GLs GK Codex wishlist changes

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I'm well aware of what you can and can't do with the codex, I obviously am, since I'm commenting on a forum dedicated to it. Since I'm asking for change, I'm obviously asking for something different.

 

So instead of jumping at 'clever' remarks like that, I suggest, you try to ponder, what you don't understand - or question it, if you fail to get any meaning out of it.

 

:blink: Then I'm not sure what you're asking for. If you want more than 72 Guardsmen bodies (less if you take monkeys, which I recommend), play IG. Anyway, for a typical 'absorb the enemy bullets so the Knights don't have to' requisition, an Inquisitor doesn't need more than a few squads of PDF. Fifty to sixty is about right.

I think if we re-introduced the whole 'inducting/allying' mess (which it was, in the end, with the various FAQ's and loopholes), it causes more problems than it solves. Allied battles (ie you play Knights, your friend plays IG or vice versa) is the better way to go about it if that's what you are after. The old days of inducting Guard or Sisters to plug our bodycount problems (or rather our complete lack of anti-tank of any viable kind) were fun, but a bit wonky.

 

the same where to buy frags for terminators you have to buy a crusader and you have to put them inside the tank . the same where you are unable to give the said frags to dreads or NDKs .

 

Que? We already get frag and kraks on our Terminators and Paladins. Crusader is a terrible buy for that reason.

Dreads don't need them, NDK don't have frags as a balancing nerf (so enemy units in cover, like with most MC combats, get a chance to cause damage before it stomps them flat).

 

the one where you dont get a 18" bubble to lower the opposing army T by one . The one where all it takes is a unit to get a charge in to an already going hth for all fights within those 18" to proc the rad again .

 

Which is broken as all hell. People complain enough already about Tech-Marines and Grandmasters. And I gurantee it will last till maybe Turn 2 before the enemy obliterate it (especially things like Orks and IG).

 

The one where 3d6 roll on avarge is 11 so everyone fails the test on avarge so the av 12 can not be silence by shoting . The one where the said buff is not only for the tank but for every unit within 6" [and it doesnt say whole unit so its enough If I have one dude within range and the rest conga] . it is that universe. I would take a shoting uber razroback which makes it on avarge impossible for the enemy to shot at me for 150pts in chaos even if it was av 10 on all sides and blew up on glance.

 

So in other words, you give it insane rules until it's an auto-include and has not a shred of game balance to it. Yay.

It's AV12. Thats nothing in 40k. Lascannon, railgun, meltagun, autocannon, missile launcher...given the price you're asking its very hard to take multiples without cutting out PsyDreads (who are better), which means focus firing it to death Turn 1 or 2 is pretty easy for the enemy. Your mirage rule is just silly and OP, and only one-use in any case.

 

The idea behind the vehicle was to give the GK army a viable alternative to DS or the Landraider spearhead that so many use. A specialist vehicle that only GK can have, that can be used to spearhead, probably loaded with a Inquisitor, Mystic and a few DSA's to lead a PA GK force.

 

We do? It's called the Chimera, and it's the gunboat of choice for our Purifiers. It doesn't need dumb OP rules, or inflated points costs. You can field a bunch of them cheaply as well, so if you have multiple Purifier units (I field 2, some people go for all 3), multiple gunboats are an option. Hell, you can even put Paladins in them if you want (oh but for the days of Vendetta-dropped Terminators...).

 

If only the SR could carry a NDK.

 

Another thing for the wishlist!

 

I now have a mental image of the Dreadknight suspended horizontally, poking his sword into tanks whilst the Stormraven drives over them. Sort of like a drug-induced version of the Necron Command Barge. 'Fly me closer so I can hit them with my sword!'

[Gentlemanloser]

lol!

 

Epic!

 

:blink:

 

A NDK using a SR as an oversided Jump Pack! Beats Dante surfing his DSing LR by miles!

[the jeske]

Which is broken as all hell. People complain enough already about Tech-Marines and Grandmasters. And I gurantee it will last till maybe Turn 2 before the enemy obliterate it (especially things like Orks and IG).

with what you cant shot at it because your doing an 3d6 [avarge 11] test for shoting and then get pined . Or the other option is to get to it in hth , but for that to work you have to kill everything in front of it , what would be the GK army . And yes if someone kills all the GK infront of the uber razer , then he can then kill the razer . awesome only if that happens the razor doesnt matter.

