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.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why? You want to remove any and all difference from Marine Chapters?
Would not a better solution be to find a way to add flavour to different armies without the inherent complexity that GW has included.
There should still be unique Chapter-locked units and Relics IMO.
I'd allow armies to be flavoured by their selection of 5 Stratagems from a list of 25ish generic Stratagems, which Stratagems you pick says something about the force you are playing, the same list might either use some version of transhuman to valiantly hold a position or use a repositioning Stratagem to sneakily avoid taking damage on key units. If flamers are cheap enough I don't think Salamanders players need to be hit over the head with a rules stick to use flamers.
Why did CSM players run Slaanesh Daemon Princes all over the place? Because the points cost on the lash psychic power was off, make it 30 pts more expensive and people could express their warband's favour of Khorne without being at a huge disadvantage in 5th. Make Helldrakes cost more and you could run a heretic warband without Daemon Engines and have a chance in 6th. Would giving armies without Helldrakes the ability to spam more Spawn or get +1 Ld make up for their lack of access to the undercosted Helldrake? No. How many Word Bearers lists vs how many Alpha Legion lists have we seen? Has Chapter Tactics really worked out for Word Bearers players? How about Necrons being incentivised to play the Silent King with every Dynasty other than the Silent King's Dynasty? Iyanden players being forced to spam Guardians instead of Wraithguard?
It is impossible to balance +1 BS vs +1 WS when the same buff can be applied to a range of units at no cost. Chapter-locked Crusade upgrades would be fine.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/08 10:27:21
At no point did I say that that required keeping all the rules they currently have.
Don't put words in my mouth please. It's not constructive.
Speaking of not constructive, what's your solution? So far all that you seem to have said is "don't remove rulers because then everything will be the same". Apparently that's not what you meant though. Since you haven't stated what you meant we have to draw our own conclusions from what you actually said. That's not putting words in your mouth, that's just deductive reasoning.
vict0988 wrote: There should still be unique Chapter-locked units and Relics IMO.
Ok, I don't disagree, but I don't see what that requires the removal of rules for individual Chapters. I think Space Wolf Marines should function differently to Imperial Fists who should function differently to Iron Hands.
Does that specifically mean keeping all the rules they have now? Of course not, and despite some people's attempts to make it out as though I did say that, it's not what I'm suggesting at all.
This isn't a binary thing. It's not "All the rules GW has" or "Get rid of 'em all!". Pendulum rules design is what GW does. What they should be going for is more nuance. More of a middle ground. Find a balance between endless layered rules and the 4th Edition 'Chaos' Codex where everything was generic Marines and all flavour and colour had been stolen from the world, ruining the dreams of children the world over.
Ok, that's a little melodramatic, but you get what I'm going for.
vict0988 wrote: I'd allow armies to be flavoured by their selection of 5 Stratagems from a list of 25ish generic Stratagems
That's less a "Marine" thing and a "How would I restructure Strategems" thing, though.
If it were me I wouldn't get rid of army-specific Strats, but there wouldn't be 3+ pages per army/faction. There might be 10, and then you pick which of those 10 to bring, and how many you can bring is based upon the game sizes (the 4 that GW have established, yet don't use enough as a scaling mechanic for the general rules). This would be on top of 10-12 generic strats that everyone has access to. Of course, there'd be no equipment strats ('cause equipment should be wargear you pay points for), and there'd be no 'gotcha' strats like Transhuman (reactionary strats are a good idea, but not ones that lock your opponent behind sudden mythical durability that only affects one unit for a turn for some reason - there's nothing strategic about transhuman strats and their ilk!).
But, again, this isn't a Marine thing. This is an overall strat thing and whilst, yes, it would affect Marines, it's not specific to them.
vict0988 wrote: ... which Stratagems you pick says something about the force you are playing, the same list might either use some version of transhuman to valiantly hold a position or use a repositioning Stratagem to sneakily avoid taking damage on key units. If flamers are cheap enough I don't think Salamanders players need to be hit over the head with a rules stick to use flamers.
