I started this thread on Warseer looking for support to start a petition to fix the Nephilim. I was met with a combination of skepticism, indifference, and outright hostility. I was ready to give up on the whole idea.

But today, in my inbox, there was something magical! An e-mail response from GW Customer Service thanking me for an e-mail I sent requesting a fix for the Nephilim, and inviting me to follow up by phone to discuss it further. AND a promise to forward my opinion on to the studio! I accepted the invitation to call, and the customer service rep listened to what I had to say and discussed it with me. He wasn't familiar with the Dark Angels rules yet, but after I explained to him how the Nephilim utterly failed at its supposed role, and how unbalanced the Heldrake was by comparison, he had no choice to agree with me that S6 Blacksword missiles were a very odd choice. He too promised to forward my comments to the studio.

So I say to you: do not hang your head in despair! The hostile, secretive GW we once knew is no more! Customer Service is prepared not only to hear our voices, but to pass them along to those with the power to make some much needed changes! If you agree that the Nephilim was a massive disappointment rules-wise, if you would love to purchase one if only it was 180 points of flyer, instead of the 130 or so it is now, let GW know! Just send an e-mail to [EMAIL="CustServ@gwplc.com"]CustServ@gwplc.com[/EMAIL] and/or call 1-800-394-4263. I suggest you use your real name because that's what I did and they responded warmly. I'm not sure if they'd respond the same to an alias (although I have no real reason to think they wouldn't, I'm just not sure).

Also, fill out this one-question survey stating that you won't buy a Nephilim until its rules are fixed, and offering a suggestion about how you think that should be accomplished.

If you don't want to write your own e-mail, please just copy-paste the below polite message and send it to them. Feel free to edit it if you like, and there's no need to credit me as the author. If anything will convince them to fix this unit, it's VOLUME! So let's crank it up to 11! I'll be posting the same thing at all the other 40k sites I can think of. If you'd like to repost my message anywhere else, please do so!

PS. Troll away, call me a whiner, I don't care. I won't debate you or respond to you. Nor should anyone else who agrees with my position. The way to make trolls go away is not to feed them!

Example e-mail text:

Dear Games Workshop,

As a Warhammer 40k player, I was very disappointed to learn that the Nephilim, billed in the White Dwarf preview and the codex as an air superiority fighter, is actually quite ineffective against AV12 flyers, which are the most prevalent and dangerous flyers in the game currently. I believe its rules represent a substantial design failure, and the unit as currently written is not worth 180 points in a Dark Angels army. I also believe it is not worth my money and will not buy one unless its rules are amended to better reflect its points cost, as well as to ameliorate Dark Angels' relatively poor defenses against AV12 flyers. I would most like to see the Nephilim updated so that [Blacksword missiles are S7 AP2/Blacksword missiles have the Haywire special rule/Blacksword missiles have the Armorbane special rule/the Avenger Megabolter has Rending/insert your own idea here!]. I believe that if you admit that the Nephilim's rules are below par by amending the codex to fix them, your fans will admire your responsiveness and their respect for your design team will increase. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Dear Customer:

Thank you for expressing your interest in Games Workshop (tm) Products and the Games Workshop (tm) Hobby (tm). As you know we are committed to excellence in the Hobby (tm) and consider your feedback very important. We acknowledge your concerns about the Nephilim (tm) and will forward your email to the appropriate person. If you have any further concerns do not hesitate to buy more GW Products (tm) from your local Hobby Center (tm).

Sincerely, GW's automated form letter system.




Anyway, TBH, I hope you fail. Besides taking a lot of pleasure in seeing such an ugly model have garbage rules I do NOT want to see GW making balance changes after a book is printed just because a few fans complained about something. That's an absolute disaster waiting to happen, especially since most 40k players have absolutely no clue about how to balance a game properly.

On the bright side, at least I saved $75.

Also, your ideas are ridiculously overpowered. STR 7 AP 2 missiles or rending wouldn't be that bad, but armorbane or haywire missiles makes it way too good. Not only do those make it instant death to other flyers they also make it an insanely good anti-tank unit.

I feel like at one point in development the missiles were blast weapons. It would explain why missile lock was listed.

I agree that it isn't great currently as an anti-air unit. It would have been interesting if they kept with the debuff theme that the codex has and gave them some kind of EMP missiles to mess with enemy flyers.

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, your ideas are ridiculously overpowered. STR 7 AP 2 missiles or rending wouldn't be that bad, but armorbane or haywire missiles makes it way too good. Not only do those make it instant death to other flyers they also make it an insanely good anti-tank unit.

welcome to yet another installment of "why the fans don't write the rules."

I will admit I was a bit dissapointed with it after how it was billed but I got a single one to have some anti-air. For now it's going to sit in it's box(for some odd reason it came unwrapped from GW).

I don't expect they will make it better but if they did I would not be unhappy.

Please don't call other posters names. It's a violation of the terms of membership here. -Mannahnin

Sure the Nephilium doesn't have a torrent weapon the same way the helldrake does. and one shot with the lascannon even if its twin linked seems weak.

BUT your forgetting its other weapon option, the Megabolter. 5 STR 6 AP 4 shots! Combine that with the two missiles you can fire a turn, its putting out 7 STR 6 AP 4 shots a turn, along with the 3 STR 5 AP 4 shots from the twin linked Heavy bolter.

People Keep wanting to compare it to the Helldrake, which they're inclined to do. But you all seem to forget that its not the only flyer out there. Most fliers are AV 10, unless they are some sort of flying troop transport.. and the Nephilium will tear them up with volume of fire. And sure its stated to be "Air superiority" in the description, but its also have the strafing run rule so its hitting on a 2+ on ground targets. That makes it awesome against light vehicles and infantry.

I already told the trolls I wouldn't feed their trolling. Why do they still troll? Is it that they've forgotten how not to troll? Or do I come across as insincere when I promise not to feed them? Maybe they think if they can spit enough venom and bile and pettiness at me, I'll be FORCED to respond. Sorry to disappoint. I've got a 1++ save against trolling.

Ralis wrote:
Sure the Nephilium doesn't have a torrent weapon the same way the helldrake does. and one shot with the lascannon even if its twin linked seems weak.

BUT your forgetting its other weapon option, the Megabolter. 5 STR 6 AP 4 shots! Combine that with the two missiles you can fire a turn, its putting out 7 STR 6 AP 4 shots a turn, along with the 3 STR 5 AP 4 shots from the twin linked Heavy bolter.

People Keep wanting to compare it to the Helldrake, which they're inclined to do. But you all seem to forget that its not the only flyer out there. Most fliers are AV 10, unless they are some sort of flying troop transport.. and the Nephilium will tear them up with volume of fire. And sure its stated to be "Air superiority" in the description, but its also have the strafing run rule so its hitting on a 2+ on ground targets. That makes it awesome against light vehicles and infantry.

Definitely how I plan to field mine if I ever incorporate it into a list, I actually like the model and wanted one to have one, it seems like it would make for a great air support for my deathwing. I was hoping it would be stronger vs av 12 flyers because all of the flyers in my local meta are AV 12 besides mine .

I'm sorry, The insult was going to far I admit that.

But you all seem to be judging the Nephilium based on its stat line without fielding it.

I have one, I've used it, and sure in game one it died quickly to a Quad Gun, but then what flier doesn't. In game two it did a great job dropping enemy infantry.

 Ixe wrote:
I already told the trolls I wouldn't feed their trolling. Why do they still troll? Is it that they've forgotten how not to troll? Or do I come across as insincere when I promise not to feed them? Maybe they think if they can spit enough venom and bile and pettiness at me, I'll be FORCED to respond. Sorry to disappoint. I've got a 1++ save against trolling.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a troll? Good to know.

 Ixe wrote:
I already told the trolls I wouldn't feed their trolling. Why do they still troll? Is it that they've forgotten how not to troll? Or do I come across as insincere when I promise not to feed them? Maybe they think if they can spit enough venom and bile and pettiness at me, I'll be FORCED to respond. Sorry to disappoint. I've got a 1++ save against trolling.

Yet you just fed them

Hmm?

I remember sending GW customer service a couple of e-mails.

The first was regarding the propellant for their spray gun (don't judge me), which had disappeared from the Canadian site - but was still on the US site. I got a reply pretty quick - apparently it was some sort of minor screwup somewhere - and when I looked for it again a couple weeks later, it was back in its proper section.

The second was more recent. I was browsing the online store, got to the Sisters of Battle section, and noted that none of the Battle Conclave models were listed in the Sisters section, rather, they were only available from the Grey Knights section. So I sent them an e-mail suggesting that maybe those models should be listed in both sections - and yes, I was very polite about it. In response to that e-mail, I just got an e-mail back saying they passed on my feedback to the web design team. A few weeks later, I was sad to have noted they still weren't listed in the HQ section of the Sororitas section.

 Ixe wrote:
I already told the trolls I wouldn't feed their trolling. Why do they still troll? Is it that they've forgotten how not to troll? Or do I come across as insincere when I promise not to feed them? Maybe they think if they can spit enough venom and bile and pettiness at me, I'll be FORCED to respond. Sorry to disappoint. I've got a 1++ save against trolling.

Any validity your OP might have possibly contained was utterly wiped out by this ridiculously childish post.

My god.

Just look at it.

 Peregrine wrote:
especially since most 40k players have absolutely no clue about how to balance a game properly.

Unfortunately neither does GW, so what is one to do

I always look at what Druchii net was able to do with the previous codex and helped get a temp fix.
Gw does listen and respond sometimes.
I would likely use it to pound ground targets we have very good anti-air from the ground.

if you like the model then buy it, paint it and use it.

the rules are a festering unbalanced pile anyways, why bother trying to min/max it?

And I thought, the major problem was paying almost double Storm Talon price for 2 only slightly modified sprues.

 Kroothawk wrote:
And I thought, the major problem was paying almost double Storm Talon price for 2 only slightly modified sprues.

QFT right there....

kb305 wrote:


if you like the model then buy it, paint it and use it.

the rules are a festering unbalanced pile anyways, why bother trying to min/max it?

Because its the difference of buying 1 or 3, and actually using it.

canadianguy wrote:
I always look at what Druchii net was able to do with the previous codex and helped get a temp fix.
Gw does listen and respond sometimes.
I would likely use it to pound ground targets we have very good anti-air from the ground.

10+ years ago no?

 Kroothawk wrote:
And I thought, the major problem was paying almost double Storm Talon price for 2 only slightly modified sprues.

I would agree with this. To my mind, I can see the weapons as appropriate for an air superiority fighter, and it has rules that make it useful for harassing light vehicles/infantry too. I think if it was reduced in points cost by a little, it would be worth taking. Making it 130-150 pts should be ok, right? I think its points cost is the change that would generate the least complaints. Changing its weapons or armour would likely create rage against it unfortunately.

That being said, making the Blacksword Missiles S7 AP2 seems the most reasonable of your suggestions. Given that there are only 6 of them, I cant see this upsetting the Nephilims balance too much.

 Ravenous D wrote:

kb305 wrote:


if you like the model then buy it, paint it and use it.

the rules are a festering unbalanced pile anyways, why bother trying to min/max it?

Because its the difference of buying 1 or 3, and actually using it.

im refering to the whole game in general, not the DA flier rules.

just play what you want and have fun. winning at an unbalanced broken game = being king gak of turd mountain.

 HerbaciousT wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
And I thought, the major problem was paying almost double Storm Talon price for 2 only slightly modified sprues.

I would agree with this. To my mind, I can see the weapons as appropriate for an air superiority fighter, and it has rules that make it useful for harassing light vehicles/infantry too. I think if it was reduced in points cost by a little, it would be worth taking. Making it 130-150 pts should be ok, right? I think its points cost is the change that would generate the least complaints. Changing its weapons or armour would likely create rage against it unfortunately.

That being said, making the Blacksword Missiles S7 AP2 seems the most reasonable of your suggestions. Given that there are only 6 of them, I cant see this upsetting the Nephilims balance too much.

Hell i would settle for the missiles being S7 AP 4 then we have a fair chance of destroying the drake before it rips us apart.

canadianguy wrote:

I would likely use it to pound ground targets we have very good anti-air from the ground.

Pretty much my point on the Warseer forum. Btw OP most people are prob on both forums anyway. So don't be too shocked at the same responses here. Best of luck on your mission but you have basically received the standard response from GW.

They will fix it. They aren't going to put out a $70.00ish item just so no one buys them. Bad business. It'll get FAQ'd to heldrake troll level in no time.

 Peregrine wrote:

Anyway, TBH, I hope you fail. Besides taking a lot of pleasure in seeing such an ugly model have garbage rules I do NOT want to see GW making balance changes after a book is printed just because a few fans complained about something. That's an absolute disaster waiting to happen, especially since most 40k players have absolutely no clue about how to balance a game properly.

I don't always agree with Peregrine, but this would be one of the times where I do. If the Nepahalim were to get a revamp this soon after it launched, it would set a bad precedent for GW. The rules they release should be the final rules. The FAQs should not be for reworking the rule for a unit, they should be used to answer questions.

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyway, TBH, I hope you fail. Besides taking a lot of pleasure in seeing such an ugly model have garbage rules I do NOT want to see GW making balance changes after a book is printed just because a few fans complained about something. That's an absolute disaster waiting to happen, especially since most 40k players have absolutely no clue about how to balance a game properly.

Can't say I have a problem with GW fixing their mistakes...*if* it actually is a mistake in the first place. Nothing says that every unit must be exceptional at its role. It can "ok" at its role and still not be a mistake of some kind. GW aren't going to change the rules just because a few fans complain. Now if thousands complain they might make faq ruling.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
welcome to yet another installment of "why the fans don't write the rules."

We don't agree often Solo, but I am with you on this one.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HerbaciousT wrote:
That being said, making the Blacksword Missiles S7 AP2 seems the most reasonable of your suggestions. Given that there are only 6 of them, I cant see this upsetting the Nephilims balance too much.

Not really all that limiting to only have 6 missiles in a 5-7 turn game...I might agree with you if the nephilim has 1 or 2 Blackswords, but with 6 that just gets a little nuts.

Skriker

I'll support this if we can add a sidenote that all my Space Marines should be T9 and have a 1++ save to reflect the invincible angels of death that the codex and other sources have let me to believe they should be.

Not all of the flyers need to be game breaking awesome you know. They can be good, but I don't think they need to be broken.

I smell customer service humoring a customer.

I smell customer service humoring a customer.

My thoughts exactly.

I emailed them to tell them NOT to change a thing. Unless of course, they make Phil Kelly personally apologize for Warp Talons and Mutilators first. I want it recorded on my voicemail. THEN we can talk about the Nephi-whats-it ...lol

 Ixe wrote:
Also, fill out this one-question survey stating that you won't buy a Nephilim until its rules are fixed, and offering a suggestion about how you think that should be accomplished.

I wrote in my own option:

Simply give the Blacksword Missiles Target lock, which it had, and make the Blacksword Missiles use the small blast marker.

I suggest others do the same. The vehicle is fine as it is, as long as the missiles get Target lock back, and are made to use the small blast marker

I partially agree- for the current cost...

allow replacement of the TL heavy bolters with the megabolter instead of the TL lascannon. Say +20 points to upgrade therefore lowering the cost by 20. Heavy bolters do not qualify as an air superiority weapon.

On the positiive, the ability to change any weapon destroyed to an immobilize can be quite nice for an air superiority fighter... The problem is that we are talking it really only affecting 1 shot per turn - the lascannon.

