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.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Technically, a Baneblade has always had much better armor than the Leman Russ, given that the Russ was Rear 10 and the Baneblade was Rear 12.
The difference between "boltguns can hurt you" and "not even heavy bolters can hurt you" is a big one.
This difference was esp. significant in editions when CC attacks hit rear armor - it made the Baneblade considerably more durable than the Russ and much more resilient to front line combat where CC was likely.
Whoops. You're right. I forgot that Russes were AV10 on the back. Must've been thinking of Sicarans: 13/12/12. So there is precedent for Baneblades being tougher than a Russ besides in "number of wounds". Not for being tougher than a Fellblade, though.
JNAProductions wrote: Well hey, Karol, you play GK. Just soup in some Black Templars if GK are bad! Or switch to White Scars!
You shouldn't simultaneously say "I play GK, and nothing else!" and "Eldar have it good-they can play as Eldar, DE, or Harlis based on what's good!"
Unlike everyone else, eldar are in the gracious situation where their soups, for some reason work no problems. Taking a harli detachment doesn't make you lose most of your rules, just because you have another one of DE or CWE. That is the difference. Can't even counts as GK as anything else, because no other army has melee power weapons and storm bolters on their dudes. Also comparing 3 months of GK being good to litteral years of eldar being good or broken is a bit odd.
Don't understand the WS proposition though. Why would anyone want to soup them in to make their army better? Unless of course you have some in depth knowladge about the changes coming soon.
LVO: If you only knew the power of the competitive meta. The Forums never told you what happened to Kaldor Draigo.
Karol : They told me enough! They told me *Eldar* killed him!
LVO: No. *I* abused GK all through late 5th, resulting in GW nerfing them into oblivion.
Karol : No. No. That's not true. That's impossible!
You know I actually did take a look at how the 5th ed GK looked like back in the past. And the so called Paladin star was a noob stomper list. The tournament winning stuff, was waves of razorbacks with upgraded ammo, 0 GK, maxed out dreadnoughts, an inquisitor that unlocked henchman as troops which made the psychic rhinos extremly cheap, because the henchman unit could be 3 man strong and cost some crazy low points or something.
And again GK being good at the end of 5th ed, pales in comperation to years of dominance of eldar in 3ed, 4th, 6th, 7th ,8th and now 9th. But I got used to selecetive memory. It is like half the marine players remembering 8th as if it was sm supplements and sm 2.0 codex on from day one.
I mean, the "players" didn't change.
I was talking about people who are not winning GT. Like eldar players on this forum. I remember the conclusion of one the the threads ending with someone claiming that eldar should have annoying rules which are unfun for opponents, because eldar are like that in the lore. Also oddly large number of proposition from that thread made it in to the codex. Invs on basic troops, upgraded shurikens etc.
Dark Eldar can’t soup without losing Power from Pain.
And moreover, if you’re an Eldar player, saying “Play Dark Eldar” doesn’t help a damn thing.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Unit1126PLL wrote: Technically, a Baneblade has always had much better armor than the Leman Russ, given that the Russ was Rear 10 and the Baneblade was Rear 12.
The difference between "boltguns can hurt you" and "not even heavy bolters can hurt you" is a big one.
This difference was esp. significant in editions when CC attacks hit rear armor - it made the Baneblade considerably more durable than the Russ and much more resilient to front line combat where CC was likely.
Whoops. You're right. I forgot that Russes were AV10 on the back. Must've been thinking of Sicarans: 13/12/12. So there is precedent for Baneblades being tougher than a Russ besides in "number of wounds". Not for being tougher than a Fellblade, though.
Ok, now you can apologize. Also, I have three baneblades that I would love to run as a stand alone army, like a triple knight list, if ever given the possibility. Given how 9th is for LOW units, likely it will never happen, but it didn't stop me from buying three and painting them, because I love the basic idea of them.