I think it'd be better to make the unique Chapter units what allow things like Sallie Flamers to come to the fore. Given them Firedrakes (or whatever they're called) or the Pyroclaster squads (again, I'm probably getting the name wrong). They don't necessarily need to have an army-wide rule that makes their flamers better, per se, but can have a list/units that favour such things.
vict0988 wrote: Why did CSM players run Slaanesh Daemon Princes all over the place? Because the points cost on the lash psychic power was off, make it 30 pts more expensive and people could express their warband's favour of Khorne without being at a huge disadvantage in 5th. Make Helldrakes cost more and you could run a heretic warband without Daemon Engines and have a chance in 6th. Would giving armies without Helldrakes the ability to spam more Spawn or get +1 Ld make up for their lack of access to the undercosted Helldrake? No.
I'll be honest, I'm not 100% certain what you're referring to here.
vict0988 wrote: How many Word Bearers lists vs how many Alpha Legion lists have we seen? Has Chapter Tactics really worked out for Word Bearers players?
It's funny, but I was thinking about Word Bearers the other day whilst I was out on a walk, specifically the leaked Legion rules from the utterly atrocious-sounding upcoming Chaos 'Dex, and there is an answer to your question.
Word Bearers have sucked ever since GW kneecapped them by removing Daemons from the Chaos book.
Think about it, Word Bearers were the super-devoted Chaos guys that were basically Chaos Cultists, but in Astartes form. In 3.5 they got more Troops choices than everyone else, and could just pile on the Daemons. They had Dark Apostles, which no one else could get. I loved 'em.
But now everyone gets their Dark Apostles, and they can't get Daemons anymore. What exactly is the point of Word Bearers now other than being an outlet for those bitter about their father? They took away the essence of what Word Bearers could or should be, and in the new book super-docrine rule is: When using a pistol/assault/melee = 6s to wound cause 1MW.
Wow. So thematic. You can almost hear the chanting.
(The other Legions ain't that much better, TBH)
vict0988 wrote: How about Necrons being incentivised to play the Silent King with every Dynasty other than the Silent King's Dynasty? Iyanden players being forced to spam Guardians instead of Wraithguard?
You're confusing the issue here. Just because GW is bad at writing their ideas into rules doesn't mean the ideas are bad.
It's the conceptualisation vs implementation concept.
GW: Great at coming up with cool ideas. Also GW: Really bad at taking those ideas and working them into practical rules.
It's why we see escalation of ideas in Codices, and how suddenly the latest books have 'Ignore Invulnerable' rules. Given it 8-12 months, and the next crop of books will react/escalate from that, with un-ignorable invulnerable saves. It's because they're doing everything on the fly, rather than trying to rationalise things from the start and create a broader set of scalable rules. They introduce rules mechanics or concepts as quickly as they abandon them, and are obsessed with making everything 'bespoke', which is how we end up with exceptions to exceptions to exceptions to exceptions, as well as endless rules that all do roughly the same thing, but are all ever-so-slightly unique for no practical or actual gain.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/08 10:49:11
It's the layers and layers of rules that should be removed. Keep one or two armywide rules and then a specific chapter rules. Done.
SM have countless rules that stack with each other.
Keep something like: the morale thing, ability to combat squad and the chapter trait. No bolter discipline, doctrines, shock assault and chapter specific layered rules such as Savage Fury for space wolves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/08 10:52:49
Blackie wrote: It's the layers and layers of rules that should be removed. Keep one or two armywide rules and then a specific chapter rules. Done.
SM have countless rules that stack with each other.
Keep something like: the morale thing, ability to combat squad and the chapter trait. No bolter discipline, doctrines, shock assault and chapter specific layered rules such as Savage Fury for space wolves.
May I redirect you to the "do bolters need a buff across most platforms" thread? Because unless you consolidate some of the layered rules into the base profiles you're just making something worse in the name of simplicity and does nothing to tackle the recent power creep. In concept I do agree though.
Blackie wrote: It's the layers and layers of rules that should be removed. Keep one or two armywide rules and then a specific chapter rules. Done.
SM have countless rules that stack with each other.
Keep something like: the morale thing, ability to combat squad and the chapter trait. No bolter discipline, doctrines, shock assault and chapter specific layered rules such as Savage Fury for space wolves.
May I redirect you to the "do bolters need a buff across most platforms" thread? Because unless you consolidate some of the layered rules into the base profiles you're just making something worse in the name of simplicity and does nothing to tackle the recent power creep. In concept I do agree though.
The "bolter problem" is actually an "everything else" problem, though. If the wide-ranging changes being talked about here were implemented you could easily also see a general reduction in a lot of the power-crept profiles for other guns we've seen recently, which would then remove the need to buff the bolter.
