|
Post by yoritomo on Sept 3, 2016 19:26:17 GMT
And if nobody is special then everybody ends up playing the same army.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Sept 3, 2016 19:33:31 GMT
There are 20 factions at this point, I really don't feel that's much of a factor. Opinions may vary here, but, without some sort of serious upside (either cost or buffs), actually wanting bad rules just so you're different is...well. not optimal.
|
|
|
Post by trashcan01 on Sept 3, 2016 19:41:13 GMT
Gee, "thanks" for killing the thread with your "logic" and "arguments" yori. Lock please.
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on Sept 3, 2016 19:54:49 GMT
That's what I'm here for. ;P
|
|
|
Post by Hive Tyrant Qiln on Sept 4, 2016 1:56:30 GMT
And if nobody is special then everybody ends up playing the same army. Not exactly. Case in point - Horus Heresy. God I'm like a broken clock now. "Play Horus Heresy guys! It's better than 40k in every way." In fact, I'll put it in my signature.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Sept 4, 2016 2:06:27 GMT
Really do wish they'd go that development direction.
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on Sept 4, 2016 7:33:18 GMT
Look guys, if you think shooty space marines Vs. space marines with a deathstar or close combat space marines Vs. space marines with psychic powers is enough diversity then by all means, take out everything that makes other armies unique. I personally don't think it's a good idea to limit your diversity by only making space marines armies with a twist. With 25 years experience making this game we should be expecting more from GW in this regard.
Hours Heresy might be a better game, I don't know. To be honest, I don't care. The game has no interest to me. I'd much rather move on to Warmahords then play more marines on marines. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by No One on Sept 4, 2016 11:29:06 GMT
With 25 years experience making this game we should be expecting more from GW in this regard. I think it's far more 'we're expecting to be disappointed'. If GW could give us a codex with a fluffy and unique way of playing synapse/IB in a codex that's of a decent power level and fun despite IB (and/or because of Synapse/other buffs), then that's great. I think everyone here would be happy with that. They just don't have a great track record at the moment, despite 25 yrs experience . Now, this may change with a new codex - most of the stuff post crons has been pretty good. But we'll see. I'd prefer a good, balanced codex to a poorly balanced one, regardless of whether or not it has IB. Also, you're saying that it's the only thing that gives us a playstyle. It's not. If we're talking competitively, it actively removes our other playsyles - all flyrants has squat to do with Synapse/IB, yet is completely different to every other army. Heck, even Nidzilla would be very different to basically everyone else. And whether those MCs have IB or not doesn't change that it plays differently to every other army (outside of a select few codex builds).
|
|
|
Post by biomassbob on Sept 4, 2016 13:56:56 GMT
If GW could give us a codex with a fluffy and unique way of playing synapse/IB in a codex that's of a decent power level and fun despite IB (and/or because of Synapse/other buffs), then that's great. I think everyone here would be happy with that. This^ I would be happy to keep synapse/IB in some form (I agree it makes nids more interesting) if GW puts in the effort to make all units/biomorphs decent options (as much as reasonably possible anyways) while also making the army make sense in how it operates (eg why would hive guard get access to toxin sacs/adrenal glands when raveners don't; why is a trygon so slow when it is a giant ravener, ect, etc). But if GW is unwilling to invest the time/effort or doesn't know how to make the army work within the game in some kind of consistent and logical way (and in this case that means an overhaul of nids as there are so many things that make you shake your head) then I would rather they just take the simple approach of synapse giving complete control - no synapse means ld check with failure being you cannot use that unit this turn - no IB. Its been 6 years with nids being garbage - having poor dexes with unbalanced rules and many useless units/biomorphs. Gw - either put in the effort to do it right or keep it simple to minimize the risk of botching things yet again.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Sept 4, 2016 15:39:54 GMT
Look guys, if you think shooty space marines Vs. space marines with a deathstar or close combat space marines Vs. space marines with psychic powers is enough diversity then by all means, take out everything that makes other armies unique. I personally don't think it's a good idea to limit your diversity by only making space marines armies with a twist. With 25 years experience making this game we should be expecting more from GW in this regard. Hours Heresy might be a better game, I don't know. To be honest, I don't care. The game has no interest to me. I'd much rather move on to Warmahords then play more marines on marines. But that's just me. Getting rid of useless penalties is not getting rid of what makes tyranids unique.
|
|
|
Post by slithernaut on Sept 4, 2016 15:57:07 GMT
Remember when fleet was a special rule for only Tyranids and Eldar?
