Jump to content

Ganigumo

Members
  • Posts

    1,527
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Ganigumo

  1. 44 minutes ago, BarakUrbaz said:

    So you're literally saying narrative shouldn't matter in terms of game design. 

    Game design is separate from narrative yes. They're different fields. Call of Duty and Doom are both shooters but their narratives are very different.
    I'm not saying verisimilitude isn't important, but we (and designers) should be very careful about letting narrative make the game worse, or stop us from making it better. Its very much a case by case basis too, and representation of narrative can come in many forms.
    Like narratively sometimes a single space marine can kill hundreds if not thousands of something like orks or tyranids. But in gameplay a single grot with a rusty pipe could get lucky in a 1v1. In the example giving plasma more AP and a bolt more shots represents that plasma is more powerful well enough, it just means that it isn't strictly better than the bolt option. Maybe people will make dumb jokes and complain about it, but nobody is going to stop playing because of that. They will stop playing because of bad design.

    30 minutes ago, Lucentia said:

    Probably doesn't help that even 40k chaff units tend to have, like, 8 weapon options of varying degrees of uselessness.

    To kind of square these two tangents, we could be looking at something like clanrats just being armed with 'rusted weapons' and the starter box squad will be mixed swords and spears.  The new FEC cryptguard do this, where their swords and halberds have the same profile, potentially written with 4.0 in mind.

    Since they're rewriting everything I would be very happy if they just rolled all the profiles into various "assortments of weapons". I guess when you have a shield option they should probably relent a little. Blood knights did it too. Everything going to 3" range makes most spears obsolete so its a good time to do it.

    21 minutes ago, Flippy said:

    You missed two aspects. One is that verisimilitude matters a lot - even more, perhaps, than balance or overall game result. So does customisation, even if it does not affect the overall game result in any significant way. The reason is obvious; we put the models on the table for the game, but also for the theatre of imagination.

    The second aspect is that the points complexity does not affect the gameplay at all. This "quartermaster simulator" is a solitaire you can play in-between actual games - you usually have ample time to figure it out. 

    I addressed verisimilitude a bit above, but tl;dr we make sacrifices to it because the game needs to be an abstraction of narrative that functions as a game.
    The points complexity is a pain point, you need to respect your players time, and there isn't a great way to lay it out in a rule book without making the points section intimidating and complex. I know it appeals to people, but I feel like its better suited for narrative or smaller scale games where the options can matter more. I think necromunda goes pretty deep into that stuff.
    With respect to customization I'm not against it, but the decisions you ask your players to make should actually be impactful.
    I would actually trade every warscroll option in the game, as well as most enhancements, to get a cleaned up version of anvil of apotheosis put into the core matched play rules. 

    • Like 4
  2. 6 minutes ago, Garrac said:

    I find this afirmation quite controversial. A lot of players that I know that went from AoS to ToW did so because of rule customisation. And it's, in fact, one of the main complaints about 10th ed, the fact that a boltgun and a plasma gun cost the same is just ludicrous game designing.

    Also, I allways see these "9th ed was confusing" complaints, but as long as I can remember from my group of friends, the latest year of 9th ed was a blast. But maybe we're in the minority.

    A unit being the same cost is regardless of weapon options, with the options balanced against each other is good design.
    If one of the options somehow changes the units role entirely, IE from an anvil to a ranged hammer you should probably have a different entry entirely to point it appropriately, and to make things clearer to the players.
    The complaint that "A boltgun and Plasma gun costing the same is ludicrous" is not a game design argument. Its a verisimilitude argument. The only reason its a problem is because the narrative says plasma guns are better than boltguns. There's no reason a plasma gun couldn't be 1 high AP/STR shot, and the boltgun would get enough low AP/STR shots to be comparable. Maybe the meta favors high AP stuff, but its not impossible to have them be roughly comparable.
    Customization of troops to that level just isn't impactful enough to the game as a whole to bother with the complexity. I understand some people enjoy the quartermaster simulator aspects, but its a lot of overhead the game doesn't need.

    • Like 3
    • Confused 1
  3. 4 minutes ago, BarakUrbaz said:

    Oh yes it is good design to punish everyone who decided to build their guys with Bolt Pistols instead of Plasma Pistols.

