Skip to toolbar

Votann getting a Balance Update

Home Forums Science Fiction Tabletop Game Discussions Votann getting a Balance Update

Supported by (Turn Off)

Related Games:

Related Companies:

This topic contains 6 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  bubbles15 2 months ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1781586

    iceeagle85
    Participant
    4960xp

    Some of you might have heard that the new small guys from GW left a bit of too big an impact with their new codex.

    They were banned from some tournaments. So GW listened and changed some rules.

    Autowounds generated by tokens never count as 6 on a to wound roll, and everything is now more expensive points wise.

    • This topic was modified 2 months ago by  iceeagle85.
    • This topic was modified 2 months ago by  iceeagle85.
    #1781603

    darthcheese
    Participant
    4022xp

    This is poor. It shows a lack of play testing and comparing against other armies. Codex creep is clearly real!

    #1781612

    kiranamida
    5772xp
    Cult of Games Member

    A codex out of date before it’s even released (bearing in mind those out of the world are from the pre-order boxes), is that a new record?

    On a more serious note: I did come across an interesting idea being discussed in a few the places from this. That is, “is it even possible to balance armies with GW’s release cycle?”

    With there being new codex every three months (ish) that means there is never really a point we’re any codex is released as balanced against all others. A best it is balanced against all those that came before it (or more realistically, it is balanced against those since released for the edition as previous editions are often simply missing key features that are newly introduced) as any that are subsequently released did not necessarily exist when the latest is released.

    In order to achieve balance, they would need to release rules, balanced against each previous release (which itself incorporates more and more with each release) and then pull that off at least seventeen times in a row (or however many codecies there are, I heard this number but I could be off). Under such circumstances, is it any such wonder that balance is rarely achieved.

    No game is immune to power creep, people like to write new and exciting things, but at least things that release together as a moment in time tend to work with each other. Or living rule sets that can be continually tweaked as updates feedback on each other as the meta spirals into some approximation of a middle ground.

    This off course raises the question of GW’s desire to balance the game they make vs their desire to continue with a business model that succeeds regardless. That’s a road well trod that I shalln’t journey down at this time of night but this thought has been with me for a few days but I wonder what you all think?

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  kiranamida. Reason: spelling
    #1781639

    phaidknott
    Participant
    6906xp

    I don’t think GW actually extensively playtests their rules/codex releases these days. Certainly with Necromunda the “gangs” are unbalanced, some skills/cards effectively useless etc. Some of the rules have been unplayable, and certainly the books are a mess with one famous rulebook release referring to an equipment chart for a Gang member type that didn’t appear anywhere in the rulebook 🙁

    It’s all seems more of a series of “theory hammered” sets rules, with what sounds “cool” (and perhaps what will sell miniatures) are the front of the rules authors mind (rather than a balanced set being the first priority).

    But then GW aren’t known for putting out a good set of rules for a game. Due to their excessive releases the rules are a mess, spread over umpteen books that often conflict with each other making navigating the rules a complete nightmare. I really doesn’t surprise me that we are here today with GW introducing a level of “power creep” that even has the most avid 40K player saying “no, this is getting out of hand”.

    Gone are the days when GW would release an entire rules system over no more than five or so books. Instead we’re looking at rules systems where it’s in the region of over £500 to get near having the full set of rules to hand. Really GW should stick to what they are good at (making miniatures), and instead put out rules where the game is paramount (and not overwhelming driven by the urging of the marketing department to drive sales for EVERYTHING (including stuff that you never realised you need), the “everything” including custom dice, rulers (Kill Team anyone), FOMO card tactics sets etc 🙁

    #1781643

    bubbles15
    Participant
    2069xp

    I think Workshop do as much as they can given the resources they have in the time to market they give themselves.

    If they produced less, people would complain. If they spent longer on playtesting, people would still complain because you cannot test every permutation. You reach combinatorial explosion so quickly with such a game that it’s literally impossible to calculate everything.  Chess has 16 pieces, with fixed moves and it has something like 10 to the 120th possible moves. (10 with 120 zeroes after it for the those- like me – who are less mathemaically inclined). Now imagine if one side has a card that lets them move just one square to the left. The other has one that can move one square to the right, both under certain conditions. Now we’re at 10×1200.

    As for ‘the rules are a mess’. Ultimately, it is a game of chance.

    I am not defending Workshop. I merely point out the complexity. Heck, I remember Chaos Daemons 6th being a word for word reprint of 5th. That properly ticked me off (and that’s the understatement of the year). Anyone else remember  the family photos in the Burning of Prospero black book? The massive quality drop off (and thinning of content) after Alan Bligh’s passing for the Heresy series?

    What’s disappointed me is the entitlement from the community. Maybe I’ve just got old and don’t care enough any more, or have other things to worry about. Workshop found a problem and fixed it. OK, it renders investments null for those who bought the codex, but we know the errata are released to a schedule, we know that’s the chance. Would digital books help this? Very likely as they could be updated more easily but I, like many; like physical books. Part of their beauty is that they cannot be fiddled with.

    Stepping back and looking at it objectively for what it is – an acknowledgement, apology and re-consideration – is a positive step. The Workshop of 10 years ago wouldn’t have bothered doing either.

    #1781662

    phaidknott
    Participant
    6906xp

    The rules are complex because GW just like adding books and additional codex releases willy nilly. Quite often gamers are having to buying a “new” codex because GW likes to add special rules to go alongside that new unit box they just released. So if you’ve bought that new fancy unit of space marines because they looked good in the shop, you now find out you have to buy that new codex to have the rules to use them. It’s this “rules creep” that’s so prevalent in all the GW game systems that ends up with them being an unnavigable mess.

    Indeed GW can’t playtest for everything, but adding a new race/army to the game they would have found out the issues for the Voltan after a couple of games (so this leads to more of a “theory hammered” process than a playtested one).

    #1781674

    bubbles15
    Participant
    2069xp

    Maybe, phaidknot – yet I don’t see the enforcement to buy the new book. It’s a choice. They add special rules because we want them too. I acknowledge what you’re saying but to solely blame Workshop is, I think; unfair.

    That said, when 9th came out and strategems exploded even the most ardent gamers in our group couldn’t keep up.

    The game is complex by default – different weapons, armour saves, cover. Unless everyone has the same then invariably it is unfair.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Supported by (Turn Off)

>