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.
A game is uninteresting if it isn't won on the table IMO. Winning it in the army construction/codex choice stage is boring.
^This. If you can win a game just by making a good list, then there's no point to having a game. Just compare lists and maybe roll a die. Tactics should matter.
Even if by some unforseen divine providence, 10th edition releases EVERY codex and supplement at the exact same time, and gives us an entire year without modification, there would still be extreme power indifference. This is the nature of any competitive "game".
In the fighting game environment, take SF4. Everyone thought the power rankings were entirely set, there was a clear "best" character to use, skill was largely irrelevant. Then Daigo Umehara appeared and began winning every major with what most people thought was a bad character, that being Ryu. Before Diago invented the Ume-Shoryu, no one had "Ryu" anywhere near the top 5. Then over night people started claiming he was "broken" and "for low skill players".
Point is: You cannot make balance in this game, becuase player skill will always, ALWAYS, offset any design intent. Someone will create an unforeseen combo, and exploit the hell out of it. Thus creating the perception of imbalance.
To most people, the BA Smash Captain created "unbalance". But does anyone honestly think that GW designed BA to be able to do that specific thing? Or that GW designed Eldar to make JetBike lists? No.
Don't ascribe malice, when incompetence is the more likely option.
Again, you cannot balance any game this advanced with this many moving parts unless you completely remove player skill from the equation. IE, all players are forced to use the exact same units and abilities.
As a Necron player, I disagree. Arks are terrible game pieces and the Skorpekh lord is a ugly and nonsensical model.
Also, the fisher price ork rig wagon thing doesn't look great either.
what is subjectivism
If parts of it breaks apart in transit, then it objectively is a terrible game piece. Not to mention that it's a hassle to build.
The Skorpekh lord is also a pita to build due to that awkward thing you have to do where you nestle the arms in it's chest cavity and try to push it all together, which may result in gap in the torso because of course the damned things don't sit right.
Design wise there is no way it could actually fight, because of the short tubes restricting the movement of the arms and the awkward positioning of the gun, preventing it from acquiring targets. It's not subjective, it literally does not make sense design wise. The gun arm should really be coming out of the back and over the shoulder instead of sharing an arm socket and being trapped under the shoulder pad, and there should not be any tubes connecting to the arms.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/09 12:33:20
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
The Skorpekh lord is also a pita to build due to that awkward thing you have to do where you nestle the arms in it's chest cavity and try to push it all together, which may result in gap in the torso because of course the damned things don't sit right.
Design wise there is no way it could actually fight, because of the short tubes restricting the movement of the arms and the awkward positioning of the gun, preventing it from acquiring targets.
It's not subjective, it literally does not make sense design wise. The gun arm should really be coming out of the back and over the shoulder instead of sharing an arm socket and being trapped under the shoulder pad, and there should not be any tubes connecting to the arms.
disagree, plenty of room to swing his sword, even with the cables. And its a pretty simple model to assemble too. More complex than a space marine but still easy to build (tm i guess)
The Skorpekh lord is also a pita to build due to that awkward thing you have to do where you nestle the arms in it's chest cavity and try to push it all together, which may result in gap in the torso because of course the damned things don't sit right.
Design wise there is no way it could actually fight, because of the short tubes restricting the movement of the arms and the awkward positioning of the gun, preventing it from acquiring targets. It's not subjective, it literally does not make sense design wise. The gun arm should really be coming out of the back and over the shoulder instead of sharing an arm socket and being trapped under the shoulder pad, and there should not be any tubes connecting to the arms.
disagree, plenty of room to swing his sword, even with the cables. And its a pretty simple model to assemble too. More complex than a space marine but still easy to build (tm i guess)
The flayer arrays are attached to a very weak point and I always use a lot of padding. It's not a question of "being careful", its a question of sloppy design. They should really be a single piece or have a shaft that you insert into a hole.
The sword arm does not have a cable on it. The gun arm and the claw arm do. The claw arm also has two cables on it for some odd reason, one of which appears to be rather short. They did have the foresight to give it some slack, but even then it does seem restrictive and is unnecessary to have when there's already a massive cable connecting the arm to the back.
The gun arm has a short little cable attaching it to the waist, meaning that there is absolutely no way for it to ever to actually acquire targets, especially as it has to get clear of the sword arm. Once again, this cable is redundant because there's already a massive power cable connecting the gun to the back, which does actually have quite a bit of slack and length.