    Good design: Not forcing players to consult spreadsheets to figure out points
    Bad design: Not balancing the weapon options

    A failure to properly balance the options does not make this bad design. They fail to balance weapon options constantly, and which one is good changes from edition to edition, which punishes players with the wrong loadout.
    Even with my previous experience with 40k that was the case. You'd always run tankbustas with max rokkits, one edition nobs with big choppas would be good, and another power klaws would be the thing. I remember buying models with no upgrades as ablative wounds just so my fights last power klaw nobs would get a chance to fight last, the klaws were more expensive than the model itself. You play GW games long enough and you just kind of accept they're going to ****** up loadout balance constantly.
    Happens in AoS too, Tzaangor used to run shields, and are now best even ignoring the special weapon options with dual blades, gore gruntas used to bring choppas, now they bring spears. There are probably hundreds of examples across tons of editions.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2
  4. 16 hours ago, Garrac said:

    That's now how they managed Leviathan, but, granted, @EonChaois probably right and now they want to milk It more and avoid bad PR.

    Id say tho the hype train for 10th was Great until It was revealed that whole points-are-now-power-levels drama 

    Power level, or points how we have them in aos, were always better design. I was happy at this change but I don't play 40k much. Weird that good design was one of the things that pissed people off the most. Hopefully the AoS community gets upset at something that is bad rather than good if we do.

    16 hours ago, Captaniser said:

    Okay, so about the fate of Khul and Vandus in the last Dawnbringers book.

     

      Reveal hidden contents

    During the preview, the announcer said that we will also see an end to Khul's journey for the last skull he needs, namely Vandus', to ascend to Deamonhood. But he also said that their battle would end in an unexpected way, which leads me to believe that Vandus will kill Khul in the end.

    But how have you come to this conclusion you might think, well here is my logic.

    Khul has been on the path to Deamonhood for quite a while now. His tactical knowledge far outstrips that of even the most seasoned generals, he even had a Dawnbringers story about himself and the visions his chief shaman has, where he sees Khul with wings and a tail, typical Deamon stuff.

    Vandus has also been losing his mind in the narrative, to the point where he has to be locked up in a basement when he isn't leading the hammers of Sigmar, also he has become obsessed with finding Khul and righting a wrong generations in the making.

    Now, many of us thought that an Ascended Khul model would be coming with the last installment in the Dawnbringer narrative, but we are only getting Abraxia, kinda weird to be missing one of the more prominent chaos characters during a book all about chaos where they are also featured, right?

    Now all of this information makes it seem like the deck is stacked against poor Vandus as if he is fated to fall and be little less than the sacrificial lamb for whom Khul can use for his triumph, but what if a certain someone were to interfere? "wink wink" nudge nudge"

    So I guess that GW is pulling a fast one on us and making it look like Khul will win, but somehow Vandus triumphs in the end, Khul is killed and his model will be renamed to Mighty lord of Khorne for good and Vandus will get a shiny new Ruination chamber model.

    Or maybe GW simply thinks that the audience by default thinks that the Stormcast will win, but Khul actually wins and gets a new model when BT: Blades of Khorne releases.

     

    They said it had an unexpected ending. What if Khul wins, Khorne rejects him because he is still not devoted enough or something, and so khul rejects khorne and gets reforged and turned into a stormcast? Pretty much beat for beat like 

    Spoiler

    Kylo Ren

    Maybe khorne doesn't trust him because he's devoted to himself instead of khorne, and just "using" khorne to get power.

    15 hours ago, Mutton said:

    Well somebody better become a cool Khorne Daemon Prince!

    We have valkia to resculpt for that!

  5. 2 minutes ago, Magnusaur said:

    I'm interested to see how the members of the Ruination chamber(s) are depicted. Simply casting them (no pun intended) as the Stormcast "elites" is a meaningless concept in an army, world, and franchise that is constantly one-upping itself with bigger armor and plates and taller super human warriors. The artwork of the female Stormcast transitioning from Sacrosanct to Thunderstrike and beyond looks ridiculous. 

    What I think is more interesting (and honestly wouldn't surprise me), is if they portray the on-their-final-forging warriors as a mix of retired veterans who now have taken on roles of governance and traumatized warrior-poets who have made peace with the fact that they too are mortal. I want the Ruination chamber to evoke this keen sense of bravery in the face of finality - not just hurr durr even bigger pauldrons.

    Maybe they'll have some kind of rage or frenzy mechanic? Losing their sense of humanity while in the midst of battle. That could fit the vibe of the chamber maybe.

  6. 18 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

    I mean yea any kind of secondary scoring system is fine. Whether you wanna call secondary objectives, battle tactics whatever. You just never want the game to become too focused on killing because there are armies who are clearly better at killing or not being killed. 

