PDA

View Full Version : 40k uk niside talk on gw



Grocklock
11-11-2012, 20:13
Just listened to the latest 40k uk podcast episode 52, its quit a big podcast but the piece of interests is around 15 20 mins in. where one of the hosts talks about his experience as a games tester. His work on 6th edition, the chaos codex. Its really interesting as he explains

-there was not a lot of play testing done on the grey knights. which GW regrets.

-How like in fantasy as the books come out the codex's will become more balanced.

-Forge world has little play testing done on it.

-All codex's are being balanced to the space marine codex.

Misfratz
12-11-2012, 02:10
-All codex's are being balanced to the space marine codex.Does this imply that the codexes are not balanced with each other?

I can see how it makes sense as it greatly reduces the complexity of the balancing problem and Space Marines are the most popular faction, but it doesn't logically follow that if, say, Necrons are balanced with Space Marines and Dark Eldar are balanced with Space Marines that Necrons will be balanced with Dark Eldar. The rock, paper, scissors nature of much of GW rules means that the non-Space Marine match-ups could be wildly out of kilter.

AlphariusOmegon20
12-11-2012, 06:44
-there was not a lot of play testing done on the grey knights. which GW regrets.

Not to sound snippy or anything, but we already figured that out, just by playing against that godawful book.



-Forge world has little play testing done on it.

And yet for some reason, FW stuff tends to be more balanced than GW's. Go figure.

Starchild
12-11-2012, 06:58
In reality, GW doesn't care one way or another about power levels or tiers. They let the games developers do whatever they want. As long as the models sell and we play the games (which pushes the model sales), GW will continue to produce unbalanced Codexes. Every time the design team sets a new direction, guaranteed there will be a new designer to come along and turn everything around.

Regarding the Grey Knights, I'm certain that GW doesn't regret the lack of playtesting one bit... simply because the models sell so well.

Wishing
12-11-2012, 07:29
In reality, GW doesn't care one way or another about power levels or tiers. They let the games developers do whatever they want. As long as the models sell and we play the games (which pushes the model sales), GW will continue to produce unbalanced Codexes. Every time the design team sets a new direction, guaranteed there will be a new designer to come along and turn everything around.

Regarding the Grey Knights, I'm certain that GW doesn't regret the lack of playtesting one bit... simply because the models sell so well.

So true, so true.

Since no rules are permanent in GW games, they don't even have to worry about long-term consequences of badly designed rules. They know that most unhappy customers with simply wait for the next version of their codex and spend the interim hoping for improvement.

Hendarion
12-11-2012, 07:31
They know that most unhappy customers with simply wait for the next version of their codex and spend the interim hoping for improvement. of the targeted age of 12 simply buy the current bandwagon army.
Fixed it for you.

Shamana
12-11-2012, 08:48
-All codex's are being balanced to the space marine codex.

I find that curious, considering that BA, SW, GK and Nids (on the other side) aren't perfectly balanced to codex: space marines.

And also, it's curious that all codices should be balanced only against one. For example, DE poison doesn't bother marines all that much, but it can be pure pain against Tyrannid MCs.

orkmiester
12-11-2012, 10:03
Just listened to the latest 40k uk podcast episode 52, its quit a big podcast but the piece of interests is around 15 20 mins in. where one of the hosts talks about his experience as a games tester. His work on 6th edition, the chaos codex. Its really interesting as he explains

-there was not a lot of play testing done on the grey knights. which GW regrets.

-How like in fantasy as the books come out the codex's will become more balanced.

-Forge world has little play testing done on it.

-All codex's are being balanced to the space marine codex.

interesting.. though on the GK issue i'm not surprised. It would have been ok if GW had taken into account how players like to get the biggest advantage most of the time which is where the codex fails- all the units are good:rolleyes:


And yet for some reason, FW stuff tends to be more balanced than GW's. Go figure

true in many cases, though don't mention the rules clangers in IA:Areonautica they are so bad its amusing;)


however...



And also, it's curious that all codices should be balanced only against one. For example, DE poison doesn't bother marines all that much, but it can be pure pain against Tyrannid MCs.



that i'll admit is a "grey area" for a few reasons- Nids tend to have a lot of models on the field, including quite a few big bugs, when well handled they tend to steam-roll marines most of the time when i've seen them played (MCs are a real pain to deal with using marines for a multitude of reasons), with DE the poison helps even the balance a bit since a DE are squishy and can't withsatnd too much punishment, though its still rather odd. Though don't say splinter fire doesn't bother marines much, my opponents hate it:p getting splinter spammed hurts as in my army its all over the place, coupled with decent AT capabilities= awesomesauce:evilgrin:

RandomThoughts
12-11-2012, 10:14
Does this imply that the codexes are not balanced with each other?

I can see how it makes sense as it greatly reduces the complexity of the balancing problem and Space Marines are the most popular faction, but it doesn't logically follow that if, say, Necrons are balanced with Space Marines and Dark Eldar are balanced with Space Marines that Necrons will be balanced with Dark Eldar. The rock, paper, scissors nature of much of GW rules means that the non-Space Marine match-ups could be wildly out of kilter.

I fully agree.

RunepriestRidcully
12-11-2012, 11:33
Perhaps this is the reason Thpusand sons keep getting screwed over by GW.....

RandomThoughts
12-11-2012, 12:06
I find that curious, considering that BA, SW, GK and Nids (on the other side) aren't perfectly balanced to codex: space marines.

Yeah, pretty much that, too.

malisteen
12-11-2012, 14:11
The balance I mostly care about is of the internal kind - where every unit unit has a job to do and is good at it, and where no option is completely outclassed by another. Where everything is interesting and fun and functional, and list building can be based on aesthetic preference.

External balance? Balance between books? That's entirely relative, in that books are only 'overpowered' or 'underpowered' in relation to each other. 40k has several armies that are at around the same level (Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard), a few that are noticeably above that (Knights & Necrons), and a few noticeably below (tyranids). It seems odd that the new CSM book seems to have aimed for the tyranid level rather than the space wolves/glood angels/imperial guard level, but honestly they're all close enough given the inherent randomness of the system.

It's the internal balance in the CSM book that bothers me - the units that are bad at their jobs (Mutilators), or don't seem to know what it is they're supposed to do (Berzerkers); the special rules that just don't work (warp talons), the units are outclassed by another unit that's just the same thing only better (Raptors are just worse Bikes, the apostle's just a worse chaos lord), the arbitrary points costs that make no sense (raptors meltagun option is strictly superior to their plasma pistol option, yet the latter costs 5 points more, vets of the long war costs more for bikes than for raptors, couldn't even get the helbrute's point cost the same between different language printings of the same book). I mean, these are just a few examples. The book is littered with these problems.