Also, please show me on the Fluffy Telemon where the bad Custodes kicked in your pee pee. We are OP, you happy? If you run over to the Custodes Tactica, I've been advocating nerfs to Custodes since the Dex revisions dropped.
Trajann needs to cost north of 200 points. They need to make bikes 90+ points again. They need to make terminators 80+. And they need to make the EC army wide a 5+++, not a 4+++. Now please go back to posting Bill O'Reilly book reviews on r/conservative.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Technically, a Baneblade has always had much better armor than the Leman Russ, given that the Russ was Rear 10 and the Baneblade was Rear 12.
The difference between "boltguns can hurt you" and "not even heavy bolters can hurt you" is a big one.
This difference was esp. significant in editions when CC attacks hit rear armor - it made the Baneblade considerably more durable than the Russ and much more resilient to front line combat where CC was likely.
Whoops. You're right. I forgot that Russes were AV10 on the back. Must've been thinking of Sicarans: 13/12/12. So there is precedent for Baneblades being tougher than a Russ besides in "number of wounds". Not for being tougher than a Fellblade, though.
Ok, now you can apologize. Also, I have three baneblades that I would love to run as a stand alone army, like a triple knight list, if ever given the possibility. Given how 9th is for LOW units, likely it will never happen, but it didn't stop me from buying three and painting them, because I love the basic idea of them.
Also, please show me on the Fluffy Telemon where the bad Custodes kicked in your pee pee. We are OP, you happy? If you run over to the Custodes Tactica, I've been advocating nerfs to Custodes since the Dex revisions dropped.
Trajann needs to cost north of 200 points. They need to make bikes 90+ points again. They need to make terminators 80+. And they need to make the EC army wide a 5+++, not a 4+++. Now please go back to posting Bill O'Reilly book reviews on r/conservative.
For getting the old AV stats wrong for Russes? Sure. For pointing out that you've been trying to deflect attention from Custodes? No. Because you have. Glad to have you finally admit that they need nerfs though.
And my only review for any books by that particular author is: don't buy it, it's almost 100% certainly .
With a winner and a loser, so it's inherently competitive rather than cooperative, correct? So why should I handicap myself? When I go golfing, my buddies don't expect me to tee off with a 3 iron just because I'm a longer hitter. When I race someone, I don't have to unplug one of my spark plugs if my car has more power and weighs less. When I shoot a competition, I don't have to take the red dot off and use open sights just because someone else couldn't afford a red dot and a gunsmith. When I play basketball at the rec center, I don't have to leave 1 shoe untied if I'm bigger/faster/stronger than the guy guarding me. This isn't dungeons and dragons, it isn't rogue trader or 2E with an arbitrator. It's a game with a winner and loser just like chess, league of legends, motor racing, basketball, shooting competition, or literally any other hobby/sport/esport I've been involved in. I'm not intentionally buying and painting subpar models to fit someone else's arbitrary definition of fair.
With a winner and a loser, so it's inherently competitive rather than cooperative, correct? So why should I handicap myself? When I go golfing, my buddies don't expect me to tee off with a 3 iron just because I'm a longer hitter. When I race someone, I don't have to unplug one of my spark plugs if my car has more power and weighs less. When I shoot a competition, I don't have to take the red dot off and use open sights just because someone else couldn't afford a red dot and a gunsmith. When I play basketball at the rec center, I don't have to leave 1 shoe untied if I'm bigger/faster/stronger than the guy guarding me. This isn't dungeons and dragons, it isn't rogue trader or 2E with an arbitrator. It's a game with a winner and loser just like chess, league of legends, motor racing, basketball, shooting competition, or literally any other hobby/sport/esport I've been involved in. I'm not intentionally buying and painting subpar models to fit someone else's arbitrary definition of fair.