So in other words, you give it insane rules until it's an auto-include and has not a shred of game balance to it. Yay.

It's AV12. Thats nothing in 40k. Lascannon, railgun, meltagun, autocannon, missile launcher...given the price you're asking its very hard to take multiples without cutting out PsyDreads (who are better), which means focus firing it to death Turn 1 or 2 is pretty easy for the enemy. Your mirage rule is just silly and OP, and only one-use in any case.

dude what focus fire . you roll 3d6 add it [avarge 11] then check if it is lower then your LD[11 on avarge rolled is higher then all Ld possible in w40k] . the uber razor is undestrutible as shoting goes and he even gives the roll to the GK units near it , so it is not like you can just say , ok screw the uber razor ill shot the rest of the army dead . 2xuber razors would be enough to make a GK army untargetable by shoting on avarge rolls . even on sub par rolls[10] it would be hard to shot at it and armies with lower the meq Ld[orcs , tau, IG , eldar, de] would have it even harder . try to roll 7 or an 8 on 3d6.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Ah Grey Knights, the only forum where playing the strongest Marine army in the game isn't strong enough.

 

What do you need? I'd say the only thing would be a Brother Captain in artificer armour with the option of a personal teleporter.

 

Er no, you're going to lose significant chunks of dudes. BA are one of the best assault MeQ armies out there, thats their thing. Death Company will tear our Terminators and Purifiers apart without I6 halberds, Sanguinary Guard as well (although they probably die to counter-attacks, it's still a good trade in most cases for the BA). Even their basic Troops outfight Purifiers on the charge (in protracted combat you'll probably fight to a bloody stalemate, as they have cheaper bodies). Ignoring FNP and power armour is very good, but we just don't have the attack output to be assured of victory. BA vs Knights are usually quite bloody fights for that reason, even with the current I6 halberds leaning things our way.

The thing is, BA will commonly field 40 assault dudes plus specialists and walkers, to our 30 dudes (at least one squad of which is likely to be failStrikes making up Troops). If you go MSU, things get even worse (BA love Purifier MSU). Our infantry cost more, we rely on our shooting to soften up the enemy prior to combat (by design) etc.

 

Because you know, it's not fair if Grey Knights can't clean up in both shooting and close combat... really it's not.[/sarcasm]

 

Sanguinary Guard cost 40 points a model and die as easily against Grey Knights as any other marine. The basic Blood Angel assault marine is only two points cheaper than a Strike Squad member (a five man unit costs exactly the same because they have to pay for their sergeants). Death Company start at 20 points a model, and if you want them to be able to scoot across the table into assault they'll probably need jump packs at 15 points a model, and then you have all the fun of "rage" to deal with. Point for point Purifiers (or even Terminators) will just beat them down. Meanwhile (because of fast) all Blood Angel transports are ten points dearer than the Grey Knights. Indeed, a five man Strike squad, psycannon, hammer, and lasplas Razorback is 200 points, and a Blood Angels Assault Squad, meltagun, lasplas Razorback is 200 points. The Strikes have better shooting (four storm bolters and a psycannon, Grey Knights fight outside their vehicles more often than not) and fortitude so shaken and stunned doesn't mean much. The Blood Angels are fast, so can shoot their plasma gun if they move.

 

If the Blood Angels actually assault (which they can't do from their vehicle, so they'll have to weather another round of shooting from the Knights) then sure, rolling three dice each is better than the Knights one, but then they don't have power weapons or fists. The Knights have three power weapon attacks and two hammer attacks. However if they're in range to charge the Knights then the Knights are also in range to charge them, and on the charge the Knights have the same number of attacks as the Assault Marines receiving the charge. Either way the Knights win, and that's what you claim to be the worst Grey Knight unit in the Codex.

 

If you're facing jump pack Assault Marines, rejoice. They're not in transports and their ranged firepower is probably in devastators down the other end of the battlefield. Feel no Pain does make them resilient, but a Vindicare pops Sanguinary Priests on a series of 2+ rolls.