Pepperidge farms remembers.
|
|
|
Post by blackrainbow on Sept 4, 2016 17:23:04 GMT
GW doesn't have 25 years of game design experience. Too many of their game designers have moved on, had their creativity shunted, or just shuffled around in that time, and too much of their leadership have done some change in direction that would make the chaos gods proud.
30k is boring on boring in different colors, even if it is balanced (personal opinion obviously, but if I wanted to play that style I would do WWII miniatures). 40k and its' 20 or so faction that we have today are mainly variants of the SM. If we are to look at unique snowflakes then we should be able to take any army and play the proxie game and see how they actually feel and play, regardless of the physical model. We can do that. We can play MC, FMC, swarms, psykers, all kinds of themed.
In comparison, what can Tau do? Shoot (with small units, big units, MC units), okay, little thematic there. Necrons? Resurecting, vehicles, a few CC units, and their shooting have some nice flavor, tesla and gauss. As a side note, Necron fluff is similar to ours, with the whole slave idea mentioned above. Orks, swarms (of shooting, vehicles, melee); they have the low acuracy/high volume down pat, with some how power spikes thrown in. Chaos (daemons or CSM) comes in three flavors despite four factions. Melee, magic, and survival, with slaanesh being a little of the first two. And the CSM part of this is just "evil" Space Marines. IG are mass blobs and tanks, classic military and a baseline for all of the above IMO.
Which leads to the poster-boys, our beloved Space Marines. I don't know all the factions, what I am familiar with is such: there were twenty chapters, less two for player creativity (one unknown for the Imperium, one for Chaos), that leaves us 18. Split in two for traitor and loyal, with the traitor already covered and super simplified in those three things, melee, magic, survival. So now we have 9 SM chapters, of which the ones that come to mind as having unique themes are Blood Angles (melee), White Scars & Raven Guard (Raven Wing?) for bikes, and that is it. I know the other names, but none of their abilities really stand out (here is my own ignorance in their... chapter tactics?).
What does all of this give us? Of all the armies, ours are the only one where chopping the head off ensures the rest will destroy themselves. Well, maybe ork a little too with mob rule, a little. And daemons phase out if they lose combat. But tyranids really do get a kick in the toxin sacs with selective unit removal or not bringing those certain synaptic units to begin with.
So here I agree with Yori, IB and synapse must go together, but dang if they don't need a decent fixing. And here I think is the importance of wish-listing: it gives us all, especially the ones with perhaps less experience on what to expect from a game system, an idea of what balance could be. This will help folks decide what army or even game system to use, so that they can get the most out of their gaming experience.
|
|
|
Post by blackrainbow on Sept 4, 2016 17:29:14 GMT
Remember when fleet was a special rule for only Tyranids and Eldar? That's great for GW, and gaming: trying out new rules. Lets things grow if it works, or if not then wait for the next edition and get rid of it. But the balance here is lost when something does work and is cool and is then spread through-out the game. Not so special, just another rule to know. This could be solved by play-testing a bit more, or in GW's case, at all.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Sept 4, 2016 17:37:27 GMT
And I will reiterate : I don't really care what the rules are called. I care what they do. Army wide debuffs for no reason other than poorly thought out fluff is stupid. There must be a balancing buff of something to factor in, or playing the army will just be an exercise in mitigating these debuffs.
Daemon armies do this now, the difference is they have mechanics to mitigate the stupid (fateweaver, demonic incursion) where our best options are to just ignore the majority of our codex.
