comperable GK build with the index? I think there was non, because the GK index and codex both seem weaker then the eldar index lists.
In also don't get the supposed later fix, they knew that the eldar index list was better then other faction codex lists. How can the anwser to that be bufffing of eldar. They should have either fixed points costs and rules of the weaker armies, and leave the eldar the way they were in index, I don't know they should have done something.
Plus I don't have to use just the eldar example. You say they didn't knew how to make a good GK codex, because they had no data. Ok, lets say that it was true, and that they didn't want to get the data themselfs by doing list testing. How come they were later able to do a good custodes codex? they had 0 data on those. Or how about deathwatch, they aren't meta breaking, but are fun to play and make primaris actually good to play. There weren't many more deathwatch tournament lists then GK ones. Plus GK were more or less the same between the codex and the index, while deathwatch pre new codex, did not mixed primaris squads.
You are Games Workshop's game balance team. The head honchos say to you "okay Karol, write us up the Indexes please."
You write the indexes. You're throwing in a lot of big changes from 7th edition - folding vehicles into big multi-wound monstrous creatures, adding a damage stat to various weapons, adding multiple wounds to a bunch of elite infantry, and completely overhauling the psychic power system with a new mechanic that completely bypasses even Invulnerable saves. Understandably, you're a little cautious about some of these mechanics, and when you play your test games, you probably price stuff that ouputs those mortal wounds pretty conservatively, to make sure that they're not wiping out whole space marine armies in a couple of turns.
Now, you've got your indexes, you did your in-house playtests, you send them to corporate. Corporate says "thanks! Now, please write us the first few codexes, so we can have them ready to print in the first months 8th ed is out."
What do you change? You have no more playtesting than you had before. You have no feedback from players trying your rules out. Nobody has run big tournaments so you don't know what your competitive players think is the best thing in the game. This is what I mean by "no data."
When you're talking about Deathwatch, or Custodes, or ANY codex outside of Space Marines, GK, DG, CSM, and Admech, they had that data. They saw what was doing well in tournaments, they heard back from players what they didn't like, and they were able to make adjustments to the index to release the codex based on that. Expecting them to put their hands over their ears and yell "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU" just so everyone's codex can be as hit-and-miss as the first handful is asinine. When they had feedback, they listened to feedback. That's great. They didn't have a crystal ball. I can fault GW for a lot of things, but playing it safe when it came to dumping an all-psychic army into an edition of the game where you just introduced mortal wounds? Yeah, I'd rather have that than just have them slap mortal wounds on every single unit and go "have fun kids, we'll balance this gak laterrrrr!"
I get that marine players tend to think of themselves as this overwhelming majority that makes so many sales for GW so GW should pay the most attention to them. And if you play Space Marines you probably have a point. But buddy, you play Grey Knights. The number of Grey Knight players is not larger than the number of (to use an example of a major faction still sitting around waiting for a codex release) ork players. Or Eldar players. Or Tau players. GW is not going to slam on the brakes and go back and fix your gak before they get all the other codex books out, you might have a tiny (if selfish) point if you were a Marine player, but if you're a GK player you get the feth in line.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Blastaar wrote: What, specifically, is it that more casual players are afraid of, were the ruleset to be balanced? How exactly would balancing the game for tournaments, or even to make pick-up games less one sided be guaranteed to remove flavor?
That's literally what this thread is about. Balancing the game mandates removing flavor.
Yes, 7 Hive Tyrants was bad at tournaments.
RIP thematic Space Marine tank companies.
Imagine if they had just limited Hive Tyrants to one per Detachment. Max three detachments in a matched play army.. Oh wait...
Karol wrote: I think there is difference between having a bug here and there in a game, and getting something like the last mass effect.
And am comparing index to index, and codex to codex. The GK index was worse then the eldar index, and same about the eldar/GK codex. You say eldar had only one way of playing under the index that was good. What was the comperable GK build with the index? I think there was non, because the GK index and codex both seem weaker then the eldar index lists.
In also don't get the supposed later fix, they knew that the eldar index list was better then other faction codex lists. How can the anwser to that be bufffing of eldar. They should have either fixed points costs and rules of the weaker armies, and leave the eldar the way they were in index, I don't know they should have done something.
