Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Vextol

Upcoming FAQ and small Community Rant

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Has anyone realized that when we get new FAQs, it's always making a unit or ability worse?  With the exception of the fyreslayer shield throw, has anyone seen a unit that got considerably better after being FAQed?  

Turtle got 3 more shots so his shooting went from absolutely terrible to just plain terrible...um...blanking on any others off the bat that are a notable improvement.  I'm sure that we can come up with a few, but the point is definitely there.  I dread reading FAQs for my army and delight in reading them for others.  This is a problem.

I think we as a community need to encourage...snerfs?  Or Unnerfs?  Something that positively impacts poor units in ways that can deal with problematic units elsewhere. 

I know for balancing and general purposes, it's easier to make a large group of people happy by making a small group of people unhappy but I think it's a dangerous mindset.  I don't blame GW.  As a community, we absolutely support and push for it but I think going forward, we should spend more time discussing how to make unused units good and spend less time talking about making good units worse.

Edited by Vextol
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well to be fair isn't the GHB usually the thing that gives buffs? Though that may have mostly been due to summoning, such as FEC or Slaanesh.

FAQs/Erratas are mostly for rule clarifications rather than "ok add +3 attacks to Mournfangs". (But that would be pretty sweet)

Edited by kenshin620

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

Well to be fair isn't the GHB usually the thing that gives buffs? Though that may have mostly been due to summoning, such as FEC or Slaanesh.

FAQs/Erratas are mostly for rule clarifications rather than "ok add +3 attacks to Mournfangs". (But that would be pretty sweet)

Sure, except not really.  The FAQs almost always are where the big, army crippling changes occur even though everyone does say that's not true.   FAQs and battletomes. 

GHB mostly deals with points and while I used to be very pro "points are all we need" I  have completely changed my tone.  I think points can make small changes only.  They're a "final tweak" best left in very small increments.

Even more so there is a practicality standpoint.  Saurus knights are terrrible.  What if they were 20 points?  Well.....they'd still be terrible, you just have more.  And that is a really bad premise to the game.  So innate baddness is to be overcome by numbers?  Every time?  In some situations sure.  But thematically, do we think 10 Skinks are reasonable along side 600 knights?  Seems dumb.  And I don't want to paint them.

As for the GHB, unless it incorporates Malign Sorcery, artifacts, realms, and realm spells, the GHB this year will be the least impactful rules wise as it's ever been.  It helps armies without battletomes, but what those armys need is battletomes, not an updated GHB.

Edited by Vextol
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any specific examples for this? It's hard to discuss a blanket statement :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an ability is underpowered, it can ruin a unit. If an ability is overpowered, it can ruin the whole game. 

I imagine buffing units just isn't a priority for the rules team. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

These 

17 minutes ago, Mayple said:

Do you have any specific examples for this? It's hard to discuss a blanket statement :P

Of what?  Units that are never used because they're underpowered or units that we're "overpowered" that we're FAQed?

15 minutes ago, Blightzkrieg said:

If an ability is underpowered, it can ruin a unit. If an ability is overpowered, it can ruin the whole game. 

I imagine buffing units just isn't a priority for the rules team. 

This is the problem.  Debuffing is just the opposite side of the same coin.  People complain and GW debuffs units that are "so broken it ruins the game" and destroy entire factions.  Then, after a few small changes (almost ALWAYS buffs and additions caused by battletomes or huge game changes), those "so broken units" are forgotten and the faction could have been fine as it was.

Balance should be the focus for the rules team.  A scale that reads 5 on one side and 2 on the other can be righted in more than one way.  As it is, they just take 3 from the side with 5.  Occasionally they take 4. 

I think if we just changed the way we approached thingsFAQs could balance and not hurt collections.  We Could get away from "tat unitz Brken!!!!" and say "Hey, my horses need to do d3, not 1 on the charge".

Edited by Vextol
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vextol said:

Of what?  Units that are never used because they're underpowered or units that we're "overpowered" that we're FAQed?

Both of the above ;) And also..

 

1 minute ago, Vextol said:

People complain and GE debuffs units that are "so broken it ruins the game" and destroy entire factions. 

