Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Can I just point out that the blandification of codex's would actually mean something if one were, I don't know, forced to actually play one codex against another. Currently, with the bloated pile of crap 7th edition is, you can make whatever absurd abomination of a list (collection?) you want.
Codex's becoming more bland in order to add some semblance of balance to me actually isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not entirely without some cynicisms either. There's a sense of holding things back so they can sell you another 60 dollar book with 2 pages of a rules. That's problematic. Also, what does the new nid releases say about GW's "plan" for codex's?
Assuming for a second you play in the context generally of one codex vs another, no allies or fortifications or super heavies or lords of war or forge world and so on and so on, I think blandification in terms of power level is a step in the right direction, however without having a baseline format that mandates simply one codex vs another, instead of the aforementioned pile of crap, it's pretty pointless. Then there's the whole other issue of the inherent conflict of interest from GW's point of vew of any real restriction on spamming, because, you know, you might buy fewer giant awesome mega robots. The way army construction works looks like the free market told the regulators to take a hike and the marketing team took over game design.
There's bee almost a conscious effort to ensure communication between potential opponent's is a political minefield instead of conscious choice of various formats, it's all 40k we're told. If you re-name every food item on the menu pizza, how does one guarantee they actually get a pizza when they order and not nachos? That's been my biggest problem with post 5th 40k, we're all pretending we're playing the same game and everyone else is doing it wrong. The community has only gotten smaller and more divisive with everyone in their little camps hurling labels back and forth. I'm not innocent, but I do lament that pretty much every game I see of 40k is basically apoc, at least back in 5th I could choose between the two games, now I feel like an old man because I don't really want to play against formations and super heavies. Or maybe I'm just wrong and the game is greatly improved by everyone and their mom having 5 model armies of giant robots...
To come back to my main point, what good does balancing codex's do in a game where it's pretty much all one big terrible codex now? What good is a blander less powerful codex in the context of a game with such loose army building restrictions? Oh there are fewer good things in your new codex? Guess that just frees up more room for an allie or some other silly abomination.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/14 17:27:32
Peregrine wrote: And there's no excuse for this. GW doesn't deserve praise for fixing balance issues when their fluffy/narrative game comes with an implied rule like "don't build fluffy/narrative armies because they aren't balanced".
Well, that´s your opinion. For me fluffy armies not being competitive is no issue.
And that's YOUR opinion. I don't see why the game being balanced enough to play competitively with fluffy armies has any drawbacks at all. That would only be a positive thing.
That would be a great thing. Having my fluffy army not stand a chance at victory is the #1 reason I stopped playing 40k.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Peregrine wrote: And there's no excuse for this. GW doesn't deserve praise for fixing balance issues when their fluffy/narrative game comes with an implied rule like "don't build fluffy/narrative armies because they aren't balanced".
Well, that´s your opinion. For me fluffy armies not being competitive is no issue.
And that's YOUR opinion. I don't see why the game being balanced enough to play competitively with fluffy armies has any drawbacks at all. That would only be a positive thing.
That would be a great thing. Having my fluffy army not stand a chance at victory is the #1 reason I stopped playing 40k.
I agree, I think it would be awesome. The whole 'fluffy/competitive' divide just shouldn't exist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/14 17:24:59
Can I just point out that the blandification of codex's would actually mean something if one were, I don't know, forced to actually play one codex against another. Currently, with the bloated pile of crap 7th edition is, you can make whatever absurd abomination of a list (collection?) you want.
Codex's becoming more bland in order to add some semblance of balance to me actually isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not entirely without some cynicisms either. There's a sense of holding things back so they can sell you another 60 dollar book with 2 pages of a rules. That's problematic. Also, what does the new nid releases say about GW's "plan" for codex's?
Assuming for a second you play in the context generally of one codex vs another, no allies or fortifications or super heavies or lords of war or forge world and so on and so on, I think blandification in terms of power level is a step in the right direction, however without having a baseline format that mandates simply one codex vs another (and possibly even and foc), instead of the aforementioned pile of crap, it's pretty pointless.
