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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You can go look at GW's job openings right now, on their own website, and it will say right there in the application form that they do not hire based on skill.

Could you show me where, because I see this :

"We select candidates for interview based on what they tell us in their letter or video."

Which is very different from what you're saying.

The game has game issues that need to be addressed, and then faction issues.

I’d love to see game issues addressed, Particularly Horde durability, soup viability, HTH lack of sparkle.

But I think the main thing they could make the game better is to make a clear organized play section, for Tourney and such. And I hate to say it, but they should be a little draconian in it, perhaps going as far as limiting thing like No Forgeworld, and perhaps even some factions.

This clear delineation would help with the toxic problems from multiple sides by allowing each to stand or fall on their own merits.

Reemule wrote:
The game has game issues that need to be addressed, and then faction issues.

I’d love to see game issues addressed, Particularly Horde durability, soup viability, HTH lack of sparkle.

But I think the main thing they could make the game better is to make a clear organized play section, for Tourney and such. And I hate to say it, but they should be a little draconian in it, perhaps going as far as limiting thing like No Forgeworld, and perhaps even some factions.

This clear delineation would help with the toxic problems from multiple sides by allowing each to stand or fall on their own merits.

I kind of agree. If organized event play is truly limited, it would have less of a trickle-down affect on casual play.
Things like: No FW, No allies, etc, would not translate well into casual play.
As it is now, however, competitively paly restrictions are often the standard even for casual play

-

 Galef wrote:

As it is now, however, competitively paly restrictions are often the standard even for casual play

-

And that is one of the issues you see most on Dakka dakka, you have casuals telling you not to nerf or buff something cause "its fine in my basement play with Jeorge"

This could solve that.

but really, it won't be there, as this is mostly a Dakka Dakka only issue.

Reemule wrote:

 Galef wrote:

As it is now, however, competitively paly restrictions are often the standard even for casual play

-

And that is one of the issues you see most on Dakka dakka, you have casuals telling you not to nerf or buff something cause "its fine in my basement play with Jeorge"

This could solve that.

but really, it won't be there, as this is mostly a Dakka Dakka only issue.

You get the opposite on dakka usually. Competitive players telling you everything is fine. Saying things like - "oh, it's the best but it's not OP" or "It's not overpowered, it's just undercosted a bit".

Casuals are usually more like. "my tactical squads do good work against unoptimized list" or something like that.

Which is actually misleading here?

Soup lists are currently just using (especially in imperial soup lists) where guardsmen are used as cheap batteries for all the expensive units that raises the viability of too many powerful factions. Either limit the amount of cp that an Allied Detachment can get or remove CP Sharing between factions.

At our store we are struggling to have space marine players play at all competitively, our other lists are just outperforming them significantly.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Galef wrote:

As it is now, however, competitively paly restrictions are often the standard even for casual play

-

And that is one of the issues you see most on Dakka dakka, you have casuals telling you not to nerf or buff something cause "its fine in my basement play with Jeorge"

This could solve that.

but really, it won't be there, as this is mostly a Dakka Dakka only issue.

You get the opposite on dakka usually. Competitive players telling you everything is fine. Saying things like - "oh, it's the best but it's not OP" or "It's not overpowered, it's just undercosted a bit".

Casuals are usually more like. "my tactical squads do good work against unoptimized list" or something like that.

Which is actually misleading here?

Nope. That's not what I see. I see "As you can see in the scope of the latest GT X model continues to not show. I hope its changed"

Random Casual "NO MY FRIEND JIM WINS ALL TIMES WITH 40X UNIT" Or otherwise freely expressing an opinion when they also admit they haven't been to a tournament in 4 years.

By default casual and tournament play can't really be compared. My BT lists do far better against my local gaming group than what they should be doing according to Dakka. I haven't played in a tournament, but I imagine I would get slaughtered from what I see posted.

I expect $5 worth of content.

There's a lot of unreasonable hate in this topic. People need to compose themselves.

GW are making real efforts with 8th and are doing basically everything the community has asked of them over the years. Their stock performance indicates how happy the vast majority are.

Also, we haven't seen the latest Chapter Approved. If it fails to address army balances THEN we can complain about them letting us down.