The missiles again are rather poor anti-air missiles... 4 one shot S7 missiles means about 3 hit and maybe one penetrates per game.... Perhaps again discount it and allow +10 cost upgrades to krak missiles.

Or course we could alway do the IG thing ... Lower the cost by 50 points and allow you to trade out the heavy bolters and missiles for 10 to 20 points for TL lascannons.

DAaddict wrote:
Or course we could alway do the IG thing ... Lower the cost by 50 points and allow you to trade out the heavy bolters and missiles for 10 to 20 points for TL lascannons.

you would have to give it BS3 as well then.

Tycho wrote:

I smell customer service humoring a customer.

My thoughts exactly.

I emailed them to tell them NOT to change a thing. Unless of course, they make Phil Kelly personally apologize for Warp Talons and Mutilators first. I want it recorded on my voicemail. THEN we can talk about the Nephi-whats-it ...lol

I actually have found warp talons useful and fun to play with. Still can't figure out how a slow and purposeful unit is supposed to be an effective assault unit, though....

Skriker

The biggest "problem" with it, is that it is priced with 6ths flyers rules in mind. It would probably not seem that off if Stormravens and Vendettas weren't priced as skimmers.

It would be nice if GW just stopped at 6th, got everyone's codex updated, then just keep updating codexs to evolve the meta.

This books falling 2 editions behind system is foolish.

The biggest "problem" with it, is that it is priced with 6ths flyers rules in mind. It would probably not seem that off if Stormravens and Vendettas weren't priced as skimmers.

QFT

My 2000pt BA list includes two Storm Ravens. I am dreading what that list is going to look like when the points for the SR get adjusted to 6th ed ... Yikes.

 ShatteredBlade wrote:
Not all of the flyers need to be game breaking awesome you know. They can be good, but I don't think they need to be broken.

And not all flyers have to be the same. The Heldrake and the Nephilim are created by different groups for different reasons, requiring different tactics.

If you reallly want balance, your looking for a slight nerf to the helldrake, not a buff to the nephilim

Hetelic wrote:
If you reallly want balance, your looking for a slight nerf to the helldrake, not a buff to the nephilim

The Heldrake is fine.

Vendettas on the other hand...

The Heldrake is fine.

Vendettas on the other hand...

Agreed on the Heldrake. I think it's kind of disingenuous to complain about the ONE possibly powerful unit in the entire codex when everything else in it is kind of meh.

Vendettas in one's or two's I don't mind at all. It's when your facing NINE of the damn things that things get hairy ... lol

Hrm, I dunno about that. Even as a CSM player, I think the Heldrake is a bit overboard. A flying Hellhound with that gets AP3 for its flamer and never has to Jink, that can regain hull points, give itself a turn of rerolls, and make S7 AP3 no-cover vector strike attacks for a mere 170pts?

It's hard to say they didn't go a bit overboard with it.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

And not all flyers have to be the same. The Heldrake and the Nephilim are created by different groups for different reasons, requiring different tactics.

So true. I've not played against a Heldrake, but everything I've seen says that its primarily ground attack. It can't use a baleflamer against a flyer can it?

If you look at the Nephilium as a "Multi-role" fighter, instead of the fluff "Air superiority" It works good. You can take Flakk missile devastator squads, for 170pts, or heaven forbid you just take an aegis defense line with a quad gun for 100 pts for anti-flier.

Now that I got to browse the DA codex a bit more... I guess the crappiness of the Nephilim depends on what you compare it to. Compared to something like the Heldrake? Yeah, it's not great. Compared to a Storm Talon? Not that bad, considering the extra hull point and slightly more shots. Then again, the Storm Talon always needed to be cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ralis wrote:
I've not played against a Heldrake, but everything I've seen says that its primarily ground attack. It can't use a baleflamer against a flyer can it?

No it can't, but even if you take the Baleflamer rather than the Hades it can still Vector Strike a flyer - no Jinks allowed - for 1+D3 S7 autohits, and then proceed to flame a ground target to death. The torrent flamer can reach up to 20" now, what with the thin end of the template being placed up to 12" away and the flamer template being about 8" long. And now it can fire it 360 degrees, which is nuts - combined with a Vector strike, the Heldrake can utterly decimate a 10-man SM squad in a single pass. Of course it can now also shoot the Hades 360, so you could fly through an enemy flyer from the front and Vector it, and then shoot it in the arse with the Hades. Whoo-pee. Thank goodness I only bought one instead of two last month, as I feel bad for owning even one of such a cheesy unit, and as such who knows when I will actually build it.

One thing i don't understand why there has to be so many different missiles. Every vehicle seems to need its own type of special missiles. It is unnecessary and confusing. Just make rules for few different types of missiles, and then arm all your vehicles with one most appropriate.

So you got a new codex and a ton of new models but youre still not happy? Sounds like I can call GW and get BT, SoB, and Tau updated by next week!!! Ill get right on it!

 Goat wrote:
They will fix it. They aren't going to put out a $70.00ish item just so no one buys them. Bad business. It'll get FAQ'd to heldrake troll level in no time.

They do that all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
So you got a new codex and a ton of new models but youre still not happy? Sounds like I can call GW and get BT, SoB, and Tau updated by next week!!! Ill get right on it!

Oh look, D3m0 complaining about BT's codex.

What a novel, fresh experience.

 Peregrine wrote:

Anyway, TBH, I hope you fail... since most 40k players have absolutely no clue about how to balance a game properly.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Ixe wrote:
Also, fill out this one-question survey stating that you won't buy a Nephilim until its rules are fixed, and offering a suggestion about how you think that should be accomplished.

I wrote in my own option:

Simply give the Blacksword Missiles Target lock, which it had, and make the Blacksword Missiles use the small blast marker.

I suggest others do the same. The vehicle is fine as it is, as long as the missiles get Target lock back, and are made to use the small blast marker

I love this idea, and by that I mean you haven't actually read the rules in combination with this change. What makes the Blacksword missiles distinct is that they DO NOT use the blast template. This means that they can be fired at other flyers. As a previous poster mentioned the Helldrake can't use its template weapon against other flyers and if the BS missiles were blast then they couldn't be used either.

Skyfire removes the Snap Shot restriction. However the main flyer entry states that you cannot fire a weapon that uses template, blast, or large blast against a flyer. This is a separate listing from Snap Shot. Long and short they took away missile lock because it's not appropriate for those missiles, granted with a name like Missile Lock I expect it to be air-to-air, but its not.

I'm fine with the Neph for what that's worth. Oh dear I can't run straight at the flying demon thingy this model is completely useless. If all you care about is playing against the meta run DW with TH/SS and an Aegis line. Then you're as cheesed out as you want to be and the rest of us can enjoy leaving large infantry shaped mush piles on the ground and watching most flyers crash and burn under weight of fire

andystache wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Ixe wrote:
Also, fill out this one-question survey stating that you won't buy a Nephilim until its rules are fixed, and offering a suggestion about how you think that should be accomplished.

I wrote in my own option:

Simply give the Blacksword Missiles Target lock, which it had, and make the Blacksword Missiles use the small blast marker.

I suggest others do the same. The vehicle is fine as it is, as long as the missiles get Target lock back, and are made to use the small blast marker

I love this idea, and by that I mean you haven't actually read the rules in combination with this change. What makes the Blacksword missiles distinct is that they DO NOT use the blast template. This means that they can be fired at other flyers. As a previous poster mentioned the Helldrake can't use its template weapon against other flyers and if the BS missiles were blast then they couldn't be used either.

Skyfire removes the Snap Shot restriction. However the main flyer entry states that you cannot fire a weapon that uses template, blast, or large blast against a flyer. This is a separate listing from Snap Shot. Long and short they took away missile lock because it's not appropriate for those missiles, granted with a name like Missile Lock I expect it to be air-to-air, but its not.

I'm fine with the Neph for what that's worth. Oh dear I can't run straight at the flying demon thingy this model is completely useless. If all you care about is playing against the meta run DW with TH/SS and an Aegis line. Then you're as cheesed out as you want to be and the rest of us can enjoy leaving large infantry shaped mush piles on the ground and watching most flyers crash and burn under weight of fire

Amen Brother...

Yes the valk/ven is av12, but anyone who thinks it will stay that way when the new dex drops... Well there kidding themselves, these av12 flyers will go up in cost massively or become av10 like most flyers are now. The really tough flyers are av11, the raven was designed for 5th, had that thing been made for 6th it would be av11

 Formosa wrote:
Yes the valk/ven is av12, but anyone who thinks it will stay that way when the new dex drops... Well there kidding themselves, these av12 flyers will go up in cost massively or become av10 like most flyers are now. The really tough flyers are av11, the raven was designed for 5th, had that thing been made for 6th it would be av11

the raven would just be more expensive with AV12 but I think it will keep it.
The hell turkey also will have AV12
I think the valk vendetta will go down to 11 and have a point increase

 Formosa wrote:
Yes the valk/ven is av12, but anyone who thinks it will stay that way when the new dex drops... Well there kidding themselves

Yeah, Vendettas in the next IG codex will be AV 14/14/14 and the kit will be increased in price to $150.

I don't know what's funnier. The idea that customer service has any sway whatsoever over game design or the idiotic predictions I'm reading.

Lol

 Sasori wrote:
The Heldrake is fine.

Vendettas on the other hand...

I fully expect that the vendetta will see a serious price change in the next IG 'dex...the only real question is how long off is that going to be?

Skriker

 TheCaptain wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
So you got a new codex and a ton of new models but youre still not happy? Sounds like I can call GW and get BT, SoB, and Tau updated by next week!!! Ill get right on it!

Oh look, D3m0 complaining about BT's codex.

What a novel, fresh experience.

Im glad you enjoyed it. As I have a huge amount of time and money invested in the subject I feel the need to voice my opinion from time to time. Thank you for taking time out from your busy schedule to listen to my concerns.

Something in an army sucks. Get over it.

What might be good, however, is the ability to reroll armor penetration rolls (missles only) and being able to fire off all 6 missiles at once. Because then you can fire off all your missles you have a fairly good chance of glancing things to death, and now you got a ground superiority flyer?
I don't know, i never read the rules, it just sounds like a good idea to me.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 ShatteredBlade wrote:
Not all of the flyers need to be game breaking awesome you know. They can be good, but I don't think they need to be broken.

And not all flyers have to be the same. The Heldrake and the Nephilim are created by different groups for different reasons, requiring different tactics.

But the Nephilim is just really bad at what it does. It's horrendously overcosted, "tactics" has nothing to do with it. You pay a ton of points for something that shoots like a land speeder.

Give it 6 months. I'll bet not a lot of DA players will be crying about having two new flyers as much by then...

I was a bit dissapointed, was going to build mine last night(well at least start) the box I got from GW came opened(there was no plastic wrap) and when I opened the actual box to look for the instructions there weren't any

Griever wrote:


But the Nephilim is just really bad at what it does. It's horrendously overcosted, "tactics" has nothing to do with it. You pay a ton of points for something that shoots like a land speeder.

Perhaps. But it's not a total Mandrake/Mutilator-style brain-fart either. It's alright for some beer-and-pretzel gaming.

There'd be far more urgent things to fix.

It is definatly good for friendly non-competitive games, it could make a very nice anti infantry flyer but definitely fell short of the air superiority fighter it was billed as. Not saying it needs to be changed(would be fine if they did though), I will just have to find a way to make it work in some lists because I do like the model.

Now if I can just get GW to send me the instructions for mine.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Griever wrote:


But the Nephilim is just really bad at what it does. It's horrendously overcosted, "tactics" has nothing to do with it. You pay a ton of points for something that shoots like a land speeder.

Perhaps. But it's not a total Mandrake/Mutilator-style brain-fart either. It's alright for some beer-and-pretzel gaming.

There'd be far more urgent things to fix.

Agreed like i said earlier something as small as a +1 stg increase to the missile to make them similar to skyhammers is more than enough

Hey Ixe, my BAs codex used to be #1, but now its not. Could you please make one of those form letters for me? I think it would be fair to reduce the cost of a storm raven by 40 to 50 points, bcause I don't think its as bad @ss as it used to be. I mean at my beer & pretzels game each week I want to pay more attention to the beer, but still win A LOT. I want to be able to pick myself up off the floor covered in puke & see that I still won. Could you add some of those links too? Thanks in advance.


Sorry had to. In all seriousness though, DAs players got a flyer kit that makes not 1 but 2 flyers. Complainig about that practicaly spits in the face of all the armys that don't have flyers or desperatly need an update.

I don't know Red, I think I'd rather be still hoping for a good update than know I was stuck with a gakky one for the next seven/ten years. I'm looking at you Tyranids.

I would like to say that I hope that GW doesn't FAQ the Nephilim to play differently unless there is an error in the English language codex that nobody has caught yet (ie, like Hellbrutes being 115 points instead of 100 in the English CSM codex) UNLESS they decide to issue widespread balance FAQ's across all codices. Any balancing they should do should be for the sake of the game, not because some customer cries.

 RedAngel wrote:
Hey Ixe, my BAs codex used to be #1, but now its not. Could you please make one of those form letters for me? I think it would be fair to reduce the cost of a storm raven by 40 to 50 points, bcause I don't think its as bad @ss as it used to be. I mean at my beer & pretzels game each week I want to pay more attention to the beer, but still win A LOT. I want to be able to pick myself up off the floor covered in puke & see that I still won. Could you add some of those links too? Thanks in advance.


Sorry had to. In all seriousness though, DAs players got a flyer kit that makes not 1 but 2 flyers. Complainig about that practicaly spits in the face of all the armys that don't have flyers or desperatly need an update.

Here's this common fallacy: that GW "gave" as something. No. GW created a product, which we may now purchase if we choose. The product costs money. It is not unreasonable for us to wish that it be worth the money. It simply isn't right now. You're right, it's a great kit. Many armies would wish for such a nice kit. But if it had such gimpy rules, they also wouldn't buy it, just like me. Or at least, they'd be dupes if they did so. It insults our intelligence that GW would slap a 180 point price tag on this thing and expect us to eat it up. Maybe the beer and pretzels crowd will go nuts, but competitive gamers like myself aren't fooled. Just because it's new and shiny, and just because other armies aren't so new any shiny, doesn't mean we have to just swallow it and say "thank you sir may I have another?" when they slap us with garbage rules.

 Ixe wrote:

 RedAngel wrote:
Hey Ixe, my BAs codex used to be #1, but now its not. Could you please make one of those form letters for me? I think it would be fair to reduce the cost of a storm raven by 40 to 50 points, bcause I don't think its as bad @ss as it used to be. I mean at my beer & pretzels game each week I want to pay more attention to the beer, but still win A LOT. I want to be able to pick myself up off the floor covered in puke & see that I still won. Could you add some of those links too? Thanks in advance.


Sorry had to. In all seriousness though, DAs players got a flyer kit that makes not 1 but 2 flyers. Complainig about that practicaly spits in the face of all the armys that don't have flyers or desperatly need an update.

Here's this common fallacy: that GW "gave" as something. No. GW created a product, which we may now purchase if we choose. The product costs money. It is not unreasonable for us to wish that it be worth the money. It simply isn't right now. You're right, it's a great kit. Many armies would wish for such a nice kit. But if it had such gimpy rules, they also wouldn't buy it, just like me. Or at least, they'd be dupes if they did so. It insults our intelligence that GW would slap a 180 point price tag on this thing and expect us to eat it up. Maybe the beer and pretzels crowd will go nuts, but competitive gamers like myself aren't fooled. Just because it's new and shiny, and just because other armies aren't so new any shiny, doesn't mean we have to just swallow it and say "thank you sir may I have another?" when they slap us with garbage rules.