    Faction battle tactics are a balance problem because you will never properly balance ~200 battle tactics. Their mere existence is the problem lol. 

    I think you are being too hard on sigmar. If the primary scoring mechanism for the game was "busy work" or causing "halts" then it wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is. 

    Sigmar 3rd edition is extremely popular in my region. It has even eclipsed 40k here. It was/is a really strong edition. 

    Plenty of content creators have talked about the issues with BTs, but it basically comes down to it having a bell curve of value.
    BTs are bad for new players, bad for experienced players, and kind of okay, or even good, for people in between.
    If it just sucked for the good players it would be much better, and it would still be better if the value of it got better with skill, but its in this weird place where its too complex for new players, but also solvable.

  7. Just now, Landohammer said:

     

    Removing BTs altogether is a bad idea, because without them the most lethal/efficient armies will naturally just win the melees/shoot-outs over the primary objectives. BTs reward building flexible lists and make units (like furies) useful. 

    Battle tactics are good, just faction battle tactics don't work. 

     

     

    This is an argument for the existence of a secondary scoring system, not for the battle tactic system.
    Faction battle tactics are just a balance problem.
    Battle tactics themselves being an overly complex system that are battleplan agnostic and make your games feel similar by being busywork at high skill levels, and bring games to a halt at low skill levels are problems at the conceptual level.

    • Like 3
  8. 12 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

    I kinda find it quit funny how people are currently considering armies that get supported in old world to also be armies that get the axe.

    can’t wait till all those just announced darkoath unit get axed a month later😂.

    (you guys get how stupid this sounds right?)

    They like to keep their ranges separate to track sales. When they get around to doing chaos in old world its gonna be the old plastic marauders, chaos warriors, resin chosen, and old knights. Same way they're bringing back old trolls and giants for the O&G stuff instead of using the aos models.

    • Like 2
  9. 5 hours ago, Beliman said:

    Not sure if anyone has copy&pasted here the new rumour rules:

    01.jpg.3f05d2fffb5fcf3b34574386b836ffeb.jpg

    02.jpg.db059a8d81871cbca712ee446add063c.jpg

    03.jpg.036338a197c4973b481e284bbf76e7e9.jpg

    04.jpg.a1a1ed08b5e9a9aacd4d1c8847673c98.jpg

     

    PDF:
    01.pdf

    This was confirmed fake a long time ago wasn't it? Heywoah did a video reviewing it, and IIRC correctly somebody said their wishlist got posted as a fake leak. It would take me forever to dig up the tweet though.

    4 hours ago, Whitefang back me up said:

    This is largely all complete rubbish. I’ve had a look through the core book and I’ll let give you some rules, then I’m gone - flying too close to the sun.


    - EVERYTHING is an ability. 

    - Morale GONE. Now ‘Control’ stat.

    - Weapon range is combat range, everything in 3” fights. That’s it. 

    - Magic is choose one spell lore at beginning of game & everyone knows all spells in that spell lore. 

    - If you choose to double turn you can’t score a battle tactic.

    • sounds like no USRs? good
    • this better not be what made indexes a necessity. Not worth it
    • good change
    • good change, might hurt a few armies with multiple lores (spiderfang) but those might get the axe...
    • battle tactics 🤮 
      • On a more serious note this doesn't actually do anything. Pretty much the only time to actually take a double is when you can immediately win the game. This doesn't really shift the math, or make controlling prio any weaker.
    1 hour ago, Davariel said:

    AoS really, really needs to decide what model ranges it wants to move forwards with and stick to it. This kind of uncertainty around units and armies being removed isn't healthy for the game.

    Took them 4-6 years to get all the armies they wanted around into books and to squat the leftovers. 3 years later they reopen the issue. At this point everything should either be in or out. Its ridiculous.

    1 hour ago, Ragest said:

    I think we all know wich minis are going to leave (dispossesed, bones, dark elves, boc, old ogres, old skavens, fatcasts, metal/resin…)

    The problem is they can’t announce it because that would cost sales and people lives in denial about it and when happens they get frustrated.

    Gutbuster Ogors are 100% in, they're not getting old world support, plus we got new gorgers and a new terrain piece. Spiderfang on the other hand are definitely on the chopping block too.

    • Like 2
  10. 5 minutes ago, AngryLizardRat said:

    I might be an outlier, but I was really hoping for an index because I just wanted things shaken up a bit. Some of my armies got a bit stale to play, or were unfun to play against, so I'm glad they'll be new for summer. I also play Skaven so I'm happy to get a book early for them. I do hope AoS is better than the 40k team at keeping the thematic feel of armies. 