If you re-name every food item on the menu pizza, how does one guarantee they actually get a pizza when they order and not nachos? That's been my biggest problem with post 5th 40k, we're all pretending we're playing the same game and everyone else is doing it wrong. The community has only gotten smaller and more divisive with everyone in their little camps hurling labels back and forth. I'm not innocent, but I do lement that pretty much every game I see of 40k is basically apoc, at least back in 5th I could choose between the two games, now I feel like an old man because I don't really want to play against formations and super heavies.
To come back to my main point, what good does balancing codex's do in a game where it's pretty much all one big terrible codex now? What good is a blander less powerful codex in the context of a game with such loose army building restrictions? Oh there are fewer goods things in your new codex? Guess that just frees up more room for an allie or some other silly abomination.
This sums up my gripes with the current codices, and indeed, the game itself.
GW's newest codices aren't quite forcing players to use Unbound, but its being strongly pushed with the absence of FoC modifications and removing old themes and lists from newer codices.
We get supplements to add some flavour back in, but paying an additional $60 to re-inject something that was cut doesn't leave me the warm fuzzlies.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
RunicFIN wrote: I won´t go into this with you. I was talking about the Orks codex and merely saying perhaps they listened in that instance alone. The end.
Of course you won't go into it, because you know you're wrong. If GW increases randomness in every other area of the game despite the fact that people hate it then "they listened to the players" is not a plausible explanation for why one bit of randomness was removed. The more likely explanation is that there was some other reason for making the change, and GW continues to ignore player feedback in all areas of the game.
If you feel like talking about footslogging terminator hordes being useless in the new codices then by all means, do so. Personally I´ll still find it pointless.
Of course you'll find it pointless, because it gets in the way of your "GW is awesome" agenda.
For me fluffy armies not being competitive is no issue.
Yeah, how could it possibly be an issue if, in a game that supposedly emphasizes fluff, a player who brings a fluffy army is almost guaranteed to lose and not even have much fun as they are slaughtered by the latest tournament list. I can't see anything at all wrong with having to choose between spamming units you don't like because they're the most powerful option and never playing in tournaments. None of these issues could possibly be a reason to criticize GW.
It also doesn´t change the fact the latest codices are actually well balanced towards eachother, which was the main point anyway.
Yes it does, because balance is about more than just each codex having a single unfluffy competitive option that wins at the same rate as each other codex's single unfluffy competitive option.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/14 17:32:38
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The old Chaos 3.5 dex is often lauded as the best Chaos dex ever. It wasn't due to power levels. (ok, for some, yes.) But it's looked back on as a golden age for Chaos players because it let them create the armies they wanted. Noise Marine dreadnaughts, Iron Warriors with artillery and other craziness filled the book. It was bursting with character and makes the current one seem drab and boring. Why can't GW let their imagination loose again while maintaining some semblance of balance? So many of the fixes are easy.
Um, yes it was. That chaos codex was an abomination, and completely destroyed fourth edition of 40k. It's still rightly regarded as amongst the most broken codices gw have ever done. That 'craziness' meant nothing but siren lords, iron warriors with basilisks, max havoks and oblits and turn one assaulting nike lords with daemonic visage. Best thing gw did was taking it out back and shooting it in the head.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/14 17:37:34
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
RunicFIN wrote: I´d be suprised if an Eldar/Tau player is surprised of the inevitable nerf that´s coming their way. It would also be baffling why one would find it a bad thing if they were brought in line with the others.
Unless someone enjoys playing an army that´s above the rest ofcourse. But well... personally I think it´s okay to disappoint those specific people.
For the greater good.
Sadly a lot of people play because a codex is above the rest. Where were all the Tau and Eldar players in 5th edition? Not many. Only people who liked Tau and Eldar played. Where were the Tau and Eldar players in the beginning of 6th edition? No where to be seen just like 5th edition. Now Tau and Eldar get a new codex and we see an explosions of new Tau and Eldar players. It just goes to show you what grown up men do in order of the need to win with plastic toy soldiers.
