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.

Breton wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
They don't own them any more than they "own" any published Chapter. The only Chapters GW doesn't "own" are completely homebrew ones. Anything named by GW is a GW Chapter, no matter if you're the Ultramarines or Omega Marines. So, can players only make custom heroes if they're not using a GW Chapter? What about if I want to represent Chaplain Leandros of the Ultramarines? Or Acheran? Or Chairon? Or Saul Invictus? Or Agemman?

Yes they do "own" them. and own them more. They're the ones fleshing them out already. If they start it, they should finish it. There should not be a mix of what they release and what others release in conflict.

Yeah, let's keep fleshing it out, until every Captain, Chaplain and Librarian is named!! After all, they own them!! Why stop there! Let's name every Lieutenant, and Sergeant, and, hell, let's just do away with squads, and instead, you get to build your army out of pre-made squads with fixed wargear options and unique traits, but remember, you only get one of that unit! You don't get to take a Tactical Squad, but instead you get a choice of Tactical Squads Vorolanus, Solinus, Vandar, Fennion, Manorian or Octavian - but you can only pick each one once, and its unique weapon option!

If you're concerned about players only picking the "broken" options, then should we not also be concerned by players picking "broken" named characters (ie, Calgars and Ventrises showing up in every Ultramarines army)? Players will, as I'm sure you're aware of, optimise the fluff out of something if they want to. So why does it matter about if they take the most powerful abilities on their custom characters? They're already doing that, via taking the most effective Epic Heroes in the first place.

I genuinely don't get why you believe that GW *should* do this. Why do they NEED to make all these bespoke characters, especially if you're also going to claim that players should be able to make custom heroes themselves, just not specifically from the Big Chapters? What does that add to the game?

There are 8 more captains beyond the two I said should be made. I get you don't get it, but I don't get why you don't get it. Those are the Chapters GW made. They should be the ones to fully support and flesh out all of those chapters. They should also create a matrix so people can make their own dudes for their chapters. They shouldn't make the Chapter Command of Chapters they opened up to the players by not doing anything but color scheme or that players made entirely themselves. This isn't contradictory.

GW made the Chapter, but it doesn't mean that they need to prescribe everything to do with it. Will they publish a list of what units each company has, and you can only bring those units if you're playing that company? Will there be a list of names for every vehicle, so that every vehicle is correctly named? Why haven't GW gotten rid of the option for Ultramarines to play Vanguard Spearhead or Blood Angels to play Gladius?

Oh look. You're another one who even quotes something I said, and still lies about it not being said.

There are 8 more captains beyond the two I said should be made.

You still didn't answer my question. As well as many other posts I've directed to you.

I also don't care that there's 8 other ones - I'm questioning why we need those two in the first place. You haven't adequately addressed that.

Now, answer the rest of those points raised. You want to be combative? I'm just giving you back the attitude you've been directing to others.

Back to characters: GW could very well just say "yes, Marneus Calgar is the Chapter Master of the Ultramarines. You can represent him by using a Captain in Terminator or Gravis Armour, with the following upgrades and wargear:
- Chapter Master
- Two Master Crafted Power Fists (grants Twinlinked)
- Two Master Crafted Storm Bolters (grants Twinlinked)
- Advance, Shoot and Charge Rule
- +1CP Rule
- +1 Toughness"

GW gets to dictate what "Marneus Calgar" is meant to be like, and doesn't need to make a unique datasheet to do it. Then, all they need to do is restrict exactly how many of each ability can show up (if that's what they're concerned about, which I personally don't think they are), and voila.

Thats how they chose to do it? And they slapped on extra rules. So it sounds like you're again being dishonest and you don't think GW gets to decide how Calgar is represented?

No, that *isn't* how they've done it. They've made a unique datasheet for him, instead of having a generic list of features and letting the player build it.

You're being dishonest here if you think what I've presented is anything like what GW are doing. What I am proposing above is that there is *no Calgar datasheet*. If you want Calgar, then GW have shown you what "represents" him, but any Chapter Master could have the same combination of equipment and abilities. If you want to be a happy little fluff bunny, then you can take what GW have "said" their version of Calgar is. If one wants to disregard that, then one can, and they'll have made it very clear that they're only concerned about if Calgar was "good" as opposed to him being Calgar.

Already been done in the past, GW's pre-empted you there.

5th edition Space Marines Codex:
Calgar: "Gauntlets of Ultramar: These are a matched pair of power fists. They also contain a pair of integrated bolters that can be fired with the following profile" - the only unique part is the bolter attachment, which has a bespoke profile.
Sicarius: "Talassarian Tempest Blade: This is a power weapon. If Sicarius wishes, he can attempt a single 'coup de grace' attack in lieu of his normal close combat attacks. If the coup de grace hits, it is resolved at a Strength of 6 and causes Instant Death, regardless of the wounded model's Toughness." - a regular power sword with a unique attack mode which it can swap out for. Also carries a regular plasma pistol, not even the new artisan one.
Tigurius: "Rod of Tigurius: The Rod of Tigurius is a master-crafted force weapon." Nothing unique except the name.
Cassius: "Infernus: This is a master-crafted combi-flamer, lovingly crafted and modified by Cassius himself. Note that the boltgun is loaded with hellfire rounds and will therefore wound any model on a 2+." A generic weapon, but has hellfire rounds (which were a generic upgrade that any Captain or Chapter Master could have). Still pretty normal.
Telion: "Stalker Pattern Boltgun: Telion commonly carries a boltgun equipped with a targeter and loaded with silenced shells. It can be fired with the following profile" - the first COMPLETELY unique weapon on this list, and only because he had the very first Stalker Pattern Boltgun with bespoke rules. This is the correct use of a unique profile, because literally nothing like this existed anywhere else in the Codex.
Chronus: nothing unique or named
Pedro Kantor: "Dorn's Arrow: This ancient and venerated storm bolter has the following profile" - unique storm bolter profile, but ONLY refers to the storm bolter! The power fist is just a power fist, and isn't even called Dorn's Arrow.
Darnath Lysander: "The Fist of Dorn: This is a master-crafted thunder hammer. All hits from the Fist of Dorn are resolved at Strength 10 and add +1 to rolls on the vehicle damage table." - generic weapon, with an extra bit of strength and bonus rule. Still easily just reflected as a generic weapon, but I'll grant that this is more unique.
Kayvaan Shrike: "The Raven's Talons: These are a pair of master-crafted lightning claws. They also bestow the Rending special rule on Shrike's close combat attacks." - again, a generic weapon, with a single special rule. Slightly more unique than a normal weapon, but less so than Lysander's.
Vulkan He'stan: Two weapons! "The Gauntlet of the Forge: This armoured gauntlet can be fired as a heavy flamer." and "The Spear of Vulkan: This is a master-crafted relic blade." Literally two generic weapons. The only unique part is the name, and that Vulkan can have a heavy flamer. Still just represented with generic stats.
Kor'sarro Khan: "Moonfang: This is an ancient power sword and a relic of the White Scars Chapter. Any rolls to wound on which Kor'sarro scores a 6 will cause Instant Death, regardless of the target's Toughness." A generic power sword with a unique Devastating Wounds-esque effect. Again, doesn't need a unique profile, and can be represented with a special rule.

