Jump to content

Upcoming FAQ and small Community Rant


Vextol

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, CaptainSoup said:

In all of my years of playing a variety of different games on different platforms, there has never been a game that has truly been considered "Balanced." ...

...With these changes it can help cultivate and shake the meta up a bit, maybe even bring the strong armies down a notch!

Noone expects perfection. That would be ridiculous.  I would never expect that and was not calling for that.  I just think balance can be achieved in more than one way.  Adjusting points is meh but better than nothing.

10 minutes ago, CaptainSoup said:

One thing about FAQs, and I know I've explained this more detail in a previous thread ...

...to reproduce the quote here (Page 23):

That information disheartens me.  It basically means that the FAQ will never empower.  I guess knowing is better than hoping.  Thank you for the info!!

12 minutes ago, CaptainSoup said:

"Scissors is fine, nerf paper"

-Rock

:D

Quote is amazing.  Sums up all my emotion in 6 words 😄.  5 stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Mayple said:

Haha! :DI can tell you that the very first thing I did when Malign Portrents dropped was to abuse the heck out of the spell damage reduction artifact. I mentioned Kroak earlier, and he was my most recurring opponent. That single artifact rendered him useless! It was too much of an auto-include to not bring from then on out. I'm glad they fixed it, or we'd all be brooding over how our wizards were useless (which they would be, outside of the odd outlier such as Arkhan and similar high-damage casters)

And they broke the amulet, broke Kroak, then made a god model that killed magic anyway 😉

Seriously though, if that amulet was still available, it would not be an auto include for me.  For some armies it would help a lot (kharadrons and BCR actually haha) but I would not classify it as an auto include.  But it got FAQed, and now it's "not a problem anymore".  I just really don't like that way of dealing with things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ill throw my 2 cents in here, specifically regarding Malign Sorcorery artefacts and realm spells.

i have a feeling about how theses came to be in the first place. i think someone went "how can we update all these old battletomes/armies without battletomes to give them spells and artefacts without having to release a ton of battletomes?" unfortunately the way it was impilmented means that the already good armies also got access to them when they didnt need the extras, and unfortunately its those armies that are 'breaking' the artefacts and realm spells and triggering the erratas to nerf them. if it wasnt armies like Legions of Nagash, Nighthaunt, Daughters of Khaine, Stormcast, Idoneth Deepkin etc using these items, they would never have been touched by faqs/erratas.

someone mentioned human restraint earlier? thats the problem with the game and why things are 'broken' its the community that 'breaks' these things by using them/comboing them in ways the game designers never intended. its been stated over the years that the gw writers etc play fun friendly narrative games rather than competitive win at all costs type of games, and as such its that style they write the rules for.

in regards to balance. i would like to believe that the powercreep between battletomes is accidental, as in they just come up with new concepts (like originally battletomes didnt have allegeince abillities, then they started giving armies spell lores and prayers etc) but arent updated the older books. unfortunately i dont believe that to be true. ive seen it too many times where the newest book has something intentionally to counter the powercreep of the last book and so on. additionally i feel like the armies use a internal 'tier' system which gw doesnt acknowlegde. and if an army ends up doing better than the tier they intended then they sort of punish that army by knocking it down. my issue with nerfs is that they happen way too late that really, by the time they nerf something AND increase the points, everyone stopped using it about 3 months prior

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joseph Mackay said:

ill throw my 2 cents in here, specifically regarding Malign Sorcorery artefacts and realm spells.

i have a feeling about how theses came to be in the first place. i think someone went "how can we update all these old battletomes/armies without battletomes to give them spells and artefacts without having to release a ton of battletomes?" unfortunately the way it was impilmented means that the already good armies also got access to them when they didnt need the extras, and unfortunately its those armies that are 'breaking' the artefacts and realm spells and triggering the erratas to nerf them. if it wasnt armies like Legions of Nagash, Nighthaunt, Daughters of Khaine, Stormcast, Idoneth Deepkin etc using these items, they would never have been touched by faqs/erratas.

someone mentioned human restraint earlier? thats the problem with the game and why things are 'broken' its the community that 'breaks' these things by using them/comboing them in ways the game designers never intended. its been stated over the years that the gw writers etc play fun friendly narrative games rather than competitive win at all costs type of games, and as such its that style they write the rules for.

