I've been playing 40k for some 25 years now.

More recently, in 4th and 5th I've enjoyed really good success in the game, both at tournaments and for fun on the tabletop.

With 6th, and it's random charge range, character challenges, flyer nonsense, and other generally stupid rules that they just add in, along with the insane prices (50+ bucks for a codex?)
I've taken a bit of a hiatus....

Been playing Bloodbowl, X-Wing, ACTA: Star Fleet, and the random board game....and lots more X-Wing. I've really been enjoying it too.

However, 40k has been a really big part of my life for the past couple of decades. I'm really disappointed in the direction it has taken....and I miss it.


After my hiatus, today I decided to have my 3rd, 4th, and 6th games of the new 6th edition at a local RTT.

Now, keep in mind...I'm no newb. I know how to build a list, and I know how to HAVE FUN in this game...at least past editions. I built a well rounded Dark Eldar army and took it to a local tournament. I've played my DE for some time and know how to get good results with them...especially against the locals that frequently come up wanting against the armies and tactics that I deploy on the tabletop...DESPITE taking armies from the DE codex which is basically considered inferior in 6th.


Anyway, the first game....my warlord got nightfight...and i got the first shot against a Grey Knight list. I effectivelly blew him off the table in two turns while taking minimal losses. Good target selection and a fair balance of dice going my way.....

....then the Stormravens showed up.

Turn 2 I had my opponent on the ropes....and obvious win, then the two flyers show up loaded and get to do whatever they want. My Aegis defense gun and single Ravenwing Fighter (balanced DE list) not withstanding.

My army was entirely blown off the table by turn 5.

Nonsense.

I don't think, in all my many years of miniature wargaming that I've ever suffered a defeat as ridiculous as this game. The simple FACT of competetive wargameing in 40k (if there is such a thing) is that you MUST max your fliers (or spend the $ on the newest and shiniest) if you're going to have a chance. One or two deterrents to fliers is simply not enough to get you the game.

SPEND YOUR MONEY ON EXPENSIVE MODELS!

Having a horrendous loss in my first game...I played one of the local sacrificial lambs...who also employed three fliers. (the little marine things...I forget the name) The game turned up a victory for me...but was boring. A dance of flyers and ridiculous handfulls of dice that resulted in little enjoyment for either opponent. My opponent was confounded by my Archon's shadow feild....and extremely frustrated by the fact that I wouldnt roll a 1. THAT is the sort of opponent this was. We all know that Shadowfeilds are nothing to TRULY be envied. Luck yes...sometimes...but when they fail...they frequently fail early. I just had a lucky game. However, even against that calibre of player...the game was basically mutual destruction with me edging out the win in "The Emperor's Will"

Again, flyers.

After taking a short Hiatus, and playing other games exclusively for the last several months....yes...40k is crap. What the hell has happened to our game??? What the frack sort of fluff is it where every 2000pt force that wins sports 3+ fliers? I must've missed that portion in the horus heresy novels. Why do the same choices keep coming up in all armies because they are the competetive ones? Why is it that a well run balanced force is fighting an uphill battle against "competetive" lists nowadays.

HAVE YOU SEEN AN ULTRA COMPETITIVE CHAOS LIST W/O ANY DRAGONS?......(didnt think so...)

Some of you may disagree and think that I just need to learn 6th, but I tell you....there was a time where ALL armies were valid in this game. Where an inferior army...well run...could still come out on top of a vastly superior competetive force if run masterfully. This just isn't the case anymore....and that is my problem with 40k now.

GW...in their infinite wisdom and quest for your money, has plugged a system into this game where you MUST buy these flyers. Or MUST play this newest codex IMHO. It's just not fun anymore....setting up $1200 worth of models on the table to get blasted off by your opponents GW aided BS.

If you play X-Wing (a ridiculously simple system)....each player plays 100 pts. And it's almost a game of pure skill, there is some advantage that can be gained out of Squadron building. Generally....the best man wins. It's tactical, and realistic results happen. Spending 30 Bucks on a falcon or Firespray doest give you an uneven advantage over your opponent that is still fielding his BALANCED swarm of 6 Ties/Vader/characters. This is an example of a GOOD game. A BALANCED game. A game that is worth your money and DOES NOT break the bank.

You all know who the better gamers are in your store....you do....you know you do.....

When you feel the Uphill battle because you didnt max out your fighters against an inferior player that did....you'll know what I'm talking about. Want to be competetive? Buy more fliers...or just get used to losing. THAT is 40k today.

I won't give up....I'll keep playing, I'm going to Nova...but I'm VERY disappointed in 6th edition. I think it is quite probably the WORST and most UNBALANCED game that I've played in my 3 decades or so of wargaming. Combine that with the overpriced models, and I can tell you that the ONLY reason that I'm still playing this crap is the fact that I've got longtime friends that I don't want to lose track of and want to meet up with at the tournament scene as I have since the early 90's.

I hate that 40k is no longer the better miniature game out there. It really isnt . With all the supposed improvements that we should have in this game, it's no better (and argueably worse) than 2nd edition. 2nd to 3rd the big thing was how the game was sped up....now....it's VASTLY slowed down with all the wound allocation nonsense and the HANDFULLS of dice you roll for everything. Handfulls of dice do not equal exiting!

Play some other games and find out....40k is crap. The Golden Age of 40k is over. 3rd, 4th, and yes....even 5th. I miss you so.

I don't mid up to 3 flyers. Gets silly when you see 6 or more. Stuff that messes up their reserves coming in can be really big now. I won my last tournament b/c of that. I rolled Warlord trait of -1 to his reserve rolls and he rolled Warlord and his unit get outflank. His Warlord in a landraider w/ a squad of TH/SS Termies never showed. I tabled him turn 3 and didn't lose a single nid. Wasn't pretty.

The 2 Fliers alone are 400 plus pts not to mention the squads he had in them. Of course he lost the 1st couple of turns at least a 3rd of his army wasn't on the field.

I find flyers to be huge point sink and if you have a couple of twin linked anti armor weapons that can really go far. Even with my Nids who have a lack of anti flying I have been able to deal w/ multiple flyers. 6 Hive Guard w/ a Tyrant w/ old adversary and flyers don't last long. I don't what options you might have tho.

DE don't have twin linked weapons....

But it just goes back to my point that in past editions ALL player chosen armies were valid in this game and victories should have more basis on player skill rather than who has more fliers.

I would agree with you to an extent. It's true that flyers absolutely can and do break the game when taken in numbers. However, it's my opinion that 6th edition is one of the better editions of the game, in terms of intuitiveness and fun. I think the main problem you're facing is that you were bring a "balanced" list to a tournament. Bringing a list without redundancies and yes, flyers, (or at least flyer defense) is not going to win you tournaments. It's unfortunate for people who have invested lots of money into the game, but you do need to buy at least something to help you against flyers, whether it be another flyer (or two) or an aegis defense line (which you can usually scratch build for relatively cheap) to defend against them. It's akin to someone who built all their models with heavy bolters or even plasma guns needing to upgrade their force to deal with some anti-tank.

If the Grey Knights were as on the ropes as you claim, there's no reason a pair of stormravens (far from the most broken of all flyers) should have lost you the game. More likely there were paladins or teminators or something inside that helped with that. You might have to adjust your lists and your tactics a bit to help deal with flyers and the difficulties they can cause for an army.

Some of you may disagree and think that I just need to learn 6th, but I tell you....there was a time where ALL armies were valid in this game. Where an inferior army...well run...could still come out on top of a vastly superior competetive force if run masterfully. This just isn't the case anymore....and that is my problem with 40k now.

This isn't necesarily as true as you may think. Good players can still beat more optimized lists, and do it all the tme. Some people do this by playing the objective, some people do it through maneuverability, but there are people who can and do pull wins against "better" armies.

Of course maybe your mistake was trying to play the game competetively at all. It's pretty well accepted that 40k is not a good game for competetive play. Try playing it as it was meant to be - a beer and pretzels game amongst friends. you'll probably enjoy it more.

He said 2 Flyers - so 2 Ravens + troops inside and prob their HQ too. 1/3 or more of the opp. force.




Edit: just thinking it over I'll bet that was half of the GKs force.

 Mythra wrote:
He said 2 Flyers - so 2 Ravens + troops inside and prob their HQ too. 1/3 or more of the opp. force.

Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that he still had most of his army left. A couple of squads plus HQ and flyers (particularily Stormravens) shouldn't have given him that much trouble. He still had effectively 2/3 or more of his army left (judging from his post) to deal with that 1/3. Maybe he underestimated his opponant, maybe the dice turned against him. Maybe the GK player was as good, or better than him. I can't say, I wasn't there. In any case, two flyers in what sounds to me like a 2000 point game is hardly game breaking.

It really feels like you came on here tonight to complain.... which is actually valid. You've devoted a significant part of your life to GW, as have I. I too recall the joy when 3rd edition came out.

But GW is all about the money now. Its been that way for sometime. So I don't feel its valid when someone (Ferrum_Sanguinis) makes the comment that he/she did, and you take offense.

I gotta say, it just seems like your venting. As an aside, I built my DE near the end of 5th, and I was kicking everyones booty. I even placed at a fairly big tournament in L.A. In early 6th. But then flyers became THE NORM. And almost every game has been:

1) I'm clearly winning from turn 1. My army and the way I use it is superior.
2) Their flyers come on the board.
3) Suddenly I'm loosing.

Yes, the money we put into our armies is suddenly (seemingly) wasted. But be proud that the only way those other players can beat you is to take a clearly broken unit type. Give me comfort while I'm pulling off sail boats left and right.

One last point: The army that went UNDEAFETED at BAO 2013 did not contain a single flyer. And there were a metric TON of 2-3 dragon CSM lists there.

The game has changed, you just need to change with it.

 Blue Falcon wrote:
DE don't have twin linked weapons....

But it just goes back to my point that in past editions ALL player chosen armies were valid in this game and victories should have more basis on player skill rather than who has more fliers.

Tyranids have only Flying Monstrous Creatures, only one of which can carry something that can hurt AV12 fliers, which also happens to be a super expensive HQ which will end up being their Warlord. They can't take Aegis Defense Lines, and have no options anywhere for Skyfire. Tyranid players are loving 6th edition.

Find a way that works for you to take on fliers. But don't expect that your existing army will take them on without problems, unless you were lucky enough to build an army that segues into anti flyer by default (ie lots of twin linked ranged anti tank). It's a new edition, with some new mechanics and units and counters to said units, most of which are trickling in in GW's (to their credit, much increased) release schedule.

Well put gimble to the beer and pretzels comment. The tournament scene in my area is ran by a bunch of elitist theatre majors. It really left a bad taste in my mouth for the game. After a 6 month break my friends put together a campaign and it was just us having pizza and beer clashing plastic with plastic. My faith was restored and im gaming regularly again. I think the biggest part of it is the people you play with imo. However 3 helldrakes is broke as hell.

"However 3 helldrakes is broke as hell."

Put your guys in CHEAP transports and watch their 170 point price tag get wasted.

 Cortez667 wrote:
"However 3 helldrakes is broke as hell."

Put your guys in CHEAP transports and watch their 170 point price tag get wasted.

Unless he's smart and Vector Strikes the transport first and pops it, then uses the almighty baleflamer.

But then you've made him/her use every one of the points he/she paid for its abilities to the fullest; thus, making it balanced. Suddenly its not so scary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interesting point: do smoke launchers work against vector strike?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, your assuming your opponent is "smart". If he/she is rocking 2-3 draqons, your opponent is probably fairly unimaginative, and thus, probably not smart

I don't play competitively, but even in casual environments, fliers annoy me.

Simply put, they are poorly designed, and stand apart from the rest of the game as being decisively powerful, and boring to use.

That being said, 6th ed games with minimal or no fliers (1 per side or none) is actually a lot of fun, I enjoy it far more than I enjoyed 5th. There's some gripes, of course; warlord traits being random and wildly different in utility, CSM cult troops aren't as powerful as I feel they should be, but all in all, it's a fun edition, if you can avoid flierspam.

Flierspam can even be fun, as a one off, but like anything else, when all you see is flier wave after flier wave, the game becomes boring. It's the prime "power-game" tactic, and makes me long for draigowing.

I totally get your frustration over fliers, I share them, as do many others. I'm primarily a Guard player, we've got arguably the best fliers in the game, but I don't even field my vendetta anymore unless I know I'm going up against a flier wing, because they're just an un-interesting mechanic which cheapens an otherwise fun game.

I agree with your point. The game changed, the balance changed, the mechanics change, and it's hard on players who have been collecting their armies for a long time.

I remember the change from 3rd to 4th (a little less as that's the year I started), and the change from 4th to 5th. Both times I remember having to rip arms off models to change their weapons, or buying and rushing to finish new models to bring up the competitive edge of my army. But to be honest it was part of the fun.

I loved 5th edition. I could create a whole post about all the things I enjoyed about/playing it. That being said, I'm happy to see the change in the meta game, I find it breathes new life into my army. If it was just a tightened up version of 5th (which I've heard many people claim they would have preferred), there would not have been enough change to keep things interesting.

I for one am seeing a new trend towards balancing codex with the new 6th ed ones (DA, CSM, and CD), compared to the power creep codex we were seeing in the tail end of 5th (GK and necrons). But only time will tell if this trend holds.

The flyer spam kinda reminds me of the skimmer spam of 4th, and the msu and vehicle spam of 5th. Yes they were different, but they forced people to change their tactics. At first it was frustrating, "Oh my god I NEED so much anti tank to be able to compete now!", but once you adjusted your tactics, it was fun again. Now I magnetize EVERYTHING to save myself the hassle (and money) later on.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with your point. I'll avoid giving you the same old "learn/play more 6th" line that people like to throw out there. For me, I have had times where I didn't like where the hobby was going and thought about quitting/taking a break. I tried a few other game systems, but they just didn't do it for me, and I always find my way back to good old 40k.

In the end there are only three real options I can see for you. First, change your list, however radically you may need, to fit with the current meta. Second, take a break, enjoy your other games, and see if you like how 7th ed looks when it comes out. Finally, third, is leave the hobby, and be content to throw away the time and money you invested in the hobby.

It sucks you don't enjoy 6th, and I empathize with you. I hope you enjoy whatever choice you make, it would be a shame to give up on all your hard work with your army.

I think the main problem was how fast it came about, with only the flier white dwarf as the first clue and only clue. Each edition has an optimal unit type (infantry, vehicles, and now fliers). Unfortunately, you went for a tournament first, where people will almost indefinably play to win (although that depends, if its just regulars then maybe not), so everyone is likely to have optimized lists that include flyers. You just need to (unfortunately) buy anti flier units for tournies.

What about just ignoring the flyers? They can only do so much in a single game.

 Blue Falcon wrote:
Some of you may disagree and think that I just need to learn 6th, but I tell you....there was a time where ALL armies were valid in this game. Where an inferior army...well run...could still come out on top of a vastly superior competetive force if run masterfully. This just isn't the case anymore....and that is my problem with 40k now.

I've been playing for quite a while (although not as long as you) and I think the time when all armies are valid is now. Codexes change, and editions change, which occasionally bring about changes in the way we play the game, which can result in some startling games. I'm not trying to be mean amigo, but it sounds like you had an easy game with a flyer list, underestimated them, and then got blindsided by one at a tournament. I'm sorry that you feel like Games Workshop has moved away from the game you love, but I think the tactical strategy wargame is still there, it's just evolved a bit. I think they've done a great job of creating a well balanced game, and constantly working to expand it as well as refine the kinks in their rules.

It always makes me sad to lose veterans of the game, but if you feel the game isn't for you anymore, I would recommend moving on. I've had some terrible experiences with sticking it out simply because of all the years you've put in, and it only leads to heartache. I really hope you can come around to the current face of the game, but if you can't, I wish you good luck in the future, and I hope you find a game that makes you happier.

The golden age of 40k ended in 1998 with the release of 3rd ed. Since then we have had a succession of 'streamlined', dumbed down variations of the same flawed ruleset which has become increasingly based around selling more miniatures (just look at the steadily reducing points values)

During this time GW has also developed a counterproductive corporate culture that values short term gains and raking in as much cash as possible over quality and long term stability.

GW's true golden age was the early-mid 90's where it produced some of its best and most varied rulesets (Necromunda, BFG et al).

TLDR GW's golden age is long past and while 40k is now an OK game it is no longer a great one.

Speak for yourself. 40k's golden age for me was 3rd edition. I played the most and had the most fun with the game during those years, particularly with some of the stuff they put out through White Dwarf like the vehicle design rules.

Also, I don't know what making Necromunda, Warhammer Quest, Epic Armageddon, etc have to do with 40k's golden age, since they're different games.

Unless you're trying to derail this into a GW golden age thread, which is quite different.

 -Loki- wrote:
Speak for yourself.
Do you mean to say that I can speak for other people?

Also, I don't know what making Necromunda, Warhammer Quest, Epic Armageddon, etc have to do with 40k's golden age
That must be why I specified GW then. 40Ks and GWs golden age coincided.

I really dont enjoy the addition of flyers, mostly becuase I am tight and dont want to spend money on them but also I just dont like the way it changes the game aesthetic.

Much prefer ground troops/vehicles pounding it out. Plenty of my friends agree tho so its no problem getting games with flier-less lists.

GL 2 you hope you find some similar people to play with.

I would also agree to no flyers games. That sounds cool more like 5th ed but w/ better 6th ed rules.

Yea 3rd edition was exciting, rhino rush, jump out, shoot all your stuff, assault something different, consolidate into another unit, wash and repeat.

That was alot of fun for marine players....

Really, learn to play 6th edition, it involves flyers, and flyer defense, it ignore them.

De have decent flyers, buy some. I mean honestly you didn't expect your 3rd de army to be viable forever did you?

What hobby can you make an investment 15 years ago in, and expect it to be a one time cost??

I mean i guess if you were serious about candy land, that would be a one time investment.

