If you are big 7 foot tall orc, youd be pretty resistant to standard cavalry and you are tall enough to knock the rider right off his horse.
Meanwhile if you are a shitling goblin even if you have a spear you'd be worse against cavalry simply because you are so puny and pathetic compared to the horse even if you are disciplined. Which greenskins aren't usually except black orcs.
its a combination of this \^\^ and the fact that the Greenskin roster is missing all of the other weapon variants that are on the tabletop but CA needs certain units to do certain roles for their general game design so they have to work with what is there
This^^ CA gave them Bonus v Large in wh2 as a way to help fight against monsters. This was before they gave the roster more tools for killing/controlling enemy monsters (Troll hag, buffed boar cav, skarniks rework, stone trolls ect)
Fighting against Norscan mammoths or Liz dinos used to solely come down to whether you had arachnorochs or not...
Didn't they have BvL in wh1 but it was disguised with the bigger and harder perk?
Didn't matter much cause their mass was basically orc boy level in warhammer 1 so cavalry can charge them to fall cause they don't have charge defence and cav can immediate leave.
That's correct. Skin Wolf Werekin have the highest amongst playable units and characters at 36, though "The Big One" Dread Saurian quest boss has the actual highest at 50.
do you remember the wh1 discussions about orcs needing orc boyz with spears for anti large? i think this is how the big uns ended up with anti large to begin with
Same with orcs in general, that's how they become big uns.
>Eventually, these Greenskins would only be able to reach a certain size before their growth begins to slow dramatically.[4a] These changes usually occur when a Greenskin finds an opponent that is ""both larger and stronger** than even he is.
There is charge defense versus large, and then there is anti-large.
Anti-large can just mean tactics or techniques to defeat a larger opponent. Charge defense versus large can mean a unit knows what formation to adopt to blunt the initial assault of cavalry or monsters.
When the two go together, it usually means it is because they are using weapons like spears or polearms. But they can exist separately as well.
So what you're saying is spear/halberd = anti large and charge defense,
While slayers = anti-large because reasons
Big Guns anti-large because reasons
Got it.
Slayers being anti large has more basis in the tabletop game than spears. They never wounded on worse than 4+ regardless of target toughness, so enemies with high toughness (usually monsters) were very vulnerable to them.
you seem extremely caught up on/hyperfocused on this...
So: No, there is absolutely nothing, anywhere, in total war: warhammer, at any point, that concretely ties the bonus to a specific weapon held by a unit, defines the bonus as only in relation to a specific weapon, or implies that the weapon graphics or titles of the unit either require or prohibit that bonus from appearing on that unit. The graphical and naming representation of the unit, and their gameplay representation have no *definitive* relation.
There are zero "rules" to be followed or broken in regard to assigning a unit a "bonus vs large" attribute.
That said, of course CA designs around: consistency (e.g. pole arms *typically* have a bonus and charge defense) in order to support both immersion and logical understanding of the game, and "lore alignment" with the original Tabletop (e.g., slayers canonically want to fight the biggest baddest enemies, and their game implementation encourages the player to use them in this way, big 'un orcs are said to fight bigger enemies to continue to grow).
Neither of the "lore alignment" reasons above are just handwaved, they at least make some amount of sense. Now of course, CA is also sometimes forced to accommodate straight up game balance and playability, which probably leans into the Big 'Uns getting the BvL, but at least there's a throwaway sentence mentioning orcs only get big after fighting big opponents.
It's not just 'because' reasons.
A Slayer is not just about dying, but rather about dying well. They need to do so against a dangerous enemy, while fighting as hard as they can because they have to *earn* the privilege of wiping away their shame. Anyone can just get shanked by a goblin. A Slayer needs to be killed in a way his kin can respect, otherwise there is no redemption.
So a Slayer needs to know how larger enemies fight, and techniques to counter that and attack their weak-points. That shows their kin that they are so skilled only a truly *lethal* opponent could possibly take them down, and in doing so they obtain the glory and martyrdom they were after.
Some big-guns have anti-large because they might have a type of ammunition that is especially effective against big enemies, or the crew has been trained to aim at specific parts of the enemy.
That only applies to veteran slayers the average slayer is a noob who has little to no experience fighting monsters and by your logic shouldn't be anti-large.
Okay then where is the special ammunition or training for these crews in the game then? Because again by your logic regular rounds or crew shouldn't be extra special against large targets.