Agreed.

Looking at the codex, i am disappointed by the rift cannon, but more than the blackswords: they are not horrible, but are not good enough for the nephilim's role. I believe that it should be s7 and thats it. Glances av10 flyers on 3s & pens on 4s; glances av12 flyers on 5s and pens on 6s. The rift cannon should probably be s6/7 based on the description, and it justifies the cost and the lack of other weapons.

What kills me is that on top of the str 6, the black sword missels are only range 36" lol. Less range, worse AP, and lower str.

So the DA flyers are not the best flyers in the game, so what...

Is the rest of the codex really THAT bad? So bad that you want GW to start changing rules just because enough people whined about 1 unit not being as good as they wish it was?

Sorry, I don't want that from GW.

Here's the big thing about most of the kvetching and ringing of hands, I think it is way too bloody early. Consider for a second that there are only three flyers that didn't start life as something with the type (Fast, Skimmer) in the game. Now make all of the justifications you wish about "made with 6E in mind", but all that will ever be is speculation. Even the Necrons had to be out the door long before 6E was fully cemented. And while it may seem like some oddities fit we will never know whether they were inspired by 6th Edition in development or whether they inspired the development of 6th Edition. So leave out all of that crap. Forget the codices that were released before 6E.

That gives us the Dark Talon, Nephelim and Helldrake. Now, it is pretty clear the Helldrake is better in this relationship (though it is debatable with the DT since it has some funky effects in its corner that support and buff the army as a whole). So with this in mind we need to ask ourselves: "which one of these flyers is the aberration in terms of design".

So GW say they designed the Neph as anti-flyer, and considering the only other flyer in the game, it is easy to call bs on that. But stop and think for a second. How long has 6E actually been out, yup, still less than a freaking year. Still only two armies actually designed for it. What if the next codices out the door are stocked with AV10/11 flyers with 2 HP (maybe 3 if they are really beefy). Suddenly the assertion of the Nephelim being a great anti-flyer are actually true!

In the end, my point is that I think people are jumping the gun. Unless you have prescient visions of future codices, you don't actually know whether the Neph is a good anti-flyer unit yet. Because all we have to compare it with is a dedicated ground-attack unit and a unit that is considered by many to be more than a little overpowered. So if the Helldrake is an aberration, and new flyers will hew closer to the Neph and Dark Talon, then boosting them would merely leave us with two overpowered flyers that wipe the floor with the new ones. Which then creates a lovely feedback loop of new codices needing flyers to help take on the flyers from the last codex that were boosted to deal with the flyers from the one before it.

And if the Helldrake is already considered the top of the heap in its own book's internal balance scheme (being an auto-include for many) then how is that a good thing for other codices to mirror?

So if new flyers drop and the Nephelim is actually effective against them and begins to pull its own weight then we are left with one poorly thought-out flyer instead of many. Now, GW may screw the pooch and flyer balance could go out the window as AV12 3HP with invulnerable saves become the new black. In which case we may want to think about a petition. But now, after two codices? Too damn early.

When dealing with a new edition, the meta will shift like crazy for the first year or two. Hell, remember that the mech-heavy meta of 5th Edition didn't cement until a year or two in to it when people finally started pegging on it and realized how powerful it was. So I'm going to prefer to wait until 6E has more than two codices published for it before I call for a revamp of a unit that may or may not be sub-par in an otherwise very good codex. If the Nephelim is defined by its anti-air capability then its relative worth (and thus point cost) is not yet reflected because we only have one point of data to compare it to. Until we know whether the Helldrake is on the line of best fit or an outlier, we can't know whether that 180 point cost and stats actually make the Neph a good flyer in 6th Edition. Sure it isn't a very good one in the current stop-gap hybrid-quasi-5.6th edition meta; but who the hell gives a crap about that? That will change significantly with every new codex, so making fixes based on it is, at best, a Sisyphean task that I wouldn't wish on anyone. So we can either roll our boulder up the hill so we can drop it on the next poor sod in line, or we can wait at the bottom of the hill, have a beer and wait to see if a crew comes in to blast the sheer slope down to a gentle hill [/forcedmetaphor].

I don't know about anyone else, but I like beer and I am just fine with being patient (waited 17 years for a good codex didn't I?).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Yes the valk/ven is av12, but anyone who thinks it will stay that way when the new dex drops... Well there kidding themselves

Yeah, Vendettas in the next IG codex will be AV 14/14/14 and the kit will be increased in price to $150.

And be 50 pts.

In all honesty, all I think the Vendetta will get is a significant point increase and that is it.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
What if the next codices out the door are stocked with AV10/11 flyers with 2 HP (maybe 3 if they are really beefy). Suddenly the assertion of the Nephelim being a great anti-flyer are actually true!

Not really, because having lots of extra flyers doesn't really mean much if they just add more units to the "not a Vendetta, not going to use it" pile. Being good against the bad flyers that nobody takes doesn't make a unit good if it's worthless against Vendettas/Helldrakes/etc. Unless GW kills the existing AV 12 flyers the Nephilim is still going to be a terrible unit.

Of course that's not really the issue here. There are two relevant factors:

1) Should the Nephilim be good? Should DA have a good flyer, or should DA players have to accept that, just like Tau players don't and shouldn't have a good assault unit, space marines don't always get to be the best at everything?

2) Should GW give in to whining and immediately change a unit's rules because people complained loud enough, or should they have to deal with it just like every other player has to deal with having balance problems and weak units until a new codex arrives?

The answers, of course, are "not really", and "no".

While we're at it can I get a 5 point cost reduction for DC, Dante fixed back to strike at initiative (Astorath also), make Mephiston an IC and allow DC Tycho to join a squad of DC. This is my first set of demands, if they are not met within the hour I will start executing guardsman!

 Ixe wrote:
Here's this common fallacy: that GW "gave" as something. No. GW created a product, which we may now purchase if we choose. The product costs money. It is not unreasonable for us to wish that it be worth the money. It simply isn't right now. You're right, it's a great kit. Many armies would wish for such a nice kit. But if it had such gimpy rules, they also wouldn't buy it, just like me. Or at least, they'd be dupes if they did so. It insults our intelligence that GW would slap a 180 point price tag on this thing and expect us to eat it up. Maybe the beer and pretzels crowd will go nuts, but competitive gamers like myself aren't fooled. Just because it's new and shiny, and just because other armies aren't so new any shiny, doesn't mean we have to just swallow it and say "thank you sir may I have another?" when they slap us with garbage rules.

Here is your problem Ixe: You are equating your opinion with the one and only way everything should be in this situation and with respect to GW and what they put in the codex, your opinion really doesn't even enter into the equation. You will refuse to use the nephilim and plenty of other people will still use them and be happy and your protest of not using it will not make the slightest blip on GW's radar. It also isn't as if customer service doesn't hear some variation of the "Unit X should have a cheaper point cost so it is more usable to me, a competitive player" at least 100 times a day either.

Just because people don't complain about it doesn't immediately make them beer and pretzel players either. My friends and I are quite competitive in our games, but don't feel the need to try to force GW to change points values for units to specifically please our playing styles. We compete quite well within the context of the rules and codecies as they are written.

Besides the only thing "garbage" about the rules for the nephilim is really in the fluff and not the rules anyway: The fluff says it is an air superiority fighter, when really it is more of a ground attack fighter. Kind of the difference between the F16 and the A10 in the real world. Given how most armies might have 1 flyer in their force I find a ground attack fighter much more useful in my local meta than an air superiority fighter that has limited usefulness after taking out my opponents single flyer...

Skriker

 Skriker wrote:
Given how most armies might have 1 flyer in their force I find a ground attack fighter much more useful in my local meta than an air superiority fighter that has limited usefulness after taking out my opponents single flyer...

Well, to be fair good anti-air tends to be good anti-armor as well. Of course, if the opponent doesn't bring any tanks and such either, then shooting at ork boyz or something might not be optimal

 tvih wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
Given how most armies might have 1 flyer in their force I find a ground attack fighter much more useful in my local meta than an air superiority fighter that has limited usefulness after taking out my opponents single flyer...

Well, to be fair good anti-air tends to be good anti-armor as well. Of course, if the opponent doesn't bring any tanks and such either, then shooting at ork boyz or something might not be optimal

Lets be brutally honest here. Warhamemr is a game of dice, and the best way to achieve anything is to throw lots of dice at it, ie, Weight of fire. In that respect, a single unit/ vehicle/ flyer is never going to be "good" at a specific role.We also need to realise that fluff does not equate gameplay, so because something says "air superiority" doesn't actually mean thats what it will do.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
While we're at it can I get a 5 point cost reduction for DC, Dante fixed back to strike at initiative (Astorath also), make Mephiston an IC and allow DC Tycho to join a squad of DC. This is my first set of demands, if they are not met within the hour I will start executing guardsman!

Im sure Gw wouldn't care for a few(million) dead guardsman.

make them ultrasmurfs and maybe ward might take notice.

but really can we has tau sky rays with sky fire with missiles that don't hit on 6s only?

 Peregrine wrote:
1) Should the Nephilim be good? Should DA have a good flyer, or should DA players have to accept that, just like Tau players don't and shouldn't have a good assault unit, space marines don't always get to be the best at everything?

You're presenting a false equivalency here. You ask whether DA have a good flyer, or whether Space Marines accept that they can't be the best at everything? Having a "good" flyer isn't the same as having the "best" flyer. I don't think it needs to be the best flyer in the game, and nobody should expect GW to make it such. It just needs to be not terrible. There is a middle ground between having a non-terrible unit and having an omgwtfbbq unit. Just knocking 40 points off the Nephilim's cost would fix it. But to make it worth 180, it's got to be at least as useful as other things in the same codex that fill the same role that also cost 180 points. It isn't. So it needs a buff, or it's gonna rot on the shelf except for beer and pretzels players.

2) Should GW give in to whining and immediately change a unit's rules because people complained loud enough, or should they have to deal with it just like every other player has to deal with having balance problems and weak units until a new codex arrives?

Players only "have to deal" with horribly designed rules because they decide to swallow it and say "thank you sir, may I have another?" This is the fallacy that's been presented over and over and over and over in this discussion, here and on other boards. Staying quiet is a choice. You assert that every other player "has" to swallow badly designed units, but you're wrong. If they do keep quiet, it's on them. It's not an argument for why I should sit down and shut up, and it's not an argument for why GW shouldn't correct what seems to be a big mistake in their brand new book. Another's voluntary decision to accept the lousy status quo does not bind me. It doesn't bind you, either. The only way that GW won't hear us is if we don't speak up. The only way to be guaranteed not to have a better game is not to ask for one.

In any other consumer product situation, we would view ourselves as customers, and we would express dissatisfaction if the product weren't up to our expectations. But somehow people have formed this idea of GW as a special institution which neither can nor should attempt to produce quality products that its customers will definitely want. I suspect that a lot of this is just pettiness--people feel like it's good if another person's book gets boned, because that's what happened to them, so share the misery. But isn't it obvious that the game would be better for everyone if we put petty bickering aside and collectively demanded that GW adhere to some basic standards of game design? That they not take lovely model kits and slap them with the most back-assward rules they could come up with? If we work together, we can improve the game. If we spend all our time trying to inflict the same misery on each other that GW has inflicted on us already, then we won't get anywhere. What's so hard to grasp about this?

I'm just going to leave the Eldar codex in this thread.

Please, I dare you to cry about "the problems" with your little flier after reading it.

No offence intended by this, but it's just my opinion here.

I don't think this will work and I personally hope it doesn't.

I think this because if GW listened to everyone who emailed them about units they dislike, feel are under/over-powered or generally want change for some arbitrary reason, we would end up in a terrible constant flux of rubbish rules/games and whining players.

This could quickly devolve into wishlisting and the like.

All the best with this though, I like the idea of more constant updates and changes to broken or stupid rules but it needs to be done in a standard format not by petitions or surveys.

I'm a Black Templar player also, believe me I know what it feels like to hope/want updates and changes to stupid/under powered units, but patience and common sense in my book overwrites my desire to start an online revolution, mainly because I know it won't work and also that I don't believe it would work nor do I want it to go that way.

 Rysaer wrote:
No offence intended by this, but it's just my opinion here.

I don't think this will work and I personally hope it doesn't.

I think this because if GW listened to everyone who emailed them about units they dislike, feel are under/over-powered or generally want change for some arbitrary reason, we would end up in a terrible constant flux of rubbish rules/games and whining players.

This could quickly devolve into wishlisting and the like.

All the best with this though, I like the idea of more constant updates and changes to broken or stupid rules but it needs to be done in a standard format not by petitions or surveys.

I'm a Black Templar player also, believe me I know what it feels like to hope/want updates and changes to stupid/under powered units, but patience and common sense in my book overwrites my desire to start an online revolution, mainly because I know it won't work and also that I don't believe it would work nor do I want it to go that way.

Pretty much. This whole thread belongs in the file named "why the fans shouldn't write the rules."

I'm with Solofalcon on that, don't get me wrong I have seen some fan made rules and updates to some units in this game and others that were actually pretty balanced or fun but in general its best left to the professionals.

Hopefully GW will hire some more professionals at some point.

 Ixe wrote:
I don't think it needs to be the best flyer in the game, and nobody should expect GW to make it such. It just needs to be not terrible.

Why? Why are DA required to have a decent flyer? It isn't in the basic concept of the army (ravenwing and deathwing), so why does your army have to be good at everything instead of good at some things and weak at others? For example, if a Tau player demanded a good assault unit they'd be told to shut up and stop being stupid, and for good reason. Tau just don't have good assault units. They have Kroot and Vespids if you really really want to assault occasionally, but they're never going to be good at it. Maybe DA and flyers are just in the same situation, it's not something they're supposed to do well.

What you have is an adequate flyer. It's there if you really want to use a flyer or don't feel that flak missiles are good enough, but maybe it's just not supposed to be a top-tier unit. If you want to only use top-tier units, fine, but you'll just have to accept that some units are only appealing to the "beer and pretzels" crowd and aren't meant to be a major part of the army.

But isn't it obvious that the game would be better for everyone if we put petty bickering aside and collectively demanded that GW adhere to some basic standards of game design?

Of course, I'd love it if GW learned how to design and balance a game properly, but that's not what we have here. This isn't one step in a comprehensive plan to reform GW's game design methods and balance every army, it's a demand to fix a single unit with a threat to stop buying it if GW doesn't. There's no attempt to serve the greater good of the game, it's just another "make my army powerful" whine, but with a new expensive model's sales at stake. If GW gives in and changes the rules to make sure they don't lose any sales they set a dangerous precedent where anyone who wants a more powerful army just has to whine loud enough and GW will make their new toys more powerful, regardless of what impact it will have on overall game balance.

So it needs a buff, or it's gonna rot on the shelf except for beer and pretzels players. [As stated by Ixe]

You've got something very very very wrong. GW doesn't care about your competative games. They dont. They want to "forge the narrative", and have "fun" battles. Nowhere in the BRB does it mention how to make things properly "balanced" or "competative". You send GW an email saying something is only good for "beer and pretel" players, and GW will rub their hands and say job done.

Hetelic, you'd better watch that f-word. Lots of people aren't into Warhammer for that. It is a requirement for some that GW make these armies as balanced as possible so that everyone has a fair chance at winning in tournaments. People who believe in the f-word don't know what Warhammer is all aboit. This is a serious business...

