|
Well, the problem as I see it is that most groups of players aren't large enough to have each of the armies have a backer. All of the players in my area have 2 or 3 or 4 armies, but they have just 1 or 2 preferred armies. That combines with the limited chances of playing, so players have to decide if playtesting a list is preferrable to playing a straight-up game with their favorite army. If you only get to play once or twice a month, playtesting can get neglected pretty easily.
I've noticed that you have been complaining about the tyranids. I suggest you look over at the Tau boards, because you'll see the same type of thing there - although maybe all of the complainers there have gotten tired of not being listened to and stopped posting. The same thing happened with the Chaos Black Legion list, from what I can tell.
I've come to the opinion that the next set of "official" army lists will be overpowered. But, like the Eldar, Seigemasters, and Feral Orks list, it will become obvious that it is so, and the group will work to correct the problems.
We have a case where the inmates are running the asylum. Unfortunately, if that were not the case, lists wouldn't be made at all. So, I think the best way to handle it is to let the fanboys make their lists, but have a good post-mortem equalizing mechanism in place so that the new lists can be better balanced after a single pass through the rules commitee.
I'm not sure it can work any other way.
By the way, it seems to me that the tyranid champion is one of the better ones out there. He is active on the board, he has reacted quickly to make suggested changes, and has given a good direction to the playtesters. Maybe you should encourage your opponents to read and post on the boards, so that they can add their experience to the group, and so that they can see how/why their armies are good/bad/etc.
|