Why did CSM players run Slaanesh Daemon Princes all over the place? Because the points cost on the lash psychic power was off, make it 30 pts more expensive and people could express their warband's favour of Khorne without being at a huge disadvantage in 5th. Make Helldrakes cost more and you could run a heretic warband without Daemon Engines and have a chance in 6th.
Most of the time, when you points nerf the good options in a codex, they do not have the options to replace the good things and this even goes for armies, which potentialy have a lot of unit options. 20pts more expensive void weavers would still be run. If they started to cost 200 or 250pts, no one would play harlequins.
If the wide-ranging changes being talked about here were implemented you could easily also see a general reduction in a lot of the power-crept profiles for other guns we've seen recently, which would then remove the need to buff the bolter.
Only could doesn't mean would. And no one wants to wait for 2/3 of an edition, just so other factions are downgraded enough so you can have more fun. Specially as in , at least the two last edition, around the mid of them GW goes in to hyper rule mode. Just compare the GK or BT codex to any marine starter book.
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.
Why did CSM players run Slaanesh Daemon Princes all over the place? Because the points cost on the lash psychic power was off, make it 30 pts more expensive and people could express their warband's favour of Khorne without being at a huge disadvantage in 5th. Make Helldrakes cost more and you could run a heretic warband without Daemon Engines and have a chance in 6th.
Most of the time, when you points nerf the good options in a codex, they do not have the options to replace the good things and this even goes for armies, which potentialy have a lot of unit options. 20pts more expensive void weavers would still be run. If they started to cost 200 or 250pts, no one would play harlequins.
The point of adjusted a unit's points value isn't to make it unplayable and never taken, but to make it fair. If 20pts is enough to make a Voidweaver fair while not discouraging Harlequins players from not taking it or using their army, that's a good thing.
It is impossible to make a unit like voidweavers fair. It is always going to be, you take 6-9 or it costs too much for it does meaning mono harlequin armies are dead, and DE or CWE don't have much reason to run harlis as ally.
Over the last two editions I have seen how GW point drops and rises work. And they never worked the way you describ it. It was always either zero impact changes, like GK terminators droping from 42 pts to 40pts, or it is something what was done to the castellan.
GW doesn't fix stuff, they either ignore or kill things. Where are all the centurions, aggresors, inceptors , eliminators etc that marines run? On the flip side points changes to DE didn't change a thing, specially after their main opponents at the top got nerfed hard. SoB paragon suits went down in points, no one runs them, and that is a new unit for a new codex. Same with all the SoB, Primaris etc tanks. No one takes them, and GW did drop their point costs.
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.
If the wide-ranging changes being talked about here were implemented you could easily also see a general reduction in a lot of the power-crept profiles for other guns we've seen recently, which would then remove the need to buff the bolter.
Only could doesn't mean would. And no one wants to wait for 2/3 of an edition, just so other factions are downgraded enough so you can have more fun. Specially as in , at least the two last edition, around the mid of them GW goes in to hyper rule mode. Just compare the GK or BT codex to any marine starter book.
You realise this entire discussion is completely theoretical, right? GW aren't going to implement sweeping changes to army-wide rules or change weapon profiles wholesale and we know this. We're simply speculating what the game would look like, and whether it would be improved, if these changes happened. Realistically, the kind of changes I'd like to see would require a complete reset and a new edition.
Blackie wrote: It's the layers and layers of rules that should be removed. Keep one or two armywide rules and then a specific chapter rules. Done.
SM have countless rules that stack with each other.
Keep something like: the morale thing, ability to combat squad and the chapter trait. No bolter discipline, doctrines, shock assault and chapter specific layered rules such as Savage Fury for space wolves.
May I redirect you to the "do bolters need a buff across most platforms" thread? Because unless you consolidate some of the layered rules into the base profiles you're just making something worse in the name of simplicity and does nothing to tackle the recent power creep. In concept I do agree though.
Yeah, removing layers of rules has nothing to do with reducing power creep. Or at least it's not the main goal.
It's just making the game simpler and much more fun/smooth to play. Of course armies have to stay on a comparable level of competitiveness. I wasn't talking about removing abilities in a vacuum, in the SM case for example if GW axed most of their layers of rules they could certainly be compensated in some way: different points costs, a change for some stats, etc... not to mention that the loss of powerful bespoke rules to other factions might already be a significant buff for SM.
