Grey Templar wrote:You do realize that if the game was balanced there would be no reason, other then astetics, to choose one army over another.


While it would level the playing field for noobs, it would kill some of the romantic thrill some people have with playing an army that currently isn't so competitive.

it also destroys the Business Plan GW has(yes they do have one)


by having the armies get updated in a haphazerd order and have them fluctuate in power over time you encourage people to get different armies. a person gets army bla bla, has a bunch of fun, but then the new edition changes things around and your army isn't so hot. you then start army bla bla because it's moderatly powerful and you want something new.

then the Meta swings around and eventually your old army is good again.

the Cycle continues ad nausium.

the cycle isn't the same for all armies, some haven't made a complete circle, some don't make much of a circle and tend to maintain their power level(Space Marines).


I like having different armies be the new Power house. sure it promotes "Bandwagoners", but hey, what goes around comes around.


if all armies were equal in power you would likely see a greater deal of builds that were more or less the same(1 take all comers list per codex) and people wouldn't have multiple armies as often as they do.

Grey Templar wrote:You do realize that if the game was balanced there would be no reason, other then astetics, to choose one army over another.


While it would level the playing field for noobs, it would kill some of the romantic thrill some people have with playing an army that currently isn't so competitive.

it also destroys the Business Plan GW has(yes they do have one)


by having the armies get updated in a haphazerd order and have them fluctuate in power over time you encourage people to get different armies. a person gets army bla bla, has a bunch of fun, but then the new edition changes things around and your army isn't so hot. you then start army bla bla because it's moderatly powerful and you want something new.

then the Meta swings around and eventually your old army is good again.

the Cycle continues ad nausium.

the cycle isn't the same for all armies, some haven't made a complete circle, some don't make much of a circle and tend to maintain their power level(Space Marines).


I like having different armies be the new Power house. sure it promotes "Bandwagoners", but hey, what goes around comes around.


if all armies were equal in power you would likely see a greater deal of builds that were more or less the same(1 take all comers list per codex) and people wouldn't have multiple armies as often as they do.

Pacific wrote:Indeed.. but I would hazard a guess that the reason codex-creep keeps coming in again, and again and again (and if anything has become more pronounced) is I would argue part of GW's strategy. I think a great number of people buy a new army because it is the latest, most powerful thing, and GW are aware of this. You can tie it in nicely with the nerfing of units which most people already have in their collection (the Carnifex etc.)

Why should 'game balance' be that important to the company (when considering how much of the tournament scene makes up of the overall game buying public), when they have already started throwing the integrity of the game systems down the toilet just to get more models on the tabletop, which is something that effects every person (both veteran and newcomer) who plays the game? When some of the most entertaining and diverse games they have ever produced, in the form of the 'specialist games', has been locked away in the corner like some embarrassing uncle who always gets drunk and rowdy at family functions? If you look across the company for the past 6-7 years (essentially, since it became 'public') you can see one motivation behind every single strategic decision, and that is the counting of beans. It might be that such policies have been necessary to save the company, but if so it has come at a price.

(wow sorry this has really turned into a rant, and it wasn't meant to be!)

Gr3y wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:You do realize that if the game was balanced there would be no reason, other then astetics, to choose one army over another.

While it would level the playing field for noobs, it would kill some of the romantic thrill some people have with playing an army that currently isn't so competitive.

Your confusing balance with homogeneity. You can have armies that are balanced against each other but still offer radically different play styles. Warmahordes is a good example as there are currently fourteen distinct factions that all play differently but do so on a level playing field. All armies should by default be competitive. While winning isn't everything, having a good game should be. Getting tabled in less than 10 minutes isn't fun for anyone.

Grey Templar wrote:
it also destroys the Business Plan GW has(yes they do have one)

Their business plan sucks, but we'll get to that.

Grey Templar wrote:
by having the armies get updated in a haphazerd order and have them fluctuate in power over time you encourage people to get different armies. a person gets army bla bla, has a bunch of fun, but then the new edition changes things around and your army isn't so hot. you then start army bla bla because it's moderatly powerful and you want something new.

then the Meta swings around and eventually your old army is good again.

the Cycle continues ad nausium.

the cycle isn't the same for all armies, some haven't made a complete circle, some don't make much of a circle and tend to maintain their power level(Space Marines).


I like having different armies be the new Power house. sure it promotes "Bandwagoners", but hey, what goes around comes around.


if all armies were equal in power you would likely see a greater deal of builds that were more or less the same(1 take all comers list per codex) and people wouldn't have multiple armies as often as they do.

You know what else encourages people to get different armies? Those armies being fun. I have picked up four starter boxes of Warmahordes because a) the price was right and b) I wanted to see how the other side lives. Once I get a few solid lists for my main faction (Swan crew 4 lyfe!) I'm going to flesh out one of those starters. And then the next. Because I know I can have a good experience with any of them without banging my head against a wall.

Pacific wrote:
Why should 'game balance' be that important to the company (when considering how much of the tournament scene makes up of the overall game buying public), when they have already started throwing the integrity of the game systems down the toilet just to get more models on the tabletop, which is something that effects every person (both veteran and newcomer) who plays the game? When some of the most entertaining and diverse games they have ever produced, in the form of the 'specialist games', has been locked away in the corner like some embarrassing uncle who always gets drunk and rowdy at family functions? If you look across the company for the past 6-7 years (essentially, since it became 'public') you can see one motivation behind every single strategic decision, and that is the counting of beans. It might be that such policies have been necessary to save the company, but if so it has come at a price.

The overall game experience should be important because the market is different now then it was 10 years ago. For damn near three decades now GW has had a monopoly on "mainstream" war-gaming. But that's beginning to change. Warmahordes and Flames of War have been out long enough to have gone through a major rules update, and have survived. It's too early to tell for Infinity, Malifaux, and Spartan Games' lineup, but I'd be willing to bet at least one is going to make it.

While all those "other" games are still much smaller than warhams they do offer the first real alternative GW has had to compete with. If they continue to grown and establish their player bases then new players, the fresh meat that all companies hope to feast on, are going to have to decide which type of game gets their money: one which focuses on the game experience or one that focuses on flavors of the month.

since the last army books all seem to feature the year 999 predominantly..... warhammer 41k!

the millennia with even more violence and dying,


OR........

the millennia where the emperor has plastic surgery and organ transplants
rubout guilleman's booboo on his neck heals
lion el' jonson decides to come out of hibernation
Leman Russ comes back from a long shopping trip in the EoT
all other *lost* primarchs are found on some backwater planet where they own a little farm with some alfalfa, and some chickens, and they all tend rabbits which they are CRAAZYYY about.
the BIGGEST ever hive fleet attacks "hive fleet enormous", who have subsequently found out that they don't like the taste of meat, but they love carrots!
the tau sit down and drink some green tea
the orks become smart and start using computer technology and the internet to research how they can help control climate change among many polluted planets
the eldar and dark eldar unite and start happy families on some planets after they realise its much nicer to be stationary for a while, and that torture is a bit boring.
the necrons find this time period boring and decide to go back into sleep mode.
Chaos don't like the idea of no blood shed and decide to go to another dimension, where they decide to drop the whole death and blood thing and invent a new thing called "the force", they also make a baby who they call sidious.

all in all: total catastrophe! unless your a hippy, in which, YAY PEACE FOREVER!!!!

(Goddam i love a good rant!)