in regards to balance. i would like to believe that the powercreep between battletomes is accidental, as in they just come up with new concepts (like originally battletomes didnt have allegeince abillities, then they started giving armies spell lores and prayers etc) but arent updated the older books. unfortunately i dont believe that to be true. ive seen it too many times where the newest book has something intentionally to counter the powercreep of the last book and so on. additionally i feel like the armies use a internal 'tier' system which gw doesnt acknowlegde. and if an army ends up doing better than the tier they intended then they sort of punish that army by knocking it down. my issue with nerfs is that they happen way too late that really, by the time they nerf something AND increase the points, everyone stopped using it about 3 months prior

Agreed. I also consider competetive gaming and the according behavior as destructive concerning long-term game fun and acquiring new players.

imo using the best units and strongest artefacts usually results in the list winning, not the player in which case one could argue that players who constantly keep fielding the strongest combos (or Units like Nagash and Morathi) might also belong to the most low-skill players since they heavily rely on the list or the „OP“ units to do the job of winning for them.

sadly competetive players are the vocal majority and at least in my area they seem to prey upon „fun-players“ in bringing hardcore lists to narrative events or simply by seal clubbing people who just want to have a tactical game without min-maxing to the last point (I refer to this as balanced lists, these have several differen‘t units and possible tactics).

sadly it feels like comp. play is forced upon most players which is sad (example: Base sizes which were a suggestion of GW, by now they‘re considered to be a fixed rule you may never break)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Agreed. I also consider competetive gaming and the according behavior as destructive concerning long-term game fun and acquiring new players.

imo using the best units and strongest artefacts usually results in the list winning, not the player in which case one could argue that players who constantly keep fielding the strongest combos (or Units like Nagash and Morathi) might also belong to the most low-skill players since they heavily rely on the list or the „OP“ units to do the job of winning for them.

sadly competetive players are the vocal majority and at least in my area they seem to prey upon „fun-players“ in bringing hardcore lists to narrative events or simply by seal clubbing people who just want to have a tactical game without min-maxing to the last point (I refer to this as balanced lists, these have several differen‘t units and possible tactics).

sadly it feels like comp. play is forced upon most players which is sad (example: Base sizes which were a suggestion of GW, by now they‘re considered to be a fixed rule you may never break)

You know what I love about competitive players? They don't constantly complain about narrative players ruining their long-term game fun and acquiring of new players ;) You're running at windmills here. 

I don't know what drives people to continue to think that generalising an entire playstyle and paint it as an unhealthy thing for the game itself is somehow okay. 

"But what about" that guy"?"

Its a meme. Let memes be dreams. Competitive players are super chill. Stop saying they're some kind of problem. Problem players are a problem, but that's an individual thing, not a group thing. I don't think that's too much of a streich to ask for (get it? Cause stretch=streich? 10/10 pun. I had to. Also had to explain the joke)

The ones in your area sounds bad though. Bringing hardcore lists to narrative events is just counter productive for everyone involved 😛 Spam lists usually have ridiculously big weaknesses (see gautfyre skorch point above), and should be seen as a sign of weak listbuilding skill unless its an intentionally gimped one for thematic purposes. Khorne skull cannon spam as a yarr pirate ship broadside list, for example. So for the desire for balanced tactical gameplay, you should actually have an advantage there, but I don't know what you're reffering to specifically, so there's no way to say for sure :)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mayple said:

You know what I love about competitive players? They don't constantly complain about narrative players ruining their long-term game fun and acquiring of new players ;) You're running at windmills here. 

I don't know what drives people to continue to think that generalising an entire playstyle and paint it as an unhealthy thing for the game itself is somehow okay. 

"But what about" that guy"?"

Its a meme. Let memes be dreams. Competitive players are super chill. Stop saying they're some kind of problem. Problem players are a problem, but that's an individual thing, not a group thing. I don't think that's too much of a streich to ask for (get it? Cause stretch=streich? 10/10 pun. I had to. Also had to explain the joke)

The ones in your area sounds bad though. Bringing hardcore lists to narrative events is just counter productive for everyone involved 😛 Spam lists usually have ridiculously big weaknesses (see gautfyre skorch point above), and should be seen as a sign of weak listbuilding skill unless its an intentionally gimped one for thematic purposes. Khorne skull cannon spam as a yarr pirate ship broadside list, for example. So for the desire for balanced tactical gameplay, you should actually have an advantage there, but I don't know what you're reffering to specifically, so there's no way to say for sure :)

 

 

 

You first day I am wrong just to say I am right?

