Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 06:36:12
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
ERJAK wrote: ThePaintingOwl wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.
This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.
They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).
To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.
I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.
H.M.B.C is mad about how GW often does things, like with the ignores LOS weapons that weren't undercosted but got unnecessary price increases because GW didn't bother weeding through all the ignores LOS weapons to discover which 3-6 problematic weapons that ignore LOS needed nerfs. The random internet nobody might be a major tournament organizer or a judge and have the ear of GW, it's a small world and pushing forward good ideas is good even if it's just ground roots four steps removed from GW instead of one-step removed. The good idea is for GW to analyze which units are problematic and get their playtesters to see what other units and factions might be problematic after heavy nerfs to the top 5% of the game from 70% to 50% win rate. Given that Eldar have very strong faction and detachment abilities it is more likely than in pretty much every other case that across the board nerfs are needed.
I believe H.M.B.C is arguing for is balancing for casual play first and foremost, you can do that even if you are using competitive data to get there, you just have to be more careful which might leave the game less competitively balanced for a longer duration with one faction staying on top, but you get far fewer bad units getting nerfed. Competitive players are unconcerned with nerfing of bad units, they were far from being viable anyways, bad units getting even worse is funny, but does not concern competitive players. Casual players having their bad units they use because they like them get nerfed affects them. Eldar staying 70% win rate because 2 of their 8 undercosted datasheets were missed in the first round of nerfs affects competitive players a lot because more and more people play Eldar and suddenly everyone is playing the exact same list with 3 of each of those 2 remaining undercosted datasheets, two undercosted datasheets are not a big deal for casual play because the casual players can make lists without them if they know about it and if they don't know about it they are unlikely to end up spamming them. 8 datasheets being undercosted is a big concern for both casual and competitive players both, competitive players desire a wide enough nerf that all 8 get hit, casual players desire a narrow enough nerf that no bad units get nerfed.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 07:32:45
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
vict0988 wrote:ERJAK wrote: ThePaintingOwl wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:20% across the board points increase? What a sledgehammer unthinking and typically GW approach that would be.
This is why I hate what tournament gaming has done to 40k. Because a group of chuckleheads abused a specific combination of rules, units that I have (like a Wraithknight that's a HTH fighter) will suffer as a result, when that unit wasn't the problem in the first place.
They never fix the problem. They massively over-react with kneejerk and outright stupid changes (like the suggested across-the-board points rise).
To be fair, given the number of tournament result articles that contain some form of "Bob got bored of Wraithknights, decided to show everyone he could win with all the second-tier stuff, and went 5-0" it looks like the entire codex is just plain broken. A 20% point increase across the board might not be exactly correct but it doesn't look like it would be all that far off.
I also like that H.M.B.C is getting mad at a random idea thrown out by a forum nobody like it was sent from the High Council of Tournament Waacs directly to GW and is now LAW in Europe and North America.
H.M.B.C is mad about how GW often does things, like with the ignores LOS weapons that weren't undercosted but got unnecessary price increases because GW didn't bother weeding through all the ignores LOS weapons to discover which 3-6 problematic weapons that ignore LOS needed nerfs. The random internet nobody might be a major tournament organizer or a judge and have the ear of GW, it's a small world and pushing forward good ideas is good even if it's just ground roots four steps removed from GW instead of one-step removed. The good idea is for GW to analyze which units are problematic and get their playtesters to see what other units and factions might be problematic after heavy nerfs to the top 5% of the game from 70% to 50% win rate. Given that Eldar have very strong faction and detachment abilities it is more likely than in pretty much every other case that across the board nerfs are needed.