[Valerian]

What do you need? I'd say the only thing would be a Brother Captain in artificer armour with the option of a personal teleporter.

 

Freman, this is exactly what I proposed right after the GK codex was first released- makes a Brother Captain a viable choice over other HQ options, while simultaneously making Interceptors a viable dedicated assault force (when you chose to attach that Brother Captain with appropriate special grenades. It's a shame that we don't have an IC anywhere that can run with the Interceptors.

 

Valerian

[The Holy Heretic]

I'm well aware of what you can and can't do with the codex, I obviously am, since I'm commenting on a forum dedicated to it. Since I'm asking for change, I'm obviously asking for something different.

 

So instead of jumping at 'clever' remarks like that, I suggest, you try to ponder, what you don't understand - or question it, if you fail to get any meaning out of it.

 

:D Then I'm not sure what you're asking for. If you want more than 72 Guardsmen bodies (less if you take monkeys, which I recommend), play IG. Anyway, for a typical 'absorb the enemy bullets so the Knights don't have to' requisition, an Inquisitor doesn't need more than a few squads of PDF. Fifty to sixty is about right.

I think if we re-introduced the whole 'inducting/allying' mess (which it was, in the end, with the various FAQ's and loopholes), it causes more problems than it solves. Allied battles (ie you play Knights, your friend plays IG or vice versa) is the better way to go about it if that's what you are after. The old days of inducting Guard or Sisters to plug our bodycount problems (or rather our complete lack of anti-tank of any viable kind) were fun, but a bit wonky.

 

In short, I dislike marines. (actually marines are pretty cool but with 5 loyalist chapters alone, I think there is enough colourcoded space boys to go around).

 

I miss my stormtroopers, and would have loved to get a few boxes of plastic Adeptus Arbites for christmas.

 

Henchmen are supposed to be 'specialists and intelligence agents' not frontline grunts.

 

And Coteaz is just about the dumbest example on fluff -> rules there is. (and I already loathe special characters).

[Gentlemanloser]

And Coteaz is just about the dumbest example on fluff -> rules there is. (and I already loathe special characters).

 

Oh hell no. lol.

 

You might have that claim with Draigo, but not Coteaz...

 

I miss my stormtroopers, and would have loved to get a few boxes of plastic Adeptus Arbites for christmas.

 

Maybe the IG is a better fit than a codex built for the Grey Knights?

[The Holy Heretic]

Nah, course I love my Grey Knight termies - and I get by on Coteaz ;)

 

-

 

But you misinterpret me, I don't say Coteazs fluff is bad, its how its converted into rules, its like the head of CIA commanding his spies to invade Brazil, instead of calling upon the armed forces. Thats just dumb :)

[Brother Dylan]

This is my wishlist:

 

Fearless and weapon skill 5 for all gks.

 

Valkyries as dedicated transports for inquisitors.

 

Librarian dreadnaughts.

[Inquisitor Fox]

Valkyries can be dedicated transports for Inquisitors already utilizing the Imperial Armour volume 2 rules. So that at least is already doable :tu:

[The Holy Heretic]

Valkyries can be dedicated transports for Inquisitors already utilizing the Imperial Armour volume 2 rules. So that at least is already doable ;)

 

Can they? I thought that was only possible with Codex:Daemonhunters? :)

[Inquisitor Fox]

The exact text of the entry* says: "The Valkyrie is a dedicated transport choice for an Inquisitor and his retinue or Inquisitorial Storm Troopers."

 

Now ISTs no longer exist, but if anyone tries to tell me that a band of Inquisitorial Henchmen isn't the same as an Inquisitor and his Retinue I'm packing up my stuff and going home because that's someone I don't want to play with :) There's going by the rules, and then there's being hidebound. As a caveat, it's Imperial Armour so some people are sticks in the mud anyway, but again... not the people I'd ever want to play. I'm trying to have fun and play with neat models and make memorable games. I don't play by rules lawyerish WAAC fashion and I never will. Just because I know how to min/max my unit selections doesn't mean I do ;)

 

EDIT: * per the downloadable v1.3 update which is before Codex: Grey Knights, but I don't really see any conflicts a reasonable person can't decipher.