Blood bowl, x wing, star fleet, and random board games cost money, money you could have spent on flyers, to continue enjoying something you have spent 3 decades playing...

Not telling you how to spend your money, but you choose not to buy flyers, then come here and complain about how flyers break40k....

 Blue Falcon wrote:
DE don't have twin linked weapons....

But it just goes back to my point that in past editions ALL player chosen armies were valid in this game and victories should have more basis on player skill rather than who has more fliers.

Er nooooo. Past edition were less balanced. There were less random elements but this 'golden age' where everything seemed to exist in perfect harmony simply didn't exist.

 Palindrome wrote:
Also, I don't know what making Necromunda, Warhammer Quest, Epic Armageddon, etc have to do with 40k's golden age
That must be why I specified GW then. 40Ks and GWs golden age coincided.

Flyer and FMC aren't the problem for me with 6ed.

I'm New, so maybe i look at things differently but i clearly see one problem.

Look at SW, DE or others and you see a that Problem. No real Anti-Flyer Options!

Its like GW put Flyers ingame and said finished, now everyone that hasn't flyer need BB or AoC.

Flyers/FMC and Anti-Flyer Options are a halfbaked Idea with the Part of real Anti-Flyer Weaponary missing

 -Loki- wrote:

Funny, because the thread isn't about GW's golden age. It's kind of right there in the title.
.

As the two coincide and as the reasons for the decline are the same for both its eminently relevent. Are you always this contrary?

 Blue Falcon wrote:
I

Some of you may disagree and think that I just need to learn 6th, but I tell you....there was a time where ALL armies were valid in this game. Where an inferior army...well run...could still come out on top of a vastly superior competetive force if run masterfully. This just isn't the case anymore....and that is my problem with 40k now.

up to this point, i was willing to listen.

But... no. Just... no.

Please, drop the rose tinted spectacles and be objective. I've played since third, and there was never a time when "all armies were valid in a game".

Remember third? armies either boiled down to "rhino rush", or "shoot the rhino rush" and heaven help you if you tried an alternative. as to well run inferior armies winning. No. Do you remember craftworld eldar? saimhann with their CTM shenanigans? Unlimited squad sized ulthwe seer councils? the dreaded alaitoc disruption table? cheap h3 starcannon-on-everything spamming eldar that could blast any power armour off the board in two turns? How about the third ed. blood angels. take 2 Death company chaplain, and for 100oddpts each, you generate up to 12 death co. marines on top of whatever you roll. then there was their "weakness" of blood rage, which was jokingly referred to as "on a 1, i go faster!". third edition had utterly hopeless balance, and a huge swing towards cc. again, there were a handful of viable codices, with a handful of truly viable builds.

How about fourth? remember all the old "rhino rush" armies from third? yeah, GW decided to make transports deathtraps in this edition. So unless you were a skimmer or a pillboxtank, no one took vehicles. marines were dominated by 6man las/plas squads camping in their deployment zone.and spamming assault cannons on everything that could take them. there were probably threads at the daen of fourth where third ed veterans were bemoaning the state of the game and how their previously valid rhino rush armies were so utterly hosed. *shrug*. then there was 4th ed sweeping advance. hit a flank and roll up. unstoppably. again, this edition of the game was dominated by imbalance. specifically in the form of the old chaos codex. talk to a fourth ed vet about iron warriors. or slanneshi space marines and watch them turn into a mewling pile of jelly. iron warriors consistenlty dominated everything. IG? weak. tau? outside of the "spam your hammerheads, hide your kroot, and abuse both skimmers moving fast, and IC status on your suits", they had nothing. One reasonable build. eldar were like tau but pulled out ridicullous shenanigans with their holofield falcons. again, at top levels of play, you never saw the underdogs win. iron warriors would grind them to dust. so yeah, there were only a handful of viable codices, with only a handful of viable builds. (90% of tau lists for example were based around 3X hammerheads, 2X IC crisis suits, 2X FW teams in fishes and maybe some kroot. add a small amount of flavour)

How about fifth? Talk to tau players. the whole damned army was basically nerfed. all those "spam assault cannon and 6man las/plas marine armies" that played infantry hammer? yeah, if they wanted to be competitive, they had to go out and buy themselves rhinos for everything. the game turned into mech-hammer. again, playable armies underwent a shift with the new edition. and there were folks on the forum bemoaning the state of the game, and how their previously top tier armies had been nerfed and how in order to be competitive they'd have to go out and buy oodles of new shiny. tau, for example went from having one reasonably good build to being severely underpowered. fifth saw the rise of (initially) nob biker spam, and later space wolves, imperial guard and grey knights. and we all know how folks here regard these armies and their spammy builds. interestingly with space wolves, they were my army in third, and were reasonably good. fourth saw them shredded as an army outside of a few limited builds (6man las/plas was out, and spamming assault cannons was tricky and expensive) to all of a sudden going top tier in fifth. again. weaker armies got left behind, and weaker builds within the codices also. IG were dominated by vendetta spam. still are, presumably. try taking an ogryn corps IG army and say by playing it masterfully you can win against a top tier army. you could... assuming you roll nothing but sixes and he rolls nothing but ones. but realistically? No. there were tiers. Some armies dominated. some didnt.


So what does this mean with regard to your post?

It means you've had your eyes opened. you are indignant because you've seen this for the very first time. its new to you, and quite shocking, it seems. and bloody hell, but you're angry about it. talk to the vets. we've all been here before. we've seen it. we've moaned about it four editions ago. we grin slyly when we see the next generation doing the same thing, as though its something new (and to them, to be fair, it is). but it was the same in our day. it will be the same when you are a grumpy old wargaming grognard and 40k is going into its 11th edition - check a 40k forum and you'll be seeing the same moaning, venting and whining. and you can laugh then.

So yeah. wake up, and smell the coffee. OK. you've done that. So drink the coffee, and think about it. no point being angry. you've seen the state of things. you've seen GW marketting stragety (buy fliers!!!). Now what do you do? Well, you buy fliers if you want to be competitive in sixth. and laugh when they get nerfed in seventh. otherwise you dont, and you lose at tournaments. so then dont go to tournaments. get some like minded buddies and house rule it so "no fliers" is how you roll. Failing that, take a break from 40k. try other games. give warmachine/hordes or infinity a roll.

 Blue Falcon wrote:
HAVE YOU SEEN AN ULTRA COMPETITIVE CHAOS LIST W/O ANY DRAGONS?......(didnt think so...)

Yes -- quite a few of them. Dark Eldar won Templecon. Daemons won Bay Area Open.

 Blue Falcon wrote:
Some of you may disagree and think that I just need to learn 6th, but I tell you....there was a time where ALL armies were valid in this game. Where an inferior army...well run...could still come out on top of a vastly superior competetive force if run masterfully. This just isn't the case anymore....and that is my problem with 40k now.

I think your looking back with rose colored glasses. There has always been the 'hot army' and the 'garbage army'.

I'm trying to figure out the purpose of going to a forum and venting about why your going to want to quit. You want one of two goals
- You want others to quit as well
- You want others to convince you not to quit
If your goal is the second one, then you can find reasons why to play 40k, and suggestions on how to play. The game has changed. It is, however, still a fun game.

 Blue Falcon wrote:
IThe simple FACT of competetive wargameing in 40k (if there is such a thing) is that you MUST max your fliers (or spend the $ on the newest and shiniest) if you're going to have a chance. One or two deterrents to fliers is simply not enough to get you the game.

 Blue Falcon wrote:
My opponent was confounded by my Archon's shadow feild....and extremely frustrated by the fact that I wouldnt roll a 1. THAT is the sort of opponent this was. We all know that Shadowfeilds are nothing to TRULY be envied. Luck yes...sometimes...but when they fail...they frequently fail early. I just had a lucky game.

Ironically, you sound a lot like your round 2 opponent. Like Shadowfields, Flyers are quite luck-dependent. Some games they can do major damage, and some games they don't come on until turn 4, get shot down by quad-guns when they come in, get Velocity Locked by lucky shots and have to fly off the board, etc.

Sure he is venting, but he's making a very valid claim.

Everyone who frequently goes to tournaments will face flyers. Lots of them. They are expensive and were made overpowered at will in order to increase sales. I am utterly disgusted by any IG player spamming Vendettas or Necrons with mass Night Scythes. I have never given any of those guys given 0 fairness points and in the entire local meta, those guys tend to end up with 0.4 sportsmanship on average and they thus have barely won any tournament. A few guys don't even show up anymore and only go to GW tournaments (slight remark here: GW tournaments suck monkey balls) - which is better for the game overall.

This being said, those guys in need of dire compensation are the minority though, most of the time, I see strong, but fair lists with max 2-3 flyers (excluding Vendettas, again) and a very clear image of TAC,well-rounded lists.

6th is a great edition, it's only flyers breaking balance - but they do so hard. The best games I have yet played did not include any flyer and were awesome games with well-rounded lists.

To the OP:

I would like to share with you a similar story to your own. I play Sisters of Battle. Everyone agrees that Sisters are a "sub-optimal" army.

Last week, I played a game against a Grey Knight list that consisted of three inquisitorial stormtrooper squads and two death cult/crusader squads, the latter two being mounted in Storm Ravens, with a pair of Dreadknights backing them up.

I had: Two big Battle Sister squads, a Living Saint who couldn't be bothered, a Repentia squad, a Melta-Dominion squad and two Retributor squads (one with heavy flamers, one with heavy bolters).

Like you, on turn one I swept across the board, annihilated two of his IST squads and left him with just Coteaz and the third IST squad with its three plasma cannons.

The Storm Ravens arrived. They did a little damage, then disgorged the Death Cultists straight into my units with only Overwatch between me and certain death. Overwatch helped a little, but inevitably the first scoring unit was wiped. The second survived by the skin of its teeth because the charge failed.

They then proceeded to meltagun one of the Ravens out of the sky, because AV12 or no it still has to Hover to be an assault vehicle. The other Raven went down to rending Heavy Bolters, but I could have also used the Dominions, who were busy engaging the Dreadknights.

The whole game was over by turn 5. I did lose, but it was hardly a slaughter. I did well for myself - by the end of the game, all the GK player had on the field was Coteaz' squad, a Dreadknight and three Death Cultists who were sparring with the Saint. Hardly a suddenly murderous sweep.

Are you sure you didn't just "give up" and stop playing your best when the fliers showed up and had a good first turn?

It's true that I was venting and a lot of you echo what one of my longtime 40k partners is saying...."Flyers are part of the game...accept it."

i just have a hard time accepting it.

Those of you that disagree with this statement though...

Some of you may disagree and think that I just need to learn 6th, but I tell you....there was a time where ALL armies were valid in this game. Where an inferior army...well run...could still come out on top of a vastly superior competetive force if run masterfully. This just isn't the case anymore....and that is my problem with 40k now.

....I feel that you're wrong if you disagree with this.

I know anecdotal evidence on a forum is hard for people to swallow, but I've got extensive tourney experience here in the states....I've got a good idea what has been competetive in past editions of the game. Myself I used to specialise in taking what was considered "sub-optimal".

Back two Dark Angel codex editions ago (not the current OR the last edition of the DA codex) I ran a tri-raider Deathwing only list all the time. This was back in the day of Dark Eldar Dark Lance spamming and rhino rushing.

This Deathwing list went to the chicago GW/GT several years ago where I "masterfully" ran it to get 4 or 5 wins out of the 5 or 6 game tournament. I went on to earn 2nd place best sportsmanship that year and did receive an award for it.

In that day, it was simply crazy to take that army. It was by no means competetive, but I ran it and ran it well....and always had a good chance to win...even fighting against Dark Lance spam and Iron Warrior lists with 4 Heavy support choices. (considered hella broken). Even lost games were still GAMES at least, where both players could have fun...where a 1 sided defeat was rare if you REALLY knew your list.

Yea....try taking a list like that today. You just simply cannot take whatever you want and not get totally boned. With Flyer spam, GW is forcing your hand to buy certain models...I really hate that.

Fair enough though, I just cannot understand how people actually think this is "better". I'll keep pounding away, although it seems clear that if I want to play competetively at all, I'll be needing to pick up two more dark eldar flyers, go back to my Grey Knights and buy 2 more Ravens, or get another Dark Angel army and spam Flakk missles.

 zachwho wrote:

De have decent flyers, buy some. I mean honestly you didn't expect your 3rd de army to be viable forever did you?

Expensive Av 10 flyers aren't decent. Like the rest of the Dark Eldar codex they simply tend to be inferior to what other armies have.

Mythra wrote:Stuff that messes up their reserves coming in can be really big now. I won my last tournament b/c of that. I rolled Warlord trait of -1 to his reserve rolls and he rolled Warlord and his unit get outflank. His Warlord in a landraider w/ a squad of TH/SS Termies never showed. I tabled him turn 3 and didn't lose a single nid. Wasn't pretty.

So, you're saying you won a game because your roll on the random table trumped his roll on the random table. Well, glad to see that there's still some skill in the game.

GimbleMuggernaught wrote:... However, it's my opinion that 6th edition is one of the better editions of the game, in terms of intuitiveness and fun.

Well, it's really intuitive that my guys sometimes forget how to charge when they're 4 inches from my opponent, and yet can pinpoint the exact distance at which their guns are optimal.

As an aside, any review of a game using the word "fun" should be immediately discounted. Your idea of fun might be rolling on a random table and laughing about what wacky thing happened to your guys, but my idea of a fun game involves a mental challenge, not table rolling.

Deadnight wrote:

How about fifth? Talk to tau players. the whole damned army was basically nerfed.

Haha, yeah. Combination of Ork codex + 5th edition killed Tau (and Necrons). It was almost impossible to get any damage done through ubiquitous 4+ cover saves, as soon as enemy got close your army was multi-assaulted and wiped completely and you had no chance to do anything. I mean, you could take one glance at enemy's army list and pretty much concede right there. And then came Blood Angels with their FNP Assault marines...

That's why I always get a good laugh out of these "in the past everything was perfect but flyers ruined the game!" -complaints.

 Redbeard wrote:

Mythra wrote:Stuff that messes up their reserves coming in can be really big now. I won my last tournament b/c of that. I rolled Warlord trait of -1 to his reserve rolls and he rolled Warlord and his unit get outflank. His Warlord in a landraider w/ a squad of TH/SS Termies never showed. I tabled him turn 3 and didn't lose a single nid. Wasn't pretty.

So, you're saying you won a game because your roll on the random table trumped his roll on the random table. Well, glad to see that there's still some skill in the game.

GimbleMuggernaught wrote:... However, it's my opinion that 6th edition is one of the better editions of the game, in terms of intuitiveness and fun.

Well, it's really intuitive that my guys sometimes forget how to charge when they're 4 inches from my opponent, and yet can pinpoint the exact distance at which their guns are optimal.

As an aside, any review of a game using the word "fun" should be immediately discounted. Your idea of fun might be rolling on a random table and laughing about what wacky thing happened to your guys, but my idea of a fun game involves a mental challenge, not table rolling.

Amen Brother! TESTIFY!

This +100

 Cortez667 wrote:
Interesting point: do smoke launchers work against vector strike?

No, because Smoke Launchers give you a cover save and Vector Strikes ignore cover.

By the logic in the original post Space Wolves are crap and can't compete because they don't have flyers. Sure they can ally some in, but 1 Vendetta is not going to win you an air war. With every edition there is always something that is seen a lot more than other things, last edition it was transports. From your post, it appears that for you it is now flyers. I'm coming from the UK so it's a little different here, we're allowing a lot of Forge World which means less flyers due to the increased access to skyfire, but I can still empathise. If you're seeing a lot of flyers, adapt to them, you don't necessarily have to take a lot of flyers yourself to win, simply find ways in which you can ignore them better, I know that this is difficult when your opponent has so many but experiment and eventually you'll find ways to combat them, I have and it's working well.

 Redbeard wrote:

Well, it's really intuitive that my guys sometimes forget how to charge when they're 4 inches from my opponent, and yet can pinpoint the exact distance at which their guns are optimal.

As an aside, any review of a game using the word "fun" should be immediately discounted. Your idea of fun might be rolling on a random table and laughing about what wacky thing happened to your guys, but my idea of a fun game involves a mental challenge, not table rolling.

How was it any different in the 5th? I recall number of games decided on who rolled better on his last Run or Assault roll (most assaults were/are through DT) and made it to the objective.

 Redbeard wrote:

As an aside, any review of a game using the word "fun" should be immediately discounted.

Respect your opinion and all, but is this going to boil down to a "what I think is fun is right and what you think is fun is wrong" kinda thing?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Sure he is venting, but he's making a very valid claim.

Everyone who frequently goes to tournaments will face flyers. Lots of them. They are expensive and were made overpowered at will in order to increase sales. I am utterly disgusted by any IG player spamming Vendettas or Necrons with mass Night Scythes. I have never given any of those guys given 0 fairness points and in the entire local meta, those guys tend to end up with 0.4 sportsmanship on average and they thus have barely won any tournament. A few guys don't even show up anymore and only go to GW tournaments (slight remark here: GW tournaments suck monkey balls) - which is better for the game overall.

This being said, those guys in need of dire compensation are the minority though, most of the time, I see strong, but fair lists with max 2-3 flyers (excluding Vendettas, again) and a very clear image of TAC,well-rounded lists.

6th is a great edition, it's only flyers breaking balance - but they do so hard. The best games I have yet played did not include any flyer and were awesome games with well-rounded lists.

So because I choose to use a lot of flyers do to my theme of my army from back before any the vendetta/valkyries even became flyers would net me gak tournament scores from you (I refuse to go buy a bunch of chimeras and my theme is sort of vietnamesque), that's a bit harsh. Even with 2-4 flyers in my lists (so far has been 2 vendettas, 1 valk and if opponent allows FW my vulture) its just part of the trends now, I was using them back when they were skimmers and now their flyers, all I can say is a just to the shift and hope for the best. My roomate has beaten me plenty of times without any flyers himself, just requires more tactical choices.