Bingo. I find it hard to believe GW will completely ignore community feedback. (They actually responded to one of my friends who sent an email with stuff he and around 40 other Tau players wanted GW to go over and decide on possible changes.)

I think it's best to wait and see the results than wish or complain about what might be.

We prefer pre-complaining about things on Dakka Dakka

But seriously, the problem I keep seeing on this thread is people expecting more from Chapter Approved then they have any reason to expect. I expect CA2018 will look a lot like CA2017. And that is what they have promised so far:

Farsight Enclaves: The Eight

Ork Looted Wagons

Sisters of Battle Beta Codex

These all seem to replace various non-codex rules from CA2017 like Custom Land Raiders, updated Fortification rules, and Faction Rules for unpublished codexes.

That means absolutely no rules changes for any published Codex outside of Points Adjustments. This is totally reasonable. Such changes should either be in the FAQ/Errata document or in a future publication of the Codex.

 alextroy wrote:
We prefer pre-complaining about things on Dakka Dakka

But seriously, the problem I keep seeing on this thread is people expecting more from Chapter Approved then they have any reason to expect. I expect CA2018 will look a lot like CA2017. And that is what they have promised so far:

Farsight Enclaves: The Eight

Ork Looted Wagons

Sisters of Battle Beta Codex

These all seem to replace various non-codex rules from CA2017 like Custom Land Raiders, updated Fortification rules, and Faction Rules for unpublished codexes.

That means absolutely no rules changes for any published Codex outside of Points Adjustments. This is totally reasonable. Such changes should either be in the FAQ/Errata document or in a future publication of the Codex.

Gonna have to agree.

And I mean, if we don't start hoping for GW to make the hugest changes in CA, how can we be disappointed and complain about them not doing that?

Karol wrote:
But from little I understand about doing work for hire, they have to pick the best person for the job.

HA! If only the real world worked that way.....

 alextroy wrote:
We prefer pre-complaining about things on Dakka Dakka

But seriously, the problem I keep seeing on this thread is people expecting more from Chapter Approved then they have any reason to expect. I expect CA2018 will look a lot like CA2017. And that is what they have promised so far:

Farsight Enclaves: The Eight

Ork Looted Wagons

Sisters of Battle Beta Codex

These all seem to replace various non-codex rules from CA2017 like Custom Land Raiders, updated Fortification rules, and Faction Rules for unpublished codexes.

That means absolutely no rules changes for any published Codex outside of Points Adjustments. This is totally reasonable. Such changes should either be in the FAQ/Errata document or in a future publication of the Codex.

The last CA had a dozen pages to add stratagems to index armies. They can and probably will have rule updates including tweaks to beta rules.

Nov 18th last year is when they started previewing the book, so not this week, but the week after we'll know more.

 Karthicus wrote:
By default casual and tournament play can't really be compared. My BT lists do far better against my local gaming group than what they should be doing according to Dakka. I haven't played in a tournament, but I imagine I would get slaughtered from what I see posted.

Dakka focuses on (usually) the best armies. It is a vacuum where hypothetically you are going to fight the meta armies or skew lists. That does not mean everyone plays those lists, there are GK, Ork, BT, and Tau players + more here. That doesn't mean there are not actual cutthroat scenes out there, but you need to apply a slider on your scale of expectations if you do read the advice of theorycrafting that goes on here.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The last CA had a dozen pages to add stratagems to index armies. They can and probably will have rule updates including tweaks to beta rules.

Hang on - didn't the beta rules just get tweaked in the Autumn FAQ? I really doubt there was enough time between the FAQ going live and CA2018 going to the printers for additional changes tot hose rules to be a factor.

The FAQ version might get printed in CA2018, but I doubt they'll've changed further.

Martel732 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I doubt space marines are gonna receive the point reductions people is hoping, and I doubt the units people expect to go up in points will go up in points, at least not in enough numbers for people to be sattisfied.

I'm more than happy to be done with 8th ed, then. Tired of ig auto-wins.

Well, hopefully we'll see you in the eventual 9th edition, then.

I also hope that by then you will have found something about the game to be positive about, unlike the last 17 months...

