Seriously people? Getting this worked up about it? Granted, Andy tends to go overboard on his criticisms, but I have spoken to many people that feel the same way: Scenario 1 & 2 are tailored to specific army types and Scenario 3 punishes mech.
A.K.A. "Games Workshop sucks and they have no idea how to play the damn game."
I wholeheartedly disagree. Does anyone remember the missions from 2 - 3 years ago? Scenario 2 was referred to as the WTF mission. Broke every rule of the game, caused roll to go first to auto-win, weird infiltrating, etc.
Look, Scenario 1 & 2 are basically adaptations of the Standard Missions. Yes, mech has an easier time making it to Objectives - but if you're playing foot, you already know that (or you're an idiot). You have taken that into account, because as a non-mech player that is what the game is about now.
Scenario 3 punishes mech unfairly, sure. But as I stated in my last post, you're likely to be facing another mech army at this point if you're on the top table(s). The fact that GW updated the mission to clarify what does/doesn't count towards the 3 KP category shows that they care.
I'm not saying all is well and the Care Bears are dancing in GW-land, but I'm saying that they're improving. Nothing here breaks the basic tenets of the game. They're improving. I say give props for what is better, and give gracious feedback on what can still use improvement.
I'm done with the Anti/Pro Ardboyz stuff. My next post will be Sun/Mon with my experiences at the tourney.
Oh I realize that's a possibility Timmah, I just don't think it's likely. Not that there won't be foot armies on the top tables of game 3 - but that it most likely will not be a Win button (unless you're the crazy person bringing the 70 KP IG army).
ReplyDeleteMost of the mobile armies that I have tried out for this tournament seem to land in the 30 - 45 KP zone. That's a pretty big spread, yes. Most foot armies aren't coming in at less than 20 KP. So yes, you have a handicap - play through it!
Not trying to excuse GW over this mission... it really is bad. But I *am* trying to point out that the quality of the missions have improved. They still need to go further to be good, much less acceptable - but it's getting there.
John, if you published a software product this bad, you'd lose your job.
ReplyDeleteThis is their job.
You don't Q&A with live products and not expect to take flak when it falls flat on it's face.
Fourth times the charm? Fifth? Sixth? It's pathetic.
Yup - I would be out of business, but for some reason, everyone keeps drinking GW's lemonade.
ReplyDeleteObviously Microsoft needs to buy GW. ;)
ReplyDelete