What factions are getting, or have been, destroyed by debuffs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Mayple said:

Both of the above ;) And also..

 

What factions are getting, or have been, destroyed by debuffs?

Destroyed?  BCR, kharadrons, changeling, sayl (I was originally talking about anything touched by the FAQs, I wasn't so extreme until a later expression) from memory.  That doesn't include every artifact that has been FAQed (always broken).  Probably Idoneth this month if I'm playing psychic.

Damaged?  Way too many to name.  

Units that are never used or viewed as incredibly underpowered?  Wow.  Alright.   Greenskinz faction (probably dying), most seraphon infantry, stegadons,  reavers, the scary sylvaneth infantry, graveguard, skullcrushers, lots of heroes, the new fat wasp nurgle riders and most of their heroes, alloplexes, several SCE units.  This is silly. 

I'm sure there is some abstract "case" for the models I listed but come on.  There are tons of units that are really cool models that could be very interesting that are incredibly underwhelming. 

I don't really understand how people would rather ruin other people's units instead of wanting poor units to get better.  That is a really sour attitude to have. 

If the rules team bans grimghast from being taken with grand host, which has no impact on me or anyone else I even know, that would be really terrible and I would feel bad for people who bought and painted models that now are left in a state of homelessness.  And what I've seen from the community is an attitude of "Too bad!  Probably shouldn't have done that."  Well...that sucks.

Edited by Vextol
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Units that are never used or viewed as incredibly underpowered?  Wow.  Alright.   Greenskinz faction (probably dying), most seraphon infantry, stegadons,  reavers, the scary sylvaneth infantry, graveguard, skullcrushers, lots of heroes, the new fat wasp nurgle riders and most of their heroes, alloplexes, several SCE units.  This is silly

If you think blood reavers and skullcrushers are underpowered you need to see a psychologist.

As for units being buffed by FAQ; bloodcrushers (flat out rewrite in wrath & rapture),

evocators (ability to cast lore of invorgation spells), 

necromancer (undead minions changed to work on any summonable unit instead of just skeletons and zombies),

the entirety of legions of nagash (addition of nighthaunt units), 

skarbrand (nothing stops total carnage. Ever.), 

thunder quake starhost (choose which buff you get in the charge phase instead of the combat phase. It's a buff because one of the options is reroll charges),

astrolith bearer (generates summoning points and doesn't have to plant the standard to give the buffs),

blades of khorne (addition of summoning table),

the God marked battalions from beasts of chaos not be counted as allies in God marked armies (ie brass despoilers can use the blades of khorne rules),

and in light of all the debuffing that gloomspite gitz and legions of nagash do I'd argue that the bloodletter change to unmodified 6s dealing mortals on top of normal damage is a buff not a nerf.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Destroyed?  BCR, kharadrons, changeling, sayl from quick memory.  That doesn't include every artifact that has been FAQed (always broken).  Probably Idoneth this month if I'm playing psychic.

Damaged?  Way too many to name.  

Units that are never used or viewed as incredibly underpowered?  Wow.  Alright.   Greenskinz faction (probably dying), most seraphon infantry, stegadons,  reavers, the scary sylvaneth infantry, graveguard, skullcrushers, lots of heroes, the new fat wasp nurgle riders and most of their heroes, alloplexes, several SCE units.  This is silly. 

I'm sure there is some abstract "case" for the models I listed but come on.  There are tons of units that are really cool models that could be very interesting that are incredibly underwhelming.

If memory serves, Beastclaw Raiders were heavily abusing (or merrily chugging, if you will) the battle brew which at the time would buff both their rider and their mount, making them outrageously, table-wipingly strong (in context of what was around at the time).  Combined with the way the Stonehorn damage halving worked at the time, this made them a pretty big problem. This caused GW to separate mounts from their riders when it came to command traits and artifacts. BCR more or less paved the way for the system we have today, or at the very least had a notable impact on it. I'm unsure how the Stormcast Extremis release played into that, so take that with a grain of salt. Regardless, it all happened a while after the battletome was released, making the battletome itself weak, since it wasn't balanced with that in mind. I do think Beastclaw deserves another take, but the nerfs were well founded at the time.

