Greybeard86

...and yet the revival of the Old World by GW is coming. So let's all go "oink oink"? Some community feedback is rubbish, but frequently GW releases obviously imbalanced options. This is not an satellite, it is a highly simplified wargame. My take? GW designs for imbalance and sometimes they make mistakes. They simply add too much salt and you have virtually unplayable factions. But, more often than not, whatever bullcrab we see in the rules is a conscious decision.

To the CoD dev: Is the claim here that you guys design for balance exclusively, and not accounting for how progression affects the player’s engagement with the game, among other things? Because honestly, without going into the ad hominem, it looked like you were painting a picture in which devs do their best but a misguided community attacks them anyway. I don’t think devs want to do a bad job, but I also believe that a good job is not to deliver a properly balanced game. The illusion of balance is present3d because it has some appeal for the players, but the actual games are all but. Same as I am absolutely convinced some of the internal and external imbalances in AoS and 40K are there by design. They are not obscure rule interactions, some things like artifacts and strats in 40K are clearly poorly internally balanced to the point of being trivially obvious differences.

Bad rules are bad in relation to other armies. GW follows a design paradigm according to which you offer "better" options for people who crunch numbers to find. Thus, there must be relative worse options, otherwise there would be no "better choices". The beauty of this is that, whenever they want to make a product line appealing to number crunchers, they can just tweak the rules.As a matter of fact, they do this, constantly. I am more familiar with the "competitive" gaming side of 40k, and there units rise and fall within months. But there are always several broken options, which can be spotted with a calculator and 30 mins on release of every book. Making them obviously good and obviously bad is just to ensure that we average dummies can spot the good things, but still feel smug. I believe that GW is aware that some more invested players grumble, but this rotating spotlight system they have, coupled with reward system mastery, seems to be working very well for them. GW does not want you to buy Slaanesh miniatures and that's it. Ideally, you'll have 3+ armies, and you'll rotate between gaming and hobby armies. At some point, every army gets to shine, just wait your turn, etc. I mean, it's been like this for as long as a I remember, it is just that GW releases way faster now so everything seems more frantic.

And I think you (we) should complain. But know that, mistakes aside, they actually bake imbalance in their design. Because system mastery reward is a design paradigm embraced by many companies in the nerdsphere (DnD, Magic, and GW).

I think we discussed this at some other point. Not all armies can be good at the same time in GW's design paradigm. Do you believe, for a second, that they cannot spot some of the underperfoming units and armies same as you can? It is not rocket science, it is very simple statistics we are dealing with here.

Replace we by I and it’s golden. I guess it does suck though for those who prefer a more balanced experience. Given how new some of this sculpts are, my guess is that with slaanesh they are targeting more the hobby side.

They have done this already in 40k. They increased points for everything and shortly afterwards decreased them in a targeted manner. I don’t think 9e is any cheaper than 8e, as a result. It is painfully obvious that GW uses a rotating spotlight to both balance and model releases. There is reason behind the chaos. If just might not be the way you prefer things done.

I think I probably could have phrased this better. I have no problem with your complaints. I personally find it better to focus on the issue and avoid engaging with certain responses but I’m not you. So please carry on, though I understand you Do not need my permission either

I have done that too, just check my post history. I just feel we'd be better off if both sides stayed apart a bit, on these topics.

And who says you have to respond to them? It is not the other players you are looking to convince. For example, when Drukhari completely took over the competitive scene in 9e, people still defended them. But it was so brutally obvious that they were busted that GW implemented a FAQ. So, discuss balance, not posters. Personally, I feel that those points are the result of some general rule of thumb they are using to move all points up. Then they will selectively discount what they feel like pushing. We saw exactly this in 40k.

CoS will be given love when they reboot with those crusades, otherwise it seems like a minefield for the consumer.

I refer to people who proclaim they don't care about balance, then proceed to complain about others caring. Obviously narrative players may care anout balance.

What I do not understand is why narrative players engage in balance discussions. Just because you don't care, it doesn't mean others don't care either. Besides, if you don't care about balance, why do you care if others do?

Personally, I think that what KoW does with "blocks" as opposed to models works for me. With clever placement, unit fillers and so on you can give the illusion of those "regiments" with fewer models. 1 to 1 representation just doesn't work at this scale, IMHO.

Loaded question, I understand. New edition, new rules, new "optimal" sizes. But what maximum unit sizes do you prefer? 20+? 10+? And why? Personally, I prefer having multiple units of different types of units over big blobs of the same. Three main reasons: They are boring from a hobby standpoint: I find big blobs boring to paint and harder to game with; even in WHFB I found that big blobs just invited unit fillers, as it got annoying to paint so many of the same sculpts over and over. A varied army looks better on the table top: just mroe visually appealing. Big buffed blobs leads to less interesting strategic interactions: more units, more opportunities (screening, flanking, delaying) How about you?

They write these guidelines because they can. They are the big boy in the block and they will enforce what is best for them to the best of their ability. Never mind that this is as anti-hobby as it gets, conversions being a big part of making your army your own. This is why I believe that excessive dependence on GW for events is a bad thing. They run a business, but we are here for the creativity, the hobby, the fun. Business decisions do get in the way of that, sometimes.

Because they do that, sometimes. All I am saying is this. I thought that legending new sculpts was a very ugly move.

I do not want to hate on a release that is exciting for all chorf fans. However, if they simply squat the FW models released with AoS, I still believe we should pause before buying the new stuff. A big part of the hobby, for a lot of people, is the game and the support in the lore / models / rest that comes with being "game legal". GW invalidating models worth hundreds of dollars within years of release simply to make room for new models is frankly very anti-consumer.

I hope they turn it to 11 like in AoS. We already have AoS for the super duper monsters and over the top stuff.

That makes sense. But what happened to the potential expansions that they simply scrapped? How does that tie in.

Preach! Though I thought the consensus was that they would get souped?

I think you are absolutely right. Current army building can be atrocious. Buying box after box of the same is something I can’t personally do. I think many players probably feel the same, specially new players. let’s see if the new edition truly changes that.

I’d love for that to be true. Because many competitive armies in AoS are painfully boring. For me, the question is what should armies look like? Unit size, variety of types? And how will the new edition answer that question?

It is also more expensive. We know that GW has extremely high prices for leaders and centerpieces. More armies, more of such models are required. In other words, the cost of adding points to an existing army is lower than that of adding them to a new army. I don't know. The cost of a functional AoS army is quite high. I know that, towards the end of WHFB, GW was pushing for those big expensive blobs, so I do not know right now how the cost compares. But I can tell you, I recently estimated the pure mini cost of the sisters of battle army that goonhammer recommended and it is bordering 1000$. No paints, no transport cases, just the boxes of miniatures. A FS army from this event costs: 605$ 40 HGB: 45*8= 350$ 1 start collecting box :100$ 10 VB : 60$ 3 heroes : 35*3= 95$ A IDK list from another costs: 573$ Volturnos: 48$ Eidolon: 125$ Eels: 8*50 = 400$ And a KO lists costs: 582$ Endrinmaster With Dirigible Suit: 35 Arkanaut Admiral: 30 Aether-Khemist: 30 Grundstok Gunhauler x2: 50*2 Skywardens x2: 44*2 Grundstok Thunderers x4: 44*4 Arkanaut Ironclad: 123 How much will they cost after the changes?

Pain, just pain. I am painting some old models and they chip at the painting table. How? What...?