PDA

View Full Version : Why do you think Black Guard are still capped at 20?



warplock
30-04-2013, 17:19
Does the fact that Black Guard are still capped at 20 say anything significant about GW's attitude towards the rules side of the game? Each of the options in the poll has an infuriating counter argument, as below:

1. Ignorance: this is surely impossible. There are people who work within GW who play DE and will be well aware of the restriction on this unit.
2. Laziness: doesn't make sense. There have been multiple erratas and FAQs for every army, sometimes over very trivial issues.
3. Balance: one of the ideas behind 8th was having bigger units (selling more models). They also place NO restriction on Chaos Warriors, Swordmasters, White Lions, Phoenix Guard, Temple Guard, Hammerers, etc. Black Guard are not more powerful than any of these units.
4. Irrationality: Same as point 3 above.
5. No reason: this to me seems to be, unfortunately, the most likely (and infuriating) answer. There is just no reason. They know about it, they could change it, they don't really agree or disagree with it, they do nothing about it.
6. Perhaps there are other possible reasons? I'd be interested to hear them.

decker_cky
30-04-2013, 17:19
Because 7th edition. GW almost never erratas functional rules. If they errata'd for balance, this would be concern #4032 on the list.

warplock
30-04-2013, 17:23
Because 7th edition.

I know it made sense under 7th edition rules, but that doesn't explain why they are still capped at 20 despite ample opportunity to errata it.

theunwantedbeing
30-04-2013, 17:27
Laziness.

GW haven't removed any unit caps as far as I'm aware.

decker_cky
30-04-2013, 17:31
As I edited into my post - if GW were addressing balance in their FAQs, fixing black guard would still be incredibly low on the list.

CaptainOtter
30-04-2013, 17:33
As a general rule, GW rarely fine tunes army lists. We could also make an argument for why Unit X costs this many points, or why Character B has a low leadership. It's their style of doing things, and as long as things are functional and not in desperate need of clarification I can live with it.

Bladelord
30-04-2013, 17:34
I took other reason. As far as I can remember GW have never changed written stats, pts cost or min/max unit cap.

decker_cky
30-04-2013, 17:38
I took other reason. As far as I can remember GW have never changed written stats, pts cost or min/max unit cap.

They've certainly changed stats and points costs, but I don't think they've changed unit caps. In 40k, they changed points costs and unit composition/upgrades in the past few months, but those were all on brand new armies I think. Dark Elfs, along with Lizardmen and Dwarfs are the worst offenders remaining for breaking the magic system. I would imagine that they aren't too far down the road for a rerelease.

SteveW
30-04-2013, 17:49
My dryads want their unit cap removed as well, and so do my bret knights. I want a knight bus so long that you have to charge WITH your flank.

Iron_Lord
30-04-2013, 17:50
Bretonnians and Wood Elves are, at least in terms of age, more in need of a rerelease than the three you mention.

decker_cky
30-04-2013, 17:52
Bretonnians and Wood Elves are, at least in terms of age, more in need of a rerelease than the three you mention.

Agreed, but I would argue that magic phase abuse, and not age, has been the determining factor in terms of 8th edition armybook releases.

Iron_Lord
30-04-2013, 17:55
It's possible. I might be thinking more of 40K as, recently, trying to update the oldest armies (Dark Eldar, Tau).

datalink7
30-04-2013, 18:04
I took other reason. As far as I can remember GW have never changed written stats, pts cost or min/max unit cap.

They have, and actually it was with Dark Elves that I remember them doing it. They had several pages of changes/errata. Forget what edition this was (4th or 5th?).

Iron_Lord
30-04-2013, 18:07
Later than that, surely? I remember 6E Dark Elves (when Malus Darkblade first appeared in an army book) getting those changes (mostly pts costs), not long after the High Elves book came out.

datalink7
30-04-2013, 18:11
Later than that, surely? I remember 6E Dark Elves (when Malus Darkblade first appeared in an army book) getting those changes (mostly pts costs), not long after the High Elves book came out.

Maybe that's true. I can't really remember.

decker_cky
30-04-2013, 18:14
6th edition got changes to points costs. The latest chaos marine codex has a dreadnaught's price dropped by 5 pts. At the start of 8th, lots of war machines were heavily errata'd to fit with the war machine rules (skaven war machines, cauldron of blood, anvil of doom), and steam tanks were given toughness 10 for whatever reason. Power scroll was completely rewritten by errata too. Actually, there's a shocking number of amendments that were done to the skaven book, but that's because of bad writing.