Plus I don't have to use just the eldar example. You say they didn't knew how to make a good GK codex, because they had no data. Ok, lets say that it was true, and that they didn't want to get the data themselfs by doing list testing. How come they were later able to do a good custodes codex? they had 0 data on those. Or how about deathwatch, they aren't meta breaking, but are fun to play and make primaris actually good to play. There weren't many more deathwatch tournament lists then GK ones. Plus GK were more or less the same between the codex and the index, while deathwatch pre new codex, did not mixed primaris squads.
You are Games Workshop's game balance team. The head honchos say to you "okay Karol, write us up the Indexes please."
You write the indexes. You're throwing in a lot of big changes from 7th edition - folding vehicles into big multi-wound monstrous creatures, adding a damage stat to various weapons, adding multiple wounds to a bunch of elite infantry, and completely overhauling the psychic power system with a new mechanic that completely bypasses even Invulnerable saves. Understandably, you're a little cautious about some of these mechanics, and when you play your test games, you probably price stuff that ouputs those mortal wounds pretty conservatively, to make sure that they're not wiping out whole space marine armies in a couple of turns.
Now, you've got your indexes, you did your in-house playtests, you send them to corporate. Corporate says "thanks! Now, please write us the first few codexes, so we can have them ready to print in the first months 8th ed is out."
What do you change? You have no more playtesting than you had before. You have no feedback from players trying your rules out. Nobody has run big tournaments so you don't know what your competitive players think is the best thing in the game. This is what I mean by "no data."
When you're talking about Deathwatch, or Custodes, or ANY codex outside of Space Marines, GK, DG, CSM, and Admech, they had that data. They saw what was doing well in tournaments, they heard back from players what they didn't like, and they were able to make adjustments to the index to release the codex based on that. Expecting them to put their hands over their ears and yell "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU" just so everyone's codex can be as hit-and-miss as the first handful is asinine. When they had feedback, they listened to feedback. That's great. They didn't have a crystal ball. I can fault GW for a lot of things, but playing it safe when it came to dumping an all-psychic army into an edition of the game where you just introduced mortal wounds? Yeah, I'd rather have that than just have them slap mortal wounds on every single unit and go "have fun kids, we'll balance this gak laterrrrr!"
I get that marine players tend to think of themselves as this overwhelming majority that makes so many sales for GW so GW should pay the most attention to them. And if you play Space Marines you probably have a point. But buddy, you play Grey Knights. The number of Grey Knight players is not larger than the number of (to use an example of a major faction still sitting around waiting for a codex release) ork players. Or Eldar players. Or Tau players. GW is not going to slam on the brakes and go back and fix your gak before they get all the other codex books out, you might have a tiny (if selfish) point if you were a Marine player, but if you're a GK player you get the feth in line.
Blastaar wrote: What, specifically, is it that more casual players are afraid of, were the ruleset to be balanced? How exactly would balancing the game for tournaments, or even to make pick-up games less one sided be guaranteed to remove flavor?
That's literally what this thread is about. Balancing the game mandates removing flavor.
Yes, 7 Hive Tyrants was bad at tournaments.
RIP thematic Space Marine tank companies.
Imagine if they had just limited Hive Tyrants to one per Detachment. Max three detachments in a matched play army.. Oh wait...
Ask Tau which version of that nerf they would prefer...
Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/27 16:48:39
LunarSol wrote: It's also why at this point, asking for a 9th edition as a solution would be disastrous. They've got a good base to build and refine on. Tearing up the canvas and starting over just repeats the cycle and gives us all these problems again in another form.
Disagree. The biggest problem with 8th is the base. It's far too shallow to support what GW wants to do with the game. GW wants units to all be unique and work differently, even if only marginally, but the core rules don't give them more than the stat line and roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save- so we end up with bespoke rules tacked onto everything, and inevitably, because there isn't any design space for units to fulfill similar roles in different ways, or heaven forbid, have strengths and weaknesses, we end up with this binary system of units being too good, or not good enough.