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Sept 4, 2016 19:33:22 GMT
GW doesn't have 25 years of game design experience. Too many of their game designers have moved on, had their creativity shunted, or just shuffled around in that time, and too much of their leadership have done some change in direction that would make the chaos gods proud. 30k is boring on boring in different colors, even if it is balanced (personal opinion obviously, but if I wanted to play that style I would do WWII miniatures). 40k and its' 20 or so faction that we have today are mainly variants of the SM. If we are to look at unique snowflakes then we should be able to take any army and play the proxie game and see how they actually feel and play, regardless of the physical model. We can do that. We can play MC, FMC, swarms, psykers, all kinds of themed. In comparison, what can Tau do? Shoot (with small units, big units, MC units), okay, little thematic there. Necrons? Resurecting, vehicles, a few CC units, and their shooting have some nice flavor, tesla and gauss. As a side note, Necron fluff is similar to ours, with the whole slave idea mentioned above. Orks, swarms (of shooting, vehicles, melee); they have the low acuracy/high volume down pat, with some how power spikes thrown in. Chaos (daemons or CSM) comes in three flavors despite four factions. Melee, magic, and survival, with slaanesh being a little of the first two. And the CSM part of this is just "evil" Space Marines. IG are mass blobs and tanks, classic military and a baseline for all of the above IMO. Which leads to the poster-boys, our beloved Space Marines. I don't know all the factions, what I am familiar with is such: there were twenty chapters, less two for player creativity (one unknown for the Imperium, one for Chaos), that leaves us 18. Split in two for traitor and loyal, with the traitor already covered and super simplified in those three things, melee, magic, survival. So now we have 9 SM chapters, of which the ones that come to mind as having unique themes are Blood Angles (melee), White Scars & Raven Guard (Raven Wing?) for bikes, and that is it. I know the other names, but none of their abilities really stand out (here is my own ignorance in their... chapter tactics?). What does all of this give us? Of all the armies, ours are the only one where chopping the head off ensures the rest will destroy themselves. Well, maybe ork a little too with mob rule, a little. And daemons phase out if they lose combat. But tyranids really do get a kick in the toxin sacs with selective unit removal or not bringing those certain synaptic units to begin with. So here I agree with Yori, IB and synapse must go together, but dang if they don't need a decent fixing. And here I think is the importance of wish-listing: it gives us all, especially the ones with perhaps less experience on what to expect from a game system, an idea of what balance could be. This will help folks decide what army or even game system to use, so that they can get the most out of their gaming experience. Surprisingly the different factions of SM have some real stars out there, although not all of it are equal. Iron Hands, for example, are masters of tanks and FNP galore. Their best playstyles are real Deathstars and Tank Hordes with Power of the Machine Spirit everywhere and It Will Not Die everywhere, and improvable FnP saves. Salamanders are some real pyro-suckers and are all about flamer damage. White Scars have Hit and Run and Skilled Rider, I believe, while Dark Angels were recently given their rerollable jink saves. Both bikes, both survivable, but Dark Angels have Terminators too so differently played yet again. Imperial Fists get rerolling bolters all day every day! As well as Tank Hunter, which we dont care about much. Raven Guard get some weird thing like Stealth/Shrouded T1 and something else, mostly to make them a T1 set up T2 big wave type of army. Ultramarines get massive numbers of Tactical Doctrines. Obviously the factions with their own codex outshine the differences in Codex: Space Marines, but really each of them take one part of Marine's flexibility and make it stronger specifically for their army. So really, it isnt all that boring other than the fact that humans are boring/power gamers that play the most cheesy combos, or that they all have access to the same options. But if you were to run things purely into stats without fluff, I'd say most armies more or less have a large section copied out similar to each other with minor tweaks to make them look different. But somehow when you put them all together they just look and feel really different from one another, and no 2 armies can reeaaaaally play the same way all the time. That said, there are fewer and fewer reasons why a rule should have a drawback, rather than a limiter. If invul saves cannot be improved beyond a 3+, and cannot be made rerollable, HALLELUJAH THE BALANCE IS BACK!! Well not really, but it makes things easier to balance out in the future if you put limiters instead of weird or specific drawbacks that become obsolete.
|
|