It will be interesting if Tau and Eldar get the same treatment, how many people will stop using them and move onto something better.
Maybe hopefully once all the codices are on the same level, people will play what they love, not what is better.
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
Peregrine wrote: [Of course you won't go into it, because you know you're wrong. If GW increases randomness in every other area of the game despite the fact that people hate it then "they listened to the players" is not a plausible explanation for why one bit of randomness was removed. The more likely explanation is that there was some other reason for making the change, and GW continues to ignore player feedback in all areas of the game.
Infact I can´t be wrong as no one knows for a fact why randomness in the Orks codex was put down a notch. I still think it´s possible because of some Ork players being unhappy with their army performing very randomly at times, just like Daemon players are.
Peregrine wrote: Of course you'll find it pointless, because it gets in the way of your "GW is awesome" agenda.
Hmm no, just has nothing to do with the newer codices being more balanced towards eachother than the older ones. Asfar as I´m concerned it´s almost it´s own topic entirely.
Peregrine wrote: None of these issues could possibly be a reason to criticize GW.
Umm, criticize all you want, no one has said anything like this.
Seems to me you´re just looking for a flamewar/argument tbh. You have your opinions.
If you want to discuss fluffy armies not being competitive in a thread about the latest codices being in fairly good balance towards eachother then by all means do so. I don´t mind personally, dunno about moderators. Go ahead and do so. Anything else you want?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/14 17:43:45
The internal balance in a lot of new codices is pretty bad, though. The previous GK book allowed you to take basically anything in the codex as part of a competitive list. Now, half the army is basically worthless in that certain units completely outclass other units they compete with. Why would you ever, ever waste heavy slots on Purgation Squads when you can take Dreadknights? Why would you ever take a unit of Interceptors over a Dreadknight? Terminators as troops are straight up better than Strike Squads in virtually every way.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
The old Chaos 3.5 dex is often lauded as the best Chaos dex ever. It wasn't due to power levels. (ok, for some, yes.) But it's looked back on as a golden age for Chaos players because it let them create the armies they wanted. Noise Marine dreadnaughts, Iron Warriors with artillery and other craziness filled the book. It was bursting with character and makes the current one seem drab and boring. Why can't GW let their imagination loose again while maintaining some semblance of balance? So many of the fixes are easy.
Um, yes it was. That chaos codex was an abomination, and completely destroyed fourth edition of 40k. It's still rightly regarded as amongst the most broken codices gw have ever done. That 'craziness' meant nothing but siren lords, iron warriors with basilisks, max havoks and oblits and turn one assaulting nike lords with daemonic visage. Best thing gw did was taking it out back and shooting it in the head.
I can only speak for myself with certainty, though I have heard many voice the same opinion. I hated the balance, but loved the creativity. I didn't enjoy the power level just as I don't enjoy the current Eldar power level and actually caused me to take a long break from 40k.
I would like to know how many people liked it for the power or for the ability to actually make chaos armies that resemble the fluff. Might have to make a poll about that...
But perhaps a bit off topic.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Crablezworth wrote: Can I just point out that the blandification of codex's would actually mean something if one were, I don't know, forced to actually play one codex against another. Currently, with the bloated pile of crap 7th edition is, you can make whatever absurd abomination of a list (collection?) you want.
Codex's becoming more bland in order to add some semblance of balance to me actually isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not entirely without some cynicisms either. There's a sense of holding things back so they can sell you another 60 dollar book with 2 pages of a rules. That's problematic. Also, what does the new nid releases say about GW's "plan" for codex's?
Assuming for a second you play in the context generally of one codex vs another, no allies or fortifications or super heavies or lords of war or forge world and so on and so on, I think blandification in terms of power level is a step in the right direction, however without having a baseline format that mandates simply one codex vs another, instead of the aforementioned pile of crap, it's pretty pointless. Then there's the whole other issue of the inherent conflict of interest from GW's point of vew of any real restriction on spamming, because, you know, you might buy fewer giant awesome mega robots. The way army construction works looks like the free market told the regulators to take a hike and the marketing team took over game design.
