[WFB] DE \ Chaos question
Robert Singers
Elves and Daemonettes? A couple of people have been wanting to have a game
and I wondered if I had an alternative to Dwarves.
Doctor Rock
"Robert Singers" <sing...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhpbhc$v9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Are there any lists in the new version of WFB that allow you to field Dark
> Elves and Daemonettes? A couple of people have been wanting to have a
> game and I wondered if I had an alternative to Dwarves.
not since the Storm of Chaos book i'm afraid.
i've meant to set myself to updating and revising that army list a couple
times over the past few years, but never had enough time / nothing better to
do. it was a pretty cool army to play, but the list itself was wide open to
abuse.
Blackheart
> "Robert Singers" <singe...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
unfortunately yeah... I would have been interested in doing Cult of
Slaanesh had I not been on a forced hiatues from hobby during that
time.
I'm not sure that the Storm of Chaos stuff is technically "illegal"
though.
Brad Hann
wrote:
> Are there any lists in the new version of WFB that allow you to field Dark
> Elves and Daemonettes? A couple of people have been wanting to have a game
> and I wondered if I had an alternative to Dwarves.
druchii.net has an unofficial (homebrew) update. I haven't looked at
it so I have no idea if it is balanced or what.
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=59375
Brad
Robert Singers
What a bugger.
Robert Singers
That's interesting. I hadn't thought of it including humans, but a bunch of
Shadowforge female fantasy miniatures would make a nice couple of units and
would be very usable for other things.
Doctor Rock
"Blackheart" <blackhear...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:767d1f31-5220-4113...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
=====
well no, there's nothing to stop you from just using the units listed there
in their "new" iterations. that's not the problem; it's that with the
benefit of play, it's clear that the list really needs tuning and
balancing -- something its author (guess who) apparently considered
unnecessary when he published it.
Doctor Rock
"Brad Hann" <lunta...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1a238fb9-bac5-4c9c...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=59375
=====
yeah, it's good that someone is going to the effort and all, but: this
essentially just reiterates the problems with the original SoC list. a
mish-mash of the most useful units from both 'parent' lists (plus a couple
redundant/gimmick units) with no comprehensive approach to balance,
definition or streamlining. in fact, this one throws daemonic magic into
the mix and unlocks even MORE pointless magic item choices.
i realise my manner of critique is not very "inclusive" or "web two point
oh" or whatever... but i figure that since fan-made lists AREN'T published
with the aim of moving specific sections of GW stock, there is no excuse for
unfocussed authorship.
Playa
Hey,
On Jan 3, 12:00 pm, "Doctor Rock" <mala...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> since fan-made lists AREN'T published
> with the aim of moving specific sections of GW stock, there is no excuse for
> unfocussed authorship
Excuse? Haven't you noticed?
A good number seem focussed on a certain player's model collection.
When asked, "Well, what about everyone else?" they say, "What?"
Bottom line - what we really need is a FOC meta-list.
It would require forward thinking and hard work.
Shocker: GW has yet to use this method.
Er, someone else get right on that . . .
Pla - zzz - ya
Minty fresh
There is no reason that any of the development GW has to do should be hard
work at all. It's also interesting how many of the project / software
development IT skills are directly transferable to game design and testing.
Compare WFB & 40K to FoW. No one complains that a FoW list is broken. FoW
has a consistent underlying system that runs across the three time zones the
game encompasses. If Battlefront want to make more money they produce more
product, I.e. miniatures and scenery.
GW's on the other hand fiddles with the underlying system constantly to
create a new product for you to buy. Their "hard work" goes into keeping
the game broken so people keep buying their product.
It would be simple to create an entire WFB meta list, and to do a quick fix
of the whole broken system.
All you need to do is assign a numeric value to each
"power\skill\experience level" unit has to create a cumulative power rating
for each unit. When you have done that you all of the army books you will
have a matrix that will show you two things. Where "powers" have
inconstantly costed across units and what units are inconsistently costed
across armies.
Next step normalise those powers or units.
Then come up with base force org charts.
Then a list of what units can thematically be combined.
And there you go.
smcdaniel1
"Minty fresh" <rsin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhtk11$m4j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Playa" wrote>
>> Hey,
>>
>
> It would be simple to create an entire WFB meta list, and to do a quick
> fix of the whole broken system.
>
> All you need to do is assign a numeric value to each
> "power\skill\experience level" unit has to create a cumulative power
> rating for each unit. When you have done that you all of the army books
> you will have a matrix that will show you two things. Where "powers" have
> inconstantly costed across units and what units are inconsistently costed
> across armies.
>
> Next step normalise those powers or units.
>
> Then come up with base force org charts.
>
> Then a list of what units can thematically be combined.
>
> And there you go.
Do I smell logic? Oh, no, it was just the cat farting.