KingDeath wrote:

 zachwho wrote:

De have decent flyers, buy some. I mean honestly you didn't expect your 3rd de army to be viable forever did you?

Expensive Av 10 flyers aren't decent. Like the rest of the Dark Eldar codex they simply tend to be inferior to what other armies have.

I agree, but they are flyers, and that's the OPs complaint, and I'm sure that in the
hands of a deadly skilled general they would more than equal the playing field.

I'm sorry but as new editions come out shouldn't you try to adapt to it?

You play tournaments full of people that I'm sure are playing to win, so they use every advantage the new rule set will give them, but you don't Ike that they do that?

Why not just play casual games with no flyers?

So, Blue Falcon... are you just completely discounting/ignoring my post because you don't like it, or because I wasn't playing at a tournament, or..?

Is it just that I showed you up by forcing a two Storm Raven list to a technical draw with an even less optimal army than yours?

Ok, Dont let the door hit you on the way out.
We will have fun with our toys, while you have fun with yours.

 Blue Falcon wrote:
It's true that I was venting and a lot of you echo what one of my longtime 40k partners is saying...."Flyers are part of the game...accept it."

i just have a hard time accepting it.

.

well, this is how GW plays. they've not changed since third, when i started. so you cant accept it? well either change your mind, accept it, ignore it, or play other games. harsh, but true.

 Blue Falcon wrote:

Those of you that disagree with this statement though...

Some of you may disagree and think that I just need to learn 6th, but I tell you....there was a time where ALL armies were valid in this game. Where an inferior army...well run...could still come out on top of a vastly superior competetive force if run masterfully. This just isn't the case anymore....and that is my problem with 40k now.

....I feel that you're wrong if you disagree with this.

I know anecdotal evidence on a forum is hard for people to swallow, but I've got extensive tourney experience here in the states....I've got a good idea what has been competetive in past editions of the game. Myself I used to specialise in taking what was considered "sub-optimal".

Back two Dark Angel codex editions ago (not the current OR the last edition of the DA codex) I ran a tri-raider Deathwing only list all the time. This was back in the day of Dark Eldar Dark Lance spamming and rhino rushing.

This Deathwing list went to the chicago GW/GT several years ago where I "masterfully" ran it to get 4 or 5 wins out of the 5 or 6 game tournament. I went on to earn 2nd place best sportsmanship that year and did receive an award for it.

In that day, it was simply crazy to take that army. It was by no means competetive, but I ran it and ran it well....and always had a good chance to win...even fighting against Dark Lance spam and Iron Warrior lists with 4 Heavy support choices. (considered hella broken). Even lost games were still GAMES at least, where both players could have fun...where a 1 sided defeat was rare if you REALLY knew your list.

i remember heavy lists like this being OK, actually. its a very hard counter, but liable to be swamped by numbers. remember the old choppa rule? not that anyone played orks back then! to be fair though, winning one tournament doesnt change my position. heck, i've seen reports of tau winning "a" tournament in fifth, that doesnt change the fact that it was a severely underpowered codex. having a tournament to its credit doesnt make it a triple-A list.

 Blue Falcon wrote:
I

Yea....try taking a list like that today. You just simply cannot take whatever you want and not get totally boned. With Flyer spam, GW is forcing your hand to buy certain models...I really hate that.
.

you never could. "flyers" are to sixth what "skimmer spam" was to eldar and tau in fourth. its how you do things. plenty armies and army styles were completely powerless in older editions, dont try to play it off that even if played well they could compete. the sad fact of the matter is no, they could not.

 Blue Falcon wrote:
I
fair enough though, I just cannot understand how people actually think this is "better". I'll keep pounding away, although it seems clear that if I want to play competetively at all, I'll be needing to pick up two more dark eldar flyers, go back to my Grey Knights and buy 2 more Ravens, or get another Dark Angel army and spam Flakk missles.

why do they think its "better". maybe they like the idea of air support? different strokes, and all that.

needing to buy new stuff to stay on top of the game. hardly new!

 beigeknight wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

As an aside, any review of a game using the word "fun" should be immediately discounted.

Respect your opinion and all, but is this going to boil down to a "what I think is fun is right and what you think is fun is wrong" kinda thing?

Not my point at all. I'm not saying my idea of fun is better or worse than anyone elses. I'm saying that because different people have fun in different ways, saying "6th ed is more fun than 5th ed" is a meaningless statement. It's completely subjective, and doesn't do anything to contribute to anyone's understanding of what's different.

Instead of saying "6th is fun", say "6th is random", or "6th has unexpected things happen". Saying that a codex is fun doesn't say anything. Saying that a codex is challenging to play in the current meta does. Saying that a codex relies heavily on luck does.

Make more sense now?

 Cortez667 wrote:
It really feels like you came on here tonight to complain.... which is actually valid. You've devoted a significant part of your life to GW, as have I. I too recall the joy when 3rd edition came out.

But GW is all about the money now. Its been that way for sometime. So I don't feel its valid when someone (Ferrum_Sanguinis) makes the comment that he/she did, and you take offense.

I gotta say, it just seems like your venting. As an aside, I built my DE near the end of 5th, and I was kicking everyones booty. I even placed at a fairly big tournament in L.A. In early 6th. But then flyers became THE NORM. And almost every game has been:

1) I'm clearly winning from turn 1. My army and the way I use it is superior.
2) Their flyers come on the board.
3) Suddenly I'm loosing.

Yes, the money we put into our armies is suddenly (seemingly) wasted. But be proud that the only way those other players can beat you is to take a clearly broken unit type. Give me comfort while I'm pulling off sail boats left and right.

One last point: The army that went UNDEAFETED at BAO 2013 did not contain a single flyer. And there were a metric TON of 2-3 dragon CSM lists there.

The game has changed, you just need to change with it.

To address your last point, I DO NOT have to change with it. GW can suck it, I've moved on the Infinity & WM/H. Both have far superior rules and game balance. I have permanently shelved all my GW armies and will probably end up selling them off as they will just be taking up space. The sooner GW goes out of business the better.

Both of those comments are also subjective, and don't say anything either. Your current meta maybe challenging to play in, but that's not the case for everyone, is it? Just like saying this codex is fun, it may not be for everyone.

Some people equate random to fun, why else would anyone gamble on a lottery or in a casino.

And all codexes rely heavily on luck, so that's a moot point.

When the Squats return riding giant space sharks the platinum age will have begun...

...so it has been prophesied.

I enjoy 6th ed

I think 6th is amazing !!! Yer it's not balanced at time so in comps at times it may feel like that. But as a friendly game with by far the coolest figs it's in a different class . It will take another year to get where it needs to be and yer a newb will get more wins then he would before but I love it and I think it beat 5th easy. And as for the over priced models yer they are very but then again they keep getting better . When I look at some of my old models from 10 years ago . I think I'd pay the extra to give GW the power to keep amazing us with cool new models.

Also, I like how people blame a Corporation for being Coperate

A tip with Dark eldar flyers, they arnt bad. They are amazing, with the void raven being one of the best air holders in the game. If they go first, then you can come on and shoot 2 Las Lances (lascannon...LANCES!) into there face. You will always pen on a 4+, and have a 1/3 chance of the flyer going boom for each pen. Its not hard to take down a gun emplacment before the flyer comes on, You play dark eldar, one of the best alpha strikers in the game. We can take out a 2 wound T7 marine in one turn. If you go first, you hace a special dark eldar trick. Deepstrike into his deployment zone, you count as zooming, and get rear armour shots at any tank. When his flyer comes on he CARNT hit you, because he has to come on 18 inches and can only turn 90 degree's. Meaning you can next turn go and shoot him in the bum once again with your lance cannons.

I think flyers add another dimension to the game, but they need working on. Spamming them, like spamming any other good unit, of course will brake the game. But they arn't un counterable, especially when we are one of the only xenos armies to have any chance of AA without going forge world. Our flyers are good, get the most out of them.

Also, So you complain about the game. but you still play? And you are Going to Nova? Where you will undoubtedly see more flyers?

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
When his flyer comes on he CARNT hit you, because he has to come on 18 inches and can only turn 90 degree's. Meaning you can next turn go and shoot him in the bum once again with your lance cannons.

Neither Voidravens nor Razorwings have Deep Strike anymore...

It annoys when I see people complain about flyers, Elysian players such as my self need our flyers because we don't have any other vehicles save for the tauros venator

Who said flyers cant come one a shoot at the same time?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Sure he is venting, but he's making a very valid claim.

Everyone who frequently goes to tournaments will face flyers. Lots of them. They are expensive and were made overpowered at will in order to increase sales. I am utterly disgusted by any IG player spamming Vendettas or Necrons with mass Night Scythes. I have never given any of those guys given 0 fairness points and in the entire local meta, those guys tend to end up with 0.4 sportsmanship on average and they thus have barely won any tournament. A few guys don't even show up anymore and only go to GW tournaments (slight remark here: GW tournaments suck monkey balls) - which is better for the game overall.

This being said, those guys in need of dire compensation are the minority though, most of the time, I see strong, but fair lists with max 2-3 flyers (excluding Vendettas, again) and a very clear image of TAC,well-rounded lists.

6th is a great edition, it's only flyers breaking balance - but they do so hard. The best games I have yet played did not include any flyer and were awesome games with well-rounded lists.

so what about Elysian Drop Troop players like, where all we have are flyers?

Take this with a grain of salt, because I have never played a game of 6th edition- not even cracked the rulebook (I play older editions, so I can use all those codexes I bought that are now outmoded.)

Do the flyer rules in 6th ed share anything with the Flyer rules that accompanied the Vehicle Design Rules in 3rd/4th edition? I know rolling for shooting at them is very similar, but is there anything else? Because I remember when tons of players back then thought Flyers were thoroughly broken, and their rules actually sound far better in 6th edition.

All being a flyer means if you don't have Skyfire you can only fire Snap Shots at them, blasts and templates can't hurt a Zooming flyer at all, and you can't assault a Zooming flyer either.

It really really isn't bad.


Its only bad if you refuse to update your tactics and playstyle to suit a new edition. I think 90% of the people that complain about 6th are doing exactly that, they stubbornly expect their 5th edition tactics to work in a new edition and refuse to adapt. Then when they don't win they ragequit and blame GW because its easy. When really, its them refusing to change.

All being a flyer means if you don't have Skyfire you can only fire Snap Shots at them, blasts and templates can't hurt a Zooming flyer at all, and you can't assault a Zooming flyer either.

Yeah, I actually think that the 3/4th edition equivalent of those rules were some of the things that were deemed "too powerful" back then, lol.

Its only bad if you refuse to update your tactics and playstyle to suit a new edition. I think 90% of the people that complain about 6th are doing exactly that, they stubbornly expect their 5th edition tactics to work in a new edition and refuse to adapt. Then when they don't win they ragequit and blame GW because its easy. When really, its them refusing to change.

For me it's that three of my 2,000pt armies either turned into vanilla versions (losing all special flavorful rules), or became impossible to play at all. A a 15-year veteran, I prefer to play with an edition that uses the most of what I have spent money on, without forcing me to first spend 100+ dollars adding to any one army to stay with the current meta that will otherwise be forced down my throat.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, I like how people blame a Corporation for being Coperate

And you blame people for acting like wargamers and customers of an expensive product?

Should we all act like public relations people for a business which does not represent our interests? Because that would really be absurd.

I don't get it OP, you know you took a bad army, and then his bad army beat yours (2 stormravens are you seriously joking?) and this is somehow the fault of the existence of people playing the game competitively?

 TedNugent wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, I like how people blame a Corporation for being Coperate

And you blame people for acting like wargamers and customers of an expensive product?

Should we all act like public relations people for a business which does not represent our interests? Because that would really be absurd.

I agree. Just because a corporation is, well, acting like a corporation, does NOT give me an obligation to approve of it.

Hell, I don't even necessarily agree with the original post, I just dislike the insinuation here.

There has never been a Golden Age of 40k, every edition has had its good and bad points.

There are quite a few things I dont like about 6th, mostly its small things that just get in the way of the game or stuff adopted from fantasy that I just dont see the point of.

The allies matrix really levels the playing field so in a perverse twist of fate the matrix which really just tramples all over the background setting "balances" a lot of armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 labmouse42 wrote:
Yes -- quite a few of them. Dark Eldar won Templecon. Daemons won Bay Area Open.

You keep bringing up that demons won the Bay Area Open. That doesnt mean jack, that list used the WD update to the PREVIOUS codex which was valid for what, 6 months. It is not relevant to discussions about 6th edition, in case you were not aware, demons have a new codex now.

6E has been rather frustrating for me. I've enjoyed much of what has come along with 6E, the much expanded use and relaxed attitudes towards Forgeworld stuff for example, but the core game is a mess.

Fliers are just one part of it, their rules are not particularly fluid and very obviously feel like a bolt-on to force something that really doesn't have much of a place on tactical platoon level engagement into the game.

The sense of scale is all wonky in general. We have armies that near nigh-battallion strength against armies literally composed of a couple squads, with strategic fire support assets and the like in a game where individuals can challenge each other in single combat and it matters. This game can't decide what it wants to be and sloppily tries to be everything. There's a lot of Random simply for its own sake that does nothing to enhance the game but merely confuse it, and the hammering of the utility and lifespan of armored vehicles makes them often largely pointless where hordes of infantry do battle below airshows.


Now, previous editions have had their own issues, 3E was dominated by Eldar and Rhino rush armies, 4E was the reign of the Skimmer armies and Monstrous Creatures, leaving Orks, IG, Sisters and some MEQ armies woefully incapable. 5E was the reign of armour (though at least, for the first time, tanks were roughly all equally useable instead of always being taken by certain factions and always left at home by others).

6E I feel fails because it doesn't know what it wants to be and instead substitutes trying to be everything (succeeding in some areas adequately and failing in others rather spectacularly) and randomness for its own sake to fill the void in its "soul".

I hope to see this changed one day, but obviously it won't be any time soon and it won't be with this edition.

Well, marines act in smaller number than Imperial Guard. It only makes sense for some armies to feel like they have more dudes(because they do )

How are the flyers not very Fluid? They have a nice simplicity to how they function while their movement is fairly realistic and restrictive to prevent them dominating the entire battlefield.

And you have to stop thinking of 40k games as being only whats going on on the table top. The game you are playing could easily just be part of a much larger battle being waged off board.

There has never been a Golden Age of 40k, every edition has had its good and bad points.

That moniker has nothing, or at least very little, to do with the rules of any edition. The Golden Age of GW was truly the very late 90's and early 2000's. Back then, you has bitz being sold from GW online, the official GW forums (for good or worse), and GW had at least the appearance of very good customer contact and of being very accessible for the average gamer to get into the hobby, back when the internet was new and shiny.

All sorts of variant armies would come out in White Dwarf, and then be later collated into the big Chapter Approved books (or put on the site as free PDF's), White Dwarf was absolutely fun to read for 5 dollars a copy, and just about every other issue had cool things like punch-out terrain and player aids, beta rules for games like Necromunda and BFG, and articles on DIY terrain and conversion possibilities. Whole articles would feature non-studio armies and terrain, like the Tale of Five Gamers.

The GW of the last five years, at least, has absolutely none of that feel for me.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, marines act in smaller number than Imperial Guard. It only makes sense for some armies to feel like they have more dudes(because they do )

To a point this is fine, but when you've got a GK paladin army numbering 12 dudes and a Land Raider against an Ork Green Tide numbering 200 dudes or an IG gunline with a dozen tanks and triple digits of infantry, there's an issue.

How are the flyers not very Fluid? They have a nice simplicity to how they function while their movement is fairly realistic and restrictive to prevent them dominating the entire battlefield.

The flyers basically feel like a bolt-on, movement is hardly realistic, most aircraft featured in the game would spend mere seconds over the battlefield at altitudes far in excess of what most weapons could even target. We've got air superiority fighters mixed in with ground attack gunships and helicopter equivalent transports all sharing the same rules despite being vastly different (an air superiority fighter is going to pass over a 40k battlefield in about one-thirtieth of a second at 30,000 feet and let of a string of missiles at other aircraft, while a ground attack helicopter equivalent shouldn't be particularly capable at dogfighting). As is, they're already dominating the battlefield with armor in many cases equivalent to medium tanks and firepower to match or exceed that, essentially fulfilling the role of MBT but without being subject to the crippling vulnerability ground tanks are now while the equivalents of HIND transport gunships are amongst the greatest air superiority aircraft in the game.

And you have to stop thinking of 40k games as being only whats going on on the table top. The game you are playing could easily just be part of a much larger battle being waged off board.

I get that, but that doesn't mean it still can't be awkward and confused about its scale. 40k has more detailed close combat mechanics than many skirmish games involved small handfuls of models and even some RPG's, especially when you start factoring in Challenges in the middle of a battlefield where starships are firing at the enemy and squadrons of battle tanks are operating. It's always been a bit awkward but 6E has made it notably moreso.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, marines act in smaller number than Imperial Guard. It only makes sense for some armies to feel like they have more dudes(because they do )

To a point this is fine, but when you've got a GK paladin army numbering 12 dudes and a Land Raider against an Ork Green Tide numbering 200 dudes or an IG gunline with a dozen tanks and triple digits of infantry, there's an issue.

Isn't that exactly what happens in the fluff?

A handful of terminator holding back hundreds of enemy troops.

I'm still not sure what issue you think there is with that.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I get that, but that doesn't mean it still can't be awkward and confused about its scale. 40k has more detailed close combat mechanics than many skirmish games involved small handfuls of models and even some RPG's, especially when you start factoring in Challenges in the middle of a battlefield where starships are firing at the enemy and squadrons of battle tanks are operating. It's always been a bit awkward but 6E has made it notably moreso.

But this has always been the crux of 40k. You have a world spanning conflict raging around this little portion of the battle where the Mr McAwesome heroes meet face to face, and fight each other in a bloody hand to hand duel that makes no sense because missiles and laser beams and orbital bombardments that could all easily pulp Mr McAwesome scream overhead and instead hit grunts while the awesome melee duel rages on.

