HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Share | 
 

 rant about GW and play testers

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 6 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 14 ... 19  Next
AuthorMessage
|Meavar
Wych
avatar

Posts : 604
Join date : 2017-01-26

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:42 am

I read the above and I keep thinking about an article about tactics versus strategy.

For me most of the fun comes from playing the battle itself. Sure I like planning an army as well, but I want the actual game be the determining point in who wins.
The problem for me is 2 fold.
Not only are a lot of list a bit of rock paper scissors. While the idea that you needed certain things against flyers, others against knights and others against hordes might give the idea that you need something of everything, it often ended up that people took just knights, just hordes, or just vehicles, just so half of the enemy shooting became useless. And it became rock paper scissors. People have 20 different units in a codex, unfortunately some of them were/are just better than others. Thus people will not take the other option. And in the end I had the idea that in the competetive envirement out of our codex around 8 units saw some use, often in similar loadouts and rarely as an stand alone army. And because over half of the units and half of the weapons (thus around 75% of option the codex) were rarely used because they were not considered viable.

I consider myself quite good at tactical games, and I greatly enjoy them. But I want to win because I was able to use my scissors to beat his paper and my rocks to beat his scissors, not because I brought just scissors and he brought paper and scissors and thus could not do anything anymore except damage mitigation since he has no option to harm my scissors. Or that the first few rolls (namely who could deploy and start first and maybe the few high str ap shots) determined that half an army was gone. Ow you say I should go for deep strike with most of my army, which means we just remove the dice from the first turn to when deep strike arrives, if it scatters, and we again go into a rock paper scissars sydrome.

Does the new version lose some tactics, yes, the loss of tank facing etc. Then again the majority of models had no facing anyway. Maybe I should crawl back to my square bases where movement mattered so much more since you had to think ahead what you were going to do since you could not just move and shoot half of the table because facings are a problem for everyone.

@ Valtek I doubt it was a joke, but I assume most people will also not see it much.
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1336
Join date : 2016-08-28

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:18 pm

Quote :

Out of curiosity, don't you feel like you are wasting your time playing your fully optimized list against a more poorly constructed list like I might have brought to play some games with random people that I don't know? I can't imagine most competitive players actually have fun curb stomping lists and players that puts forth no real challenge out side of the rare exception. In a theoretical world were the person with the non-optimized list doesn't complain and keeps putting down their armies over and over against you wouldn't you get bored playing against their lists? Would you have had as much fun using that Dark Eldar army the way you did if you were against people who didn't build their armies to be as "competitive"?

I don't have fun stomping people who don't play competitive lists with competitive lists. It's boring. I also don't like having to take useful units out to compensate for someone's inability to list build. I like playing hard lists against good players because it lets me stretch my legs a bit when it comes to the game.

At tournaments though it is very fun to absolutely blow people out of the water. Nothing like a good old fashioned tabling.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
Jim_the_archon
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 43
Join date : 2017-01-30
Location : England

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:44 pm

I'm actually curious as what list you've built that got you accused of cheesemongering because it takes allot for me to actually accuse someone of that (I one played a guys who's army was two knights a a shadow sword, a riptide and a wraith knight and when I asked him to explain the story behind his army he told me he liked powerful models. That's the level you have to take it to for me to accuse you of cheese)
Back to top Go down
CptMetal
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2679
Join date : 2015-03-03
Location : Ruhr Metropolian Area

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:58 pm

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
CptMetal wrote:
Maybe the new power levels are a thing for that?  So WAACs will not use that mode?

I'd appreciate if you'd cut back on the snide remarks. That's a disparaging remark against competitive players in this community, and while it's a common term, it's basically been hijacked to essentially include all competitive players, which isn't fair. Just like "that guy". [...]

No remark intended and none present.
I just wanted to express, that GW probably wants to build the three ways like:
Totally not competetive (open play)
Semi competetive (narrative play with power levels)
totally competetive (matched play)

And the power levels are not as granular as the point values.