So yeah, if this is what they think "balance" means in an 8th ed codex, I'm not too impressed. Hopefully the CSM book was just a fluke, and things will look better for future books. With CSMs in the starter set, their sales should be fine anyway, new players will go for them since the DV models are so cool, and won't realize the problems in the book until they've already dropped a couple hundred bucks on the faction. But if, say, the Eldar book looks like this? Noticeably weaker than many other books, even if a few functional lists can still be dragged out of it, with this kind of poor internal balance that just makes list building a chore? It could kill them for an edition or more. After all, the last time this happened to Chaos Marines, they didn't have a starter box presence to support them, and left to its own devices the 4e Chaos book tanked the faction so hard that they GW refused to even touch them until 6th edition.


And that's even ignoring that the 'CSM is the new normal for 6e' line is kind of laughable on its face, given that the Necron codex was so obviously designed with the 6e rules in mind.

blackcherry
12-11-2012, 15:12
Thank you for sharing Grocklock :). I guess the only way to tell if the 'play testers' comments are true is to see what comes in the next few months.

Hopefully GW can keep things in line the same way they did with WFB. Release an update that fixes the more troublesome factions that skew the power balance (a new GK codex that is brought into line with GWs new paradigm anyone? :angel:) and things should be golden. Only time will tell with that.

IcedCrow
12-11-2012, 15:33
The Daemons codex coming will be indicative as will the Dark Angels codex.

If either or both are super broken / over powered (I'm leaning towards Dark Angels being in line with Grey Knights) then we are where we have been forever with Games Workshop.

blackcherry
12-11-2012, 15:40
There is an interesting discussion to be had about just why it is so hard for 40k to have the same sort of balance that WFB has had in its latest edition. Mat Ward was involved in the design of 8th edition WFB and a few of the books too if I remember. Yet nothing is incredibly over the top. Likewise, if you avoid the debate on the background, the Necron codex is a pretty decent bit of work that would have had good balance it it were not for one abusable build.

Is there just a stronger editorial or play testing team over in fantasy?

Malagor
12-11-2012, 15:45
Matt Ward hasn't been involved in any of the 8th edition armybooks which is good considering the damage he did with Daemons in 7e.
As for the better balance in 8e fantasy then 40K, the staff is pretty much the same.
Either the rules for fantasy are easier to balance things out or the writers got a completely different mindset when they do with 40k.
Just look at Vampire Counts, that armybook is just perfect.

malisteen
12-11-2012, 16:08
It's not all on Ward's head. His daemon book did kill 7th edition, but the 7e vamp counts book had already maimed it, and I don't think that was his work.

In 40k, Cruddace's Tyranids and now Kelly's CSMs are as much of a problem as Ward's Knights & Robots, just in the other direction. Plus internal balance is, if anything, a bigger deal than external balance. The inherent randomness of dice-based games can absorb a lot of the pressure caused by books with poor external balance. Internal balance can make armies unfun to play no matter who you're playing against, because it feels like regardless of whatever happens at the table, you had to fight with your book just to drag a list out of it to begin with. And the Nid and CSM books are as bad on the internal balance front as anything Ward's written.

Cthell
12-11-2012, 17:32
-All codex's are being balanced to the space marine codex.

So... how do they balance each new "Codex: Space Marines"?

MiyamatoMusashi
12-11-2012, 17:38
-there was not a lot of play testing done on the grey knights. which GW regrets.

I wonder if they do. I've seen a lot of GK armies around. Must have generated quite a few sales.


-How like in fantasy as the books come out the codex's will become more balanced.

Hahahaha... yeah, right. Two words: Ogre Kingdoms.

ihavetoomuchminis
12-11-2012, 18:23
So C:CSM is balanced with C:SM?

Balance will be possible in 40k the day they remove/fix the ATSKNF rule. Your 10 CSM squad can be wiped out. My 10 SM squad, wich costs nearly the same, can't. Oh yeah balance all the way. Same for any non SM army.

Minsc
12-11-2012, 18:40
So C:CSM is balanced with C:SM?

This explains alot:
C:CSM do alright against C:SM thanks to hatred - so in that sense, C:CSM is balanced.

On the other hand, they only hate Space Marines...

jeffzcubfan
12-11-2012, 18:52
So C:CSM is balanced with C:SM?

Balance will be possible in 40k the day they remove/fix the ATSKNF rule. Your 10 CSM squad can be wiped out. My 10 SM squad, wich costs nearly the same, can't. Oh yeah balance all the way. Same for any non SM army.

Here is the funny part about ATSKNF rules. As a Khorne Berzerker player, I DON'T want to sweeping advance into the unit I've just chewed up. I want them to get away and have to roll to regroup. If you don't hit them right away they don't automatically regroup.

Sooooo.... In the next round, I charge back into them again, and I get my first round attack bonuses again. Do they auto regroup? Yes! But I get to put them into the meat grinder a second time. In my opinion, there won't be much of a SM squad left after that.

Jeff

Angry SisterOfBattle Nerd
12-11-2012, 20:00
the arbitrary points costs that make no sense (raptors meltagun option is strictly superior to their plasma pistol option, yet the latter costs 5 points more
We have that for sisters too. But don't forget it : the plasma pistol have one advantage still : it's a pistol, so you get +1 attack for pistol and close combat weapon if you have some ccw. And you get precision shot if it's used by your unit leader.
Since Sisters don't have ccw, the plasma pistol is an option worth considering only if you have already burned your special weapon options.

jt.glass
12-11-2012, 20:37
I find that curious, considering that BA, SW, GK and Nids (on the other side) aren't perfectly balanced to codex: space marines.Well, he did say "are being", not "have been".


And also, it's curious that all codices should be balanced only against one.Well, you can't balance a new dex against all the existing ones, because all the existing ones are not balanced against each other. So if you actually want to balance the codices (and I'm not saying GW do, but if they did) you have to pick one.


glass.

malisteen
12-11-2012, 21:02
We have that for sisters too. But don't forget it : the plasma pistol have one advantage still : it's a pistol, so you get +1 attack for pistol and close combat weapon if you have some ccw. And you get precision shot if it's used by your unit leader

The raptor champion's options are separate from the unit's options, and raptors meltaguns don't replace their bolt pistols so they get the extra ccwep attack regardless.


The meltagun for a raptor squad isn't just "almost always" better than the plasma pistol, the way it is for most units that have the option. No, the raptors' meltagun is "literally always" better than their plasma pistol, making the plasma pistol's higher cost not just dumb, but absurdly, laughably stupid, in a "nobody really thought about this squad's options at all, did they" sort of way.

MagicHat
12-11-2012, 21:05
We have that for sisters too. But don't forget it : the plasma pistol have one advantage still : it's a pistol, so you get +1 attack for pistol and close combat weapon if you have some ccw. And you get precision shot if it's used by your unit leader.
Since Sisters don't have ccw, the plasma pistol is an option worth considering only if you have already burned your special weapon options.

The raptors keep their CCW/BP when they upgrade to meltaguns; The only advantage the Plasma pistol have is that it can wound Avatars.
Funnily, it is exactly the same situation as the last codex.