LMAO, golfing has a handicap system. I play badminton with some people that aren't all in the greatest shape and sometimes I give them a handicap, I suspect I'd never score more than 2/21 points against the most experienced player there if he didn't handicap himself. Then there is warming up where you are intentionally sending the ball in an easy arc to hit, which is just like reminding your opponent that they have reinforcements that might want to enter at the end of their second Movement phase.
Using handicaps in League of Legends is absolutely a valid tactic, let's say I am a gold player playing with my iron friend, my friend will be massively dragging us down and I will be massively dragging us up a huge amount of the time if we are playing against gold players in normal games, but if instead I play sub-optimal builds or characters or roles I am less proficient in then my normal MMR will be worse and we'll play against worse players and I won't steal the spotlight from my bronze friend every game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/05 05:58:22
You helping your friend on a smurf account in League Of Legends to not steal the spotlight is absolutely the dumbest thing I've read, especially since you're not playing against your friend either.
Ordana wrote: Where does this idea keep coming from that people are killing tanks with str 3-4 guns?
It is possible on paper. It doesn't happen in reality.
I certainly did it a bunch of times with my Devilgaunt bombs. Somewhat frustratingly they were better at killing the T7 3+ Custodes tanks than they were at killing the actual Custodes infantry.
Certainly knocked wounds off tanks with Bolters too. I might have done the last wound on a few tanks since the start of 8th.
The thing is, a Lascannon only averages 1.29 wounds against a T7 3+ vehicle. If a bunch of bolters has a reasonable chance of doing a wound and a tank needs deading, then I'll use the bolters too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/05 07:19:31
Ordana wrote: Where does this idea keep coming from that people are killing tanks with str 3-4 guns?
It is possible on paper. It doesn't happen in reality.
I certainly did it a bunch of times with my Devilgaunt bombs. Somewhat frustratingly they were better at killing the T7 3+ Custodes tanks than they were at killing the actual Custodes infantry.
Certainly knocked wounds off tanks with Bolters too. I might have done the last wound on a few tanks since the start of 8th.
The thing is, a Lascannon only averages 1.29 wounds against a T7 3+ vehicle. If a bunch of bolters has a reasonable chance of doing a wound and a tank needs deading, then I'll use the bolters too.
Yeah I'd like them to do something similar to Aircraft using the stat profile and keywords... something that makes basic guns almost useless vs the tank/big vehicles, and unable to hit the broadside of a Terminator (but still capable of hitting a tank). Make the Anti-Tank (krak, Las, Melta etc) stuff super strong, but unable to really hit infantry, make the anti-eliteinfantry or hybrid stuff (Grav, Plasma, etc) work for tanks but not very well.
Just reduce the rate of fire (to max 2 shots per gun per turn) and eliminate the tools to enhance basic grunts' weapons. Problem solved.
Chipping the last wound off a tank via lasgun/bolter when there aren't appropriate targets for those weapons ain't an issue. Being able to delete tough units, including tanks, thanks to troops "bombs" is the issue.
Proper anti tank weapons could have a buff against vehicles and mosters, like "add X to the damage characteristic of this weapon if the target is a VEHICLE or MONSTER" maybe, but then also those weapons need to reduce their rate of fire, and the tools to enhance them, or the game becomes even more lethal.
EviscerationPlague wrote: You helping your friend on a smurf account in League Of Legends to not steal the spotlight is absolutely the dumbest thing I've read, especially since you're not playing against your friend either.
It's not a smurf account, just playing normals with an iron friend on an account that is gold in ranked.
Toofast wrote: With a winner and a loser, so it's inherently competitive rather than cooperative, correct? So why should I handicap myself? When I go golfing, my buddies don't expect me to tee off with a 3 iron just because I'm a longer hitter. When I race someone, I don't have to unplug one of my spark plugs if my car has more power and weighs less. When I shoot a competition, I don't have to take the red dot off and use open sights just because someone else couldn't afford a red dot and a gunsmith. When I play basketball at the rec center, I don't have to leave 1 shoe untied if I'm bigger/faster/stronger than the guy guarding me. This isn't dungeons and dragons, it isn't rogue trader or 2E with an arbitrator. It's a game with a winner and loser just like chess, league of legends, motor racing, basketball, shooting competition, or literally any other hobby/sport/esport I've been involved in. I'm not intentionally buying and painting subpar models to fit someone else's arbitrary definition of fair.