The sword arm still has it's movement restricted by the gun arm sharing the same socket. Which is a design choice that I don't understand at all.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2022/06/12 09:16:38
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Even if by some unforseen divine providence, 10th edition releases EVERY codex and supplement at the exact same time, and gives us an entire year without modification, there would still be extreme power indifference. This is the nature of any competitive "game".
In the fighting game environment, take SF4. Everyone thought the power rankings were entirely set, there was a clear "best" character to use, skill was largely irrelevant. Then Daigo Umehara appeared and began winning every major with what most people thought was a bad character, that being Ryu. Before Diago invented the Ume-Shoryu, no one had "Ryu" anywhere near the top 5. Then over night people started claiming he was "broken" and "for low skill players".
Point is: You cannot make balance in this game, becuase player skill will always, ALWAYS, offset any design intent. Someone will create an unforeseen combo, and exploit the hell out of it. Thus creating the perception of imbalance.
To most people, the BA Smash Captain created "unbalance". But does anyone honestly think that GW designed BA to be able to do that specific thing? Or that GW designed Eldar to make JetBike lists? No.
Don't ascribe malice, when incompetence is the more likely option.
Again, you cannot balance any game this advanced with this many moving parts unless you completely remove player skill from the equation. IE, all players are forced to use the exact same units and abilities.
Isn't actually the opposite? The only way to completely balance a game is to make player skill the only variable in the equation, i.e. giving them the exact same units and abilities.
That being said, I think the biggest barriers to GW creating a more balanced game are:
Combos: Too many abilities (especially Stratagems) can be piled onto one unit to make it far more than the sum of it's parts.
Unequal Choice Options: Things like Warlord Traits, Relics, and Sub-Faction Traits having wildly different value for the same cost.
Failure to compare unit values across codexes: If I can place two equal points units side by side between two codexes and immediately see one is better than the other, we have a problem.
Open List Construction: List construction is so loose in 40K that you can't count on a list having anything. That makes balancing things so much harder.
Even if by some unforseen divine providence, 10th edition releases EVERY codex and supplement at the exact same time, and gives us an entire year without modification, there would still be extreme power indifference. This is the nature of any competitive "game".
In the fighting game environment, take SF4. Everyone thought the power rankings were entirely set, there was a clear "best" character to use, skill was largely irrelevant. Then Daigo Umehara appeared and began winning every major with what most people thought was a bad character, that being Ryu. Before Diago invented the Ume-Shoryu, no one had "Ryu" anywhere near the top 5. Then over night people started claiming he was "broken" and "for low skill players".
Point is: You cannot make balance in this game, becuase player skill will always, ALWAYS, offset any design intent. Someone will create an unforeseen combo, and exploit the hell out of it. Thus creating the perception of imbalance.
To most people, the BA Smash Captain created "unbalance". But does anyone honestly think that GW designed BA to be able to do that specific thing? Or that GW designed Eldar to make JetBike lists? No.
Don't ascribe malice, when incompetence is the more likely option.
Again, you cannot balance any game this advanced with this many moving parts unless you completely remove player skill from the equation. IE, all players are forced to use the exact same units and abilities.
Isn't actually the opposite? The only way to completely balance a game is to make player skill the only variable in the equation, i.e. giving them the exact same units and abilities.
That being said, I think the biggest barriers to GW creating a more balanced game are:
Combos: Too many abilities (especially Stratagems) can be piled onto one unit to make it far more than the sum of it's parts.
Unequal Choice Options: Things like Warlord Traits, Relics, and Sub-Faction Traits having wildly different value for the same cost.
Failure to compare unit values across codexes: If I can place two equal points units side by side between two codexes and immediately see one is better than the other, we have a problem.
Open List Construction: List construction is so loose in 40K that you can't count on a list having anything. That makes balancing things so much harder.
Again, you cannot balance any game this advanced with this many moving parts unless you completely remove player skill from the equation. IE, all players are forced to use the exact same units and abilities.
