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, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11 ... 19  Next
AuthorMessage
The Red King
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1131
Join date : 2013-07-09

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 12:34

It's a bit disingenuous to factor the cost of the gun but not it's effect, and also to not use the statline of the free sergeant.

As well as the inbuilt psychic bonuses readily available to the squad.
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 07 2017, 12:39

@The Red King wrote:

Since equal points of Archon to interceptor would be 2 To a squad we have 10 attacks at strength 3 ap-2 d3 dmg versus 16 attacks at strength 4 ap-2 d3 dmg.

You are ignoring the 2+ vs 3+ to hit... that's significant

The archons net 8.33 hits. The Strike marines net 10.66. The strikes with their higher base S will likely kill more enemy infantry but are WAY more likely to fold over and die while the archons are 2++/6+++ from the get go and get better as the game goes on. I would argue that over the course of the game, the archons get more done on the table

@The Red King wrote:
It's a bit disingenuous to factor the cost of the gun but not it's effect, and also to not use the statline of the free sergeant.

As well as the inbuilt psychic bonuses readily available to the squad.

No - you weren't talking about that - you were talking about damage output in combat with falchions vs Archon with husk blade. Once you step back and add all the other factors yes - the squad is a great choice. Its more flexible, has more options to harm the enemy (even just taking smite!) - but that's not what you said.... you said it sucked that GK interceptors were better in combat than an archon and that's what I compared

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

Posts : 1131
Join date : 2013-07-09

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 12:48

Fair enough.

My question is why should we even have to break out such a thorough dissection to determine if our HQ is better than a line unit?

After giving it a look I think the easiest comparison is a paladin sergeant. Only 9 points off the Archon. Also hits on a 2+ and has 4 attacks (after applying the falchion bonus).i still suspect an Archon wins a 1v1 (barring bad luck on an invuln) but why should our HQ be uncertain about the outcome of challenging a sergeant.

I don't want OP, but since his only affect outside of combat is a mediocre leadership boost or a single shot, is it too much to ask him to be good in combat?

_________________
For Khaela Mensha Khaine!
Back to top Go down
Demantiae
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 261
Join date : 2015-01-07

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 13:00

Units are not costed against units across factions. They're costed against units within their own faction. IG get cheaper plasma than SM not because their lower stat cassis are so much inferior, but because they are built to field lots and lots of guns, you can' do this if the costs are high. Hence why IG troops went down to 4pts a model. Kabalites are not 66% better than IG infantry because they cost 3 pts more, they're not comparable that way. You can't compare the Archon to GK units and say there's equivalence, there's not. Sure you can compare output of damage in controlled conditions but you can't compare what they each bring the table. GK come with the problems of small, elite armies and the benefits of huge psychic presence. DE don't get any of that, they get mass poison, a mostly flying army and speed. GK interceptors or whatever they're called can be picked or not to flesh out your force org, Archons have more pressure on them to be taken as they can fill mandatory fore slots, this in and of itself will inflate the Archons price (as it will for all HQs). And the aura buffs that most HQs have inflates their price too, as do the higher wounds. But the Archon is still not being costed against GK units, he's being costed against other DE (and probably other Eldar) units.

The balance of the overall faction is what matters rather than the balance of individual units of one faction against those of another. There's obviously some sort of baseline to work from, a guideline that some factions deviate from but if a faction needs certain things common to more than one faction to be more or less expensive to make their own faction work better then costs will be adjusted. It's not a difficult concept to get your head around.

Look at the Archon compared to the Haemonculus and Succubus. He's clearly the budget HQ option, as GW has recognised that the days of 3rd-5th when the Archon was a beast are gone and he's now overshadowed by the other two, so he now costs less, and does less. He's not Kharn the Betrayer, he's Bob the Buffer who you need to fill your mandatory 1+ HQ slots.

The Husk Blade does need to be re-costed though. It's 250% the price of a power sword or agonizer, both of which out perform it. It's only niche is vs T3 characters with crappy armour saves, where it might actually outperform both. With no means to get higher S the Husk Blade is useless. Unless the codex gives Archons a means to boost S again it's simply inferior. Without that possibility of a S increase then it needs at least the same AP as a power sword and it needs some other special ability to compensate for the lack of punch vs anything T4 or higher. Or it needs to be free to take. At 0 cost it's worth having over the other two options that cost points.

_________________
------------------------------
The Bone Flower
------------------------------
Back to top Go down
The Red King
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1131
Join date : 2013-07-09

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 13:30

Then my complaint is with how gimped the Archon is because GW decided that's best.

The cynic in me can only see this unwarranted nerf to the Archons base kit as an attempt to sell new models by invalidating all of the old finecast ones with swords and soul traps.

Also Bob the buffer has a pitiful buff.