    There's definitely other people that did too, a bunch of content creators seemed to be pro index.

    I just have 0 faith they'll be any good because I know they didn't have enough time to design or test properly.

    It will be exciting though.

  11. Is it suspicious to anyone else that in the article for indexes they say

    "Each faction in the new edition" and "every faction in the new edition" will get new rules.

    They never said all factions would get new rules.

    Is squatting back, again?

    • Like 4
  12. 5 minutes ago, Luperci said:

    The point is that you shouldn't have to cross reference for USRs each time though? If it's really so bad they could have a pull out sheet from the core book with all the USRs listed in alphabetical order for easy cross reference though I suppose. This is where GW needs to really embrace the digital format imo, because all of this could just be drop downs or redirects from the actual warscroll

    There is a learning curve attached to USRs before you don't need to cross reference them.
    Most players probably play less than once a month, and those players are not going to remember the USRs.
    What I'm kind of getting at is that all USRs do is obscure complexity. Being honest and putting that complexity on full display on the warscroll is both better user experience, and also will make the designers think twice about the complexity.
    Going digital would help, but some people like analog

     

    6 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

    Usrs: usually those are easy to memorize. Even s.o. like me that plays once a week at best learns them pretty fast.

    usrs are an issue if they’re handled like TOW did (scattered related rules across a dozen pages)

    If you play once a week you probably play more often than 99% of the playerbase. 

    • Like 1
  13. Just now, Luperci said:

    For me USRs ease the mental load when playing, if every unit that could fly had a fully written out rule stating it could move over enemy units etc. I would glance at that for a second and go, "oh right flying", whereas if a unit has just "Fly" written, I know exactly what's happening with a fraction of page/card space. For a new player, they see Fly and they can ask what it means, so long as there aren't hundreds of USRs, they're not that hard to keep track of. Also USRs make the warscrolls of factions you don't play easier to comprehend at a glance. If I see an enemy unit I'm playing against with a massive block of text, I'm ngl I just won't bother reading it properly. If some of that is instead single phrases I'm familiar with, it's much easier to take into account my opponents board without having to read their army book fully

    We can re-use names and text, like we shouldn't have 37 variants of flying. But every model that has flying should say:
     

    Quote

    Flying: This unit can pass across terrain and models so long as it ends its movement in a "legal position". If it ends or starts its movement on a piece of terrain measure the diagonal distance.

    Same with stuff like bodyguards etc.
    I get the urge to consolidate it into one central location, so you don't end up repeating yourself endlessly, but it really is bad user experience. 
    There's a rule of thumb for UX design that important information should never be more than 3 clicks away, because your user will get increasingly annoyed with each subsequent click. There's some pushback, but its mostly a rule that reminds you to be cognizant of the amount of time it takes for your user to get to the desired information.
    All rules on the warscroll: A bit more cluttered, but you just open up your battletome/app and find the warscroll for all the info.
    USRs: Clean warscroll, but to figure out what each rule does you need to: Find the rule on the warscroll, open up the core book to the index, find the USR in the index, flip to the page number, find the rule. Also pray any other USRs you need are on the same page.

     

     

    1 minute ago, Skreech Verminking said:

    So far the balance was great.

    and I’m keen in seeing if their changes to the double turn will make it more accepted then it currently is.

     

    Their comments on the double turn are just exactly how I think it already operates. A lot of battleplans give strong incentive to not take them for scoring reasons.

  14. 3 minutes ago, BarakUrbaz said:

    Got it, we have to abolish FLY.

    Sort of unironically yes. needing to swap pages to figure out what a unit does will always be a chore. We're not so hard pressed for real estate that we can't.

    2 minutes ago, Luperci said:

    Champion would just be +1 attack I suppose? It's good to reduce word count by changing stuff that everyone colloquially refers to as single word/phrase anyways, like they did for deepstrike

    1 minute ago, Greyshadow said:

    I think more universal special rules are definitely the way to go. The amount of text you have to read over and over again gets old fast. Anything that keeps the cards quick and easy to read is a really good thing.

    Absolutely nothing interrupts a game worse than needing to spend 1-5 minutes scrambling through the rulebook to check what a rule does. Its bad for new players for that exact reason. When you add USRs everybody is a new player. Once you're experienced you probably already know what your warscroll does anyway, so it doesn't actually help.
    Pretty much the only scenario its good for is when you're reading rules that aren't your own rules, which in a real game can often be summarized by your opponent quicker anyways.