There's bee almost a conscious effort to ensure communication between potential opponent's is a political minefield instead of conscious choice of various formats, it's all 40k we're told. If you re-name every food item on the menu pizza, how does one guarantee they actually get a pizza when they order and not nachos? That's been my biggest problem with post 5th 40k, we're all pretending we're playing the same game and everyone else is doing it wrong. The community has only gotten smaller and more divisive with everyone in their little camps hurling labels back and forth. I'm not innocent, but I do lament that pretty much every game I see of 40k is basically apoc, at least back in 5th I could choose between the two games, now I feel like an old man because I don't really want to play against formations and super heavies. Or maybe I'm just wrong and the game is greatly improved by everyone and their mom having 5 model armies of giant robots...
To come back to my main point, what good does balancing codex's do in a game where it's pretty much all one big terrible codex now? What good is a blander less powerful codex in the context of a game with such loose army building restrictions? Oh there are fewer good things in your new codex? Guess that just frees up more room for an allie or some other silly abomination.
Just because they now give you the option to play unbound lists (allowing for you to make a fluffy list of your own, and in theory i dont dislike this), doesnt mean that you are forced to play them.
I, and the people I play against, dont use unbound. There is plenty of room for fun lists within the FOC's that are available, and the forced limitations reduces the possibility of cheesiness.
This seems self evident to me. Everyone moans about how unbound is unfair and is killing the game... except that there's no rule that says you have to play unbound. In fact as far as I'm aware its commonly held as being a "With opponents consent" condition. Much like special characters used to be back in the day.
As far as I'm aware, the default position on the current rules is "1 FOC, 1 Allies" and thats it (at the 1500-2000pt level). Maybe a lord of war, depending on your play group. Anything other than this, any gamer would/should know to ask for opponents consent.
If you are having issues, then I suspect you're playing against 12 year olds in pick up games. I suggest taking them by the shoulder, and teaching them the error of their ways in a calm and gentle tone.
Preferably without looking like you're about to molest them.
Niiru wrote: Just because they now give you the option to play unbound lists (allowing for you to make a fluffy list of your own, and in theory i dont dislike this), doesnt mean that you are forced to play them.
No, you just have to have the awkward conversation where you say "sorry, but your perfectly legal army doesn't meet my standards, have fun the way I want to have fun or I'm not going to play with you". Clearly this is an appropriate substitute for making rules that don't suck.
In fact as far as I'm aware its commonly held as being a "With opponents consent" condition.
Nope. Unbound is a standard option, just like the option to take a tactical squad in your C:SM army. The "with opponent's consent" policy is nothing more than a house rule that certain players have decided to impose because they feel entitled to veto power over their opponent's choices.
As far as I'm aware, the default position on the current rules is "1 FOC, 1 Allies" and thats it (at the 1500-2000pt level).
You seem to be reading the 6th edition rulebook instead of the 7th edition one. Perhaps you should take a break from this thread until you have obtained and read the current rules?
Anything other than this, any gamer would/should know to ask for opponents consent.
Why? Do I have to ask for consent to put a tactical squad in my C:SM army?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The "with opponent's consent" policy is nothing more than a house rule that certain players have decided to impose because they feel entitled to veto power over their opponent's choices.
Wrong. Page 116, bolded text above "Army Selection Methods."
BlaxicanX wrote:It's just unfortunate that this has come at the expense of lots of content and flavor being cut. From special characters getting dropped in droves to the systematic replacement of artwork with dull model pictures to many fluffy rules being simplified or removed altogether, it feels like the new codices are altogether very bland.
GW still needs to find that sweet-spot where codices are as flavorful as older ones like the Tau and SM ones (the gold standard for codices, imo) while still balancing well against their peers.
Going back to 5e codices (like the predecessor Blood Angels codex), remember that a lot of the inspirational artwork was either not drawn in color or not printed in color. Although I prefer 6e, where there was good, color artwork for everything, I'll take the 7e style of photography over the black-and-white 5e.