6th edition hasn't changed this. It's just added more to both sides - even more gak going around that could pulp the awesome leaders doing their fighting but really won't, and also added some mechanics to make sure those awesome leaders actually reach melee and hit each other rather than being screened behind some grunts poking other grunts with their shiny stick.

^^; The ground attack craft like Vultures and Vendettas and Avengers being the best anti-air available has always bugged me, too. There should be a special Flyer Type called "Ground Attack Aircraft" that can't switch to skyfire mode.

Edit: Note that I'm saying this as an Elysian player and someone whose reaction to the inclusion of Flyers was "Oh, YES!".

Grey Templar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, marines act in smaller number than Imperial Guard. It only makes sense for some armies to feel like they have more dudes(because they do )

To a point this is fine, but when you've got a GK paladin army numbering 12 dudes and a Land Raider against an Ork Green Tide numbering 200 dudes or an IG gunline with a dozen tanks and triple digits of infantry, there's an issue.

Isn't that exactly what happens in the fluff?

A handful of terminator holding back hundreds of enemy troops.

I'm still not sure what issue you think there is with that.

A couple things I guess here. Much of the fluff is overblown propaganda and should be taken as such, especially because much of the time it's mindless hordes and not a thinking enemy that just instead decides to sit back and have a couple tanks throw shells at them for a few minutes. Second, you can only go so far in portraying that on a game table before the mechanics start to break down. With entire units benefiting from Character rules and multi-wound models, the game essentially becomes two systems trying to overlap, a skirmish based almost RPG based army against what effectively may be force more suited to an RTS, and it's hamfisted together such that it works, but it's still awkward, and the table can only fit so many models, especially if they want to move and do all those things people call "tactics" and not just be a wall of guns and/or blades.

-Loki- wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I get that, but that doesn't mean it still can't be awkward and confused about its scale. 40k has more detailed close combat mechanics than many skirmish games involved small handfuls of models and even some RPG's, especially when you start factoring in Challenges in the middle of a battlefield where starships are firing at the enemy and squadrons of battle tanks are operating. It's always been a bit awkward but 6E has made it notably moreso.

But this has always been the crux of 40k. You have a world spanning conflict raging around this little portion of the battle where the Mr McAwesome heroes meet face to face, and fight each other in a bloody hand to hand duel that makes no sense because missiles and laser beams and orbital bombardments that could all easily pulp Mr McAwesome scream overhead and instead hit grunts while the awesome melee duel rages on.

6th edition hasn't changed this. It's just added more to both sides - even more gak going around that could pulp the awesome leaders doing their fighting but really won't, and also added some mechanics to make sure those awesome leaders actually reach melee and hit each other rather than being screened behind some grunts poking other grunts with their shiny stick.

Yes it has added more to both sides, and that's the issue. The phrase "less is more" exists for a reason. There's a difference between "detail" and "fiddly". The ruleset tries to play on multiple different levels and we get increasingly more situations where any level of immersion is broken with "well, that was odd" or "wait, why are we bothering with your IG sergeant fighting a Grot slave herder...?"

Too much stuff that belongs in Epic 40,000 is being pushed not just into Apocalypse but basic 40k games, and too much stuff best left to RPG's like Dark Heresy are going the same direction, and ultimately we end up with a game that's trying to do both but not really succeeding at doing anything particularly well. 40k's ruleset seems to be intended for a generally company sized wargame, but at the same time tries to be a skirmish RPG type deal and a grander-scale strategy game, and ends up being a watered-down and confused version of all 3.

Army sizes are getting larger and larger, unit costs in general are getting lower and lower, and it's to the point where many tables are just big blobs of dudes, at least on one side.

That's part of the reason I don't like huge "Everyone bring everything you can" apoc games, it just ends up being a literal parking lot against another literal parking lot 12" away, and more and more 40k games are looking like that (well, I should say Parade Ground instead of parking lot with the way 6E treats tanks) game mechanics are more fiddly than ever. It didn't start with 6E but its effects are exacerbated by it.

Furyou Miko wrote:^^; The ground attack craft like Vultures and Vendettas and Avengers being the best anti-air available has always bugged me, too. There should be a special Flyer Type called "Ground Attack Aircraft" that can't switch to skyfire mode.

Edit: Note that I'm saying this as an Elysian player and someone whose reaction to the inclusion of Flyers was "Oh, YES!".

Yeah, it's really clunky the way they just pushed everything together, the old FW flyer rules at least tried to differentiate that with air-superiority fighters having AA mounted guns and ground attack aircraft not having them.

 Vaktathi wrote:
[Yes it has added more to both sides, and that's the issue. The phrase "less is more" exists for a reason. There's a difference between "detail" and "fiddly". The ruleset tries to play on multiple different levels and we get increasingly more situations where any level of immersion is broken with "well, that was odd" or "wait, why are we bothering with your IG sergeant fighting a Grot slave herder...?"

Too much stuff that belongs in Epic 40,000 is being pushed not just into Apocalypse but basic 40k games, and too much stuff best left to RPG's like Dark Heresy are going the same direction, and ultimately we end up with a game that's trying to do both but not really succeeding at doing anything particularly well. 40k's ruleset seems to be intended for a generally company sized wargame, but at the same time tries to be a skirmish RPG type deal and a grander-scale strategy game, and ends up being a watered-down and confused version of all 3.

I take your point about some of the challenge mechanics - we shouldn't care about that IG sergeant and grot herder. Maybe they should have restricted issuing challenges to characters? That way lowly sergeants can't issue a challenge to a mighty lord of war, who would ignore him out of hand, but can certainly accept if he felt like becoming a smear on the ground. I do like the mechanic, because it helps bring to the fore those mightly characters in an assault, whereas in previous editions they hid behind the grunts along with any well equipped sergeants, poking over the grunts heads with their pointy sticks.

To be fair, flyers don't even belong in Apocalypse. I don't have an issue with Flyers mechanically, but like you said, they don't belong in 40k, but also not Apocalypse. Even the Apocalypse rules for them didn't represent them well - they made a strafing run every other turn, which is still too fast for supersonic fighters, who would take a lot longer to bank around and set up another run, and too slow for gunships, who would be more like 40k hover mode flyers. The board size doesn't increase that much with Apocalypse.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

There has never been a Golden Age of 40k, every edition has had its good and bad points.

That moniker has nothing, or at least very little, to do with the rules of any edition. The Golden Age of GW was truly the very late 90's and early 2000's. Back then, you has bitz being sold from GW online, the official GW forums (for good or worse), and GW had at least the appearance of very good customer contact and of being very accessible for the average gamer to get into the hobby, back when the internet was new and shiny.

All sorts of variant armies would come out in White Dwarf, and then be later collated into the big Chapter Approved books (or put on the site as free PDF's), White Dwarf was absolutely fun to read for 5 dollars a copy, and just about every other issue had cool things like punch-out terrain and player aids, beta rules for games like Necromunda and BFG, and articles on DIY terrain and conversion possibilities. Whole articles would feature non-studio armies and terrain, like the Tale of Five Gamers.

The GW of the last five years, at least, has absolutely none of that feel for me.

You should read what you quoted, I said there was no Golden Age of 40k and you are carrying on about a Golden Age of GW. In any event I dont even agree with you that it (Golden Age of GW) was the time you said it was. For me it was earlier when GW still supported space marine and titan legions. Around here the heyday of whfb was 5th edition even though I like the later editions better. I have every Man O War fleet so my own viewpoint about the Golden Age is different than yours. You define the WD of that time and the bitz service as very important, for me neither were all that important. I started collecting WD at issue 100 and always found the magazine to be variable from month to month, until the last several years where it is always crap.

The Golden Age of GW is going to be different depending on when you started and what you liked. For people that love plastic miniatures and hate metal miniatures maybe now is their Golden Age. Many old timers will say that third edition whfb or 2nd edition 40k was the Golden Age and give good reasons for their opinion. I was collecting then (1-3rd whfb) but rarely could game because I was busy with graduate school so my Golden Age was long after I bought my first Citadel miniatures in 1983.

I can think of a number of reasons that people could make a legitimate argument that now is the Golden Age of GW.

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE (Not all are my viewpoints!)

Now is the GOLDEN AGE of 40k and whfb

1) This hobby is really inexpensive compared to my other adult hobbies, (golf, martial arts, scuba, photography, travel, motorcycles, woodworking, model railroading)

2) GW is making models for practically all the units, unlike in the old timer days

3) I love plastic models, easier to build, store and transport, than metal

4) So many armies to choose from! More armies now than in the past for 40k and whfb

5) So many units to choose from, more in both systems than in the past!

6) Many national and regional tournaments and GW is NOT running them so I can use other companies models

7) Many very nice terrain kits available now, model railroading has come to whfb and 40k

8) Ebay! I can get stuff cheap or oop models easily compared to before ebay and Bartertown were around

9) White Dwarf, who needs White Dwarf, thousands of articles and video battle reports on the web

10) The starter boxes have outstanding models and get better every edition

11) GW forums, who needs GW forums, there are so many others and they are mostly a huge improvement over the drivel on the old GW forum

12) GW bitz service, who needs GW bitz service. Now there are several bitz providers competing with each other which is way better than having just GW as the source for bitz. (I am aware of the latest threat from GW but I dont think it will have huge impact on availability of bitz)

This list is not exhaustive, I havent touched on Forgeworld, LotR or the Black Library. Now one can also come up with a list of negative opinions that are reasonable but they are not counters to reasons why someone may be enamoured of GW. Some people are not bothered about the price or give two figs if GW is "interested" in them as fans or customers. They are just buying the product and enjoying it at face value.

All of these points are open to debate, but the point is you cant just flat out discount a reasonable person from forming the opinions stated above. It is a matter of personal choice and the whole price issue boils down to what your disposable income is in relation to how much you like the product.

Really the only flyers that hurt the game right now are Storm Ravens and Vendettas. I feel that vendettas only do so because of the cheap cost of the unit. Storm Ravens for being a flying land raider. Helldrakes won hard recently with the FAQ, but their cost makes them pretty appopriate.

Some armies fear flyers more than others, and some fliers even more. You really dont hear people complain about flyers when its a voidraven or dakkajet (much less the voidbomer or scorcha bomber) They complain about flyers that became flyers from a previous edition codex which IMO may have been designed with 6th in mind, wasn't truly designed for 6th completely. And IG vendettas were not designed for 6th at all, priced then pretty appropriately since AV12 did not last long on the battleboard in 5th.

I understand the frustration with flyers but dont buy into the sky is falling crap i hear every time i see yet another complaint thread. "GW sucks because of this one thing" "no its that single thing" Its always different for everyone.

I only got into 40k in 2009 or so (relatively recent), and the Golden Age was long over by then. For me from what I've seen, it seems like the Golden Age was the 1999-2003 period.

Paitryn wrote:
Really the only flyers that hurt the game right now are Storm Ravens and Vendettas. I feel that vendettas only do so because of the cheap cost of the unit.

And that it's transport. It's a transport converted to a gunship - any other upgunned transport in the game loses transport capacity when upgunned, but not Cruddaces lovechild.

The amount of upgunning it received, in any other army, would have lost it half its capacity, if not all.

The golden age passed about 15 years ago, by my reckoning.

The game hasn't been the same since the change to the current format from 2nd ed. It's been progressively less fun to play with each edition. So much so that my 4 armies have been relegated one by one to the shed-of-shame, and I doubt I'll ever play another game of 40k with them (on the plus side, there are other rules out there that work quite well for them).

40k wasn't my first game, though, nor will it be my last game.
I turned my back on the 40k tourney scene four years ago and haven't looked back, since.

 GimbleMuggernaught wrote:

Of course maybe your mistake was trying to play the game competetively at all. It's pretty well accepted that 40k is not a good game for competetive play. Try playing it as it was meant to be - a beer and pretzels game amongst friends. you'll probably enjoy it more.

This.

And also. 40k is not loved because of miniatures - but because of the fluff. Of course, TT game is big part of it but that would be just another TT game if not for the 40k lore.
Most people don't play the game to win or to be competitive - they play because that is their opportunity to play with their favorite faction from the fluff.

JWhex wrote:
1) This hobby is really inexpensive compared to my other adult hobbies, (golf, martial arts, scuba, photography, travel, motorcycles, woodworking, model railroading)

How much are you spending on martial arts? Gads, tuition at our local dojo is 120 bucks monthly for a family of 4. Are you doing lots of tourneys? Are you taking martial arts from multiple dojos at once?

GW can be expensive to get into, but once your in, it can be fairly cheap to keep going. Once you have an army, you can just add one box a month and slowly build,

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:
Most people don't play the game to win or to be competitive - they play because that is their opportunity to play with their favorite faction from the fluff.

What I find interesting is the casual players tend to come and go.

Friday nights at my FLGS are the casual player games. You can go there and see lots of games going on at once. Every 6 months you will see a lot of turnover in the regular players there.

The competitive players tend to be very consistent. You can go a tourney and see the same players again and again year after year.
While your correct -- the number of casual players overweighs the competitive players, I have made more friends with the competitive players due to seeing them more often.

I'm quite lucky in my gaming group. There are 20-25 players and the only fliers that show up (rarely) are 2 storm ravens, a storm talon and 2 croissants. Even our competitive players hate fliers so hardly anyone uses them which also removes the need for anti-air. I think I've only ever played 2 games against fliers.

i hear you ive played 5 games of 6th so far and 3 against a mates DE 1 against crons and another against chaos ive won all 6 but the games against DE i played as my guard i had 2 vendettas and i curb stomped him the chaos game i was lucky with his hellturkey didn't come in till turn 4 and all he had left was abby and the turkey but even so the turkey roasted a good chunk of my force the only fun game ive had is against crons because neither of us used flyers it was a good old fashioned shoot out

 Sigvatr wrote:
Sure he is venting, but he's making a very valid claim.

Everyone who frequently goes to tournaments will face flyers. Lots of them. They are expensive and were made overpowered at will in order to increase sales. I am utterly disgusted by any IG player spamming Vendettas or Necrons with mass Night Scythes. I have never given any of those guys given 0 fairness points and in the entire local meta, those guys tend to end up with 0.4 sportsmanship on average and they thus have barely won any tournament. A few guys don't even show up anymore and only go to GW tournaments (slight remark here: GW tournaments suck monkey balls) - which is better for the game overall.

This being said, those guys in need of dire compensation are the minority though, most of the time, I see strong, but fair lists with max 2-3 flyers (excluding Vendettas, again) and a very clear image of TAC,well-rounded lists.

6th is a great edition, it's only flyers breaking balance - but they do so hard. The best games I have yet played did not include any flyer and were awesome games with well-rounded lists.

no offence intended 'but' you are attending a tournament where you would expect people to play to win so taking multiple vendettas is a way of going towards that goal. Secondly giving bad sportsmanship just because of vendettas? that is a bit pathetic, they may get on everyone's goat but there is not reason to slate them for it- Cruddace!!!

just my humble view before the flame war starts

uh don't get this rant, you are playin DA and you complain about flyers, just get some mortis dreads with Twin Autocanons or ally in Imperial guard for the blob and vendetta, & Saberplatforms. There is a solution to everything...

I would generally be more upset about the bad powerbalance in that codex, remember they are a gaming COMPANY, which means SELLING models ...

This is the Golden Age.

We have the Horus Heresy models and books from Forge World, we have (finally) a fun rule set (6th edition), and we're getting codecies released faster than ever.

 kronk wrote:
This is the Golden Age.

We have the Horus Heresy models and books from Forge World, we have (finally) a fun rule set (6th edition), and we're getting codecies released faster than ever.

This. Just this.

Exalted.

The only problem I have currently with GW is these dang hard-cover codex's that cost $50. Give us an option like privateer press. I've never worn out a softcover codex, and when the next codex is released it's just a dust collector anyway.

It's not a matter of money. I would just rather buy a soft cover codex for $22 online, and then spend the other $20 on a model.
They have the digital copies but IPad only. So for us Andriod tablet users we're just hosed.

As far as rules changing, and new beefcake models being expensive...when have GW models ever been cheap?
Countless times I've come up with a cool army idea, priced the models, and said to myself "Nope not worth it."
You want me to pay how much for 3 biovores? HahahahaHahahahhaHa!

Meganobz $200+ per unit? Wraithguard $120 per unit (which is actually cheaper than they used to be). I could go on and on. So $60 for a flyer? Not so bad. If it was $60 for a Storm Talon maybe as that's just too small for that price tag, but most other flyers are a good size and very complex kits.

Do I like the new rules? Ehh not really. When you put it all together it's all bad for some armies, and all good for others.

And I've already won one tournament in the new edition so this isn't coming from Mr. I'm suddenly getting hosed the rules are broken!

So it's not a matter of adapting to them it's just a matter of do the adaptations enhance the feel of the armies or not? and how do the rules play?

So that said I'm in the keep what I have, play what I have mode (which is a ton). Reluctantly buying the new hard cover codex's when forced to do so.

Meanwhile it has spurred me to start playing Warmachine.

Dunno, IMHO flyers aren't this rapetrain that everyone says.
I have played against some newbie full of Chaos Dragons, and I won easily, and I'm not a super-player, I'm an average one.
Believe me, if you annihilate your enemy's ground forces, even with those stupid flyers, you can easily win the game

I think I want to take a trip back in time to the beginning of 5th....

"Tanks are unstoppable now! no need for plasmas just melta everywhere."

"cover can give a guardsman line squads the same save as marines."

"my tau army sucks now. I can't use fish of fury tactics because my armys eyes cant see under the devilfish like it used to"

"True Line of Sight is ruining this game!"

Every edition the sky is falling again, yet every edition we just see new players and returning old ones from when they ragequit/or took a break.

If there ever was a "golden age" for 40k i would say its probably 2nd ed where everyone talks of funny nastolgic stuff they did in that edition.