You're right. One of GW's biggest problems is the ridiculous amount of content they produce. The game has over 20 factions and some armies have more than 100 individual datasheets. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, SM have more bolt weapons than some armies have ranged weapons total. That's insane. It's also something that's entirely under the control of GW as the designers of the game. Pretty much every other game on the market manages to provide variety and tactical depth with may fewer moving parts, with the added bonus it makes things easier to balance.
You're also making the mistake here of thinking things have to be perfect in order to be better. That's just wrong. GW can, and should, do better, even with the way they've chosen to build their game. Will we ever achieve perfect balance? Probably not. Should we have to put up with obvious mistakes like AdMech, DE, Custodes, Tau, Harelquins and Tyranids? No.
Given the number of decisions - and dice - GW could make a game where faction choice wasn't the obvious determinant of winning multiple games in a row.
Bloodbowl is a sometimes vexing game designed to make you flip tables - but there is undoubtedly a huge amount of skill in its order of operations gameplay - and a huge amount of luck because the dice can let you do miracles - or spend 3 turns just trying to pick up the ball.
I don't know if the new edition has issues - but the long maturity of the older edition shaved off the more typical GW issues. Some factions have advantages (especially at certain stages of team development) - but its not as extreme unless you go that way by selecting an obviously weaker faction.
The problem with AoS and 40k is not the amount of things in the game (look at the number of teams in Bloodbowl) - but that one faction can suddenly degenerate into halflings/goblins - while the other is like Wood Elves - but in addition we decided every player should get block for free "cos lol lmao". Guard for example are crap now - but were probably the best mono-faction in the game for the first half of 2018. Ad Mech went from hero to zero on a much more rapid basis.
Its not hard to look at a new codex and go "this is clearly overpowered when you do a like to like comparison with what came before". And then you see a few games, and shockingly what you'd expect to see in the maths, happens when you move around the table and roll some dice. This is what GW could stop doing. (I don't think they will - but they could.)
People use the Chess Analogy to point towards a "perfectly" balanced game. Every player has the exact same pieces, and most contests are held via multiple games, alternating who goes first. The average of those games often determines the better player. This indicates player skill is the only possible variable factor, but it's not 100% correct. There is a forethought aspect to consider. If player 1 knows ahead of time, or guesses correctly, that player 2 will use strategy A, and it's perfect counter is Strategy B, Player 1 will win. It's all about guesses and what you know about your opponent. The mental aspect. Some people would lump this into "player skill" but it's not. Because many chess masters are given the title far before they're old enough to "know" the entire strategy of most opponents. For instance, Bobby Fisher beat Donald Bryne at 13, having never met him. Because he gambled that if he sacrificed his queen, his opponent would make a mistake of going for it. And it paid off.
TLR
You cannot balance this game, or any game, with player skill and if it's inherently based around an RNG system. It's like saying you are going to "balance" poker.
If you want to "increase balance" in this game, you have to do several things:
1. Reduce bloat
2. Increase uniformity among factions "Everyone plays by the same rules"
3. Make games more reliant on strategy. Right now it's just like Napoleanic Wars. Everyone get in a line and shoot at each other is the height of Strategy in this game. There is no incentive to do "feints" or "gambits". No harrying tactics. The closest thing to "gambling to win" in this is praying for 6s.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: People use the Chess Analogy to point towards a "perfectly" balanced game. Every player has the exact same pieces, and most contests are held via multiple games, alternating who goes first. The average of those games often determines the better player. This indicates player skill is the only possible variable factor, but it's not 100% correct. There is a forethought aspect to consider. If player 1 knows ahead of time, or guesses correctly, that player 2 will use strategy A, and it's perfect counter is Strategy B, Player 1 will win. It's all about guesses and what you know about your opponent. The mental aspect. Some people would lump this into "player skill" but it's not. Because many chess masters are given the title far before they're old enough to "know" the entire strategy of most opponents. For instance, Bobby Fisher beat Donald Bryne at 13, having never met him. Because he gambled that if he sacrificed his queen, his opponent would make a mistake of going for it. And it paid off.
That's not really what happened. The mistake in that game was the preceding move by white, which allowed the queen sacrifice. It wasn't Fischer assuming his opponent would make the mistake of taking his queen, it was Fischer literally calculating better than his opponent and realising sacrificing his queen was simply the better play. It's not a psychological factor, nor is it guesswork at that point. It's still an absolutely brilliant play from Fischer, but its brilliancy is based on solid concepts and not some romantic notion of reading his opponent so well he had his whole gameplan figured out.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You cannot balance this game, or any game, with player skill and if it's inherently based around an RNG system. It's like saying you are going to "balance" poker.