Personally, I think that they are doing it this way because it's cheaper: it's not necessary to have an artist depict every unit, and they need to produce studio quality painted models anyhow. The one advantage is that there are more photos to go by, if you want to reproduce codex themes.
Still, the balance would be better if there was more art, less photographs.
This says that EVERYTHING requires agreement. It does NOT say that some methods are "standard" and others require special permission.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
This says that EVERYTHING requires agreement. It does NOT say that some methods are "standard" and others require special permission.
It decimates "with opponent's consent" policy is nothing more than a house rule" -which was your claim to the letter. Your opponent doesn´t agree = you don´t play Unbound. The end.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/14 18:02:49
Now I don't know what kind of armies people play in Finland, but could someone explain to me how GK armies with NDKs and drop pod centurions with mass terminators are balanced against IG?
Um, yes it was. That chaos codex was an abomination, and completely destroyed fourth edition of 40k.
And weren't those nid MC armies and falcon spam eldar? a falcon could take shoting from a whole army and be untouched.
Makumba wrote: Now I don't know what kind of armies people play in Finland, but could someone explain to me how GK armies with NDKs and drop pod centurions with mass terminators are balanced against IG?
Are you talking about a Grey Knights CAD with Space Marine AD Centurions in Space Wolves/Blood Angels AD Drop Pods vs. singular Astra Militarum CAD?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/14 18:06:41
RunicFIN wrote: It decimates "with opponent's consent" policy is nothing more than a house rule" -which was your claim to the letter. Your opponent doesn´t agree = you don´t play Unbound. The end.
Sigh. Would you please read what I actually said before responding to it? The house rule is the idea that battle-forged armies (possibly with additional restrictions) are "standard" and allowed by default, while unbound is banned by default and you need to arrange special permission to use an unbound army. There are no "tiers" of officialness/permission, the note on page 116 applies equally to tactical squads and unbound.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: Sigh. Would you please read what I actually said before responding to it? The house rule is the idea that battle-forged armies (possibly with additional restrictions) are "standard" and allowed by default, while unbound is banned by default and you need to arrange special permission to use an unbound army. There are no "tiers" of officialness/permission, the note on page 116 applies equally to tactical squads and unbound.
You said that the opponents consent policy regarding Unbound is just a houserule. I provided proof that this is not the case. Can you stop avoiding the fact that you were wrong, now.
In fact as far as I'm aware its commonly held as being a "With opponents consent" condition.
Niiru refers to Unbound in the above quote. To which you respond:
Nope. Unbound is a standard option, just like the option to take a tactical squad in your C:SM army. The "with opponent's consent" policy is nothing more than a house rule that certain players have decided to impose because they feel entitled to veto power over their opponent's choices.
And that´s all there is to it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/12/14 18:17:36
This says that EVERYTHING requires agreement. It does NOT say that some methods are "standard" and others require special permission.
And the army selection procedure comes under "everything". Obviously. Maybe you should go back and read the rulebook, and rejoin this thread after. Maybe bring some manners with you.
Or just go, and then dont rejoin, I doubt anyone would miss you.
edit:
And while the use of tactical squads also comes under the umbrella of "anything", only small minded people would think that a tactical squad would require permission.
However, bringing 20 tactical squads and nothing else in your army list, and you should expect the opponent to have a question or two. Perhaps "Are you serious?" being the main one.
There's a degree of obvious common sense about this.
Also the 1 FOC and 1 Allies thing isnt a 6th edition thing, its the current norm for tournaments and... everything.
- however I may be mistaken, and it may include an addition detachment... I'm not totally up on the current thinking. But there is a standard. And its not unbound.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/14 18:13:10
RunicFIN wrote: You said that the opponents consent policy regarding Unbound is just a houserule. I provided proof that this is not the case. Can you stop avoiding the fact that you were wrong, now.
No, we are not going to avoid the fact that you're deliberately misquoting me so that you can "prove" I was wrong about something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Niiru wrote: And the army selection procedure comes under "everything".