The closest thing to an errata for unit size is rat ogres, which were allowed by FAQ to take 2 rat ogres with 2 packmasters when the book says 1 per 2, but that's mostly because the book is full of pictures of units of 2 rat ogres with 2 packmasters.

ihavetoomuchminis
30-04-2013, 21:31
No reason. It's their policy. They don't change these things until the new and shiny armybook is released. In their opinion....you can just build another army (an updated one), while you are waiting for DE to be released.

enyoss
01-05-2013, 21:07
Later than that, surely? I remember 6E Dark Elves (when Malus Darkblade first appeared in an army book) getting those changes (mostly pts costs), not long after the High Elves book came out.

Technically, it was both :). Even when it was released the 4th edition Dark Elf book had an Errata sheet inserted with minor corrections clearing up stat inconsistencies. But you're right that the 6th edition book had some pretty major "this wasn't a typo but we realized it doesn't work as it is" corrections doled out.

OT: I think GW just can't be bothered. As it is, it's hardly crippling the army, so why mess with it? It's not worth the reams of complaints which will come their way should it turn out worse.

Don Zeko
02-05-2013, 04:52
Technically, it was both :). Even when it was released the 4th edition Dark Elf book had an Errata sheet inserted with minor corrections clearing up stat inconsistencies. But you're right that the 6th edition book had some pretty major "this wasn't a typo but we realized it doesn't work as it is" corrections doled out.

OT: I think GW just can't be bothered. As it is, it's hardly crippling the army, so why mess with it? It's not worth the reams of complaints which will come their way should it turn out worse.

The 6th Edition DE errata was basically the exception that proves the rule. The 6th edition book was widely considered to be underpowered, but DE had a large and vocal online community that relentlessly badgered GW for a balance errata. GW gave in and released an errata that fiddled with a few points costs and gave executioners heavy armor, and they've not done anything of the sort since then. Besides, the current rumor forum wisdom has new DE in November, so chill. Black Guard work just fine in units of 20 anyway.

StygianBeach
02-05-2013, 06:03
I like the Black Guard unit cap... it gives them a seriously elite feel.

Ratarsed
02-05-2013, 06:19
I voted other reason. GW know they are capped at 20 but see no reason to change it until the new book comes out, and neither do I. ( I don't play dark elves :p)

Rakariel
02-05-2013, 06:44
GW just doesnt care. Its not something that does impair DEs that much and will be rewritten anyway when the new book comes out (which is according to rumormongers not that far away anyway). While the cap is limiting to a certain degree I dont really care about it that much neither.

Artinam
02-05-2013, 07:02
Balance (in 7th edition), even with a Cap at 20 in 7th edition those blackguard were a very reliable and solid unit.
GW rarely changes their books in such drastic ways. For example, Pegasus Knights are also still 0-1 (unless you put your Lord general on a Royal Pegasus).

JWhex
02-05-2013, 07:51
Dark Elves are a top army and have many advantages, maybe GW does not see the need to buff them further?

Harwammer
02-05-2013, 12:57
This poll is no good.

It's an "issue"* outside the scope of how GW updates armies.

* I use bunny ears, as I don't believe it is an issue at all.

Count Zero
02-05-2013, 13:05
talking of caps didn't GW errata in a cap on DE shades at one time, initially they were 5+ but where then limited to max 15 (i assume to stamp out shadestar lists).

i am a little surprised they haven't removed the cap, mainly cause doing so would almost certainly mean players will buy more finecasted minis as a result.

theunwantedbeing
02-05-2013, 13:43
talking of caps didn't GW errata in a cap on DE shades at one time, initially they were 5+ but where then limited to max 15 (i assume to stamp out shadestar lists).

i am a little surprised they haven't removed the cap, mainly cause doing so would almost certainly mean players will buy more finecasted minis as a result.

That didn't happen.
It may well have been a tournament comp restriction but those have nothing at all to do with official GW alterations.

warplock
02-05-2013, 15:30
This poll is no good.

It's an "issue"* outside the scope of how GW updates armies.

* I use bunny ears, as I don't believe it is an issue at all.

It is an issue. It may not be game breaking, or even affect dark elf competitiveness much, but the unit cap is, much like the restriction on BSB mundane equipment in older books such as Dwarfs, an unnecessary relic of a bygone era and should be removed. GW are a miniatures company first, obviously, but that doesn't mean they should have no responsibility to keep the books reasonably in line, and there's no reason they couldn't errata the cap, just because they've never done that before. To me it speaks volumes about their attitude to the rules aspect of Warhammer.

Count Zero
02-05-2013, 20:30
That didn't happen.
It may well have been a tournament comp restriction but those have nothing at all to do with official GW alterations.

i was sure it did, and double checked, the shade 15 model limit was one of the updates with the 6th Ed revision pack. I remember thinking at the time it was odd that they dropped the max size cap on them when the 7th Ed book came out.