_________________
For Khaela Mensha Khaine!
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2736
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 13:34

I think the Agoniser and Huskblade really should be AP-3. I don't see why either of them should have worse AP than a standard power sword.

With regard to the Huskblade, I'd make it a straight 3 damage, but have it go down to 1 against vehicles.
Back to top Go down
Ikol
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 427
Join date : 2017-03-20
Location : Perth

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 14:07

@The Red King wrote:
Then my complaint is with how gimped the Archon is because GW decided that's best.

The cynic in me can only see this unwarranted nerf to the Archons base kit as an attempt to sell new models by invalidating all of the old finecast ones with swords and soul traps.

Also Bob the buffer has a pitiful buff.

Kind of wish they'd just make the old finecast one in plastic...

It's so much better than the current, static pose potato-head model we have now.

_________________
This world exists because of the things we have done, forever branching to the decisions we make and twisting to what we do not.

Woe to our enemies. We'll tear them apart regardless.
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 07 2017, 16:52

@The Red King wrote:

The cynic in me can only see this unwarranted nerf to the Archons base kit as an attempt to sell new models by invalidating all of the old finecast ones with swords and soul traps.

Agonizers can take the form of any weapon, not just the whip-looking one. In the fluff it describes that they can be swords, maces, etc, but just that they are most often in the form of whips.

I've always used swords as agonizers for 2 reasons:

1. I like the aesthetic better.
2. The whips don't fit in a standard infantry slot, and so get caught on foam often.

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

Posts : 2736
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 16:55

@4thDimensionWizard wrote:
2. The whips don't fit in a standard infantry slot, and so get caught on foam often.

I agree, but then I have the exact same problem with spikes, swords, knives and guns. Razz

I've lost count of the number of times I've picked up a foam tray, only to see that about 5 warriors from the tray beneath it are stuck to the bottom by the blades of their guns.
Back to top Go down
CurstAlchemist
Wych
avatar

Posts : 849
Join date : 2015-05-01
Location : Las Vegas

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 18:53

Was about to post this in another thread but stopped myself to put it here even though it is just another rehash of previous statements:

Got to love GWs terrible rule writing and the ambiguous way they go about it, but hey they knew what they meant when they wrote it, even if we have no way of knowing and can only make assumptions until they finally decided to get around to doing a FAQ/Errata to spell it out for us.

Hopefully most players have reasonable playing groups with no or very few rules lawyers.



Last edited by CurstAlchemist on Wed Jun 07 2017, 19:52; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Edited for some grammar corrections.)
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2736
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 19:40

In terms of bad writing, you can have an awful lot of fun with the <keyword> abilities if you go by RAW alone.

Let's see, I think I'll have start with some Admech. Their <Forge World> will be 'Mars'.

Hmm, now I think I'll add some Necrons. Their <dynasty> will be the lesser-known 'Mars'.

Well would you look at that? Now all my <dynasty> auras can buff my Admech and all my <Forge World> stuff can buff my Necrons.


And if you think that's bad, you probably won't want to know about a certain <legion> called 'Fly'. Very Happy

Back to top Go down
sekac
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 46
Join date : 2017-06-03

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 19:55

@CurstAlchemist wrote:
Was about to post this in another thread but stopped myself to put it here even though it is just another rehash of previous statements:

Got to love GWs terrible rule writing and the ambiguous way they go about it, but hey they knew what they meant when they wrote even if we have no way of knowing and can only make assumptions until they finally decided to get around to and FAQ/Errata to spell it out for us.

Hopefully most players have reasonable playing groups with no or very few rules lawyers.

I agree with GW 's ambiguous rule writing, but I'm never sure what is meant by "rules lawyer". It seems to mean something different to everyone.

It's unfortunate that common sense is a necessary ingredient to understanding what GW was trying to communicate, but I feel the term is also often applied to people who insist that their opponents play by the rules if the game.

For instance, back in 3rd Ed (maybe 4th too, but I don't think so), you could opt to "turn off" your powerfist and swing with your regular profile. When players tried to do this in 5th and beyond, I would point out that they couldn't anymore and some people would get annoyed with me. Perhaps I'm a rules lawyer in their eyes, but I don't think that ignoring inconvenient rules is the right course either.

I can already foresee those same debates this edition. There will be many times where we DE players would prefer to swing with a raider's S6 profile in combat, but according to the rules, you can't. Regardless of what the stat lines of our vehicles are, they are S4 in combat and there's nothing we can do about that. Maybe GW didn't intend that, maybe they thought they were giving us combat flexibility, but until they FAQ it otherwise, we are stuck using crap blade vanes.
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    Wed Jun 07 2017, 20:20

It doesn't work that way shredder.
In case you choose Mars in both cases you got "Dynasty of Mars" and "Forgeworld Mars". Those are different things.