Stretch=Streich? O.o doesn‘t Even sound familiar xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

You first day I am wrong just to say I am right?

Excuse you? What? :P Feel free to re-iterate that.

3 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Stretch=Streich? O.o doesn‘t Even sound familiar :D

Yeah, I know ;) Felt compelled to make the joke anyway. If you squint real hard, it sort of looks the same, I tell you! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience the reason you see FAQs "nerf" alot of things is generally for one of the following reasons:

1 - Players interpreted the ruling wrong, most of what comes in an FAQ is a clarification on the wording of the power, with loose wording we as players often have to interpret the precise meaning of a rule, sometimes our own desire for it to infact by the way that benefits us most blinds us to the more logical and actual reasoning behind it. By clarifying the rulings alot of players feel "nerfed" when actually it is how the rule was intended when first written.

2 - Unexpected Synergies, games designers arent gods, and players have an ability to run combinations that are harder to predict for games designers who may simply expect average and not bled competitive. In this players can find potent combinations that may tip otherwise balanced units into unintended power levels. Clarifying that these should not work can feel like a "nerf" but again, its usually an attempt to restore a unit to "as intended"

3- Broken units - yes sometimes games designers even mess up, a unit rapidly outclasses all equivalents both within its battletome and in the game in general. Whilst it would be nice if all other units were instead elevated to this level of potency you'd have a power creep escalation that was dramatic. Its far easier to tone one unit down than elevate every other unit in the game. This is the closest to a flat nerf but again, isnt a spiteful endevour but an attempt to level things out (though again, games designers can go too far the other way).

 

Also narrative gamers are people too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

...point out that unfortunately some of the op spam lists are actually narritive as well (eel spam for deepkin...

@Mayple

OP spam list. Case and point.

Is there a narrative forum I can go into and complain that the things you guys want and are interested in is ruining the competitive fun?  Because this always happens when I want to talk about balance and I don't understand it. 

Mad props to you narrative people. Have a good time.  Why does that mean we can't ask for balance or an attempt at some kind of balance without ruining the competitive nature of some of the models?  Eel spam?  Have your read the Idoneth book?  There's 4 units...2 of them are eels.  If you ruined the "eels spam" what you're saying is you want to ruin THE FACTION.  This is what GW hears and this is what happens.

What do you guys want as narrative people?  Why do you even care what the points and combos are?  Make it your own.  I don't even know why narrative enthusiasts comment on balance.  Maybe I didn't understand narrative play but I can tell you I'd never go into a discussion about narrative play and tell everyone that "it's you people who are ruining the fun"

I agree that malign sorcery feels a lot like an overhaul to a lot of systems at the same time. That's why I like it.  It gives access to things that some armies are lacking.  And every one of those things the old armies need gets FAQed away from them.  I need to be able to survive magic.  BAM.  Gone.  Killing units of kharadrons is like a video game now for tzeentch.  I need to be able to hold up super units that I can't deal with.  BAM!  Crappleganger cloak.  Enjoy getting grimgasts shoved down your Saurus warriors throats.

Back on point - Small tweaks to warscrolls could help a ton without nerfing the lists that are good.  Quick stupid example:

 Saurus knights:

Original-Stardrake Shield:  "When you make a save roll for this unit, ignore the rend characteristic unless it's -2 or better."

Potential Modified:

Sardrake shield: "Units carrying stardrake shields add 1 to their save roll.  In addition, when you make a save roll for this unit, ignore the rend characteristic unless it's -2 or better."

or

"When a units carrying stardrake shields suffer a mortal wound, roll a die.  On a  6+, ignore that wound.  In addition, when you make a save roll for this unit, ignore the rend characteristic unless it's -2 or better"

I just broke the game right?  Everyone who played seraphon would be really thrilled?  Everyone who didn't play them would be furious?  The unit is so bad, it wouldn't even really be enough.  