Minsc
12-11-2012, 21:11
The raptor champion's options are separate from the unit's options, and raptors meltaguns don't replace their bolt pistols so they get the extra ccwep attack regardless.


The meltagun for a raptor squad isn't just "almost always" better than the plasma pistol, the way it is for most units that have the option. No, the raptors' meltagun is "literally always" better than their plasma pistol, making the plasma pistol's higher cost not just dumb, but absurdly, laughably stupid, in a "nobody really thought about this squad's options at all, did they" sort of way.

Heh, you're right. I haven't noticed that earlier.
"Well sir, do you want to replace your boltpistol for this plasmapistol? It's not as powerful as a meltagun, it has a chance of killing you every time you use it, it has worse AP and is not as good at destroying enemy tanks...or...do you just want the meltagun? It's also cheaper and you get to keep your boltpistol." :rolleyes:

malisteen
12-11-2012, 21:22
it's not even a fluff thing, like "sure, you can take plasma pistols I guess, but raptors really should use meltaguns, so they get a discount". You get like three plasma pistols in the raptor box. They apparently thought we were going to be all over this option, and would appreciate being stocked up on the plasma pistols.

*darn it, forgot the avatar. So I guess the meltaguns aren't strictly strictly superior. But if you're going to tell me that you think Kelly deliberately made the plasma pistol cost five points more specifically and only to shoot at one model from one faction, and not because they were just copy-pasting options over from the last book without thinking about or considering them in the least, then I'm going to have to call you a liar.

A.T.
12-11-2012, 22:03
...making the plasma pistol's higher cost not just dumb, but absurdly, laughably stupid...You have a point, the special weapons should probably cost 5 points more each - after all, raptors keep their two attacks while everyone else pays extra for the privilege.

Raptors get to have their cake and eat it, and you are still complaining.

malisteen
12-11-2012, 22:09
The extra close combat weapon costs, what, two points on any unit that has to pay for it? You think it's worth more than five points on raptors?

Raptors get to be bikes-but-worse. And several units suffer from being copy-pasted from the last book with little to no thought thought going into what did or didn't work about them before, let alone for what changes were brought on by the 6e ruleset. The raptors only make that half-hearted copy pasting blatant, the units that suffer the most from it are thousand sons and berzerkers.

So, yes. Yes, I'm complaining.

Angry SisterOfBattle Nerd
12-11-2012, 22:18
The raptor champion's options are separate from the unit's options, and raptors meltaguns don't replace their bolt pistols so they get the extra ccwep attack
So you mean that random raptor joe, who is not the unit captain, can get a plasma pistol which takes one slot of special weapon instead of a cheaper melta ?
Oh, then you're right, that's a freaking non-sense. Seemed weird for Sisters, but is downright obvious non-sense for Raptors.

Minsc
12-11-2012, 22:33
Raptors get to have their cake and eat it, and you are still complaining.

The Raptors got no Cake, it got stolen by the Chaos Bikers who then left the Raptors in a cloud of smoke and exhaustfumes. ;)


So you mean that random raptor joe, who is not the unit captain, can get a plasma pistol which takes one slot of special weapon instead of a cheaper melta ?
Oh, then you're right, that's a freaking non-sense. Seemed weird for Sisters, but is downright obvious non-sense for Raptors.

Correct.

A.T.
12-11-2012, 22:56
The extra close combat weapon costs, what, two points on any unit that has to pay for it? You think it's worth more than five points on raptors?Firstly, five points is not more than five points!!!1!111

Secondly, it's in line with what other assault troops pay. You know - that little issue of external balance. For instance BA pay 5pts for a flamer, or 10pts for the inferior handflamer. 10pts for a meltagun or 15 for the inferior inferno pistol.


Raptors are not getting 'expensive' plasma pistols - they are getting freebies with their special weapons.

Minsc
12-11-2012, 23:09
Raptors are not getting 'expensive' plasma pistols - they are getting freebies with their special weapons.

I think malisteen's problem here is not that Raptors are getting something for free or that they have "expensive" plasmapistols. It's the sloppy copy-paste from the last codex.
Essentially, "it's bad because it's dumb", not "it's good because it's free".

Vaktathi
12-11-2012, 23:12
I find the mention of GK's not being playtested much amusing, as most of it didn't exactly take a genius to figure out, people had the abusive stuff pegged a couple weeks before the book came out.

Ssilmath
12-11-2012, 23:12
Wait, how did this thread go from GW saying "Hey, we know we screwed up with Grey Knights, and are trying a new approach to keep everything balanced" turn into a thread of "We hate you GW, you can never do anything right and never will!"

Vaktathi
12-11-2012, 23:20
Because this is the internet, and that is the way of things :p

Minsc
12-11-2012, 23:22
Wait, how did this thread go from GW saying "Hey, we know we screwed up with Grey Knights, and are trying a new approach to keep everything balanced" turn into a thread of "We hate you GW, you can never do anything right and never will!"

I find Necrons more disturbing than GK.
Partly because they are written with 6th Ed. in mind (And 6th Ed. is supposed to be the "balanced" Ed.), and partly because they are imo more powerful than GK, despite getting the normal amount of playtesting. :p

Voss
12-11-2012, 23:31
Wait, how did this thread go from GW saying "Hey, we know we screwed up with Grey Knights, and are trying a new approach to keep everything balanced" turn into a thread of "We hate you GW, you can never do anything right and never will!"

You missed a step. It is actually 'some guy said that gw said...'

KingDeath
13-11-2012, 09:53
Wait, how did this thread go from GW saying "Hey, we know we screwed up with Grey Knights, and are trying a new approach to keep everything balanced" turn into a thread of "We hate you GW, you can never do anything right and never will!"

Because GW's idea of fixinig the balancing problem is downright stupid?

murgel2006
13-11-2012, 11:22
What balancing problem?
I am very sure the design team has a specific stile of play mindset in each member and as they work together it is likely for those to be similar or compatible. this logically results in play-testing done with those stiles and mindsets. SO it might just be, that the lists tested in there differ from the lists played out here.
Just look at the lists "played" in battlereports, most of the time those are list you won't see in real live.
Maybe they test with fluff lists, including units that "should be in every list" but are not really effective or worth their points, not with optimized tournament lists, including only the best and most effective units.
Who knows?
We just feel the effect. And the effect is:
much playtesting + GW = bad
little playtesting + FW = good
:D

RunepriestRidcully
13-11-2012, 12:02
I do think the main problem is that pretty much all of the old units in the chaos codex where copy and pasted from the old one, really screwing some (Thousand sons, Raptors, ect) and causing some discomfort for others. When a book costs £30, people expect more then a copy and paste job.
I also agree ATSKNF needs to either go, be reworked, or given to elite units of other races (chosen, aspect warriors ect) as it stands it gives marines a safety net and a large advantage.

x-esiv-4c
13-11-2012, 12:05
Why does there need to be balance? As long as their marketing group does a good enough job of amping up the latest army sales will be good. Balance doesn't create value added.