These are.also the same people who believe that poker and blackjack don't favor the house.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Hetelic, you'd better watch that f-word. Lots of people aren't into Warhammer for that. It is a requirement for some that GW make these armies as balanced as possible so that everyone has a fair chance at winning in tournaments. People who believe in the f-word don't know what Warhammer is all aboit. This is a serious business...

These are.also the same people who believe that poker and blackjack don't favor the house.

Yeah, because being well balanced for competitive tournaments and being fun are mutually exclusive. Ignore the companies that produce balanced competitive games that are also fun. Do not question the GW Hobby. Buy more GW Products like a good little customer.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Hetelic, you'd better watch that f-word. Lots of people aren't into Warhammer for that. It is a requirement for some that GW make these armies as balanced as possible so that everyone has a fair chance at winning in tournaments. People who believe in the f-word don't know what Warhammer is all aboit. This is a serious business...

These are.also the same people who believe that poker and blackjack don't favor the house.

Yeah, because being well balanced for competitive tournaments and being fun are mutually exclusive. Ignore the companies that produce balanced competitive games that are also fun. Do not question the GW Hobby. Buy more GW Products like a good little customer.

But thats because these companies want to produce rules sets that are balanced and suitable for competative play. Gw dont want to. They couldn't care less. They want to make pretty models, then sell you some rules that make you buy said pretty models. They've never said anything different.

You can criticise GW for not making balanced rules, but they've never set out to do that. If you have a problem with that, find a different game.

I don't really know of a single game company, outside of Wizard$ of the Coa$t that develops any of its rules for solely competitive play. However, some people take 40k too far and believe GW is screwing them out of a chance to take gold (or free models) because they can't get their act together and build a balanced system. Some people enjoy a challenge, some enjoy the feeling of gwtting their armies updated, and some just enjoy the game and don't care either way.

And some can't enjoy a game for the simple fact that its a game, it has become an occupation.

Hetelic wrote:
But thats because these companies want to produce rules sets that are balanced and suitable for competative play. Gw dont want to. They couldn't care less. They want to make pretty models, then sell you some rules that make you buy said pretty models. They've never said anything different.

Of course. I'm not disputing the fact that GW is run by incompetent idiots who wouldn't last 15 minutes at a real game company. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's reasonable to hold them to the standard that other companies are able to meet (producing a game that is both fun and balanced), and that their failure to meet that standard is because they are incompetent idiots, not because the standard is an impossible one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I don't really know of a single game company, outside of Wizard$ of the Coa$t that develops any of its rules for solely competitive play.

WOTC doesn't develop their rules solely for competitive play. Because the company (or at least the MTG side of it) is run by competent game designers they ensure that they produce a game that is both balanced for high-level competitive play AND fun for "casual" players.

However, some people take 40k too far and believe GW is screwing them out of a chance to take gold (or free models) because they can't get their act together and build a balanced system.

Sure. Some people overreact like that, but I prefer the more reasonable position that GW is producing an inferior product that could be much better, and it's unfortunate that they have no competition and people are forced to either settle for that inferior product and accept its flaws or give up entirely.

Some people forget that games are fun, not business. Some people enjoy a challenge, some enjoy the feeling of gwtting their armies updated, and some just enjoy the fame and don't care either way.

Of course there are different reasons for enjoying a game. A competent game designer is capable of producing a game that appeals to those people while simultaneously making it balanced for competitive play.

 Peregrine wrote:

Hetelic wrote:
But thats because these companies want to produce rules sets that are balanced and suitable for competative play. Gw dont want to. They couldn't care less. They want to make pretty models, then sell you some rules that make you buy said pretty models. They've never said anything different.

Of course. I'm not disputing the fact that GW is run by incompetent idiots who wouldn't last 15 minutes at a real game company. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's reasonable to hold them to the standard that other companies are able to meet (producing a game that is both fun and balanced), and that their failure to meet that standard is because they are incompetent idiots, not because the standard is an impossible one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I don't really know of a single game company, outside of Wizard$ of the Coa$t that develops any of its rules for solely competitive play.

WOTC doesn't develop their rules solely for competitive play. Because the company (or at least the MTG side of it) is run by competent game designers they ensure that they produce a game that is both balanced for high-level competitive play AND fun for "casual" players.

However, some people take 40k too far and believe GW is screwing them out of a chance to take gold (or free models) because they can't get their act together and build a balanced system.

Sure. Some people overreact like that, but I prefer the more reasonable position that GW is producing an inferior product that could be much better, and it's unfortunate that they have no competition and people are forced to either settle for that inferior product and accept its flaws or give up entirely.

Some people forget that games are fun, not business. Some people enjoy a challenge, some enjoy the feeling of gwtting their armies updated, and some just enjoy the fame and don't care either way.

Of course there are different reasons for enjoying a game. A competent game designer is capable of producing a game that appeals to those people while simultaneously making it balanced for competitive play.

A competent games designers sets out to create a game within a set of given parameters. If "competative/ balanced" isn't one of these parameters, he's not incompetent.

If his parameters are Fun, Dramatic, Narrative, and he creates a game that is fun, has moments of drama, and a story running through the game, then he's fully competent, and has achieved success in his aims.

Because you later decided you want a competative game, and Warhammer isn't it doesnt mean the designer failed to deliver. It means your playing the wrong game.

Thank you, Hetelic. Some of us have been trying to convince Peregrine and others like him for quite a while now. He'd also claim that D&D is also poorly writtwn jusr because of its inability to be a competitive game...

Hetelic wrote:
A competent games designers sets out to create a game within a set of given parameters. If "competative/ balanced" isn't one of these parameters, he's not incompetent.

If his parameters are Fun, Dramatic, Narrative, and he creates a game that is fun, has moments of drama, and a story running through the game, then he's fully competent, and has achieved success in his aims.

Of course he's incompetent, assuming he's doing it for a job and trying to make money. A competent game designer meets the "fun, dramatic, narrative" requirements and satisfies the potential customers that want those things, and ALSO meets the "balanced and competitive" requirements and satisfies the potential customers that want those things. Because they are competent at their job they produce a game that appeals to a wider audience than just the first group, and have more sales and higher profits than the single-group game would get.

Obviously this is not true if you're designing a game as a hobby, but GW is a business, not a hobby. Their refusal to produce a higher-quality product and earn better profits is a sign of incompetence.

Because you later decided you want a competative game, and Warhammer isn't it doesnt mean the designer failed to deliver. It means your playing the wrong game.

No, it means that GW's game designers are incompetent because they failed to do a complete design job and left out large groups of potential customers in exchange for no benefit to the company besides being able to continue to employ incompetent designers.

Now, can we agree that this tiresome thread has bwcome hopelessly sidetracked from pointlessness into extreme pointlessness?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Now, can we agree that this tiresome thread has bwcome hopelessly sidetracked from pointlessness into extreme pointlessness?

Of course.

 Peregrine wrote:

Hetelic wrote:
A competent games designers sets out to create a game within a set of given parameters. If "competative/ balanced" isn't one of these parameters, he's not incompetent.

If his parameters are Fun, Dramatic, Narrative, and he creates a game that is fun, has moments of drama, and a story running through the game, then he's fully competent, and has achieved success in his aims.

Of course he's incompetent, assuming he's doing it for a job and trying to make money. A competent game designer meets the "fun, dramatic, narrative" requirements and satisfies the potential customers that want those things, and ALSO meets the "balanced and competitive" requirements and satisfies the potential customers that want those things. Because they are competent at their job they produce a game that appeals to a wider audience than just the first group, and have more sales and higher profits than the single-group game would get.

Obviously this is not true if you're designing a game as a hobby, but GW is a business, not a hobby. Their refusal to produce a higher-quality product and earn better profits is a sign of incompetence.

Because you later decided you want a competative game, and Warhammer isn't it doesnt mean the designer failed to deliver. It means your playing the wrong game.

No, it means that GW's game designers are incompetent because they failed to do a complete design job and left out large groups of potential customers in exchange for no benefit to the company besides being able to continue to employ incompetent designers.

Nah, im no finished yet

GW isn't a rules company. It''s a minatures company. Their priority has always been sculpting and selling minatures; that they produce a rules set that alows you to use those minatures is just a bonus, in reality. You keep returning to the point of "balanced and competativeness requires", but you're essentially adding in your personal requirement to the design brief. You have no way of knowing if "balanced and competativeness" was ever part of the design brief, however much you want it to be so. Any designer will tell you that they are given a specific plan to implement, and all they do is design around that plan.

Now it stands to reason, that if "balanced and competative" was part of the design brief, then GW would never have released the game, as the designer wouldnt have delivered on the brief, and would have been incompetent in his practice; HOWEVER, GW -did- release the game, suggesting to me that they (as a company) were happy with the finished design, thusly implying they were (at least) content that the game was neither "balanced" or "competative".

This point is further reinforced with the 6th edition rule book. It continually and repeatedly directs the reader to portions entitled "Forging the narrative", implying that this is the direction the designers made the game to take. This is -FURTHER- reinforced by white dwarf, where armies are repeated based on "fun" choices, or player's "favourite" models, along side showcasing new releases to the range. If GW had an inclination to make 40k a competative game, they would focus on optimal/ efficient army builds anf combinations.

Now Peregrin, neither you nor me can say with any certainty what the design brief for warhammer 40k has been, we haven't been privy to seeing the brief, attending the design meetings, or seeing any editorial changes to an edition. What we can do is look at all the avialable evidence, and draw a conclusion. That conclussion, for me, is that GW have no real interest in producing a "balanced" ruleset that lends itself to the MINORITY ((Yes, people who play competative/ tournament warhammer are by far the smallest group of players)) who play warhammer 40k competative or in tournaments. What GW do, and do well, is produce a varied and fun game for the MAJORITY of "garage" players (Beer and pretzel players as your patronisingly put it); the added bonus to this is simple. If you -want- to play competatively, it isnt a long haul to alter and add a few house rules that allow you to do this.

**editted for some emperor-awful spelling**

I'd recommend replacing 'miniatures' company with 'toy' company.

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course, I'd love it if GW learned how to design and balance a game properly, but that's not what we have here. This isn't one step in a comprehensive plan to reform GW's game design methods and balance every army, it's a demand to fix a single unit with a threat to stop buying it if GW doesn't. There's no attempt to serve the greater good of the game, it's just another "make my army powerful" whine, but with a new expensive model's sales at stake. If GW gives in and changes the rules to make sure they don't lose any sales they set a dangerous precedent where anyone who wants a more powerful army just has to whine loud enough and GW will make their new toys more powerful, regardless of what impact it will have on overall game balance.

Do you hear yourself? You're trying to tear down my effort to fix one tiny piece of the game because I'm not enacting a master plan to fix the WHOLE game. Just stop and think for a sec. If everyone complained about every badly designed unit, and every badly designed unit got fixed, then the whole game would indeed get fixed. I'm trying to start with the first piece of the puzzle. All you're doing is complaining that I'm not trying to simultaneously put all the pieces together at the same time. The problem isn't mine, it's yours. I'm the one advocating for a fix to the thing I care about. If you advocated for a fix for the things you cared about, then we could work together and make the game better. But instead, all you care about is stopping me from getting what I want, ignoring the fact that if all you do is try and tear down your fellow players, then NOBODY is better off. You claim that you agree with me that it would be nice if GW would make a more balanced game. But instead of trying to push them to make that happen, all you do is attack your fellow players. You've got an awfully funny way of supporting game balance--by defending a lack of balance.

Yes, there could be problems if GW fixes their weak units and makes them good. But there are ALREADY problems with GW releasing weak units that aren't worth using. It's a problem for them, since it hurts their sales, and it's a problem for us, since it hurts our fun. But all you want is for everything to stay the same. Or, at least, for nobody to work for change. Are you scared of change? Is that it? You admit that GW produces games that are full of balance problems, so why are you against asking them to fix them? And again, just because I'm asking them to fix one unit does not mean I'm somehow advocating that they fix no other unit. They should fix all bad units. We just have to take it one step at a time.

 Ixe wrote:
You're trying to tear down my effort to fix one tiny piece of the game because I'm not enacting a master plan to fix the WHOLE game.

Exactly.

How many games have you played to test the Nephilim?

How many games have you played with the new codex as a whole?

Have you used a wide variety of mission types/opponents/etc in this testing?

Have you been able to win despite the Nephilim not being top-tier, or has its below-average performance ensured a poor win record?

Have you done the same level of playtesting with each of your proposed rule changes?

Have you playtested a complete metagame and analyzed the impact of making these changes, at every level from casual to hardcore competitive?


I'm guessing the answers to these questions are not the right ones, and you're doing this as a reflex "make my army better or I won't buy it" whine instead of the result of comprehensive testing to discover whether the Nephilim boost is required to keep DA competitive, not necessary but also not going to be damaging to the game, or a major boost in power to an army that is already dominating the game. What you're doing is a short-sighted demand for a better unit, not a legitimate balance plan that accounts for the health of the game as a whole.

Are you scared of change?

I'm afraid of RECKLESS change. I'm afraid of setting a precedent where GW hands out major increases in power to anyone who whines loud enough, regardless of the actual state of game balance. I'm afraid of setting a precedent where GW immediately increases the power of a new unit if there's any threat to its sales. I'm afraid of setting a precedent where GW makes changes based on impulse whines without waiting long enough to see if those changes are really needed.

Currently game balance is not that great, but it's STABLE. It is NOT an improvement to change the situation to balance-by-democracy and make major and completely untested balance changes based on who is whining loudest at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hetelic wrote:
GW isn't a rules company. It''s a minatures company. Their priority has always been sculpting and selling minatures; that they produce a rules set that alows you to use those minatures is just a bonus, in reality.

I know that's how GW works. That's why I say GW is run by incompetent idiots. They deliberately lower their standards, release an inferior product, and lose sales they would have made with a proper game. The fact that they do it deliberately doesn't make it any less stupid.

Consider what would have happened if one of the MTG designers submitted a set that was "fun" (as GW see it) but balanced as badly as 40k. They'd be told to get back to work and fix it, and if they insisted that it was a finished product and ready for sale they'd probably lose their job. And as a result of this policy WOTC sells to both the casual AND competitive markets, and gets more profit than selling to just one market.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ixe wrote:
You're trying to tear down my effort to fix one tiny piece of the game because I'm not enacting a master plan to fix the WHOLE game.

Exactly.

How many games have you played to test the Nephilim?

How many games have you played with the new codex as a whole?

Have you used a wide variety of mission types/opponents/etc in this testing?

Have you been able to win despite the Nephilim not being top-tier, or has its below-average performance ensured a poor win record?

Have you done the same level of playtesting with each of your proposed rule changes?

Have you playtested a complete metagame and analyzed the impact of making these changes, at every level from casual to hardcore competitive?


I'm guessing the answers to these questions are not the right ones, and you're doing this as a reflex "make my army better or I won't buy it" whine instead of the result of comprehensive testing to discover whether the Nephilim boost is required to keep DA competitive, not necessary but also not going to be damaging to the game, or a major boost in power to an army that is already dominating the game. What you're doing is a short-sighted demand for a better unit, not a legitimate balance plan that accounts for the health of the game as a whole.

It's a simple proposition. It's not worth 180 points, because there are better things in the codex for 180 points. I never said it makes the army unplayable, or that I couldn't win without it. All I said is, it's a pretty model and I'd love to have some reason to buy it. I've proposed some changes, other people have proposed other changes, and I've never demanded that any particular change be made. It needs to be fixed; I don't really care what the fix is, as long as it doesn't stay the least efficient unit in the book aside from the Vengeance. I'm asking GW to fix the Nephilim, not asking them to allow me to participate in the design process. I've put forward some ideas to prod them into acting, but I'm under no illusions that my ideas for fixing it are the best ideas. They're just some ideas that I think might work, reasonable minds could differ.