Well that's fine until you've crushed everyone in the group a few times, and when next you go "lets have a game" they go "nah, I'm washing my hair". Because playing overwhelmingly one-sided 40k for 2-3 hours isn't a great way to spend an afternoon.
With a winner and a loser, so it's inherently competitive rather than cooperative, correct? So why should I handicap myself? When I go golfing, my buddies don't expect me to tee off with a 3 iron just because I'm a longer hitter. When I race someone, I don't have to unplug one of my spark plugs if my car has more power and weighs less. When I shoot a competition, I don't have to take the red dot off and use open sights just because someone else couldn't afford a red dot and a gunsmith. When I play basketball at the rec center, I don't have to leave 1 shoe untied if I'm bigger/faster/stronger than the guy guarding me. This isn't dungeons and dragons, it isn't rogue trader or 2E with an arbitrator. It's a game with a winner and loser just like chess, league of legends, motor racing, basketball, shooting competition, or literally any other hobby/sport/esport I've been involved in. I'm not intentionally buying and painting subpar models to fit someone else's arbitrary definition of fair.
Golf has a handicap system already, so that's a terrible example.
You're missing the point here anyway. Wargaming is both competitive and social. If I'm at a shooting competition I'm competing against myself as much as my opponent and I can always look to better myself regardless of the performance of my opponent. In a wargame, if it's as unbalanced as 40k, being guaranteed to lose because you chose the "wrong" army a year ago is not an experience that's likely going to encourage me to play more. If the only solution is to buy a new army, rather than try to improve my play with the one I already own, that's not a great solution. If the process of playing the game is just miserable because of the imbalance I'm less likely to want to keep playing. Other people may feel differently and prefer all-out hyper-competitive games, though in that case I wonder why they choose 40k for that purpose. In any case, the kind of massive imbalance we currently have can easily lead to problems.
I've seen it happen before. One guy shows up at a relatively casual group and plays meta lists constantly. The most recent example in my group was someone who was literally unable to comprehend the concept of toning down his list. Everyone played him once or twice. Then very few people wanted to play him again. He was a nice guy - friendly and sociable - but the games were not fun, so people started avoiding playing against him. I've seen that same scenario play out multiple times, sometimes with entire groups, to the point where the groups disappear completely.
I think people are saying the same thing, and then arguing.
Golf has a handicap system? Well, 40k doesn't. (But it should).
Playing with your Iron friend? 40k doesn't rank people that way, so it is impossible to know for a PUG what you are getting into until it is too late. Maybe it should.
The REAL answer to all this isn't "players should do the heavy lifting to balance the game on their own" but rather "players should do a small amount of work - if any - to account for their relative skill an already broadly balanced game"
The difference between armies in 40k isn't really akin to skill at golf. The difference between armies is more like "one person spent 100 man hours and 2000 dollars on a tiny club, and the other spent 100 man hours and 2000 dollars on a driving club". The solution is either have each player own one of every club (spending 100 man hours and 2000 dollars on each!) OR DON'T MAKE THE CLUBS DIFFERENT SIZES IN THE FIRST PLACE - i.e. balance the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/05 13:03:39
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think people are saying the same thing, and then arguing.
Golf has a handicap system? Well, 40k doesn't. (But it should).
Playing with your Iron friend? 40k doesn't rank people that way, so it is impossible to know for a PUG what you are getting into until it is too late. Maybe it should.