Hendarion
13-11-2012, 12:07
I really don't know if "little playtesting + FW = good". There are various units which look horribly priced.

Comparing Necron Canoptek Acanthrites to Eldar Shadow Spectres for example makes me scratch my head. Or Dark Eldar Ravens compared to Space Marine Storm Eagles.


@x-esiv-4c:
Balance creates something that GW doesn't care for. It is called "long time investment". GW gives a damn about players being in the hobby for more than one year or buying more than one splash release. But these are the hobbyists which support the company for many many years. And I've seen many having walked away from 40k to other games. In my part of Germany, balance is exactly the reason why many players went to Hordes and Warmachine and will not buy any new stuff being released by GW when the next Codex hits the shelves. If this margin is so thin that it indeed makes no sense from a business perspective, so be it. But honestly I can't really believe that. Especially when you have to consider that all these lost "investors" basically had been stayed without ANY additional costs. If GW releases a Codex, why not release a balanced one? It doesn't cost them anything more than a writer with a sense for points and the game. Some Codex-writers seem to lack that big time.

Shamana
13-11-2012, 12:12
Why does there need to be balance?

Balance improves game satisfaction, thus perceived product quality, thus retention of customers - so in effect it does create value added. Sure, a good marketing can do more for sales, but that doesn't mean you can't have both!

Or was that a rhetorical question?

Angry SisterOfBattle Nerd
13-11-2012, 14:30
In my part of Germany, balance is exactly the reason why many players went to Hordes and Warmachine and will not buy any new stuff being released by GW when the next Codex hits the shelves.
I don't want to derail the topic, but is Warmachine/Horde well balanced ? I guess one of the only think I need to switch to those games is to find something that really present the fluff of each factions, and to fall in love with one of them ;).
I'm sick of waiting for plastic sisters…

IcedCrow
13-11-2012, 14:40
Warmachine/Hordes is balanced in that everything is over the top broken (so as everything is over powered, it is all balanced)

Around here at least it seems to be the game of choice for tournament people and I think it serves tournament style playing much better than 40k ever has.

RandomThoughts
13-11-2012, 16:00
What balancing problem?

I am very sure the design team has a specific stile of play mindset in each member and as they work together it is likely for those to be similar or compatible. this logically results in play-testing done with those stiles and mindsets. SO it might just be, that the lists tested in there differ from the lists played out here.

Just look at the lists "played" in battlereports, most of the time those are list you won't see in real live. Maybe they test with fluff lists, including units that "should be in every list" but are not really effective or worth their points, not with optimized tournament lists, including only the best and most effective units. Who knows?

I think this point has been made before, and it's part of what unbalances the game.

In my opinion, they put the cart before the horse.

Start with a general idea what typical armies should look like, than refine the codex until your tournament-mindset playtesters who try to breat the game come up with lists that fit that vision.


Why does there need to be balance? As long as their marketing group does a good enough job of amping up the latest army sales will be good. Balance doesn't create value added.

Customer satisfaction. I bought my last GW model about a year ago, due to both balance issues and ridiculous waiting periods for an update on my army (and clunky basic rules, to be honest). Since then my disposable income has grown gone to their direct competitor Privateer Press, which hopefully use the revenue to grow their company and their market share further.


@x-esiv-4c: Balance creates something that GW doesn't care for. It is called "long time investment". GW gives a damn about players being in the hobby for more than one year or buying more than one splash release. But these are the hobbyists which support the company for many many years. And I've seen many having walked away from 40k to other games. In my part of Germany, balance is exactly the reason why many players went to Hordes and Warmachine and will not buy any new stuff being released by GW when the next Codex hits the shelves. If this margin is so thin that it indeed makes no sense from a business perspective, so be it. But honestly I can't really believe that. Especially when you have to consider that all these lost "investors" basically had been stayed without ANY additional costs. If GW releases a Codex, why not release a balanced one? It doesn't cost them anything more than a writer with a sense for points and the game. Some Codex-writers seem to lack that big time.

Also this.


Balance improves game satisfaction, thus perceived product quality, thus retention of customers - so in effect it does create value added. Sure, a good marketing can do more for sales, but that doesn't mean you can't have both!

Or was that a rhetorical question?

And this.


I don't want to derail the topic, but is Warmachine/Horde well balanced ? I guess one of the only think I need to switch to those games is to find something that really present the fluff of each factions, and to fall in love with one of them ;).
I'm sick of waiting for plastic sisters…

Basically:
Cygnar are a bit like Tau, they are the Good Guys (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheRepublic), technologically advanced / advancing, focused on shooting power, with lots of steampunky gadgets. They are also the beleagered nation at the center of the setting, barely able to defend themselves against the evil enemies surrounding them on all sides. They are mostly a glass cannon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FactionCaclulus), with lots of shooting, both guns and storm-technology (tesla-weapons with lots of electro-leap and disruption and stuff); even their knights are kind of squishy but shoot lightning out of their blades and lances. Cygnar use a lot of mercs, with the best access to mercenary units. Cuturally, they are a mix of US and british elements (circa 1850-1920), with both high lords and cowboys among their ranks.

Khador is the imperialistic Russian Empire (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheEmpire) driven by conquest. Their tech is less advanced than Cygnar, but sturdier; their soldiers are tougher and driven harder for the great motherland. Their Winter Guard and their Jacks resemble the Imperial Guard a bit, while their more elite choices kind of match up against various Space Marine chapters. They have the original Dracula in Vlad, a raging Berserker eager to slaughter subordinate countrymen as much as enemy soldiers in the Butcher of Khador, they have a coldhearted Imperial Officer in Irusk and they have Baba Yaga and her walking hut. Of course, they also have a bunch of Khorne Berserkers, stalking huntsmen and trackers, Snipers, you name it. And they will actually fire their mortars and cannons into their enemy units tied down by their concripts. :)

Cryx is the Nightmare Empire, a bunch of undead / sorcerers / demonic engines completely disregarding human life. They are the nation of the nasty tricky, drowning enemies in acid clouds, raising their fallen solders as thralls, attacking from all angels with incredibly fast, stealthy units and warmachines, Their leaders are immortals, their schemes span centuries in some cases. If anythhing, they are what Necrons are in 40K.

The Protectorate of Menoth is a nation of religios fanatics and zealots, sporting knights examplers side by side with zealots carrying homemade fire bombs. They are masters of firemagic and counter magic, of buffing and of synergy. Their priests buff everything in a myriad ways. Gamewise, they are a powerhouse/steamroller faction with slow, strong, endurable models protected by layers of buffs and wards. Think of them as the Inquisition and the Grey Knights and the Sisters of Battle of Warmachine.

The Retribution of Scyrah are the Warmachine Elves. Their Wargear has a distinct Eldar vibe, their fluff has them on the brink of extinction. Angry, desperate, driven they strike back, relying on assassins and snipers just as much as on their disciplined line troops.