If you want to "increase balance" in this game, you have to do several things:
1. Reduce bloat
2. Increase uniformity among factions "Everyone plays by the same rules"
3. Make games more reliant on strategy. Right now it's just like Napoleanic Wars. Everyone get in a line and shoot at each other is the height of Strategy in this game. There is no incentive to do "feints" or "gambits". No harrying tactics. The closest thing to "gambling to win" in this is praying for 6s.
Those would help. However, the notion that you can't balance the game due to differences in player skill is nonsense. Player skill is the thing you're testing for. Therefore, you assume equal skill when balancing the game, which should result in the player with the greater skill winning because all else is "equal". In practice that's never 100% achievable, but games designers should strive to get as close as possible to that scenario.
Again, you cannot balance any game this advanced with this many moving parts unless you completely remove player skill from the equation. IE, all players are forced to use the exact same units and abilities.
You're right. One of GW's biggest problems is the ridiculous amount of content they produce. The game has over 20 factions and some armies have more than 100 individual datasheets. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, SM have more bolt weapons than some armies have ranged weapons total. That's insane. It's also something that's entirely under the control of GW as the designers of the game. Pretty much every other game on the market manages to provide variety and tactical depth with may fewer moving parts, with the added bonus it makes things easier to balance.
You're also making the mistake here of thinking things have to be perfect in order to be better. That's just wrong. GW can, and should, do better, even with the way they've chosen to build their game. Will we ever achieve perfect balance? Probably not. Should we have to put up with obvious mistakes like AdMech, DE, Custodes, Tau, Harelquins and Tyranids? No.
ONE, maybe two, could be claimed as a mistake. Same way you could look at say, the Ork codex as being a mistake on the too weak end of the scale.
But 5, + the Harlie bit of the Eldar book, & 4 of those 6 being released in a row? That's not an error, that's an intentional trend.
Oh, and if you don't feel like putting up with it? There's the door. You can quit playing this game anytime.
You won't do it though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/10 16:25:22
Again, you cannot balance any game this advanced with this many moving parts unless you completely remove player skill from the equation. IE, all players are forced to use the exact same units and abilities.
You're right. One of GW's biggest problems is the ridiculous amount of content they produce. The game has over 20 factions and some armies have more than 100 individual datasheets. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, SM have more bolt weapons than some armies have ranged weapons total. That's insane. It's also something that's entirely under the control of GW as the designers of the game. Pretty much every other game on the market manages to provide variety and tactical depth with may fewer moving parts, with the added bonus it makes things easier to balance.
You're also making the mistake here of thinking things have to be perfect in order to be better. That's just wrong. GW can, and should, do better, even with the way they've chosen to build their game. Will we ever achieve perfect balance? Probably not. Should we have to put up with obvious mistakes like AdMech, DE, Custodes, Tau, Harelquins and Tyranids? No.
ONE, maybe two, could be claimed as a mistake. Same way you could look at say, the Ork codex as being a mistake on the too weak end of the scale.
But 5, + the Harlie bit of the Eldar book, & 4 of those 6 being released in a row? That's not an error, that's an intentional trend.
Oh, and if you don't feel like putting up with it? There's the door. You can quit playing this game anytime.
You won't do it though.
You know it's possible to recognize something has flaws, to want those flaws corrected, but still enjoy it, right?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Again, you cannot balance any game this advanced with this many moving parts unless you completely remove player skill from the equation. IE, all players are forced to use the exact same units and abilities.
You're right. One of GW's biggest problems is the ridiculous amount of content they produce. The game has over 20 factions and some armies have more than 100 individual datasheets. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, SM have more bolt weapons than some armies have ranged weapons total. That's insane. It's also something that's entirely under the control of GW as the designers of the game. Pretty much every other game on the market manages to provide variety and tactical depth with may fewer moving parts, with the added bonus it makes things easier to balance.
You're also making the mistake here of thinking things have to be perfect in order to be better. That's just wrong. GW can, and should, do better, even with the way they've chosen to build their game. Will we ever achieve perfect balance? Probably not. Should we have to put up with obvious mistakes like AdMech, DE, Custodes, Tau, Harelquins and Tyranids? No.