The REAL answer to all this isn't "players should do the heavy lifting to balance the game on their own" but rather "players should do a small amount of work - if any - to account for their relative skill an already broadly balanced game"
But the point is that most of the times it's not armies or players that are ranked better, it's lists. An Harlequin list with no voidweavers at all is extremely worse than an Harlequins list with 9 of those. When the ork list with 9 squigbuggies and 5 flyers outraged the world it was possible to design lots and lots of garbage tier orks lists, just by bringing average collections of models.
That's why it's impossible to impose an handicap system, outside something that both players agree before playing. Lists that are toned down or up, players that decide who start first to gran an advantage, handicap of X points, a cap on the units' number/size, other house rules, etc... those are handicaps that have always been part of friendly 40k.
In competitive metas I don't think it's a good solution to introduce handicaps, it will just make lots of units disappear because armies that are ranked high will be encouraged to bring their top build, and only that, if they also come with an handicap no matter the list they bring.
I still believe that the best patch for tournaments is that TOs should enforce their own balance dataslates with a bunch of 0-1 limitations on the most powerful units like GW already did with ork buggies, and tournaments always rely on house rules anyway.
People always (conveniently) forget that 40k isn't just a game, like golf or a videogame could be. It's a combination of assembling models, painting them, collecting/displaying them AND playing. Plus reading stuff, watching the series, etc... Primary goal for GW is to sell more products, not to design the best game possible for their products. And a game that is more balanced but reduces the need of buying more models is bad for GW. A compromise is the best thing we can realistically expect, and that implies the existence OP stuff and armies that on average are not on the same level. But thanks to the compromise such OP stuff shouldn't last long, so in real life not many players are able or willing to chase the flavour of the month.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/05 13:22:00
So your argument is:
GW is right and good to produce an unbalanced game, because it makes them money, and it really IS the players' (collective) fault that unbalanced matches are played?
That's a take.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/05 13:27:17
Weapons like autocannons, missile pods, and heavy bolters sacrifice Strength and Armour Penetration for more Attacks, forcing extra save rolls from your opponent
WITH A PICTURE OF IMPERIAL GUARD!
WTF? do they think an autocannon, with 2 shots hitting on 5s is going to make a difference?
The article isn't wrong. It's just a bit tone deaf until the last paragraph.
Leaning on single shot high damage too much makes the swinginess of the harlie 4++ more relevant. And the other problem is some of those AT guns are still comparatively too cheap.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/05 14:00:02
Unit1126PLL wrote: So your argument is:
GW is right and good to produce an unbalanced game, because it makes them money, and it really IS the players' (collective) fault that unbalanced matches are played?
That's a take.
Outside the tourney environment there IS some degree of player fault/responsibility.
You don't HAVE to bring the most op, unfun, thing & play unfun scenarios with crap terrain setups.
But, rather than discussing what you both want from the game.....
And then when fun isn't had you blame the company.
Because you know, neither player could've had any input or influence on what just happened....
DID YOU KNOW THAT... (Cue Bill Nye moment):
OP, unfun things and unfun scenarios only even exist because of bad game design? If the OP, unfun things and unfun scenarios weren't codified in rules, then the players wouldn't play them?
And terrain - well, players have greater responsibility here. But the absurdly bad terrain rules means that even here, GW has completely failed to hold up their end of the stick, as it were.
If there are diamond moments inside a dump truck full of crap, then perhaps the person who owns the dump truck should stop filling it with crap if they expect other people to find the diamonds. It shouldn't be the customer's responsibility to dig through the crap to find the diamonds themselves - that is, if the owner is selling diamonds and not selling crap.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/04/05 14:43:00
EviscerationPlague wrote: You helping your friend on a smurf account in League Of Legends to not steal the spotlight is absolutely the dumbest thing I've read, especially since you're not playing against your friend either.
It's not a smurf account, just playing normals with an iron friend on an account that is gold in ranked.
You missed the latter part of that, probably on purpose is my guess.