There are a bunch more factions in Hordes, which I'm not that familiar with.

Trolls is basically a native people driven off their lands by greedy enemies, desperate to defend their homelands. They have the size and muscle of Orks, but closer resemble kroot visually and their background is distinctly keltic.

The Legion of Everblight is basically Chaos & Tyranids with some corrupted Elves and Trolls rolled in. Fluffwise they are the legion conscripted by the fallen Dragon Everblight to prepare his resurrection from death. Think unchecked physical mutations, chaos spawns, Carnifex-like monsters, ripper swarms, etc.

The Circle of Orboros is basically angry druids with werewolves and animated stone-creatures, skinnchangers, rangers, etc.

And Skorne is pretty much roman legions meets asien death /anchestor cults.


Warmachine/Hordes is balanced in that everything is over the top broken (so as everything is over powered, it is all balanced)

Around here at least it seems to be the game of choice for tournament people and I think it serves tournament style playing much better than 40k ever has.

It also works fine for semi-casual play. :)

Angry SisterOfBattle Nerd
13-11-2012, 20:43
Thanks !
I'm currently hesitating between Khador and Menoth (I already use some Menoth Daughter of the Flame which count as cultists).

and they have Baba Yaga and her walking hut.
Woah, reminds me of the cool stuff with Baba Yaga from Hellboy :p.

Grocklock
13-11-2012, 23:12
@x-esiv-4c:
Balance creates something that GW doesn't care for. It is called "long time investment".

bit of a bold statment what evidance do you have for this. As warseer seams to be full of people who have been in the game for years as far back as rogue traders and are still around. So gw must be providing long time investment.

I too have seen people drift away from from gw to other games PP for instance. Then again I have also seen them drift away from PP to GW.

I put it to you while you may not of bought anything from GW resently are you still playing there game.
saying that they don't care about long time investment does sound rather childish.

Gaargod
13-11-2012, 23:40
bit of a bold statment what evidance do you have for this. As warseer seams to be full of people who have been in the game for years as far back as rogue traders and are still around. So gw must be providing long time investment.

I too have seen people drift away from from gw to other games PP for instance. Then again I have also seen them drift away from PP to GW.

I put it to you while you may not of bought anything from GW resently are you still playing there game.
saying that they don't care about long time investment does sound rather childish.


Few points there. For a start, no one is saying that GW are providing literally zero long-term incentive for staying around. This isn't a computer game where you play the single player a couple of times and then leave it - GW is an inherently multiplayer game (the gaming) with the hobby. This being so, you will obviously get people who stay around for decades (I've been playing some... dear god, 14 years?).

The argument is that they could do better at it. For example, in many cases it would make sense for someone to go from privateer press to GW - in a lot of places, GW just has the market covered. And they should do - they're by far the biggest players. So surely anyone going from GW to PP is an issue of concern? One has to ask why are they leaving, considering how potentially vast the hobby is (3 games systems with, what, 30+ armies? Hundreds if not thousands of individual models? Which, let's not forget, are continually being updated. And that's before you start getting onto conversion and paint schemes. That's also not counting the variation that can be done via tournaments, house-ruled campaigns, house-ruled armies/units etc).

The second highlighted point is rather important for GW's point of view. "while you may not of bought anything from GW recently" is a bad thing for GW - they want your money! Now, as I say, I've been playing this a while (sigh), but I can guarantee you I'm spending a lot less nowadays than I used to - more specifically, a much smaller percentage of my disposable income.


Basically, although they can survive (and possibly even grow, at least short-term) on new customers, there's a lot of unnecessary revenue being lost. We have to question whether the extra money/time that would need to be devoted to play-testing (etc) in order to provide a more balanced ruleset would not be offset by the increased retainment of customers (both for (very) long term customers and new customers - no one likes to find that their new stuff they just bought is actually kinda crap).

Apparently, GW management thinks it wouldn't offset it. Personally, I'd be curious...

Sildani
14-11-2012, 00:06
RandomThoughts: thanks for the good WM summary.

I'm glad GW might be taking good balance more seriously, but in my opinion they really need to focus on making a Codex that can stand the test of time i.e. the almost inevitable period between when a Codex is done, then redone, and the new Edition BRB in between.

Finally, someone had it right: GW playtests not to a tournament standard but to a casual standard. For the player who might know that a unit of, say, Reaver jet bikes are a superior use of points and a Fast Attack slot but who'll take Scourges anyway because he likes how they look better, and he might feel guilty taking so many excellent Reavers and denying his opponent a fighting chance. Something like that.

I really feel GW couldn't care less about the tourney scene, but there's a catch to that view: if they don't care, why run 'Ard Boyz? That's what I can't t quite wrap my brain around.

Ssilmath
14-11-2012, 00:12
I had heard that GW was done with 'Ard Boys, starting this year. Or did I hear wrong?

owen matthew
14-11-2012, 02:52
-All codex's are being balanced to the space marine codex.

This is what our group has assumed for almost 15 years, anyway!

Hendarion
14-11-2012, 06:10
I put it to you while you may not of bought anything from GW resently are you still playing there game.
saying that they don't care about long time investment does sound rather childish.
Actually I'm not playing the game. I am collecting. And I collect only one thing which is Eldar because I always loved the style that Jes Goodwin has created for them. So if anybody did something long-term, then Jes did.

Also, I don't need to say that GW doesn't care for long time investments. It also isn't childish. Why? Because Mark Wells himself said so. The targeted market are spontaneous impulse buys from children around age 12. He made that quite clear. Now since I am more than twice as old as their targeted market and since kids don't stay 12 for a long time, what exactly shall those long time investments be? Finecast maybe? Investment in their own profit margin, yes. But not to keep long-time fans in "The Hobby™".

RandomThoughts
14-11-2012, 09:07
Thanks !
I'm currently hesitating between Khador and Menoth (I already use some Menoth Daughter of the Flame which count as cultists).

Woah, reminds me of the cool stuff with Baba Yaga from Hellboy :p.

You're welcome, and regarding Baba Yaga:
http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/khador/warcasters/old-witch-of-khador-scrapjack

Personally, if you're torn between two armies, why not buy both? I currently own playable Cygnar, Cryx, Khador and Protectorate armies, and the combined models still take up less space in my shelf than my Eldar would, if I hadn't stowed them away in boxes.

Get two warcasters each, two or three Warjacks, two or three units of infantry you like, and a bunch of 1-point and 2-point solos to fill out odd point values.
Do that for both armies, and you can actually start to invite friends without warmachine models of their own to come over and play.