Kharadrons upon release more or less -immediatedly- jumped on the stacking khemist + unspecificied number of cannons/mortars in a unit of thunderers bandwagon and pulled all the attention in the aethersphere onto the issue. Got promptly shut down. I don't have the rest of their changes embedded to memory, so feel free to add to it if there's other notable nerfs they received. The mentioned nerf was spot on, in any case.

Don't remember the changeling one, and I'm very interested in knowing how it used to be! 

I'll note Skyfires in it's place. A healthy point adjustment, as it was way out of line. 

Sayl was straight up getting abused for his speed bonus :P He's still around, just not abusable to the same extent, which was the only reason you'd see him at all. An obscure character that had his rise and fall from fame. The age of Sayl will be remembered. 

Of the ones mentioned above, pretty much all of them were hit with the big nerfbat as a direct result of how blatantly abusable they were, and how much attention was pulled to it. Cause and effect. Outside of BCR, which had a very vocal opposition calling for nerfing (can you imagine a time where people actually conceded the match upon seeing Beastclaw Raiders on the other side? The legends are true), and Skyfires, who fell into the "unfun to play against" category, there wasn't all that much outrage (to my knowledge; correct me where I'm wrong, by all means). The game was pretty volatile at this point anyway, so weird, cheesy combinations (like Sayl) weren't game-breaking, but also not working as intended. Sayl throwing supersonic skaven hordes around isn't exactly thematic ;) Kharadron and Beastclaw Raiders biggest problem is that their battletomes haven't aged well at all. The game is different now, and their intended playstyle is not working out for them.


As for units, I absolutely agree with you. Plenty of units are weaker than they ought to be, or too expensive to bring at all. I'll be very happy the day I see a properly massed Saurian infantry on the opposing side, but I only see their much more useful skink cousins nowadays.  Same with graveguard, sadly - but I'll not list out every one you mentioned. I agree with the general point you're making on the units, while I somewhat disagree with the battletome//army points. Agree that they're weak as a result of nerfs and such, disagree that it was unneccessary :)

Edited by Mayple
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Gotrek said:

If you think blood reavers and skullcrushers are underpowered you need to see a psychologist....

...a buff not a nerf.

I'll ignore the  unnecessary insult.  I haven't seen the new warscroll.  If it's the one on the app....meh.  I'd have to see it played.   Either way, good!  Some positives!  I think at least half are neutral,  clarifications or justifications but it's something. 

19 minutes ago, Mayple said:

If memory serves, Beastclaw Raiders were heavily abusing (or merrily chugging, if you ...

...Agree that they're weak as a result of nerfs and such, disagree that it was unneccessary :)

I've played a million factions and am usually on the worst end of things, basically days after I finish painting.  I'm almost done with my 15th eel and 40th thrall.  I'm planning on being dead inside in a few weeks.   

Kharadrons got nerfed  AND pointed up.  That's always what happens. . .Same thing to BCR.  

I just don't like the way it's handled.  Undo the wound thing on BCR.  We all agree, they're much worse right?  We can't give them back their half wounds?  Battlebrew is dead anyway.  FAQs are so final.  Once it goes in there, it's harder to change than a battletome.

I understand the need to tweak combos that are abused or unintended, but so often that is the ONLY focus.  I want more focus on what we don't have and less on what we want taken away.  At very least, have it be close to equal.

 

Edited by Vextol
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Vextol said:

I've played a million factions and am usually on the worst end of things, basically days after I finish painting.  I'm almost done with my 15th eel and 40th thrall.  I'm planning on being dead inside in a few weeks.   

Kharadrons got nerfed  AND pointed up.  That's always what happens. . .Same thing to BCR.  

I just don't like the way it's handled.  Undo the wound thing on BCR.  We all agree, they're much worse right?  We can't give them back their half wounds?  Battlebrew is dead anyway.  FAQs are so final.  Once it goes in there, it's harder to change than a battletome.

I understand the need to tweak combos that are abused or unintended, but so often that is the ONLY focus.  I want more focus on what we don't have and less on what we want taken away.  At very least, have it be close to equal.