The last CA had a lot of small point changes, which is exactly what we need right now. Huge sweeping changes are harmful for the game and frankly unneded. The game is finally close to being well balanced, no reason to apply huge swings now.

The only huge blow needed is stopping CP sharing so that soup problems are fixed, everything else can be done with little pushes here and there.

 Quickjager wrote:

 Karthicus wrote:
By default casual and tournament play can't really be compared. My BT lists do far better against my local gaming group than what they should be doing according to Dakka. I haven't played in a tournament, but I imagine I would get slaughtered from what I see posted.

Dakka focuses on (usually) the best armies. It is a vacuum where hypothetically you are going to fight the meta armies or skew lists. That does not mean everyone plays those lists, there are GK, Ork, BT, and Tau players + more here. That doesn't mean there are not actual cutthroat scenes out there, but you need to apply a slider on your scale of expectations if you do read the advice of theorycrafting that goes on here.

To be fair Dakka tends to focus on only the top 5 winners at each tournament. If your army can't enter top 5 then it is "literally" trash according to some.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You can go look at GW's job openings right now, on their own website, and it will say right there in the application form that they do not hire based on skill.

Could you show me where, because I see this :

"We select candidates for interview based on what they tell us in their letter or video."

Which is very different from what you're saying.

Anecdotal - but my local GW just hired a new casual who has never played any GW based games before. When I walked in the manager was giving him a demo game of AOS. At first I thought it was just some newbie who wondered into the store but nope, new staff member and everything.

I've heard first hand from several GW staff over the years, especially recently, that hiring is mostly based on attitude and customer service. Everything else can be taught.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You can go look at GW's job openings right now, on their own website, and it will say right there in the application form that they do not hire based on skill.

Could you show me where, because I see this :

"We select candidates for interview based on what they tell us in their letter or video."

Which is very different from what you're saying.

Anecdotal - but my local GW just hired a new casual who has never played any GW based games before. When I walked in the manager was giving him a demo game of AOS. At first I thought it was just some newbie who wondered into the store but nope, new staff member and everything.

I've heard first hand from several GW staff over the years, especially recently, that hiring is mostly based on attitude and customer service. Everything else can be taught.

I mean that's pretty much true. If a new employee doesn't know enough about the major factions in terms of playstyle and lore to give advice to a customer then they can learn those things in a pretty short amount of time. If the new hire is an donkey-cave? That's a lot more difficult to fix, and in most cases will be far worse!

Anecdotal - but my local GW just hired a new casual who has never played any GW based games before. When I walked in the manager was giving him a demo game of AOS. At first I thought it was just some newbie who wondered into the store but nope, new staff member and everything.

I've heard first hand from several GW staff over the years, especially recently, that hiring is mostly based on attitude and customer service. Everything else can be taught.

If they are hiring for the store then I would say that the requirements don't need to be excessive. Would someone who knows the game help in the store? Sure, but at the same time it won't be a dealbreaker. It's an aspect that in store business would be categorized as "nice to have". In a brick and mortar store you want someone who presents well, can move product, and you can most likely pay a rather low wage too(this is a sad reality of those who work in most stores).

Now that I am thinking about it, why are we even talking about who works and who doesn't in a brick and store business? I don't think anyone would discuss this much about employees at Barnes & Noble or 7-11.

Karol wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Karol wrote:
I just hope there was some world class GK player that knew how to build a working GK list that wins at least 50/50 against armies being played around right now.

One issue is world class players in tournaments are not aiming for 50/50 so they would go for factions that allow better than that.

Well they had to have someone who is good at playing GK to write the codex or at least test the rules. I fully understand that being good at playing GK, is not going to give the same as being good at playing eldar. But there has to be some people that are good at it, at least at the design studio there should be people or at least a person that knows how they should work. I mean they seem to get some factions fine or even more then fine. I don't know who they have to write and test eldar rules, but that dude has to be a great. And am not just talking here in terms of power, but how the various options fit in to other options. Imperial soups seem very cumbersome, maybe even random, while something like DE is plain created with the idea in mind that there should be an ally eldar farseer in that army. You can even see it in to how the points click, no stupid left overs or over spils.