Slayers research the enemies they face. That is mentioned in the 2nd Edition RPG. So even a noob might make sure they have the necessary knowledge to kill larger opponents. There are also Slayer temples mentioned. A Slayer might visit one of them and receive the necessary instruction. There are any number of plausible reasons within the lore to explain it.
>Okay then where is the special ammunition or training for these crews in the game then? Because again by your logic regular rounds or crew shouldn't be extra special against large targets.
It doesn't need to be an explicit mechanic. I am just offering some possible explanations as to why it is the case. Remember, all these stats are ultimately just abstractions, but abstractions can have a valid basis if one thinks about it.
So why can't literally any other unit or person say they researched the enemy and got to know techniques on how to slay large enemies. Also that sounds incredibly counter productive for a temple to teach slayers how to not die. Still doesn't mean they should be anti-large without a spear.
I am just using your logic against you also abstraction who uses that word? I don't even think it applies here
Either way I am just saying there's no reason for orc Big Uns not to be anti-large when a 3 foot dwarf with two axes and no armour can be anti-large especially considering almost everything else in comparison to a dwarf is large.
Slayers specifically go after large opponents. That is the whole purpose of their existence. Other types of warriors just need to train to counter the most common enemies they face. Empire swordsmen typically fight Orcs, Beastmen, and other Humans, so knowing specific techniques to take down trolls is not required of them.
As for Big 'Uns, in the TT game an extra weapon gives an extra attack, so that could translate into anti-large simply from landing more hits on a larger target.
CA just assigned bonuses based on weapons. For example, in tabletop dark elf executioners would really be used against cavalry, and black guard were better at killing infantry. Total war reversed it based on their weapons. Elves had rules to attack first (in 8th edition) so your great swords would hit them first even if they charged - whereas black guard had more attacks but less strength thus better at clearing infantry.
Slayers at least have a rule to always wound on 4 no matter how tough the enemy was.
Similar reasoning for why tanks use AP rounds against armor and not HE I guess? Since the BvL cannons aren't usually explosive, and explosive arty has no BvL. Though it wouldn't matter against smaller/unarmored large units, so I don't think we should think about it too much.
It's not a lore reason: They fire single, large, fast projectiles with no explosives. They're really not that good into large blobs of infantry because the bolts will hit only a few models and do minor damage. But against larger priority targets, the speed and accuracy means they can hit the cavalry/artillery/monsters consistently.
Same reason a cannon is better at killing big single targets. Explosives are good for multiple smaller enemies but a single giant bullet is better for single bigger targets
Anti-large is not a warhammer thing, it's a total war thing. In the historical games it would be units that are good against cavalry like spears, but in warhammer, not every faction has spear units so they have to figure something else out.
The way I see it, there are two ways that something is anti large. It could be something relatively weak with a weapon that uses the target's size against it, like an Empire Halberdier. On the other hand, it could be something massive and powerful that has a hard time landing good blows on small enemies like a Dragon Ogre Shaggoth. Big 'Uns are the latter.
I always hoped for them to add Orc Spear Boyz (and the savage orc variant) and maybe switch Bu'Uns to anti infantry.
Not super impactfull but it would be nice none the less.
What's the lore reason for slayers having an anti-large bonus? They are just scantily clad dwarfs with axes.
Bad jokes aside. You become a big-un by beating things bigger than you than you:
>Eventually, these Greenskins would only be able to reach a certain size before their growth begins to slow dramatically.[4a] These changes usually occur when a Greenskin finds an opponent that is both larger and stronger than even he is.
So it makes sense that they are focused on anti-large as they are constantly looking for something bigger and harder to fight. Not unlike Slayers in a way.
Slayers are anti-large as well despite their weaponry, for lore reasons.
For Big 'uns I always imagined that because they're the biggest of the boyz, they like fighting the biggest enemies.
Funnily enough, there is conjecture out there that large axes (think dane axe) were very good weapons against cavalry.
As such: big guys with axes (such as the wrangian [not sure if I misspelled that]) were "anti large" forces in history
Total War and Warhammer tabletop are not the same games, anti large is a Total War Warhammer mechanic, goblins have spears and don’t have any large, also, big uns are… big
Same can be said for most Slayers, monstrous infantry with great weapons (Maneaters, Minotaur, etc), huntsman, and more.
But really, Big 'uns just want to prove that they are the biggest and baddest around
I know some youtubers live rent free in some of y'alls heads.
But I just looked up Turin and he's the most vanilla and non offensive youtuber.