I hope my english skills suffice to transport what I wanted to say this time.

TeenageAngst wrote:


I don't have fun stomping people who don't play competitive lists with competitive lists. It's boring. I also don't like having to take useful units out to compensate for someone's inability to list build.

Please don´t call the unwilligness to play a death star or an all knight army or something like that "inability". Thank you.

_________________
+++++INCOMING TRANSMISSION+++++
The Dark Eldar Codex sucks. You probably won just because your enemy loaded his dice to loose. Never forget this mantra and spread the word. Mention it in every discussion possible, people can´t get enough of that valuable information and need to be reminded regularely.
+++++END OF TRANSMISSION+++++
http://www.thedarkcity.net/t12720-tainted-reborn
Back to top Go down
CurstAlchemist
Wych
avatar

Posts : 849
Join date : 2015-04-30
Location : Las Vegas

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:00 pm

Well I wouldn't say that most people have the inability to create competitive lists. As 4thDimensionWizard has stated before one element of this is the unwillingness or inability to purchase the flavor of the month and paint it up to be used. What I would say many people have an issue doing is creating original competitive lists; most people, even in the competitive crowd lack the ability to push the boundaries like you find individuals such as Unorthodoxy doing (and be successful with). Building a net list is easy, just go to your respective forum/look up tournament lists after the game has been figured out for the most part and build what others have done. Now it is up to your skill to use those tools which is much more difficult.

Building a non-original competitive lists isn't some mystical formula that only a select few can figure out how to do; once the edition gets figured out that information is usually readily available on the internet. In the end there are many reasons as to why one might not create a "Competitive" list. There are those who have just started playing and lack a good grasp of how to approach things. There are those who want to build their armies around a theme not around what will win them the game most efficiently (this is assuming the flavor of the month isn't fluffy for that army or that your faction's loreful deployment of assets is not compatible with the competitive optimization of the list). There are those who build their list to help new comers by playing against them with a "more tame" list; who are more than willing to explain how those players could improve their playing with their army without trying to shove down their throats why x should not be taken because y is better point wise with probability A over probability of B do to the marginal difference of .0X.

In the end I don't think that competitive players are evil. Like everything it is down to the individual in question and their motivations. I think that some people are to apt to blame the short comings of the game on competitive players and use them as a scapegoat. Personally I feel that this edition cut to much out but I also think that somethings are an improvement as well while I also believe some other things would have been better executed in a different manner.
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1336
Join date : 2016-08-28

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:32 pm

Quote :
Please don´t call the unwilligness to play a death star or an all knight army or something like that "inability". Thank you.

Don't call someone's Knight House cheese, thank you.

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
Gobsmakked
Rumour Scourge
avatar

Posts : 3274
Join date : 2011-05-14
Location : Vancouver, BC

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:46 pm

Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2714
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:26 pm

Gobsmakked wrote:

Are we having a meme war?

Let me show you how happy this makes me:
Back to top Go down
4thDimensionWizard
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-05-25

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:59 am

The Shredder wrote:


"What's that? You want a Power Fist on your Lord Commissar? Hah! That's 25pts you'll never see again."

"You prefer missiles to lascannons? WRONG!"

"Grenade Launchers over Plasmaguns? LOL. L2P, NOOB."

"Did you just put Bloodbrides in your list? Hey, guys, this fool actually put Bloodbrides in his list! Yeah, a full unit of them."

"Wait, did you just give your Archon a Djin Blade? Are you sure you wouldn't be happier playing with this ball in a cup?"

(Note: these quotes are supposed to be from the game itself, not you, 4thDimensionWizard.)

What is even the point of having these options at all if taking them results in the game slapping you across the face and telling you to take something better or go home?

I'd like to make a very quick point that strikes to the core of what I've been saying here. Every single one of those examples you listed is a balance issue with specific units or wargear, and not one has anything to do with the core rules of 7th edition.

I think there were tons of things in 7th that needed rebalancing, repointing, made useful, nerfed, etc. There were even some core rules that needed cleaned up. But they didn't need to gut the game and make it Warhammer 40k: Toddler Edition to do it.