Why is this so complicated? READ MY POST BEFORE RESPONDING. Here, I'll even repost my clarification for you:
The house rule is the idea that battle-forged armies (possibly with additional restrictions) are "standard" and allowed by default, while unbound is banned by default and you need to arrange special permission to use an unbound army. There are no "tiers" of officialness/permission, the note on page 116 applies equally to tactical squads and unbound.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/14 18:11:08
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Hey Peregrine, way to hijack a thread about comparison of newer to older codices to your standard "GW rules suck because it doesn't have cut-and-dry rules" meme.
No, you just have to have the awkward conversation where you say "sorry, but your perfectly legal army doesn't meet my standards, have fun the way I want to have fun or I'm not going to play with you". Clearly this is an appropriate substitute for making rules that don't suck.
[...]
Nope. Unbound is a standard option, just like the option to take a tactical squad in your C:SM army. The "with opponent's consent" policy is nothing more than a house rule that certain players have decided to impose because they feel entitled to veto power over their opponent's choices.
If you're going to quote the BRB, please at least quote it accurately:
The bold is as printed in the BRB p.116: "Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
Clearly, the method of Army Selection (Unbound Armies vs. Battle-Forged Armies) is a part of the rules. There is no such thing as "legal army", only such a thing as "my points add up to x" -- which doesn't even matter because the BRB also says, "Usually, both players will use the same points limit, but this does not need to be the case and is entirely up to you."
Both point limits for either side, and whether either side is Unbound or Battle-Forged is the army selection method, must be predetermined by agreement of the players prior to play. The book says so. If you want a video game style set-up where you can walk into a room and play a game with your "legal" army without the pregame agreement of what both sides want to play, clearly Warhammer 40,000 is not a game for you.
You seem to be reading the 6th edition rulebook instead of the 7th edition one. Perhaps you should take a break from this thread until you have obtained and read the current rules?
No, we are not going to avoid the fact that you're deliberately misquoting me so that you can "prove" I was wrong about something.
You replied to Niirus sentence which was about Unbound by saying opponents consent is just a houserule, and that Unbound is standard ( which is true, it´s not any less official, before someone goes thinking I don´t know that. ) I even supplied both your quotes as you can see from my previous post. No misquoting whatsoever, those quotes were next to eachother in your own post aswell and you directly responded to Niiru regarding Unbound. Just stop, you´re just making yourself look even worse when you can´t admit you were wrong.
You claimed opponents consent is a houserule, and it is not. This is what you wrote. End of story.
Anyway, I won´t engage this offtopic facade any further. Back to new codices and their balance.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/12/14 18:25:50
The old Chaos 3.5 dex is often lauded as the best Chaos dex ever. It wasn't due to power levels. (ok, for some, yes.) But it's looked back on as a golden age for Chaos players because it let them create the armies they wanted. Noise Marine dreadnaughts, Iron Warriors with artillery and other craziness filled the book. It was bursting with character and makes the current one seem drab and boring. Why can't GW let their imagination loose again while maintaining some semblance of balance? So many of the fixes are easy.
Um, yes it was. That chaos codex was an abomination, and completely destroyed fourth edition of 40k. It's still rightly regarded as amongst the most broken codices gw have ever done. That 'craziness' meant nothing but siren lords, iron warriors with basilisks, max havoks and oblits and turn one assaulting nike lords with daemonic visage. Best thing gw did was taking it out back and shooting it in the head.
I can only speak for myself with certainty, though I have heard many voice the same opinion. I hated the balance, but loved the creativity. I didn't enjoy the power level just as I don't enjoy the current Eldar power level and actually caused me to take a long break from 40k.
I would like to know how many people liked it for the power or for the ability to actually make chaos armies that resemble the fluff. Might have to make a poll about that...
But perhaps a bit off topic.
Man, I would love that kind of codex. Athough I would stop anyone mixing the benefits of two fluffy chaos armies (say, Death Guard and Iron Warriors): it should be like Chapter tactics for C:SM, in that you choose one for your entire army.
Maybe you could autoally, or mix two if you have two different HQs? (kinda like what renegades have in IA13, with devotions (or lack of them) unlocking different benefits for your army or force org)
That could allow for some good themed lists, but not too much powergaming.