[NoLifeKing]

This thread hurts my mind trough my aegis with it's warp tainted aura.

[The Holy Heretic]

The exact text of the entry* says: "The Valkyrie is a dedicated transport choice for an Inquisitor and his retinue or Inquisitorial Storm Troopers."

 

Now ISTs no longer exist, but if anyone tries to tell me that a band of Inquisitorial Henchmen isn't the same as an Inquisitor and his Retinue I'm packing up my stuff and going home because that's someone I don't want to play with :P There's going by the rules, and then there's being hidebound. As a caveat, it's Imperial Armour so some people are sticks in the mud anyway, but again... not the people I'd ever want to play. I'm trying to have fun and play with neat models and make memorable games. I don't play by rules lawyerish WAAC fashion and I never will. Just because I know how to min/max my unit selections doesn't mean I do ;)

 

EDIT: * per the downloadable v1.3 update which is before Codex: Grey Knights, but I don't really see any conflicts a reasonable person can't decipher.

 

Amen to that :pirate:

[the jeske]

Now ISTs no longer exist, but if anyone tries to tell me that a band of Inquisitorial Henchmen isn't the same as an Inquisitor and his Retinue I'm packing up my stuff and going home because that's someone I don't want to play with msn-wink.gif There's going by the rules, and then there's being hidebound. As a caveat, it's Imperial Armour so some people are sticks in the mud anyway, but again... not the people I'd ever want to play. I'm trying to have fun and play with neat models and make memorable games. I don't play by rules lawyerish WAAC fashion and I never will. Just because I know how to min/max my unit selections doesn't mean I do msn-wink.gif

arent you affraid that the valk is not balanced for the new GK as it is possible to get ultra cheap blessed ammor razors cortez 2 valks [flyers which are harder to hit without AA weapons .which most armies dont even have] and up to 6 GK rifle man ?

[The Holy Heretic]

arent you affraid that the valk is not balanced for the new GK as it is possible to get ultra cheap blessed ammor razors cortez 2 valks [flyers which are harder to hit without AA weapons .which most armies dont even have] and up to 6 GK rifle man ?

 

I guess, you missed the last bit :ph34r:

 

...I'm trying to have fun and play with neat models and make memorable games. I don't play by rules lawyerish WAAC fashion and I never will. Just because I know how to min/max my unit selections doesn't mean I do msn-wink.gif

 

But people are already crying broken about everything thats different from a standard marine with a bolter :woot:

[Inquisitor Fox]

arent you affraid that the valk is not balanced for the new GK as it is possible to get ultra cheap blessed ammor razors cortez 2 valks [flyers which are harder to hit without AA weapons .which most armies dont even have] and up to 6 GK rifle man ?

Not really. First, blessed ammo isn't an option for the Valkyries. In fact they have no wargear options other than weapons refits normally available. Second, how is this any different than a minimum cost Brotherhood Champion or Inquisitor, 3 minimum sized Strike Squads, 3 Storm Ravens, and various Dreads? Valkryies aren't harder to hit than Storm Ravens. Storm Ravens are more durable due to the pilot, and you aren't addressing the real issue.

 

Took me a couple of days to figure out why this bugged me :lol:

 

Introduction of a model does not create rules abuse. Players create rules abuse. Introduction of a new option is simply that, an option. The reason there's a problem is because players have no DM to help ensure fun for everyone and saying "Yeah, don't do that. Yes, I know technically the rules let you, but for the sake of the game, no." Forge World is not to be blamed for creating additional content and making it accessible to gamers. GW is not to be blamed for inventing new units from time to time and adding to the universe that has been created. The blame for rules absuing army lists falls solely with one group: players seeking to win by any legitimate means over having fun while playing a game.

 

It's not about the destination (a win or loss), it's the journey (the several hours playing the game itself).

[Gentlemanloser]

INP, how do you determin if using a Lucious DP is ok, or if it's 'seeking to win over having fun'? Actually, how can you determin that seeking to win (in a must kill the enemy wargame) doesn't equal having fun?

 

And if 1 Lucious Drop Pod is ok, is 2? Three? six?

 

Edit: If the rules, and units, were balanced, we wouldn't have to discuss nebulous subjective terms such as fun. But alas, it's the Games Designers fault, not the players, for releasing a game with unbalanced units.

 

Some are too good *not* too take. Some units are so bad you'll never take them. That's no fault of the player...

[Inquisitor Fox]

Heh.. okay... *puts on Economist hat* You asked for it :D

 

The game being "fun" is going to have to be measured in Utils, or units of Utility. Essentially, you pick an activity that generates more Utility than the cost of enacting in that activity. Cost could be time, money, sanity, etc. Generally speaking people seek to maximize their Utility in any specific set of circumstances, and pick which activity they are going to embark upon by what generates the most Utility at that specific moment.

 

The interesting bit comes when you have to take into account that people gain Utility in different amounts from person to person, and from different activities from person to person. One person may gain positive Utility from eating peanuts, someone else might gain no Utility from eating peanuts, someone else might gain negative Utility from eating peanuts (food allergy). One person may gain positive Utility from a vehicle heavy list, another person may gain positive Utility from an infantry heavy list. One may gain Utility from fielding a painted army, someone else might not care. IN essence, we cannot ever truly measure the amount of "fun" gained by an activity in a quantitative manner, nor may we universally design any activity that unconditionally results in a positive Utility gain from all participants.

 

I can also point out and successfully argu, that balance is just as nebulous and subjective of a term as "fun." I can say the rules are perfectly balanced from the perspective of the person or organization that made and published the rules. If they weren't happy or content with them, they wouldn't have been published in the way that they were. It's harsh, but it's true. For something to be given a stamp of approval, it must meet and/or exceed a certain minimum standard to be deemed "done" and released into the world. Simply because each and every person doesn't agree with what that standard is ends up being kind of irrelevant.

 

So what then can we do? Attempt to appeal to a majority. Do we have to fault the publisher because we don't necessarily always fit into what their majority is? While some may argue that I have a case of being rightly pissed off that I can no longer field my Inquisition with Sisters army that was my Witch Hunters Codex, I cannot fault Games Workshop for making a marketing decision that appeals to the majority of the masses, their business plan, and where they want to take their Intellectual Property and their game.

 

If I want to have absolute control over what happens, I need to make my own game. Plain and simple. I chose to play theirs.

 

Fundamentally, everything comes down to player choice.

 

I must disagree entirely with your statement that some units are "too good *not* to take" or that some units are so bad they will never be taken. It is entirely the fault of the player. The player makes a conscious choice over what they include in their army list. Just as one person might argue always take Rhinos over Razorbacks, another will argue always take Razorbacks over Rhinos. They are each making a choice to maximize their personal Utility with what they are taking. Whether the decision be aesthetic, strategic, tactical, financial, based upon memories and past glories, or what have you.. ultimately it is the Player who makes the decision of what units they will field. Games Workshop does not tell us which things we have to put on the table beyond all armies must include 1 HQ and 2 Troops, and has specific maximums based upon Force Org charts and the scenario or type of game being played. Chess is a game where your pieces are dictated to you, as is Checkers or Go. This wargame isn't... it is fundamentally different in the hands of the players.

 

Players chose what units they field and put in their lists, and they each chose them based upon a set of internal Utility maximization that is unique to each Player. So you've picked a list that maximizes your own personal Utility for "fun", now you must find a compatible opponent. That's right, it is a social contract and a social game. What you may consider "fun" is not what someone else may consider "fun." You may like playing an all armour list, someone else may hate playing against all armour lists. That game will not be fun for them. So they seek a different opponent.

 

It's a similar set of circumstances to when my three children try to pick shows or activities that all three of them can agree upon. In short, compromise is no one truly being happy, but everyone being able to accept what is set before them. They go with the least common denominator. None of them really get their way, but it works.