The entire dark eldar codex basically needed a redesign from the ground up. Wyches were terrible, and such nice models, among a multitude of other failings that combined to create a hot mess. Other codices and supplements needed changes too. But none of that had to do with 7th edition's core rules. As a matter of fact, one of the biggest gripes people had with 6th/7th edition in the form of allies has made it's way into 8th in a much bigger way. We can now take a single aeldari detachment with a Dark Eldar Archon leading a bunch of Craftworld windrider jetbikes, supported by a ynnari wraithknight, a vanilla harlequin troop and a vanilla solitaire.

We could have had a rich, fulfilling game, and still had things rebalanced. Balance in a game like this will never be perfect unless you make factions all the same. But we could have worked to achieve balance in a familiar, functional system that we all had experience with. We could have improved on said system. We could have added "3 ways to play", to make simpler versions of the existing system to make it more accessible to new players, and less nerve wracking for casual players.

Instead, GW chose to scrap everything and start from scratch with an overly simple system that, insofar as I've seen to date, hasn't really even shortened the average game time that much. So they took out all the tactical details, the variety of psychic powers, vehicles facings and firing arcs, and various other interesting and fun bits, for what? Only to end up with this?(8th edition)

No thank you.

I feel like GW has 1 guy who comes up with terrible ideas, then gets backed up by an army of overly optimistic yesmen who don't want to hurt someone's feelings by disagreeing with their idea. They need a naysayer on staff. I recommend Oscar:



I bet GW knew a fair number of people were going to be pissed. That's probably why they brought back Matt Ward, so we'd have someone to direct our hate at. Blame it all on Matt, the whipping boy of GW. Wink

_________________
"Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice."
Back to top Go down
Massaen
Klaivex
avatar

Posts : 2249
Join date : 2011-07-05
Location : Western Australia

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:10 am

Overwhelmingly I have seen positive feedback for 8th - with players who hated GW all through 7th and bailed due to the allies/psystar builds now returning and loving the game.

Games are massively shorter thanks to the changes to blasts/barrage and psychic powers.


_________________
Objective Secured - Western Australia's Premier 40k Event Organisers and Website
OBJECTIVE SECURED
Back to top Go down
http://objectivesecured.com.au/
4thDimensionWizard
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-05-25

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:25 am

I've seen plenty of negative feedback.

The issue is that most who have a lot invested in the 40k hobby are going to try to be optimistic about it, because they know it won't change quickly no matter what. Sites like natfka, BOLS, and FLG are going to be optimistic because a great majority of their livelihood depends on the continued success of GW, so GW could literally package polished turds and FLG would give it a positive review.

As for players, in general, 40k players are a positive bunch. They generally try to approach new things with an open mind and optimism. There are also many of them who are very casual players and/or aren't really capable of seeing a set of rules and quickly ascertaining how all those rules come together without getting several games under their belts. Many of the same people being positive here on this very site were probably positive about the 7th edition DE codex when it came out.

But even many of the people who are positive have admitted to thinking GW might have went too far with the simplification.

Will it effect their bottom line? Hard to say. Probably not, though. The video gaming industry has discovered that by making shallow, easy to access games that are cheaper to produce, they lose their dedicated hard-core gaming fans that have stuck by them for 20 years, but they gain access to a whole new pool of casual "gamers" that only play candy crush on their phone while they're taking a crap at work.

The same may very well work for GW. Time will tell if such a move is an effective long-term strategy though. Those casual candy-crushers are a fickle bunch, and can quickly move on to farmville 2, fallout shelter, pokemon go, or whatever other casual fad of the week comes their way.

_________________
"Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice."
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2714
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:01 am

4thDimensionWizard wrote:

I'd like to make a very quick point that strikes to the core of what I've been saying here. Every single one of those examples you listed is a balance issue with specific units or wargear, and not one has anything to do with the core rules of 7th edition.