_________________
+++++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
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1532
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 20:24

In my eyes the Rules Lawyers are those who are trying to gain advantage through the use of RAW in a clearly unbalancing way. Like current hellbrute. Comes equipped with MM and Hellbrute Fist. He can swap his fist for Scourge, getting +3A. His base is 4, so we are at 7 now. But he can replace the MM with a Hellbrute Fist. But there is nothing preventing him from replacing this second Hellbrute fist for a Scourge too, is there? So in goes another Scourge for another +3A... Oh look... he has two melee weapons now and has ability to get +1A for it. So we are at 11A... Oh look - he can fight twice if he is damaged. So comfortably sitting at 22A @ 3+ S8 AP-2 D2... Nice huh? Legal though...
Back to top Go down
CurstAlchemist
Wych
avatar

Posts : 849
Join date : 2015-05-01
Location : Las Vegas

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 20:34

@aurynn wrote:
In my eyes the Rules Lawyers are those who are trying to gain advantage through the use of RAW in a clearly unbalancing way. Like current hellbrute. Comes equipped with MM and Hellbrute Fist. He can swap his fist for Scourge, getting +3A. His base is 4, so we are at 7 now. But he can replace the MM with a Hellbrute Fist. But there is nothing preventing him from replacing this second Hellbrute fist for a Scourge too, is there? So in goes another Scourge for another +3A... Oh look... he has two melee weapons now and has ability to get +1A for it. So we are at 11A... Oh look - he can fight twice if he is damaged. So comfortably sitting at 22A @ 3+ S8 AP-2 D2... Nice huh? Legal though...

This is how I define them as well and is what I mean by rules lawyers.
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2736
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 20:37

@CptMetal wrote:
It doesn't work that way shredder.
In case you choose Mars in both cases you got "Dynasty of Mars" and "Forgeworld Mars". Those are different things.

No, that's not how it works.

"You then replace the <Forge World> keyword in every instance with the name of your chosen Forge World."

So if you choose 'Mars' as your Forge World then '<Forge World>' is replaced simply by 'Mars'. It doesn't become 'Forge World Mars', just 'Mars'.

If you want further proof, look at the Special Characters that affect units from specific dynasties or Forge Worlds or whatever. e.g. Belisarius Cawl simply has 'Mars' as a keyword, and his Lord of Mars ability affects "friendly Mars units within 6".


What you're suggesting is probably what they should have done, but not what they actually did. Razz


EDIT: Just realised where the confusion comes from. It seems that Dark Eldar work differently from the others, in that it actually includes 'Kabal of...' or 'Wych Cult of...', rather than just the name.


Last edited by The Shredder on Wed Jun 07 2017, 21:18; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1350
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 20:44

It's officially called the "Wu Tang Clan rule"

_________________
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
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2736
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Wed Jun 07 2017, 21:17

@TeenageAngst wrote:
It's officially called the "Wu Tang Clan rule"
lol!


See, for the most part, I don't think people will even try this.

However, I can imagine people with unusual conversions or fluff wanting to use it to combine two armies that wouldn't normally be possible (e.g. Tyranids possessed by Chaos and fighting alongside CSMs or Chaos Demons).
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    Thu Jun 08 2017, 01:13

I have no problem with what I've seen of the edition I've seen so far but as many people said "the game you asked for" no, no it's not. The game the longbeards I pay with asked for? Maybe they're always like "2ns edition this and 2nd edition that" and now they're like "I like how this seems to be back a bit to how 2nd edition was" move with the times grandpa! (Saying that I wasn't a massive fan of 7th because of all the super heavy spam I was seeing)
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    Thu Jun 08 2017, 03:14

@The Shredder wrote:
@TeenageAngst wrote:
It's officially called the "Wu Tang Clan rule"
lol!


See, for the most part, I don't think people will even try this.

However, I can imagine people with unusual conversions or fluff wanting to use it to combine two armies that wouldn't normally be possible (e.g. Tyranids possessed by Chaos and fighting alongside CSMs or Chaos Demons).

Talking to the guys who run the major events (FLG, Mike Brandt and so on) - this is not even a question. The Kabal/cult example is exactly what we end up with in their eyes. Its not possible in matched play.

As a TO - and I expect most if not all would be the same - I would never allow it

_________________
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    Thu Jun 08 2017, 07:51

I'm really wanting to like 8th edition, but so far, very little sounds "fun" to me. Lots of arbitrary changes for the sake of change, and oversimplification that sounds like it will disproportionately damage the game compared to the time it saves(if any). Paired with nonsensical points valuations, the game just doesn't make sense to me at this point. Hopefully that will change when I get more information, but I am honestly pretty discouraged.

Eldar psykers seem like a joke. They went from having the flexibility to generate powers from among 28 different powers to having to pick 2 of 3 that aren't even very good.