EviscerationPlague wrote: You helping your friend on a smurf account in League Of Legends to not steal the spotlight is absolutely the dumbest thing I've read, especially since you're not playing against your friend either.
It's not a smurf account, just playing normals with an iron friend on an account that is gold in ranked.
You missed the latter part of that, probably on purpose is my guess.
You misunderstood my earlier post so I explained what I meant. Your post is gak and your mom is iron, that's my response to the other half of your earlier post.
Unit1126PLL wrote:So your argument is:
GW is right and good to produce an unbalanced game, because it makes them money, and it really IS the players' (collective) fault that unbalanced matches are played?
That's a take.
If players wanted a balanced game, why on earth would you trust GW to do it? if unbalanced keeps making them $€£¥ hand over fist and players keep slathering it up, what's the impetus to change?
Oh but look they are listening to the community and THIS time they mean it.
Aww look at all the power creep...they said it'll be diff this time
Oh look they're listening & this time....
Lather, rinse, repeat. Ad nauseum ab infinitum
Everyone complaining about GW's balance yet keep throwing $€£¥ at them hasn't worked yet.
I don't care about what's good/not, I buy whichever models I like the looks(irrespective of power)of and I pay GW exactly what their rules are worth, Nada, zilch, zero! I strongly encourage others to do the same.
GW only understands $€£¥ & if they start receiving less of it related to the books, they might catch the drift. Which is hard for them to do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/05 16:03:40
Look at the people lining up to buy everything squats. I want to buy the CK army box. Neither scenario has nothing to do with rules. People will buy the gak out of awesome models regardless.
Being vocal is the only mode we really have unless GW decides to nosedive every lever they created to try and make the game better.
Unit1126PLL wrote:So your argument is:
GW is right and good to produce an unbalanced game, because it makes them money, and it really IS the players' (collective) fault that unbalanced matches are played?
That's a take.
If players wanted a balanced game, why on earth would you trust GW to do it? if unbalanced keeps making them $€£¥ hand over fist and players keep slathering it up, what's the impetus to change?
Oh but look they are listening to the community and THIS time they mean it.
Aww look at all the power creep...they said it'll be diff this time
Oh look they're listening & this time....
Lather, rinse, repeat. Ad nauseum ab infinitum
Everyone complaining about GW's balance yet keep throwing $€£¥ at them hasn't worked yet.
I don't care about what's good/not, I buy whichever models I like the looks(irrespective of power)of and I pay GW exactly what their rules are worth, Nada, zilch, zero! I strongly encourage others to do the same.
GW only understands $€£¥ & if they start receiving less of it related to the books, they might catch the drift. Which is hard for them to do.
So what you're saying is, don't buy the books, keep playing with crap balance and buying the models, which tells GW that rules don't sell, but new models do. Drop the rules support further and just become a "miniatures company" again.
Meanwhile the 35th dogturd rules amendment from the community comes out, proceeds to not be much better and is still different from the other store you visit.
Honestly the more they push this as the tournament edition the more egg they're getting on their face for the paper publishing resulting in tone deaf balance attempts. They'll be noticing and it's also why the new balance dataslstes have become a thing, the tournament department are key to marketing but unless they start to align we end up in a mess.
Look at the people lining up to buy everything squats. I want to buy the CK army box. Neither scenario has nothing to do with rules. People will buy the gak out of awesome models regardless.
Being vocal is the only mode we really have unless GW decides to nosedive every lever they created to try and make the game better.
They're not separate issues. 40k operates quite a lot on its own inertia. That inertia exists as result of the hollistic interactions of models, rules, and lore. Each piece needs each other piece to survive. (Well, the lore could probably keep going on its own. It would just be operating on a very limited budget.)