Did I ever say otherwise? Neutral

That said, whilst not part of the core rules, unit and wargear prices were still a part of 7th rules.

4thDimensionWizard wrote:

I think there were tons of things in 7th that needed rebalancing, repointing, made useful, nerfed, etc. There were even some core rules that needed cleaned up. But they didn't need to gut the game and make it Warhammer 40k: Toddler Edition to do it.

I agree entirely. 7th had an awful lot of fat that could have been cut, but GW decided to also hack off two legs, an arm and about half the head.

4thDimensionWizard wrote:

The entire dark eldar codex basically needed a redesign from the ground up. Wyches were terrible, and such nice models, among a multitude of other failings that combined to create a hot mess. Other codices and supplements needed changes too. But none of that had to do with 7th edition's core rules. As a matter of fact, one of the biggest gripes people had with 6th/7th edition in the form of allies has made it's way into 8th in a much bigger way. We can now take a single aeldari detachment with a Dark Eldar Archon leading a bunch of Craftworld windrider jetbikes, supported by a ynnari wraithknight, a vanilla harlequin troop and a vanilla solitaire.


Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about the ally system in 8th. On the one hand, there don't seem to be many shenanigans using allies. On the other hand, this seems to have come at the expense of a great deal of flavour and fun rules.

The other thing I'd add regarding the DE codex is that it was already suffering heavily in terms of interesting rules/wargear. Virtually every unit in the Eldar codex had at least one unique rule, whilst DE got maybe 2 in their entire book. Hence, it would have been nice if they'd allowed us to keep a bit more wargear (like the Soul Trap) or rules (like a separate PfP chart for Coven units).

4thDimensionWizard wrote:

We could have had a rich, fulfilling game, and still had things rebalanced. Balance in a game like this will never be perfect unless you make factions all the same. But we could have worked to achieve balance in a familiar, functional system that we all had experience with. We could have improved on said system.  We could have added "3 ways to play", to make simpler versions of the existing system to make it more accessible to new players, and less nerve wracking for casual players.

Instead, GW chose to scrap everything and start from scratch with an overly simple system that, insofar as I've seen to date, hasn't really even shortened the average game time that much. So they took out all the tactical details, the variety of psychic powers, vehicles facings and firing arcs, and various other interesting and fun bits, for what? Only to end up with this?(8th edition)

No thank you.

I feel like GW has 1 guy who comes up with terrible ideas, then gets backed up by an army of overly optimistic yesmen who don't want to hurt someone's feelings by disagreeing with their idea. They need a naysayer on staff. I recommend Oscar:



I bet GW knew a fair number of people were going to be pissed. That's probably why they brought back Matt Ward, so we'd have someone to direct our hate at. Blame it all on Matt, the whipping boy of GW. Wink


I know exactly where you're coming from.

However, I do have one positive thing to say about 8th - which is that it has rekindled my friends' interest in 40k (after 7th killed it a year or so ago). So, whilst the rules really aren't to my tastes, I might at least get to use my models again. So there's that.

Admittedly, I'll probably be using DE or IG models because the new DE codex bores me senseless, but I guess you can't have everything. Rolling Eyes
Back to top Go down
zergavas
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 114
Join date : 2012-04-06
Location : Sweden

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:09 am

I can say some things i like about 8th, the no template is awesome.... okay it might have just been the one thing.

_________________
Our skimmers are armored with wet cardboard, our men are wrapped in tissue paper armor and most of our ICs and special characters live in abject terror at the thought of a Str 6 weapon that can insta-kill them, We are the Dark Eldar Fear us!
Back to top Go down
Barrywise
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 433
Join date : 2012-11-13
Location : Illinois

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:39 am

Are army codexes a for sure thing? I saw/heard a rumor about how codexes were supposed to fix all the fluff and special gear for Drukhari but I swear to Vect, if GW messes that up. I'm gonna...actually I dunno what I'll do, cross that bridge when I get to it I guess.