ONE, maybe two, could be claimed as a mistake. Same way you could look at say, the Ork codex as being a mistake on the too weak end of the scale.
But 5, + the Harlie bit of the Eldar book, & 4 of those 6 being released in a row? That's not an error, that's an intentional trend.
Oh, and if you don't feel like putting up with it? There's the door. You can quit playing this game anytime.
You won't do it though.
You know it's possible to recognize something has flaws, to want those flaws corrected, but still enjoy it, right?
REMOVED
Not at all the same thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/10 18:57:07
I don't believe they will. What sells better is what I call "buy and luck" games where the mass appeal comes not from how much effort you can put into becoming skillful, but from the feeling that when you lose, buying this thing or two and rolling a few more sixes could have given you victory.
That's why MtG is more popular than, say, Android Netrunner amd GW games are more popular than more skill-based wargames. And for this constant pursuit of better things to buy you need questionable balance.
This and GW not really knowing what works and why it works in their games
Cyel wrote: What sells better is what I call "buy and luck" games where the mass appeal comes not from how much effort you can put into becoming skillful, but from the feeling that when you lose, buying this thing or two and rolling a few more sixes could have given you victory.
Yup. If you had to actually "git gud" instead of effortlessly stomp your opponent with an overpowered codex or complain about being underpowered with an underpowered one, a lot of people would leave 40k (or go back to just collecting models).
Again, you cannot balance any game this advanced with this many moving parts unless you completely remove player skill from the equation. IE, all players are forced to use the exact same units and abilities.
You're right. One of GW's biggest problems is the ridiculous amount of content they produce. The game has over 20 factions and some armies have more than 100 individual datasheets. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, SM have more bolt weapons than some armies have ranged weapons total. That's insane. It's also something that's entirely under the control of GW as the designers of the game. Pretty much every other game on the market manages to provide variety and tactical depth with may fewer moving parts, with the added bonus it makes things easier to balance.
You're also making the mistake here of thinking things have to be perfect in order to be better. That's just wrong. GW can, and should, do better, even with the way they've chosen to build their game. Will we ever achieve perfect balance? Probably not. Should we have to put up with obvious mistakes like AdMech, DE, Custodes, Tau, Harelquins and Tyranids? No.
ONE, maybe two, could be claimed as a mistake. Same way you could look at say, the Ork codex as being a mistake on the too weak end of the scale.
But 5, + the Harlie bit of the Eldar book, & 4 of those 6 being released in a row? That's not an error, that's an intentional trend.
Oh, and if you don't feel like putting up with it? There's the door. You can quit playing this game anytime.
You won't do it though.
That's a dumb and unhelpful comment. Who made you the gatekeeper of 40k? So we're not allowed to critique something we enjoy aspects of because...you say so?
Here's the thing. I have a great group that I play 40k with. We don't play the newest, hottest meta lists as a matter of course, though sometimes our collections coincide with whatever GW have randomly broken this month. We like some level of competitiveness but we don't go all out to break the game. We have good social interactions. We like painting and modelling. There are many, many aspects of the game, the hobby and the social experience that we enjoy. Some parts of it could be a lot better, so I'm going to discuss that here since this is a discussion forum. If I took your attitude maybe I'd just tell you to quit the forum if you don't like reading discussion about the game.
I also vote with my wallet. GW haven't seen any money from me in over a year. Throughout the lifespan of 9th, I've spent way, way less than I have in previous editions, due to a combination of already having a lot of models, and disillusionment with the some of the direction of the game. So rather than quit, I'll make my voice heard and I'll vote with my wallet, while still spending my own free time however I choose, regardless of what some random guy says on the internet.
i have no idea how people even manage to break pieces of their minis.... Just be gentle with them.
How often do you use public transport to get to the place you play at?
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.
Every level of stats and special rules create more variables and make it that much harder to have balance. 40k has tried a couple times to simplify and balance the game but they always end up destroying that with Codex creep and layers of new special rules that are unique to each army and/or unit. GW and it's players seem addicted to layers of rules to represent the fluff.
If you want Balance you need something with less variables like Grimdark Future or Kings of War but those sorts of games nearly always involve abstractions such that some units will feel samey.