Actually, if you're really torn between Khador and the Protectorate, are you aware that they are the two factions in the Two-Player-Starter-Set? (The equivalent of Black Reach / Dark Vengence in Warmachine)? The Protectorate Incinerators seem to be the only questionable unit in the box, but they should be easy to convert to Bastions, which I always thought are a pretty cool unit. :)

Just one thing to keep in mind: Warmachine is brutal. I decided early on to play the same way I play(ed) 40K, which is in a casual semi-competitive way. I got a gaming group with people of the same mind set, and for us the system works beautifully. Sure, some stuff is good and some stuff underperforms, but we have close, exciting games no matter what we play, probably because the margin between overpowered and underpowered is a lot closer in Warmachine than in 40K. But the one time I played a compatitive-minded player, I got trashed the same way I get trashed when I bring my Eldar to the store and end up in a match against a compatitive 40K player. At least it wasn't just the list that beat me...


RandomThoughts: thanks for the good WM summary.

You're welcome :)


I'm glad GW might be taking good balance more seriously, but in my opinion they really need to focus on making a Codex that can stand the test of time i.e. the almost inevitable period between when a Codex is done, then redone, and the new Edition BRB in between.

Finally, someone had it right: GW playtests not to a tournament standard but to a casual standard. For the player who might know that a unit of, say, Reaver jet bikes are a superior use of points and a Fast Attack slot but who'll take Scourges anyway because he likes how they look better, and he might feel guilty taking so many excellent Reavers and denying his opponent a fighting chance. Something like that.

I really feel GW couldn't care less about the tourney scene, but there's a catch to that view: if they don't care, why run 'Ard Boyz? That's what I can't t quite wrap my brain around.

The issue with that is, I think their player base is a lot more compatitive than they think. I remember when I was 15. I was the only one in our group who cared about fluff beyond "my models are so cool", for everyone else it was a competition to find the most broken combination of units from early on. I still remember the "Ork" list one friend brought to a game of Fantasy. His list was 100% giants, which for some reason counted as troops choices or whatever the system had back then. Don't ever assume 14 year old boys don't power game. They might not be good at it yet, in a complex game full of stuff, and without the math skills to really optimize the crap out of it, but most of the teenage boys I know find power far more impressive than fluff.

But then again, give the little Timmys a bunch of widely unbalanced powerful units, and they will be happy like hogs once they discover them.

jt.glass
14-11-2012, 10:18
The second highlighted point is rather important for GW's point of view. "while you may not of bought anything from GW recently" is a bad thing for GW - they want your money!While it is obvioulsy true that they would prefer everyone were spending oodles of money on their stuff, they should also realise that is better for some people to play and not spend a lot than not play at all. Because people playing are free marketing, having the potential to bring more people into the game, and thos new people will spend. Network externalities and all that.


It [WarmaHordes] also works fine for semi-casual play. :)Of course it does. That is the thing about balance - it only ever helps, it never hurts. People who don't care about balance will still not care about it if it improves, while those who do will be better off.


glass.

RandomThoughts
14-11-2012, 11:39
While it is obvioulsy true that they would prefer everyone were spending oodles of money on their stuff, they should also realise that is better for some people to play and not spend a lot than not play at all. Because people playing are free marketing, having the potential to bring more people into the game, and thos new people will spend. Network externalities and all that.

Agreed.


Of course it does. That is the thing about balance - it only ever helps, it never hurts. People who don't care about balance will still not care about it if it improves, while those who do will be better off.

True. I've been saying the same thing forever.

I think what I meant is that the game is designed for competitive play, but the rules still support casual/fluffy/narrative play quite well.

Which is not necessarily a given. Take 40K as an example. Bad balance does a bad job supporting competitive play.
But counter-intuitive stuff like Eldar Jetbikes having to remain in unwinable combats while Vyper Jetbikes can simply fly away (given they survive long enough, which wasn't an issue at all last edition) doesn't support narrative play well either, because the rules don't allow for the stuff that the players feel should happen, i.e. stuff that meets the narrative expectations of the players.

I still remember when a friend of me started playing two years ago. It was one of our first games, he'd shot my Vyper (or perhaps it was a War Walker) with a Krak Missile for the first time ever. He'd fired a bunch of Heayy Bolters at my light vehicles before, with some success, and now he (rightfully?) expected his mighty Krak Missile to smash through the paper armor of the light vehicle and literally blow it away. He hit, which wasn't the problem, penetrated (which wasn't a problem either) and got a lousy Shaken result.

Don't get me wrong, in Warmachine the dice can screw you over as well (I recenly won a small-points game after I botched my charge by halb an inch with my heavy Warjack, because my enemy couldn't bring the exposed Warjack down hitting it with everything in his army for a whole turn), but when you fire the equivalent of a Krak Missile into the equivalent of a War Walker and hit it, you are normally guaranteed spectacular carnage.

IcedCrow
14-11-2012, 14:29
You have pointed out a lot of good things about warmachine. I am not a fan of the system simply because I am looking more for a company level wargame, and Warmachine is not that. However Warmachine does a really good job in keeping its units for the most part balanced so that you see a lot of different builds, whereas in 40k the "tournament builds" are roughly the same three or four builds played by 100 people with minor variations here and there.

RandomThoughts
14-11-2012, 15:05
You have pointed out a lot of good things about warmachine.

Thank you


I am not a fan of the system simply because I am looking more for a company level wargame, and Warmachine is not that.

I love thee skirmish level, but I fully understand your position and why the GW would be more to your taste.


However Warmachine does a really good job in keeping its units for the most part balanced so that you see a lot of different builds, whereas in 40k the "tournament builds" are roughly the same three or four builds played by 100 people with minor variations here and there.

Truth be told, the more time I spend in Warmachine forums, the more I get the impression that the "good" builds are just as one-dimensional in Warmachine as in 40K. I really hope these are not the good builds, but the great tournament-winning lists, and that the diversity we enjoy now won't die off until ... ever, really.

jeffzcubfan
14-11-2012, 15:24
I think that you will always see people moving away from GW or wandering to GW. Some people don't like to play a game system too long, or bore of it and want a change of scenery. Spending less on your hobby isn't necessarily a sympton of the game, but just the fact that as we get older our priorities change of where we want to spend cash.
I spend less on GW than I used to, not because I don't find the models cool or hate this or that. It's because I've been playing so long, I am just adding to my existing army. I added the latest helldrake and forgefiend to my army, but don't invest in alot of "core" figs since I have a substantial collection. Obviously the market for GW's profitability is the younger people with a higher percentage of disposable income, and the need to build from scratch, not the old veteran gamer that is just tweeking his force with a new release.
Forgworld has become the source for the items most interesting for us.
I compare GW's structure similar to Revell's models. They have the models for the beginner and experienced modeller at "reasonable" prices to encourage starting the hobby. Forgeworld is the "Modelmaster" and offers models and books for the people ready to step up their gaming/collecting to the next level. Some people never take that step, others have the means and the skills to do it.

Regards,

Jeff

Chapters Unwritten
14-11-2012, 16:15
So many unobjective statements about balance. No one has an objective mark about it at all. Makes me sad, as I like to think this game is played by and large by intelligent people, but I see people dropping these uncorrobarated truth bombs all the time. "X codex isn't balanced." "Y unit is costed wrong." People have no quantifiable data to back up these statements, they just blurt them out. They've got nothing.

