Jump to content

JackStreicher

Members
  • Posts

    4,853
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by JackStreicher

  1. Let's take this to a more focussed approach, shall we? I opened another thread that is not supposed to be a rambling thread but a collection on opinions. The Constructive AoS Feedback Thread
  2. Since there's been a lot of discussion about balancing, balance as a whole, point values, GW's business practices and the likes I figured we should take this to a more focussed constructive level by posting actual constructive feedback. Write your factual opinion about what you like and what you would like to see improved and why. Please do not attack other Forum members and be civil and try to be positive while doing so. Cheers Jack
  3. Easy: Everything you claimed. And now I advice you to read the posts first before you write anything. This discussion is over now.
  4. I just find you funny since you haven't even read what I wrote but you are making wild claims which have nothing to do with what I said XD but okay be cute
  5. Sorry I am right and you are WRONG XD Who exactly claimed that GW games were ever balanced? XD You are funny 😛
  6. I'd really love that. For me the old ones were what made lizardmen even more interesting back in the day
  7. A lot of words and you actually missed the point. First off: It's not about competetive play. The comp. scene deals rather well with imbalanced. The issue is that the "balancing" or let's say "relative powerlevel" of armies is sometimes worlds apart which ruins CASUAL games. The argument "It's better now than it used to be" is no argument at all, without evolution everything dies. Justifying bad relative powerlevels and bad rules due them having been even worse back in the day is rubbish. GW does too little and them being just the worst a few years back doesn't make the situation now good or something we have to be thankful for. With these topics we rathert clearly point out imbalance otherwise we would not be posting, would we? Edit: I agree however about swiftly labeling units trash or op.
  8. Actually I am still hoping for new multipart Chaos Knight and Chaos Warrior kits 😕 edit: I figured those might be delayed until the new Campaign book is out
  9. Namartii if you‘d play them as Slaanesh Chosen
  10. A birthday release, I‘d welcome that. I like the slightly eastern design of Trclis while still staying high elven 👌🏻
  11. You forget that GW is not just one person but many. if designers don‘t listen to plattester then that likely has nothing to do with GW wanting to make money. there‘re so many instances rules have to go through, optimising and streamlining them so no FAQ is needed actually saves them money. Meaning a good balance also saves them money due to less time being spent on creating FAQs to put rules back in line. good balance also keeps long time customers buying their products (I didn‘t extend my DoK collection for two years since I couldn‘t play them due to being too strong and my opponents not having any fun at all) that‘s about 300€ I didn’t spent and instead bought them a year later on eBay. as Memory serves I am not the only one reacting like that to having an overpowered faction. edit: If I realize that my army is grossly underpowered I‘d sell what I have on eBay which again reduces GWs sales. They‘re hurting themself in the long term while losing customers who get tired of their practices.
  12. IIrc Teclis never ascendedto godhood but tyrion did.
  13. Yup I remember that one, made me roll my eyes (as a DoK Player) XD
  14. Currently up on Shapeways. I had to rush the design so I am not entirely happy with how he turned out. Once I can afford ZBrush I'll switch to it for good concerning Miniatures. Cheers Jack
  15. It definetively is very hard to balance. Yet if they design a rule that is fitting to the faction and its playstyle (Violent Fury - sorry for bringing it up again, it's just my most common enemy) and they know that the buff is incredibly strong, then WHY aren't they more careful and creative with it and make it conditional? Example: Grants +1 dmg when wounding on a 6s. Or +1 dmg if they charged the previous phase. Just some way that you can counter it and it doesn't spike as it does. The same goes for the locus of diversion, it was obviously too strong on a 2+ and it still took them months to fix that. There's an endless amount of examples for it for cases in which I have to say: This must be on purpose, there is no way you cannot see that such effects are way too potent to be handed out as freely as they are/were. These effects aren't fun to play against and they get dull when playing with them. I grant them mistakes when balancing units. For example the case of Namartii Thralls: It was rather hard to see that they simply don't work with their intended buffs due to too short ranges and all that. That can happen, IF you do not playtest your own game.
  16. True, for the moment. As mentioned before: I don't think GW is even interested in balance or making a better game, it's about making a game many people will get into and buy. The issue of overall balance arises for people who have the luxury to play rather often, and therefore ruins their game experience which will have consequences in the long term (just listen to the overall casual consensus on 40K, most people seem VERY annoyed by the rules and powercreep) However GW claims to produce a "premium" product, which includes rules. The latter clearly isn't premium which pretty much lowers the overall product quality and proves that their product isn't premium at all. Think of it what you will. My hope remains that some GW dev listens to the rather critical feedback and maybe wants to steer the Rules production to a more focussed approach : Setting a level of power (per edition?) that has to be achieved for all new and old books and work towards it. At the moment they seem not to have a idea of powerlevel at all, they design rules that might be cool and slap some points on them, uncaring about the actual power of it.
  17. Around here 40k is almost exclusively competetive even in friendly games which is really killing it for me. Edit: Concerning AoS: It's not fun being rofl-stomped by the Big Waagh 24/7 (with S2D) just because GW was incapable of even remotely balancing Battletomes against one another (One book has superior units, better Allegiance Abilities and cheaper units while the other one is Slaves to Darkness with which this match up feels like you are playing with 30% less points than your opponent). Bad overall balance kills the casual scene big time. Most issues aren't even scratching the endless "balance depate" most rules they slap on units are beyond common sense (powerful or bad).
  18. Except Iron Hands are still broken. Such rules shouldn't have made it through the review process in the first place. @Dead Scribe ITC ist super vaid sicne without it 40K is barely playable. House Rules are great, they're just bad for people who are too slow to adapt to a quick Meta-Shift, meaning: a good General wouldn't mind as long as the rules make sense.
  19. True, I never considered those since I don‘t have any models with great blades (4s to hit is so bad though xD)
  20. Are you listing things they have or things they should have? (They don‘t have any way to get rend)
  21. Same! c‘mon GW the hype has almost died. Fire up the hypetrain again with potato-camera images or pixelated screenshots
×
×
  • Create New...