Lord_Nihl wrote:
Its easy to balance a game when its designed with 2 factions in mind, but as Bill keeps pointing out they design these sets 3-4 at a time, so when it comes to be this time next year and the game is balanced completely for 4-5 months I'll be completely stoked.
It should be fun to run most of the figs though in a fun game, but competitively I'm not sure. I feel like my hand is being forced to play either Rebs or Imps as the faction I have run.
Lol - so now your tactic is argue that you can only play certain factions competitively... FU has not changed that at all actually. While we certainly cant say a lot about the meta - the playable factions have pretty much remained exactly the same. And before you say - Seps with San - they got some tricks of their own to remain just fine. There is no difference in the competitive game as far as the minor factions.
The worst part about your argument is that you already knew this a month ago. You are just trying to find more ways to include the same issue - that you want all factions to be competitive.
And as I said before - Drew, you lack creativity in your piece evaluation. Its not a knock, its just how you look at things that is different than mine. I see squads - I see what i can do with a piece - rather than just the numbers. I look at the nuance of the sheer variety of options of squad style and play - rather than some strict Faction vs Faction or piece vs piece comparison.
And here is what I see in FU - potentially a significant increase in the playable squads competitively - especially at 200. I see a game that is less and less about including 2-3 auto include figs - and is becoming more about building a squad that can handle a lot of different things. I see more and more tactical choices being included - which makes the game harder and harder to master - all of which is great for the competitive game.
So instead of arguing for what you knew was not in this set - why not look at what actually is in it. This is gonna be fun.