 

GW made a product. They made a set of rules for it, they publish it and sell the things to play it. We CHOSE to play it. It is not their fault that it is physically impossible to maximize the Utility of every individual on Earth with the exact same product at the exact same time. "You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

 

In short, buyer beware. You buy the product because you get more gain from it than loss from it. If there's another product that appeals to you more, you buy that one instead. Just like breakfast cereal.

 

In a similar set of circumstances, we can't blame General Mills for not always appealing to my individual taste buds ;)

[the jeske]

If they weren't happy or content with them, they wouldn't have been published in the way that they were.

and I remember when thorpe did a DE dex and they had to errata the whole thing after a month because it was so bad that the sells were nothing anything near a new and shiny army. I also remember how thorpe made the chaos marine dex and the number of players in and out of tournaments droped a lot . Then after a year or so we got the whole "we didnt knew they would take 2 xDP" and "this codex doesnt represent legion forces well enough" etc . GW dex making is a roulette technicly they are content always , even if stuff is crap or drasticly changes the playabilty of the game [ wards demons in WFB]. But after a year or two and more offten after a dex is phased out we suddenly get the "we werent totaly happy how army X worked" etc . they just dont care about being content or not [well as long as the stuff doesnt make to go in to red too much].

 

GW made a product. They made a set of rules for it, they publish it and sell the things to play it. We CHOSE to play it. It is not their fault that it is physically impossible to maximize the Utility of every individual on Earth with the exact same product at the exact same time. "You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

that is not totaly true . in the west maybe , where you have lot of systems and FLGS can run more then one system at a time[or where you have gaming clubs] . But a lot of the world looks like this . either play GW stuff or you dont play anything because nothing else is supported [for example PP is "late" with its shipments . when late in eastern europe is 8 months . it doesnt matter how good or bad a game is if you cant get starter boxs for your FLGS then new people wont come and the game slowly dies out].

 

 

 

I guess, you missed the last bit

no I didnt . the FW valk is a flyer with no hard counters for many armies[no AA options] and few actual counters for others[iG and what ??] . if the IG one is used then it is undercosted by around 30 pts and buffs an army weak in long range anti tank[technicly] .

Its like giving SW a special FW rhino which can fit 11 dudes inside and suddenly all their GH squads are double special/double weapon set ups , because they can . Same here GK are not suppose to have hard to kill[flyer] long range fast moving anti tank , its the thing that is suppose to balance the codex . the thing that makes you think do I sacrifice some of the GK goodness and spam las/plas henchman razors and then have to take cortez or do I trust in my loaded dice to roll a lot of rending.

[Inquisitor Fox]

no I didnt . the FW valk is a flyer with no hard counters for many armies[no AA options] and few actual counters for others[iG and what ??] . if the IG one is used then it is undercosted by around 30 pts and buffs an army weak in long range anti tank[technicly] .

Its like giving SW a special FW rhino which can fit 11 dudes inside and suddenly all their GH squads are double special/double weapon set ups , because they can . Same here GK are not suppose to have hard to kill[flyer] long range fast moving anti tank , its the thing that is suppose to balance the codex . the thing that makes you think do I sacrifice some of the GK goodness and spam las/plas henchman razors and then have to take cortez or do I trust in my loaded dice to roll a lot of rending.

You missed the fact ForgeWorld did an errata for Imperial Armour volumes 1, 2 and a decent part of 3 ;) It's no longer a pure flyer.

 

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/News/Downloads.html

 

Specifically this file here.

 

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Prod...update28AUG.pdf

 

This entry specifies that a Valkyrie is a fast skimmer, and in games of Apocalypse is treated as a flyer with hover mode. Ergo, the situation you describe will never come up using the actual up to date Errata put out by Forge World on it's own site.

 

As far as your other points, those are simply factored into each individuals Utility preferences and situation. The equation changes based on people and circumstances, and everyone makes the choice that is best for them. Basic economic principles :)

[Gentlemanloser]

:)

 

IN essence, we cannot ever truly measure the amount of "fun" gained by an activity in a quantitative manner, nor may we universally design any activity that unconditionally results in a positive Utility gain from all participants.

 

Exactly. ;)

 

I can also point out and successfully argu, that balance is just as nebulous and subjective of a term as "fun."