Karol wrote: It is impossible to make a unit like voidweavers fair. It is always going to be, you take 6-9 or it costs too much for it does meaning mono harlequin armies are dead, and DE or CWE don't have much reason to run harlis as ally.
Over the last two editions I have seen how GW point drops and rises work. And they never worked the way you describ it. It was always either zero impact changes, like GK terminators droping from 42 pts to 40pts, or it is something what was done to the castellan.
GW doesn't fix stuff, they either ignore or kill things. Where are all the centurions, aggresors, inceptors , eliminators etc that marines run? On the flip side points changes to DE didn't change a thing, specially after their main opponents at the top got nerfed hard. SoB paragon suits went down in points, no one runs them, and that is a new unit for a new codex. Same with all the SoB, Primaris etc tanks. No one takes them, and GW did drop their point costs.
Just because GW sucks at balancing does not mean that something is 100% impossible. It is possible even if GW is likely to get it wrong. Paragons and Primaris tanks aren't taken because they still cost too much for what they offer. If GW had reduced their points enough, people would think about taking them, but GW didn't do that so people don't.
GW failing to do something properly =/= it being impossible to do
Also I find it odd you mention Inceptors and Eliminators when people still use them. One of the recent top Black Templar lists used Inceptors are a core part of their army and at least before the Nachmund missions came in (I can't say too much about if the changed secondary missions has effected it at all) people would take Eliminators for their JSJ utility with the carbine.
You realise this entire discussion is completely theoretical, right? GW aren't going to implement sweeping changes to army-wide rules or change weapon profiles wholesale and we know this. We're simply speculating what the game would look like, and whether it would be improved, if these changes happened. Realistically, the kind of changes I'd like to see would require a complete reset and a new edition.
Daedalus81 wrote: Now we're facing layering of rules. You can't precisely point things when people might not use that particular rule. It wouldn't exactly be fair to point Battlesuits as if they have extra AP and full rerolls. You need appropriate restrictions within those items. CORE has been somewhat half baked at times, but that is one lever they at least had the forethought to create at the onset.
Harlequins are the army where points AND layering are out of whack. Stuff like Battlesuits are not wildly cheap - they just stack so much gak they become nuts in addition to being efficient ( and often using a poorly regulated rule - ooLOS shooting ).
Not really convinced you can't price in rules. Its generally a safe assumption that if its there people will use it. If people use it, other people will start using it as everyone learns about it.
This may make for a badly designed codex - because you have to build the way its "designed to" synergy wise. But if you are going to have those rules, you have left yourself no other option.
I agree many of the issues in 40k are due to compounding synergy. Tau probably shouldn't have seen
A) improved datasheets and weapons
B) improved Mont'ka
C) improved markerlights
D) improved chapter tactics, warlord traits, stratagems etc
All at the same time.
But if they were going to, they certainly needed to be dramatically more expensive per point than they are. And any half sensible play test (or someone with 30 minutes in a spreadsheet) should have concluded this.
I know the game isn't just a function of A on B duels. There is more than simple mathhammer. But when such analysis shows units being massively ahead of the rest, they almost always prove to dominate the game. The voidweaver should have been incredibly easy to pick up. (I sort of regret not jumping up and down more when the rules first came out in order to be able to claim more of a "I told you so" here. But I think like many I kind of got bored of the book by the time I reached the Harlequin datasheets. So the reaction was just "that seems a bit good... now onto Ynnari anything interesting there?")
Something like Mont'ka you can price in for sure. Other stuff is wishy washy. I actually hadn't seen the prismatic cannon until Harlies hit the scene officially and I felt like even the haywire cannon was too much. Definitely a huge miss on GW.
vict0988 wrote: Throw Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines, Super Doctrines and Angels of Death into the garbage where they belong.
Why? You want to remove any and all difference from Marine Chapters?
Would not a better solution be to find a way to add flavour to different armies without the inherent complexity that GW has included.
Flavor comes from army composition more than special rules IMO.
Not even that. Flavor comes from background.