  15. 3 minutes ago, Chikout said:

    I do think it's a fundamentally different issue for 40k and AoS fans. 10th edition was kind of the AoS 1st edition moment for them. Lots of people continue to be angry about the loss of points for weapon options and the encouragement to build units only as the box suggests.

    AoS players have been through this.

    Now that the Old World exists there's an opportunity to clearly differentiate between the two. Let AoS be more of a beer and pretzels game. If you want to get lost in the minutiae of weapon options and unit builds then The Old World is right there. I'm actually pretty excited about trying Spearhead.The way it's was described with the cards sounded potentially exciting. 

    Ranges going away to make a faster combat phase sounds like a good change. I'm glad that they said a LIMITED number of USRs. There's plenty of potential there that I'm excited to investigate. 

    A single USR is a USR too many.
    But it sounded like they were referring to stuff like unit champions and musicians? I wouldn't even consider those USRs.

    • Haha 1
  16. 16 minutes ago, RyantheFett said:

    As expected the game will steal a lot from 40k 10ed............. which is funny since 10ed stole a lot from AoS lol.

    • Sticking all heroes 3 inches instead of putting them into the units should be interesting.
    • Seems like the spell phase will also be spread out just like everyone other game as well. Sounds like it will go 40k with everything having 1 special rule.
    • Going with the mission deck approach which I think is a huge upgrade.
    • Small combat patrol games which is nice way to teach people how to play
    • Complete rework just like 40k. Prepared for crazy imbalance lol!

    Good lord I hate the mission deck. Why are my rules in a pamphlet and cards. Just design the actual battleplans.
    I'm not even sure its good for casual players, since its so much easier to just flip to a page that has all your battleplan rules in one place.
    Its fine as a supplemental thing, but definitely not for me. 

    • Like 1
  17. I'm not looking forward to indexes. Honestly AoS 3 has been pretty good and we only needed minor revisions and simplifications, nothing that would necessitate an index. Balance is literally the best its ever been too.
    Even the way they talked about it screamed "We didn't have enough time to give all these the proper amount of attention". Since they were talking about how they lined up models and kind of decided the stats relatively, which is basically admitting to making the warscrolls more symmetrical, a common tactic to balance things quickly since symmetry is balanced by default.
    I really feel like indexes need to be a LAST resort. the change to weapon range didn't necessitate this, the game balance isn't bad enough to justify it, so what on earth is changing so thoroughly that they need to rewrite everything? A potential hero phase magic removal? Thats going to make magic armies feel less unique in a way.
    To make things worse we all know they aren't given any more development time to make an "index edition" than any other edition. so in the time it took them to write and balance 3rd edition, which was a refinement and expansion of 2nd edition, they're rewriting huge swathes of the core rules and rewriting 25 factions, and hundreds of warscrolls.
    There's a saying in software development, about "The great redesign in the sky", where people want to go back and start fresh instead of fixing what they have, since they feel hopeless about the mess they've built over time. But its rarely actually productive to do that, because unless you've addressed the factors that caused you to make those mistakes in the first place you're just going to make them again. And if you do fix those factors you should be able to just fix the mistakes instead of starting anew.

    Every army is going to feel like bonesplitterz going into 3rd edition, which always feels bad.

    We'll need to see how things turn out, the article stated the double turn was still in the game, which is good, but they said this 

    Quote

    the double turn, which has been fine-tuned into a knife-edge decision with a clever twist to scoring.

    anyone who has played the game much understands that controlling the priority is already super impactful, and will hold off on taking doubles, or give them away pretty frequently. Pretty much the only time you want to take it is if you immediately lose if you don't or you can immediately cripple your opponent so badly you win. Could just be a throwaway statement though.

    Rant over, all the model reveals were super cool, especially the lady of ruin, and the animation was sick, skaven collectors will be eating good.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  18. Just now, CommissarRotke said:

    except even if Nagash DID fix Reforging flaws, he would never ever let 'Deathcast' retain their humanity and memories? At least in any non-torture-you-forever type of way.

     

    Keeping their humanity and memories, but being forced to serve under nagash is a kind of torture is it not?
    Like sure, maybe nagash lets them fight chaos, but at some point they'll inevitably be forced to fight the followers of sigmar as well.

    • Like 1
  19. While not as well established as the heresy, the idea of deathcast vs stormcast is possibly more interesting than SM vs CSM. A huge point could be that deathcast get cured of the reforging problems, which creates interesting motivations, as they need to struggle with their duty and faith, or their sense of self. To push things even further they can still continue the fight against chaos alongside nagash, so maybe siding with nagash will make them more effective in the fight against chaos since they might retain their memories etc.