I believe H.M.B.C is arguing for is balancing for casual play first and foremost, you can do that even if you are using competitive data to get there, you just have to be more careful which might leave the game less competitively balanced for a longer duration with one faction staying on top, but you get far fewer bad units getting nerfed. Competitive players are unconcerned with nerfing of bad units, they were far from being viable anyways, bad units getting even worse is funny, but does not concern competitive players. Casual players having their bad units they use because they like them get nerfed affects them. Eldar staying 70% win rate because 2 of their 8 undercosted datasheets were missed in the first round of nerfs affects competitive players a lot because more and more people play Eldar and suddenly everyone is playing the exact same list with 3 of each of those 2 remaining undercosted datasheets, two undercosted datasheets are not a big deal for casual play because the casual players can make lists without them if they know about it and if they don't know about it they are unlikely to end up spamming them. 8 datasheets being undercosted is a big concern for both casual and competitive players both, competitive players desire a wide enough nerf that all 8 get hit, casual players desire a narrow enough nerf that no bad units get nerfed.
Truth has been spoken
|
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 12:19:55
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
One of these days Imma find out who this "H.M.B.C." person is and ask them why they must always steal my thunder!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/24 12:20:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 13:43:29
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Swift Swooping Hawk
UK
|
GW absolutely has developed editions with regards to feedback about the (at the time) current one. 9th edition was from top to bottom basically a laundry list of attempting to solve complaints people had about 8th edition specifically.
|
Nazi punks feth off |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 14:03:10
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
And didn't that turn out well...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 14:27:06
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Yes, that is because for some factions they enter a lets fix problems from prior edition, which may not even exist in the current edition, while other armies are given the pet project of high designer person and drip with more powerful rules on a single model, then entire armies of other factions. The same goes with GW reaction time. Outside of facts that could really impact an armies sells, some armies get fixes and conviniance rules, while others get the GW noticing that X doesn't work after 3-6 years.
If all codex were writen with the same end goal in mind the game, would be, at worse, more fun.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 14:52:32
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Not as Good as a Minion
|
Dudeface wrote: kodos wrote:ccs wrote:
1) Most players don't seem all that bothered by 10e. It's "Good Enough". Many fun games have been had here in July & August. Many more will follow.
because it is a new game, were everything start from zero
it is similar to 8th Index Phase, were we already saw problems and GW tried actively to get them under control and people were positive about the game
it was not until several Codices were released that people saw it as not that good (and than it was only those without one)
similar here now, that the Indices are badly written without a plan is seen as a problem of the tournament community not a problem of the game itself
until the Codices draw a different direction for the game than the Indices suggest (like with 8th) this won't change as a local group does not care of Eldar, GSC or Votan have problems as long as no one there plays them
Toofast wrote:All that stuff already got nerfed, and it brought Eldar all the way down to a...checks notes...68% win rate over the weekend. What a fantastic job the balancing team is doing!
do we know if the 1 person they hired for balancing already started working or are they still in the interview phase?
because by the deadline for application and how the interview process works, my guess is that there balancing team does not exist at the moment
Can you evidence that there is a "balancing team"? It certainly feels like any balance passes are done in between other jobs by the codex writing teams.
We only know that GW was hiring a single person for that job, we don't know if that person is already working, nobody wanted the job or of there is already a Team
and if there is a Team, are they allowed to talk to each other about their work, or is it like with the designers that everyone just gets a part of the project to prevent leak?
|
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 15:33:24
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
Bosskelot wrote:GW absolutely has developed editions with regards to feedback about the (at the time) current one. 9th edition was from top to bottom basically a laundry list of attempting to solve complaints people had about 8th edition specifically.
10th as well.
It turned out poorly because GW didn't respond to the complaints about bloat, because of stat creep and because GW didn't balance things. It still doesn't make sense to say GW doesn't respond to criticism or try to fix issues with their game and just change things for the sake of change, there might be one or two of those changes for the sake of change, but for the most part it's much requested changes. What that means is we have to make good criticism/complaints and good suggestions as a community to get a bigger game. Stat creep was a bit of an issue with new units in 6th/7th, I'm thinking of the Riptide possibly having overtuned guns and stuff, but I don't think it's ever been a major issue before. I do actually think parts of the community asked for stat creep, there's a prevalent theory that if it doesn't kill Tactical Marines or Intercessors it's trash (even when both of those units are trash), AP creep could be seen as an answer to that problem the community faultily brought up. There was a fair amount of hype every time more rules came out, so more rules, more faster being received isn't necessarily crazy either.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 18:21:26
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
I look at my army, and I see no fixes, there was no bloat in my army, in fact the army needed more options to be playable, especialy as far as unit use goes. In 10th there are fewer options, core stuff that made the faction fantasy was removed, stuff to deal with basic mechanics of 10th wasn't added, the stats and rules have a copy past and writen without thinking feel. Sometimes they even bring forth a feeling of the person writing the rules not knowing other faction rules, core 10th mechanics or worse. And then the changes/fixes come, and a unit gets removed.