40k desperately needs a true rewrite. Alternating activation. A meaningful morale system. A statline with more consequence, so GW could tweak stats more often to differentiate units, etc. There are over 20 armies in the game right now with many more units- they can't all be different under the current system and be balanced.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
It seems pretty clear that that the issue with killshot is requiring 3 predators, not that you can't take 6 of them.
Also you can take 6 of them, just not in competitive play. Not that 6 predators is somehow more fluffy than 3 predators and 3 vindicators or 3 land raiders anywhere other than your imagination.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/27 17:20:42
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
It seems pretty clear that that the issue with killshot is requiring 3 predators, not that you can't take 6 of them.
Right, the issue with only being able to take 3 is that it hinders Space Marine tank company players, not Killshot.
You know how the American army doesn't go to war with tank companies made up of 3 Abrams tanks, 1 M60A3, 1 M109 Paladin, and 1 Stryker Mobile Gun System? Yea, we shouldn't force Space Marine tank company players to run 3 Predators, 1 Relic Sicaran, 1 Relic Whirlwind Scorpius, and 1 Relic Vindicator Laser Destroyer.
That's just thematically inappropriate. I can only imagine a historicals game where someone pulled out his Greek Persian War era army complete with 3 units of hoplites, 1 unit of Thracian Falxmen, 1 unit of Gallic Marauders, and 1 unit of Polish hussars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: Also you can take 6 of them, just not in competitive play. Not that 6 predators is somehow more fluffy than 3 predators and 3 vindicators or 3 land raiders anywhere other than your imagination.
Right, it's not "more" fluffy. But someone might want to theme their army around predator tanks, and competitive tournament balance is stopping them.
I don't get why people are like
"WHY DO CASUAL PLAYERS NOT WANT BALANCE" and then when it is explained to them they say "JUST BE LESS CASUAL"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/27 17:22:49
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
You don't need GW's permission to make armies like that- just find like-minded people and do it. But list construction that loose causes problems not just for tournaments, but for pick-up games at the LGS, as well. Fluff is important, but gameplay matters more. Designing armies' game play to match their established fluff is a good thing. But it is not reasonable to expect each individual's homebrew chapter's fluff, or anything they create themselves to be taken into account when writing the rules. The rules need to work for everyone, not just Johnny and his 8 predators, or Susie and her flock of flyrants.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
It seems pretty clear that that the issue with killshot is requiring 3 predators, not that you can't take 6 of them.
Right, the issue with only being able to take 3 is that it hinders Space Marine tank company players, not Killshot.
You know how the American army doesn't go to war with tank companies made up of 3 Abrams tanks, 1 M60A3, 1 M109 Paladin, and 1 Stryker Mobile Gun System? Yea, we shouldn't force Space Marine tank company players to run 3 Predators, 1 Relic Sicaran, 1 Relic Whirlwind Scorpius, and 1 Relic Vindicator Laser Destroyer.
That's just thematically inappropriate. I can only imagine a historicals game where someone pulled out his Greek Persian War era army complete with 3 units of hoplites, 1 unit of Thracian Falxmen, 1 unit of Gallic Marauders, and 1 unit of Polish hussars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: Also you can take 6 of them, just not in competitive play. Not that 6 predators is somehow more fluffy than 3 predators and 3 vindicators or 3 land raiders anywhere other than your imagination.
Right, it's not "more" fluffy. But someone might want to theme their army around predator tanks, and competitive tournament balance is stopping them.
I don't get why people are like
"WHY DO CASUAL PLAYERS NOT WANT BALANCE" and then when it is explained to them they say "JUST BE LESS CASUAL"
I want you to have as much fun with the hobby as you can, man. If you want to play the 27 predator list, more power to you. Just not in a tournements/matched play where there needs to be some restrictions in order to ensure the most possible people have a good time.
There seems to be a disconnect where the fluffy people think the competitive players don't want them to play their fluffy armies in their fluffy games. There are literally no rules other than agree with your opponent on what rules you want to use in a casual setting.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
It seems pretty clear that that the issue with killshot is requiring 3 predators, not that you can't take 6 of them.
Right, the issue with only being able to take 3 is that it hinders Space Marine tank company players, not Killshot.
