Yes, No, Other? If you select other I, and I am sure anyone else reading this, would like to hear your thoughts as to what the other may be.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
New Poll: The Problem with 40k
Yes, No, Other? If you select other I, and I am sure anyone else reading this, would like to hear your thoughts as to what the other may be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think people complain because they are jealous of the Grey Knight Codex, I think honestly that a lot of people really have a hard time beating them. Really not trying to flame, but I feel like a lot of people who complain about Grey Knights just haven't been willing to shift the way they play to fight Grey Knights, and blame the Codex instead of adapting. There are an equal number of people who say they have no problem with Grey Knights as who b*tch and moan, but one group is louder.
ReplyDeletelol, too true. Adaptation is key.
DeleteObviously there are some problems with the codices as they are being written now, most especially Mr. Cruddace's last two attempts, but I think, in most cases, the problem is player misperceptions of power levels rather than actual imbalances.
ReplyDeleteMech is still rather dominant, certainly, and with any luck we can look forward to that being fixed, but the post-SW codices have made hybrid and foot forces a real possibility in many cases, so I think the problem isn't always as great as it's made out to be. Overall balance in the game is far above what it's been at any point in the past and GW has gotten all of the very oldest (pre-4E) books updated- and more than just updated, it made three of the game's biggest joke factions into very viable armies.
Thanks for popping in AbusePuppy. I would have to agree completely with your assessment of Mr Cruddace's codices. Tyranids are a complete disaster.
DeleteI also think 5th is leaps and bounds ahead of previous editions in terms of balance. Eldar in 4th and SW in 3rd were just plain ridiculous.
The idea that there can be a balance in a set of rules that change on a regular basis is a contradiction of terms. Magic the Gathering is able to do it by keeping their changes in a small group of their design. Once things change, old system are no longer usable.
ReplyDeleteWarhammer is great because it is always evolving. The idea of balance should be side lined because you can't do it given the current release schedule. You could play only armies that are "new" and thus the balance would be closer, but that really does not solve the true issue.
A former employee was interview and explained that the company is first a model maker, second a game producer, and lastly a competitive promoter. Given that, I don't think a valid argument can ever be framed for play balance.
Paul J.
I don't think balance is impossible, it just requires two things, firstly (obviously) a commitment to balance, and secondly more and harder playtesting to achieve it.
ReplyDeletePersonally I play CSM and my codex is definitely feeling the strain, it is hard to win against well constructed and well played lists from the newer Codices. Poor codex writing is the main problem in my case. However it is not the only problem, being stranded after winning an assault is harder now the newer armies have such powerful midfield shooting, and this is a rules issue as much as a codex one. Likewise the lack of any psychic defence mechanism built into the main rules (lets say psykers can automatically try to block each others powers with some sort of roll off) is a lacuna IMO which leaves some codices vulnerable.
Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation
Having army books spanning several editions will never allow balance (in my opinion). Fifth edition started out as the "back to basics all about the troops" edition where ho hum units were supposed to be supported by elites. We ended up with "before the game begins roll to see how mad and stabby they are" or "if they win combat give them thirteen pieces of flair and feel no pain".Wuh-happnd.My primary force has been Black Templars since Codex Armageddon. They have risen and fallen in "viability" many times since their inception. Most lists I see are based on exploiting the ability to min/max, use POMS on any tank and using "undercosted" units (so basically 4th edition builds). Not quite how they were intended to be played but whatever. The previous poster hit the nail on the head for my codex too. Unless I use the vow that gives limited psychic defense and eschew the army wide preferred enemy vow I have no psychic defenses to speak of either. Don't get me started on "Black Templars are fearless in close combat"! It should be errata'd to "Black Templars loose d3 models in close combat".
ReplyDeleteI think perfect competitive balance is impossible in a game where armies(dark eldar) have gone 12 years with no codex update, but I know they can do better than what they have right now.
ReplyDeleteI mean I am not even talking about Grey Knights what is Games Workshop doing with Sisters of Battle and Chaos Daemons? I mean even my Tyranids can walk over either of those armies(daemons much easier than sisters cause sisters have the flamers).
I get that the two armies aren't ultra profitable, but either update them or get rid of them(daemon units would become useable in the next chaos space marine codex and sisters would all gain counts as space marines with their vehicles being counts as rhino, although unlike daemons(they are for warhammer fantasy where they are actually good/broken) I think sisters of battle have value as a faction and should be kept as a playable faction).
With one or two armies out of the rotation they can update the armies that are profitable more often and increase their profits as well as improve game balance.