Here's a question for you: would a Nephilim that was worth its points materially change the overall balance of the game? It wouldn't, would it? It would give Dark Angels more build diversity, but would not shift the balance of power between codices unless it REALLY got jacked up. Part of the problem is you're assuming that I want the flyer to destroy game balance, but that's not what I want. I just want it to be worth buying. How many times do I have to repeat that?

Also, do you have to keep accusing me of "whining?" All I'm doing is making rational arguments about a) why it should be fixed and b) why it's not wrong to ask for it to be fixed. Do you recognize that using words like "whining" to describe my arguments is actually belittling and very rude? I've tried not to belittle you or be rude to you, and if I have been I apologize. Do you think it's appropriate for you to continue being rude to me?

Are you scared of change?

I'm afraid of RECKLESS change. I'm afraid of setting a precedent where GW hands out major increases in power to anyone who whines loud enough, regardless of the actual state of game balance. I'm afraid of setting a precedent where GW immediately increases the power of a new unit if there's any threat to its sales. I'm afraid of setting a precedent where GW makes changes based on impulse whines without waiting long enough to see if those changes are really needed.

Currently game balance is not that great, but it's STABLE. It is NOT an improvement to change the situation to balance-by-democracy and make major and completely untested balance changes based on who is whining loudest at the moment.

Fortunately, I'm not arguing for reckless change. I've proposed ideas for fixing the Nephilim, they haven't been playtested but they're just ideas. Your assumption seems to be that if I get what I want, GW will just publish the most popular fan-suggested rules change, no matter how broken. That's not what I'm asking them for. I'm asking for them to fix it. That requires them to recognize their mistake and correct it in whatever way they see fit, such that it doesn't destroy game balance. They already failed at game balance by making it vastly underpowered for its points, maybe if they tweaked it a little they could get it right this time. If we don't tell them how badly they failed, and if we don't show them by not buying their sub-par product, they'll be like George Lucas after Episode I, totally convinced that everyone just loved Jar-Jar. The Nephilim is this book's Jar-Jar, and "thank you sir may I have another?" is not the correct response.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hetelic wrote:
GW isn't a rules company. It''s a minatures company. Their priority has always been sculpting and selling minatures; that they produce a rules set that alows you to use those minatures is just a bonus, in reality.

I know that's how GW works. That's why I say GW is run by incompetent idiots. They deliberately lower their standards, release an inferior product, and lose sales they would have made with a proper game. The fact that they do it deliberately doesn't make it any less stupid.

Consider what would have happened if one of the MTG designers submitted a set that was "fun" (as GW see it) but balanced as badly as 40k. They'd be told to get back to work and fix it, and if they insisted that it was a finished product and ready for sale they'd probably lose their job. And as a result of this policy WOTC sells to both the casual AND competitive markets, and gets more profit than selling to just one market.

See, you're on my side. You recognize that GW does things that are made of fail. And yet you argue in favor of stability; you want to preserve a status quo that you admit is sub-par, just because you fear any change to it might unbalance it. Well guess what? They're already making changes. Just recently, they released the Heldrake, a relatively overpowered and underpointed flyer. Then, they FAQ'd it to be better. So you see, the system is NOT stable. They've got their fingers in the pie, they're monkeying with it, and if we don't give them any feedback, how are they gonna know when they've screwed the pooch? All of your arguments about why GW sucks are arguments IN MY FAVOR. If you actually want them to stop sucking, you will do something about it. You will give them a piece of your mind about whatever game balance issue is the most important. If everyone follows this model of behavior, we might actually see them move in a positive direction. As customers, we are not powerless. Stop acting like we are.

 Ixe wrote:
Here's a question for you: would a Nephilim that was worth its points materially change the overall balance of the game?

Of course it could. If DA are already winning and the best army then giving them a better flyer makes them even more powerful and removes one of their disadvantages. On the other hand, if DA are the weakest army then giving them Vendettas wouldn't break the game. But first you need to establish what the current balance situation is, and you aren't doing that. You're demanding a "fix" to a single unit in isolation without considering the game as a whole.

Fortunately, I'm not arguing for reckless change.

Yes you are. The current codex hasn't been out long enough to give enough testing time to determine proper changes.

The problem with all this, and most arguments for stuff that is broken or under powered, is that people but them in a competitive situation, and then expect GW a model company, to make rules which appease their competitive nature. This simply will not happen. Games workshop don't care about your tournaments, nor do they care about your 'balance'.

This applies the other way, a codex isn't broken. The players break it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ixe wrote:
Here's a question for you: would a Nephilim that was worth its points materially change the overall balance of the game?

Of course it could. If DA are already winning and the best army then giving them a better flyer makes them even more powerful and removes one of their disadvantages. On the other hand, if DA are the weakest army then giving them Vendettas wouldn't break the game. But first you need to establish what the current balance situation is, and you aren't doing that. You're demanding a "fix" to a single unit in isolation without considering the game as a whole.

Fortunately, I'm not arguing for reckless change.

Yes you are. The current codex hasn't been out long enough to give enough testing time to determine proper changes.

And you didn't respond to where I called you out for rudeness. But you stopped being rude, so that's a win, I guess.

I reject the idea that you can't tell a bad unit without extensive testing, though. Low firepower for the points compared to other units in the book = weak unit. That's what the Nephilim is. The question is internal balance--is the Nephilim good enough that, given the other choices in the book, a wise player would take it? No. As long as it's internally balanced, it's virtually impossible that it would break the game. If it's no better for the points than the other stuff in the book, then it's not going to break the game unless the book, as a whole, was already going to break the game. And I don't think there's any reasonable argument that DA was going to do that. Grey Knights, which is stuffed to the gills with MUCH more beardy stuff, hasn't ruined the game yet, so DA isn't gonna, fixed Nephilim or not.

Your idea that we can't figure this out without months of testing just serves your preferred outcome of not letting the army get any better. In the short term, GW might realize that they made a mistake with S6 Blacksword missiles and release a quick errata or addendum. But in the long term, they never will. If we're slow about it, you win. So you can understand why that's not the route I've taken. You can also understand that your arguments are moot--I've already called, I've already e-mailed, I've already sent in the results of my survey, and now we see if they do anything.

 Ixe wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ixe wrote:
Here's a question for you: would a Nephilim that was worth its points materially change the overall balance of the game?

Of course it could. If DA are already winning and the best army then giving them a better flyer makes them even more powerful and removes one of their disadvantages. On the other hand, if DA are the weakest army then giving them Vendettas wouldn't break the game. But first you need to establish what the current balance situation is, and you aren't doing that. You're demanding a "fix" to a single unit in isolation without considering the game as a whole.

Fortunately, I'm not arguing for reckless change.

Yes you are. The current codex hasn't been out long enough to give enough testing time to determine proper changes.

And you didn't respond to where I called you out for rudeness. But you stopped being rude, so that's a win, I guess.

I reject the idea that you can't tell a bad unit without extensive testing, though. Low firepower for the points compared to other units in the book = weak unit. That's what the Nephilim is. The question is internal balance--is the Nephilim good enough that, given the other choices in the book, a wise player would take it? No. As long as it's internally balanced, it's virtually impossible that it would break the game. If it's no better for the points than the other stuff in the book, then it's not going to break the game unless the book, as a whole, was already going to break the game. And I don't think there's any reasonable argument that DA was going to do that. Grey Knights, which is stuffed to the gills with MUCH more beardy stuff, hasn't ruined the game yet, so DA isn't gonna, fixed Nephilim or not.

Your idea that we can't figure this out without months of testing just serves your preferred outcome of not letting the army get any better. In the short term, GW might realize that they made a mistake with S6 Blacksword missiles and release a quick errata or addendum. But in the long term, they never will. If we're slow about it, you win. So you can understand why that's not the route I've taken. You can also understand that your arguments are moot--I've already called, I've already e-mailed, I've already sent in the results of my survey, and now we see if they do anything.

You and Peregrine are both partially right (and as a note, while Peregrine can come off as abrasive, he generally has a good idea about what he is talking about). You don't have to test to observe units that may potentially be outliers, I mean you don't necessarily have had to play a game to figure out that a Vendetta is probably good or Mutilators are probably bad. However, you do need testing to confirm it. To draw an example from M:tG, one of the most broken cards from recent years was Stoneforge Mystic. However, unlike some cards which are visibly powerful, Stoneforge Mystic was largely ignored until a year after its release, when a small group of players found synergies missed by the development team and managed to produce the most broken deck magic has seen since Affinity was in standard.

Basically, my point is this, you are right to identify the Nephilim as a flyer which is potentially sub-standard in terms of its performance. However, Peregrine is right that you can't really say that the Nephilim is bad until it has been tested. Additionally, I agree with Peregrine's earlier post stating that complaining about one unit being poorly balanced is not as effective as demanding more balanced rules as a whole, for several reasons. The first is that to the developers and the company you will appear less as 'one guy crying that his stuff isn't broken' and more like 'a group of paying customers who have a problem about our business model'. The second is that if you start asking for more balanced rules across the board, you would attract more players to your cause. Heck, I'm working on a DA army right now and my first impression of the Nephilim is that it is underwhelming (I would need to test one to be certain, but as I mentioned earlier, it appears to be a lower outlier), but I would not sign a petition to get just one model better rules. The third reason that you would be better off asking for better rules across the board is that asking for one model to be fixed would be treating the symptoms, not the problem. We can whine and complain all we want about the Nephilim, and even if they do make it better, what happens when the Tau or Eldar codex is released next, and they have the next game breaking or lame duck unit? We would just end up repeating the process. By asking GW to do a better job of internally moderating their rules across the board, we could fix the problems at the source and not have to deal with this issue again for years. It's like if the fan-belt in your car keeps wearing out, you can either spend an hour every week changing the belt, or 5 hours figuring out why the belt keeps breaking, then fix that instead.

Thanks for the conciliatory tone, but I don't think your making a realistic argument. How effective will it be to demand a more balanced game overall? Not effective whatsoever. We can't demand that they get better at their jobs, they're doing the best they can. What we can realistically do is find glaringly obvious mistakes in their game design and ask that they be corrected. That's the best way to get them to produce a better game overall, go after each individual mistake they make. Asking them not to make mistakes in the fist place? Yeah, not gonna do anything. They wouldn't screw up so much if they knew how not to. But what they know how to do is listen to fans who think they screwed a particular thing up and, potentially, fix it.

 Ixe wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course, I'd love it if GW learned how to design and balance a game properly, but that's not what we have here. This isn't one step in a comprehensive plan to reform GW's game design methods and balance every army, it's a demand to fix a single unit with a threat to stop buying it if GW doesn't. There's no attempt to serve the greater good of the game, it's just another "make my army powerful" whine, but with a new expensive model's sales at stake. If GW gives in and changes the rules to make sure they don't lose any sales they set a dangerous precedent where anyone who wants a more powerful army just has to whine loud enough and GW will make their new toys more powerful, regardless of what impact it will have on overall game balance.

Do you hear yourself? You're trying to tear down my effort to fix one tiny piece of the game because I'm not enacting a master plan to fix the WHOLE game. Just stop and think for a sec. If everyone complained about every badly designed unit, and every badly designed unit got fixed, then the whole game would indeed get fixed. I'm trying to start with the first piece of the puzzle. All you're doing is complaining that I'm not trying to simultaneously put all the pieces together at the same time. The problem isn't mine, it's yours. I'm the one advocating for a fix to the thing I care about. If you advocated for a fix for the things you cared about, then we could work together and make the game better. But instead, all you care about is stopping me from getting what I want, ignoring the fact that if all you do is try and tear down your fellow players, then NOBODY is better off. You claim that you agree with me that it would be nice if GW would make a more balanced game. But instead of trying to push them to make that happen, all you do is attack your fellow players. You've got an awfully funny way of supporting game balance--by defending a lack of balance.

Yes, there could be problems if GW fixes their weak units and makes them good. But there are ALREADY problems with GW releasing weak units that aren't worth using. It's a problem for them, since it hurts their sales, and it's a problem for us, since it hurts our fun. But all you want is for everything to stay the same. Or, at least, for nobody to work for change. Are you scared of change? Is that it? You admit that GW produces games that are full of balance problems, so why are you against asking them to fix them? And again, just because I'm asking them to fix one unit does not mean I'm somehow advocating that they fix no other unit. They should fix all bad units. We just have to take it one step at a time.

not really. by the sounds of it you just want to be TFG and spam the hell out of an overpowered flier.

just by virtue of being a flier is not automatically good already?

kb305 wrote:
not really. by the sounds of it you just want to be TFG and spam the hell out of an overpowered flier.

just by virtue of being a flier is not automatically good already?

Thanks. Next time you post something, I'll make sure to impugn your motives, because that's how classy people argue.

FYI, I probably couldn't fit more than one Nephilim into my army because I plan to run Black Knights and a Darkshroud. Losing either one would be a major problem for any Ravenwing list, really. And no, flyers are not automatically good. That's why nobody takes flyers except the Necron flyers, the Vendetta, the Heldrake, and the Stormraven.

 Ixe wrote:
It's a simple proposition. It's not worth 180 points, because there are better things in the codex for 180 points.

My assault marines are better at assaulting than my scouts, therefore the scouts should either be dropped in points to reflect this, or given a buff in assault?

Not every unit has to be good for every job, otherwise your codex would have one model in it that was 2000 points that was super awesome at everything and you would put your model down on the table across from the other person's 2000 point model and roll dice until one of you rolled better than the other. Then I guess you would have to complain to GW that your model wasn't powerful enough because it didn't win.

RE the issue of ballance - it is entirely possible to create a fun ruleset that allows multiple builds while remaining ballanced - Infinity's rules are, from the reports of pretty much everyone who I have spoken with about the game, fantastically well ballanced. You can take a force made up of pretty much any model configuration you want and do reasonably well. And it is a fun and relatively easy game to play once you get the mechanics down. And because of this you can play it socially or competetively perfectly easily.

So, ballance doesn't kill fun - it means I can play the models/armies I like without knowing it will be extremely hard or impossible to actually do anything. To me that means people can have fun playing the game they want to play, either social or competetive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ixe wrote:
What we can realistically do is find glaringly obvious mistakes in their game design and ask that they be corrected. That's the best way to get them to produce a better game overall, go after each individual mistake they make.

The INAT FAQ does its best to correct or make clear the hundreds of rules errors/ambiguities GW makes in every single edition they put out (and even attempts to correct their FAQ's when they don't make those suitably clear, and just shakes its head when GW rule on the completely derp side in their FAQ's, running against all common sense, logic and gameplay). That doesn't mean that the rules they are correcting are good ones to start with, and GW haven't seemed to take on board any of the issues raised by INAT or any of the other well known bodies or individuals when writing 5th or 6th editions, so I guess that pointing out, correcting and suggesting alternative ruels to GW doesn't actually change anything...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ixe wrote:
It's a simple proposition. It's not worth 180 points, because there are better things in the codex for 180 points.

Not every unit has to be good for every job, otherwise your codex would have one model in it that was 2000 points that was super awesome at everything and you would put your model down on the table across from the other person's 2000 point model and roll dice until one of you rolled better than the other. Then I guess you would have to complain to GW that your model wasn't powerful enough because it didn't win.

My assault marines are better at assaulting than my scouts, therefore the scouts should either be dropped in points to reflect this, or given a buff in assault?