I don't want that specifically, don't get me wrong.  It was just an example.  But small changes to unused units could help with the "power creep" of other armies and it isn't really as daunting as everyone seems to indicate.  You don't have to do every unit every time.  Just pick one from each faction to "touch up".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Vextol said:

"Hyper competitive"=balanced.  Call it what it is.  I could just as easily say the narrative is weak.  If you want good narrative, play DND.  Or read a book. 

If they don't want a balanced game, don't sell a system requiring balance.  If they really want to pretend matched play is a big joke, give it away for free.

They don’t want a balanced game. They want what they have which is a wargames product that sells so effectively that they trade on the Stock exchange. I mean, that’s just ludicrous when you think about it. They make goblins and stuff they make literally millions of pounds.

*You* want them to make a balanced game. But over the decades of their history in which they have gone from being a cottage industry selling Toy Soldiers to a multi national industry leader selling Toy Soldiers GW have *never* promised  balance or even flirted with balanced rules as anything like a priority. They are in the business of making stories and models and they are making major cash from that.

The fact is they know full well what they want their product to do and it’s working really well. They don’t need to change anything and they can do what they want with it. 

If you want a game that offers balance I don’t know why you’re hanging around a system that manifestly dosent see it as a priority and expecting it to change to suit you.  If you don’t want to play it then don’t.

Yes they have. a system called Match Play. No they do not need to structure their business model around it or even support it any way. You pay for models. You pay for rules. Either you decide the models and rules are worth it and you buy them, or you don’t. No-one is owed an organic inherently balanced continually developed  rule system, that’s not what you’re paying for.

The GW model is that they routinely trash each rules system more or less completley and bring out a new iteration every few years. That’s manifestly how they operate, it’s not a sneaky trick. I don’t personally think it’s the best way if going about things but It’s no secret that they do it.

And more to the point, it’s very obvious that it makes them lots of money which is why they exist. There have always been people who insist that GW are going to go out of business if they don’t become more balanced, focus on better rules development etc. At this point the evidence is overwhelmingly against that being the case. GW is a success because of what it is, in essence. It’s not going to change it’s focus to be about rules and balance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Nos said:

They don’t want a balanced game....

...nce I don’t know why you’re hanging around a system that manifestly dosent see it as a priority and expecting it to change to suit you.  If you don’t want to play it then don’t. 

Let's examine the GW stock price, since you so kindly brought that up.  For years it had been struggling/stagnant.  Then, something changed.  August 2016, the profits started going  up and have been rising steadily since.  Wonder what it was that happened  in August 2016......

Then Dec. 2017, they tell people "We will constantly manage this game and tweak the balance".   The rest is history.

GW is a big company.  They make lots of changes, but ignoring the obvious correlation to the release of the GHB and organized, balanced play is just ridiculous.  They are tweaking their games.  They've always made models but it's the focus on their games and the systems that surround them that's driving sales.  You might not know it, but they will. It's why they told people how they'd FAQ.  It's why they based the schedule around tournaments.  It's why they actually promised a consumer plan for the future, something they historically never do.

I think people need to get on track with the new way this game is going.  Gameplay is driving the future and balance keeps gameplay relevant.  I think you are the one who needs to board the new train.

And for someone who purchases and plays this game as much as I do, GW doesn't want me to leave.  Telling someone not to play is toxic to the community.  Adament and caring players asking for something within the context of what the game is already doing is a good thing.  I hope others are not dissuaded.

Do you NOT want balance?  This isn't even on topic anymore.  The topic should have been "Ways to approach balance".  That's what I wanted to discuss.  Why we and the designers always need to approach balance from subtraction instead of addition.  I didn't expect to get into why GW shouldn't care about balance.  I'm not sure where this player pocket of negatively comes from.  Who wouldn't want them to try to make the game balanced?  It's nuts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Let's examine the GW stock price, since you so kindly brought that up.  For years it had been struggling/stagnant.  Then, something changed.  August 2016, the profits started going  up and have been rising steadily since.  Wonder what it was that happened  in August 2016......

Then Dec. 2017, they tell people "We will constantly manage this game and tweak the balance".   The rest is history.

GW is a big company.  They make lots of changes, but ignoring the obvious correlation to the release of the GHB and organized, balanced play is just ridiculous.  They are tweaking their games.  They've always made models but it's the focus on their games and the systems that surround them that's driving sales.  You might not know it, but they will. It's why they told people how they'd FAQ.  It's why they based the schedule around tournaments.  It's why they actually promised a consumer plan for the future, something they historically never do.