We don't have to guess at how important rules are. We've seen it. 7th Edition and Launch AoS had terrible rules. The rules were so bad, in fact, that they finally went over the edge of what the majority of people will tolerate. Both games were bleeding players at absurd rates. Even early adopters of Sigmar weren't really buying anything. You couldn't GIVE AoS kits away in those times and it was much the same for any 40k army that wasn't Daemons, Space Marines, or Eldar. This is in spite of some of the best models GW had released up to that point coming out in both games (admech came out in this era).
Sales tanked, share prices tanked, community involvement tanked, event attendence was dipping year by year. GW was on a path that would have eventually run them out of business.
Then AoS dropped the general's handbook and 40k 8th edition came out and we've been in the golden age of GW share prices ever since. I still have VIVID memories of the first Friday night after the general's handbook came out for AoS. Our store hadn't sold a single model of AoS since the initial starter boxes. I go to check out the AoS learners night they'd set up, suddenly we have 14 people playing and buying kits.
EviscerationPlague wrote: You helping your friend on a smurf account in League Of Legends to not steal the spotlight is absolutely the dumbest thing I've read, especially since you're not playing against your friend either.
It's not a smurf account, just playing normals with an iron friend on an account that is gold in ranked.
You missed the latter part of that, probably on purpose is my guess.
You misunderstood my earlier post so I explained what I meant. Your post is gak and your mom is iron, that's my response to the other half of your earlier post.
No I understood your post, it's just a garbage defense for GW'S shoddy rules writing and blaming the players.
ERJAK wrote: Then AoS dropped the general's handbook and 40k 8th edition came out and we've been in the golden age of GW share prices ever since. I still have VIVID memories of the first Friday night after the general's handbook came out for AoS. Our store hadn't sold a single model of AoS since the initial starter boxes. I go to check out the AoS learners night they'd set up, suddenly we have 14 people playing and buying kits.
Rules absolutely do matter.
This, seriously. My group wants to start a 40k crusade campaign. We've been playing AoS PtG for several months, I go to read the 40k crusade rules and I'm stunned at how bad they are. It's like these design teams live on different planets.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
Unit1126PLL wrote:So your argument is:
GW is right and good to produce an unbalanced game, because it makes them money, and it really IS the players' (collective) fault that unbalanced matches are played?
That's a take.
If players wanted a balanced game, why on earth would you trust GW to do it? if unbalanced keeps making them $€£¥ hand over fist and players keep slathering it up, what's the impetus to change?
Oh but look they are listening to the community and THIS time they mean it.
Aww look at all the power creep...they said it'll be diff this time
Oh look they're listening & this time....
Lather, rinse, repeat. Ad nauseum ab infinitum
Everyone complaining about GW's balance yet keep throwing $€£¥ at them hasn't worked yet.
I don't care about what's good/not, I buy whichever models I like the looks(irrespective of power)of and I pay GW exactly what their rules are worth, Nada, zilch, zero! I strongly encourage others to do the same.
GW only understands $€£¥ & if they start receiving less of it related to the books, they might catch the drift. Which is hard for them to do.
So what you're saying is, don't buy the books, keep playing with crap balance and buying the models, which tells GW that rules don't sell, but new models do. Drop the rules support further and just become a "miniatures company" again.
Honestly the more they push this as the tournament edition the more egg they're getting on their face for the paper publishing resulting in tone deaf balance attempts. They'll be noticing and it's also why the new balance dataslstes have become a thing, the tournament department are key to marketing but unless they start to align we end up in a mess.
My group has no problem taking what GW diarrhea's out and having fun. I can understand that it doesn't work for everyone,but the more people buy the rules(which are unbalanced on purpose) the more it incentivizes GW to double down.
Which they have done with basing their sales strategy on players chasing the tourney dragon. Oops you don't play the new hotness, look forward to being abused...until it's your turn at the punch bowl. Or coincidence aside you could start this new faction with ridiculous rules and crush your enemies now...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/04/05 17:21:03
So there is precedent for Baneblades being tougher than a Russ besides in "number of wounds". Not for being tougher than a Fellblade, though.
.