You are so dishonest. Lets cherry pick one edition, and like about the rest?

I was demonstrating that your claim is historically inaccurate. You implied that GW need to make weapons with unique statlines so that we all know they're unique. Historically, this isn't correct, and you're making a temporally invalid claim. Yes, I only drew from one edition, because that's all I needed to demonstrate to disprove your sweeping statement. Stop getting your tongue in a twist when I prove you wrong, and come up with better points. This is the second, third, time I've categorically disproved your claim, and you aren't very good at admitting that.

I wonder what some of the themes in 5th were. Perhaps some sort of crack down on characters?

Historically incorrect, again. 5th is actually when we saw the biggest *increase* in Space Marine special characters, all the way up until the release of the Primaris named characters in 8th! Most of these character didn't exist in the previous editions (Cassius, Telion, Chronus, Sicarius, Shrike, Vulkan He'stan, Kor'sarro Khan, and Kantor did not exist as bespoke playable characters prior to 5th edition) - so no, your point is incorrect. Were you around for 5th? When did you start 40k?

And Aren't you the guy claiming Phoenix Lords are different than Chapter Masters and Captains based ONLY on the fluff? But not universally (As in "in universe") famous wargear IN THE FLUFF are just bits?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Trying to use your personal head cannon to claim that they're not is an impressive level of gymnastics.

I didn't see anything that was personal headcannon. A Chapter Master is fundamentally just a guy with rank A Phoenix Lord is a sort of immortal demon armor that posesses the wearer. There may have been hundreds of thousands of Chapter Masters since the OG foundings. The Phoenix Lords have been the same entities for millenia, reborn time and again. Phoenix Lords are more akin to Primarchs of their respective shrines in terms of "history", and more like Lucius the Eternal in manifestation.

Is that you?

No? Can you read? That quote right there is from a whole different user. That's Insectum's quote right there, not mine.

If you want to quote me, maybe get the user right.

So, out of 10 heroes in the 5th edition codex, one has an entirely unique weapon profile (Telion), two have unique ranged weapon profiles but a generic melee (Calgar's Gauntlets of Ultramar, and Pedro Kantor's Dorn's Arrow, which I *could* count seperately because Dorn's Arrow only refers to the storm bolter, and not the power fist in the 5th ed book), two have a generic weapon normally unavailable to them (Cassius and Vulkan), four have a generic weapon, with a single added special feature (Sicarius, Lysander, Shrike and Khan), and two have has completely generic weapons (Tigurius and Chronus).

Given that the majority of these characters only have generic weapon profiles (with a single added rule on them), this could easily be represented in the same way Enhancements are in current 10th ed (this model's X has +1 Y)

That's not what has been suggested. What was suggested was just making it a literal MC weapon wihout ANY +1 Anything. Have you tried being less dishonest?

Have you?

I don't think anyone was claiming that a MC weapon should have had *no other effect*. Whether that extra effect is just "rerolls 1 to Wound" or "gets an extra pip of Damage" is beside the point - but we definitely don't need "HERE'S A WHOLE UNIQUE STATLINE WHICH DOESN'T REFER TO ANY OTHER WEAPON" Iike we currently have.

Again - you want to represent a slightly more powerful weapon? Look at what Crusade does with Weapon Modifications. Say that Lysander is a Terminator Captain, whose Thunder Hammer (yes, Terminator Captains should all have access to Thunder Hammers) has the "Brutal" and "Masterworked" traits. Simple. We don't need to name it "Fist of Dorn" anywhere outside of the fluff, because, at the end of the day, it's just a slightly better hammer.

Now, back to "dishonesty" - where's all those other responses to the points I've raised? Things like Blood Angels currently having Doctrines, or if a Blood Angels army is "still" Blood Angels even if I don't take any BA unique units, and so on.

I strongly suggest that if you want to have anything close to a constructive conversation, you dial back the attitude you've been displaying to other users.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
Every faction (technically subfaction but Marines are pretty much the only subfactions left and are treated as their own faction anyway) should have the some number of special characters.

But:
1. *Why*? This is the sticking point which I don't think you've explained.
2. *Which* characters? This is where the contention lies - I think most people are fine with *some* special characters - but ONLY the absolutely most unique ones that have no other equivalent or analogue within their own faction. But you just want to hand out unique statlines to seemingly every named Space Marine (and non-Space Marines).

Breton wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Wouldn't having a robust character customization system and then keeping bespoke datasheets for the characters who wouldn't neatly fit into that system be an effective way to "take some of each"? If so, then it sounds like the main thing you and I disagree about is whether or not it makes sense to get rid of some existing bespoke datasheets and let them be handled by the generic character customization system.

That would be how I would do it. Except I wouldn't get rid of any of the bespoke datasheets just because they're bespoke data sheets. They finally got rid of Tycho. And they should have. He died way way way before the first Primaris set foot on anywhere. He should not have been commanding them. Unfortunately they didn't replace him. Well, they did, but with a sort-of generic Blood Angels Captain and Death Company Captain for his two roles/datasheets. Blood Angels currently have no Named Captains of any Company which I think is a mistake. Every faction (technically subfaction but Marines are pretty much the only subfactions left and are treated as their own faction anyway) should have the some number of special characters. They should be the ones you read about in the books, or see in the video games. In other words Titus is far from the only character(s) who should have made the jump. Special Characters should do one of two things (or both) be the gateway characters for people jumping from Black Library or Dawn of War to the tabletop, be there for people already in the tabletop for remaking the black library books or otherwise want to play in GW's sandbox.