I think people need to get on track with the new way this game is going.  Balance is driving the future.  I think you are the one who needs to board the new train.

And for someone who purchases and plays this game as much as I do, GW doesn't want me to leave.  Telling someone not to play is toxic to the community.  Adament and caring players asking for something within the context of what the game is already doing is a good thing.  I hope others are not dissuaded.

As someone who has been in the hobby for 20 + years I’ve yet to be convinced by this argument. I think for example the Start Collecting sets and Community aspects of the Website, Duncan videos etc which just happen to coincide with GW’s upturn are far more important. Stuff that enables people to buy models and encourages them to paint them and creates enthusiasm around the hobby. Following on from that, the return to specialist games, board games etc, A return to GW as a hobby ecosystem. That’s why GW has done so well the past few years I think. If people really feel that one fling FAQ a year amounts to a commitment to balance, well, they’re easily persuaded is all I’ll say. If you look at the trends-more models, more games, more bundles, more focus on entry level light skirmish systems, more battletomes with characterful rules and battalions that aren’t remotley balanced vs the supposed revolution in balance driving the future-an FAQ and uh..what else? I think it’s pretty clear why GW are doing well just now.

You were the person who said that if narrative is important play D and D, read a book, and give us the matched play system for free if GW are not going to balance it. Wouldnt say that counts as a particularly constructive observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nos said:

You were the person who said that if narrative is important play D and D, read a book, and give us the matched play system for free if GW are not going to balance it. Wouldnt say that counts as a particularly constructive observation.

That's not actually true, just to quickly set the record straight.  That's out of context.  I would never want that.  It was a correlation to other comments made (not by me)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixing weak units with a point reduction is a surrender. GHB should be a place where poor units are reworked and get new warscrolls. Same with allegiance as it is now. Point reduction didn't work with Kharadrons and Ironjawz in the last ghb, they are still weak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Vextol said:

That's not actually true, just to quickly set the record straight.  That's out of context.  I would never want that.  It was a correlation to other comments made (not by me)

 

Apologies in that case 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nos and @Vextol

you don‘t get what I mean:

Comp. Players tend to use overtuned lists no matter if it‘s warranted for the type of event they‘re joining or not. It all revolves around min-max and they‘re usually unable to see this as a hobby Instead they see it as  a chance TO WIN.  Which works as Jack of RR1s put it: „You want to get off your Ugly before they can get off theirs“.

A new player? Let‘s seal club him.

a narrative event? Let‘s netlist.

a friendly game? Eat my alphastrike combo.

realm Artefacts? Only give me the ones which are over the tops.

especially the comp. players I KNOW are  so narrowminded concerning their way of playing that even conversations are a real pain since it‘s all about „what is powerful? If it‘s not you cannot use it. That unit is trash, don‘t use it!“

in all sincerity: Listbuilding in AoS is such a trivial task that building a strong list is freakin‘ simple. You don‘t even have much choice with most armies.

I am myself a mixed player. I like to have a combo that WON‘T grant me an auto-win, and s list that features several different units instead of one hero and XY times the strongest unit.

 

To get to the point:

Narrative Players want balance as well. If every unit had a purpose (the right costs) no one could ever get seal clubbed.

why we dislike spam lists? They‘re boring: you‘ve seen them a million times and there‘s just no variety. Sure it‘s the strongest list, but do you really need to win so badly you couldn‘t come up with your own creative list?

As a side-Note: even our competetive  players are fed up seeing Nagash and Miratji or Lady Olynder 24/7. but they still field them themselves since they „would miss out“ or have to „face them without having their own big bad boy“. They‘re limiting themselves with this stupid, boring imaginary arms-race.

 

GW themselves don‘t claim AoS  was a comp. game. Underworlds is their comp. game.

 

I am writing this from experience so your local experience might vary vastly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

@Nos and @Vextol

you don‘t get what I mean:

Comp. Players tend to use overtuned lists no matter if it‘s warranted for the type of event they‘re joining or not. It all revolves around min-max and they‘re usually unable to see this as a hobby I stead of a chance TO WIN.  Or as Jack of RR1s put it: „You want to get off your Ugly before they can get off theirs“.