The gamer needs to decide whether they want the rules to represent the units with an RPG'ish feel of accuracy (as in 40k) or if they want a balanced game, because it's near impossible to have both.
Lastly though, a caveat that my argument is structural and not a slight on GW or their players. I don't use GWs rules for my 40k games because of price and my preferred play experience but, I'm not surprised many people enjoy them. Whether it's more casual gamers enjoying the ubiquity/playerbase and level of fluff representation, or competitive gamers sifting the massive stew of rules for that punishing combo, there are plenty of ways to enjoy the game.
Just don't expect balance.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/06/15 15:22:18
The only person i've seen at my LGS with broken minis is the guy that litterally just piles them all up in a cardboard box with zero protection at all
Well sorry for not wanting to have an individual spot in my case for the 150 infantry models in my Nid lists. I'd rather feth them in a box than cart about 6 KR cases.
The only person i've seen at my LGS with broken minis is the guy that litterally just piles them all up in a cardboard box with zero protection at all
Well sorry for not wanting to have an individual spot in my case for the 150 infantry models in my Nid lists. I'd rather feth them in a box than cart about 6 KR cases.
good on you, but don't be surprised or complain when you lose some arms on your gaunts/stealers.
The only person i've seen at my LGS with broken minis is the guy that litterally just piles them all up in a cardboard box with zero protection at all
Well sorry for not wanting to have an individual spot in my case for the 150 infantry models in my Nid lists. I'd rather feth them in a box than cart about 6 KR cases.
150 infantry sized models are super easy to fit in a standard case, magnetized or foam. It's not like you're taking 300 infantries and 20 monsters with wings...
My carry case is magnetized, my models arent moving in there. Same with foam cases, unless you're sitting on your box, it shouldn't damage your minis.
The only person i've seen at my LGS with broken minis is the guy that litterally just piles them all up in a cardboard box with zero protection at all
I don't know how buses look where you live, but when I use my to get to the store in hours where people are there, they are full the brink carrying a case with you would make people hate you. and if the case is bigger then 50x50x50 you have to pay for a ticket for it. Local trains are even worse. And school buses, good luck protecting a case from other people. And if you are too carrying about it, someone which can't be named on the forum, may decide that it is time to try to steal it because clearly there is something important in it.
You could take a private "mini bus" but those are even more tight packed then the regular ones, because they always take more people then they should take. Specialy for the last few years when gas prices went crazy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/15 19:46:04
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.
i have no idea how people even manage to break pieces of their minis.... Just be gentle with them.
How often do you use public transport to get to the place you play at?
My carry case is magnetized, my models arent moving in there. Same with foam cases, unless you're sitting on your box, it shouldn't damage your minis.
The only person i've seen at my LGS with broken minis is the guy that litterally just piles them all up in a cardboard box with zero protection at all
Not everyone has a magnetized case. Some of us has to make to with a lot of foam pellets, because foam inserts aren't always suitable with some models, especially the large, awkward ones with a lot of thin sticking out bits. I know this because I have a bloody foam case and I still lost bits from my models.
Try putting spear men or a ghost ark in a case with foam inserts, and see how that goes.
The only person i've seen at my LGS with broken minis is the guy that litterally just piles them all up in a cardboard box with zero protection at all
Well sorry for not wanting to have an individual spot in my case for the 150 infantry models in my Nid lists. I'd rather feth them in a box than cart about 6 KR cases.
150 infantry sized models are super easy to fit in a standard case, magnetized or foam. It's not like you're taking 300 infantries and 20 monsters with wings...
It's the monster with wings that matters though. My orks don't suffer from breakages because of how they're designed, but models with parts that are just sticking out in awkward places tend to be a bear to transport.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/06/16 09:06:49
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
My orks don't suffer from breakages because of how they're designed, but models with parts that are just sticking out in awkward places tend to be a bear to transport.
I know, it's actually the main reason why I sold my Drukhari a couple years ago.
But a typical 40k horde army, tyranids in the specific example, but also orks, guards, etc... is quite easy to carry with safety.
Just to add to this, I use Really Useful Boxes with a sheet of magnetic paper on the bottom. Stick a magnet on your bases and you're good to go. Cheap and very efficient way to transport and store models. Been doing it for years and very rarely have an issue.
~4100
~1660