    • LOVE IT! 1
  20. 3 hours ago, Ragest said:

    If BoC is going to get squatted, I think we are getting indexes in June, because is the only way to make them disappear from the game.

    Maybe Bonesplitterz are going away in that index too.

    I'm on the hopium that warclans will see an end of edition book.
    I'm much less convinced bonesplitterz are leaving now that their presence in old world is basically limited to a unit option.

    I really don't want indexes. 25 sets of army rules written in the time it takes them to write 1 or 2 books sounds disastrous (look at the balance results of every other time they're done index rules)

    • Like 2
  21. 14 hours ago, Beliman said:

    It seems that I'm not in the same mood of a lot of people.
    Unpopular Opinion: AoS rules are badly designed.

    • Most new mechancis are written to fix a problem, but in return, they become a parasitic design for the game that don't solve the main issue.
    • Most of our foot Heroes are tokens for some gameplay purpose with the same 3+/3+ profiles. There is no expectation to play your own character because the game is not designed for that.
    • The diference between a chariot, artillery, ranged units, cavalry, etc.. is just the movement and the damage output/delivery damage. In other words, the roles changed from the nature of the unit to what you want to accomplish on the table (you use a ranged unit because it has better damage than your artillery).
    • A few irrelevant phases (mainly battleshock phase).

    1. I agree bandaid rules like reinforcement points, rally, and aos3 coherency didn't seem properly thought out.
    2. There are only so many ways to write similar heroes (foot, cav etc) without them looking the same or getting overly complex. They could do stuff like 10 attacks with 1 damage vs 5 at 2, but thats mostly splitting hairs. Making your own character is largely aimed at narrative play now, and I'm not sure I have a problem with that.
    3. I don't think this is a problem. Typecasting units by performance (i.e hammer, chaff, anvil, support) is just as viable a method. If anything I prefer this, because it gives more freedom for asymmetrical armies.  There was a bit of an arms race in older editions of wfb/40k whenever a new unit type was introduced as each army would get (or not get) that unit type as well.

    4. Battleshock should stay irrelevant, because if it mattered more everybody would hate it. If you want an anecdote ask your local destruction player. Its also not really accounted for in balance at all since its assigned purely for narrative reasons.

    12 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

    The release of TOW has laid open some glaring issues I have with AoS that I couldn't quite put my finger on before.
    In general AoS seems to be mostly catered towards the competetive Playerbase, in turn everything has become a token:

    - The whole game isn't about cool battles or heroic deeds it's about achieving random objeftives which makes it feel more arcade-like and more forgettable (which isn't a bad thing for "quicker" games, but I don't like it, I am here for the narrative gaming side) (this is also a 40K - in contrast I prefer Boarding actions which break this pattern)

    - Mortal wounds: Most skew lists become the way they are because they try to maximize on MWs

    - The main focus is sales and sales alone: Characters are generic so they can release almost the identical Character but with a slightly different loadout. Books become invalidated within months. New "Season" rules drop so fast that the edition itself gets warped.

     

    (covering the ones I didn't cover above)
    5. Battle tactics suck. Hopefully they get the axe. Put the secondary objective into the battleplan, and vary them. Having a universal secondary system makes games too similar.

    6.This is not true. Skew lists are just abusing broken units, MW or not. MW spam has a natural counter in high wound armies and ward saves (squigs, nurgle, bonesplitterz, etc), but its a natural response to the armor stacking meta created by stuff like mystic shield and AoD. I think they've overcosted raw wounds, and undercosted armor saves as a general rule this edition.

    7. 6 month seasons were a mistake, and the seasons were generally too impactful on how the game played. 

    • Like 3
  22. I don't think we need the extra granularity of a d10/12 system? There's a point where what you get out of it stops being worth the complexity and a d6 is probably fine. I know a die change isn't that big, but how important is it for us to be able to hit on 3.5s or get a +/-0.5 to hit? You could build a system around it and it would be fine, but it seems like a lot of work for not much benefit.

    • Like 1
  23. I'd like to see dirty tricks just scrapped entirely. We can get a rule with the same name, but the current rule just doesn't feel like a kruleboyz rule? The flavor is almost entirely in the names and they don't really change how you play the game.
    If we're going to keep the name something like command abilities that apply debuffs to enemy units would be pretty fitting I think.

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...