One of the main reason they implemented the second turn deep strike rule was the gray knights. After all its not fun getting destroyed first turn, but that really hurt the army strength.
There is design problem in the GK codex and now they have to thing of some elegant and non broken way to fix it.

Reemule wrote:
The game has game issues that need to be addressed, and then faction issues.

I’d love to see game issues addressed, Particularly Horde durability, soup viability, HTH lack of sparkle.

But I think the main thing they could make the game better is to make a clear organized play section, for Tourney and such. And I hate to say it, but they should be a little draconian in it, perhaps going as far as limiting thing like No Forgeworld, and perhaps even some factions.

This clear delineation would help with the toxic problems from multiple sides by allowing each to stand or fall on their own merits.

Lol. Limit FW when it's GW codex with more broken stuff.

Also in practice what would happen is what happened with matched organized play rules NOW and they become de facto standard so basically if you were to create official tournament pack with "no FW" for example it would translate into no FW period so if you have FW model you would like to use "tough luck".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
There's a lot of unreasonable hate in this topic. People need to compose themselves.

GW are making real efforts with 8th and are doing basically everything the community has asked of them over the years. Their stock performance indicates how happy the vast majority are.

Also, we haven't seen the latest Chapter Approved. If it fails to address army balances THEN we can complain about them letting us down.

They are good at PR and they are making real effort to randomly change balance upside down so that what sold before goes to no sale(no worries because all have them anyway) and what didnt' sell sell now(nobody had them so time to put them into good).

Only thing happened is that GW realized they can accelerate that process from codex to codex to FAQ to FAQ. End result is still same. No balance. It's not in their goal. They don't WANT balance as it hurts the balance of their checkbooks. Less profits for the big bosses.

Only thing happened is that GW realized they can accelerate that process from codex to codex to FAQ to FAQ. End result is still same. No balance. It's not in their goal. They don't WANT balance as it hurts the balance of their checkbooks. Less profits for the big bosses.

Pure conjecture. Plus, there is nothing that indicates balance is bad for the checkbooks. If anything less balance would hurt the checkbooks as it drives people away from the game. Hell, by your standards Death Guard and Primaris should be the strongest armies around as those are completely new models and people would be forced to buy their armies from scratch. Since neither of those things are happening and some of the strongest armies are armies that have existed for over a decade - which means a lot of people own a ton of these models - we can assume you are wrong about this. I think the only army that is new and powerful are the Imperial Knights. Imperial Guard, Craftworlds, and Drukhari are, however, lines that have been around for some time.

However, I will not deny they are having a hard problem balancing the game and there are several reasons. Since I have a semi-captive audience I am going to go over a few points.

First, this is the first time they are actively trying to balance the game in a few decades This means taking several decades worth of product and trying to balance it all around each other. This is a non-trivial task. We are talking about at least 23 factions where each faction has multiple entries and some are quite large. Adding to the complexity there are also some old snowflake models that they don't sell anymore but still provide support for in their indices. This is a large undertaking for any studio.

Truth be told they are going through a unique problem where they quite literally have to learn as they go and that is bloody difficult. Now, they could have taken an easier turn and just reset the game completely by removing ton of entries and kept every faction normalized in relation to other factions, but then everybody would be up in arms.

However, for the sake of posterity I would mention that they need to take a few pages from FFG. They really need to double the point value of all units(like they did in X-Wing) just to give themselves more granularity. I mean, the amount of discussion over 1 point on Guardsmen and Kabalites shows well how their point values are scored way too low. They also need to have an app that updates points on a more regular basis. This would give them unprecedented flexibility as the current structure of a CA book once a year isn't really flexible nor feasible for such a large and unwieldy game.

On top of all of this you have tournaments creating their own unique mission structure that creates even more issues.

I would also mention something about GW I've noticed that I experienced at my company around 10 years ago. GW is going through substantive growth and success which means that they probably need to hire more people for their internal processes(and if they are hiring to Nottingham it is going to be difficult to get people to relocate there). Problem is that it takes a lot of time to get new employees up and running and to make them as productive as older veterans. Wouldn't be surprised if they are also playing around with restructuring of their processes still(Agile, Scrum, all that jazz).