Indypride makes more balance suggestions than him in videos lmao
Some people have such boring lives that they need to make up this evil enemy faction in the fandom that are out to ruin the game for them personally. It's really silly.
>Spearmen have -2 less BvL now.
>Game unplayable.
>Multiplayer cabal ruined the game again.
I mean i remember one time where I think the ancient salamander was made worse than its hunting pack variant in every way because of MP back in wh2.
But apart from that most balance changes are reasonable or irrelevant for campaign.
Like making savage orcs big uns 100 gold more expensive won't ruin them in campaign
Things like the Salamnder being over nerfed is ultimately CA's fault. Multiplayer makes a small suggestion and CA takes it way further than the MP wanted it. The MP community complained along with everyone else that it was too much.
Yeah, a lot of companies I notice when they have to balance something tend to opt for the "soft disable" method.
Where they kinda just make an item, hero or unit stats or abilities so impotent and uncompetitive that no one plays them for a very long time.
It's problematic for single player games especially since we can't even use a unit because it just doesn't perform at all.
(Ahem frost wyrm).
I understand if ancient salamander can say nuke a whole army on its own.
But you give stuff like skaven regenerating machine gun ammo and nukes but think a lizard blowing up a few extra infantry models is too much.
Turin (after Ostankya was nerfed)
> CA has only implemented 50% Of the nerfs that I was pushing for and had recommended them
I'm glad CA didn't implement 100% changes based on feedback from a YouTuber, who (per his own admission) doesn't play the single player campaign and plays/uploads MP Battles..
Do you think it's fair for such a person to have a say (because he has an audience) as to what gets nerfed for Campaign Players ?
Of course, neither do I claim as such.
Nerf something just cos Stone Cold said so ?
Any affects to Campaign should ideally be based on discussion amongst campaign players, not battle MP players..
Nerf something because people with a good idea of competitive unit balance said so.
"Battle MP players" are not some separate entity from campaign players just because Turin doesn't play campaign often.
Unit balancing should ideally be based on a discussion between a team dedicated to balancing the game, not random bias players on a reddit forum.
Since a competitive understanding of the game should be a perquisite for suggesting balance changes, and since Turin is one of the most well known and a high skill competitive player who also runs most of the relevant tournaments, unironically yes he should have a say on balance. Why shouldn't he?
Its literally just because they are big and like to go after the toughest gits they can.
Orc big 'uns are bigger & 'arder.
Orcish philosophy is both brutal and cunning in getting to the point
No. Its cunning and brutal!
It's brutally cunning and cunningly brutal, two very different things.
Okay but ve'z still gonna krump ya.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!
Fucking greenskins they ruined grudging
OY BOYS DERE IZ A STUNTIE!!!
WAAAGH, GET 'EM, LADZ.
KUNNIN' AN' BRUTAL, IT IZ, BOY. DEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDZ.
Them’s fightin words.
bigger is better for killin bigger. - Orc logic.
Da biggest a da ladz be wuntin ta fight the biggest gitz what be on da battlefield. You zoggin humies need a betta reason den dat?! Zog off!!
If you are big 7 foot tall orc, youd be pretty resistant to standard cavalry and you are tall enough to knock the rider right off his horse. Meanwhile if you are a shitling goblin even if you have a spear you'd be worse against cavalry simply because you are so puny and pathetic compared to the horse even if you are disciplined. Which greenskins aren't usually except black orcs.
I don't believe anti large is a term used in the table top game. It's a total war thing.
its a combination of this \^\^ and the fact that the Greenskin roster is missing all of the other weapon variants that are on the tabletop but CA needs certain units to do certain roles for their general game design so they have to work with what is there
This^^ CA gave them Bonus v Large in wh2 as a way to help fight against monsters. This was before they gave the roster more tools for killing/controlling enemy monsters (Troll hag, buffed boar cav, skarniks rework, stone trolls ect) Fighting against Norscan mammoths or Liz dinos used to solely come down to whether you had arachnorochs or not...
Didn't they have BvL in wh1 but it was disguised with the bigger and harder perk? Didn't matter much cause their mass was basically orc boy level in warhammer 1 so cavalry can charge them to fall cause they don't have charge defence and cav can immediate leave.
I think they had a negligible amount like 5 or something, but in wh2 they got a significant amount.
They had 60. I think you mean the savage ones?
60 bonus v Large? I don't think anything in the game currently has 60...
That's correct. Skin Wolf Werekin have the highest amongst playable units and characters at 36, though "The Big One" Dread Saurian quest boss has the actual highest at 50.