[quote=Vaktathi 514529 5400310 2639c6bd2a42e714227b06646829d6ea.jpgFliers are just one part of it, their rules are not particularly fluid and very obviously feel like a bolt-on to force something that really doesn't have much of a place on tactical platoon level engagement into the game.

The sense of scale is all wonky in general. We have armies that near nigh-battallion strength against armies literally composed of a couple squads, with strategic fire support assets and the like in a game where individuals can challenge each other in single combat and it matters. This game can't decide what it wants to be and sloppily tries to be everything. There's a lot of Random simply for its own sake that does nothing to enhance the game but merely confuse it, and the hammering of the utility and lifespan of armored vehicles makes them often largely pointless where hordes of infantry do battle below airshows.

 kronk wrote:
This is the Golden Age.

We have the Horus Heresy models and books from Forge World, we have (finally) a fun rule set (6th edition), and we're getting codecies released faster than ever.

Amen Brother.

anonymou5 wrote:

I hate to bring "real life" into a conversation like this, but imo, the sense of scale is fine. I was a Scout Platoon Leader in Kandahar in 10-11. My 20ish man PLT (29 on paper, but with mid tour leave and WIA it hovered around 20) received more fire support than you would believe. Our typical engagement was against 1-3, 3-6 man TB elements, and we rarely were without Kiowa or Apache support. Furthermore, we received fast mover support all the time, ranging from A-10s to F-16s, F/A 18s, even Mirages. Some of my sister Platoons received support from B1s and B52s. Furthermore, we recieved insane amounts of indirect assets, from mortars (of all sizes) up to 155s. Some operations within my Squadron received HIMARs Rockets (fired from 60 odd KM away), MICLICS, and Canadian MBT support.

I'm not saying that some of these elements can't be available, but you're not going to have the equivalent of an A-10 doing figure-8's and loitering at 30 feet above the ground or F-16's engaging within effective range of small arms and infantry carried RPG's and the like, while those heavy rocket launchers are 60km away and not advancing with you in direct support a couple hundred feet behind, and your company commander is probably not out there challenging enemy leaders to duels.

I do agree that it makes zero sense that the same aircraft providing CAS are excellent dogfighters. To me a Vendetta should be an A-10, capable of engaging air targets, but terrible at it. There should be dedicated AA fighters, that only have skyfire. (They 'should' be faster, but that would be boring in game)

Yeah, this is part of the problem, there's no differentiation so the A-10 equivalents dominate everything.

I didn't read your rant, cause it was full of rage-hate even at a glance, but I wanted to say... We just got four codexes in four months. We're doing okay.

 Vaktathi wrote:

anonymou5 wrote:

I hate to bring "real life" into a conversation like this, but imo, the sense of scale is fine. I was a Scout Platoon Leader in Kandahar in 10-11. My 20ish man PLT (29 on paper, but with mid tour leave and WIA it hovered around 20) received more fire support than you would believe. Our typical engagement was against 1-3, 3-6 man TB elements, and we rarely were without Kiowa or Apache support. Furthermore, we received fast mover support all the time, ranging from A-10s to F-16s, F/A 18s, even Mirages. Some of my sister Platoons received support from B1s and B52s. Furthermore, we recieved insane amounts of indirect assets, from mortars (of all sizes) up to 155s. Some operations within my Squadron received HIMARs Rockets (fired from 60 odd KM away), MICLICS, and Canadian MBT support.

I'm not saying that some of these elements can't be available, but you're not going to have the equivalent of an A-10 doing figure-8's and loitering at 30 feet above the ground or F-16's engaging within effective range of small arms and infantry carried RPG's and the like, while those heavy rocket launchers are 60km away and not advancing with you in direct support a couple hundred feet behind, and your company commander is probably not out there challenging enemy leaders to duels.

.

Maybe my problem is that I don't look at the table top distances as being "exact" to scale. Take the bolter for example...single shots at 24" An M4 can effectively engage targets from 300-500m with well placed shots through an ACOG (a future rifle would be far further), where as rapid fire marksmanship (not full auto, rapid fire semi auto) is probably good up to 200m. Same goes for tank fire, an M1 shooting HEAT can engage targets at roughly 3km, Sabot, up to 5km. (Leman Russ regular cannon versus the tank hunter one, essentially). Or a 155 shooting targets at 10km versus a Basilisk. So to me, the distances in the game are not to scale with the size of the models. Otherwise bolters have a range of like 30 feet, and main battle tanks 100 feet, which is ridiculous. So a flier moving 18-36 inches works.

Plus if all indirect assets were exactly like real life, they would all be off table, which would be boring game wise. If I just said "My basilesks and meduas are over on the other table, you can only kill them with your arty, wha kind of game would that be? It's more fun to have them on the table, same goes for fliers. Those are assets that fit the scale of the game, with some small fudging for fun.

Edit: Also, we had a Kiowa pilot get hit by AK47 fire (essentially snap firing), and a PLT can bring Stingers and effectively engage air targets. It's not like it's impossible, and could get easier in hte future...

Fliers are disproportionately devastating when used properly against appropriate troops and ground vehicles, but are lightly armoured and vulnerable to other aircraft and specialist ground-to-air and air-to-air weaponry.

Now, am I talking about 40K or real life conflicts?

anonymou5 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

anonymou5 wrote:

I hate to bring "real life" into a conversation like this, but imo, the sense of scale is fine. I was a Scout Platoon Leader in Kandahar in 10-11. My 20ish man PLT (29 on paper, but with mid tour leave and WIA it hovered around 20) received more fire support than you would believe. Our typical engagement was against 1-3, 3-6 man TB elements, and we rarely were without Kiowa or Apache support. Furthermore, we received fast mover support all the time, ranging from A-10s to F-16s, F/A 18s, even Mirages. Some of my sister Platoons received support from B1s and B52s. Furthermore, we recieved insane amounts of indirect assets, from mortars (of all sizes) up to 155s. Some operations within my Squadron received HIMARs Rockets (fired from 60 odd KM away), MICLICS, and Canadian MBT support.

I'm not saying that some of these elements can't be available, but you're not going to have the equivalent of an A-10 doing figure-8's and loitering at 30 feet above the ground or F-16's engaging within effective range of small arms and infantry carried RPG's and the like, while those heavy rocket launchers are 60km away and not advancing with you in direct support a couple hundred feet behind, and your company commander is probably not out there challenging enemy leaders to duels.

.

Maybe my problem is that I don't look at the table top distances as being "exact" to scale. Take the bolter for example...single shots at 24" An M4 can effectively engage targets from 300-500m with well placed shots through an ACOG (a future rifle would be far further), where as rapid fire marksmanship (not full auto, rapid fire semi auto) is probably good up to 200m. Same goes for tank fire, an M1 shooting HEAT can engage targets at roughly 3km, Sabot, up to 5km. (Leman Russ regular cannon versus the tank hunter one, essentially). Or a 155 shooting targets at 10km versus a Basilisk. So to me, the distances in the game are not to scale with the size of the models. Otherwise bolters have a range of like 30 feet, and main battle tanks 100 feet, which is ridiculous. So a flier moving 18-36 inches works.

Plus if all indirect assets were exactly like real life, they would all be off table, which would be boring game wise. If I just said "My basilesks and meduas are over on the other table, you can only kill them with your arty, wha kind of game would that be? It's more fun to have them on the table, same goes for fliers. Those are assets that fit the scale of the game, with some small fudging for fun.

Edit: Also, we had a Kiowa pilot get hit by AK47 fire (essentially snap firing), and a PLT can bring Stingers and effectively engage air targets. It's not like it's impossible, and could get easier in hte future...

The problem with 40k is that this kind of scaling functions really poorly due to the 28mm scale. For 15mm games like Flames of War it works a lot better when the biggest, heaviest tank on the field is the smaller than a Thunderfire cannon, it has trouble working when the same thing is sized like a hardcover textbook. Not only is it wonky visually, but room to maneuver becomes impossible and distances become increasingly easy to attain simply due to the size of the models if nothing else.

And sure, sometimes aircraft may come under fire from infantry weapons, but not routinely or with any sort of consistency, and certainly not stuff like Fighter-bombers.

Trying to fit all this in on top of rules for challenges, squad leaders able to pick out individual targets with pistol shots, etc becomes really messy.

 Miraclefish wrote:
Fliers are disproportionately devastating when used properly against appropriate troops and ground vehicles, but are lightly armoured and vulnerable to other aircraft and specialist ground-to-air and air-to-air weaponry.

Now, am I talking about 40K or real life conflicts?

The problem with 40k is that the flyers aren't always lightly armored and the ground to air weaponry isn't particularly effective against many of these or widely available.

The OP has some good points, but as to the notion that fliers ruin the game, spamming fliers ruins the game.

The same is/was true with rhino rushes.

That said, stormravens are pretty much the most powerful fliers out then, and GK having them is pretty much just matt ward kicking you in the nuts. They are stupid, should have rear armor 10 or something, but nah it needs to be super stupid.

I know a local guy at my store that runs the stupid 2x10 death cult spam (with gakky models btw) and a few other things, including allied nercons (that scrub) and the death cults are both in a storm raven.

I don't like playing him and I avoid him, but in tournament settings I cannot do so, so I simply find a way around him. Allied eldar with runes of warding, lots of multiple units, other things.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
Simply put, they are poorly designed, and stand apart from the rest of the game as being decisively powerful, and boring to use.

For me it isn't that they are poorly designed, but that GW did nothing other than offering up the old ADL with quad gun to balance all forces with real flyer defense from the get go. Thus, those lists that have flyers from White Dwarf or new codecies, get a bonus that forces that don't have no real defenses against or ability to use their own of. That just is stupid. How hard would it have been to add an entry to each FAQ at least giving a couple units in each force the ability to deal with flyers without having to roll a 6? Not hard at all, but they didn't bother to do it. That is the only real complaint I have against flyers.

As things stand you have some armies that can go: Oooo lookie what I have and you aren't going to be able to easily touch and you don't have anything like it. Hahahahahaha! That just is dirty pool to me and something that should have been addressed at the get go. Players winning lots of games with multiple flyers againsts books that only have the ADL defense are really lame. I am the only player in my regular group who doesn't have any kids. As such I am the only one who still buys GW minis with some regularity. I have 3 flyers: 2 chaos (1 heldrake and 1 hell blade) and 1 DA (haven't decided which I am building yet), but I pretty much never use them in games because my opponents don't have any flyers at all, or play lists that have no option for flyers at all. It is a matter of respect for the rest of the folks in my group who are also good friends. I could probably field both my chaos flyers in one force against them and gloat about how they can't touch them, but what is the point? That isn't fun for everyone....just for me...

Skriker

And sure, sometimes aircraft may come under fire from infantry weapons, but not routinely or with any sort of consistency, and certainly not stuff like Fighter-bombers.

Trying to fit all this in on top of rules for challenges, squad leaders able to pick out individual targets with pistol shots, etc becomes really messy.

40k is essentially Platoon level combat. Platoon level combat involves tanks, indirect fire, and air assets (and, even in real life, can involve a brutal fight to the death, although obviously not as common as it is in the game--I'll allow some artistic liscense)

And there are plenty of platoon level assets available today that can effectively engage aircraft of all sorts. So it doesn't take a lot of suspension of disbelief for me to think that an assault rifle with 40k years of development could occassionaly damage a fighter bomber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZPU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSHK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_systems

It's messed up as DE, some armies are even worse at AA though. There's no TL weapons in our book, and just look at the Vendetta vs the Voidraven.

Vendetta: 3 Twinlinked S9 AP2 weapons with the option to hover, and carry men inside. And it's in a fast attack slot. We all know how good the armor on the sucker is too.

Voidraven: 2 (non-twinlinked) S9 AP2 weapons. Less armor, can't hover, costs more points.

Sound reasonable? Yup......... The problem isn't so much the idea of flyers.. The problem is it was tacked on and then they made everything try to fit the new rules, and it just doesn't work. (and then for some reason they decided to make the Heldrake super overpowered).

Paitryn wrote:
If there ever was a "golden age" for 40k i would say its probably 2nd ed where everyone talks of funny nastolgic stuff they did in that edition.

For me the golden age was 3rd edition where GW took its first stabs at actually starting to put controls and limits on what was included in a given army on the table. The FOC was a beautiful thing to me after too many games of 2nd equating to people taking a couple of the units from the army they "claimed" to be playing and then padding the army with a bunch of high level special characters, primarily eldar, but also a few others like inquisitor lords in termie armor with displacer fields were common too. That just got annoying and boring after a while. It seemed impossible for people to be hones about it either. I loved once the Force organization chart came into being. You actually HAD to take troops units and an HQ to start. Then you could add in others, BUT they were limited to how many, so you could no longer have an army with 8 units of elite troops in it or a half dozen special characters from another codex. So if you wanted access to those eldar special characters you actually had to *play* eldar.

Not surprisingly I also was very happy when 2nd edition Space marine came out and it put no small amount of controls on force construction so you no longer showed up to play with your force of tanks and infantry supported by a titan to find out you were facing a force that composed completely of titans and that most of your army was going to be useless in the battle because of it.


I do have to agree with Kronk, though, that it is pretty sweet that Forge World are doing the Horus Heresy books and minis now.

Skriker

For me, the "golden age" was fifth edition, despite the horrendously stupid Sisters "codex" that barely deserves the name.


But since I have basically ignored sixth edition, I'm not one to judge. I'm waiting for a few more codices to come out in sixth before I bother judging the edition as a whole.

 Blue Falcon wrote:
DE don't have twin linked weapons....

But it just goes back to my point that in past editions ALL player chosen armies were valid in this game and victories should have more basis on player skill rather than who has more fliers.

I do agree, to an extent. I brought one flyer in my first game of 6th ed 40k, and wrecked plenty with it (Doom Scythe lolz). However, it was against Tau, and he got a lucky shot with his railgun, so the fun only lasted so long. The next game my opponent brought two Stormtalons, both of which got blown out of the sky the turn they came on the board by my Forgefiend and Quad-gun.

I think luck now has too much to do with the game. Rolling for Warlord traits, rolling for psychic powers, rolling for this, rolling for that... it's a bit silly now and even though this is a game of dice the fact that one player can get a warlord trait that greatly benefits their army (night fighting for a melee army) while the other gets one that does nothing (Stealth in ruins on a table with no ruins) is terrible. The traits are not balanced, though that can be house ruled to let each player pick their traits.

As another 25+ year player (started when RT came out), I feel compelled to respond to this thread.

RT was a hot mess, and wasn't all that fun to play, but it was cool and very different. Alot of people consider 2nd Edition the proverbial "Golden Age" because that is when the game took shape, introduced individual codices for each army, brought in new armies, introduced plastic minis and generally had a good deal of polish. Hell, even White Dwarf was a great hobby magazine at that time.

BUT, what the nostalgia freaks tend to forget is that 2nd edition introduced some pretty broken armies almost from the start. Space Wolves with their 100% terminator armies coming out first really messed up the power scale for those people that had to rely on the army lists that came in the boxed set. Imperial armies always included assassins, and Chaos Marines were extremely annoying to play against. Heavy weapons in 2nd Edition were grossly overpowered (2nd ed. Assault Cannons anyone?), and each army devolved into character deliver systems. And who can forget some of the oh-so-broken wargear items, such as the virus and vortex grenades. Overwatch rules pretty much ensured the game moved at a crawl as nobody moved and everybody went into overwatch. The idea of the assault army was limited to Tyrannids and that's about it. Oh, and games often took about 8 hours at 2,000 points.

To me, 3rd Edition was a step up. Assault armies were now viable (hell, they were OP), and Orks finally played like their fluff since RT described. I rarely lost a game with my Orks in 3rd, but that was because Rhino Rush tactics were so grossly broken. But this edition really streamlined things and helped individualize each army, since there was no longer a shared wargear pool. Psykers and characters took a backseat to rock hard elite and horde units. But the game was fun, and best of all, fast. Going from 8 hour games to 3 hour games was a huge, huge improvement.

I stopped playing when 4th came out because, well, life happened, and just recently got back into 40K with 6th edition. I can honestly say, I am having a blast with 6th. Sure, some armies are broken, but that's not 6th edition's fault, thats the codex using rules from a previous edition. Flyers in moderation are fun, and luckily, none of the guys that play in my group are big into spamming units. My feeling is the game had to evolve to maintain interest. It brings back elements of 2nd edition into the 3rd-5th mix, with characters and psykers back in the forefront and a new version of overwatch. Heck, they are even bringing in some of the old 2nd edition wargear (I saw those fields in Codex: Dark Angels). Not sure if I would call this a new golden age yet, but my friends and I are having fun, and that's all that matters to me.

If you think about it, though, the only codexes that now don't have access to a flier or any sort without Forge World are Battle Sisters, Space Wolves and Eldar.

Everyone else now has fliers either in their codex or via Death from the Skies (I'm not 100% certain about Black Templars though).

If you allow Forge World, then that means that everyone has at least one flier or flying monstrous creature, and while two Dark Lances may not be up to the same level as three twin-linked lascannons, the problem then lies with the Imperial Guard codex specifically and not with the game as a whole.

Admittedly, I am counting the new Tau codex since it's only a month away, but even so that should tell you something: The "overpowered fliers" issue has been addressed except for Vendettas. Everyone has at least two AA choices and, since that AA choice is a flier half the time, it is only all the more awesome.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Everyone else now has fliers either in their codex or via Death from the Skies (I'm not 100% certain about Black Templars though).

Templars got some fliers in Death from the Skies and already had the Storm Eagle (FW).

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The "overpowered fliers" issue has been addressed except for Vendettas.

Right.

And let's face it... Vendettas have NEVER been balanced, with or without the Flyers rules.

I've won two tournaments with no fliers or flier defense.

The winner of both the NOVA Open and Invitational had no fliers.

The winner of the Colonial GT had no fliers.

The winner of the Bay Area Open had no fliers.

So, what was that you were saying about needing fliers?