A new player? Let‘s seal club him.

a narrative event? Let‘s netlist.

a friendly game? Eat my alphastrike combo.

realm Artefacts? Only give me the ones which are over the tops.

especially the comp. players I KNOW are  so narrowminded concerning their way of playing that even conversations are a real pain since it‘s all about „what is powerful? If it‘s not you cannot use it. That unit is trash, don‘t use it!“

in all sincerity: Listbuilding in AoS is such a trivial task that building a strong list is freakin‘ simple. You don‘t even have much choice with most armies.

I am myself a mixed player. I like to have a combo that WON‘T grant me an auto-win, and s list that features several different units instead of one hero and XY times the strongest unit.

 

To get to the point:

Narrative Players want balance as well. If every unit had a purpose (the right costs) no one could ever get seal clubbed.

why we dislike spam lists? They‘re boring: you‘ve seen them a million times and there‘s just no variety. Sure it‘s the strongest list, but do you really need to win so badly you couldn‘t come up with your own creative list?

As a side-Note: even our competetive  players are fed up seeing Nagash and Miratji or Lady Olynder 24/7. but they still field them themselves since they „would miss out“ or have to „face them without having their own big bad boy“. They‘re limiting themselves with this stupid, boring imaginary arms-race.

 

I am writing this from experience so your local experience might vary vastly.

I agree with all of that and in an ideal world I would much rather AOS were an intrinsically more balanced game where everything has a purpose. However in a lifetime of playing strategy games and wargames on both the tabletop and PC multiplayer this is the Holy Grail, but it has never been accomplished.

In broader terms I think this is true of life in general on both counts. We want things to be fair and balanced.  Very few things are though. Even within strictly competitive models, such as sport, it is not fair. Different teams have different amounts of money, or access to better nutrition and athletic practice etc. Chess is probably the only game in which sheer mastery of the game alone is what creates victory. 

The reason I say all this is to demonstrate that balance  is not just hard to accomplish in wargames, it’s hard to accomplish in literally anything. No matter how simple some people think it would be to bring it to AOS, they’re wrong. GW are not stupid, if it was easy to make a better product then of course they would do it. The reality is that tge amount of work and investment it would require for GW to be what some people think it should be would dwarf what GW puts into all of its resources at present. 

GW are a Game and mini manufacturer above all else and they’re not going to change it. The wargames hobby exists almost exclusively on the basis that people have been able to work out among themselves what it is they want from the hobby and how they do it. Very few battles in history or even in fiction are the consequence of a gentlemanly agreement that only x amount of an equal sum will be fielded against one another. They are fundamentally dramatic reflections of power narratives which are so exhilarating because of that wider context.

There are multiple outlets for people who want to play systems which imperfectly strive for equality and balance as their priority . There are comparatively fewer outlets which facilitate the very specific thrill of characterful armies bumping up against each other in various narrative circumstances. The overwhelming strength behind that appeal is not balance but how armies look and feel. In a nutshell GW is in the business of making the best looking, best feeling armies in wargames. That’s the reason for their success and they’re doubling down on that with every passing year. Because at the end of the day you can always apply different rules to the models or reach a consensus among yourselves. But you can’t replicate the charisma and sheer visual effect of a GW army on the table. And sensibly what they’ve done with their rules of late is focus less on making a contest between armies an equal thing but rather an expression of the respective forces different strengths and weaknesses. 

Power Ganers are free to make everything boring with Morathi and Nagash every game if they wish but in my experience it’s self policing. They either find people who are happy with that so it’s not an issue, or people stop playing them. People tend to find their level. In a hobby which is so focussed on sociability, it’s kind of implicit really.  That’s not a hobby issue, GW can’t stop people being tryhards.

Every hobby I’ve enjoyed has required I either invest in finding my place in a community I feel I can invest in, or accepting that it might just not be a possibility in some instances if that isn’t the case. My first 5-6 years “playing” Warhammer I probably played about a dozen games total because there wasn’t really a local scene where I felt comfortable. It was my decision to just focus on collecting and painting and absorbing myself in the Lore rather than waste hours playing against people who wanted to win at all costs. But then there was more of a focus then on making the hobby what you wanted it. Now it seems there is a substantial minority who believe what they want should be universally implemented even if the majority don’t want it for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Nos said:

There are multiple outlets for people who want to play systems which imperfectly strive for equality and balance as their priority . There are comparatively fewer outlets which facilitate the very specific thrill of characterful armies bumping up against each other in various narrative circumstances. The overwhelming strength behind that appeal is not balance but how armies look and feel. 