I apologize for the long answer, I just get tired when people assume that people have no passion for their work and are just some lackeys trying to earn gold for their masters. It's a dishonest accusation that dehumanizes people as well as demonizes.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You can go look at GW's job openings right now, on their own website, and it will say right there in the application form that they do not hire based on skill.

Could you show me where, because I see this :

"We select candidates for interview based on what they tell us in their letter or video."

Which is very different from what you're saying.

Anecdotal - but my local GW just hired a new casual who has never played any GW based games before. When I walked in the manager was giving him a demo game of AOS. At first I thought it was just some newbie who wondered into the store but nope, new staff member and everything.

I've heard first hand from several GW staff over the years, especially recently, that hiring is mostly based on attitude and customer service. Everything else can be taught.

To be fair, that's a retail employee. I doubt that he will be writing rules next week

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the only army that is new and powerful are the Imperial Knights. Imperial Guard, Craftworlds, and Drukhari are, however, lines that have been around for some time.

Custodes at launch, maybe?

 Ishagu wrote:
There's a lot of unreasonable hate in this topic. People need to compose themselves.

GW are making real efforts with 8th and are doing basically everything the community has asked of them over the years. Their stock performance indicates how happy the vast majority are.

Also, we haven't seen the latest Chapter Approved. If it fails to address army balances THEN we can complain about them letting us down.

Ok, but a year ago people were saying the same thing. Best edition, most are happy, wait for CA. CA fixed nothing, but people still went on how to people shouldn't be negative, best edition of w40k, stock are high and wait for FAQ. GK didn't get their own FAQ and the general one nerfed them only God knows why. And here we see again people saying the same thing again. Where is the proof that they will actually fix stuff and not the cool stuff GK should be happy about ends up a scenario for open play?

And please don't say it is GW saying GK players should be happy after the CA, because on their twitch channel they said the same before every FAQ.

With sob you can actually trust them to change stuff. Some WIP models, some rules etc. I mean if GW bases its rules writing reaction on tournament data, and the books are set in stone months ago. Then the fix to GK maybe something crazy, like some anti deep strike stratagem, because 3-4 months ago deep strike was strong.

One of the main reason they implemented the second turn deep strike rule was the gray knights. After all its not fun getting destroyed first turn, but that really hurt the army strength.

That would be insane. For GK deep strike was a movment mechanic, same as infiltration or jetbikes for other armies. It was never used the way BA used it aka to charge stuff, because 1A doesn't make you a good melee unit. Their firepower was also nothing like sternguard or deep striking dark reapers that shot twice with soul burst. I can't imagine an army that could get destroyed on the first turn, from GK shoting. The dice would have to roll nothing but 1&2s for the non GK player.



Quick question. If GW struggles with having enough people doing the rules testing, why don't they do an open beta test and a more limited alfa? The number of people playing the game goes , probably tens of thousends, and with that many people there is no chance people would miss stuff like malific lords or the old soulburst&dark reaper combos. They would save money and time, people would see the rules and could adjust their buying to the armies they like the game play. It would be a nice PR move too, because no one could be able to say that GW is doing some shady stuff with buffing one faction over and over again. Errors would be picked up, before people buy models or the books go to printers. And all for free, because people would love to play with beta rules for GW.

Karol wrote:


Quick question. If GW struggles with having enough people doing the rules testing, why don't they do an open beta test and a more limited alfa? The number of people playing the game goes , probably tens of thousends, and with that many people there is no chance people would miss stuff like malific lords or the old soulburst&dark reaper combos. They would save money and time, people would see the rules and could adjust their buying to the armies they like the game play. It would be a nice PR move too, because no one could be able to say that GW is doing some shady stuff with buffing one faction over and over again. Errors would be picked up, before people buy models or the books go to printers. And all for free, because people would love to play with beta rules for GW.