So then it sounds like we mostly agree on the overall implementation we want to see. You're just reluctant to get rid of datasheets that could easily be made redundant at that point, right?

If that's the case, then we're just disagreeing about what the role of 0-1 units should be in the game. To me, they should be for representing units that are so rare, enforcing a limitation on how many of them are present enhances the gaming experience by making them feel "special" through their rareness. Or possibly limiting mechanics that would be a problem if they were taken on multiple units in a single army. Whereas you want the role of special characters, and this is me genuinely trying to repeat back my understanding of your stance, want them to be more of a marketing gimmick for attracting people to the game from other related media and maybe showing what the writers/designers had in mind for the character's faction. Does that sound accurate?

If that is the case, why have we been nitpicking Calgar and his abilities if your main goal for named characters is just to have them be the stars of books, etc.?

Breton wrote:I disagree with the premise that named characters are automatically undercosted.

Cool! Do you think that named characters should ever be intentionally undercosted? Personally, I do not. Asking because I'm still trying to figure out if I was understanding the points you were making in previously posts correctly.

The depends on what you mean by undercosted. I assume you mean costing fewer points than they are worth, instead of costing fewer points than a generic dude.

You assume correctly. Whatever the capabilities of a given datasheet are, be they stronger or weaker than a generic datasheet, they should have a points cost reflecting those capabilities. So it sounds like when I said:

My understanding from your response is that you were saying:
* The distinction between a named character like calgar and a generic character like steve is essentially just that the Epic Hero rule means you can only have one of the Calgar datasheets in your army but multiples of the Steve datasheets in your army.
* You then seem to be stating that designing Steve to be as strong as Calgar would be imbalanced because you could have three of him whereas having only one Calgar means that it's fine for him to be a little overtuned for his points because you can only take one of him? So you're essentially saying that being 0-1 should be used as a balancing factor for a unit being designed or costed less well than it could have been?
* You also seem to be suggesting that every faction should have some number of these overtuned 0-1 units as a way of balancing factions against eachother.

Is my understanding there incorrect?

Your answer to that question would have been no; you do not believe that armies should have 0-1 characters for the sake of having units that are undercosted for their capabilities. Is that correct?

That's what I said. didn't = Did NOT think that.. I DID think you were inaccurately claiming opponents had to kill 18+ Attached Unit wounds (or however many the attached unit had) AND 8 Victrix Guard wounds to get rid of the FNP on Calgar.

Glad we could clear up that that wasn't what I was saying.

Sure. In which case, we can throw that rule out. The point I was making was that Calgar doesn't really have any abilities that are especially unique to himself (in terms of lore), so we can toss out that special ability and leave him with even fewer Calgar-specific things that justify him having his own datasheet. That's a point for the argument that Calgar could reasonably be represented with a generic datasheet, yes?

Baharroth has two bespokes that are both more common than Calgar's. Why are you more interested in getting rid of Calgar's datasheet which is far more unique than Baharroths? I mean in terms of lore or in terms of the datasheet his bespoke isn't rare at all. I've already seen you're about to accuse me of being "partisan" and I'm going to show you the things I said that disprove your attempt to poison the well, but for now lets just ask why you want to save a "unique" datasheet - from your faction - that Includes extremely basic abilities like Lift and Re-Drop - while deleting one from the Space Marine faction - that has/had the only example to exist in the game - especially when you can't even spend the time to correctly articulate his rules?

I think I've been pretty clear that I'm on the fence about whether or not phoenix lords need to have bespoke datasheets. The main distinction between the Calgar/Captain example and the Baharroth/X example is that eldar don't really have an X. We don't have a generic phoenix lord datasheet that we'd offer Baharroth's abilities to. As I said pages and pages ago, the closest thing we have is an autarch, and I'd worry that giving the autarch enough options to cover his current Ender Wiggin shtick plus options to make him a super exarch for 7+ different aspect warrior types might be impractical from an organizational stance.

If we had a generic phoenix lord profile like the one Hellebore(?) suggested or even just a generic Character Exarch datasheet, I'd probably be fine with making Baharroth's equipment and special abilities into options for that generic datasheet. (Reasonable people could make the case that phoenix lords are better off being bespoke, but I'd be willing to see what a hypothetical generic datasheet would look like.)

That's part of why I used Eldrad as my example of a character that would be easy to cut. He's directly comparable to a farseer. He *is* basically just a farseer with a couple of different pieces of wargear/special rules that could and should be options for generic farseers. It's not that i hate Eldrad or never use him; it's that by the same criteria I'm holding Calgar to, Eldrad doesn't really *need* a datasheet of his own.

Even that isn't true. PARTS of his rule are available in many places. This rule was split into three as the Det ability for the Gladius Det. But its not all three, and its not all game long. Didn't I already explain to you about how you're wrong in your description and claims about his rule? I feel like I did.

I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make here. I was saying that there are other rules in the game that let units shoot/charge after falling back or advancing. That is a true statement.

Also I didn't say it should stay on Calgar, or even be Calgar only. I said it should remain locked down. By putting it on Calgar they prevent stacking any Captains (except 1 who isn't really a captain, is new, and was specificaly designed to stack with Calgar) Chaplains of Librarians, and Judiciars.
...
Again I didn't say I wanted it to stay Calgar only. You didn't even ASK that question. I answered the question you DID ask. I don't think it should be turned loose. It should remain locked down even beyond 0-1 to prevent what stacks with it.

The point I was trying to make was this: Marneus Calgar has a special rule called Inspiring Leader that functionally makes his squad more mobile. Calgar is not the only captain in the galaxy to be inspiring, nor is he the only captain in the galaxy who is mobile. Assuming that there's some form of this ability that is reasonable/balanced when taken on a marine character in chonky armor, is there a reason that said chonky-armored marine must specifically be Calgar of the Ultramarines?

I'm fine with imagining there's some 0-1 restriction on it or whatever other tweaks and changes and limitations are needed for balance purposes. But whatever the balanced version of this ability looks like, it's probably not an ability that is only balancable when it's specifically on a bespoke datasheet, right? If we agree on that, then that's one less bespoke rule to justify Calgar's bespoke datasheet.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Honestly, *most* of the phoenix lord weapons aren't even all that special. Karandras's claw has historically basically just been a power fist. There's a scene in the Jain Zar novel where someone is surprised Jain would be willing to abandon her weapons and she's like,

"Meh. I can just make another one."