Meanwhile "fixed" at the same time eldar have more GT wins, then my entire faction has win rate. My army has mechanical problems on top of points problems, but GW tells me, and everyone else playing the army, that the september "fix" will be points. So another words I will have to wait for a fix till either winter/spring next year or when ever my codex comes out. With no garentee that the fixes will happen, as GW did release bad books for my faction in the past, or that they will just overpower other factions to such a degree that any changes done to my army from the stand point of problems in early 10th will just have zero impact. This is exactly the thing that happened in 8th ed.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 23:03:18
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Australia
|
A Town Called Malus wrote:DnD 5th edition and 40K 7th edition both came out in 2014.
DnD is still in 5th edition, doing open playtesting of systems for their next update of the system as an iteration on the framework of 5th, meanwhile 40K is now on 10th and has undergone 2 major revisions of the fundamental framework of the game (8th, then 10th).
And yet 5e DnD is still arse. Your comparison is far more accurate than you think. A marketing company first, legal company second and a gaming accessory product third.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 23:04:35
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Eonfuzz wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote:DnD 5th edition and 40K 7th edition both came out in 2014.
DnD is still in 5th edition, doing open playtesting of systems for their next update of the system as an iteration on the framework of 5th, meanwhile 40K is now on 10th and has undergone 2 major revisions of the fundamental framework of the game (8th, then 10th).
And yet 5e DnD is still arse. Your comparison is far more accurate than you think. A marketing company first, legal company second and a gaming accessory product third.
By what metrics do you claim 5th Edition D&D is bad?
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 23:35:22
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
vict0988 wrote:It still doesn't make sense to say GW doesn't respond to criticism or try to fix issues with their game and just change things for the sake of change, there might be one or two of those changes for the sake of change, but for the most part it's much requested changes.
The point is that they continuously learn the wrong lessons, and their changes are often blanket and unthinking.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/24 23:37:48
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Eonfuzz wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote:DnD 5th edition and 40K 7th edition both came out in 2014.
DnD is still in 5th edition, doing open playtesting of systems for their next update of the system as an iteration on the framework of 5th, meanwhile 40K is now on 10th and has undergone 2 major revisions of the fundamental framework of the game (8th, then 10th).
And yet 5e DnD is still arse. Your comparison is far more accurate than you think. A marketing company first, legal company second and a gaming accessory product third.
I don't think you know what kind of company either GW or Hasbro is.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/25 01:03:38
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Australia
|
ccs wrote: Eonfuzz wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote:DnD 5th edition and 40K 7th edition both came out in 2014.
DnD is still in 5th edition, doing open playtesting of systems for their next update of the system as an iteration on the framework of 5th, meanwhile 40K is now on 10th and has undergone 2 major revisions of the fundamental framework of the game (8th, then 10th).
And yet 5e DnD is still arse. Your comparison is far more accurate than you think. A marketing company first, legal company second and a gaming accessory product third.
I don't think you know what kind of company either GW or Hasbro is.
No, I do. If you disagree put some more effort into your post than just a thinly veiled insult, it helps the forums go round.
Hasbro created DnD one as part one of a large scale transition to a live service game model, while making minimal game innovation (and what there was, it was stolen from other developers ie, Piazo).
At the same time, they altered the OGL in an attempt to force players and companies onto their live service platform. Not to mention sending pinkertons at MTG fans.