Any opinions?
CSM
Militarum Tempestus
Dark Angels (Deathwing)
Inquisition
RunicFIN wrote: You replied to Niirus sentence which was about Unbound by saying opponents consent is just a houserule, and that Unbound is standard. I even supplied both your quotes as you can see from my previous post. No misquoting whatsoever, those quotes were next to eachother in your own post aswell and you directly responded to Niiru regarding Unbound. Just stop, you´re just making yourself look even worse when you can´t admit you were wrong.
READ THE POSTS BEFORE TALKING ABOUT THEM.
Seriously, why are you having so much trouble with this? Read the ENTIRE context of the post, not just the part that lets you "prove" I was wrong about something. Here, I'll even repost the important context that you're ignoring:
As far as I'm aware, the default position on the current rules is "1 FOC, 1 Allies" and thats it (at the 1500-2000pt level). Maybe a lord of war, depending on your play group. Anything other than this, any gamer would/should know to ask for opponents consent.
This is clearly establishing a "tier" system of officialness/permission where battle-forged armies (potentially with other requirements) are the default, and everything else requires SPECIAL permission beyond the permission required to play the "default" army. And this is a house rule, not a rule published by GW.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Blacksails wrote: This sums up my gripes with the current codices, and indeed, the game itself.
I dunno, I mean it's a shrinking community, I don't really have that many regular opponents, I don't want to offend anyone, but I also don't want to give people the impression I enjoy playing against anything under the sun when I really don't. Setting up games just feels too political now, it used to be so much simpler communicate and be on the same page.
Blacksails wrote: GW's newest codices aren't quite forcing players to use Unbound, but its being strongly pushed with the absence of FoC modifications and removing old themes and lists from newer codices.
I am missing the foc swaps, that's some blandification I could do without, especially as an ork player . The real joke isn't unbound, it's battle forged.
Blacksails wrote: We get supplements to add some flavour back in, but paying an additional $60 to re-inject something that was cut doesn't leave me the warm fuzzlies.
Absolutely not and I think that's what is so cruel about the way they're doing the supplements. The reason the marine dex had such a good reception was the same thing that's worked so well for a lot of beloved codex's, multiple factions present in one book, multiple play styles and rules. A sense of identity. But at the same time, internal balance rears its ugly head, I know I use white scars traits most of the time and that's simply because of how crazy good hit and run is. I gotta say, it's not that the fluff is unwelcome but paying 60 dollars for a book with 2 pages of rules and a bunch of superfluous stuff in terms of functionality (one isn't required to read the additional fluff to be able to build operate the army). Look at the farsight enclave book, You could literally commit the relevant portions to memory and be able to play them with just the tau empire book. They all cost a ton but the level of value varies drastically. I'm almost embarrassed for gw with stuff like the legion of the damned auto lose army,
The amount of relevant content (rules to be able to play them in the game errr "shared experience") varies drastically, and I think they've blurred the line too much between "hey, if you like allies here's some more" and "hey, here's a new flavour of an existing army that can stand on it's own because it draws most or all of its units from its parent codex but does things a little differently".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/14 18:44:11
Peregrine wrote: This is clearly establishing a "tier" system of officialness/permission where battle-forged armies (potentially with other requirements) are the default, and everything else requires SPECIAL permission beyond the permission required to play the "default" army. And this is a house rule, not a rule published by GW.
No, Peregrine, you're wrong. In case you missed my previous post:
The bold is as printed in the BRB p.116: "Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
Don't like it? That's ok, play one of the many games that are simpler and don't require pre-game agreements.
Can we please go back to the original (interesting) topic about balance of the new codices versus old codices? You have many other threads with many topics to move this conversation to if you wish. As you are obviously familiar with 40k and 6e vs 7e, I'd love to hear your thoughts about external balance between 2014 printed codices versus older ones, rather than gripes about unbound (make a new thread if you really want to!).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/14 18:35:40
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
CSM
Dark Angels (Deathwing)
Inquisition 