I think you've misconstrued my argument into something very dumb. That was not the argument I was intending to make. I'm not sure how you got to this weird "single 2000 point model" idea from what I was arguing. You seem to have just run with that single sentence and gone waaay into left field. Obviously, I was talking about comparing apples to apples, not arguing that it's a bad unit because it isn't capable of being an army in and of itself. Compare, for instance, 180 points of Nephilim vs. 170 points of flakk missile Devastators in the role of air defense. Devastators win, they do a lot more damage to air targets. The Nephilim has a slight edge against ground targets I think, especially because it can easily side-shot stuff with its high speed and its lascannon, and the Nephilim is harder for most enemies to kill. But the Nephilim shows up on a random game turn, moves a minimum 18", and can only make 90 degree turns. The Devs fire for the whole game until they die, so I'd say they balance out against ground targets. The major difference is their utility against air targets, and the Nephilim falls short on that front. Why does it cost 10 points more than the Devastators, with anti-ground fire that is possibly equal to them, and anti-air fire that's a whole lot worse? That's just absurd on the face of the matter.

So, you get me now? I'm comparing apples to apples. Why pay 180 points for anti-air when I could spend 170 and get a better unit, Devastators, which are just as good against most ground targets? There is no possible reason.

RE the issue of ballance - it is entirely possible to create a fun ruleset that allows multiple builds while remaining ballanced - Infinity's rules are, from the reports of pretty much everyone who I have spoken with about the game, fantastically well ballanced. You can take a force made up of pretty much any model configuration you want and do reasonably well. And it is a fun and relatively easy game to play once you get the mechanics down. And because of this you can play it socially or competetively perfectly easily.

So, ballance doesn't kill fun - it means I can play the models/armies I like without knowing it will be extremely hard or impossible to actually do anything. To me that means people can have fun playing the game they want to play, either social or competetive.

Um, who are you talking to? Who said balance kills fun? I said crappy units that aren't worth using kill fun. "Being crappy" is not the same as "being balanced," those two things are opposite but you seem to be treating them as equivalent. I'm just a little bit confused. My argument is not that the Nephilim is balanced, and it needs to be buffed so that it becomes overpowered. Is that what you think I was trying to say? Because let me be clear: I think it is underpowered, and until it gets a buff, which could be a fairly minor one like S7 missiles, it will not be balanced.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ixe wrote:
What we can realistically do is find glaringly obvious mistakes in their game design and ask that they be corrected. That's the best way to get them to produce a better game overall, go after each individual mistake they make.

The INAT FAQ does its best to correct or make clear the hundreds of rules errors/ambiguities GW makes in every single edition they put out (and even attempts to correct their FAQ's when they don't make those suitably clear, and just shakes its head when GW rule on the completely derp side in their FAQ's, running against all common sense, logic and gameplay). That doesn't mean that the rules they are correcting are good ones to start with, and GW haven't seemed to take on board any of the issues raised by INAT or any of the other well known bodies or individuals when writing 5th or 6th editions, so I guess that pointing out, correcting and suggesting alternative ruels to GW doesn't actually change anything...

Does INAT try to get GW on board with any of its changes? Have they contacted the corporate office and try to open up any kind of dialogue? Not as far as I know. But you may be right, GW might be totally unresponsive when it comes to fixing glaring mistakes. That seems to be changing though--they fixed the obvious typos in Codex: Dark Angels within a couple weeks, which is WAY faster than they used to do things like that. They even fixed the typo that made Blacksword Missiles have Target Lock, they just forgot to fix the part where they remained S6.

It almost seems like the guy who wrote the unit entry didn't even know the 6th ed rules very well. He wanted to make an air superiority fighter that was also good against ground targets, so he gave it Blast missiles with target lock that could do good damage against ground targets. But to make that balanced, he had to nerf the missiles down to S6, because S7+ Target Lock blast missiles were too powerful against ground targets. But then someone told him that blast weapons can't hit flyers, so he dropped the Blast off their profile, but forgot to remove S6 and Target Lock. And hence you have the flying turdmobile that is the Nephilim. That's why I'm optimistic they'll be willing to fix it, because it looks like a literal mistake in game design, given the typo that it shipped with.

 Ixe wrote:
Why pay 180 points for anti-air when I could spend 170 and get a better unit, Devastators, which are just as good against most ground targets? There is no possible reason.

Fast attack vs. heavy support. FOC slots matter. Which just proves my point about how you're only considering the single unit in isolation instead of the context of the full game.

 Ixe wrote:
I think you've misconstrued my argument into something very dumb. That was not the argument I was intending to make. I'm not sure how you got to this weird "single 2000 point model" idea from what I was arguing.

Hyperbolic reasoning to illustrate the kind of inane "make my stuff better!" complaining that often seems to motivate these issues.

You seem to have just run with that single sentence and gone waaay into left field. Obviously, I was talking about comparing apples to apples, not arguing that it's a bad unit because it isn't capable of being an army in and of itself. Compare, for instance, 180 points of Nephilim vs. 170 points of flakk missile Devastators in the role of air defense. Devastators win, they do a lot more damage to air targets. The Nephilim has a slight edge against ground targets I think, especially because it can easily side-shot stuff with its high speed and its lascannon, and the Nephilim is harder for most enemies to kill. But the Nephilim shows up on a random game turn, moves a minimum 18", and can only make 90 degree turns. The Devs fire for the whole game until they die, so I'd say they balance out against ground targets. The major difference is their utility against air targets, and the Nephilim falls short on that front. Why does it cost 10 points more than the Devastators, with anti-ground fire that is possibly equal to them, and anti-air fire that's a whole lot worse? That's just absurd on the face of the matter.

To be honest I think the 10 point "premium" compared to Devs is very reasonable. For that you get a model with a much greater threat range, a much higher percieved threat level and a model which is generally much more diifficult to kill - many armies lack any kind of reasonably priced skyfire ability and will have to use weight of fire to take it out. While half their army is shooting at it, the rest of your army can mooch around at will.

So, you get me now? I'm comparing apples to apples. Why pay 180 points for anti-air when I could spend 170 and get a better unit, Devastators, which are just as good against most ground targets? There is no possible reason.

In your opinion, which I believe doesn't accurately reflect reality and is based more on "I want a top tier flier for my army that can take on pretty much anything, rather than have a slightly more limited role and still be good for what it does". I say it again below, but this is more an issue with fliers in general being too powerful for their points in other armies than the DA flier being "too weak".

Um, who are you talking to?

No one in particular, just addressing the issue of ballance/fun/social vs competetive play.

Who said balance kills fun?

The issue seems to be people thinking that you don't need ballance to have fun, then complaining about their units being "crappy" compared to other units that have different roles in different armies. A scout and an assault marine have different jobs, different abilities and so different points. Same here with the DA flier and other fliers.

I said crappy units that aren't worth using kill fun. "Being crappy" is not the same as "being balanced," those two things are opposite but you seem to be treating them as equivalent. I'm just a little bit confused. My argument is not that the Nephilim is balanced, and it needs to be buffed so that it becomes overpowered. Is that what you think I was trying to say? Because let me be clear: I think it is underpowered, and until it gets a buff, which could be a fairly minor one like S7 missiles, it will not be balanced.

I don't play DA so am not that clear on their codex, however the stats it has at the moment seem more than reasonable for the kinds of roles it is supposed to fill.

However, a unit can "be crappy" and "be ballanced" at the same time. A chaos cultist "is crappy" but is ballanced because it is dirt cheap and able to be taken in large squads (as a simple example and ignoring any more complex issues). What you have to consider is that the DA flier may well be ballanced to reflect its position within the DA codex (hey, it might have happened by accident! ), rather than against fliers as a whole. A rhino and a wave serpent are both transports, yet one is 35 points and the other 100+ in some cases - looking at face value the WS is massively overcosted compared to the rhino - both are transports for 10 men, the rhino has higher armour values, fire ports and soldiers can use psychic powers inside them, however, looking more closely, the WS is (generally) more survivable (although the 6th edition Eldar FAQ has taken a huge dump all over it but that is another matter ), etc... it is still IMO (and in that of many others) far too expensive for what it does and does not do, but there is some element of balance. It clearly cannot cost the same as a rhino as it has characteristics that the rhino does not which makes it more valuable.

Fliers, as a whole, are far too powerful and far too cheap in other armies. That is an issue of ballance with the other fliers relative to everything else in the game, not an issue of the DA flier being crappy.

Does INAT try to get GW on board with any of its changes? Have they contacted the corporate office and try to open up any kind of dialogue? Not as far as I know.

INAT/some members of the INAT team and other individuals was/were credited in some of the GW FAQ's. Though obviously they ignored some of the corrections suggested.

That seems to be changing though--they fixed the obvious typos in Codex: Dark Angels within a couple weeks, which is WAY faster than they used to do things like that. They even fixed the typo that made Blacksword Missiles have Target Lock, they just forgot to fix the part where they remained S6.

Wasn't that more of an issue to ensure their their digital i-codexes were fixed, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?

I'd like to see of we can bring this topic back on track...

If we are to petition GW to improve the Nephilim because its not on par with the Heldrake, can we also start a petition to improve the Predator, too? As the main battle tank of all the Marine chapters, shouldn't it be on par with the Leman Russ tanks? No AV 14 in front? No blast weapon? BS 4 doesn't make up for all that!

pg 50 " the main role for the Nephilim is as interceptor to establish air superiority over the battlefield"

So states the DA codex. Now lets build an air superiorty fighter... Arm it with TL Lascannon, 6 Black sword missiles at S6 and a TL heavy bolter. Allow it an option to switch out its single shot lascannon for a 5 shot S6 megabolter.

Alright S6 is going to affect an AV12 flyer 16% of the time and it is going to be a glance meaning I need 12 or 18 hits to kill an opposing flyer.

Now give it one bonus. If it penetrates and gets a weapon destroyed result it can switch it to an immobilize result.

Reality the bonus only affects the lascannon.

Alright now let's try to abuse it and use it as an anti-personnel fighter... 1 Lascannon, 3 Heavybolters and 2 S6 missiles... pretty ho-hum.

Finally cost it at 170 points and guess what, no one is going to play with it. Now I like the look of the model and may buy 1 but truthfully I would rather have an ork dakkajet than a nephilim for air superiority. 9 S6 shots that hit 50% of the time is equal or better than a Nephilim and at 130 points much better.

To me, the argument is looking at this as the beginning of the 6th ed flyer rules. So far we have three examples:
Helldrake AV12 flyer that decimates MEQ and gets 2 to 4 S7 shots at flyers for 170
Dark Talon AV11 Anti-GEQ flyer for 160
Nephilim AV11 Anti-flyer for 180

It is not very heartening to have two lackluster flyers with a 4+ year window for it being redressed. I will assume those Codexes without flyers will get equal or better flyers. I assume those with retrofitted skimmers turned flyers will mostly get recosted.

Now if the norm for flyers becomes AV 10, then the nephilim may be just fine. If it is AV 11, then the nephilim is very iffy at its stated role. If it is AV 12, then it absolutely sucks.

Some ways to redress it:

1. Allow the change of heavy bolters to the mega-bolter.
2. Increase the one-shot missiles to S7 or S8.
3. Rearm the nephilim and give it another special rule that makes it Skyfire only meaning it can only target ground targets with snap fire.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I don't play DA so am not that clear on their codex, however the stats it has at the moment seem more than reasonable for the kinds of roles it is supposed to fill.

However, a unit can "be crappy" and "be ballanced" at the same time. A chaos cultist "is crappy" but is ballanced because it is dirt cheap and able to be taken in large squads (as a simple example and ignoring any more complex issues). What you have to consider is that the DA flier may well be ballanced to reflect its position within the DA codex (hey, it might have happened by accident! ), rather than against fliers as a whole. A rhino and a wave serpent are both transports, yet one is 35 points and the other 100+ in some cases - looking at face value the WS is massively overcosted compared to the rhino - both are transports for 10 men, the rhino has higher armour values, fire ports and soldiers can use psychic powers inside them, however, looking more closely, the WS is (generally) more survivable (although the 6th edition Eldar FAQ has taken a huge dump all over it but that is another matter ), etc... it is still IMO (and in that of many others) far too expensive for what it does and does not do, but there is some element of balance. It clearly cannot cost the same as a rhino as it has characteristics that the rhino does not which makes it more valuable.

No, a unit cannot be both "crappy" and "balanced." "Crappy" does not denote weak, it denoes bad. A unit with low stats that's still very cheap for its abilities, is not crappy. An underpointed unit is always powerful, even if it's got weak stats, because you get more benefit out of them than they cost in points.

Fliers, as a whole, are far too powerful and far too cheap in other armies. That is an issue of ballance with the other fliers relative to everything else in the game, not an issue of the DA flier being crappy.

Fliers are too powerful and too cheap in a select few other armies -- Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, and Chaos. But you'll notice nobody ever complains about the Ork or Dark Eldar fliers, even though they're pre-6th fliers. Nobody really complains about the Stormtalon either, and it's both cheaper and more powerful than the Nephilim. The problem with the Nephilim is not how overpowered other fliers are, though. It isn't bad only when you compare it to undercosted enemy fliers. It's just bad. It's good at anti-ground, but for way more points than it's wise to spend for a single lascannon and S6 missiles. It's bad at anti-air, which is the thing the codex really needs. So it's a bad unit, not because the flier rules are bad, but because they flubbed the design of it.

Wasn't that more of an issue to ensure their their digital i-codexes were fixed, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?

No, they could have just left the typos in there, if they wanted to. And they update their FAQs a lot more often than they used to.

 Ixe wrote:
No, a unit cannot be both "crappy" and "balanced." "Crappy" does not denote weak, it denoes bad. A unit with low stats that's still very cheap for its abilities, is not crappy. An underpointed unit is always powerful, even if it's got weak stats, because you get more benefit out of them than they cost in points.

This seems to be more of an issue with how you choose to define crappy than anything else

Fliers are too powerful and too cheap in a select few other armies -- Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, and Chaos. But you'll notice nobody ever complains about the Ork or Dark Eldar fliers, even though they're pre-6th fliers. Nobody really complains about the Stormtalon either, and it's both cheaper and more powerful than the Nephilim. The problem with the Nephilim is not how overpowered other fliers are, though. It isn't bad only when you compare it to undercosted enemy fliers. It's just bad. It's good at anti-ground, but for way more points than it's wise to spend for a single lascannon and S6 missiles. It's bad at anti-air, which is the thing the codex really needs. So it's a bad unit, not because the flier rules are bad, but because they flubbed the design of it.

Ok, so it is "bad" because it doesn't cover a particular role that you feel is lacking in the rest of the codex while being good at a different role?

No, they could have just left the typos in there, if they wanted to. And they update their FAQs a lot more often than they used to.

I don't really follow how often the FAQ's are updated so can't really comment any further on this

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Ok, so it is "bad" because it doesn't cover a particular role that you feel is lacking in the rest of the codex while being good at a different role?

Close. But I don't think it's just my own "feeling" that the codex needs anti-air, since the only other unit for the job is Devastators. Scouts and Tacticals can help, but they're only any use for that purpose if you spam them. And no, the fact that outdated codices have no anti-air at all isn't relevant. New codices should have adequate anti-air; obviously codices written before "skyfire" was a thing aren't going to have any skyfire in them until they're updated.

Alot of codexes wish they had a flier to complain about and you're gonna hop up on the soapbox and complain about how your's isn't as effective as it's fluff? If there's a legitamate complaint department at GW about "fluff awesomeness vs. Table top fail" I hope the GW guy answers with "put it in line with the mandrakes, warp talons, pyrovore...(god-emperor only knows what I missed) "

Seriously, you have a new codex with a new flier. Be happy with that. There's alot worse off armies than the D.angels in age/models/points cost etc.