Bao winner had a blood thirster i do believe.

 DarkCorsair wrote:
I've won two tournaments with no fliers or flier defense.

The winner of both the NOVA Open and Invitational had no fliers.

The winner of the Colonial GT had no fliers.

The winner of the Bay Area Open had no fliers.

So, what was that you were saying about needing fliers?

I don't know about the first two since I don't know what played but the last had Flying MC's.

You should read what you quoted, I said there was no Golden Age of 40k and you are carrying on about a Golden Age of GW. In any event I dont even agree with you that it (Golden Age of GW) was the time you said it was. For me it was earlier when GW still supported space marine and titan legions. Around here the heyday of whfb was 5th edition even though I like the later editions better. I have every Man O War fleet so my own viewpoint about the Golden Age is different than yours. You define the WD of that time and the bitz service as very important, for me neither were all that important. I started collecting WD at issue 100 and always found the magazine to be variable from month to month, until the last several years where it is always crap.

Okaaay, you don't agree with me. That's fine. There are less insulting ways of saying that, you know.

Making a comment with supporting reasons as to why I think that way isn't exactly "carrying on".

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DarkCorsair wrote:
I've won two tournaments with no fliers or flier defense.

The winner of both the NOVA Open and Invitational had no fliers.

The winner of the Colonial GT had no fliers.

The winner of the Bay Area Open had no fliers.

So, what was that you were saying about needing fliers?

I don't know about the first two since I don't know what played but the last had Flying MC's.

Ah, well I suppose that counts. Well, regardless, the point is still the same. I do agree with the OP that fliers are a tad bit unbalanced, but you certainly can play competitively without them.

To the OP, since he plays DE - one of the top finishers at the Colonial GT was playing Dark Eldar with no fliers, although he did have a Quad Gun. List mostly centered around a large beast squad, a 20 man warrior squad, and some Taloi. Not quite sure exactly how it worked, but it was pretty good.

I agree that flyers are a little silly, and maybe GW did get carried away, however flyers do add a nice dynamic, and if flyers are so all important, how come armies like Space Wolves still have a chance to win if they run a pure SW list? It's called list building. Or focusing on your objectives. I only have 1 flyer, and my flyer does survive most of the time, and i do have fun games. I can basically ignore flyers xcept those friggin Hell drakes and their bale flamer.

The OP, and no offense, but the OP just sounds like your having a bit of a whine. Yes, there is some OP sh*t out there, but i believe that once most codices have been upgraded to 6E that need to be upgraded it will take some time. What GW could have done was release a few more codices more quickly. It will take time but 40K will balance out IMO. btw, i was looking at the X Wing, is it good? I am a student so don't have much money to spend on GW, so something that allows fun but doesn't break the bank sounds good.

But back to the point, to me, this is b*tching on about the 6th ed, when the real problem that is produced in your statements is the prices. Now I don't want another "I hate GW! but i will still keep buying their stuff" thread, but it was said that $50+ codices and expensive prices was stopping you from getting flyers. Granted, flyer trolling can be a fast tracked way to get a boring game, but again, it does add a dynamic, and there are ways to counter them. 6E to me does produce a need for tactics against some armies. and REAL tactics. Nuff said.

I've been playing 40k since Rogue Trader, I've worked for GW and I've been a fan of the 40k background for most of my life and IMO, the Golden Age of 40K was 2nd Ed.

So much lore, so much free reign over what armies we could build and so much freedom to play how we wanted to play.

Towards the end of 2nd Ed we had great games like Necromunda, Gorkamorka and Epic.

We have never had it as good as then.

3rd ed for me destroyed 40k. The rules, while streamlined, were poor. The character of each army had changed greatly with the loss of the movement stat and the inclusion of rigid army structure.

4th ed was worse - I stopped playing when 4th ed was released and came back for 5th ed which was better, but still not great.

6th ed for me is a good attempt to return to the lore filled days of 2nd ed. For me, it's a happy medium. Some lore, some of the reason why I played came back, but still, it's missing that creativity that we as gamers haven't had since 2nd ed.

For 7th ed, I would like to see the return of the movement stat. My friends and I have tried the game with the old movement stats from 2nd ed and it makes the game insanely tactical and instantly makes some armies fast like they are in the fluff.

Just try it.

Puscifer wrote:


For 7th ed, I would like to see the return of the movement stat. My friends and I have tried the game with the old movement stats from 2nd ed and it makes the game insanely tactical and instantly makes some armies fast like they are in the fluff.

Just try it.

It makes a game of dominant static gunlines into a game of only static gunlines.

If it helps at all you can ally in some Eldar to get a Farseer and either war walkers or hornets with pulse lasers then use precognition to basically make them twin-linked and shoot the fliers out of the sky but short of that you're in the same boat as everyone else and this boat is sinking

You do realize if you cross the board, which as a DE player should be easy, and you space out properly, and you get within 18 inches of the other player's table edge, he has to either over fly your army or hover, allowing you to shoot as normal to the enemy.

It's like the old rhino rush.Tactics....use them.

6th ed is good. With less randomness it would be great.

Flyers are good if used in moderation.

WD is practically garbage these days.

I actually like some of the randomness(even though it has hurt me in games) I like that assault is not a set distance anymore, many times it means a unit that would have failed the charge in 5th ed manages to succeed. I actually love the random terrain effects and objectives the change to power weapons makes the game very interesting.

Flyers can be nasty but so far in 6th I have found that if you just ignore them and plan your strategies with the knowledge that they are coming later they won't accomplish much. Flyers are very powerful now but they won't be forever give it time and they will balance out more.

I am running a list which is not well rounded but does what I wanted it to do, I didn't want flyers or bikers or tactical marines or any broken or exploited rules, I wanted a Deathwing army so that's all I have. The list contains terminators and land raider and that's it. I got laughed at when I went to a local tournament but I did well in every game I played because I thought ahead and knew my strategies for many different scenarios. I didn't win the tournament because one of the games was kill points and I was up against a very elite grey knights army so even coming close to tabling him only netted me a handful of points but I only gave up a single kill point the entire game(the opponent didn't get slay the warlord, First Blood, or Line Breaker).

 zachwho wrote:
What hobby can you make an investment 15 years ago in, and expect it to be a one time cost??

I mean i guess if you were serious about candy land, that would be a one time investment.....

Candy Land isn't a hobby. Now Scrabble on the other hand...

the new codexes will have plenty of good AA,

once people start making builds with them,

flyer spammers will have a reason not to spam flyers,

Im very happy with how new coedxes are coming out at a good rate this edition, and the faq's get updated more regularly as well.

Ive played since 3rd, and yes, flyer spam right now is rediculous, but only because half the armies are still in 4th edition codexes,

once we have tau, eldar ect with some good AA, peopel will tone down the flying circus stuff.

easysauce wrote:
the new codexes will have plenty of good AA,

C:CSM has...Flakk Havocs. CA has flakk Devastators and expensive Flakk upgrades on missile launchers. Caemons has skyfire on the Soulgrinder and I think that's it? Not much.

Well the first three haven't exactly been good examples of books with counters for Flyer spam.

Chaos: Vector Strikes and Flakk missiles
Dark Angels: Flakk missiles and what is widely considered the worst anti air flyer available.
Daemons: Vector Strikes and some Psychic shooting from FMCs and the Soulgrinders AA gun.

Nothing there would indicate an ability to encourage flyer spammers to rethink their approach.

More than likely they will let the air superiority reign for quite some time before making them laughably bad, invalidating the spam builds.

 Vaktathi wrote:

easysauce wrote:
the new codexes will have plenty of good AA,

C:CSM has...Flakk Havocs. CA has flakk Devastators and expensive Flakk upgrades on missile launchers. Caemons has skyfire on the Soulgrinder and I think that's it? Not much.

new codexes either have good AA or good air, or both

guess which one CSM has lol?

the drake is uber air support, and decent anti flyer

flakk missles are decent AA too,

storm talons are not a wast of space either, I would take some if I could.


my point being, that while I do think flyers are the most broken thing in the game right now,
its going to get better as codexes are updated,

even if there was only 1 or 2 armies with "the shiznit" anti air, that still encourages less flyer spam in the overall meta.

again, just my opinion,

flyers are still my least favorite thing about 40k right now,

Falcon, i don't think so although i have shelved my beloved Eldar. The rule set is more complete than ever. In my area we see an increased number of retired gamers replaying 40k.

I do fully understand that taking anti-air is something that's now a part of the game, like anti-tank heavy weapons. I'm alright with that, though I still hate the flyer spam that is in nearly every list.

But the main problem is with codexes where such Anti-Air is integrated in a dumb way, or just not at all, like Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Sisters of Battle, etc.. I don't want to have to take a friggin' Aegis Defense Line regardless of what type of army I'm playing, simply because that's the only thing I can take that's Anti-Air. It's stupid to have to do.

Why would my Saim-Hann jetbike army plunk down a defense line in the middle of their fast-moving strike force? The most appropriate thing I could see Eldar taking would be a Firestorm Grav-tank (or a Nightwing or two), but that brings in the whole FW versus GW debacle, not to mention i have to buy a set of really expensive FW rules for one unit, even if I were to convert the model from a Falcon and some Scatter-lasers, AND find people who are fine with FW (I;m just lucky the latter isn't an issue for me).

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I do fully understand that taking anti-air is something that's now a part of the game, like anti-tank heavy weapons. I'm alright with that, though I still hate the flyer spam that is in nearly every list.

But the main problem is with codexes where such Anti-Air is integrated in a dumb way, or just not at all, like Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Sisters of Battle, etc.. I don't want to have to take a friggin' Aegis Defense Line regardless of what type of army I'm playing, simply because that's the only thing I can take that's Anti-Air. It's stupid to have to do.

Why would my Saim-Hann jetbike army plunk down a defense line in the middle of their fast-moving strike force? The most appropriate thing I could see Eldar taking would be a Firestorm Grav-tank (or a Nightwing or two), but that brings in the whole FW versus GW debacle, not to mention i have to buy a set of really expensive FW rules for one unit, even if I were to convert the model from a Falcon and some Scatter-lasers, AND find people who are fine with FW (I;m just lucky the latter isn't an issue for me).

Saim-Hann can do AA. Just guide your jetseer council & lob your 5 or more spears like a bause. S9 attacks hitting on a rerolling 6+ means you'll probably drop a flier. Not to mention with the bikes you can get in range and get away easy enough. Come on we are CWE. Tricks to overcome the odds are what we're all about.

General Hobbs wrote:

You do realize if you cross the board, which as a DE player should be easy, and you space out properly, and you get within 18 inches of the other player's table edge, he has to either over fly your army or hover, allowing you to shoot as normal to the enemy.

It's like the old rhino rush.Tactics....use them.

You do realise there's no rule saying that fliers have to come on at a 90 degree angle to the table edge, right?

AegisGrimm wrote:I do fully understand that taking anti-air is something that's now a part of the game, like anti-tank heavy weapons. I'm alright with that, though I still hate the flyer spam that is in nearly every list.

But the main problem is with codexes where such Anti-Air is integrated in a dumb way, or just not at all, like Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Sisters of Battle, etc.. I don't want to have to take a friggin' Aegis Defense Line regardless of what type of army I'm playing, simply because that's the only thing I can take that's Anti-Air. It's stupid to have to do.

Why would my Saim-Hann jetbike army plunk down a defense line in the middle of their fast-moving strike force? The most appropriate thing I could see Eldar taking would be a Firestorm Grav-tank (or a Nightwing or two), but that brings in the whole FW versus GW debacle, not to mention i have to buy a set of really expensive FW rules for one unit, even if I were to convert the model from a Falcon and some Scatter-lasers, AND find people who are fine with FW (I;m just lucky the latter isn't an issue for me).

On the other hand, the FW books are well worth it (with the exception of IA:Apocalypse and its sequel) even if you never field a single model from them because they're damn beautiful books.

Besides, the FW vs GW debate is only clung to by long-time haters who refuse to get with the program. If FW wasn't completely 40k legal outside set tournament rules that are discarding half the game, FW models wouldn't be in every other picture in the 40k rulebook and supplements.

Saim-Hann can do AA. Just guide your jetseer council & lob your 5 or more spears like a bause. S9 attacks hitting on a rerolling 6+ means you'll probably drop a flier. Not to mention with the bikes you can get in range and get away easy enough. Come on we are CWE. Tricks to overcome the odds are what we're all about.

Yeah, but I see that more as a "mechanic that happens to work" rather than a fluffy vehicle or weapon type that fits the Craftworld Eldar theme. I personally think that adding Nightwings and Firestorms to the actual Eldar codex would be a better way of meshing Eldar with 6e flyers rules.

Heck, you could use a unit that already exists, and add quick rules so the the Nightspinner can be a unique weapon on a vehicle that the Eldar have started using as ad-hoc Anti-air. Imagine a flyer getting caught in a cloud of monofiliament wires.

I disagree with the OP - we are just entering a Golden Age of 40k

I like the idea of flyers, and if I bought 3 vendettas it would be because they look so cool, not to cheese people :/

If I cared about stats I wouldn't field 3 squads of Stormtroopers which now suck in 6th edition lol. I just think they look awesome! 9 inch rapid fire cmon!!

But I suppose us IG players have to buy Hydras since we have no other anti air! They now have skyfire and no jink saves from the FAQ. I don't know what this means yet but I assume it's good!

Yeah, but I see that more as a "mechanic that happens to work" rather than a fluffy vehicle or weapon type that fits the Craftworld Eldar theme. I personally think that adding Nightwings and Firestorms to the actual Eldar codex would be a better way of meshing Eldar with 6e flyers rules.

Heck, you could use a unit that already exists, and add quick rules so the the Nightspinner can be a unique weapon on a vehicle that the Eldar have started using as ad-hoc Anti-air. Imagine a flyer getting caught in a cloud of monofiliament wires.

Agreed! Hopefully we see some good additions in the upcoming codex release.

I have been playing since rogue trader late eighties , I disagree with OP, if you are a competitive tournament player it takes a while to transition from 5th to 6th and a lot of work to figure out what works and what doesn't .

I get the OP does not like flyers but a lot of gamers do and you can adapt to fight them even if you don't want to bring flyers yourself .

4 or 5 games is simply not enough to figure out how to make your list competitive in 6th ....complain less, buckle down and accept the challenge , you will be back to your old ways soon enough .

Also a MAJOR mistake is taking a 5th edition list and trying to shoehorn it into 6th...that does not work.

Fairly new player here... so not gonna talk about how it used to be, what was the best edition and so on...

I perfectly understand that flyers are quite an annoying addition for all those old-time players, who were used to play ground units, or anti-grav' at best.

If I'm right, in 5th edition, the Rhino and parking-lot style were kings, and spammed in almost any tourneys. All in all, flyers are only "6th edition's Rhinos"... you can spam them to try to get an easy-win. You can play without them if you want some challenge.

I can't remember where I read that 6th edition was here to last, that every codex should get a 6th-edition upgrade (I guess they said so for every previous game edition but...), but with such a change (addition of flyers), I guess the game is not gonna be balanced until every army gets its new codex, with flyers and AA-options. Then, everybody out there will be able either to go all-flying mode, or massive anti-air, or "I just don't care about flyers, I'm too fast on the ground" etc.

"Wait & See" for 6th edition is not yet one year old...

It's amazing that those that love a sci-fi game, taking place in the future, are upset at the idea that flyers are a huge part of a battle when flyers(planes) were a huge part of winning a war 50+ years ago, let alone NOW.

I thin it fits the sci-fi theme, it adds a good amount of variety and I like the new rules a lot.

 Atheos wrote:
It's amazing that those that love a sci-fi game, taking place in the future, are upset at the idea that flyers are a huge part of a battle when flyers(planes) were a huge part of winning a war 50+ years ago, let alone NOW.

I thin it fits the sci-fi theme, it adds a good amount of variety and I like the new rules a lot.

Just because something makes sense in reality (even in assumed reality, such as a sci-fi setting), doesn't mean it translates well into a good game. I do not disagree that it makes sense to have air support units in the game setting.

But, for years, the game has been a "heroic" wargame. The actions of the heros are supposed to matter, and the heroes carry power swords and get into hand-to-hand combat. For years now it has been possible to play an entirely hand-to-hand oriented army, and even have it make sense in the far future. Tyranids spawn more gaunts than you can shoot down. Orks mob you with numbers too. Daemons appear out of the warp, without having given you the opportunity to shoot them.

Flyers change that dynamic. It's no longer possible to play those armies (successfully) as they have no answer to flyers.

Flyers, (like artillery pieces) really don't belong in the scale being represented in 40k games, they're better left for apocalypse. If you think about it, your 28mm tall model means that a 4x6 table is roughly 100x150 yards in-game scale. (4 feet is 48 inches, and each inch represents two yards, so 4 feet is 96 yards). And over this 100x150 yard battlefield, you expect supersonic jet fighters to do more than wizz past?

It's no longer possible to play those armies (successfully) as they have no answer to flyers.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/03/wargaming-askew-seneca-falls-and-selma.html

You were saying?

Yes, I was. Does the army she was playing even exist anymore? Not even remotely in the same form. And, you'll note, she wasn't playing an all hand-to-hand army. She was using large units of shooty daemons.

I'm not talking about codexes, I'm taking about an entire style of play. You can't run a hand-to-hand army and do well against flyers.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Atheos wrote:
It's amazing that those that love a sci-fi game, taking place in the future, are upset at the idea that flyers are a huge part of a battle when flyers(planes) were a huge part of winning a war 50+ years ago, let alone NOW.

I thin it fits the sci-fi theme, it adds a good amount of variety and I like the new rules a lot.

Just because something makes sense in reality (even in assumed reality, such as a sci-fi setting), doesn't mean it translates well into a good game. I do not disagree that it makes sense to have air support units in the game setting.