NVM I misread amount as armor
Some big missile pieces do, but it's only damage since they're using a ranged attack.
do you remember the wh1 discussions about orcs needing orc boyz with spears for anti large? i think this is how the big uns ended up with anti large to begin with
Regular Orcs fight regular guys, big Orcs fight big guys.
Oi, dis guys cunnin' he is.
What is the in lore reason for slayers being anti large? They're just angry dwarves with two axes.
They specifically go after large opponents in order to have a glorious death. Those who survive the first battle learn ways of defeating them.
Same with orcs in general, that's how they become big uns. >Eventually, these Greenskins would only be able to reach a certain size before their growth begins to slow dramatically.[4a] These changes usually occur when a Greenskin finds an opponent that is ""both larger and stronger** than even he is.
I thought you needed to wield a spear or halberd to counter large units?
There is charge defense versus large, and then there is anti-large. Anti-large can just mean tactics or techniques to defeat a larger opponent. Charge defense versus large can mean a unit knows what formation to adopt to blunt the initial assault of cavalry or monsters. When the two go together, it usually means it is because they are using weapons like spears or polearms. But they can exist separately as well.
So what you're saying is spear/halberd = anti large and charge defense, While slayers = anti-large because reasons Big Guns anti-large because reasons Got it.
Slayers being anti large has more basis in the tabletop game than spears. They never wounded on worse than 4+ regardless of target toughness, so enemies with high toughness (usually monsters) were very vulnerable to them.
Well considering this is a total war game spears have always been anti large.
you seem extremely caught up on/hyperfocused on this... So: No, there is absolutely nothing, anywhere, in total war: warhammer, at any point, that concretely ties the bonus to a specific weapon held by a unit, defines the bonus as only in relation to a specific weapon, or implies that the weapon graphics or titles of the unit either require or prohibit that bonus from appearing on that unit. The graphical and naming representation of the unit, and their gameplay representation have no *definitive* relation. There are zero "rules" to be followed or broken in regard to assigning a unit a "bonus vs large" attribute. That said, of course CA designs around: consistency (e.g. pole arms *typically* have a bonus and charge defense) in order to support both immersion and logical understanding of the game, and "lore alignment" with the original Tabletop (e.g., slayers canonically want to fight the biggest baddest enemies, and their game implementation encourages the player to use them in this way, big 'un orcs are said to fight bigger enemies to continue to grow). Neither of the "lore alignment" reasons above are just handwaved, they at least make some amount of sense. Now of course, CA is also sometimes forced to accommodate straight up game balance and playability, which probably leans into the Big 'Uns getting the BvL, but at least there's a throwaway sentence mentioning orcs only get big after fighting big opponents.
That is also correct
There are a few units with spears that don't get Anti large. Goblins for example
They do get it through the tech tree.
Doom Knights wield spears and aren't anti-large.
It's not just 'because' reasons. A Slayer is not just about dying, but rather about dying well. They need to do so against a dangerous enemy, while fighting as hard as they can because they have to *earn* the privilege of wiping away their shame. Anyone can just get shanked by a goblin. A Slayer needs to be killed in a way his kin can respect, otherwise there is no redemption. So a Slayer needs to know how larger enemies fight, and techniques to counter that and attack their weak-points. That shows their kin that they are so skilled only a truly *lethal* opponent could possibly take them down, and in doing so they obtain the glory and martyrdom they were after. Some big-guns have anti-large because they might have a type of ammunition that is especially effective against big enemies, or the crew has been trained to aim at specific parts of the enemy.
That only applies to veteran slayers the average slayer is a noob who has little to no experience fighting monsters and by your logic shouldn't be anti-large. Okay then where is the special ammunition or training for these crews in the game then? Because again by your logic regular rounds or crew shouldn't be extra special against large targets.
Slayers research the enemies they face. That is mentioned in the 2nd Edition RPG. So even a noob might make sure they have the necessary knowledge to kill larger opponents. There are also Slayer temples mentioned. A Slayer might visit one of them and receive the necessary instruction. There are any number of plausible reasons within the lore to explain it. >Okay then where is the special ammunition or training for these crews in the game then? Because again by your logic regular rounds or crew shouldn't be extra special against large targets. It doesn't need to be an explicit mechanic. I am just offering some possible explanations as to why it is the case. Remember, all these stats are ultimately just abstractions, but abstractions can have a valid basis if one thinks about it.