This is what I fundamentally disagree with. The idea that we can't both get what we want.  Why does balance have to exclude good looking armies?  It doesn't.  It always seems like in everything I'm on the side of "let's try to do all of it" and the opposition says "just do what I want".  I don't want them to stop making good looking models. I dont want them to hurt narrative. I want all the things, because it's a damn expensive hobby, and they should.

But this wasnt supposed to be a discussion about balancing the game. They ARE trying to do that, at least, it seems as though they are giving it a college try.   Every decision they are making seems to lead more and more and more to that realization.  It was supposed to be a discussion about how they are balancing the game but we're way off that now.

And, a substantial minority isn't a minority.  It's a base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Vextol said:

This is what I fundamentally disagree with. The idea that we can't both get what we want.  Why does balance have to exclude good looking armies?  It doesn't.  It always seems like in everything I'm on the side of "let's try to do all of it" and the opposition says "just do what I want".  I don't want them to stop making good looking models. I dont want them to hurt narrative. I want all the things, because it's a damn expensive hobby, and they should.

But this wasnt supposed to be a discussion about balancing the game. They ARE trying to do that, at least, it seems as though they are giving it a college try.   Every decision they are making seems to lead more and more and more to that realization.  It was supposed to be a discussion about how they are balancing the game but we're way off that now.

And, a substantial minority isn't a minority.  It's a base.

What are they doing beyond an FAQ to balance the game? I really don’t follow this supposed revolution which really confuses me as I would have thought having been in the hobby for decades that such an about turn would be obvious. I’ve noticed changes but none of them have pointed to a striving for balance. The competitive meta is pretty stagnant and the recent FAQ has done nothing to alter that.  The release of AOS 2.0 only really brought further narrative flavour in respect to Lore and things like Endless Spells and Realms (ie greater imbalance at a trade off of greater character, something they have implemented in their own competitive tournaments). There really wasn’t much in the way of anything aimed at making games fairer. Plenty aimed at making games more exotic and random though.

 What else am I missing? You say it’s meant to be a discussion about how they are balancing the game, my input is that they arent really and that you need to be able to demonstrate it is their intent to begin with, because for all intents and purposes the evidence dies not support that balance is.a priority.  Not in comparison to where they are actually investing their resources at any rate. 

As I alluded to in my post, balance is exceptionally difficult to achieve even in fairly simple circumstances, let alone across a universe with intentional assyemtrical faction representation. The Mortal Realms themselves are not balanced in any sense for one thing, leading to a narrative dissonance. If Stormcast are no more powerful than any other faction that makes a mockery of their lore. That’s just one example why you shouldn’t expect both.

Re Price-yes it’s an expensive hobby. But it is what it is. You pay for what it is *now*, not what it might become. It’s a simple consumer decision. GW are not marketing their products as a balanced system either now or in the future. You’re buying models and rules for what they are, either you agree that’s worth it or you don’t. They’re not attached to some sort of development plan that you’re investing in as part of the cost. You’re paying for plastic in respective to models and media content in terms of rulebooks etc. That’s all. They don’t owe you future development of your purchase in the form of a more agreeable rules system to play with. Again, it’s very apparent from GW’s pricing model that rulebooks and even entire ranges have a shelf life in respect to the most current iteration of each system’s core rules. You pay for what you get at the point of purchase. That’s it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nos said:

What are they doing beyond an FAQ to balance the game? I really don’t follow this supposed revolution which really confuses me as I would have thought having been in the hobby for decades that such an about turn would be obvious. I’ve noticed changes but none of them have pointed to a striving for balance. The competitive meta is pretty stagnant and the recent FAQ has done nothing to alter that.  The release of AOS 2.0 only really brought further narrative flavour in respect to Lore and things like Endless Spells and Realms (ie greater imbalance at a trade off of greater character, something they have implemented in their own competitive tournaments). There really wasn’t much in the way of anything aimed at making games fairer. Plenty aimed at making games more exotic and random though.