But, for years, the game has been a "heroic" wargame. The actions of the heros are supposed to matter, and the heroes carry power swords and get into hand-to-hand combat. For years now it has been possible to play an entirely hand-to-hand oriented army, and even have it make sense in the far future. Tyranids spawn more gaunts than you can shoot down. Orks mob you with numbers too. Daemons appear out of the warp, without having given you the opportunity to shoot them.

Flyers change that dynamic. It's no longer possible to play those armies (successfully) as they have no answer to flyers.

Flyers, (like artillery pieces) really don't belong in the scale being represented in 40k games, they're better left for apocalypse. If you think about it, your 28mm tall model means that a 4x6 table is roughly 100x150 yards in-game scale. (4 feet is 48 inches, and each inch represents two yards, so 4 feet is 96 yards). And over this 100x150 yard battlefield, you expect supersonic jet fighters to do more than wizz past?

I always made the bold assumption that the plot of land you're fighting over, while you're right doesn't encompass the whole battle, is a focus on a very critical part of it. Thus instead of just wizzing past the flyers would be called there for support.. especially since that's where the big heroes are and they need to be protected. I've wanted flyers in 40k since I started playing, always thought it'd make sense.

I think the large issue is that with those hand 2 hand armies there just isn't a new codex out that gives them options to battle the flyers, it'll just take time to adjust again. The other thing is that 6th definitely seems to be much more of a shooty edition as opposed to one of the previous ones, 4th or 5th that was much better for hand 2 hand armies.

I'm pretty sure that FMCs can be both heavily CC oriented & deal with fliers, so as to keep in theme with a HTH oriented army. Bloodthirster anyone?

Hand to hand armies are still perfectly viable as far as flyers are concerned.

Flyers: Cannot score.

Flyers: Cannot shoot into close combat.

Flyers: Struggle to shoot at anything meaningful in consecutive turns.

 Vaktathi wrote:

easysauce wrote:
the new codexes will have plenty of good AA,

C:CSM has...Flakk Havocs. CA has flakk Devastators and expensive Flakk upgrades on missile launchers. Caemons has skyfire on the Soulgrinder and I think that's it? Not much.

CSMs also have Heldrakes and Flying MCs in the form of Daemon Princes; Dark Angels also have 2 flyers in addition to their flakk upgrades on missile launchers which really aren't that expensive; Chaos Daemons have skyfire Soulgrinders, plus they have flying MCs in the form of Daemon Princes and Greater Daemons. So yes each new book has multiple AA options that can fit a defensive or offensive AA strategy. Plus they can also all add an ADL with quad cannon for good measure too. I dislike the ADL + QC as a default, but don't mind it when added to ther AA options as well.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
On the other hand, the FW books are well worth it (with the exception of IA:Apocalypse and its sequel) even if you never field a single model from them because they're damn beautiful books.

Have to agree here. The Apocalypse books and the Aeronautica books are just rulesbooks, but the campaign books are all incredible. Finally picked up the 3 Vraks Campaign books (IA: 5, 6 and 7) and giving them a read. Very interesting read along with cool alternative army lists as well. If the cost wasn't so insane I would consider doing a Krieg artillery list, just because the models look really cool, but a 1500 point army would run thousands, and the price just goes up from there for bigger forces. Kind of makes $1000 price tag for my chaos renegades army seem kind of small in comparison.

Skriker

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Hand to hand armies are still perfectly viable as far as flyers are concerned.

Flyers: Cannot score.

Flyers: Cannot shoot into close combat.

Flyers: Struggle to shoot at anything meaningful in consecutive turns.

(1) Many flyers can score in The Scouring. Some flyers can also score in Big Guns Never Tire.

(2) Flyers can transport scoring units. Necron flyers are particularly good at this.

(3) Flyers don't struggle with having meaningful targets if you know how to use them, or if they can hover.

This is not to say that melee armies are not viable, but that your counter-argument is poorly supported.

(2) On this point, the Vendetta does an excellent job transporting 10-man vet squad across the table. I found that out last Saturday. Ugh...

 kronk wrote:
(2) On this point, the Vendetta does an excellent job transporting 10-man vet squad across the table. I found that out last Saturday. Ugh...

Yeah, I've been putting naked Infantry squads into Vendettas with great success. Grav Chute insertion is one of the most underrated rules in the game.

 Atheos wrote:

I think the large issue is that with those hand 2 hand armies there just isn't a new codex out that gives them options to battle the flyers, it'll just take time to adjust again.

There is no adjusting, the nature of the game has fundamentally changed. Prior to this edition, every type of model in the game could hurt every other type of model in the game. Sure, not every model could hurt every other model, you had your autocannon vs AV14 or S3 vs T8 issues, but if you put a shooty unit on the table, you knew you could shoot at your opponent, and if you put a choppy unit on the table, you knew you could chop your opponent.

That's not true anymore. There's a class of models (flyers) that simply cannot be affected by another entire class of models (assault units). And any model you mention that -can- isn't part of that class. A bloodthirster is more than an assault unit, even if assault is what it does best.

The only way to adjust to this is to move away from these choppy units.

The other thing is that 6th definitely seems to be much more of a shooty edition as opposed to one of the previous ones, 4th or 5th that was much better for hand 2 hand armies.

Exactly, because you can't rely on being choppy, it's an inferior approach. But, to a lot of players, lining up toy soldiers and then rolling dice to see which fall down is no better than lining up toy soldiers and firing rubber-bands at them to see which fall down. It's just not as enjoyable. That's not to say every shooty army is a gunline, but I'm seeing more gunlines in 6th than I did in prior editions. And I don't have a lot of fun playing with, or against, gunlines.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Atheos wrote:

I think the large issue is that with those hand 2 hand armies there just isn't a new codex out that gives them options to battle the flyers, it'll just take time to adjust again.

There is no adjusting, the nature of the game has fundamentally changed. Prior to this edition, every type of model in the game could hurt every other type of model in the game. Sure, not every model could hurt every other model, you had your autocannon vs AV14 or S3 vs T8 issues, but if you put a shooty unit on the table, you knew you could shoot at your opponent, and if you put a choppy unit on the table, you knew you could chop your opponent.

That's not true anymore. There's a class of models (flyers) that simply cannot be affected by another entire class of models (assault units). And any model you mention that -can- isn't part of that class. A bloodthirster is more than an assault unit, even if assault is what it does best.

The only way to adjust to this is to move away from these choppy units.

The other thing is that 6th definitely seems to be much more of a shooty edition as opposed to one of the previous ones, 4th or 5th that was much better for hand 2 hand armies.

Exactly, because you can't rely on being choppy, it's an inferior approach. But, to a lot of players, lining up toy soldiers and then rolling dice to see which fall down is no better than lining up toy soldiers and firing rubber-bands at them to see which fall down. It's just not as enjoyable. That's not to say every shooty army is a gunline, but I'm seeing more gunlines in 6th than I did in prior editions. And I don't have a lot of fun playing with, or against, gunlines.

Exactly.

And I don't care what some theoretical-future tacticians say, there is no reason that in the confines of this "game" that you shouldn't be able to - especially with an alien race composed of mutating space bugs whose limbs can carve through terminator armor - have an assault based army be a viable option. They not only force Nid players to buy their newest models (Tyrannofex/Tervigon) to stay competitive, which I could forgive as when you have a large collection of any army adding new units is nice, but the arms race should continue in that it should add more tactical options, not limit them, but they invalidated an entire strategy of warfare and made their most expensive strategy the strongest that is not just an arms race continuing, that is a game mechanic coming second to a marketing strategy. That is the problem with what is happening.

By adjust I was saying, pretty literally, you'll have to wait for the new codex to come out.

You complain that you can't have an assault based army then complain that an assault unit, like the BT isn't an assault unit and doesn't count *facepalm*.

I don't see how an entire strategy of warfare has been broken, I just see a bunch of cry babies whining that it doesn't work as well as it did before or haven't adjusted to the new rule set to make it as effective.

 Redbeard wrote:


Exactly, because you can't rely on being choppy, it's an inferior approach. But, to a lot of players, lining up toy soldiers and then rolling dice to see which fall down is no better than lining up toy soldiers and firing rubber-bands at them to see which fall down. It's just not as enjoyable.

Yet some how lining up toy soldiers in base to base contact with each other, then rolling dice to see which ones fall down is inherently more fun?

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:


Exactly, because you can't rely on being choppy, it's an inferior approach. But, to a lot of players, lining up toy soldiers and then rolling dice to see which fall down is no better than lining up toy soldiers and firing rubber-bands at them to see which fall down. It's just not as enjoyable.

Yet some how lining up toy soldiers in base to base contact with each other, then rolling dice to see which ones fall down is inherently more fun?

It's because we're wargamers. See, we are actually a subtype of the larger human species, scientifically referred to as Homo sapien wargamus, and also commonly known as "6x4"s or "those nerds with the toy soldiers." We have a debilitating genetic mutation that causes us to become overjoyed when certain results are produced by a numbered cube, assuming these cubes are linked to plastic models owned by the human in question. Usually, the desired numeric result is a 6, unless it is linked to a "leadership test," an event classified by scientists as the "ahdammitIwishIhadatsknf" phenomena. Wargamus are closely related to other human variations such as deetwentya and catansettlerofin, and more distantly related to those such as gambleria, ar-tee-ess-playan, and a currently unnamed primitive group of humans known as "Magic Players."

Well, this reminds me of the time called the dark age of humanity...

The whole flyer issue isn't a big deal for me. More concerned about GW's trend of low-quality products, nasty and mean-spirited business practices/customer relations, and most of all prices. Though I do agree 40k has gotten a lot worse in 6th edition, primarily due to randomness.

 Redbeard wrote:
But, for years, the game has been a "heroic" wargame. The actions of the heros are supposed to matter, and the heroes carry power swords and get into hand-to-hand combat. For years now it has been possible to play an entirely hand-to-hand oriented army, and even have it make sense in the far future. Tyranids spawn more gaunts than you can shoot down. Orks mob you with numbers too. Daemons appear out of the warp, without having given you the opportunity to shoot them.

Flyers change that dynamic. It's no longer possible to play those armies (successfully) as they have no answer to flyers.

I find it funny you lumped Tyranids in there as having no answer to flyers. If that's you're opinion, you've played far too many Tyranid players who don't know a thing about their army.

Personally, I'm glad that my shooting armies are actually viable now instead of just being axe-bait for everyone and their assault squad...

Fandarel wrote:


Look at SW, DE or others and you see a that Problem. No real Anti-Flyer Options!

Now I agree currently with the space wolves part (unless you paid attention to the death from the skies book because there is a flying ace space wolf upgrade (I cannot quote it at this time)), but the razorwing is still mean. "Oh you can deep strike and fire dark lances at 36" at this other flyer? You hit on a 3+ and treat all armor as a 12? So your telling me you have a 66% to hit and a 50% chance to glance or crash any flyer in the game?" Well sir I call that a valid anti-flyer option.

Second edit: my best game so far in this edition was THE BIG GAME last weekend. The world wide Apoc game which was hosted at the US GW store, here in Memphis. There was flyer spam, but nobody cared. There were leman parking lots. Only a total of 2 dakka jets (mine) and 2 helldrakes (1 was mine also). But it has reinvigorated me toward this game. My night lords look forward to the next apoc incursion they face. Maybe trying small games is no fun especially as you claimed, falcon to have been hobbying since 3rd Ed. I Am Not Critcizing, just advocating a more fun use of all your hard work. Because the one truest statement I have seen on any of the fan websites was, "No one needs to be told how to have fun."

All the pre-existing flyers lost Deep Strike as of Death from the Skies.

Being an Elysian IG player I have currently 5 flyers and plan on getting four more...so I know alot of you are probably hating me right now . I will be honest I do not understand the flyer hate, in fact I love it because it brings a different aspect and some variety to both the IG codex and the game in general. And it being 40k I highly doubt that armies would be purely deployed as ground forces and slog it out with purely infantry, bikes/skimmers and tanks.

However with that being said there are some things that I do not like about this edition:
First and foremost the stupid and slowed prices. With prices being so high its no wonder I am shopping at forgeworld, whats a few bucks more for better quality models but even then, they are way to high....greedy b@$&@*%s

-The dumb new reserves rule where now only half your army can be deployed in reserve. Being an Airborne/Air Assault themed army I hate it that I have to leave some "sacrificial squads" out on the field until my flyers come in. Some people may disagree with that but thats just my personal opinion.

-Creating Codexs with models that do not exist...not really a bad thing since I have seen some amazing conversions but seriously, if your going to make rules for it you should have a model.

-This is probably unrelated but the beef with FW rules and models....dont care what anyone says, they are LEGAL (GW has said sorry cant give me that argument) and if they dont like it then I dont play them, thankfully everyone in my game store is chill with it besides the store owned (another greedy guy).

There are more but these are just a few that "grind my gears." Dont worry not forcing my opinion on everyone just contributing to the thread

With the new codexes we've ben gtting, things see to be taking a far more balanced approach to th game. However, I knew I needn't read any further when I saw the two following words:

Grey Knights.

It's not Corporate GW you need to worry about. It's Matt Ward. The trend of codexes "one-upping" each other really started with him, and each of his codexes (Necrons excluded, they were his good work. Funny how they're the only Xenos he's done...) seems to be trying to top the previous one he or someone else wrote. Space marines were starting to lag behind! Let's make them super-duper fast and remove lack of mobility as a weakness (Blood Angels)! Space Wolves ended up being tougher, now that couldn't be allowed to happen; hence came things like he Dreadknight, Paladins, an ENTIRE squad getting Instant Death attacks off of a SINGLE psychic roll on leadership 10 guys, not to mention the two-wound nightmares led by the fluff nightmare that is Draigo.

As for the rant on flyers: they can win big, or they can fall flat on their faces. Taking them is -not- a requirement as people seem to think, and even when something like a Heldrake or Storm Eagle (mine) shows up, people just use the old tactic of shooting the ever-living crap out of it until it goes down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:

-Creating Codexs with models that do not exist...not really a bad thing since I have seen some amazing conversions but seriously, if your going to make rules for it you should have a model.

-This is probably unrelated but the beef with FW rules and models....dont care what anyone says, they are LEGAL (GW has said sorry cant give me that argument) and if they dont like it then I dont play them, thankfully everyone in my game store is chill with it besides the store owned (another greedy guy).

QFT. The first one they'e gotten a LOT better about, to be honest; with Chaos, everything that was new (as little as it actually was in the grand scheme of things) was out at launch, as were the Dark Angels and Daemons models. If Tau follow that line of releases, then maybe GW's finally gotten their heads out of their asses over leaving "gaps" in their product lines that people like CHS can exploit. The second...I'm a Forgeworld fan myself (Storm Eagles! Though I was building an expanded Stormraven with the exact same wargear shortly before it was unveiled; FW ninja'd me on that one!), and I've run my own comparisons. With the exception of a few items (mostly Space Marine stuff, go figure), most 40k-approved Forgeworld stuff isn't broken-and is even overpriced points-wise, even!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Personally, I'm glad that my shooting armies are actually viable now instead of just being axe-bait for everyone and their assault squad...

As someone who started 40k with Tau in late 4th Edition:

 gmaleron wrote:
-The dumb new reserves rule where now only half your army can be deployed in reserve. Being an Airborne/Air Assault themed army I hate it that I have to leave some "sacrificial squads" out on the field until my flyers come in. Some people may disagree with that but thats just my personal opinion.

All reserves may be fun for the player, but they're terrible for the opponent. Not because they're good, but because it gives you nothing to do for a turn (or two if you happened to go first), which removed two whole turns of potential combat from the game.

Good riddance.

 gmaleron wrote:
-Creating Codexs with models that do not exist...not really a bad thing since I have seen some amazing conversions but seriously, if your going to make rules for it you should have a model.

Except they don't do this now outside of characters, with only a few older armies waiting for the odd model. They learned well from the Chapterhouse fiasco, at least on the 'release your gak' perspective.

 gmaleron wrote:
-This is probably unrelated but the beef with FW rules and models....dont care what anyone says, they are LEGAL (GW has said sorry cant give me that argument) and if they dont like it then I dont play them, thankfully everyone in my game store is chill with it besides the store owned (another greedy guy).

No argument, but this single sentence is going to absolutely kill this thread. So get any non related posts in while you can.

To be fair, Blood Angels have always been super-fast even before Matt Ward came onto the scene. Not everything is his fault.

gmaleron - you don't have to use sacrificial squads. I play Elysians too. My 'on field' units are usually Forward Sentries in cover and a Tauros Venator, or a squad from my Sisters army fielded as an allied detachment. You can get around the 50% reserves rule by making sure your platoons have at least one Dedicated valkyrie in there - this forces every squad in the platoon into Reserves, so they don't count towards the 50% maximum units in reserve.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Personally, I'm glad that my shooting armies are actually viable now instead of just being axe-bait for everyone and their assault squad...

Yes, those Razorbacks and Chimerae sure loved ripping people to shreds in CC in 5th edition...

What razorbacks and chimerae? I play air cav, necrons and Sisters.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
What razorbacks and chimerae? I play air cav, necrons and Sisters.

He's referring to the fact that 5th edition was dominated by shooting armies, particularly Space Marines of various stripes in Razorbacks and Guard in Chimera. You might not have played them, but a lot of people did. 5th edition was a shooting edition, so saying 6th edition is a 'nice change' because it's a shooters edition because other shooting armies got more viable is a bit odd.

OP, welcome to the reality of the current gaming world. As far as rules systems go, 40k is low level junk.

Also you should note that GW now openly call themself a miniatures company, not a games company. They are basically telling people they are in business to sell models, not rules. Read between the lines and you see that the rules are engineered to sell models.

GW knows exactly what its doing with the rules structure, price increases, and other silly crap thats all over this site. The only mistake they are making is thinking its a viable long term plan.

The good news is there are several systems out there that will allow you to use all your GW minis in a much better rule system.

Heres a couple that I know of right off the top of my head, though a search of this site and Google will lead you to more.