Games Workshop also puts equal emphasis on branding and marketing, with rules designed to push stock sales, the beginnings of a live service platform with their "living ruleset" (this is a good thing, but could become equally perverted), and some fairly litigious actions against companies that sell similar vein products. At least there's no pinkertons, yet.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/25 01:15:24
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh
|
D&D was around long before Hasbro purchased the rights to it. 5e is still using most of the mechanics that came from 3.5 (a pre-hasbro era edition). So, I'm really not sure what the basis of your complaint is regarding the playability of 5e.
Hasbro has been a long time game making company and as far as I can tell neither a legal company (assuming you don't mean a fully incorporated entity) nor a gaming accessory manufacturer (again excepting accessory for the games that it owns). You may want to check U.S. history. I can't speak about Hasbro's Australian history.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/25 01:59:34
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Australia
|
Leo_the_Rat wrote:D&D was around long before Hasbro purchased the rights to it. 5e is still using most of the mechanics that came from 3.5 (a pre-hasbro era edition). So, I'm really not sure what the basis of your complaint is regarding the playability of 5e.
Hasbro has been a long time game making company and as far as I can tell neither a legal company (assuming you don't mean a fully incorporated entity) nor a gaming accessory manufacturer (again excepting accessory for the games that it owns). You may want to check U.S. history. I can't speak about Hasbro's Australian history.
Sorta kinda, it's an extremely watered down version of 3.5e with no flavour. New players and GMs would be far better served playing another system.
To clarify I'm not talking about the legal entity definition of Hasbro or GW, but the business plan and ethics of the companies in question. Specifically in the earlier comparison of 5e and 10th being similar.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/25 05:15:46
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
H.B.M.C. wrote: vict0988 wrote:It still doesn't make sense to say GW doesn't respond to criticism or try to fix issues with their game and just change things for the sake of change, there might be one or two of those changes for the sake of change, but for the most part it's much requested changes.
The point is that they continuously learn the wrong lessons, and their changes are often blanket and unthinking.
I think the community feedback is often blanket and unthinking. How many people have said that Eldar, Titanic and Indirect Fire is OP in 10th? What message is the community sending to GW? Nerf Eldar, Titanic and units with Indirect Fire 10%, 20% if they fit two boxes. I'm not saying that GW doesn't miss completely despite good community feedback, people were saying that Bullgryn were OP, Ogryn UP, there were no mixed messages, GW didn't touch Bullgryn, nerfed Ogryn. But I think the community and especially content producers need to be careful with their wording of the problems in the game especially because GW do respond like an elephant seeing a mouse in a nuclear power plant. So ask for wargear pts for sponsons, complain about shadow weavers, D lobbas, that one problematic Wraithknight weapon and the one Astra Militarum datasheet that is undercosted instead of making blanket statements. It's GW's job to sort through the bad feedback we are giving them, but they're not doing that, so you can either be mad or do something about it. Just like you can be mad the game isn't balanced or you can play casual games and work around that imbalance by having pre-game discussions and trying to be a good sportsman.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/25 18:53:05
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Every edition GW has to learn the lessons that A Free points will unbalance the game. B armies being able to ignore the rolling dice part of the game will create unbalances. C if you design an edition around a set of core rules and then give some factions the ability to ignore them, it will end bad.
This happens every edition. Why did the eldar miracle dice had to be change? It is not like the 9th version was weak or bad.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/26 10:08:09
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Karol wrote:Every edition GW has to learn the lessons that A Free points will unbalance the game. B armies being able to ignore the rolling dice part of the game will create unbalances. C if you design an edition around a set of core rules and then give some factions the ability to ignore them, it will end bad.
This happens every edition. Why did the eldar miracle dice had to be change? It is not like the 9th version was weak or bad.
QFT
Special rules breaking core rules is one of the main gameplay problem with 40K.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/26 17:35:31
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
at least this time what passes for a psychology mechanic isn't strong enough GW have felt the need to make half the game factions utterly immune to it in various ways
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/26 20:44:23
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'
|
JNAProductions wrote: Eonfuzz wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote:DnD 5th edition and 40K 7th edition both came out in 2014.
