tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post9061695819415809000..comments2023-10-30T01:14:22.330-07:00Comments on HERO's Gaming Blog: Overpowered is for noobsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-75137314895155871852011-11-23T02:35:52.605-08:002011-11-23T02:35:52.605-08:00You know what, I kik the shit out of wolves all th...You know what, I kik the shit out of wolves all the time, so that throws your 'fit in two catagories' schtick out the window. They are still overpowered. If I used Wolves, I'd do even better.40K + T&Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09058918571922538449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-11844394624531556762011-11-23T02:30:53.461-08:002011-11-23T02:30:53.461-08:00'when a certain unit is too powerful...well ge...'when a certain unit is too powerful...well gee, that sounds the same as overpowered.'40K + T&Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09058918571922538449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-60710754582772705482010-04-20T17:22:06.278-07:002010-04-20T17:22:06.278-07:00A for regression and a F on sarcasm.A for regression and a F on sarcasm.HEROhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16578445512892020612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-91653680194104004262010-04-20T17:18:43.383-07:002010-04-20T17:18:43.383-07:00I actually did you read your Tyranid analysis befo...I actually did you read your Tyranid analysis before, if we want to call it that. Hell I even linked it for lack of Tervigon analysis. I don't care if you play against 200 tyranid players, it's just like everything else on the internet, all we have to go by, unless we meet people at tournaments, is what you write. Just because you play against Tyranids a lot doesn't mean those players are good or run good lists.<br /><br />I can take my Tyranid list and pit it against my SW lists or my friends' SW or any random's SW and assuming our generalship is equal (and the SW list isn't crap), it's more often than not going to be a close battle because both books are good. I don't care if you want to saw SW sits on the top of the pile. I won't argue hard. But seperating the "top" armies is next to pointless because none of them are at a significant disadvantage to the others compared to Daemons/Necrons/Orks/etc. This is what you're saying about Tyranids.<br /><br />Digressing, do you seriously think 2x TFex, 2x Tervigon, 20x Guant, 9x HG, 2x Harpy + Prime is easy to beat? Or a spore army based around Zoans + Trygons? Tyranids can be in your face fast and you've got to deal with that and it nearly becomes priority of sacrifice. Against their slower lists they still have mobility (which is why they work now unlike before, 6x Carnifex and 2x Tyrant was not good because Mech laughed at them) through Onslaught, winged heavy guns (which are pretty reliable for Tyranids. stop crapping on the Harpy internet), 48" guns, etc. and have the survivability to go haha at you. What would give that army fits? Las-plas RBack spam thanks to its mass AP2. But guess what? Tyranids can reliably shut down 7 tanks a turn which suddenly throws the mech advantages away. I could go on but the point of my original post is to stop with blanket statements of what's good and bad unless there is evidence of such (you know? Daemons/Necrons/Orks crying against mech spam?). If you think the SW is the best of the best and the Tyranid is the worst of the best, fine but don't try and make out the Tyranid codex as bad when it's not.<br /><br />Oh and if you want to try and claim GW is trying to leech money out of people with new armies (again, not going to argue) shouldn't you stop and wonder why some of the best or most interesting units have not come out with models? TWC, Tervigons, Manticores, Stormravens (interesting here; they can make a good list but not my cup of tea), T-Fexes, Rifle-Dreads, etc.<br /><br />"If that wasn't enough, let's just call DoA imbalanced too because a Space Marine Legion who has specialized in jump pack warfare for 10 millenia, had a Primarch with actual freakin' Angel Wings and have the same fighting assault-based military doctrine for all this time is too far-fetched and is not fair for the other armies."<br /><br />That's complaining.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07693773850422698445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-75105019179203581162010-04-20T09:24:46.689-07:002010-04-20T09:24:46.689-07:00It's not a bad idea, the only problem with it ...It's not a <i>bad</i> idea, the only problem with it (and it's one of the reasons things like Chapter Approved rules for armies were taken out of White Dwarves, for example), is that it requires players to be much more on the ball in terms of paying attention to all the updates. When you consider all the armies out there with their own codices, and all of those codices being updated every 3-6 months, players would really have to keep updated in order to not miss something big.<br /><br />I suppose it's doable, but it would require a lot more mandatory effort on the part of players in order to stay current, and I don't think this is the path GW wants to go.Jack Badelairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10932441028544500024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-49807480405725889352010-04-20T09:15:40.376-07:002010-04-20T09:15:40.376-07:00Commenting on the above "Anonymous" post...Commenting on the above "Anonymous" poster. I think the update process should move to emulate MMORPG's and the 'patching' system. This would require GW to have all the basic army lists and rules available online for digital download.<br /><br />Every 3-6 months instead of releasing an FAQ or errata they could tweak the problem units/combo's/vague use of the english language. Any changes would be listed briefly in the patch notes and any effected book could get a V. 1.02 or something.<br /><br />I am not saying this is a solution without its own problems but I think it would be a step towards the future and eventually lead into a "living rule book"Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-14366396987256606412010-04-19T08:34:26.736-07:002010-04-19T08:34:26.736-07:00It helps if you read what I wrote. For one, I thi...It helps if you read what I wrote. For one, I think I understand the Tyranid book well enough considering how a good amount of the players I play against are Nids. Second, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the SW book is clearly better than the Nid book. You should read (and actually read) my thoughts on the new Nids back in March. And lastly, lol man, I wasn't complaining about DoA at all. Talk about Warseer and Dakka and here we are with someone with no reading comprehension.<br /><br />Thank you and come again.HEROhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16578445512892020612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-87317187048729936152010-04-19T02:08:44.881-07:002010-04-19T02:08:44.881-07:00Didn't read it all but when you make claims li...Didn't read it all but when you make claims like SW being light years ahead of Tyranids I stopped. Another person who doesn't understand the Tyranid codex and lauds all over the SW codex. Yay for sites like Dakka and Warseer.<br /><br />Furthermore, complaining about the fluff (the DoA and Jump Pack reference) and calling it imbalance just seems...odd. Would you prefer every army to be the same or have minor differences? Oh right, that's what it was like before and 40k wasn't as exciting. Now you've got 5 new books which are all fantastically made and offer a wide variety of options. I'd like more of that thanks rather than crys of imbalance.<br /><br />Kudos to GW's design team over the past couple years. They've made the most balanced books of late and they still don't get mass credit from the masses.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07693773850422698445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-68601882535150291612010-04-17T07:38:22.582-07:002010-04-17T07:38:22.582-07:00Most of the time when people say "imbalanced&...Most of the time when people say "imbalanced" they mean "overpowered" anyway. I rarely hear "imbalanced" used negatively - people usually just say that the unit sucks.<br /><br /><br />Of course, this type of gaming that GW does will never be balanced, or even close to balanced. This is because of the nature of the hobby itself - codicies take years to get released, and all the while newer and shinier armies come out. The update process for each army is staggered, so there'll always be some lists which get old and unupdated - like the DA codex with their CML and Machine Spirit, for example. This leads to a catch-22 of sorts - if GW updates, they only update one army at a time, leaving the others further behind; if they don't update, the hobby stagantes.<br /><br />Compare this to a something like a computer game, for example. Everything is released at once, and patches are easily applied to fix balance issues. SCII is getting patches weekly, even daily, which try to resolve balance issues straight away. The closest thing GW has to patching is the occasional FAQ, and that's more of a clarification or patching up exploits rather than fixing the balance. Something like Warhammer will never reach the perfection of balance which was achieved in Starcraft: Brood War.<br /><br />Sure it isn't so unbalanced to the degree of "you pick this army, you lose". In practise, dice rolls, terrain set-up and your enemy's lists make too much of an impact on the outcome of the game for this to happen. If you look at it theoretically, however, then there is no doubt that some army lists are simply better than others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-63155234227521650322010-04-15T19:15:38.428-07:002010-04-15T19:15:38.428-07:00You know, I honestly don't find BA to be unbal...You know, I honestly don't find BA to be unbalanced in comparison to other 5th edition codexes(you can't expect them to maintain balance with previous edition codexes as the game progresses). Even compared to Tyranids, though there certainly ARE internal balance issues there, the overall list can definitely be competitive.<br /><br />BA *do* get a lot of stuff that's just *better* than similar versions in other lists, but without fail they pay more for it. <br /><br />I honestly feel Space Wolves get a better list in terms of power:point cost ratios. <br /><br />Yes, Mephie will kick your ass in close combat; but he's surprisingly soft when shot. Sometimes that's easier said than done, but so be it. There will always be a "most badass character in the game", BA's are the ones who have him now. ~shrugs~ There's no sense in whining about it.<br /><br /><br />Now, with that said, GW most certainly does release the occasional armybook/codex that IS grossly unbalanced, and it always annoys me when those players assume that they win purely due to some tactical genius on their part. While I will never blame armies when I win or lose, I do certainly recognize that army selection can indeed serve as a form of handicapping. <br /><br />I can't remember a single time when an army was so broken that I could simply not beat it. Not once, since 3rd edition. In either game. With any army. The odds are not always even - in fact, they usually aren't. The game is never decided by army choice.Derrick Whittethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01755962555163423014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-10897455052670882732010-04-15T17:05:24.188-07:002010-04-15T17:05:24.188-07:00The way I see it, in a game with the term "Fo...The way I see it, in a game with the term "Forty Thousand" as part of it's name, there is no such thing as "over-powered". The <i>whole game</i> is over-powered; that's part of the fun of 40K.<br /><br />But on the other hand, I do think there are instances where, for a variety of reasons, there are periods of time or certain situations or builds where you get a "perfect storm" in which a unit or army's effectiveness will be far out of proportion to it's point cost (look up "Leafblower Imperial Guard List) as an example.<br /><br />I don't think this is a "tarrible" thing; it just happens. The rolling nature of rules editions and codex releases and the discovery of win-builds means that now and then, some codexes will be amazing, while others will be a little weak. Then the tide will turn and suddenly that amazing codex doesn't do that hot anymore.<br /><br />I'm the antithesis of the Tourney Player, so I don't really have that cutthroat mentality that says no build is "too-powerful"; I do think there are certain types of armies that I wouldn't want to play against because I personally wouldn't have fun playing versus with my armies and my play style. But I won't claim these players are "doing it wrong"; they are just playing a different flavor of the game than I enjoy. No harm, no foul.Jack Badelairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10932441028544500024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-44346824754089301732010-04-15T16:58:47.645-07:002010-04-15T16:58:47.645-07:00In all my years of gaming, the game is often the l...In all my years of gaming, the game is often the last thing I blame.HEROhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16578445512892020612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229245860561585942.post-26699271859831167132010-04-15T16:47:43.169-07:002010-04-15T16:47:43.169-07:00Well, I have to say you are wrong. You admit tha...Well, I have to say you are wrong. You admit that GW has major balance issues both internal to and between codexes. Overpowered is just being more specific about which way the something is imbalanced.<br /><br />Do people run to it way to fast as an excuse. Ofcourse they do way to much but that does not mean it is not truly a problem that GW should work harder on. <br /><br />In Blood Bowl the rulebook pretty much tells you that some teams suck and you should not play them unless you are already good at the game.eriochromehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10377904099582258296noreply@blogger.com