Which tells me that Jain's glaive isn't necessarily some super special one of a kind weapon with the heart of a dead god powering. It's probably just an executioner being wielded by someone who's just that good.

(Though obviously bespoke profiles for phoenix lords would give you more flexibility in handling the weapons that don't necessarily have equivalents like Baharroth's blinding blade.)

SHE can make another one. Not EVERYBODY can make another one.

Angron abandoned Gorechild. That doesn't mean everyone would abandon Gorechild. Kharn went and retrieved it even though that would anger Angron.

Jain Zar is wearing a super Shuriken Cannon on her wrist, and carrying a Super Master Crafted Plus Power sword version of Titus' Super Master Crafted Chainsword (though how much of that is the chainsword and how much of it is Titus's proficiency with a Chainsword is debatable)

Likewise, the whole argument for keeping the bespoke datasheets for Phoenix Lords is that they had super magical wargear. Now suddenly bespoke wargear is not a super magical reason to keep bespoke data sheets, except on Phoenix Lords?

Breton wrote:I disagree with the premise that named characters are automatically undercosted.

Cool! Do you think that named characters should ever be intentionally undercosted? Personally, I do not. Asking because I'm still trying to figure out if I was understanding the points you were making in previously posts correctly.

The depends on what you mean by undercosted. I assume you mean costing fewer points than they are worth, instead of costing fewer points than a generic dude.

You assume correctly. Whatever the capabilities of a given datasheet are, be they stronger or weaker than a generic datasheet, they should have a points cost reflecting those capabilities. So it sounds like when I said:

My understanding from your response is that you were saying:
* The distinction between a named character like calgar and a generic character like steve is essentially just that the Epic Hero rule means you can only have one of the Calgar datasheets in your army but multiples of the Steve datasheets in your army.
* You then seem to be stating that designing Steve to be as strong as Calgar would be imbalanced because you could have three of him whereas having only one Calgar means that it's fine for him to be a little overtuned for his points because you can only take one of him? So you're essentially saying that being 0-1 should be used as a balancing factor for a unit being designed or costed less well than it could have been?
* You also seem to be suggesting that every faction should have some number of these overtuned 0-1 units as a way of balancing factions against eachother.

Is my understanding there incorrect?

Your answer to that question would have been no; you do not believe that armies should have 0-1 characters for the sake of having units that are undercosted for their capabilities. Is that correct?

My answer was no. I'm pretty sure I already demonstrated that Calgar is probably NOT even undercosted yet you still try and dishonestly claim otherwise

That's what I said. didn't = Did NOT think that.. I DID think you were inaccurately claiming opponents had to kill 18+ Attached Unit wounds (or however many the attached unit had) AND 8 Victrix Guard wounds to get rid of the FNP on Calgar.

Glad we could clear up that that wasn't what I was saying.

Glad we could clear up that wasn't even what I said you said despite your repeated attempts to claim it was?

Sure. In which case, we can throw that rule out. The point I was making was that Calgar doesn't really have any abilities that are especially unique to himself (in terms of lore), so we can toss out that special ability and leave him with even fewer Calgar-specific things that justify him having his own datasheet. That's a point for the argument that Calgar could reasonably be represented with a generic datasheet, yes?

Baharroth has two bespokes that are both more common than Calgar's. Why are you more interested in getting rid of Calgar's datasheet which is far more unique than Baharroths? I mean in terms of lore or in terms of the datasheet his bespoke isn't rare at all. I've already seen you're about to accuse me of being "partisan" and I'm going to show you the things I said that disprove your attempt to poison the well, but for now lets just ask why you want to save a "unique" datasheet - from your faction - that Includes extremely basic abilities like Lift and Re-Drop - while deleting one from the Space Marine faction - that has/had the only example to exist in the game - especially when you can't even spend the time to correctly articulate his rules?

I think I've been pretty clear that I'm on the fence about whether or not phoenix lords need to have bespoke datasheets. The main distinction between the Calgar/Captain example and the Baharroth/X example is that eldar don't really have an X.

Phoenix Lords ARE the X. They're Eldar Captains. The only difference is you can have six? seven? of them plus other Captain equivalents? The stat lines, wargear and other profiles when faction base adjusted are obviously parallels.

We don't have a generic phoenix lord datasheet that we'd offer Baharroth's abilities to. As I said pages and pages ago, the closest thing we have is an autarch, and I'd worry that giving the autarch enough options to cover his current Ender Wiggin shtick plus options to make him a super exarch for 7+ different aspect warrior types might be impractical from an organizational stance.

If we had a generic phoenix lord profile like the one Hellebore(?) suggested or even just a generic Character Exarch datasheet, I'd probably be fine with making Baharroth's equipment and special abilities into options for that generic datasheet. (Reasonable people could make the case that phoenix lords are better off being bespoke, but I'd be willing to see what a hypothetical generic datasheet would look like.)

That's part of why I used Eldrad as my example of a character that would be easy to cut. He's directly comparable to a farseer. He *is* basically just a farseer with a couple of different pieces of wargear/special rules that could and should be options for generic farseers. It's not that i hate Eldrad or never use him; it's that by the same criteria I'm holding Calgar to, Eldrad doesn't really *need* a datasheet of his own.

Even that isn't true. PARTS of his rule are available in many places. This rule was split into three as the Det ability for the Gladius Det. But its not all three, and its not all game long. Didn't I already explain to you about how you're wrong in your description and claims about his rule? I feel like I did.

I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make here. I was saying that there are other rules in the game that let units shoot/charge after falling back or advancing. That is a true statement.

The distinction is that this allows them to do it all and is always on. Everywhere else (aside from the one new Det) you see this rule as far as I know it is only part of that whole. As I mentioned White Scars can Advance or Fallback and charge. They cannot shoot. They do not have the full rule. Its a partial combination to represent/recreate Hit And Fade. Waagh only allows Advance and Charge. The Black Legion has historically been a Chaos Mirror of the Ultramarines. Neither Abby nor Haarken have the ability which is one of the first places I'd expect to see it. I suspect they're going away from the BL/UM mirror imaging though so that's not necessarily a thing here.

