Red__Thirst wrote:Consensus: The rules need a long overdue overhaul that, in theory, is coming. In

Davor wrote:

Red__Thirst wrote:Consensus: The rules need a long overdue overhaul that, in theory, is coming. In

Just a reminder. When we were in 6th edition and found out 7th edition was coming in, "in theory" we thought 7th edition was going to fix things not double down on what made 6th edition "bad".

Why do I have the fear Games Workshop will triple down now on 7th edition. There will be no balance at all in the game. After all GW survies on "the arms race" so people keep buying when a new army or codex gets something. They on purpose make other codices weaker so people will drop them and buy the new armies.

7th was suppose to fix Fortifications. 7th was suppose to fix 6th being a more shootier edition than 5th edition. 7th was suppose to fix the discrepancies of codex creep and make everything balanced. 7th just confirmed and made fortifications legal. No ands if or butts anymore. 7th some how made it even more shootier than 6th edition. 7th edition made codex creep even worse. Thing is, people dropped their Nid armies and Ork armies and bought other armies.

Some how in 2015 people stopped accepting this. GW kept going on with it in 2016 not even trying to fix it. Will 2017 change anything? Time will tell if GW triples down or actually tries to balance their game.

After all, does GW even know how to sell miniatures with a balanced game without counting on the "arms race" to sell minis? As I said, time will tell.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Where did you get all those "supposed to" things?

Those sound like wish listing that didn't come true, not GW advertising.

I currently have hope for 8e, as many of these questionable 7e decisions may have already been in the works when the new CEO got in, and pulling the plug on them partway through probably wasn't financially sound. They might have their current guys annoyed that they have to write suboptimal things to fit in 7e. 8e will be the first real start the current leadership has, and so that will be the first time we REALLY get to see the newer GW's work in its birthday suit. I'm holding my judgement until then.

Table wrote:
WIth the amount of gak Tau and Eldar can bring I have little to no sympathy for those two armies getting turn one charged. Hell, its the only way some codex have a fighting chance against those two. I also dont think turn 1 charges are a bad thing in general since assault is so borked this edition. Perhaps if 8th tones down overwatch somehow then we can start looking at turn one charges.

Of course I am biased because I happen to run a black legion raptor ralon but hey, I admit it. I also feel little sympathy for those two armies I have mentioned due to how much advantage they have in every other aspect of the game outside of alpha striking assault.

At least Tau can bring a good portion of Interceptor fire to punish Raptor Talons.

morgoth wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
and the "leafblower" thing was a 5E incarnation that came about in 2500pt 'Ard Boyz events, mainly where one player on a popular blog got first turn every single game and won one year with a heavy alpha strike list

4E was *very* friendly for the Eldar in tournament placement.

5th Edition was dominated by GK, Eldar wasn't top 3

again, hence the exception, but the edition was more a rotating circus of imperial armies in general on top, 2008 was SM's, 2009 was IG and SW's, 2010 and 2011 was GK's and to a lesser extent BA's, with Necrons moving in on top spot in the last few months up to 6E.

Thanks for taking the time to write an articulate post with a lot of information.
As I said and you confirmed, Eldar really weren't top dog for any of these editions as I remembered.

I understand that owners of terrible codices would resent an army being top 5 most of the time and even getting top 1 now and then, but hey, go hate on space marines kthx.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Your comparison is meaningless. We are talking about using invis models with invuln saves to tarpit real cc units, not terminators. The output of a tarpit is largely unimportant.

Oh yeah, 9 wounds on T4 3+/4++ WITHOUT FEARLESS models is an uber-tarpit. Specially cheap and cost effective. And good and totally reliable. Just be careful you don't lose that ld test you're going to make every single round. And my comparison isn't meaningless since he said they WRECK FACE. Not that they are a tarpit, but a hammer to crush the enemy.

And this is from a veteran player's comments:

My experience was that it still took relatively mistake-free play to actually win games regularly - one bad decision or mistake could easily cause even the competitive builds of the day to fold, and quickly.

Yeah, marine competitive builds have always done that too, haven't... they?

From my limited observation, Eldar has always been very tricky.

The IoM and Space Marines have always been more "in-your-face" I believe, making them less afraid of many potential mistakes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

morgoth wrote:

In my opinion, if your army doesn't get more than 25% of tournament victories, it's not really top tier.

Sweet! I win 1 out of 4 games I play! I'm fething top tier! Like a wedding cake!

I don't think you can win a tournament with just one game... but hey. whatever


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Runic wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Runic wrote:
Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.

Shooting alpha strikes are highly overstated, unless you don't bother putting sufficient terrain on the table.

There's enough Ignores Cover or just plain volume of fire on the top tier lists that normal amounts of terrain hardly make a difference.

Ofcourse in a perfect world one can fill their terrain to look like a scenic shot out of a movie, but in reality tournaments don't usually have this luxury as there are quite a bit of tables to set up.

I deal in the reality, not the utopia.

You're supposed to have LOS-blocking terrain on a proper table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Runic wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Of course, you're the one that is taking all the models out while he just removes his dead pieces.

Like honestly... I'm... I'm all out of feths to be honest. This thread is a lost cause, isn't it?

Not sure what you're trying to say exactly, but I guess you consider it okay to have people shot off the table on turn one, but for some reason having them melee'd off the table on turn one is somehow worse? Or?

Actually, the best shooty lists can at most take 30% of your force down on the first turn, if there is no real terrain.
But you don't know yet what is going to happen on T2 and T3 (earliest tabling in general).

I think Assault is different, because T1 assault, you lose 30% of your force, and you know that T2 = assault and lose another 30%, etc.

If you can't dodge a T1 assault, you cant dodge any assault, and the electro displacement mechanic makes every assault almost guaranteed and undodgeable.

WIth shooting, as your numbers dwindle, cover per unit increases, and shooting fears assault.
Invisible Assault Blob fears nothing but air, none of which can seriously damage it afaik - maybe we're slated for a return of the flyrants - although I'm expecting enough psy powers to completely annihilate them.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wasn't 5th ed the edition with wave serpent shenanigans?
I remember it be the marine edition prior to that.