_________________
Want to chat in real time with your fellow archons? Join our Discord channel -> https://discord.gg/5yhRP7v
Back to top Go down
TheBaconPope
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 275
Join date : 2017-03-09

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:48 pm

Quote :
Are army codexes a for sure thing? I saw/heard a rumor about how codexes were supposed to fix all the fluff and special gear for Drukhari but I swear to Vect, if GW messes that up. I'm gonna...actually I dunno what I'll do, cross that bridge when I get to it I guess.

Yes, the Indexes are just placeholders, but I wouldn't count on us getting one anytime soon.

_________________
"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2714
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:12 pm

I really don't see why they couldn't have at least put the indexes online, like they did with the AoS rules.
Back to top Go down
doriii
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 245
Join date : 2013-04-18
Location : durr

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:01 pm

i just want to rant this out even though its FW:

The XV109 y'vahra battlesuit has a movement of 18"

think about that


now, how does a piece of crap jetpack fish suit move faster than everything that the "fastest" race has ?
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2714
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:12 pm

doriii wrote:
i just want to rant this out even though its FW:

The XV109 y'vahra battlesuit has a movement of 18"

think about that


now, how does a piece of crap jetpack fish suit move faster than everything that the "fastest" race has ?

Because it's a big model. The bigger and heavier something is, the faster it accelerates.

That's how physics works, right? Rolling Eyes
Back to top Go down
Painjunky
Wych
avatar

Posts : 851
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Sunshine Coast

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:31 pm

doriii wrote:
i just want to rant this out even though its FW:

The XV109 y'vahra battlesuit has a movement of 18"

think about that


now, how does a piece of crap jetpack fish suit move faster than everything that the "fastest" race has ?

Not only is it faster than anything DE has it can re-enter DS at will.
The stupid... it hurts!!
Back to top Go down
TheBaconPope
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 275
Join date : 2017-03-09

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:58 pm

Some quick notes about Deep Strike.

In our seventh edition codex, we had fifteen ways to deepstrike in some way shape or form. I've separated this into three categories.

Innate, meaning those that could DS naturally.

Conferred, which I've simplified into those that could DS through the use of dedicated transports.

Webway portals, as in those that could take webway portals. Note: I've limited this to characters that can take it, not the units they can join, as allowing this would increase the total number to 22 units that could DS. (Formations included)

Innate: Six units.

Conferred: Six units.

WWP: Three units.

In 8th edition, the above chart looks like this.

Innate: Two units.

Conferred: Zero units.

WWP: N/A

Statistically, we see a 67% drop in those that can innately Deepstrike and an 87% drop in overall deepstrike capability. This is a low estimate, as, like I said, we haven't even begin to factor in the possibilities lost by the cut of the WWP.

Just food for thought, but to me, we've lost the reason I started playing this army in the first place..

_________________
"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."
Back to top Go down
4thDimensionWizard
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-05-25

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:12 pm

Painjunky wrote:
doriii wrote:
i just want to rant this out even though its FW:

The XV109 y'vahra battlesuit has a movement of 18"

think about that


now, how does a piece of crap jetpack fish suit move faster than everything that the "fastest" race has ?

Not only is it faster than anything DE has it can re-enter DS at will.
The stupid... it hurts!!

You think that's bad? Swooping hawks actually got slower in the new edition while everything else got faster. They used to move 18" with their jump pack moves. Now they move either 12" or 14". I think someone probably just based it off of their unit type because they didn't realize that swooping hawk wings allowed for 18" movement before. In the last codex, the description of swooping hawk wings, and how it causes them to move was actually not on their datasheet. You had to flip to the back and read about the wargear. That's probably why it got missed and they got shafted.

_________________
"Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice."
Back to top Go down
Massaen
Klaivex
avatar

Posts : 2249
Join date : 2011-07-05
Location : Western Australia

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:12 pm

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
I've seen plenty of negative feedback.

So have I - I never said there wasn't any. I have seen WAY more positive feedback from even the Jaded older players who left 40k now wanting to come back though.

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
The issue is that most who have a lot invested in the 40k hobby are going to try to be optimistic about it, because they know it won't change quickly no matter what. Sites like natfka, BOLS, and FLG are going to be optimistic because a great majority of their livelihood depends on the continued success of GW, so GW could literally package polished turds and FLG would give it a positive review.

Or maybe they find the game fun? You don't have to be a shill or try to convince yourself to be optimistic if you find the game fun - and who says they don't?

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
As for players, in general, 40k players are a positive bunch. They generally try to approach new things with an open mind and optimism. There are also many of them who are very casual players and/or aren't really capable of seeing a set of rules and quickly ascertaining how all those rules come together without getting several games under their belts. Many of the same people being positive here on this very site were probably positive about the 7th edition DE codex when it came out.

This made me laugh! 40k players are far and away from a positive bunch. Gamers in general are not. We winge and moan and sook and complain - spend 10 seconds on any forum and you see that. Change is the devil (see every previous version of 40k in the lead up to release!).

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
But even many of the people who are positive have admitted to thinking GW might have went too far with the simplification.

This is also very funny - this edition is as least as complex as 7th... maybe more so. Individual move rates and multiple layers of modifiers on all parts of the combat process help balance out the more simplified changes they made to vehicles and the psychic phase. Look at the rerolls vs modifiers and tell me that's simpler than 7th Rolling Eyes

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
Will it effect their bottom line? Hard to say. Probably not, though. The video gaming industry has discovered that by making shallow, easy to access games that are cheaper to produce, they lose their dedicated hard-core gaming fans that have stuck by them for 20 years, but they gain access to a whole new pool of casual "gamers" that only play candy crush on their phone while they're taking a crap at work.

I hardly think you can compare a $50 video game to a $500+ tabletop game - video games have such a low point of entry and are finite in playability for the most part. Tabletop requires a longer term dedication to balance the cost of entry. I would describe XWing as easy to access given the sub $100 entry point but 40k? nope!

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
The same may very well work for GW. Time will tell if such a move is an effective long-term strategy though. Those casual candy-crushers are a fickle bunch, and can quickly move on to farmville 2, fallout shelter, pokemon go, or whatever other casual fad of the week comes their way.

See my above comments. While casual gamers can flit between games, you don't see that in tabletop because of the cost of entry.

_________________
Objective Secured - Western Australia's Premier 40k Event Organisers and Website
OBJECTIVE SECURED
Back to top Go down
http://objectivesecured.com.au/
4thDimensionWizard
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 67
Join date : 2017-05-25

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:24 pm

@Massaen: Neither one of us can provide proof in the form of actual numbers to support our assertions about number who like it vs. dislike, who is generally positive and who isn't, and how much casual players spend on their gaming. I could point to several threads here from when our 7th edition codex released to demonstrate how gamers are often unjustifiably positive, and you could just counter with a thread from Dakka or something where it was a lot of complainers. It would never end. It's going to depend on experience, and apparently my experience differs from yours. So on those issues I'm just going to agree to disagree.

As for complexity and strategic depth, one mechanic for rerolls that is unwieldy and unintuitive does not a deep game make. I'm with the countless others in that thread who have said they think that reroll system is dumb. Yoda said, "Agree, I do." So that's that. <Appeal to authority of Yoda successful>



Even without the movement stat, 7th edition had pretty varied movement, with wargear/special rules modifying how individual unit types would move. It was at least as versatile as 8th's movement system. That said, I actually like the inclusion of the movement stat if they wouldn't have removed all the wargear. It allows them to alter units movespeed easily without having to create a whole new piece of wargear for it, which means they'll be more apt to do it. But they could have slightly modified 7th to include a move stat.

One good mechanic doesn't justify all the other bad ones.