Rules nonsense can be justified however you like, especially the limited set of rules nonsense that GW uses- 6s=bonus, -1 damage, reroll 1s, only wounded on 4+, +1 to <blank> IF <condition>, immune to morale (well, extra combat vanishings, which is used instead of morale), etc
Examples: Cyborgs are tough, fleshy is even more tougher, magic is also tough, murder elves are tough if they... wait long enough, or are super dodgy or lucky, genetic engineering is tough, but only sometimes, and so on.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/08 13:11:44
If Porsche sells you a car and you find out the breaking system is faulty you cannot keep driving it, you have to get it to a mechanic or have it returned otherwise you'll end up rear-ending someone or hitting a pedestrian. If you find out Voidweavers are too OP for your casual meta you have to talk to your opponents about how you can have more fun games in the future, maybe you could bring a melee army, maybe fewer points, maybe proxy as haywire. You can also ask on forums how people use Harlequins casually to help inspire something that'll work for you and your community.
I'm sorry but the dealer sold you a car with problems and it's not the dealer's fault for being shady?
If Porsche sells you a car and you find out the breaking system is faulty you cannot keep driving it, you have to get it to a mechanic or have it returned otherwise you'll end up rear-ending someone or hitting a pedestrian. If you find out Voidweavers are too OP for your casual meta you have to talk to your opponents about how you can have more fun games in the future, maybe you could bring a melee army, maybe fewer points, maybe proxy as haywire. You can also ask on forums how people use Harlequins casually to help inspire something that'll work for you and your community.
What? Your analogy demonstrates the exact opposite of what you're trying to show. In this case the fault lies with the dealer or Porsche themselves, so the correct remedy is for them to fix it, free of charge. In the UK they'd actually have a legal requirement to do so. In your scenario the analogous approach would be to not play 40k until GW fix it properly.
Blackie wrote: The problem with handicaps at tournaments is that not players or factions should get the handicap but lists. A player might be top ranked and decides to bring a non optimized list or even a bottom tier army. Should he get an handicap based on his ranking? An army might be top tier but a player might choose to bring a non optimized list. Should that bad or mid tier list be affected by an handicap just because that faction has the highest WR?
But putting handicaps on lists means that TOs arbitrary decide who's getting the handicap before starting the tournament. IMHO it's the only way to make it work at competitive levels but it requires fair TOs and lots of players would not accept arbitrary decisions.
Makes me think of the old comp scores. A method with it's own issues.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/08 16:28:07
Why did CSM players run Slaanesh Daemon Princes all over the place? Because the points cost on the lash psychic power was off, make it 30 pts more expensive and people could express their warband's favour of Khorne without being at a huge disadvantage in 5th. Make Helldrakes cost more and you could run a heretic warband without Daemon Engines and have a chance in 6th.
Most of the time, when you points nerf the good options in a codex, they do not have the options to replace the good things and this even goes for armies, which potentialy have a lot of unit options. 20pts more expensive void weavers would still be run. If they started to cost 200 or 250pts, no one would play harlequins.
And what is the problem with more expensive voidweavers still being taken?
The point isn't to nerf good options so people run something else, the point is to nerf broken options so they become more fair.
There is no problem with people running 9 voidweavers. The problem is a voidweaver is obscenely good for its cost. If the voidweaver has a 'fair' cost then no one will care you bring 9 just because you can, in the same way no one cares if you bring 9 IG sentinels or 9 GSC ridgerunners.
The problem is the price of the unit, not how many of them you bring.
and if voidweavers being a 'fair' price means no one will play harlequins that is just another indication of how fethed the balance in 40k is atm. If its not omgwtfbroken its apparently not worth using.
If Porsche sells you a car and you find out the breaking system is faulty you cannot keep driving it, you have to get it to a mechanic or have it returned otherwise you'll end up rear-ending someone or hitting a pedestrian. If you find out Voidweavers are too OP for your casual meta you have to talk to your opponents about how you can have more fun games in the future, maybe you could bring a melee army, maybe fewer points, maybe proxy as haywire. You can also ask on forums how people use Harlequins casually to help inspire something that'll work for you and your community.
What? Your analogy demonstrates the exact opposite of what you're trying to show. In this case the fault lies with the dealer or Porsche themselves, so the correct remedy is for them to fix it, free of charge. In the UK they'd actually have a legal requirement to do so. In your scenario the analogous approach would be to not play 40k until GW fix it properly.
Form a syndicate so your community only has one of each codex to limit profits on bad products and don't spam Voidweavers against Astra Militarum.
I refuse to dive further into the Porsche analogy, sorry.