Also I didn't say it should stay on Calgar, or even be Calgar only. I said it should remain locked down. By putting it on Calgar they prevent stacking any Captains (except 1 who isn't really a captain, is new, and was specificaly designed to stack with Calgar) Chaplains of Librarians, and Judiciars. I've said it should be UM only (as a character ability) because that's their schtick. In the MANY MANY times I said it should be locked down - NOT as you claim Calgar Only - I pointed out Calgar as a "Captain" leader prevents mutliple other problematic stacking issues like another Captain, Chaplain or Librarian. Even before adding bespokes from everyone into a pool a Terminator Captain would allow the already super mobile Terminator Squad to reroll charges. After Moving. Advancing. Shooting. And now charging. Librarians AND Chaplains would giive them a situational 4+++FNP and the Chaplain adds +1 to the melee wound roll on all those Power and Chain Fists. The Librarian gives them SH1 on everything in addition to their 4+++FNP
...
Again I didn't say I wanted it to stay Calgar only. You didn't even ASK that question. I answered the question you DID ask. I don't think it should be turned loose. It should remain locked down even beyond 0-1 to prevent what stacks with it.

The point I was trying to make was this: Marneus Calgar has a special rule called Inspiring Leader that functionally makes his squad more mobile. Calgar is not the only captain in the galaxy to be inspiring, nor is he the only captain in the galaxy who is mobile. Assuming that there's some form of this ability that is reasonable/balanced when taken on a marine character in chonky armor, is there a reason that said chonky-armored marine must specifically be Calgar of the Ultramarines?

You're still trying to claim I said it had to be Calgar only. I said it had to be locked down. I even showed you the only other place I know of to get the full all-three-doctrine effects and that it still kept the ability locked down. I didn't even mention Calgar in there, except that he could be taken and the Enhance to give two units the movement, but it STILL locks down stacking because of keyword requirements for MODELS in the Strats. I Said the fact that Calgar (as a Captain/Chaptermaster archetype) has it locks out much of the problematic stacking. Why are you still trying to lie that I said it has to be Calgar and Calgar only?

I'm fine with imagining there's some 0-1 restriction on it or whatever other tweaks and changes and limitations are needed for balance purposes. But whatever the balanced version of this ability looks like, it's probably not an ability that is only balancable when it's specifically on a bespoke datasheet, right? If we agree on that, then that's one less bespoke rule to justify Calgar's bespoke datasheet.

I think the restrictions necessary pretty much does require a bespoke SOMETHING. As - AGAIN - I've said it works in the Bastion Det because the Bastion Det also eliminates most of the problematic stacking. But there's not a whole lot of difference between a bespoke datasheet and a det in this discussion at least. I think it potentially COULD be added to Assault Centurions (but not Devastator Centurions) in general - AGAIN - Centurions lock down stacking by their very nature. Devs just don't need it.

Breton wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Honestly, *most* of the phoenix lord weapons aren't even all that special. Karandras's claw has historically basically just been a power fist. There's a scene in the Jain Zar novel where someone is surprised Jain would be willing to abandon her weapons and she's like,

"Meh. I can just make another one."

Which tells me that Jain's glaive isn't necessarily some super special one of a kind weapon with the heart of a dead god powering. It's probably just an executioner being wielded by someone who's just that good.

(Though obviously bespoke profiles for phoenix lords would give you more flexibility in handling the weapons that don't necessarily have equivalents like Baharroth's blinding blade.)

SHE can make another one. Not EVERYBODY can make another one.

Angron abandoned Gorechild. That doesn't mean everyone would abandon Gorechild. Kharn went and retrieved it even though that would anger Angron.

Jain Zar is wearing a super Shuriken Cannon on her wrist, and carrying a Super Master Crafted Plus Power sword version of Titus' Super Master Crafted Chainsword (though how much of that is the chainsword and how much of it is Titus's proficiency with a Chainsword is debatable)

Likewise, the whole argument for keeping the bespoke datasheets for Phoenix Lords is that they had super magical wargear. Now suddenly bespoke wargear is not a super magical reason to keep bespoke data sheets, except on Phoenix Lords?

My post that you've quoted there was in response to JNA's post:

Calgar’s powerfists are less unique (in terms of actual ability) than a Phoenix Lord is.
I don’t think that should be controversial.

You are probably confused because you replied to the thread while I was replaying to JNA.

I personally haven't claimed that phoenix lord wargear is the source of what I'm nicknaming as "phoenix magic." Phoenix lords have vaguely-defined fate manipulation stuff going on along with occassional stunts that appear to be supernatural like Jain pulling off unusually strong screams or Maugan Ra using soul fire to lead Altansar out of the warp. Some phoenix lord wargear is more replacable than tohers. Asurmen's sword containing his brother's soul, for instance.

There's a reasonable approach to phoenix lords that I'm not necessarily advocating for or saying that I'd prefer where you don't bother representing the phoenix magic and don't distinguish between what used to be WS7 rather than WS5 back in the day. And that version of the phoenix lords could probably be represented by generic characters if you wanted to go that route. As I said in the previous post, I'm ambivalent about whether phoenix lords should be bespoke datasheets, and part of that is just the lack of an existing generic datasheet for them to use and the question of whether a phoenix lord showing up with gear that doesn't match any of the existing lords' loadouts would be a feature or a bug.



At the risk of putting words in Smudge's mouth again, I believe their goal is to point out that having rules for 2 characters seems like an arbitrary number. Your justification for wanting any named characters at all seems to be the marketng thing that I mentioned in my previous post (you haven't confirmed if I understood you correclty or not). And in previous posts, I got the impression that you were saying the reason GW should have named characters for the factions that they "own" (as you put it) is that those chapters are ones they've opted to flesh out more than others. (Which seems to be what you meant by "own." ) So if the reason for having named characters is that GW "owns" a chapter, why should they make bespoke versions of some characters and not others? The SW codex used (might still?) give a short description of every wolf lord in the chapter. So why not make a datasheet for each and every one of them instead of only Logan and Ragnar and whoever it was they statted out last edition? (Or was that 8th edition?)

My assumption based on your earlier post is that you feel like the "marketing thing" is satisfied by having a couple of characters and that more named characters beyond that is unnecessary for serving the purpose of having characters you can write novels about?

Breton, instead of immediately assuming someone else is being malicious, it could be a better idea to approach in good faith. Operate under the assumption that if someone says something inaccurate about your position, they’re not lying or trying to one up you, they’re just genuinely mistaken about what you said. This is a long and dense thread. Theres a lot of ways to misunderstand.

Phoenix Lords ARE the X. They're Eldar Captains. The only difference is you can have six? seven? of them plus other Captain equivalents? The stat lines, wargear and other profiles when faction base adjusted are obviously parallels.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. You're aware that there is no generic "phoenix lord" datasheet, right? Or if you think there is an equivalent, what is it? The autarch?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Phoenix Lords ARE the X. They're Eldar Captains. The only difference is you can have six? seven? of them plus other Captain equivalents? The stat lines, wargear and other profiles when faction base adjusted are obviously parallels.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. You're aware that there is no generic "phoenix lord" datasheet, right? Or if you think there is an equivalent, what is it? The autarch?

It will be interesting to see what the character creation rules offer in the new book. The examples they gave weren't of any eldar but the inference is there will be a HUGE amount of rules options, with specialisms and archetypes and weapons etc.

I'd love to see them allow you to upgrade an exarch to a character, but I wonder if they'll go into that much detail. I expect it will be Farseer body and Autarch body. To build a phoenix lord out of the Autarch you would need a +1W option, a +1Sv option, special Exarch power options and Exarch weapon options. The autarch can draw from aspect warrior gear currently but not exarch gear, so that would add a whole bunch of weapons for them to choose from.

You could mechanically design an autarch profile to build both a currently existing phoenix lord and a current autarch, but I think you'd need two separate pages, one for the command line and one for the phoenix line in order to avoid mixing aspect and exarch weaponry or giving autarchs exarch powers rather than command powers. This is much easier for them to do now than in previous editions when they were T4, or S5. Or When Maugan and Karandras were T6 in 2nd ed (back when they bodied any chapter master they came up against...).

If they let me tweak my exarchs like they did with the arks of omen though, I'll be very happy. They're the most interesting characters in the eldar army and the most neglected imo.

In the grim darkness of the far future there is only debates over whether SM or Eldar are the real special snowflake faction.

Everyones missing the big question.
Will Vipoid survive if these character creation rules allow you to put an Archon on a Reaver Jetbike?

Tyel wrote:
In the grim darkness of the far future there is only debates over whether SM or Eldar are the real special snowflake faction.

Everyones missing the big question.
Will Vipoid survive if these character creation rules allow you to put an Archon on a Reaver Jetbike?

I hope so. I'll need someone to drive me to the hospital after my surprise-induced heart attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Phoenix Lords ARE the X. They're Eldar Captains. The only difference is you can have six? seven? of them plus other Captain equivalents? The stat lines, wargear and other profiles when faction base adjusted are obviously parallels.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. You're aware that there is no generic "phoenix lord" datasheet, right? Or if you think there is an equivalent, what is it? The autarch?

It will be interesting to see what the character creation rules offer in the new book. The examples they gave weren't of any eldar but the inference is there will be a HUGE amount of rules options, with specialisms and archetypes and weapons etc.

I'd love to see them allow you to upgrade an exarch to a character, but I wonder if they'll go into that much detail. I expect it will be Farseer body and Autarch body. To build a phoenix lord out of the Autarch you would need a +1W option, a +1Sv option, special Exarch power options and Exarch weapon options. The autarch can draw from aspect warrior gear currently but not exarch gear, so that would add a whole bunch of weapons for them to choose from.

You could mechanically design an autarch profile to build both a currently existing phoenix lord and a current autarch, but I think you'd need two separate pages, one for the command line and one for the phoenix line in order to avoid mixing aspect and exarch weaponry or giving autarchs exarch powers rather than command powers. This is much easier for them to do now than in previous editions when they were T4, or S5. Or When Maugan and Karandras were T6 in 2nd ed (back when they bodied any chapter master they came up against...).

Agreed. It would be doable, but as you said, might be require some extra page space. I could also see them rolling harlies and maybe corsairs into our design space. So we might end up with something like caster/commander/clown/corsair statlines.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Phoenix Lords ARE the X. They're Eldar Captains. The only difference is you can have six? seven? of them plus other Captain equivalents? The stat lines, wargear and other profiles when faction base adjusted are obviously parallels.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. You're aware that there is no generic "phoenix lord" datasheet, right? Or if you think there is an equivalent, what is it? The autarch?

It will be interesting to see what the character creation rules offer in the new book. The examples they gave weren't of any eldar but the inference is there will be a HUGE amount of rules options, with specialisms and archetypes and weapons etc.

I'd love to see them allow you to upgrade an exarch to a character, but I wonder if they'll go into that much detail.

Haven't even seen it yet, where is it? That said, I doubt they'll blur the lines that much. I think they're far more likely to create an Exarch Character data sheet separate from the Exarch Squad Leader as a base rather than add hoops to take the squad leader, delete the squad, upjump the stats, add the abilities and wargear etc.

OK: Just found it The first one is not impressive. It appears to understand the goal, but not the work required. Its hard to tell since I think this "Dynastic Conqueror" is itself a new unit/datasheet we don't have to be able to reverse engineer what the customisation process did- but even comparing it to a generic overlord the end result of the Flayed Necron Character is underwhelming. Way too little personal damage output, and not enough buffing to make up for it. Those claws are not even Master Crafted, let alone with boosted attacks for a "Tier 1" character. The Tau isn't bad for his points. The Terminator is also underwhelming if not as bad as the Necron. Looks like a new datasheet called Champion of the Chapter. Which doesn't allow the Champion to join the same unit as the (Captain/Chaptermaster) warlord. He's not as bad as the Necron one, but still pretty meh with a little overcosting if you compare him to a Terminator Ancient. Depending on how they had to do it (Phobos Captain with Techmarine over the top or Techmarine with Phobos Armor over the top - which I think if it were possible to do both, it would result in to different datasheets sadly) - anyway the Phobos Techmarine could be the best one for balance wise. But they didn't give us the datasheet to know for sure.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that I was claiming that phoenix lords are the only ones who would be willing to part with their weapons.

No, I'm not suggesting anything, I'm flat out stating people who can make their own super magic weapon are much less concerned about losing their super magic weapon.

But why just two though? Why not have a lancer, a big guy, a smart guy, and go for a whole five-man-band trope? Is it because you think the icon and the black sheep are the ideal number and types of roles to hit on for marketing purposes? (This is mostly my own question at this point. I don't want to continue presuming to know what point Smudge was trying to make.)

Because for any given chapter/clan/sept/etc any one or more of those could be iconic or could be Black Sheep thus why neither of the two "categories" was specifying a game archetype but instead was entirely defined by their relationship to whichever source (sub)faction was being discussed. I was simplifying the concept but it doesn't really have to be a Captain either. The Ultramarines "Black Sheep" was Sergeant Chronus. Not Uriel Ventris. The next closest is Calgar and he's not very.

The Phoenix Lords always had their own unique profile. In 2nd edition, with Codex Ultramarines, Calgar's profile was pretty much one of the variations you could make with the generic Chapter Master rules. The Phoenix Lords had profiles that only resembled each other (and bigger than the generic Exarch), and even in the scope of being "Exarch Plus", they all had more exarch skills than the generic one.

If Phoenix Lords resemble anything from uniqueness in fluff, it isn't Chapter Masters but Primarchs.

Maybe they should go down the route, make a 'Lord' level Exarch generic character that has their stats and elevate the named Phoenix Lords to a kind of Primarch tier character.

Tyel wrote:
Everyones missing the big question.
Will Vipoid survive if these character creation rules allow you to put an Archon on a Reaver Jetbike?

I'll be sure to keep my defibrillator close by and fully charged as we await the answer.

Though I think the more likely outcome would be:

"An Archon may replace his legs with a Reaver Jetbike for 20pts. Note that an Archon must have legs to ride a Jetbike."

Breton wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

I find this a puzzling argument because there are plenty of ways to mitigate this sort of thing. To name a few:

- Artefacts & Warlord Traits (as distinct from 'regular' wargear) were both 1 per model and 1 (of each type) per army. This means you can't just stack half a dozen artefacts onto a single model to create Godking Buffzilla. Nor can you have multiple of the same bonuses in your army.

The discussion is about creating named characters or generic characters equivalent to the named characters (or both) in a creation matrix . All the nameds pretty much have two bespokes (Warlord Traits) and at least one Relic (Super Master Crafted Weapons) The stated goal does involve a high degree of stacking. Even the generic builds now involve three Warlord Traits/Bespokes/Enhancements. The difference is two are preselected, and one is optional. The implied mechanics would allow for stacking multiples of the same Bespoke/Warlord Trait/Enhancement. I mean someone else has already suggested giving 0-1 to a potent one rather than allowing doubling and tripling and more implictly agreeing these bespokes/enhancements/etc would become not-1-per-army. And you already can double and triple up because many of those bespokes are on the same generic chracter you can take three times.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, given that artefacts and warlord traits no longer exist in any form. All we have are Enhancements.

If you mean that some models have gained rules that possibly resemble former warlord traits... maybe? Though I would suggest most such have simply replaced the Auras characters had in 8th-9th.

Either way, there is no reason to think that this couldn't be changed if customisation rules were to be reintroduced.

Breton wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
What's more, let's say GW doesn't trust its playerbase to not have fun wrong 'abuse' the system.

Do you think this snark helps? There have been how many times and how many ways they've had to released a major rework to end something game breaking like Aggressor Bombs?

I think the snark is not undeserved.

a) because GW charges premium prices for its rules and thus one should expect those rules to be of a high standard, including rigorous playtesting (something they could easily involve the community in, if they wanted to).

b) because it is entirely GW's choice to never learn and iterate but instead throw away not only all the rules for older editions but also everything that was learned in said editions.

 vipoid wrote:


I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, given that artefacts and warlord traits no longer exist in any form. All we have are Enhancements.

If you mean that some models have gained rules that possibly resemble former warlord traits... maybe? Though I would suggest most such have simply replaced the Auras characters had in 8th-9th.

Either way, there is no reason to think that this couldn't be changed if customisation rules were to be reintroduced.

I mean that whether they are called Warlord Traits, Bespokes, Relics, Enhancements or Digeridoos they're all pretty much the same thing just from a different era. I mean that if you look at a generic captain they have two of these abilities, and an slot for a third. If you look at a named Captain, they generally have two of these abilities, and a "relic"

The character rules have been fully leaked on reddit, if anyone cares.

You essentially get three basic datasheets and you can then add rides/armor (bikes, jump packs, squighogs, terminator armor), a single ability and then pick one ranged weapon, two pistols and 1-2 melee weapons from most things the codex has to offer. A few options cost extra points, most don't.

It's more or less how characters worked during 3-5th.

 Jidmah wrote:
The character rules have been fully leaked on reddit, if anyone cares.

You essentially get three basic datasheets and you can then add rides/armor (bikes, jump packs, squighogs, terminator armor), a single ability and then pick one ranged weapon, two pistols and 1-2 melee weapons from most things the codex has to offer. A few options cost extra points, most don't.

It's more or less how characters worked during 3-5th.

I've seen 'em.

I'd like more that really changes how a character functions, but what's there is nice.

The idea is nice. However, for our crusade we will more or less have to ban them immediately, because people have already found bonkers OP combinations that will ruin everyone's fun.

These kind of rules always fall apart unless all players are looking for the exact same thing in a game - which is nigh impossible in larger groups.

 Jidmah wrote:
The idea is nice. However, for our crusade we will more or less have to ban them immediately, because people have already found bonkers OP combinations that will ruin everyone's fun.

These kind of rules always fall apart unless all players are looking for the exact same thing in a game - which is nigh impossible in larger groups.

Yeah I had a look at the tau ones and a broadside with triple heavy rail rifles giving the unit either reroll 1s or a 6" move after firing seems dirty

One can only hope that gw are as responsive to these rules as the normal ones and publish amendments.

I know the nurgle one has the most busted options in there, followed by triple rail gun.

Given the way they're written it would be easy to tweak to stop those combos. The wraithlord character has a special rule that they can take multiple ranged weapons but then it later restricts some heavy weapons to one each.

That shouldn't be hard.

 Jidmah wrote:
The idea is nice. However, for our crusade we will more or less have to ban them immediately, because people have already found bonkers OP combinations that will ruin everyone's fun.

These kind of rules always fall apart unless all players are looking for the exact same thing in a game - which is nigh impossible in larger groups.

I'd say these kind of late edition rules fall apart because GW simply forgets to ever look at them again. Which is a shame really

The only way to stop the death guard combos would be nerfing all good options into the ground, at which point only the optimized builds would be viable and everything else would simply be bad.

Even for orks, an optimized warphead or hordeboss outperforms all the generic options from the codex at no extra cost, sometimes even for less points.