You know how the American army doesn't go to war with tank companies made up of 3 Abrams tanks, 1 M60A3, 1 M109 Paladin, and 1 Stryker Mobile Gun System? Yea, we shouldn't force Space Marine tank company players to run 3 Predators, 1 Relic Sicaran, 1 Relic Whirlwind Scorpius, and 1 Relic Vindicator Laser Destroyer.
That's just thematically inappropriate. I can only imagine a historicals game where someone pulled out his Greek Persian War era army complete with 3 units of hoplites, 1 unit of Thracian Falxmen, 1 unit of Gallic Marauders, and 1 unit of Polish hussars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: Also you can take 6 of them, just not in competitive play. Not that 6 predators is somehow more fluffy than 3 predators and 3 vindicators or 3 land raiders anywhere other than your imagination.
Right, it's not "more" fluffy. But someone might want to theme their army around predator tanks, and competitive tournament balance is stopping them.
I don't get why people are like
"WHY DO CASUAL PLAYERS NOT WANT BALANCE" and then when it is explained to them they say "JUST BE LESS CASUAL"
I want you to have as much fun with the hobby as you can, man. If you want to play the 27 predator list, more power to you. Just not in a tournements/matched play where there needs to be some restrictions in order to ensure the most possible people have a good time.
There seems to be a disconnect where the fluffy people think the competitive players don't want them to play their fluffy armies in their fluffy games. There are literally no rules other than agree with your opponent on what rules you want to use in a casual setting.
And my question to you is what makes 27 Predators so imbalanced that it shouldn't be allowed in order to let people "have a good time"?
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
It seems pretty clear that that the issue with killshot is requiring 3 predators, not that you can't take 6 of them.
Right, the issue with only being able to take 3 is that it hinders Space Marine tank company players, not Killshot.
You know how the American army doesn't go to war with tank companies made up of 3 Abrams tanks, 1 M60A3, 1 M109 Paladin, and 1 Stryker Mobile Gun System? Yea, we shouldn't force Space Marine tank company players to run 3 Predators, 1 Relic Sicaran, 1 Relic Whirlwind Scorpius, and 1 Relic Vindicator Laser Destroyer.
That's just thematically inappropriate. I can only imagine a historicals game where someone pulled out his Greek Persian War era army complete with 3 units of hoplites, 1 unit of Thracian Falxmen, 1 unit of Gallic Marauders, and 1 unit of Polish hussars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: Also you can take 6 of them, just not in competitive play. Not that 6 predators is somehow more fluffy than 3 predators and 3 vindicators or 3 land raiders anywhere other than your imagination.
Right, it's not "more" fluffy. But someone might want to theme their army around predator tanks, and competitive tournament balance is stopping them.
I don't get why people are like
"WHY DO CASUAL PLAYERS NOT WANT BALANCE" and then when it is explained to them they say "JUST BE LESS CASUAL"
I want you to have as much fun with the hobby as you can, man. If you want to play the 27 predator list, more power to you. Just not in a tournements/matched play where there needs to be some restrictions in order to ensure the most possible people have a good time.
There seems to be a disconnect where the fluffy people think the competitive players don't want them to play their fluffy armies in their fluffy games. There are literally no rules other than agree with your opponent on what rules you want to use in a casual setting.
And my question to you is what makes 27 Predators so imbalanced that it shouldn't be allowed in order to let people "have a good time"?
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces
BINGO we have a winner! Armies with 1-of-everything not only perform terrible, but they also look terrible on the table as well! How is THAT any fun?
Predators themselves might be okay, but enough other units cause issues and it seems objectively easier to balance things in general with the rule of three around. Once again I contend that if the rule of three had been around at the beginning of the edition, no one would have batted an eye.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/27 18:12:30
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
You don't need GW's permission to make armies like that- just find like-minded people and do it. But list construction that loose causes problems not just for tournaments, but for pick-up games at the LGS, as well. Fluff is important, but gameplay matters more. Designing armies' game play to match their established fluff is a good thing. But it is not reasonable to expect each individual's homebrew chapter's fluff, or anything they create themselves to be taken into account when writing the rules. The rules need to work for everyone, not just Johnny and his 8 predators, or Susie and her flock of flyrants.