--
Sir Scott "Move along... " McDaniel
Doctor Rock
"Minty fresh" <rsin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhtk11$m4j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Hey,
>>
>> On Jan 3, 12:00 pm, "Doctor Rock" <mala...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> since fan-made lists AREN'T published
>>> with the aim of moving specific sections of GW stock, there is no excuse
>>> for
>>> unfocussed authorship
>>
>> Excuse? Haven't you noticed?
>>
>> A good number seem focussed on a certain player's model collection.
>> When asked, "Well, what about everyone else?" they say, "What?"
>> Bottom line - what we really need is a FOC meta-list.
>>
>> It would require forward thinking and hard work.
>> Shocker: GW has yet to use this method.
>> Er, someone else get right on that . . .
>
> There is no reason that any of the development GW has to do should be hard
> work at all. It's also interesting how many of the project / software
> development IT skills are directly transferable to game design and
eh, that's an oversimplification. what the two areas have in common is that
they both require (or ought to; see above) the same set of abstract analysis
and critical thinking skills to develop. the ways in which those skills are
applied are different, though, because the human variables are different.
software--say a game engine, to run with your example--can do far more to
restrict and/or resolve imbalances caused by the human-user side of things
in a video game, than a printed ruleset can in a tabletop / roleplaying
game--hence why a numerical value-based system can only go so far in that
direction. i don't doubt that GW's perennial game balance issues could
benefit from some element of that (even a basic degree of mathematical
*awareness* would help)... but expecting it to fix those problems in every
human situation is over-optimistic.
smcdaniel1
Tee hee
--
Sir Scott "love it... " McDaniel
Playa
Hey,
On Jan 4, 3:45 pm, "Minty fresh" <rsing...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Playa" wrote>
> > Bottom line - what we really need is a FOC meta-list.
> > It would require forward thinking and hard work.
> It would be simple to create an entire WFB meta list, and to do a quick fix
> of the whole broken system
For some reason, Hwang's "Cheese Ratio" formula comes to mind.
> When you have done that [to] all of the army books
ALL ofl those books? Whoah -
GW Can't even produce timely errata for them!
Surely doing so is back-breakingly, brain-meltingly difficult?
Otherwise, Occam says they're not getting done because . . .
Oh. Oh, right. Never mind.
> Next step normalise those powers or units.
> Then come up with base force org charts.
> Then a list of what units can thematically be combined.
> And there you go.
Dang, that sounds like a lot of hard work. I think.
Or, at least, beyond the means of the Creatives at GW.
Playa
Myrmidon
@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, johnpau...@gmail.com says...
Oh, I'm sure that the 'creatives' at GW can balance 'THE' books.
Just not 'THOSE' books.
Myrmidon
--
"I'm already impoverished from buying wargames minis,
and I'm too knackered for riotous living..."
-- Moramarth
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
smcdaniel1
"Myrmidon" <Im...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25adbed19...@news.eternal-september.org...
In article <bfbcfb86-53fd-432d-badd-3d8b7a983044
@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, johnpau...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>> Dang, that sounds like a lot of hard work. I think.
>> Or, at least, beyond the means of the Creatives at GW.
>Oh, I'm sure that the 'creatives' at GW can balance 'THE' books.
>Just not 'THOSE' books.
Must step in.
As I have seen at more than one company, the "creatives" get pushed out by
the HR group, the Ad morons, the damn execs, etc.
Don't blame the creative ones; they're tied up by the success they created.
Too many times these companies hire from outside instead of promoting the
people that made them successful in the first place. Then, to justify their
existence, the 'New Hires' tell the creatives (You, know, the ones that made
it possible to hire them in the first place) how to be creative, despite the
fact that the 'New Hires' came from a fishing company to a game company. The
company starts to fail, the people that MADE the company are now redundant
(Because of the salary THEY EARNED) and the 'new hires' decide they must be
let go.
Then, the 'New Hires ' get hired by another up and coming company (By taking
credit for the work the original creatives did).
And the original company is left in shambles wondering what went wrong.
Fucktards..
--
Sir Scott "Word... " McDaniel
Doctor Rock
"smcdaniel1" <smcda...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:I6U0n.11203$_H7....@newsfe24.iad...
>
>
> "Myrmidon" <Im...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.25adbed19...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <bfbcfb86-53fd-432d-badd-3d8b7a983044
> @z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, johnpau...@gmail.com says...
>>
>
>>
>>> Dang, that sounds like a lot of hard work. I think.
>>> Or, at least, beyond the means of the Creatives at GW.
>
>>Oh, I'm sure that the 'creatives' at GW can balance 'THE' books.
>>Just not 'THOSE' books.
>
>
> Must step in.
> As I have seen at more than one company, the "creatives" get pushed out by
> the HR group, the Ad morons, the damn execs, etc.
> Don't blame the creative ones; they're tied up by the success they
> created.
to be fair, not all GW's talented authors quit or were 'let go.' some of
them became shareholders and moved into management.