You're complaints seem "first world problems"ish, I'm sorry but that's how I see it.

Lol at the OP.

And to fix the nephlim don't buy it.

The nameless wrote:
Alot of codexes wish they had a flier to complain about and you're gonna hop up on the soapbox and complain about how your's isn't as effective as it's fluff? If there's a legitamate complaint department at GW about "fluff awesomeness vs. Table top fail" I hope the GW guy answers with "put it in line with the mandrakes, warp talons, pyrovore...(god-emperor only knows what I missed) "

Seriously, you have a new codex with a new flier. Be happy with that. There's alot worse off armies than the D.angels in age/models/points cost etc.

You're complaints seem "first world problems"ish, I'm sorry but that's how I see it.

You have clearly not read the rest of the thread, where I responded to this. First of all, the fact that there are other badly designed books doesn't mean that design mistakes shouldn't be fixed. They should be. People just didn't bother to say anything to GW at the time, and now it's too late for them to make amendments without losing face. Just because you failed to speak up about the crap in your codex doesn't mean I should do the same in mine. The answer to bad design is to let GW know what they need to fix, it is not to attack others who simply want reasonably good rules for the models that GW sells. I want GW to make the model good enough for me to buy it; the army's fine as it is, I'm not saying my book needs to be buffed through the roof, I just want this one failure of a unit to be worth having, because it's cool and because DA lacks decent anti-air fire.

Furthermore, the fact that other codices lack flyers is irrelevant. Those codices are outdated, especially with the seismic changes of 6th ed. Of course they are weak. We don't need to petition GW to update them, because they will. They're working on it as we speak. Just because outdated codices don't have air defense doesn't mean that a brand new codex should lack good air defense, that's a total non sequitur. Is that what you'll say when they release your new book and it sucks? Will you say, "Well, there are other sucky codices out there, so I have no right to complain?" I imagine not. I'm not saying that the DA codex sucks, but you're absolutely wrong in claiming that DA players shouldn't speak up about such an obvious design failure as the Nephilim. The worst that could happen is nothing, so we've got nothing to lose. And fortunately, there's no heckler's veto. You can't shut us up, no matter how hard you try to argue that we should just be quiet.

I probably shouldn't waste my time telling you, that you are wasting your time, but here goes. We have been playing this game since 1st edition, you know virus grenades, assault cannons that sustained fire, plasma cannons in full power mode. Several of my friends were outriders, I was a Ravenwing Scout (that's a whole other GW debacle), one of us was an actual play tester (we all got to do it) and a few of us actually went to England and visited GW. Through the years of working for/with GW here is what we witnessed. Prior to several codexes coming out, we saw play test emails telling the play testers to shut up about bad rules. We saw a guy in the mailroom (yes a mail clerk) get promoted to codex writer. We also saw the play tester, outrider, and ravenwing scout programs all get canned. GW does not give a flying f*ck what you think about their rules, and generally has the attitude if they did it, its awesome and you should shut up and love it. Now that I have wasted my time telling you not to waste your time, hopefully one of us has learned something.

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course, I'd love it if GW learned how to design and balance a game properly, but that's not what we have here. This isn't one step in a comprehensive plan to reform GW's game design methods and balance every army, it's a demand to fix a single unit with a threat to stop buying it if GW doesn't. There's no attempt to serve the greater good of the game, it's just another "make my army powerful" whine, but with a new expensive model's sales at stake. If GW gives in and changes the rules to make sure they don't lose any sales they set a dangerous precedent where anyone who wants a more powerful army just has to whine loud enough and GW will make their new toys more powerful, regardless of what impact it will have on overall game balance.

Nicely put Peregrine. That is exactly what this is. Someone boo hooing over the fact that the fancy new flyer in their new book isn't the awesome toy they want it to be. Plenty of better areas to focus GW to improve design and balance in the game than changing the points cost for a single flyer in one codex.

Skriker

tgf wrote:
I probably shouldn't waste my time telling you, that you are wasting your time, but here goes. We have been playing this game since 1st edition, you know virus grenades, assault cannons that sustained fire, plasma cannons in full power mode. Several of my friends were outriders, I was a Ravenwing Scout (that's a whole other GW debacle), one of us was an actual play tester (we all got to do it) and a few of us actually went to England and visited GW. Through the years of working for/with GW here is what we witnessed. Prior to several codexes coming out, we saw play test emails telling the play testers to shut up about bad rules. We saw a guy in the mailroom (yes a mail clerk) get promoted to codex writer. We also saw the play tester, outrider, and ravenwing scout programs all get canned. GW does not give a flying f*ck what you think about their rules, and generally has the attitude if they did it, its awesome and you should shut up and love it. Now that I have wasted my time telling you not to waste your time, hopefully one of us has learned something.

#1, this is the internet, and people make stuff up like this all the time. For all I know, you're just repeating what you heard fourth hand from someone else, or making the whole thing up. I'm not defending GW, I don't think they're perfect, but I'm not a sucker who believes everything anyone on the internet says. If that's true, publish the e-mails.

Anyway, they've come a long way since then. They used to be incredibly lackadaisical about FAQs, and recently they've started to shape up. They could be in the process of turning over a new leaf. We won't know unless we try. Anyway, why do you play the game of a company you think so little of? Or are you just trolling 40k players because you want them to share some of your bitterness and misery?

 Skriker wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course, I'd love it if GW learned how to design and balance a game properly, but that's not what we have here. This isn't one step in a comprehensive plan to reform GW's game design methods and balance every army, it's a demand to fix a single unit with a threat to stop buying it if GW doesn't. There's no attempt to serve the greater good of the game, it's just another "make my army powerful" whine, but with a new expensive model's sales at stake. If GW gives in and changes the rules to make sure they don't lose any sales they set a dangerous precedent where anyone who wants a more powerful army just has to whine loud enough and GW will make their new toys more powerful, regardless of what impact it will have on overall game balance.

Nicely put Peregrine. That is exactly what this is. Someone boo hooing over the fact that the fancy new flyer in their new book isn't the awesome toy they want it to be. Plenty of better areas to focus GW to improve design and balance in the game than changing the points cost for a single flyer in one codex.

Skriker

Sigh. You guys fail to grasp something very simple: change is rarely fast. It starts small. It starts with one thing at a time. If we can push them to fix this unit, then maybe we can do the same for the next, and the next, and the next, until they start to figure out that we, the players, are a valuable resource. We have who knows how many hundreds of thousands of game hours under our belts, and we're a good source for what works and what doesn't.

And here's where I'm really confused: it's not simply that you disagree with me on how to fix the game, it's that you're so RUDE about it. You can't simply say I'm wrong, I have to be "whining" or "boo hooing." Have I insulted you? Did you learn from your mothers that insults are the best way to resolve differences? Or you just figure that it's the internet, I'm not a real person, and you can be as rude as you want to me without being called out?

 Ixe wrote:
Furthermore, the fact that other codices lack flyers is irrelevant. Those codices are outdated, especially with the seismic changes of 6th ed. Of course they are weak. We don't need to petition GW to update them, because they will. They're working on it as we speak.

Just like they will update flyers in due time. The trick is patience. The new DA book is not the first book to be printed with mistakes and it will not be the last, I don't see why it merits backtracking or special treatment, when all in all it's a pretty solid codex bar the few mistakes there are in it.

Also rumour has it there is supposed to be a new flyer supplement coming soon like Crusade of Fire with copies of the rules for flyers (Including the ones we only have in the White Dwarf or pdf scans of that WD.) so we could likely see some correction there if not it will be FAQ'd or some such at some point.

 Ixe wrote:
And here's where I'm really confused: it's not simply that you disagree with me on how to fix the game, it's that you're so RUDE about it. You can't simply say I'm wrong, I have to be "whining" or "boo hooing." Have I insulted you? Did you learn from your mothers that insults are the best way to resolve differences? Or you just figure that it's the internet, I'm not a real person, and you can be as rude as you want to me without being called out?

Sorry Ixe, but I'm not insulting you. You'll just have to get over it. The simple fact is you came in and posted what you did and pretty much told people to keep their opinions to themselves about it after posting it openly in a public forum. You came across as pretty full of yourself from the start, and you keep ignoring the fact that your opinion is only one in this thread and others can say what they will as well and you know waht it doesn't necessarily mean it is even about you anymore.

I did say simply that you were wrong, as did plenty of others and you rudely discounted their opinions and tried to tell them that when you posted you said you didn't want them to begin with, and continue on and on about how the nephilim is just so horrible an item. I might have bought your argument if you stuck with the it is overcosted angle, but no you want the points to drop *and* for the unit to get better. That very clearly speaks to the "the flyer I want to use isn't uber enough, so I want it to be better *and* cheaper" fan boy mentality that many of us really dislike.

Stop acting like a victim, because you aren't one. You just want your flyer to be cooler than it is, but GW doesn't owe you to perfect flyer just because you want it. There are also much more sigificant areas of the rules where you could make *real* impacts on balance and power level through updating faqs to bring some of the more obnoxious power codecies down to size, but instead you really want to up the power curve some more. No thanks.

Skriker

Skriker

 Ixe wrote:


And here's where I'm really confused: it's not simply that you disagree with me on how to fix the game, it's that you're so RUDE about it. You can't simply say I'm wrong, I have to be "whining" or "boo hooing." Have I insulted you? Did you learn from your mothers that insults are the best way to resolve differences? Or you just figure that it's the internet, I'm not a real person, and you can be as rude as you want to me without being called out?

What's with the victimization?

You made a silly thread. You need to be prepared to get called out on that. If you can't handle something like that, you might want to be more tame regarding the subject-matter of future thread posts.

 captain collius wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Griever wrote:

But the Nephilim is just really bad at what it does. It's horrendously overcosted, "tactics" has nothing to do with it. You pay a ton of points for something that shoots like a land speeder.

Perhaps. But it's not a total Mandrake/Mutilator-style brain-fart either. It's alright for some beer-and-pretzel gaming.
There'd be far more urgent things to fix.

Agreed like i said earlier something as small as a +1 stg increase to the missile to make them similar to skyhammers is more than enough

Yes the Nephilim is far from the bottom of the barrel the only difference seems to be that the Neph is IoM SM and their players simply cannot stand to have a single bad unit in their codex.

Hellions, Mandrakes, Bloodbrides, Cronos, Mutilators, Warptalons, Possessed, Thousand Sons all need to be redone to make them decent. What makes the Nephilim so special?

 Exergy wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Griever wrote:

But the Nephilim is just really bad at what it does. It's horrendously overcosted, "tactics" has nothing to do with it. You pay a ton of points for something that shoots like a land speeder.

Perhaps. But it's not a total Mandrake/Mutilator-style brain-fart either. It's alright for some beer-and-pretzel gaming.
There'd be far more urgent things to fix.

Agreed like i said earlier something as small as a +1 stg increase to the missile to make them similar to skyhammers is more than enough

Yes the Nephilim is far from the bottom of the barrel the only difference seems to be that the Neph is IoM SM and their players simply cannot stand to have a single bad unit in their codex.

Hellions, Mandrakes, Bloodbrides, Cronos, Mutilators, Warptalons, Possessed, Thousand Sons all need to be redone to make them decent. What makes the Nephilim so special?

To be fair, the Nephilim is pretty much the bottom of the barrel in terms of fliers in non-forgeworld 40k (I only specify non-forge world because despite my interest forge world is something I have no experience with). Im not sure about the DE fliers (although I hear they are decent), but I would say that only MAYBE the burna-bomma and blitza-bomma are worse. However, I agree with you that there are a TON of things that are worse off, and rather than focusing on single units we should focus on the problems as a whole.

Also, a lot of the things you mentioned aren't even near the bottom of the barrel. Warptalons and Hellions are still better than some of the relics found in the Tau and Eldar codices (if you want to feel better about your army, open the Tau codex to page 42 and read the entry for Aun'Va, the Space Pope)

 Rysaer wrote:
Just like they will update flyers in due time. The trick is patience. The new DA book is not the first book to be printed with mistakes and it will not be the last, I don't see why it merits backtracking or special treatment, when all in all it's a pretty solid codex bar the few mistakes there are in it.

I don't want special treatment, I want all armies to get the same treatment! Just because my campaign is for them to fix this particular book does not mean I'm against fixes for all other armies! I am really getting exhausted repeating that. Is anyone actually reading what I write? I want us to START with one unit at a time, but we should keep up the pressure with ALL sucky units!

RegalPhantom wrote:
To be fair, the Nephilim is pretty much the bottom of the barrel in terms of fliers in non-forgeworld 40k (I only specify non-forge world because despite my interest forge world is something I have no experience with). Im not sure about the DE fliers (although I hear they are decent), but I would say that only MAYBE the burna-bomma and blitza-bomma are worse. However, I agree with you that there are a TON of things that are worse off, and rather than focusing on single units we should focus on the problems as a whole.

Focusing on problems as a whole is NOT a practical solution! GW may consent to fix individual units, but rebalancing entire rules dynamics? Forget about it!

Also rumour has it there is supposed to be a new flyer supplement coming soon like Crusade of Fire with copies of the rules for flyers (Including the ones we only have in the White Dwarf or pdf scans of that WD.) so we could likely see some correction there if not it will be FAQ'd or some such at some point.

Well, that would be cool. I just hope it's not like the Wargear book, intended to fix certain pieces of wargear, but so riddled with typos that nobody accepts it as an official document. It would be nice if they could use that to update all the 5th ed flyers to 6th ed point values (including the Heldrake, which is a 6th ed flyer with 5th ed skimmer point values).

 CaptainGrey wrote:
What's with the victimization?

You made a silly thread. You need to be prepared to get called out on that. If you can't handle something like that, you might want to be more tame regarding the subject-matter of future thread posts.

I've got no problem with being called out. I wouldn't put out my opinion if I didn't want to tolerate dissent. But dissent and rudeness are two separate things. I am not a victim. I am just expressing consternation at how little regard people have for basic civility. Rudeness is simply unnecessary, and it shames the person who expresses it. It's strange to me that people don't realize that their behavior online is public, and they should comport themselves accordingly. Nobody has been truly terrible, but it's this casual rudeness which just serves no purpose.

 Skriker wrote:

 Ixe wrote:
And here's where I'm really confused: it's not simply that you disagree with me on how to fix the game, it's that you're so RUDE about it. You can't simply say I'm wrong, I have to be "whining" or "boo hooing." Have I insulted you? Did you learn from your mothers that insults are the best way to resolve differences? Or you just figure that it's the internet, I'm not a real person, and you can be as rude as you want to me without being called out?

Sorry Ixe, but I'm not insulting you. You'll just have to get over it. The simple fact is you came in and posted what you did and pretty much told people to keep their opinions to themselves about it after posting it openly in a public forum. You came across as pretty full of yourself from the start, and you keep ignoring the fact that your opinion is only one in this thread and others can say what they will as well and you know waht it doesn't necessarily mean it is even about you anymore.

With regard to my original post, to be honest, I was planning on just putting it up there and not responding to anyone about anything. I was going to quit forums and actually get work on my army done. Unfortunately, I can't stay out of a good debate, so I apologize as coming off as abrasive in the very first post. I do find it a little bit amusing though that you're accusing me of acting like a victim, while simulteneously deriding me for ignoring the fact that my opinion isn't the only one in this thread. In other words, I can't act like a victim, but you can, because my mean ol' opinion is trampling all over yours! I'm victimizing you by not just capitulating and admitting you're right! Or do I misread you?