 

If it makes you feel more at ease with your current faction, both the Beastclaw Raiders and the Kharadron Overlord tweaks were done at a time when the rules being put forth were generally lacking. A time of "No you can't", and not  "Yes you can, but.." in regards to a whole bunch of rules. Notably things like everything requiring summoning points, regardless of whether it made sense or not (Flamespyre phoenixes, for example. Why set aside points for one that has a possibility of reviving, if you can just bring two to begin with?) - and the rules of ones conflicting with warscrolls and battalions often enough to warrant a proper headscratching (Fyreslayers even had a battalion they straight up could not benefit from, Lords of the Lodge, because nothing could affect the turn order dice) - Which all changed with GHB2. The wording on rules also changed quite drastically around this time, so I'm faaaiirly certain they brought fresh blood into the mix. 

Which does not mean that they'll never do weird rule things again, but you can count on it being a bit more consistent and thought-through than in the past.

On the far end of that kind of thinking though; Is there even anything remotely game breaking about deepkin right now? I know their infantry is amazing, and their shark is underwhelming, but that's where that knowledge-ship (doink) stops :P I don't imagine they'll get hit with anything too severe, unless it turns out they've been hiding a small tactical nuke under that turtle. 

Edited by Mayple
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a ton of anecdotal statements here frankly.

 

As for the BCR and Kharadrons they were OP out the gate and then AOS2 changed design philosophy away from the two, thats literally it.

Bcr - Low model count beast faction, now cant hold objectives due to the new system.

KO - All about shooting in a game where shooting is easier to shut down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mayple said:

If it makes you feel more at ease with your current faction, both the Beastclaw Raiders and the Kharadron Overlord tweaks were done at a time when the rules being put forth were generally lacking. A time of "No you can't", and not  "Yes you can, but.." in regards to a whole bunch of rules. Notably things like everything requiring summoning points, regardless of whether it made sense or not (Flamespyre phoenixes, for example. Why set aside points for one that has a possibility of reviving, if you can just bring two to begin with?) - and the rules of ones conflicting with warscrolls and battalions often enough to warrant a proper headscratching (Fyreslayers even had a battalion they straight up could not benefit from, Lords of the Lodge, because nothing could affect the turn order dice) - Which all changed with GHB2. The wording on rules also changed quite drastically around this time, so I'm faaaiirly certain they brought fresh blood into the mix. 

Which does not mean that they'll never do weird rule things again, but you can count on it being a bit more consistent and thought-through than in the past.

On the far end of that kind of thinking though; Is there even anything remotely game breaking about deepkin right now? I know their infantry is amazing, and their shark is underwhelming, but that's where that knowledge-ship (doink) stops :P I don't imagine they'll get hit with anything too severe, unless it turns out they've been hiding a small tactical nuke under that turtle. 

Take a look at the forums 😉. You obviously do!  I see the same thing I did before  past nerfs; "Eels are over powered" "Volturnos is broken" "Not fun to play against" yada yada yada.   

This its too specific so it kind of gets away from my point.  I want more "I wish reavers were better" and "if they had a better range/bravery/save/something". 

I want "Skeletons are too cheap but really, graveguard are too expensive".  

Just something other than "Your stuff makes me sad so I want it broken"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jetengine said:

Bcr - Low model count beast faction, now cant hold objectives due to the new system.

On that note, I wonder if they would fare better if they were allowed to disregard the maximum number of behemoths you can bring in an army - or some kind of "Objective secured" type of ability along the lines of how they handle Knights in 40k. 

Time will tell, I suppose :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jetengine said:

Theres a ton of anecdotal statements here frankly.

 

As for the BCR and Kharadrons they were OP out the gate and then AOS2 changed design philosophy away from the two, thats literally it.

Bcr - Low model count beast faction, now cant hold objectives due to the new system.

KO - All about shooting in a game where shooting is easier to shut down.

So before the changes, after the nerfs KO and BCR were still very viable, balanced armies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Vextol said:

So before the changes, after the nerfs KO and BCR were still very viable, balanced armies?