 What else am I missing? You say it’s meant to be a discussion about how they are balancing the game, my input is that they arent really and that you need to be able to demonstrate it is their intent to begin with, because for all intents and purposes the evidence dies not support that balance is.a priority.  Not in comparison to where they are actually investing their resources at any rate. 

As I alluded to in my post, balance is exceptionally difficult to achieve even in fairly simple circumstances, let alone across a universe with intentional assyemtrical faction representation. The Mortal Realms themselves are not balanced in any sense for one thing, leading to a narrative dissonance. If Stormcast are no more powerful than any other faction that makes a mockery of their lore. That’s just one example why you shouldn’t expect both.

The "been in the hobby for decades" is the old trick to prop your opinion above others'.  Know how long I've been playing?  You don't.  Because I never say .  I value opinions from all sources, not just the those who've had them the longest.

If  you haven't seen the balancing I'm not sure what to say.  GHB points for one.  No need for those at all outside of a game intended for some kind of balance.  Certainly don't need to update it yearly. 

Attempting twice to fix the summoning mechanic.  

FAQs that exist to clarify and balance.  Their words. 

Rules of 1 followed by updated rules of 1 followed by a complete core handbook of rules expanding the simple 4 page ruleset to 20. 

Introduction of look out sir to compensate for shooting and an expanded LOS mechanism. 

The introduction of BtB measurement, something completely unnecessary for narrative games.  Who care right?  It's just for fun.

Rewording and more stabdardization of common phrases in war scrolls to better serve a future outlook.  Why standardize?  Just keep writing however you want.

You say that the malign sorcery and the realms were just for narrative?  That's silly. I think they were just for matched play.  Step off my stuff!  Seriously though, they were for both, something I strongly support.

The release of an app, which at onset, was supposed to be able to update things more frequently.  An APP that has no value to collectors.  No value whatsoever to a group of people interested in just pretty looking models.  And what costs money?  The POINTS.  Because that's where they make their money.  They make it on the point system.

These are all balancing things that aren't necessary for a company only interested in making a 'book on table' with a bunch of fancy plastic. 

Also, they tried that.  Remember when AoS came out and noone played and they had all the fancy models?  Remember when they considered canning the line because noone wanted it?  You should because it happened. Then GHB came out and it started  to turn thing around.  Step one of examining a company's success is throw out the most obvious source.  How better to make the mistake again.

I have no idea what game you are playing if you don't think they are trying to balance the game more over time. 

What else am I missing?  Oh, you never address the notion that I shouldn't want them to balance it.  You don't want balance?  Tell me why.  Why don't you want them to strive for balance?  It's impossible which I understand, but improvement is not.  It's just warscrolls and numbers, the model line can continue to grow and remain the focus of the company.   I want them to keep making good models   I want them to build cool backstory.  I could give a rats a** about it, but I know there  are people who like it and I want them to have a good experience.

Whats so awful about asking that, WHEN they balance, not if because they do it at least 3 times a year, when they balance, I'd like them to consider making other units more interesting, not just reducing the effectiveness of "overused" units.  I'm not calling for perfect balance  I just want more models to be relevant.  Why is that a bad thing to want?

Bah...I went long and crabby. I think I'm done. Time to abandon the internet for a few weeks again.  Here's to the upcoming FAQ !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jetengine said:

The irony is the more balanced competetive games such as Malifaux and Warmahordes are currently in a downswing whilst GWs more unbalanced system is very much in the upswing.

I tihnk for games like Malifaux the main issue is advertising. Small developers like that just don't have much of a marketing budget and impact and with GW firing on all fronts it really dominates the marketing scene. 

Warmachine is having its own issues from before GW started to recover - closing most of their forum groups; shutting down their PG system; having iffy quality plastics and a messy launch of MKIII combined with them mostly dropping stat cards as a feature (sort of in that they are updating them so often they are becoming worthelss too fast); all of that together kind of hit their market on the head in a big way and has caused them to bleed a lot of players very suddenly. 

That GW started to recover its market hold and interest from the market has likely caused additional issues for PP. That said PP are still one of the big fish an can still recover and I hope they do. GW is great, but they need competition in the market. Not just for variety and to provide something GW doesn't, but for healthy competition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...