I did say simply that you were wrong, as did plenty of others and you rudely discounted their opinions and tried to tell them that when you posted you said you didn't want them to begin with, and continue on and on about how the nephilim is just so horrible an item. I might have bought your argument if you stuck with the it is overcosted angle, but no you want the points to drop *and* for the unit to get better. That very clearly speaks to the "the flyer I want to use isn't uber enough, so I want it to be better *and* cheaper" fan boy mentality that many of us really dislike.

I'm sorry, I think we're using different definitions of "rude." To me, rude is using derisive, belittling language like "whining," "cyring," and "boo hooing." All of those were used to describe my opinions. That is rude. I did not return the insults, and yet they continued. That isn't right. If you weren't someone who did that, then obviously you don't share in the blame.

But you seem to be saying that I'm rude because, what? I'm arguing too forcefully? Not giving due consideration to opposing viewpoints? That isn't rudeness, it's called debate. I'm not going to waste time writing "in my humble opinion" and "you might not agree, but," because those just weaken my case. I'm not here sing kum ba yah. If you can't handle frank discussion, then that's your issue. It isn't due to any rudeness on my part.

As for me wanting the flyer to be both better and cheaper? That is an absolute straw man. I want it to be fixed. I've proposed several ways it could be fixed, but I'm not set on any particular one--it just needs to be made worth its points. I have never, in any post, advocated for a simultaneous buff and points drop. They could fix the whole flyer by making it 130-140 with no rules change, or they could fix it by keeping the points the game and making Blacksword missiles worthwhile. Or they could have some other solution. I don't want it to be uber, I want it to be worth its points, and that's all. Your characterization of my opinion is flat out false.

Stop acting like a victim, because you aren't one. You just want your flyer to be cooler than it is, but GW doesn't owe you to perfect flyer just because you want it. There are also much more sigificant areas of the rules where you could make *real* impacts on balance and power level through updating faqs to bring some of the more obnoxious power codecies down to size, but instead you really want to up the power curve some more. No thanks.

I'm sorry you think I'm acting like a victim, but that's certainly not my perspective. Nobody on the internet can hurt me with text; they can't suppress my opinion, and they can't prevent me from accomplishing my goal, which I already did: letting GW know my opinion, and getting others to do the same. I can't be victimized by people who have literally zero power over me. I'm just continuing to debate because I care about the ideas I'm espousing--we should take a step-by-step approach to pressuring GW to fix the game, not this pie-in-the-sky idea of demanding that they fix the whole game all at once. I'm also calling out people for being rude to me, not because it hurts me or makes me a victim, but rather because it's bad behavior with no excuse. I figure if I ask people to explain to me why they think it's OK to use insulting and belittling language, maybe they'll realize that they don't have an answer.

Did it occur to you that maybe they will bring other flyers in line with the Nephilim?

The impending flyer supplement may nerf already existing flyers making your DA flyer worthy of the title 'Superiority Fighter' again.

If not i guess you are just going to have to live with it.

I haven't really heard anyone who has actually used either model, especially the OP. Are you assuming its supposed to fly right in the face of another flyer for kill shots? What happened to attacking from behind a plane? Even S6 cracks flyers there...

RegalPhantom wrote:

 Exergy wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Griever wrote:

But the Nephilim is just really bad at what it does. It's horrendously overcosted, "tactics" has nothing to do with it. You pay a ton of points for something that shoots like a land speeder.

Perhaps. But it's not a total Mandrake/Mutilator-style brain-fart either. It's alright for some beer-and-pretzel gaming.
There'd be far more urgent things to fix.

Agreed like i said earlier something as small as a +1 stg increase to the missile to make them similar to skyhammers is more than enough

Yes the Nephilim is far from the bottom of the barrel the only difference seems to be that the Neph is IoM SM and their players simply cannot stand to have a single bad unit in their codex.

Hellions, Mandrakes, Bloodbrides, Cronos, Mutilators, Warptalons, Possessed, Thousand Sons all need to be redone to make them decent. What makes the Nephilim so special?

To be fair, the Nephilim is pretty much the bottom of the barrel in terms of fliers in non-forgeworld 40k (I only specify non-forge world because despite my interest forge world is something I have no experience with). Im not sure about the DE fliers (although I hear they are decent), but I would say that only MAYBE the burna-bomma and blitza-bomma are worse. However, I agree with you that there are a TON of things that are worse off, and rather than focusing on single units we should focus on the problems as a whole.

Also, a lot of the things you mentioned aren't even near the bottom of the barrel. Warptalons and Hellions are still better than some of the relics found in the Tau and Eldar codices (if you want to feel better about your army, open the Tau codex to page 42 and read the entry for Aun'Va, the Space Pope)

I was picking bottom of the baren choices from relatively recent codexes. 4th edition stuff will be changed when they get a new codex. Warptalons and Hellions were crap when they came out. The DE flyers arent great. both are 145 points, one is AV11 and has 2 short ranged las cannons that have the lance special rule. The other is AV10 and has 2 dark lances and some anti infantry missiles. They can get a 5++, but that makes them more expensive. Both are 2 HP.

I don't know, I think I'd rather have the Nephilim's Weaponry than what the Stormtalon got. More shots, better anti-infantry stuff.

I guess, on the other hand, when the Assault Cannon hits 6s to pen other flyers, it pens instead of glances.

But, compared to Vendettas (or even Helldrakes), yes, they come up short. But really, all the CSM codex has is Helldrakes, while the Dark Angel Codex is strong as it is.

The best way to deal with flyers as a non-IG Imperial army is to either bring Vendetta allies or get a Quadgun.

Or, if you are Dark Angels/Black Templar/C:SM, bring a Contemptor Mortis, if your area is FW Friendly.

Crazyterran wrote:
Or, if you are Dark Angels/Black Templar/C:SM, bring a Contemptor Mortis, if your area is FW Friendly.

Heh. A Contemptor with CML+TLLC+HF+Augury would be nice for harassing planes and tanks while also keeping close-range and assault capability. But at 260 points, veeery expensive. Not to mention to £54 for the model and its weapons And the fact that I much prefer the look of normal Dreads to Contemptors. And since Contemptors appear to be much taller, counts-as would be kinda taking advantage of that as well.

Just to counter the arguement that CA -NEED- better flyer defence cause they have none.. You have cheap devistators with access to flakk missles, you can add a heavy weapon w/ flakk missles to a 5 man tac squad, and you have the same access to a quad/ lascannon aegis as everyone else. You do not "lack" the capability to deal with flyers.

 Ixe wrote:
I'm sorry you think I'm acting like a victim, but that's certainly not my perspective. Nobody on the internet can hurt me with text; they can't suppress my opinion, and they can't prevent me from accomplishing my goal, which I already did: letting GW know my opinion, and getting others to do the same. I can't be victimized by people who have literally zero power over me. I'm just continuing to debate because I care about the ideas I'm espousing--we should take a step-by-step approach to pressuring GW to fix the game, not this pie-in-the-sky idea of demanding that they fix the whole game all at once. I'm also calling out people for being rude to me, not because it hurts me or makes me a victim, but rather because it's bad behavior with no excuse. I figure if I ask people to explain to me why they think it's OK to use insulting and belittling language, maybe they'll realize that they don't have an answer.

Had a lengthy response here, but really see it as useless to bother, so culling my post myself...


Skriker

I would like to hear from people who have actually used the Nephilim, especially in an anti-flyer role. Is it my understanding that the OP is riding the whaaambulance becuase head-to-head it won't drop a Heldrake? when did S9 have issues with AV12? and do people have so little grasp on air-to-air combat that coming in on the enemy's six o'clock is unheard of?

Again, I want to hear from people who actually used it.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I would like to hear from people who have actually used the Nephilim, especially in an anti-flyer role. Is it my understanding that the OP is riding the whaaambulance becuase head-to-head it won't drop a Heldrake? when did S9 have issues with AV12? and do people have so little grasp on air-to-air combat that coming in on the enemy's six o'clock is unheard of?

Again, I want to hear from people who actually used it.

No takers, eh? I guess the only people not on the whaambulance are people who don't play Dark Angels, i.e. would prefer for the book not to have a good flyer. Those of us who play the army aren't taking the 180 point, single-lascannon bait.

 Kroothawk wrote:
And I thought, the major problem was paying almost double Storm Talon price for 2 only slightly modified sprues.

brilliant. I was wondering if anyone else had noticed that it was basically a storm talon with wings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tvih wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
Given how most armies might have 1 flyer in their force I find a ground attack fighter much more useful in my local meta than an air superiority fighter that has limited usefulness after taking out my opponents single flyer...

Well, to be fair good anti-air tends to be good anti-armor as well. Of course, if the opponent doesn't bring any tanks and such either, then shooting at ork boyz or something might not be optimal

I make this argument when talking about the Vendetta, what good is it when I am facing off against infantry heavy lists, with hull points and first blood many players are not running their light armour anymore and things like Land Raiders are rare. Are their still vehicles on the table sure, but for the most part I have just been wasting lascannon shots on infantry, terminators if I am lucky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ixe wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I would like to hear from people who have actually used the Nephilim, especially in an anti-flyer role. Is it my understanding that the OP is riding the whaaambulance becuase head-to-head it won't drop a Heldrake? when did S9 have issues with AV12? and do people have so little grasp on air-to-air combat that coming in on the enemy's six o'clock is unheard of?

Again, I want to hear from people who actually used it.

No takers, eh? I guess the only people not on the whaambulance are people who don't play Dark Angels, i.e. would prefer for the book not to have a good flyer. Those of us who play the army aren't taking the 180 point, single-lascannon bait.

Since when do Dark Angels worry about flyers? If I want flyers I ally with Guard kinda sucks that the put "primary" into Belial and Azrael's description but whatever I can still take a 2 Vendetta squadron to deal with flyers. Without guard you take deathwing, deathwing, and more deathwing and not the silly Grey Knight wannabees either you take the big beefy bastards with lots of SS/TH and plasma cannons.

Crazyterran wrote:
But really, all the CSM codex has is Helldrakes.

Off topic but this is incorrect in SO many ways.

 Ixe wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I would like to hear from people who have actually used the Nephilim, especially in an anti-flyer role. Is it my understanding that the OP is riding the whaaambulance becuase head-to-head it won't drop a Heldrake? when did S9 have issues with AV12? and do people have so little grasp on air-to-air combat that coming in on the enemy's six o'clock is unheard of?

Again, I want to hear from people who actually used it.

No takers, eh? I guess the only people not on the whaambulance are people who don't play Dark Angels, i.e. would prefer for the book not to have a good flyer. Those of us who play the army aren't taking the 180 point, single-lascannon bait.

I'd rather use it than dedicate over a $100 to start an allied detachment just to play one flyer. Get over yourself. Don't complain that it isn't the AV14 turreted-everything you want it to be and just deal with it.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I would like to hear from people who have actually used the Nephilim, especially in an anti-flyer role. Is it my understanding that the OP is riding the whaaambulance becuase head-to-head it won't drop a Heldrake? when did S9 have issues with AV12? and do people have so little grasp on air-to-air combat that coming in on the enemy's six o'clock is unheard of?

Again, I want to hear from people who actually used it.

I don't play DA, but frankly 40k fliers aren't rocket science. There's no real need to actually use the Nephilim if you've used other flyers and have at least a semi-working brain. Just looking at what it has tells you what you need to know to compare it to other flyers. Like it's not exactly difficult to realize that the S6 AP4 Blacksword missiles are crap compared to the BA Stormraven's S8 AP1 missiles, for example. Can the Blackswords shoot down a flier, even an AV12 one? Sure, but it's going to require a whole lot of luck. As for the TLLC, yes, that can quite easily damage fliers, but it's still only one shot per turn, while all flyers except the Stormtalon have 3 hull points. Against something like a Heldrake that can even regen hull points with some luck it's not quite that great on its own.

As for this coming in on the enemy's six stuff? Heh. Remember this is 40k you're talking about, given the limited maneuverability that's not exactly simple unless the opponent is utterly asleep.

Overall... the Nephilim does seem undergunned for the price, but given that DA seems like a solid codex otherwise it doesn't seem like a big handicap. On the other hand, we don't know how the prices for pre-6th flyers will change once the relevant codices get updated. For now we only really have the Heldrake to compare to for "up to date" flyers.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Ixe wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I would like to hear from people who have actually used the Nephilim, especially in an anti-flyer role. Is it my understanding that the OP is riding the whaaambulance becuase head-to-head it won't drop a Heldrake? when did S9 have issues with AV12? and do people have so little grasp on air-to-air combat that coming in on the enemy's six o'clock is unheard of?

Again, I want to hear from people who actually used it.

No takers, eh? I guess the only people not on the whaambulance are people who don't play Dark Angels, i.e. would prefer for the book not to have a good flyer. Those of us who play the army aren't taking the 180 point, single-lascannon bait.

I'd rather use it than dedicate over a $100 to start an allied detachment just to play one flyer. Get over yourself. Don't complain that it isn't the AV14 turreted-everything you want it to be and just deal with it.

Don't accuse me of saying things I haven't said. I have said the opposite, numerous times, but you're not paying attention. I think it needs to be fixed, but I DON'T want it to be uber. An underpointed unit is just as bad an example of rules design as an overpointed one. So how about don't butt in when you don't know what's already been said?

You're telling me to shut up and buy a bad model with my own hard-earned money, even if I judge that its rules are inadequate for both its points and dollar cost. You're telling me that I'm not allowed to have an opinion about the value of the model on the battlefield, I just have to kiss up to GW and buy whatever they want to sell me. You're telling me to reward GW for doing a poor job of rules design. None of those things are gonna happen, bud. And you're wasting your time by trying to tell me what to do. You might have success in convincing me, but just dictating? Are you serious?

No, I believe that he is saying if you think that it is too expensive, either in cash terms or point terms for what you want it to do (rather than what it does), don't field it.

There is plenty of stuff in the Eldar, BA and CSM codexes that I think is too expensive points wise, has fugly models, or is too expensive. As a result I don't use it and/or don't buy it.

Vote with your wallet, as you suggested to do in the OP. Don't whine about the model and say "I'm not going to buy X unless you make the rules do Y". That just comes across as you feeling your shiny new codex and model should be the bestest and most powerful. The DA codex has, I presume, plenty of power. It would actually be nice to see an end to codex creep and I hope we are seeing the start of this by making this particular flier good at one thing and OK at another, rather than super awesome at everything and costing less in points, which seems to be what you actually want.

You may be right Silver, and I apologize Solo if I'm reading more into your words than you intend.

Yes, I intend to vote with my wallet. But that isn't mutually exclusive to me voting with my voice. There's no reason, none whatsoever, that I shouldn't do both, other than that it may attract haters. But as I think I've demonstrated, I'm not afraid of controversy. My goal is to encourage people to communicate with GW and let them know what you think. If we don't, they're just going to assume everything is hunky dory and they don't need to do a better job of rules design.

Even the people who are arguing with me agree that they have many serious, repeated rules design failures. So instead of arguing that I shouldn't try to change that, why don't you jump on board and help me? You don't have to agree that the Nephilim should be fixed, but make your voice heard!

Um... Having now used the nephilim in 30 + games I got to say.... What's wrong with it? Sure it's crap at its labeled job, but you know what? It's great at killing and stopping transports.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Formosa. We don't really need another unit for killing and stopping transports. There's lot of other ways to do that. "Its labeled job" just so happens to be the job where the only other weapon we can use is flakk missiles.