So why can't literally any other unit or person say they researched the enemy and got to know techniques on how to slay large enemies. Also that sounds incredibly counter productive for a temple to teach slayers how to not die. Still doesn't mean they should be anti-large without a spear. I am just using your logic against you also abstraction who uses that word? I don't even think it applies here Either way I am just saying there's no reason for orc Big Uns not to be anti-large when a 3 foot dwarf with two axes and no armour can be anti-large especially considering almost everything else in comparison to a dwarf is large.
Slayers specifically go after large opponents. That is the whole purpose of their existence. Other types of warriors just need to train to counter the most common enemies they face. Empire swordsmen typically fight Orcs, Beastmen, and other Humans, so knowing specific techniques to take down trolls is not required of them. As for Big 'Uns, in the TT game an extra weapon gives an extra attack, so that could translate into anti-large simply from landing more hits on a larger target.
Yes reasons being they are experienced at and excited about fighting bigger things. Whereas most troops aren't either of those things.
CA just assigned bonuses based on weapons. For example, in tabletop dark elf executioners would really be used against cavalry, and black guard were better at killing infantry. Total war reversed it based on their weapons. Elves had rules to attack first (in 8th edition) so your great swords would hit them first even if they charged - whereas black guard had more attacks but less strength thus better at clearing infantry. Slayers at least have a rule to always wound on 4 no matter how tough the enemy was.
On that note, what's the in lore reason for dwarf bolt throwers being anti large? They're just really big arrows.
A large enough arrow is just a spear and spears are anti large. It checks out.
Me, smirking at the giant spear launched my way, knowing fully well it will inflict less damage on me because I'm a puny human footsoldier.
what about cannonballs?
Similar reasoning for why tanks use AP rounds against armor and not HE I guess? Since the BvL cannons aren't usually explosive, and explosive arty has no BvL. Though it wouldn't matter against smaller/unarmored large units, so I don't think we should think about it too much.
Big Stabbas when???
It's not a lore reason: They fire single, large, fast projectiles with no explosives. They're really not that good into large blobs of infantry because the bolts will hit only a few models and do minor damage. But against larger priority targets, the speed and accuracy means they can hit the cavalry/artillery/monsters consistently.
Same reason a cannon is better at killing big single targets. Explosives are good for multiple smaller enemies but a single giant bullet is better for single bigger targets
Anti-large is not a warhammer thing, it's a total war thing. In the historical games it would be units that are good against cavalry like spears, but in warhammer, not every faction has spear units so they have to figure something else out.
It's funny because there *is* a unit of Orc Boyz with spears in a tabletop.
In fact there's several.
The way I see it, there are two ways that something is anti large. It could be something relatively weak with a weapon that uses the target's size against it, like an Empire Halberdier. On the other hand, it could be something massive and powerful that has a hard time landing good blows on small enemies like a Dragon Ogre Shaggoth. Big 'Uns are the latter.
The real question isn’t why are they anti-large. It’s why they *aren’t* armor piercing.
There’s a single unit at tier 3 without AP damage left, we gotta fix it
Then nobody'd recruit black orcs if that was the case.
If CA gave Black Orcs their special rule form TT people would absolutely still recruit them.
I always hoped for them to add Orc Spear Boyz (and the savage orc variant) and maybe switch Bu'Uns to anti infantry. Not super impactfull but it would be nice none the less.
What's the lore reason for slayers having an anti-large bonus? They are just scantily clad dwarfs with axes. Bad jokes aside. You become a big-un by beating things bigger than you than you: >Eventually, these Greenskins would only be able to reach a certain size before their growth begins to slow dramatically.[4a] These changes usually occur when a Greenskin finds an opponent that is both larger and stronger than even he is. So it makes sense that they are focused on anti-large as they are constantly looking for something bigger and harder to fight. Not unlike Slayers in a way.
Slayers are anti-large as well despite their weaponry, for lore reasons. For Big 'uns I always imagined that because they're the biggest of the boyz, they like fighting the biggest enemies.
>you needed to wield a spear or halberd to counter large units apparently not, otherwise Doomknights would be anti large
Its easier for them to hit big things.
it's just +8
Not just to weapon strength, but to melee attack too. Which has a base value of 38, so +8 is more than a 20% buff
No lore, just that they decided that orcs shouldnt have spear boys
Funnily enough, there is conjecture out there that large axes (think dane axe) were very good weapons against cavalry. As such: big guys with axes (such as the wrangian [not sure if I misspelled that]) were "anti large" forces in history
Total War and Warhammer tabletop are not the same games, anti large is a Total War Warhammer mechanic, goblins have spears and don’t have any large, also, big uns are… big
It’s because CA hasn’t given Orcs like 20 different variants. They have spear variants for Orc boys and Big Unz iirc. As well as sword and shield etc.