_________________
"Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice."
Back to top Go down
Massaen
Klaivex
avatar

Posts : 2249
Join date : 2011-07-05
Location : Western Australia

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:53 pm

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
@Massaen: Neither one of us can provide proof in the form of actual numbers to support our assertions about number who like it vs. dislike, who is generally positive and who isn't, and how much casual players spend on their gaming. I could point to several threads here from when our 7th edition codex released to demonstrate how gamers are often unjustifiably positive, and you could just counter with a thread from Dakka or something where it was a lot of complainers. It would never end. It's going to depend on experience, and apparently my experience differs from yours. So on those issues I'm just going to agree to disagree.

I am not saying I don't disagree with your point of view, I can see both sides - I am saying that while people have been negative for the release, there has been plenty of positivity as well - and with former players returning I think that says something about the direction of the game. Either way, happy to leave it here.

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
As for complexity and strategic depth, one mechanic for rerolls that is unwieldy and unintuitive does not a deep game make. I'm with the countless others in that thread who have said they think that reroll system is dumb. Yoda said, "Agree, I do." So that's that. <Appeal to authority of Yoda successful>


I think the reroll issue is one of past experience which makes it feel more unintuitive than it might otherwise be but agree its a puzzling choice given the player base experience and expectations in this area.

4thDimensionWizard wrote:
Even without the movement stat, 7th edition had pretty varied movement, with wargear/special rules modifying how individual unit types would move. It was at least as versatile as 8th's movement system. That said, I actually like the inclusion of the movement stat if they wouldn't have removed all the wargear. It allows them to alter units movespeed easily without having to create a whole new piece of wargear for it, which means they'll be more apt to do it. But they could have slightly modified 7th to include a move stat.

One good mechanic doesn't justify all the other bad ones.

7th had a mix of move stats but ultimately - if you were a fast skimmer (land speeder, venom or falcon) you moved the same. 7th had 2 movement rates really - 6" and 12". The movement in 8th has a huge range and its not incremental in 6" spaces. I think the loss of wargear is purely driven by codex and we will get it back in due course. I agree 7th could have just had this added mind you.

What bad mechanics? I keep hearing this but don't see it. Move hasn't really changed (save the distance covered), shooting is essentially the same (slightly different in spots but familiar enough that once you understand the armour save process its ok), combat is a bigger change in who fights but otherwise its the same as shooting, psychic is much simpler (its been made to simple in my mind after a few games). LD is a different mechanic but its better in my mind as a single bad roll doesn't see a whole unit lost unless you really lost combat.

I don't like the cover system - its weird, clunky and makes less sense than the past versions. The reroll system as mentioned before is also weird but at least its clearly written. With no prior experience with the game I wonder how bad/odd it would feel to learn. I also would have preferred fire arcs to be kept for vehicles (with a simple angle and direction added to the weapon profiles for it) and a -1T when being attacked from the rear would also have been nice to make facing slightly more relevant.

Its still 40k - and it feels a lot like 2nd ed mixed with some 5th ed to me. Its not perfect but I think overall its an improvement.

_________________
Objective Secured - Western Australia's Premier 40k Event Organisers and Website
OBJECTIVE SECURED
Back to top Go down
http://objectivesecured.com.au/
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1336
Join date : 2016-08-28

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:31 am

My local Warhammer store has forbidden anyone from playing 7th edition in the store after the 17th. They also said no one is allowed to say anything bad about 8th edition while in the store. Thinking this was every game shop, I asked my FLGS if they too forbid 7th edition and 8th salt. I was like idk, maybe it's a contractual thing if you sell GW products or something. They said they don't care what you talk about or what you do on the tables as long as everyone involved is on the same page and you don't break the terrain.

So yeah... not sure I'm going to be going to the Warhammer store much longer :<

_________________
Really terrible videos about tiny plastic space elfs intended to help you get gud scrub:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZP8WGIhte5TmCWQXsZO4A

Flawless pieces of literary perfection:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2805979/
Back to top Go down
 
rant about GW and play testers
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 9 of 19Go to page : Previous  1 ... 6 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 14 ... 19  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

GENERAL DARK ELDAR DISCUSSION

 :: Dark Eldar Discussion
-
Jump to: