• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

8th Ed. New rumours - pre-order 4th of July, picture inside

Do you like ponies

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 42.9%

  • No

    Votes: 12 57.1%
  • Total voters
    21
Pinktaco said:
Disallowing duplicates wouldn't make sense. It's what make the new WE special and mostly taking that away from them would be weird and dumb. It's a minor mistake from GW and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Like the minor mistake of forgetting to mention TiQTaQ'To really is allowed to join "his unit of Terradons"....?
 
pendrake said:
Like the minor mistake of forgetting to mention TiQTaQ'To really is allowed to join "his unit of Terradons"....?
Click to expand...

It would seem a lot of army books suffers, due to the poor descriptions of rules in both Core rules and applied special army books.
I'm sure examples such as these are far from unique, as some one mentioned seemingly quite a few armies has these rules, were it is written in the context how it should be used, but ordinary Core rules dictates differently. Which of course is a problem, when not just facing friendly competition in a game....
 
I believe the dwarfs have a banner they cannot use according to the rules :p
 
Pinktaco said:
I believe the dwarfs have a banner they cannot use according to the rules :p
Click to expand...

Lol :)

But how hard can it be? Don't they work with checklists or something!!

Ok, we have a rule about a character on a flyer who we want to be in a unit.
1. Lets check the rules about flyers!!!
2. Lets check the rules about characters (and mounts
3. Lets check the rules about joining units.

1. nothing
2. nothing
3..ahha....charactrs cannot join flying units.....ok, we have to write a clear exception in the army book.


Wood elves: we are writing something about magical arrows, and we call them enchanted items to prevent issues for characters who also have a magic sword (because you cant duplicate) and then we fail to realize that as soon as we call them enchanted items that duplication rule would still apply.
 
pendrake said:
Like the minor mistake of forgetting to mention TiQTaQ'To really is allowed to join "his unit of Terradons"....?
Click to expand...

The Sauric Ace said:
It would seem a lot of army books suffers, due to the poor descriptions of rules in both Core rules and applied special army books.
I'm sure examples such as these are far from unique, as some one mentioned seemingly quite a few armies has these rules, were it is written in the context how it should be used, but ordinary Core rules dictates differently. Which of course is a problem, when not just facing friendly competition in a game....
Click to expand...

Pinktaco said:
I believe the dwarfs have a banner they cannot use according to the rules :p
Click to expand...

So why does this happen? For two simple reasons...
  1. First and foremost GW is lazy/careless in the way they write rules
  2. GW does not write rules with a hardline RAW mentality. That is a player/consumer construct.

Actually, pure RAW is paradoxical. I could write out the proof (yes there is actually proof), but I'm lazy at the moment.
 
More like because mistakes happens all the time everywhere. The issue with GW though is that they haven't put out a new FAQ/update in 2 years.

I hope that'll change with the new edition although we all know that IF it happens it'll only be for the new faction..
 
It does happen a lot though that they make mistakes, way too often if you ask me. And the Lizardmen book is actually quite rife with mistakes (Predatory fighter, Tiktakto, Skrox units and shooting incase non infantry characters join, Ripper bloth toads).I would have serious problems with my boss if i make mistakes like that in my work. Our editorial department is actually quite good and they usually catch all contradictions in our reports (that often involve over a dozen authors).

So I have to agree with Nightbringer that there sure is a level of carelessness or amateurism in GW rule writing.
 
Pinktaco said:
More like because mistakes happens all the time everywhere. The issue with GW though is that they haven't put out a new FAQ/update in 2 years.

I hope that'll change with the new edition although we all know that IF it happens it'll only be for the new faction..
Click to expand...

Then again, IF we aren't part of this new ed. we could just make our own army book, without contradictions and complicated rules statements ;) We could even balance it properly.... (Actually I feel that Lizardmen is one of the best balanced army's out there, I suppose that's a vague statement though; with half the armies have one tier and half another o.O ...)
 
I was speaking to the manager of my local GW store today, he said it costs GW £400,000 for making a new cast (for a new model) and with all the new releases last year they should keep on supporting Lizardmen next ed
 
hmm....that sounds rediculously expensive.
 
The Sauric Ace said:
Then again, IF we aren't part of this new ed. we could just make our own army book, without contradictions and complicated rules statements ;) We could even balance it properly.... (Actually I feel that Lizardmen is one of the best balanced army's out there, I suppose that's a vague statement though; with half the armies have one tier and half another o_O ...)
Click to expand...
It's a good idea in theory and even in practice I would love to read it. The difficulty would be getting opponents to play against it. It's one thing to create a custom special character but a whole book may leave people hesitant. I have no doubt that the talented people on this forum could (and would) create a balanced book... but can we convince others of this? Maybe... maybe not.

Of course I'm not saying that such a book shouldn't be created, only that it might meet resistance from gamers outside of our Lustrian community.
 
The Sauric Ace said:
Then again, IF we aren't part of this new ed. we could just make our own army book, without contradictions and complicated rules...
Click to expand...

NIGHTBRINGER said:
It's a good idea in theory and even in practice
Click to expand...

Actually, just re-writing a single army book will not do the job. The whole game has to be re-written. As long as the writing teams at Games Workshop are active the game is continually skewing out-of balance. Generally the oldest books being in the worst shape.

The playing community has to be convinced to scrap the key element that fouls everything up and that is the composition points system published out of Nottingham. They use it to drive sales. They use it to relegate perfectly good models into obsolescence. And they will never stop unless the customer base rebels and writes something better.
 
pendrake said:
Actually, just re-writing a single army book will not do the job. The whole game has to be re-written. As long as the writing teams at Games Workshop are active the game is continually skewing out-of balance. Generally the oldest books being in the worst shape.

The playing community has to be convinced to scrap the key element that fouls everything up and that is the composition points system published out of Nottingham. They use it to drive sales. They use it to relegate perfectly good models into obsolescence. And they will never stop unless the customer base rebels and writes something better.
Click to expand...

So you mean to gather together enough people to collectively re-write each and every army book? That would be a huge undertaking, but it would be absolutely awesome if accomplished.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
So you mean to gather together enough people to collectively re-write each and every army book? That would be a huge undertaking, but it would be absolutely awesome if accomplished.
Click to expand...

Re-write is not really the term for what I have in mind.

For instance: the "fluff" sections would be ruthlessly condensed. The one for the Lizardmen is already in my signature. :cool:
For another instance: the existing shooting rules need to be scrapped. Needing to roll 7 on a D6 happens way too easily.
For a third instance: the idiotically weird procedures for fleeing and pursuing need to go.
For a fourth but Lizard-specific instance that Blot-Toad Stink business that's gotta be replaced with something sensible (and while we are at it if The Empire still has pidgeon bombs those may need to go).

I am envisioning a tabletop game similar to warhammer but different in some particulars, written for, but not limited entirely to Citadel models, with an army power balancing system controlled by the players.
 
pendrake said:
Re-write is not really the term for what I have in mind.

For instance: the "fluff" sections would be ruthlessly condensed. The one for the Lizardmen is already in my signature. :cool:
For another instance: the existing shooting rules need to be scrapped. Needing to roll 7 on a D6 happens way too easily.
For a third instance: the idiotically weird procedures for fleeing and pursuing need to go.
For a fourth but Lizard-specific instance that Blot-Toad Stink business that's gotta be replaced with something sensible (and while we are at it if The Empire still has pidgeon bombs those may need to go).

I am envisioning a tabletop game similar to warhammer but different in some particulars, written for, but not limited entirely to Citadel models, with an army power balancing system controlled by the players.
Click to expand...

This would be brilliant, if it actually came to be I would be far happier about the system. However making everyone who's into warhammer now convert to this pathfinder - ish concept could be difficult.

None the less, I'm in! :)
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
It's a good idea in theory and even in practice I would love to read it. The difficulty would be getting opponents to play against it. It's one thing to create a custom special character but a whole book may leave people hesitant. I have no doubt that the talented people on this forum could (and would) create a balanced book... but can we convince others of this? Maybe... maybe not.

Of course I'm not saying that such a book shouldn't be created, only that it might meet resistance from gamers outside of our Lustrian community.
Click to expand...

It's extremely hard to convince others. What some might consider overpowered others might not. For instance our Oldblood is off the chart good for what we pay and people accept that because GW made them so. Imagine if we, as a community, can up with the same. Do you think people would accept that? Our OB is like that because of the rest of our army, but people don't share the same view as we do.

I'm not saying it would be impossible, just that it would be extremely difficulty. Now duplicate the same effort into every army because we're not the only army getting squatted. There will likely he no more Bretonnia, Dwarfs, Wood Elfs, High Elfs, Dark Elfs etc.

There will likely be future armies consisting of units from former armies, but we can safely assume that the armies we currently have will no longer be updated as individually armies.

It's a shame though that GW didn't wait a year with the end time stuff and instead updated the last army book. Imagine being s bretonnia player with their thousand year old book :/ at least ours is updated and balanced.
 
Pinktaco said:
For instance our Oldblood is off the chart good for what we pay and people accept that because GW made them so. Imagine if we, as a community, can up with the same. Do you think people would accept that? Our OB is like that because of the rest of our army,
Click to expand...

Then our OB needs to cost "more" and our big, not-very-useful dino needs to cost "less". What is that thing? Trogladont? -dant??

But as a starting point the point costing needs to have a different basis entirely:





  5. Snotling
  6. Skavenslave
  7. Gnoblar
  8. Goblin
  9. Skink
  10. Nightgoblin
  11. JungleGoblin
  12. Skaven
Change the order as you think proper (from worst to least). But the worst and lowliest creature needs to be around 5pts and not half-a-point. The other lowly things scale up from there.

There has got to be enough points per creature to differentiate Skinks from the various kinds of goblins.​

By the time you get up to Oldblood the new valuing system will have no relation to the old one. Values will be calculated strictly by stats. An OB will end up being [wild guess?] 234 points, a Stegadon 5-600 and so on.
 
But that's strictly taking stats into account and not internal army balanced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top