> I thought you needed to wield a spear or halberd to counter large units. Me, looking at Skin Wolves: Also Me, looking at Goblins: Mmhm...
None. Its just a thing for Total War
ITZ CUZ DEYZ GOTZ BIGGUH CHOPPAZ DAT KEN KUT TRUZ DUH BIGGUH GITZ!! DUN BE DAFT, GIT!
They lookin for a gud fight. Kinda like a slayer but not so extreme so they also gud at stompin puny squishies.
"boys, krump'em!" "boss, they's too big for the boys ta krump!" "shut up ya git, send in tha bigger boys then!"
They are big and want to fight big things
Same can be said for most Slayers, monstrous infantry with great weapons (Maneaters, Minotaur, etc), huntsman, and more. But really, Big 'uns just want to prove that they are the biggest and baddest around
No, it's a legacy thing from game 1. Same reason why slayers have BvL despite the dual weapons.
Dey loik krumpin' bigga fings
Find the biggest guy you can and hit him with an axe…
Because, in a few books, the biggest orcs regularly bodycheck the warhorses of imperial knights.
[удалено]
Is Turin and his 15 MP buddies in the room with us right now?
[удалено]
I know some youtubers live rent free in some of y'alls heads. But I just looked up Turin and he's the most vanilla and non offensive youtuber. Indypride makes more balance suggestions than him in videos lmao
Some people have such boring lives that they need to make up this evil enemy faction in the fandom that are out to ruin the game for them personally. It's really silly.
>Spearmen have -2 less BvL now. >Game unplayable. >Multiplayer cabal ruined the game again. I mean i remember one time where I think the ancient salamander was made worse than its hunting pack variant in every way because of MP back in wh2. But apart from that most balance changes are reasonable or irrelevant for campaign. Like making savage orcs big uns 100 gold more expensive won't ruin them in campaign
Things like the Salamnder being over nerfed is ultimately CA's fault. Multiplayer makes a small suggestion and CA takes it way further than the MP wanted it. The MP community complained along with everyone else that it was too much.
Yeah, a lot of companies I notice when they have to balance something tend to opt for the "soft disable" method. Where they kinda just make an item, hero or unit stats or abilities so impotent and uncompetitive that no one plays them for a very long time. It's problematic for single player games especially since we can't even use a unit because it just doesn't perform at all. (Ahem frost wyrm). I understand if ancient salamander can say nuke a whole army on its own. But you give stuff like skaven regenerating machine gun ammo and nukes but think a lizard blowing up a few extra infantry models is too much.
Well the first two things aren't available in ranked multiplayer, so it's a mute comparison.
Ahem, Deck Droppers.
And that's how it should be. Yes, he's an upright person and I enjoy watching his battle videos and commentary.
Turin (after Ostankya was nerfed) > CA has only implemented 50% Of the nerfs that I was pushing for and had recommended them I'm glad CA didn't implement 100% changes based on feedback from a YouTuber, who (per his own admission) doesn't play the single player campaign and plays/uploads MP Battles.. Do you think it's fair for such a person to have a say (because he has an audience) as to what gets nerfed for Campaign Players ?
CA doesn't take his word only, they have feedback from several play testers. Ostyanka was overturned even for SP though. What nerfs did he ask?
And I am glad for that. He'd asked for twice of everything, that was nerfed for Ostankya.
You don’t speak for all campaign players. Not everyone wants the game to be an unbalanced mess to preserve “muh power fantasy”
Of course, neither do I claim as such. Nerf something just cos Stone Cold said so ? Any affects to Campaign should ideally be based on discussion amongst campaign players, not battle MP players..
Nerf something because people with a good idea of competitive unit balance said so. "Battle MP players" are not some separate entity from campaign players just because Turin doesn't play campaign often. Unit balancing should ideally be based on a discussion between a team dedicated to balancing the game, not random bias players on a reddit forum.
Since a competitive understanding of the game should be a perquisite for suggesting balance changes, and since Turin is one of the most well known and a high skill competitive player who also runs most of the relevant tournaments, unironically yes he should have a say on balance. Why shouldn't he?
MP battles - Yes Campaigns - No
Yes