D weapons aren't a thing any more, and gargantuan creature protections are a thing of the past, both of which directly nerf wraithknights. Cool, problem solved, right GW? GW: Nope, let's nerf it, then price it as if we didn't, triple price or so sounds good. There, done! Now all those guys who bought wraithknights will have to buy something else because WKs are barely useable. We know they have a few greenbacks left in those wallets! Gimme, gimme.

Does anyone really think it's a coincidence that this new edition of the game seems to heavily favor hordes of models?

Almost all of our varied and interesting deployment options like deep strike and webway portals went away. We went from an army who could literally deep strike our entire force to one where only 2 mediocre units can do it.

Everything can hurt everything now, and weapon skill doesn't matter, so a guardsman can hit Lelith Hesperax as easily as hitting a parked, unmanned Rhino with busted tracks.

I just don't get it. Does this really sound fun to people? People like this?

I don't care if we're "the 2nd best army in 40k" if 40k itself is a boring dice rolling contest modified by who can stomach sitting on their leather butt long enough to paint the most cheap(points-wise, not money-wise) infantry models.

8th hasn't even hit store shelves, and I find myself eagerly anticipating the release of 9th edition, hoping it will take us back towards the 40k I know and love.

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

Posts : 1350
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Thu Jun 08 2017, 08:09

Quote :
I just don't get it. Does this really sound fun to people? People like this?

I mean I don't. IDK about other people but when I said 7th edition needed to be fixed I didn't mean neuter it.

_________________
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
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1532
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Thu Jun 08 2017, 08:21

Well there is the other side to it.
To me most of the changes makes perfect sense.
Simplification is temporary until the dexes and more and more supplements are released.
Points values make much more sense to me now than they did in 7th.
Some power nerf/creep is a result of this game being a business and forgive me to say that, if someone bought 3 WKs to field in 7th then the nerf serves them right coz they were not fun whole 7th.
D-weapons gone? Hooray! Superheavies and Gargants gone? Hooray! The models are no longer autopick or pay-for-win! Whats not to like?
Deathstars more or less gone? Hooray!
Lelith cannot charge 20-man blob of guardsmen alone without fear of suffering a wound or two? Hooray! They dont stand a chance if she takes even 5 girls with her.
The lost of DS and Webway is somewhat disappointing, but I doubt we won't get some fun in the dex.

So yes. For me it is fun just because I cannot decide what to play first... It is so great to have so many viable options, which will most likely be expanded further quite soon. There is very little that is "barely playable". But there are very little autopicks. I expect WK getting some niceties too in the dex.

I had very little love for 7th and it was my least played edition of them all. Good riddance I say even if 8th is not perfect.

It seems to me that people tend to pick up particularities without taking context into the evaluation. And without taking into consideration that the bloody thing didnt hit shelves yet. I am more than willing to give it some breathing time and it seems very unfair to just spit on it just because its not perfect out of the gate and because it broke the status quo and ppl have to go and think again and winning got harder than slap 3WKs/Deathstar/WarpSpider spam or whatever on the table and just stand there and be smug.
Back to top Go down
TeenageAngst
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1350
Join date : 2016-08-29

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Thu Jun 08 2017, 08:37

Quote :
Simplification is temporary until the dexes and more and more supplements are released.

How do you know that? Do you have the codex? What's that over there, is that the codex?

Seriously, I want "just wait for the codex" to be my epitaph. Because if AoS is any metric I'll be dead by the time it arrives. Or if it does arrive sooner, it will be a watered down mess filled with nothing but endless pages of GW's studio army pictures, some army lists, a few strategems, and maybe a couple new rules. That's it.

Quote :
Deathstars more or less gone? Hooray!

What? Have you played AoS? The game plays like a Protoss deathball thanks to all the stacking buffs, which btw are in this game now. I mean I guess it's not technically a death star if it's literally your entire army just mushed together in the center of the board.

Quote :
Lelith cannot charge 20-man blob of guardsmen alone without fear of suffering a wound or two? Hooray! They dont stand a chance if she takes even 5 girls with her.

Answer me honestly, how many times did that actually happen to you?

Also I'm not upset because it "broke the status quo." I'm upset because it invalidated every previous publication both in lore and rules and replaced it with something that can only be described, and just barely, as "better than AoS when it launched."

_________________
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
Massaen
Klaivex
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: rant about GW and play testers    Thu Jun 08 2017, 08:48

Its funny because this "invalidated every previous publication both in lore and rules and replaced it with something that...I don't recognise or like" is exactly the response a lot of players had when 3rd ed dropped and everything changed... 4 editions later its happening again as the game moves back towards 2nd ed...

the circle of gaming!

_________________
Objective Secured - Western Australia's Premier 40k Event Organisers and Website
OBJECTIVE SECURED
Back to top Go down
http://objectivesecured.com.au/
 
rant about GW and play testers
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 19Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11 ... 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: