Vaaish wrote:
Chicken or egg really.
This isn't chicken and egg, this is burden of proof stuff, you are making up some stats (fine) but then refusing to even discuss said stats before playtesting (not so fine) I'm pretty sure that the community should maybe have some input in this?
I would say that sensible playtest discussion should be more along these lines
1. AC/Someone suggest stats, either based on GW fluff or preferably on realistic requirements of a list/unit
2. stats are kicked around a little
3. revise accordingly
4. playtest
you're taking some words that GW has written and have slavishly ported the stats from a titan weapon and are refusing to listen to any other point of view, you're just repeating the line over and over and over with nothing to back it up but 'that's what the stats should be according to the fluff'
dude we're playing a game, not writing a story, I'm fairly sure even diehard fluff nuts like Glyn (sorry to keep harping on you here Glyn! it's not meant in a malicious manner!) have to come to a point where they realise that game balance trumps all.... look at the Krieg discussion, right now the list is too potent and some fluffy choices are being considered for being cut,
to balance the listQuote:
Stats always start somewhere and...oh right... haven't I been telling folks to go put models on the table if they think there's a problem THIS WHOLE TIME?
yeah, and I'm telling you to join in with that, it's a two way street, and haven't I been saying that it's not neccessarily a balance issue with the AMB but a power creep one THIS WHOLE TIME?
Quote:
And yes, I will stress test it. In fact, I almost always play vs marines first when testing units,
in your own time
Quote:
It's a grim dark future, we have an aerodynamically unsound flying brick. Honestly, anything can happen. If the fluff says it's a smaller version of the VMB strapped to an airframe and every metric released by GW (who created it in the first place) says it's got the same ammo as VMB, then it does. Speculation on the real world capabilities is secondary, so no pulling up your old post doesn't have relevance to what we have through official channels. Official channels always trumps our speculation when determining weapon characteristics.
no it really doesn't, that argument is weak, what happens when GW overguns another new model, do we HAVE to port the stats directly for that? I get that you want to reflect the GW fluff, amazingly I do too, but within the constraints of a well balanced game, and if compromises have to be made, it just has to be on the fluff side and not the game balance side, if we keep letting power creep up and balancing with points, armies get smaller and smaller, eventually we'll just have games of 40k on a small scale with small, incredibly potent formations playing checkers with each other
my suggestions are
justifications to permit modifying the rules to reflect the application, GW don't do this because they're basically a bunch of idiots....
Quote:
Ok, that's great. No one's arguing that the ABC and VMB are the same weapon. I'm arguing they fire the same shell therefore they should have the same to hit as the VMB. The supposition that they fire the same shells is supported by the FW stats for the ABC and VMB. Obviously platform affects things to some degree, hence it's got shorter range and fewer shots; something that's also supported by the FW rules.
I literally could not care less about FW rules, or 40k rules for that matter, I don't play 40k, because *drumroll* the rules are horrifically imbalanced and it's pretty well established that
power creep happens all over the freaking place in the name of selling models.... by slavishly following 40k fluff and stats
surely you can see that you're just following 40k codex creep?
Quote:
Community driven development requires firm direction or you end up with discussions like this where everyone argues in circles and nothing gets done
actually I disagree, discussion is good, excessive theoryhammering not so much, but in this case you're not being firm, you're being dictatorial, you're figuratively drawing a line in the sand with this.... firm direction is fine, but going against the majority opinion is not....