Playa
Hey,
On Jan 5, 11:17 pm, "smcdaniel1" <smcdani...@cox.net> wrote:
> As I have seen at more than one company, the "creatives" get pushed out by
> the HR group, the Ad morons, the damn execs, etc
Mmmehhh. As a musician, think about the definition of 'creativity' -
A clockwork rote technical proficiency is not the same as a 'talent':
If you despise Malmsteen as much as I do, you'll know just what I
mean.
> 'new hires' decide they must be let go
Sssorta. Bean-counters "discover" that 3 newbs are cheaper than 1 vet.
Go Six Sigma!
But in the end, product acceptance defines "success" - not flowery
Mission Statements.
In this regard, Lenton is no different than Detroit or Gdansk or
Augsburg.
OT: Remember when Stealers/Orks were Chaos lists?
Playa
Blackheart
> In article <bfbcfb86-53fd-432d-badd-3d8b7a983044
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hey,
>
> > On Jan 4, 3:45 pm, "Minty fresh" <rsing...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Playa" wrote>
> > > > Bottom line - what we really need is a FOC meta-list.
> > > > It would require forward thinking and hard work.
> > > It would be simple to create an entire WFB meta list, and to do a quick fix
> > > of the whole broken system
>
> > For some reason, Hwang's "Cheese Ratio" formula comes to mind.
>
> > > When you have done that [to] all of the army books
>
> > ALL ofl those books? Whoah -
> > GW Can't even produce timely errata for them!
>
> > Surely doing so is back-breakingly, brain-meltingly difficult?
> > Otherwise, Occam says they're not getting done because . . .
> > Oh. Oh, right. Never mind.
>
> > > Next step normalise those powers or units.
> > > Then come up with base force org charts.
> > > Then a list of what units can thematically be combined.
> > > And there you go.
>
> > Dang, that sounds like a lot of hard work. I think.
> > Or, at least, beyond the means of the Creatives at GW.
>
> Oh, I'm sure that the 'creatives' at GW can balance 'THE' books.
> Just not 'THOSE' books.
>
not really. didn't GW end up being taken over by bean counters because
the "creatives" (Priestly. Jervis etc) couldn't balance THOSE books
either?
Robert Singers
>> There is no reason that any of the development GW has to do should be
>> hard work at all. It's also interesting how many of the project /
>> software development IT skills are directly transferable to game design
>> and testing. [etc]
>
> eh, that's an oversimplification. what the two areas have in common is
> that they both require (or ought to; see above) the same set of abstract
> analysis and critical thinking skills to develop. the ways in which those
> skills are applied are different, though, because the human variables are
> different. software--say a game engine, to run with your example--can do
> far more to restrict and/or resolve imbalances caused by the human-user
> side of things in a video game, than a printed ruleset can in a tabletop /
> roleplaying game--hence why a numerical value-based system can only go so
> far in that direction. i don't doubt that GW's perennial game balance
> issues could benefit from some element of that (even a basic degree of
> mathematical *awareness* would help)... but expecting it to fix those
> problems in every human situation is over-optimistic.
If software development was about maths then we'd have very different
software. Software development is about people and organizations.
I'm currently helping in the development and play-testing phase of a game
that may be released commercial by a significant publisher. I'm using the
same skills as I use on large software projects.
What it is patently obvious that GW lacks is any significant methodology.
Robert Singers
>> Next step normalise those powers or units.
>> Then come up with base force org charts.
>> Then a list of what units can thematically be combined.
>> And there you go.
>
> Dang, that sounds like a lot of hard work. I think.
> Or, at least, beyond the means of the Creatives at GW.
Sounds like about one weeks work with a spreadsheet.
Robert Singers
> Sssorta. Bean-counters "discover" that 3 newbs are cheaper than 1 vet.
> Go Six Sigma!
Yeah how to fuck up a business in one easy step.
Myrmidon
@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, blackhear...@yahoo.com says...
The bean counters *are* the 'creatives' I was referring to. It's
all about B$A$L$A$N$C$E.
Myr ;)
--
As for hookers, I play GW Games. I don't have money to spend
on unnecessary sex.
- Kevin Milner
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
smithdoerr
>
> What it is patently obvious that GW lacks is any significant methodology.
Heh, I seem to recall posts like this back in 2000 (if not sooner). We'll
probably be making the same posts in 2020.
--
-smithdoerr
Matt C
news:hi2ams$n1t$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
And "bring back the Squats!"
Robert Singers
If we're lucky GW will go into liquidation or be sold off. Then there is
much better chance of better management taking over the product lines.
Graham Thurlwell
wrote:
<snip>
> If we're lucky GW will go into liquidation or be sold off. Then there is
> much better chance of better management taking over the product lines.
Or, knowing British Industry Syndrome, an even worse one. Gav for
CEO!!!!!!
--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
nos...@jades.org /is/ a real email address!