PDA

View Full Version : Our continuing part in the arms race



howlinmonkey
29-11-2009, 18:47
Do we spend too much time wishlisting about future releases? I've noticed that the news and rumour section almost always has double the amount of viewers than that the 40k discussion normally has.So why do we do it?From what I see,we latch onto the rumours hoping our army gets the big stick with which to render all other armies useless.
all other armies useless.Then when it does not materialise,we get bitterly disappointed.Then we get on Warseer moaning about how GW sucks.What do we expect from codexes really? Are we honestly trying to convince ourselves it's purely for bringing our armies into line with the rules,or is it the quest for invincibility?
There is never going to be a single codex where everyone is going to be happy,so why do we get so worked up when our own views and opinions are mysteriously omitted from the latest codex?
Rod for our own backs,anybody?

Imperius
29-11-2009, 19:17
Simply because there are LOTS of non registered Warseer lurkers that browse our well known and reliable news and rumour section.

It also is read so much because people absolutely love to feel informed about things.

Bunnahabhain
29-11-2009, 20:12
Most people aren't hoping for more powerful books, they're hoping for better books.

Decent, interesting background, characters with some character, and an army list with lots of useful units, and no clearly poor, massively counter-intuitive, or confusing units, and multiple army types you can sensibly build.

Well balanced, both within the codex, and relative to other armies, with clear, simple, and unambiguous rules is both highly desirable, and a major part of making a good codex.

None of the 5th ed codexs have so far managed to tick all the boxes. Wolves and marines fail on background, and how their list fits the background, Orks on external balance, Guard on numbers of bad units.

Kriegfreak
29-11-2009, 20:31
Most people aren't hoping for more powerful books, they're hoping for better books.

Decent, interesting background, characters with some character, and an army list with lots of useful units, and no clearly poor, massively counter-intuitive, or confusing units, and multiple army types you can sensibly build.

Well balanced, both within the codex, and relative to other armies, with clear, simple, and unambiguous rules is both highly desirable, and a major part of making a good codex.

None of the 5th ed codexs have so far managed to tick all the boxes. Wolves and marines fail on background, and how their list fits the background, Orks on external balance, Guard on numbers of bad units.

Well said!

Archangel_Ruined
29-11-2009, 20:41
No, I think it's because people want a big stick to hit the instant win button with. That or a few months advance warning to rehearse their whinging on why a new list is so broken and terribly unfair to their horribly neglected *insert name here* army. Most players aren't actually like this but I'm afraid the internet gives a platform for the unfortunately un-silent minority on the issue.

Pushkin
29-11-2009, 21:24
I agree with Bunnahabhain, most people "wishlist" not hoping for a tank with 10 battlecannons and a 2+ invulnerable save but hoping for an armylist that reflects the reason they fell in love with said army.

I would also go one further. People also spend time wishlisting, not to win the Codex Creep arms race, but in the hope of getting an armylist that isn't completely 2D. By that i mean having an armylist that limits your play in one way

E.g. this is a shooty army, therefore the only army list entries should be long range weaponary

If you read most of the wishlisting, and lets face it we all do it some times, most talk about thematic armies e.g. codex legions for thousand sons or lists that have a certain amount of subtletly e.g. the wishlisting thread for codex eldar

I don't believe the problem is warseer forums. If you look at the type of discussion that goes on in wishlisting threads, whilst there are some "big stick" suggestions, most people make practical suggestions (e.g. in the eldar thread how to fix guardians) and where there's disagreement about whether a unit would be too powerful/cheesy/un-fluffy there's healthy debate, references to the fluff, comparissons to other units/armies/points values.

The problem is GW, needing to sell new models and not focusing on creating effective, interesting and balanced armies!

(wow, that rant went on a bit longer that i thought it would! Sorry!

MegaPope
30-11-2009, 01:16
Surely if there was no wishlisting half the forum would die? ;)

Also, as others have said, it's interesting to put ideas forward, and to see what other people have been thinking, if only to compare notes. And yes, the vast majority of wishlisting is about background-related reasons, not the quest for cheese ;).

Wishlisting is also more prevalent here because 40K tends to be a very popular game in most places, and there seems to be a far greater scope for ideas in a science-fantasy universe than just a 'fantasy' one.

On a slightly related note, having looked at the WFB forums on here, it's been educational to make such comparisons. Something has struck me quite profoundly - many of the gripes on that board concern a few forces that are seen as 'overpowered' in the context of the game...but you very rarely see posts like 'combat resolution doesn't work' or 'ASM are unbalanced' (notional titles, and not the best examples, but I hope you get my meaning).

Whereas on here (and I know this happens, because I've been guilty of it myself often enough! :eek:;)) a lot of the gripes that come up can be traced back to shortcomings in the core rules rather than problems associated with any one particular army. I think a lot of wishlisting for all factions involves seeking means to overcome those bits of the core rules that appear to stymie an army it its operation on the tabletop.

GrimZAG
30-11-2009, 02:39
'Knowledge is power, guard it well.'

-This is an effective statement and very true

'Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.'

-This seems to be what you are talking about, so you are saying why hope? and why get ourselves worked up over something that will never happen?

Well why not? 40k is a pretend universe filled with unimaginably awesome creations, people, weapons and other things. It is an escape from where we currently are in life. Being an abstract realisation of what you think is cool will promote you to want it to be better than it is, because once you've seen the awesomeness you want more.

Is it wrong to hope then? I do not think so, as long as you are willing to deal with the fact that you don't always get what you want then go nuts!

nightgant98c
30-11-2009, 05:10
I don't think wishlisting is really the problem. What I see is that the things they change are things we complain about. Unfortunately, they usually overreact and screw it up.

Egaeus
30-11-2009, 06:25
Honestly I think it really depends on how one defines "too much" time. If it's a discussion for an army I play (and on some occaisions armies I don't) I like to say what I'd like to see, although I fully expect that I won't get it. Of course sometimes you get lucky and a few things you champion end up in the new book (not as if you actually had anything to do with it :P) I really sort of miss the GW boards simply for the fact that some of the designers did post on the boards occaisionally, so there was a sense that they might be looking in and possibly taking note of what players actually wanted. That's not to say it couldn't be happening, it just seems less likely here.

It's also very much an individual issue of how worked up one gets about what is or is not in a new book. Although I know of a few issues here and there that were complained about and yet weren't addressed when a new book was released. I still have high hopes for forthcoming Tyranid Codex but, as usual, I fully expect to be disappointed. :angel:

I do expect that a new Codex will bring an army in line with the current edition. I still think that this is one of the problems is that if that new paradigm is slightly more powerful (in many ways 5th edition is) so older Codexes seem even more lackluster as newer and "more powerful" books are released since the release schedule for GW means that some armies will be stuck with their current books for possibly years to come. One of the big examples seems to be a general reduction in points costs for units, so new armies become bigger and/or more potent while older armies using outdated points costs seem to shrink by comparison. And often it is quite hard to swallow that with the expectation that eventually you will "get yours" when a new Codex is finally released for your army.