If Porsche sells you a car and you find out the breaking system is faulty you cannot keep driving it, you have to get it to a mechanic or have it returned otherwise you'll end up rear-ending someone or hitting a pedestrian. If you find out Voidweavers are too OP for your casual meta you have to talk to your opponents about how you can have more fun games in the future, maybe you could bring a melee army, maybe fewer points, maybe proxy as haywire. You can also ask on forums how people use Harlequins casually to help inspire something that'll work for you and your community.
What? Your analogy demonstrates the exact opposite of what you're trying to show. In this case the fault lies with the dealer or Porsche themselves, so the correct remedy is for them to fix it, free of charge. In the UK they'd actually have a legal requirement to do so. In your scenario the analogous approach would be to not play 40k until GW fix it properly.
Form a syndicate so your community only has one of each codex to limit profits on bad products and don't spam Voidweavers against Astra Militarum.
I refuse to dive further into the Porsche analogy, sorry.
Your Porsche analogy doesn't make sense, period. That's the ultimate "blame the driver, not the dealership/manufacturer for the faulty brakes they sold the product with"
Form a syndicate so your community only has one of each codex to limit profits on bad products and don't spam Voidweavers against Astra Militarum.
This is the ultimate "GW is innocent, it's the player's fault for not organizing into a governing body to oversee 40k games for fairness" thing I've ever seen and it's hilarious.
Form a syndicate so your community only has one of each codex to limit profits on bad products and don't spam Voidweavers against Astra Militarum.
This is the ultimate "GW is innocent, it's the player's fault for not organizing into a governing body to oversee 40k games for fairness" thing I've ever seen and it's hilarious.
You are a bad person for spamming Voidweavers against IG players, you probably pour cereal on top of milk.
Form a syndicate so your community only has one of each codex to limit profits on bad products and don't spam Voidweavers against Astra Militarum.
This is the ultimate "GW is innocent, it's the player's fault for not organizing into a governing body to oversee 40k games for fairness" thing I've ever seen and it's hilarious.
You are a bad person for spamming Voidweavers against IG players, you probably pour cereal on top of milk.
thing is the codex kinda HAS to spam SOMETHING considering its got 4 non character datasheet.
if its not voidweavers, its gonna be bikes, which equally gak on guard
Form a syndicate so your community only has one of each codex to limit profits on bad products and don't spam Voidweavers against Astra Militarum.
This is the ultimate "GW is innocent, it's the player's fault for not organizing into a governing body to oversee 40k games for fairness" thing I've ever seen and it's hilarious.
You are a bad person for spamming Voidweavers against IG players, you probably pour cereal on top of milk.
Or you just like void weavers and think they are neat, and are just as reluctant to change armies as the Guard player is (given that basically anything from the Harlequin lineup will break them).
The solution isn't to never run voidweavers into Guard because otherwise you are a terrible person.
The solution is to make sure the game is balanced by it's creators so running voidweavers into Guard isn't so derpy.
Form a syndicate so your community only has one of each codex to limit profits on bad products and don't spam Voidweavers against Astra Militarum.
This is the ultimate "GW is innocent, it's the player's fault for not organizing into a governing body to oversee 40k games for fairness" thing I've ever seen and it's hilarious.
You are a bad person for spamming Voidweavers against IG players, you probably pour cereal on top of milk.
Or you just like void weavers and think they are neat, and are just as reluctant to change armies as the Guard player is (given that basically anything from the Harlequin lineup will break them).
The solution isn't to never run voidweavers into Guard because otherwise you are a terrible person.
The solution is to make sure the game is balanced by it's creators so running voidweavers into Guard isn't so derpy.
That's all fine and dandy, but what can be done NOW, not later when GW gets around to it?
Form a syndicate so your community only has one of each codex to limit profits on bad products and don't spam Voidweavers against Astra Militarum.
This is the ultimate "GW is innocent, it's the player's fault for not organizing into a governing body to oversee 40k games for fairness" thing I've ever seen and it's hilarious.
You are a bad person for spamming Voidweavers against IG players, you probably pour cereal on top of milk.
Or you just like void weavers and think they are neat, and are just as reluctant to change armies as the Guard player is (given that basically anything from the Harlequin lineup will break them).
The solution isn't to never run voidweavers into Guard because otherwise you are a terrible person.
The solution is to make sure the game is balanced by it's creators so running voidweavers into Guard isn't so derpy.
That's all fine and dandy, but what can be done NOW, not later when GW gets around to it?
Agitating to make sure it doesn't happen again is part of what can be done.