Right, which goes all the way back to the original question: Why do casual players not want balance? Because balance damages the game's diverse options.
And yeah, you could stay isolated with you and your 4 friends and play whatever you want, but that's disingenuous. It's the age of the internet. I find games locally at 3 different FLGSs, a club house, and at least one friend's house. If I design a 2k army, I have to follow the Matched Play rules - because the only alternative is designing a 2k army that works in one setting, then redesigning it for another, then redesigning it for another.
There should be a reasonable expectation that a game can be played casually without having to worry about altering your list to follow the rules.
jcd386 wrote:
I want you to have as much fun with the hobby as you can, man. If you want to play the 27 predator list, more power to you. Just not in a tournements/matched play where there needs to be some restrictions in order to ensure the most possible people have a good time.
There seems to be a disconnect where the fluffy people think the competitive players don't want them to play their fluffy armies in their fluffy games. There are literally no rules other than agree with your opponent on what rules you want to use in a casual setting.
I'll repeat what I said above: There should be a reasonable expectation that a "pick-up-game" is a casual setting, while still being able to play themed lists. To sweepingly declare every PUG as a "competitive game" is a problem.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
You don't need GW's permission to make armies like that- just find like-minded people and do it. But list construction that loose causes problems not just for tournaments, but for pick-up games at the LGS, as well. Fluff is important, but gameplay matters more. Designing armies' game play to match their established fluff is a good thing. But it is not reasonable to expect each individual's homebrew chapter's fluff, or anything they create themselves to be taken into account when writing the rules. The rules need to work for everyone, not just Johnny and his 8 predators, or Susie and her flock of flyrants.
Right, which goes all the way back to the original question: Why do casual players not want balance? Because balance damages the game's diverse options.
And yeah, you could stay isolated with you and your 4 friends and play whatever you want, but that's disingenuous. It's the age of the internet. I find games locally at 3 different FLGSs, a club house, and at least one friend's house. If I design a 2k army, I have to follow the Matched Play rules - because the only alternative is designing a 2k army that works in one setting, then redesigning it for another, then redesigning it for another.
There should be a reasonable expectation that a game can be played casually without having to worry about altering your list to follow the rules.
jcd386 wrote:
I want you to have as much fun with the hobby as you can, man. If you want to play the 27 predator list, more power to you. Just not in a tournements/matched play where there needs to be some restrictions in order to ensure the most possible people have a good time.
There seems to be a disconnect where the fluffy people think the competitive players don't want them to play their fluffy armies in their fluffy games. There are literally no rules other than agree with your opponent on what rules you want to use in a casual setting.
I'll repeat what I said above: There should be a reasonable expectation that a "pick-up-game" is a casual setting, while still being able to play themed lists. To sweepingly declare every PUG as a "competitive game" is a problem.
I think most people who get pick up games are wanting a fairly competitive experience. Competitive meaning they have a fair chance of winning.
GW has to try and create a ruleset that works for the most people possible.
Your lists already have to follow a bunch of rules. You use points, right? How about detachments? Battleforged? And so on. All of these are limitations in place to provide balance to the game. The rule of three is no different, it was just late to the party.
jcd386 wrote: I think most people who get pick up games are wanting a fairly competitive experience. Competitive meaning they have a fair chance of winning.
GW has to try and create a ruleset that works for the most people possible.
Your lists already have to follow a bunch of rules. You use points, right? How about detachments? Battleforged? And so on. All of these are limitations in place to provide balance to the game. The rule of three is no different, it was just late to the party.
I 100% agree with you, all of those are limitations to provide balance to the game.
They also restrict theme.
So, once again, to answer the question of "why don't casual players want as balanced of a game as possible:"
Because some casual players prioritize theme over balance.
Please remember I am not necessarily saying the Rule of Three is bad, I am merely trying to answer a stupid question someone asked earlier that seemed to imply that casual players were dumb for not wanting balance. They're not dumb, they just don't care about balance enough to want to prioritize it over theme.
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces - how about we let the tank company players take a few more regular predators, just so they can have some synergy with the Killshot stratagem and their army looks like a real army instead of a hodgepode collection of whatever tanks they can scrounge from the warehouse like irregulars.