That's a horrible idea because the 40k playerbase consists of just too many crybabies who are either never ever happy, or completely blind to any actual balance (see point where I argued people all through 6th and 7th that the riptide wasn't nearly as broken as they thought at the only issue was specifically the ion accelerator blast profile, and later the riptide wing-backed by mathematical proof that the HBC variant, or the IA without the non-NOVA blast was actually a pretty bad dakka platform)
And GW knows it. they know that any "beta" they could do will be muddied by people who just CANNOT BE PLEASED. they will whine about things in their favorite faction being under-powered even when its mathematically just fine or even slightly above curve, and will whine about things being outright OP even when math proves they are in the lower end of the curve if they come from a faction they dislike.

Its impossible to please everyone and trying to do so only makes things worse.


NOW, back to the question of GK-yes, they are having a serious issue.
But the issue is NOT in power level, or point costs, or unit variety or any of these. these are the symptoms and not the actual issue.
The issue-the real issue-is that they have an identity crisis.

On one hand, its supposed to be an anti-daemon specialist taskforce.
On the other, they are trying to make it a TAC "standard" army (because people demand it)

And the two just CANNOT co-exist. they can be either anti-daemon specialists, or a "TAC magic marine" army. any attempt to do both will result in disaster, either its just WAY too good against daemons and fine against all else, or fine (with a decent yet not overwhelming advantage) against daemons yet utterly underpowered anywhere else.
TAC wants to be "fair against everyone", but then you threw the flavor of anti-daemon specialists out the window.
Specialists wants to be the best at one thing and not good at others.
Both is impossible.


On my opinion? the only way GK are getting "fixed", is if they decide to either throw away the fluff and make them generic "magic marines", or embrace the long-standing age of IoM being the army rather than individual codex and give them true specialist abilities-GREAT against daemons, but weak otherwise. let them be the specialists they are meant to be.
No IoM "codex" has to be stand-alone viable these days. it just needs a reason to exist by having teamups that makes it viable. even if GK are only viable as a secondary force to a bigger IoM army-they are still a thing. a tool in the IoM toolbox.



As for the rest of the rant.
Yes, there IS a lot of unreasonable hate.
GW are not gods, and making a perfectly balanced game is not hard, its outright impossible.
CA2018 fixed a LOT, and improved MUCH. claiming it fixed nothing is being dishoest.
And yes, it didn't fix everything. heck it barely changed anything from the codcies and was mostly index changes-BECUASE IT WAS PRINTED LONG BEFORE MOST CODCIES WERE RELEASED.
If anyone thought, for a second, that CA17 is going to fix GK, he was a fool. there was barely any time, if any, from the release of the GK codex to the printing of CA. and the GK codex-when standing alone in front of the "first four", was totally fine-its the later codcies that showed just how troubled the GK codex was, and by THAT point, it was FAR too late. and CA17 had a lot of ground to cover anyway.
And no, they wont FAQ fix it. you don't do sweeping changes in an FAQ unless something is inherently broken. being weak is not breaking the game. even on the strong scale of things they only made small adjustments because doing otherwise is insane.
The general FAQ did not "nerf" the GK. they were adversely effected by changes that were overall very healthy to the game. the fact they got weaker from it was an unintended side effect of fixing glaring issues that GK happened to be using, but heck other armies made FAR more use of these anyway. comparatively speaking, GK got improved by others taking bigger blows.

Now, will CA18 "fix" GK?
I doubt it. its just not the place to make sweeping changes, and as said point costs CANNOT fix the inherit problem of GK. there simply isn't a point level that could make them fair.
The next iritation of their codex, who I expect to hit at least a year away from now if not two, THAT could fix. because by that point GW had a lot of time to learn how 8th works in the actual field, and experiment with other marine variants to have a better idea what sticks, what doesn't and how to work the numbers and playstyles. at that point GW might be able to give GK a new outlook that might work.
But they are probably afraid to do so, because if you shift towards TAC, you anger the fluff faction that like their GK to be anti-daemon, and if you go the specialists route you anger the "everything must TAC!" crowd. there is just no way to please everyone and they WILL be faced with backlash either way they go, quite possibly more backlash than simply doing nothing (and doing nothing is CHEAP)

 BoomWolf wrote:
On the other, they are trying to make it a TAC "standard" army (because people demand it)

Daemonhunter players were mortified in 5th edition by the 'marineification' by Ward. The lure of the overpowered rules carried it.