Which really is a shame, as the rules enable us to create many flavorful options, like Wazzdakka, Zagstrukk, old bikerboss or a grot rebel leader.

This release absolutely proves that the argument that it's possible to balance that options in theory is worthless.
GW has never been and will never be able to balance more than three options in for any given 40k unit. Not having options is simply the lesser of two evils.

 Jidmah wrote:
The only way to stop the death guard combos would be nerfing all good options into the ground, at which point only the optimized builds would be viable and everything else would simply be bad.

Even for orks, an optimized warphead or hordeboss outperforms all the generic options from the codex at no extra cost, sometimes even for less points.

Which really is a shame, as the rules enable us to create many flavorful options, like Wazzdakka, Zagstrukk, old bikerboss or a grot rebel leader.

This release absolutely proves that the argument that it's possible to balance that options in theory is worthless.
GW has never been and will never be able to balance more than three options in for any given 40k unit. Not having options is simply the lesser of two evils.

Its no more worthless than claiming because Eldar were busted at the beginning of 10th gw is incapable of balancing armies in general.

Gw can't balance anything perfectly. No one can. Gw however currently has a responsive amendment system which it has used effectively to repair issues in units. These rules are no different. Starting from 'they didn't do it perfectly first time so it's a lost cause' reasoning would see gw just stop publishing rules altogether

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

GW is quite clearly able to balance armies in general and has repeatedly done so in the last few years with increasing success.

Over almost four decades of 40k there are zero instances of even a single unit with five or more options where all options have been equally powerful.

Even if it's theoretically possible to survive jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, it's still stupid to hope for such things.

 Jidmah wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

GW is quite clearly able to balance armies in general and has repeatedly done so in the last few years with increasing success.

Over almost four decades of 40k there are zero instances of even a single unit with five or more options where all options have been equally powerful.

Even if it's theoretically possible to survive jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, it's still stupid to hope for such things.

How many units left have 5 or more options? The SM Lietuenant has four. Five if you count his default Loadout. Wait, why is the default wargear a First Born Master Crafted "Bolter" and not the Primaris "Bolt Rifle"? Its the same with the Captain. I've never use either of these characters with a "long gun" so I'm just noticing this. They don't have the HEAVY ASSAULT keywords on their "bolter" that should have been a "bolt rifle" either. They don't even need 5 options to screw it up, it appears.

I kept looking - the Tactical squad has Bolt Guns not Bolters. Master Crafted elsewhere does not add -1AP. So they have a gun with sort of first born names and primaris numbers/stats. But not the primaris Keywords. On the gun. They still have the Primaris keywords for their armor. Of course why there's still a disctinction at all is hard to explain except for intertia. Perhaps this was just a lazy Copy Paste at the end of one workday and beginning of another that slipped through.

 Jidmah wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

GW is quite clearly able to balance armies in general and has repeatedly done so in the last few years with increasing success.

Over almost four decades of 40k there are zero instances of even a single unit with five or more options where all options have been equally powerful.

Even if it's theoretically possible to survive jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, it's still stupid to hope for such things.

They are all a part of the same game what about ism doesn't apply.

What you've done is make a false equivalence fallacy.

In the last 40 years gw didn't have their reactive balance process continually tweaking wargear options.

Your argument is they spent the last few years being effective at balancing armies but the 40 before that they also had terrible army balance in addition to wargear.

The common denominator was a lack of reactive balancing.

Your position is that wargear only being changed each edition means they can't balance them but armies being contually tweaked every few months means they can balance armies.

Talk to me when you have an example of them doing several years of consecutive balance data slates for army wargear options and then I might agree with you.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

GW is quite clearly able to balance armies in general and has repeatedly done so in the last few years with increasing success.

Over almost four decades of 40k there are zero instances of even a single unit with five or more options where all options have been equally powerful.

Even if it's theoretically possible to survive jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, it's still stupid to hope for such things.

They are all a part of the same game what about ism doesn't apply.

What you've done is make a false equivalence fallacy.

In the last 40 years gw didn't have their reactive balance process continually tweaking wargear options.

Your argument is they spent the last few years being effective at balancing armies but the 40 before that they also had terrible army balance in addition to wargear.

The common denominator was a lack of reactive balancing.

Your position is that wargear only being changed each edition means they can't balance them but armies being contually tweaked every few months means they can balance armies.

Talk to me when you have an example of them doing several years of consecutive balance data slates for army wargear options and then I might agree with you.

I don't think it's a leap to say that balancing the points on a sisters squad with no wargear costs is far simpler than doing it with wargear costs. They've got 1 points value to move based on the units represented effective rate. Put the costs back in and now youve got to balance the points and output of all options simultaneously whilst also balancing the cost of the raw profile against the impact of the gear.

You don't need them to spend 6 year flailing about to tell tha GW would, at best, balance the "most representative" loadout then spend forever having dud options alongside the optimal. Which in reality beyond occasionally flipping which is the "best" option by mistake, is pretty much what we get now anyway.

Dudeface wrote:
Which in reality beyond occasionally flipping which is the "best" option by mistake, is pretty much what we get now anyway.

That is completlely unfair. They don't flip the best option by mistake. They do it on purpose! Joking aside, it is an intentional choice by GW to "feature" things in a given edition. Most of the time it even works.

Dudeface wrote:
Which in reality beyond occasionally flipping which is the "best" option by mistake, is pretty much what we get now anyway.

Why "now"? It has never been any different.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Which in reality beyond occasionally flipping which is the "best" option by mistake, is pretty much what we get now anyway.

Why "now"? It has never been any different.

You are correct but I'll grant Hellbore that they give the appearance of caring and adjusting more, more often. They haven't given anyone any reason to think they could or would handle it any differently under this guise, but that was the point really - they hypothetically would try corrections now, whereas they didn't before.

Dudeface wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Which in reality beyond occasionally flipping which is the "best" option by mistake, is pretty much what we get now anyway.

Why "now"? It has never been any different.

You are correct but I'll grant Hellbore that they give the appearance of caring and adjusting more, more often. They haven't given anyone any reason to think they could or would handle it any differently under this guise, but that was the point really - they hypothetically would try corrections now, whereas they didn't before.

Its not the same environment. They get far better and quicker feedback as the internet has aged and become more mainstream. They can also push out those corrections faster and easier with the Internet. And their phone app, and so on. One could even argue their target audience has changed. They're more about competitive gaming than a sandbox for narratives.