Oh wait that would be imbalanced.
It seems pretty clear that that the issue with killshot is requiring 3 predators, not that you can't take 6 of them.
Right, the issue with only being able to take 3 is that it hinders Space Marine tank company players, not Killshot.
You know how the American army doesn't go to war with tank companies made up of 3 Abrams tanks, 1 M60A3, 1 M109 Paladin, and 1 Stryker Mobile Gun System? Yea, we shouldn't force Space Marine tank company players to run 3 Predators, 1 Relic Sicaran, 1 Relic Whirlwind Scorpius, and 1 Relic Vindicator Laser Destroyer.
That's just thematically inappropriate. I can only imagine a historicals game where someone pulled out his Greek Persian War era army complete with 3 units of hoplites, 1 unit of Thracian Falxmen, 1 unit of Gallic Marauders, and 1 unit of Polish hussars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: Also you can take 6 of them, just not in competitive play. Not that 6 predators is somehow more fluffy than 3 predators and 3 vindicators or 3 land raiders anywhere other than your imagination.
Right, it's not "more" fluffy. But someone might want to theme their army around predator tanks, and competitive tournament balance is stopping them.
I don't get why people are like
"WHY DO CASUAL PLAYERS NOT WANT BALANCE" and then when it is explained to them they say "JUST BE LESS CASUAL"
I want you to have as much fun with the hobby as you can, man. If you want to play the 27 predator list, more power to you. Just not in a tournements/matched play where there needs to be some restrictions in order to ensure the most possible people have a good time.
There seems to be a disconnect where the fluffy people think the competitive players don't want them to play their fluffy armies in their fluffy games. There are literally no rules other than agree with your opponent on what rules you want to use in a casual setting.
And my question to you is what makes 27 Predators so imbalanced that it shouldn't be allowed in order to let people "have a good time"?
jcd386 wrote: Also space Marines have so many tanks you would have no issue making an all tank list with the rule of three.
You know, Marine players may prefer their tank companies to look more like armies than insurgent forces
BINGO we have a winner! Armies with 1-of-everything not only perform terrible, but they also look terrible on the table as well! How is THAT any fun?
Predators themselves might be okay, but enough other units cause issues and it seems objectively easier to balance things in general with the rule of three around. Once again I contend that if the rule of three had been around at the beginning of the edition, no one would have batted an eye.
Hive Tyrants, PBCs, and...nothing else.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
jcd386 wrote: I think most people who get pick up games are wanting a fairly competitive experience. Competitive meaning they have a fair chance of winning.
GW has to try and create a ruleset that works for the most people possible.
Your lists already have to follow a bunch of rules. You use points, right? How about detachments? Battleforged? And so on. All of these are limitations in place to provide balance to the game. The rule of three is no different, it was just late to the party.
I 100% agree with you, all of those are limitations to provide balance to the game.
They also restrict theme.
So, once again, to answer the question of "why don't casual players want as balanced of a game as possible:"
Because some casual players prioritize theme over balance.
Please remember I am not necessarily saying the Rule of Three is bad, I am merely trying to answer a stupid question someone asked earlier that seemed to imply that casual players were dumb for not wanting balance. They're not dumb, they just don't care about balance enough to want to prioritize it over theme.
Then I guess where we differ is that I think that in pick up games and tournements it's more important that the gaming experience be as good as possible no matter what legal army the other player chooses. So sometimes restrictions and or balance have to trump theme.
That being said, I think GW should also do everything they can to make make as many theme armies possible and playable, as it only means a more varied experience and more money for them. I still don't see a lot of good reasons to have more than 3 of the same unit, though.
This is why I think the “rule” of 3 is fine, I don’t play match play and need/want these restrictions. So don’t use them. But if these types of restrictions were to become the actual rules for all in the quest for this mythical balance then that would ruin in the game for me. It would be like me demanding that every unit and character in a players army was named and had a history and background written before the battle, including story for the battle and how they came to be there and what their motivations were, army origins and interactions between characters and factions. That to me is more important than balance. (Not that anyone has given me a proper definition of the term in relation to 40k).