DnD is still in 5th edition, doing open playtesting of systems for their next update of the system as an iteration on the framework of 5th, meanwhile 40K is now on 10th and has undergone 2 major revisions of the fundamental framework of the game (8th, then 10th).
And yet 5e DnD is still arse. Your comparison is far more accurate than you think. A marketing company first, legal company second and a gaming accessory product third.
By what metrics do you claim 5th Edition D&D is bad?
I know a lot of people dislike 5th because it's not as "crunchy" as 3.5 and such. Ergo it's easier to play (which helps the game even exist and get support via new blood and new customers), but in doing so it also became less flexible. You don't have as much build variety as in older incarnations and some things basically cannot be done which could before.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/27 03:23:08
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Rogue Grot Kannon Gunna
|
morganfreeman wrote:I know a lot of people dislike 5th because it's not as "crunchy" as 3.5 and such. Ergo it's easier to play (which helps the game even exist and get support via new blood and new customers), but in doing so it also became less flexible. You don't have as much build variety as in older incarnations and some things basically cannot be done which could before.
IOW, "I can't stack up +40 modifiers to everything by calculating the exact perfect character progression steps using material from a dozen obscure sources".
You know, that does kind of resemble a certain 40k player type...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/27 07:17:13
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
Hm I'm not sure that's what he meant and rather something along the lines of "why can't my assassin triple jump anymore?", funnily said.
Better he clarifiyes himself
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/27 07:18:24
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/27 15:50:02
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
ThePaintingOwl wrote: morganfreeman wrote:I know a lot of people dislike 5th because it's not as "crunchy" as 3.5 and such. Ergo it's easier to play (which helps the game even exist and get support via new blood and new customers), but in doing so it also became less flexible. You don't have as much build variety as in older incarnations and some things basically cannot be done which could before.
IOW, "I can't stack up +40 modifiers to everything by calculating the exact perfect character progression steps using material from a dozen obscure sources".
You know, that does kind of resemble a certain 40k player type...
yes right now you don't need multiple books. You just have one book, and it tells you what roll you get. Mods and re-rolls are just a bonus to the mechanic.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/27 16:14:52
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers
|
5th is bad because it makes even veteran DMs have a nightmare time trying to balance a game without outright lying, fudging rolls, or just basically bringing in miracles like a special NPC that helps the team out.
If the goal for DnD is for the party to have a good time, the goal of 5th is to make the DM quit and drink heavily. You have a great imbalance in min-maxers "Who totally rolled this sheet or all 17+ stats" and the RP nerds who are trying to make a Gith Cleric work. Then you have the guys trying desperately to be the main character. 5th caters to far too large an audiance, and I liked it better when you couldn't break the DM's spirit by level 2.
Also, as always, Hasbro still has a massive problem with Odd Numbers. Somehow, 17 is not better than 16. but 18 is better than 19. Get rid of the dumb mechanic where you only get a boost on evens, and just make it higher number = better.
Finally, 5th introduced the concept of glossing over lore to better suit the political times. Twenty years of lore about orcs being evil, is now not a thing. Negative Stats are no longer a thing. That Dwarf can be the ARCH WIZARD. ADnD used to have racial restrictions. You couldn't play certain classes without being certain races. Paladin for instance, was locked to humans.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/27 17:52:19
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
isn't the whole point behind a RPG that the rules are just a guide and you use/ignore at the GMs whim when it shifts the story?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/27 18:02:39
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
leopard wrote:isn't the whole point behind a RPG that the rules are just a guide and you use/ignore at the GMs whim when it shifts the story?
That's what it used to be. Then it became rollplaying. More detailed wargame.
|
2024 painted/bought: 109/109 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/27 19:04:59
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Rogue Grot Kannon Gunna
|
Karol wrote:yes right now you don't need multiple books. You just have one book, and it tells you what roll you get. Mods and re-rolls are just a bonus to the mechanic.
Yes, exactly. The focus of the game is on roleplaying not character optimization. Automatically Appended Next Post: FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:5th is bad because it makes even veteran DMs have a nightmare time trying to balance a game without outright lying, fudging rolls, or just basically bringing in miracles like a special NPC that helps the team out.