Nothing ever is frankly but afaik they were more playable then currently. Though viability depends on what you want. If your reffering to tournaments then no because (as GW have been telling people FOR A LONG TIME) thet dont make tournament friendly games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Take a look at the forums 😉. You obviously do!  I see the same thing I did before  past nerfs; "Eels are over powered" "Volturnos is broken" "Not fun to play against" yada yada yada.   

This its too specific so it kind of gets away from my point.  I want more "I wish reavers were better" and "if they had a better range/bravery/save/something". 

I want "Skeletons are too cheap but really, graveguard are too expensive".  

Just something other than "Your stuff makes me sad so I want it broken"

People are saying Eels are overpowered? I'd ask you to point me in their directions so that I can see it with my own eyes, but live and let live ;) (On a completely unrelated note, old Kroak on a balewind, now -that's- overpowered!) *ahem* Anyway!

Volturnos is fine - can be very strong, but his utility is situational, and is therefore easily played around. Same with Eels. Depending on the variation of Eels, they'll either hit really hard (nice Volturnos synergy there), or ignore rend on the charge -- But they kind of fall apart on the "Okay, but then what?" part of that strength. Maybe people don't protect their key pieces enough, vastly missposition their heroes, or something, I don't know, but there's really not much to worry about there. People used to (I will fight them!) complain a lot about Gautfyre Skorch (Skryre) as well - failing to realize that it was a terrible battalion with such obvious counterplay that the Skryre player would just lose the match on turn one if it was employed. (Unless you were playing BCR, *Cough*) - BUT I DIGRESS!  (psst! look at Grimwrath Berserker in Fyreslayers. 80 points powerhouse right there. You're safe as long as that guy is around)

Point being, a lot of people don't understand how to counter things, and it becomes an issue of "this is broken, fix it" instead of "this is strong, how do I shut it down?" - But those are a vocal minority, and not at all a determining factor of what will get changed in future eratas. Coincidentally, this would also be the type of players that believes that Age of Sigmar is a game without strategy or tactical prowess, but I'm stereotyping, and that's a thing that sometimes happens ;)

Edited by Mayple
  • Like 2
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jetengine said:

Nothing ever is frankly but afaik they were more playable then currently. Though viability depends on what you want. If your reffering to tournaments then no because (as GW have been telling people FOR A LONG TIME) thet dont make tournament friendly games.

"Tournament friendly" is a way of saying balanced without admitting it sounds bad.

It's a baker who sells beautiful cakes to people at a restaurant but they're almost inedible.  "I make them pretty, not my fault they taste bad". 

If GW wasn't making a profit from people who played the game (and only needed the collectors), they'd cut that portion of their business.  If they keep the game portion, they should make it as good as they can.  Anything else is a lame excuse. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Mayple said:

Point being, a lot of people don't understand how to counter things, and it becomes an issue of "this is broken, fix it" instead of "this is strong, how do I shut it down?" - But those are a vocal minority, and not at all a determining factor of what will get changed in future eratas. Coincidentally, this would also be the type of players that believes that Age of Sigmar is a game without strategy or tactical prowess, but I'm stereotyping, and that's a thing that sometimes happens ;)

Buffs/debuffs is the most recent topic I've seen talking about it.

Eels was a specific example.  It happens all over.   Doppleganger cloak got hit and it was a very good, useful, not broken item (in my opinion). Honestly, that amulet that reduced spell damage d3 was fabulously theme and quite useful against some armies.  Would have kept kharadrons useful.  Ethereal amulet is going to get axed.  These are all going to be in response to the cries of the community.

I wish the "vocal minority" thing was true but so often it is the only voice.  It's a great way for the "silent majority" to sleep at night while the vocals determine the direction of the game.  

I am not a believer that games in which the same people win all the time are without strategy. 😆

Edited by Vextol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vextol said:

Buffs/debuffs is the most recent topic I've seen talking about it.

Eels was a specific example.  It happens all over.   Doppleganger cloak got hit and it was a very good, useful, not broken item (in my opinion). Honestly, that amulet that reduced spell damage d3 was fabulously theme and quite useful against some armies.  Would have kept kharadrons useful.  Ethereal amulet is going to get axed.  These are all going to be in response to the cries of the community.