 

It's really not. :( This is where maths come in. ;)

 

I can say the rules are perfectly balanced from the perspective of the person or organization that made and published the rules.

 

This is easily disproven. Digital Wepaons on a BC.

 

If they weren't happy or content with them, they wouldn't have been published in the way that they were.

 

Flaws, failures on thier part. They're not perfect.

 

It's harsh, but it's true.

 

Not even close. ;)

 

Fundamentally, everything comes down to player choice.

 

Influenced by the games designers.

 

I must disagree entirely with your statement that some units are "too good *not* to take" or that some units are so bad they will never be taken. It is entirely the fault of the player. The player makes a conscious choice over what they include in their army list. Just as one person might argue always take Rhinos over Razorbacks, another will argue always take Razorbacks over Rhinos. They are each making a choice to maximize their personal Utility with what they are taking. Whether the decision be aesthetic, strategic, tactical, financial, based upon memories and past glories, or what have you.. ultimately it is the Player who makes the decision of what units they will field. Games Workshop does not tell us which things we have to put on the table beyond all armies must include 1 HQ and 2 Troops, and has specific maximums based upon Force Org charts and the scenario or type of game being played. Chess is a game where your pieces are dictated to you, as is Checkers or Go. This wargame isn't... it is fundamentally different in the hands of the players.

 

Not if the units are balanced. The players are influenced by the games designers. Take for exmaple the Daemon Codex. There are some units in there you will *never* take, like Nurglings. And there are some units that are soo good, you'd be silly not to take them (DP of N, 'Letters). If you *don't* take them, you're makng your army significantly worse, while trying to play a game where you beat your opponent into submission.

 

There is no 'narrative' option for winning a game of 40k. Not given in the Rule book. You win by beating your opponent. And you use the tools offered to your by the designers to do so.

 

Players chose what units they field and put in their lists, and they each chose them based upon a set of internal Utility maximization that is unique to each Player. So you've picked a list that maximizes your own personal Utility for "fun", now you must find a compatible opponent. That's right, it is a social contract and a social game. What you may consider "fun" is not what someone else may consider "fun." You may like playing an all armour list, someone else may hate playing against all armour lists. That game will not be fun for them. So they seek a different opponent.

 

You should probably seek a different game to play... But that aside, if all units were balanced, and currently Mech Transports not so much better than anything else, it would be 'fun' to play against any list.

 

What isn't fun to play against is when the game itself sets you up to fail. Like playing a 'nid list versus a MSU Mech GK list.

 

No fun. No fault of either player. Purely a failure on the games makers to make the game balanced and accessible.

 

Sure, *we* could try to blance the game, but compromising on what and how we want to play.

 

But we shouldn't have to.

 

We're covering up for failures made by the games designers.

 

GW made a product. They made a set of rules for it, they publish it and sell the things to play it. We CHOSE to play it. It is not their fault that it is physically impossible to maximize the Utility of every individual on Earth with the exact same product at the exact same time. "You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

 

No, but you can almost remove this, by releasing a balanced game.

 

In short, buyer beware. You buy the product because you get more gain from it than loss from it. If there's another product that appeals to you more, you buy that one instead. Just like breakfast cereal.

 

Yes indeed. Which is why GW is slowly fading away.

[The Holy Heretic]

So ranting aside Gentlemanloser, but are you questioning InqusitorN.. for adding an 'unbalancing' unit to a game that you yourself regard as unbalanced in itself?

[Gentlemanloser]

Not at all.

 

I'm questioning the notion that the players sohuld be blamed if the games devolpers release bad material.

 

Is it the players fault that there are handful of unit in a dex that are so useless (either rules, or points costs) that players are influenced *not* to use them? Is it the players fault that some units are so good (either rules or under costed) that players are influence too use them above other options?

 

I see this not as the players fault, but the designers.

 

Twinlinked Autocannon GK Dreads are so good, in the majoirty of cases you'd be silly *not* to use them. Silly becuase of game design, not player choice.

[- 7eAL -]

Wishlist?

 

I want a Nemesis Nerf Bat, and I want it to strike at S10 against creatures named Ward.

 

Edit: Also, 99th reply get.