I'm not sure why you think this is a problem with 5th? The imbalance between min-maxers and "story" players is far less than it was in previous editions. In 3.5e the "story based" fighter at level 1 is swinging a sword with +1 to hit and one attack per round, the min-maxer at level 1 has literally ascended to godhood and gained infinite stats on everything. And even if the DM bans infinite loops the min-maxer is rapidly going to have a +10 or more advantage on everything compared to the "normal" player. How do you set the DC for a strength check when the "story based" fighter has +3 and the min-maxer has +30? How do you create an engaging combat encounter when anything the "normal" player is capable of contributing against can be soloed by the min-maxer in one round?
Also, as always, Hasbro still has a massive problem with Odd Numbers. Somehow, 17 is not better than 16. but 18 is better than 19. Get rid of the dumb mechanic where you only get a boost on evens, and just make it higher number = better.
So 5th is bad because it keeps a mechanic that exists for the sole purpose of maintaining compatibility with the obsolete 3D6 attribute generation of old editions?
Finally, 5th introduced the concept of glossing over lore to better suit the political times. Twenty years of lore about orcs being evil, is now not a thing. Negative Stats are no longer a thing. That Dwarf can be the ARCH WIZARD. ADnD used to have racial restrictions. You couldn't play certain classes without being certain races. Paladin for instance, was locked to humans.
That's a pretty odd complaint given the fact that D&D does not depend on a single setting and most DMs are building worlds with their own lore, or at least customized variants of official material. Does anyone really care what the lore in the official worlds is? Would anyone even know what the official lore is without certain ideologically-motivated critics making a controversy out of it?
And TBH the changes you describe are good ones. Orcs always being evil makes them boring. There's never any moral conflict in slaughtering them by the thousands to farm loot and XP, they can never interact with the world in any meaningful way, they can never be player characters, etc. And racial restrictions and stat modifiers just reduce character diversity. Do you really think it's a more enjoyable game when your choice of race is de facto limited to the one that gives you a +2 primary stat bonus? Why even have choices for character creation if there's always a single correct answer and you're sabotaging yourself if you pick anything else?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/27 19:18:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/27 19:27:38
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader
|
ccs wrote:
Indeed, YOU specifically were complaining just a few days ago how you're now playing more 40k than you care to. If it was really so bad, why would you be playing that much?
For those who have trouble reading, I said I COULD get more games than I even care to play even if I turned down every casual list I come across. I'm actually not playing that much right now because I have a tank to finish and 3 units to paint before the US Open. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually 9th edition, but with the stratagems from 10th, would be infinitely better than what we have right now. The charge/pile in rules are made to punish CC armies even more, flight movement is dumb because now a flying model can't even get on top of a tall building so they aren't actually flying any more, cover rules are a head scratcher where a unit out in a wide open field gets cover from an enemy inside a house if 1 guy in the shooting unit has a window frame in his view, psychic models don't actually do anything different except it says "psychic" next to their guns, tweaking a list is impossible because you can't just drop 1 guy or 1 special weapon from a squad... I have no idea what they were thinking on most of the changes from 9th to 10th. Less stratagems/ CP is the only change I actually like.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/27 19:32:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/08/27 21:08:21
Subject: New meta watch data
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
Toofast wrote:Actually 9th edition, but with the stratagems from 10th, would be infinitely better than what we have right now. The charge/pile in rules are made to punish CC armies even more, flight movement is dumb because now a flying model can't even get on top of a tall building so they aren't actually flying any more, cover rules are a head scratcher where a unit out in a wide open field gets cover from an enemy inside a house if 1 guy in the shooting unit has a window frame in his view, psychic models don't actually do anything different except it says "psychic" next to their guns, tweaking a list is impossible because you can't just drop 1 guy or 1 special weapon from a squad... I have no idea what they were thinking on most of the changes from 9th to 10th. Less stratagems/ CP is the only change I actually like.
Wow. I read this and all I can see is a list of power gamer complaints:
I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.Yeah. I'll have to disagree with you on almost every point.
|
|
 |
 |
|