Ssilmath
14-11-2012, 17:42
Truth be told, the more time I spend in Warmachine forums, the more I get the impression that the "good" builds are just as one-dimensional in Warmachine as in 40K. I really hope these are not the good builds, but the great tournament-winning lists, and that the diversity we enjoy now won't die off until ... ever, really.

The Warmachine forums are filled with poor tactical advice and ridiculous opinions about what is useful or not. Some people believe that there are only one way to win within a given faction, or that certain units are required. As an example, the Protectorate Forums have for years held that it is impossible to win without a Choir. Somehow, I managed to go three years, in three States, undefeated in tournaments without a Choir. Maybe it was poor luck, maybe it was weak metas, or favorable matchups. But telling people that they could win without it is almost unimaginable. No, the Warmachine Forums are just as narrow minded and stagnant as any wargaming forums.

Cthell
14-11-2012, 17:45
So many unobjective statements about balance. No one has an objective mark about it at all. Makes me sad, as I like to think this game is played by and large by intelligent people, but I see people dropping these uncorrobarated truth bombs all the time. "X codex isn't balanced." "Y unit is costed wrong." People have no quantifiable data to back up these statements, they just blurt them out. They've got nothing.

Very well, here's an example.

Since the 3rd ed rule book, the stat-line of a dire avenger has remained constant, including their points cost. The 4th ed codex increased the range of their guns by 6", but no made no other changes to the basic Dire Avenger.

Since the 3rd ed rule book, the stat-line of a tactical-squad space marine has remained constant, including their points cost. However, as new codexes have been introduced, these marines have gained frag grenades, krak grenades, a bolt pistol, the ability to split into combat squads depending on the tactical situation, and (via chapter tactics) the ability to variously: choose to fall-back without penalty, gain fleet, gain stubborn, or re-roll to hit with the boltgun.

At the same time, rulebook changes have improved the effectiveness of the tac-marine's boltgun, grenades, and ATKNF, whilst reducing the benefits of the Dire Avenger's Fleet.

If we assume that the SM codex was at least vaguely balance against the Eldar codex when the 3rd ed rulebook came out (after all, that was the last time that all armies were equally current), then either the Eldar have got worse, or the SMs have gotten better. Either way, the game has become less balanced.

[As for why I chose a tac-marine and a dire avenger for my examples, my reasoning is as follows: They are both troop choices (and thus have always been scoring, regardless of edition); they have kept the same stat-line through at least 2 codexes; and I have access to all SM and Eldar 'dexes since (and including) the 3rd ed rulebook]

Angry SisterOfBattle Nerd
14-11-2012, 22:18
Personally, if you're torn between two armies, why not buy both?
Because I started Sisters when the 3rd ed codex came out, and I'm still painting minis to get a full 1500 points :P. Okay, that's also because the Dwarf Codex (short, stingy and certainly drunk, that fits it perfectly ;) ! ) removed many expansive equipment I used to include, especially eviscerators. But the point is : I don't paint quickly, so I'd rather concentrate on getting one full warband before starting another.

Just one thing to keep in mind: Warmachine is brutal. I decided early on to play the same way I play(ed) 40K, which is in a casual semi-competitive way. I got a gaming group with people of the same mind set, and for us the system works beautifully. Sure, some stuff is good and some stuff underperforms, but we have close, exciting games no matter what we play, probably because the margin between overpowered and underpowered is a lot closer in Warmachine than in 40K. But the one time I played a compatitive-minded player, I got trashed the same way I get trashed when I bring my Eldar to the store and end up in a match against a compatitive 40K player. At least it wasn't just the list that beat me...
As far as I know, in the shop where I play most of my games, people range from quite competitive to extremely competitive, and a lot of them are quite experienced with Warmachine, so I guess my first plays will be one-sided annihilations, but hey, if that's what it takes to learn how to play well, so be it :P.

MrdrumMachine
14-11-2012, 23:49
whereas in 40k the "tournament builds" are roughly the same three or four builds played by 100 people with minor variations here and there.

This is one of the dumbest statements I've seen. Seriously, I know warseer is known for being one of the less competitively minded places on the internet but with the advent of a new edition the above statement is just sheer ignorance.

ehlijen
15-11-2012, 00:54
Since the 3rd ed rule book, the stat-line of a tactical-squad space marine has remained constant, including their points cost. However, as new codexes have been introduced, these marines have gained frag grenades, krak grenades, a bolt pistol, the ability to split into combat squads depending on the tactical situation, and (via chapter tactics) the ability to variously: choose to fall-back without penalty, gain fleet, gain stubborn, or re-roll to hit with the boltgun.


The reroll to hit with the boltgun is not a chapter tactics :p

That example is wrong: Tactical marines very much went up in points. A bare bones squad used to be 75 points. Now it's 90. You get more stuff for those extra 15 points, but that wasn't stuff you always wanted to take and you now don't get the option to not take it anymore.

Effective tactical squads used to be 5-6 men with lasplas for 96-111 points. Now they are 10 men for 170 points minimum with so much inbuilt gear they can't be minmaxed effectively anymore (and are thus considered a terrible troops choice by many webgenerals now).

Meanwhile Dire Avenger squads got a lot of choices for squad upgrades through their exarch.

The marine became better overall, but the Dire Avenger became better specifically at the thing he is meant to be good at. And we haven't seen yet how they are meant to be balanced in 6th ed. Any unit can get thrown out of whack by a new edition (a drawback of GWs release pattern, but one they sadly don't seem to mind :( ).

Menthak
15-11-2012, 01:35
The reroll to hit with the boltgun is not a chapter tactics :p

That example is wrong: Tactical marines very much went up in points. A bare bones squad used to be 75 points. Now it's 90. You get more stuff for those extra 15 points, but that wasn't stuff you always wanted to take and you now don't get the option to not take it anymore.

Effective tactical squads used to be 5-6 men with lasplas for 96-111 points. Now they are 10 men for 170 points minimum with so much inbuilt gear they can't be minmaxed effectively anymore (and are thus considered a terrible troops choice by many webgenerals now).

Meanwhile Dire Avenger squads got a lot of choices for squad upgrades through their exarch.

The marine became better overall, but the Dire Avenger became better specifically at the thing he is meant to be good at. And we haven't seen yet how they are meant to be balanced in 6th ed. Any unit can get thrown out of whack by a new edition (a drawback of GWs release pattern, but one they sadly don't seem to mind :( ).

From what I've seen Neither of these troops choices are inbalenced, but anyways, in my opinions it's not the little guys who are the problem, it's the ridiculous need for more OP units to be thrown into the game. If you don't believe me simply check out any of the Following: Codex:Grey Knights, Codex:Necrons, 6th Edition Rulebook; Flyers.