I wish the "vocal minority" thing was true but so often it is the only voice.  It's a great way for the "silent majority" to sleep at night while the vocals determine the direction of the game.  

I am not a believer that games in which the same people win all the time are without strategy. 😆

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) - it essentially turned the game into a "Unless your spell deals more than 3 mortal wounds, don't even bother", which -anyone- could, and would take. I would take it all the time. I do feel they could be more elegant in their fix of it though. Once per phase is fine, but I'd at least want to choose which spell I'm reducing, instead of it being the first spell that hits. That being said, it's a price I'm willing to pay. Age of Spellshield doesn't have a good ring to it ;)

I'm curious if they'll actually do something with Ethereal. It's -really- good, but at the same time, it doesn't do anything that nighthaunt doesn't already do on their own, and it does prevent positive modifiers as well as negative, which can be worked around with Gloomspite Gitz spells specifically, and maybe the Beasts of Chaos herdstone thingy? Unsure about that last one. Point being, it's enough of a double edged sword that it might just stick. 

I agree with the doppelganger cloak point. I don't know how, but it seems people got really confused about how it works, or didn't understand how to play around it. Does fall a bit into the "Can't be bothered to play around it, so fix it" point I made earlier, but that's just a happy accident. An unneccessary change, for sure, but not a drastic one.

I do wonder when they'll spot the absolute beast that is blade of judgement (Ulgu) though. That one is my own personal pocket nuke until they do :) 

 

Fair point on the silent majority. Hard to argue with "All that is required for evil to prevail.." ;)

 

Bedtime for me though, so don't expect any more rapid fire responses until my eternal slumber is disturbed. Good discussion! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Vextol said:

"Tournament friendly" is a way of saying balanced without admitting it sounds bad.

It's a baker who sells beautiful cakes to people at a restaurant but they're almost inedible.  "I make them pretty, not my fault they taste bad". 

If GW wasn't making a profit from people who played the game (and only needed the collectors), they'd cut that portion of their business.  If they keep the game portion, they should make it as good as they can.  Anything else is a lame excuse. 

Not particularly. If you want a narrative experience the option is there. If you want your hyper competetive tournament option then I'd suggest looking at something else like Warmahordes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jetengine said:

Not particularly. If you want a narrative experience the option is there. If you want your hyper competetive tournament option then I'd suggest looking at something else like Warmahordes.

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is human players.

Self restraint goes a long way.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vextol said:

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.

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." You're asking for perfection when perfection doesn't exist. What you want is be as close to "balanced" as you can get. This is something that game developers including GW have teams of people and testers working on on a regular basis. With that said, I would suggest something they could try to do in their next GHB which is copy and improve upon what they did with 40k's Chapter Approved (pretty much their version of GHB) and drop prices of units across the board for just about everyone and nerf only a few units if any. This way the strong units/armies stay strong while the weaker units/armies get a bit more inline with the strong. With these changes it can help cultivate and shake the meta up a bit, maybe even bring the strong armies down a notch!

Not a be-all-end-all solution, but maybe a good step in the right direction.

One thing about FAQs, and I know I've explained this more detail in a previous thread elsewhere here, the way FAQs are designed and updated are well known. Now with the new White Dwarf that was released this month, Jervis Johnson, lead game developer for AoS, wrote an article and he mentioned in his own words how erratas work. I'll try to reproduce the quote here (Page 23):

Quote

The errata documents... are where we make actual changes to the rules. These changes can come about for three reasons. Firstly, we publish an errata if the rule as written is confusing or incomplete in its original form. Secondly we'll publish an errata if a rule is too powerful in its original form and can unbalance gameplay (my emphasis). Finally, we'll publish an errata in order to bring old rules into line with changes we've made to the core game rules.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule as previously mentioned here, but the it appears the FAQs for the most part are designed to tweak down things that are too strong.

But hey, if all that wall of text doesn't work for you guys, you can always go back to the old staple of fixing the game (and my new favorite quote):

"Scissors is fine, nerf paper"
-Rock

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...