In addition, the lazy rate of Codex releases, I wouldn't mind if Codex A was overpowered if I knew that in a month or two Codex B would come out and address the issue or simply steal focus

RandomThoughts
15-11-2012, 06:56
This is one of the dumbest statements I've seen.

No, it's not.


Seriously, I know warseer is known for being one of the less competitively minded places on the internet but with the advent of a new edition the above statement is just sheer ignorance.

And you don't think the same thing will happen with 6th that happened with every other edition before?

Phase 1: everyone is confused, the people suffering from netlists before rechoice because suddenly the old netlists don't work anymore, the people who tailored their army to the previous editions meta are pissed off

Phase 2: People start figuring out what's actuall good in the new edition and what isn't, what's working and what is not

Phase 3: the rise of a new meta with new netlists

Cthell
15-11-2012, 08:19
The reroll to hit with the boltgun is not a chapter tactics :p

That example is wrong: Tactical marines very much went up in points. A bare bones squad used to be 75 points. Now it's 90. You get more stuff for those extra 15 points, but that wasn't stuff you always wanted to take and you now don't get the option to not take it anymore.

Effective tactical squads used to be 5-6 men with lasplas for 96-111 points. Now they are 10 men for 170 points minimum with so much inbuilt gear they can't be minmaxed effectively anymore (and are thus considered a terrible troops choice by many webgenerals now).

Meanwhile Dire Avenger squads got a lot of choices for squad upgrades through their exarch.

The marine became better overall, but the Dire Avenger became better specifically at the thing he is meant to be good at. And we haven't seen yet how they are meant to be balanced in 6th ed. Any unit can get thrown out of whack by a new edition (a drawback of GWs release pattern, but one they sadly don't seem to mind :( ).

I was using the cost of adding a single Tac-Marine to a squad (still the same) vs the cost of a single Dire Avenger (still the same).

Also, when did "2" become "a lot"?

ehlijen
15-11-2012, 08:55
I was using the cost of adding a single Tac-Marine to a squad (still the same) vs the cost of a single Dire Avenger (still the same).

Also, when did "2" become "a lot"?

Even then, the marine went up by 1 point. And I count three (shimmershield, bladestorm and defend: all provide squadwide benefits).

And my point was that such a comparison is incomplete. Adding a single squad member for the same cost is nice, but if the minimum squad size went up by 15 points by forcing you to take upgrades you don't neccessarily want you still end up with a more expensive squad. You don't buy single models, you buy units and a unit's capabilities are defined by its leader and/or specialists in 40k.

Hendarion
15-11-2012, 10:21
Whoever tries to argue that Marines got not relatively better while Avengers got relatively worse is either blind or a just tries to argue for the arguments sake.

Banville
15-11-2012, 11:00
This is a really interesting discussion.

I've a bit of a background in marketing and I think one of the oddest developments in GW's design philosophy recently has been the introduction of True Line Of Sight and the hammering home of the adjective "cinematic".

It seems to me that GW looked at Privateer Press and sat down and discussed what are the unique selling points of WHFB and 40K. It appears to me at least that some bright spark in their offices decided that numbers, scale and a "cinematic" experience were the building blocks on which the game should be built.

Following on from this we get rule books encouraging players to get down to view the battlefield from the models' perspective. Then we get the introduction of giant model kits for WHFB, like the Arachnarok. In 40K we get Flyers. All based on the concept that it is this "epic", grandiose vision that wargamers buy into.

In my opinion, I think GW have misjudged their customer base on this. I'm all for large scale games but I, personally, and any gamer I've spoken to would be happier with an elegant and complex rules set that allows for a depth of engagement rather that a vulgar and simplistic design philosophy emphasising large toys and pretending that an abstract game should reflect real-life lines of sight.

ehlijen
15-11-2012, 11:06
Whoever tries to argue that Marines got not relatively better while Avengers got relatively worse is either blind or a just tries to argue for the arguments sake.

No one is trying to argue that, are they?

What I'm saying is this:
DAs got absolutely better. Same cost, more range.
Tacticals got absolutely better. More gear, pittance in cost more individually.
But neither truly describes how their respective units changed in potential applications and the effectiveness thereof.

Vet.Sister
15-11-2012, 12:28
Future Codexes being balanced against Space Marines???
I've missed 5th & 6th Ed. so far. Wouldn't it still be better to have Imperial guard as the baseline??? ie. Balance other codexes to Codex: Imperial Guard.

ehlijen
15-11-2012, 12:39
Future Codexes being balanced against Space Marines???
I've missed 5th & 6th Ed. so far. Wouldn't it still be better to have Imperial guard as the baseline??? ie. Balance other codexes to Codex: Imperial Guard.

Space marines are the most commonly played army. The odds of any other army coming up against space marines are higher than against another non marine army.

I'm not saying it's the best strategy, but using the most commonly played codex as the baseline seems a reasonable idea.

RandomThoughts
15-11-2012, 12:52
Future Codexes being balanced against Space Marines???
I've missed 5th & 6th Ed. so far. Wouldn't it still be better to have Imperial guard as the baseline??? ie. Balance other codexes to Codex: Imperial Guard.


Space marines are the most commonly played army. The odds of any other army coming up against space marines are higher than against another non marine army.

I'm not saying it's the best strategy, but using the most commonly played codex as the baseline seems a reasonable idea.

One could also argue that Space Marines are the Mario (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackOfAllStats?from=Main.TheMario) or Jack-of-all-Trades faction in the game, despite their rather elite nature, doing everything alright (shooting, melee, fast, tanks, etc.), so it kind of makes sense to balance other factions against them.

Imperial Guard on the other hand are pretty limited in what they do, which is tanks and mass infantry, no melee and most of it slow-moving (I'm not looking at you, flyers. Actually, I'm deliverately ignoring you).

Erronius
15-11-2012, 14:14
In my opinion, I think GW have misjudged their customer base on this. I'm all for large scale games but I, personally, and any gamer I've spoken to would be happier with an elegant and complex rules set that allows for a depth of engagement rather that a vulgar and simplistic design philosophy emphasising large toys and pretending that an abstract game should reflect real-life lines of sight.

I agree but GW wanted to speed things up and even I had to admit that some things (like 2D6 termie armor saves) slowed things down. Anymore I wish they had gone to a D10 system or something similar for more die range than D6, and had kept things like the old AP system. Though that was a long time ago and the path from that to LOS might be tenuous, but I really think that they are different facets of GWs overall design philosophy change.

At times I miss the smaller sized games with more involved rulesets. And my biggest gripe with true LOS is when you have bizarre combinations (to my mind) like shooting cannons through regiments in WFB with no downside because they aren't ballistic based (as long as you can trace LOS iirc), and that even my good friends who are more casual than many people I could play as an alternative, love to break out laserpointers to see if they can trace a shot through a window and between the legs of a daemon prince just to hit a small part of the model. I don't even want to get into debates over % of model or cover or anything similar, half the time I don't even bother to argue and just shake my head.