Warengine...the base rules for a OOP game called Shockforce. The game was great, the fluff and minis were pretty bad, so it never took off. It has a creation system that allows you to build your troops and weapons the way you want them. Heres a link to a free pdf of all the rules: http://web.archive.org/web/20090526223406/http://warengine.darktortoise.com/index.php?title=Main_Page


Theres also Tomorrows War, which uses the Force on Force rule system. I dont know much about it personally, but Ive seen others talking about it on the other games section on here. http://ambushalleygames.com/products/store/product/show/cid-66/name-tomorrows-war/category_pathway-0

 Mad4Minis wrote:


Warengine...the base rules for a OOP game called Shockforce. The game was great, the fluff and minis were pretty bad, so it never took off. It has a creation system that allows you to build your troops and weapons the way you want them. Heres a link to a free pdf of all the rules: http://web.archive.org/web/20090526223406/http://warengine.darktortoise.com/index.php?title=Main_Page


Theres also Tomorrows War, which uses the Force on Force rule system. I dont know much about it personally, but Ive seen others talking about it on the other games section on here. http://ambushalleygames.com/products/store/product/show/cid-66/name-tomorrows-war/category_pathway-0

Out of interest, how do you use WH40K points systems with those rules?

I have heard the April as the release date for the new Tau codex. If that's true, look at this release schedule!
CSM....October 2012
DA......Jan 2013
CD......March 2013
Tau.....April 2013
That would be 4 codex's released in 7 months time.
For a company that previously had a release record of 1-2 codex's a year, that's an incredible release schedule. If they keep this up, they will have every army updated within 2 years. That's staggering, as previously it was not unknown to be working with a codex 9 years old.

Form a competitive players standpoint, that's a golden age.

 labmouse42 wrote:

If they keep this up, they will have every army updated within 2 years. That's staggering, as previously it was not unknown to be working with a codex 9 years old.

Form a competitive players standpoint, that's a golden age.

I do not agree with this. It would be better for competitive players to have well-written and balanced codexes released less frequently than a glut of poorly written, unbalanced codexes released in rapid succession.

Of course, this assumes that GW designers could balance a codex if given more time, and I've yet to see any evidence that the current group could do that.

 Redbeard wrote:
I do not agree with this. It would be better for competitive players to have well-written and balanced codexes released less frequently than a glut of poorly written, unbalanced codexes released in rapid succession..

Even if they could do that (which they can not) you will wind up with 2-3 armies that are 'win' and a bunch of garbage armies.

Look at the the end life of any codex thats over 5 years old. Its usually garbage.
- Try running pure Eldar today. Without DE allies, eldar are pretty weak today.
- Tau today are pretty darn weak. This will likely change next month
- Remember Necrons at the end of 5th (before their new codex came out). They were laughable.
- Grey knights before their book came out? They went from 'bottom of the pack' to competitive.
- CSM was probably the best codex at the time of its 'end of life', and that was because of cheap FMCs and lash.

What this schedule will fix is someone stuck with a horribly outdated army that's never going to be updated in the time they play the hobby. This past Friday I saw a new player buying some Eldar models. Its an 8 year old codex. The kid is going to be at a huge disadvantage, and when learning the game it means he will likely get clobbered consistantly. If every codex was re-released every 2 years, then he would not be at as bad of a disadvantage.

It also means that in the competitive scene there are more varieties of armies. Instead of it being 'Play GK or go home' like the end of 5th, there is a greater chance of a variety of different armies.

I have only played 3 games and now I am wondering why I am doing bad at this tournament

I was winning until his guys came in from reserves

Why is my balanced list doing bad in a tournament full of min/max-ers?

I lost so I had no fun, if I won I expect both me and my opponent to have fun

I did not win GW = bad company

Am I being hypercritical? Yes but this is pretty much what OP is saying and complaining about. If in the last 9 months you have only played 3 games then it is not the new rules that pushed you away from the game. There must have been something else that pushed you away from the game before the rules were released. It sounds to me that the OP has been bored with 40k and these new games are new and exciting to him. This is not unreasonable and does not mean GW has failed as a company, it just means that after 15+ years the OP wants to try something different. Then as icing on the cake OP went to a tournament looking for fun. Yes tournaments can be fun but they are also infuriating because all of a sudden every player becomes cut throat and the games feel like they matter so much more. Though I do think complaining about someone taking a hyper competitive list to a tournament is kinda stupid. That is what is to be expected and is not some 6th edition phenomena.

But the general argument comes down to fliers Have they ruined 40k? As of right now, yes. Because not every army has reliable anti-air support. 40k is a game of checks and counters and if you do not have a counter for your enemies plan you are going to go down. But that can be said about almost every mechanic. If you don't have any anti-armor weapons those tanks are going to run right over you. If you don't have any AP 2 weapons those terminators are going to run right over you. The problem with fliers are that because they are new we do not have the proper counters for them yet. But GW is doing a great job of pumping out codices in this edition and so far they have all seemed fairly balanced which is nice because 5th edition was anything but balanced. But already with the few codices out so far we have seen flier spam on the decline. Once everyone has access to fliers and ways to get rid of fliers the whole flier issue will not really be a problem. But this is the cost of adding a new mechanic to the game while not updating all the armies. As for army competitiveness, I think now is the best we have seen it in a long time. Now you can take Tau or Tyranids to the table without being laughed at. There is no clear, worst army and any army played well can do well. Sure it is a lot harder to win with a older/weaker army but that has always been the case, not those old/weaker armies actually have a fighting chance.

 Furyou Miko wrote:


gmaleron - you don't have to use sacrificial squads. I play Elysians too. My 'on field' units are usually Forward Sentries in cover and a Tauros Venator, or a squad from my Sisters army fielded as an allied detachment. You can get around the 50% reserves rule by making sure your platoons have at least one Dedicated valkyrie in there - this forces every squad in the platoon into Reserves, so they don't count towards the 50% maximum units in reserve.

I see what your saying but you would still have to leave the squad on the table because of the "not having any models on the board for a game turn" rule wouldnt you?

Yeah, GW isn't what they used to be, I've been painting their miniatures since I was very young and it has been a large part of my life. It's truly a bummer how they've been lately

I have only one issue with 6th ed 40k;

'Assault Transport'.

I feel like limiting charges when exiting transports is lame. Overwatch, grenades and challenges can really help against mêlée already; the change to transports was a bit much.

And I'm primarily a shooty kinda guy...

How do Striking Scorpions and assault marines without jump-packs do their thing anymore? :I

I started in 5E as a disclaimer.

I really enjoy Sixth. And while GW does a lot of poor business practices that hurt the hobby, the pricing and brinigng out new models (and giving incentive to buy them) does keep them in business. If everyone could play their same armies for 25 years, the company would last past 10... There has to be a reason for growth. New models, new rules, etc. make that happen.

Flyer spam sucks. My first army was Space Wolves, so I was everyone's bane in 5E. I switched to Necrons at the end of 5E because I LOVED the models and the new fluff. I dabbled in daemons a bit, but didn't enjoy painting the models. I intend to get a SoB / GK Inquisition army rolling (8 sisters and an Exorcist, it's a start!!!).

Maybe after 25 years it's that you're ready to move on?

When going to tournaments quite a few people (or the ones who want to actually do well) take enough cheaper units/guns to completely table all flier lists. It's not incredibly hard and I don't think it breaks the game. Let the idiots who spend £500 on fliers do it, just laugh in their face when you annihilate them with your £30 worth of dark lances...

Rustgob wrote:
I have only one issue with 6th ed 40k;

'Assault Transport'.

I feel like limiting charges when exiting transports is lame. Overwatch, grenades and challenges can really help against mêlée already; the change to transports was a bit much.

And I'm primarily a shooty kinda guy...

How do Striking Scorpions and assault marines without jump-packs do their thing anymore? :I

Assault has changed, and likewise assault units have changed. Look at which transports are impacted by the change to 'assault transports;
- Rhinos/Razorbacks
- Wave Serpents
- Chimeras
- Night Scythes
- Devilfish
All other armies (orks, DE, etc) have transports that they can assault out of. Heck -- even the necrons can assault out of a ghost arc if they really want to assault.
Most of those transports are ones that you would never assault out of anyway. Really, what necron player is going to assault from a night scythe, or Tau rush out and assault from a devilfish? Sure, it might happen once in a blue moon, but its pretty darn rare.

Even in 5th edition, wave serpents were marginal assault vehicles at best. Generally you had to show your arse of the wave serpent to the enemy. Unless you were very close to the enemy unit, you could not disembark from the rear, run around the side of the transport and assault. Eldar units without fleet were even hit harder by this.

So the only units really hit by the change are those coming out of rhinos/razorbacks. The armies most heavily impacted by this are CSM, BA, and SoB (to a lesser extent SW, but they usually want to get assaulted and not assault)

So how big of an impact is this change? Well if your playing a list that relied upon the rhino assault rush its a big issue! If your playing a khorne bezerekers rhino assault army your going to be pissed -- you need to buy some land raiders. If you were playing a SoB list with DCAs, you need to ally in GK ones in a LR.
On the game as a whole though, its actually a fairly minor change. Of all the army lists you can bring today, very few are negatively impacted by the lack of ability to assault from a rhino.

gmaleron wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:


gmaleron - you don't have to use sacrificial squads. I play Elysians too. My 'on field' units are usually Forward Sentries in cover and a Tauros Venator, or a squad from my Sisters army fielded as an allied detachment. You can get around the 50% reserves rule by making sure your platoons have at least one Dedicated valkyrie in there - this forces every squad in the platoon into Reserves, so they don't count towards the 50% maximum units in reserve.

I see what your saying but you would still have to leave the squad on the table because of the "not having any models on the board for a game turn" rule wouldnt you?

You have to have them on the table, yes, but what I'm saying is that they don't have to be sacrificial. They're just a squad that were dropped in two minutes ahead of the rest of the army to deploy locator beacons to make sure the rest of the army arrives on target and deploy the heavier gear (like target relays). Use them tactically, not just as throw-aways to make the army legal.

 labmouse42 wrote:
On the game as a whole though, its actually a fairly minor change. Of all the army lists you can bring today, very few are negatively impacted by the lack of ability to assault from a rhino.

Yep, only Chaos Space Marines, Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Black Templars. 25% of the Codices (two of which are immensely popular) and every single MEQ Codex that's supposed to be meele-centric. No biggie.

labmouse42 wrote:
Look at the the end life of any codex thats over 5 years old. Its usually garbage.

That's because currently there's no larger ideal governing what balance is. It hasn't always been this way. When I started playing, between the end of 3rd and start of 4th, I played one of the older armies out there (at that time), orks. I won several tournaments with them, and got top-ten finishes in GTs with them (battle points, not overall). My friend Jon took Best General at Adepticon with the oldest codex in the game in 2006.

When I started playing competitively, around this time, there was no army that I'd write-off as something not to expect to see at a tournament, and I'd often go several events without playing against the same codex twice.

It's only been since the end of 4th/start of 5th (starting with the 5th Dark Angels and Chaos Marines design philosophy, which rapidly morphed into the mid-5th design philosophy, which then changed, yet again, to the 6th design philosophy) that the codexes have been quite this bad. Blatantly obvious stuff is either slipping through the cracks due to the rush to get everything out the door - or is simply intentionally poorly balanced.

Some of the obvious flaws in the system are that any given codex can be skipped for an entire version of the game, like Eldar, Tau and Orks were skipped during 5th ed, and Dark Eldar and Necrons skipped during 4th. Orks came out of that okay, Eldar & Tau, as you mention, really didn't.

What this schedule will fix is someone stuck with a horribly outdated army that's never going to be updated in the time they play the hobby. This past Friday I saw a new player buying some Eldar models. Its an 8 year old codex. The kid is going to be at a huge disadvantage, and when learning the game it means he will likely get clobbered consistantly.

Exactly. This kid is also likely to quit the game, unless the army is redone before he gets frustrated, so this cyclical design approach is not good for recruiting long-term customers. If someone picks the wrong army to start with, they're not going to enjoy the experience. It's probably good for short-term churn&burn sales though.

If every codex was re-released every 2 years, then he would not be at as bad of a disadvantage.

Well, possibly. He could have the bad luck of getting an update that also sucked, or that took the handful of models that he discovered that did work, and turned them into the chaff, necessitating a wholescale repurchase of the army he already figured out. Every two years...

It also means that in the competitive scene there are more varieties of armies. Instead of it being 'Play GK or go home' like the end of 5th, there is a greater chance of a variety of different armies.

See, here I disagree in your analysis. Like I said, I've never seen as much variety in the scene as I did in 2005-2007. Back when Andy Chambers was the head design guy, the codexes lasted, you could pick one based on what fluff or play style you liked, and be good to go. Since Jervis, and then Kelly&Ward became 'the guys', it's been a revolving door of what's the more recent poorly balanced book, and how do we exploit it. I don't believe that a faster release cycle is going to fix this, I believe that a faster release cycle is going to compound the mess. Maybe you'll see more variety, but only because people can't prep an entire army each month to take advantage of the newest release. And I think we'll see even more mistakes slip through the cracks.

To me, balance isn't something you achieve by adding more random tables to a game, it's something that has to be planned for and developed as a cohesive whole. And we're not seeing that.

Basically your opponent had a load of points in reserve and you underestimated them and you lost. 25 years of experience and you can't adapt to to new rules well they do say old dogs can't learn new tricks. Flyers are not hard to take down they can't score they often fly off the bored they often turn up late or not at all. They have poor armour,

You took the new jet fighter which although is described as a fighter jet its only real use is anti infantry and its way over costed no one uses them and I play at warhammer world week in week out.

Complaining about price structure is ignorant and silly. Although I don't expect everyone to understand economics and a company business model. A simple explanation is inflation, in the uk inflation is approx 4.5% last time I looked. expecting a company not to raise there prices by this much every year is stupid or over even over a couple in one chunk. people still need paying believe it or not to pay their bills etc. finally a business has one objective; profit the investment companies which have a majority shareholding don't care what the fanatic player thinks they care about the mass market.

Saying that if you don't take fliers you will loose is the bit that makes me most disappointed I am really surprised that a player with your experience would say that. I don't own one I win the majority of my games winning about 4/5 .

Chaos do not need the dragon to kick arse at all there not even that great wow one flamer out manoeuvre it, there is so many weapons that can kill flyers with out sky fire.

Chaos bikes mark of nurgle with meltas cheap and insane

Chaos lord on juganaught axe of blind fury sigil

Plague marines still awesome

T5 terminators with good load out choices

Forge fiend 8 st 8 shots

There is so many good options in that book and you complain about a crappy dragon

kelewan wrote:
Basically your opponent had a load of points in reserve and you underestimated them and you lost. 25 years of experience and you can't adapt to to new rules well they do say old dogs can't learn new tricks. Flyers are not hard to take down they can't score they often fly off the bored they often turn up late or not at all. They have poor armour,

You took the new jet fighter which although is described as a fighter jet its only real use is anti infantry and its way over costed no one uses them and I play at warhammer world week in week out.

Complaining about price structure is ignorant and silly. Although I don't expect everyone to understand economics and a company business model. A simple explanation is inflation, in the uk inflation is approx 4.5% last time I looked. expecting a company not to raise there prices by this much every year is stupid or over even over a couple in one chunk. people still need paying believe it or not to pay their bills etc. finally a business has one objective; profit the investment companies which have a majority shareholding don't care what the fanatic player thinks they care about the mass market.

Saying that if you don't take fliers you will loose is the bit that makes me most disappointed I am really surprised that a player with your experience would say that. I don't own one I win the majority of my games winning about 4/5 .

Chaos do not need the dragon to kick arse at all there not even that great wow one flamer out manoeuvre it, there is so many weapons that can kill flyers with out sky fire.

Chaos bikes mark of nurgle with meltas cheap and insane

Chaos lord on juganaught axe of blind fury sigil

Plague marines still awesome

T5 terminators with good load out choices

Forge fiend 8 st 8 shots

There is so many good options in that book and you complain about a crappy dragon

Don't forget the new Spawn! But the Heldrake IS still a valid choice, great for clearing objectives.

I would call it balanced has limited use

Spaz431 wrote:

Fandarel wrote:


Look at SW, DE or others and you see a that Problem. No real Anti-Flyer Options!

Now I agree currently with the space wolves part (unless you paid attention to the death from the skies book because there is a flying ace space wolf upgrade (I cannot quote it at this time)), but the razorwing is still mean. "Oh you can deep strike and fire dark lances at 36" at this other flyer? You hit on a 3+ and treat all armor as a 12? So your telling me you have a 66% to hit and a 50% chance to glance or crash any flyer in the game?" Well sir I call that a valid anti-flyer option.

Second edit: my best game so far in this edition was THE BIG GAME last weekend. The world wide Apoc game which was hosted at the US GW store, here in Memphis. There was flyer spam, but nobody cared. There were leman parking lots. Only a total of 2 dakka jets (mine) and 2 helldrakes (1 was mine also). But it has reinvigorated me toward this game. My night lords look forward to the next apoc incursion they face. Maybe trying small games is no fun especially as you claimed, falcon to have been hobbying since 3rd Ed. I Am Not Critcizing, just advocating a more fun use of all your hard work. Because the one truest statement I have seen on any of the fan websites was, "No one needs to be told how to have fun."

Can you PM me about the Space Wolf Ace upgrade (not looking for rules just seeing what its about) as i was not going to get the book.. but might now . I have not seen anything about this before.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
On the game as a whole though, its actually a fairly minor change. Of all the army lists you can bring today, very few are negatively impacted by the lack of ability to assault from a rhino.

Yep, only Chaos Space Marines, Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Black Templars. 25% of the Codices (two of which are immensely popular) and every single MEQ Codex that's supposed to be meele-centric. No biggie.

Don't be silly.
- Wolves don't care. They drop pod and stand in your face waiting to be assaulted.
- CSM plague marines don't care. They hop out and wait to be assaulted (blight gernades FTW). Only khorne bezerkers care.

So that leaves BA and BT.
BT is not very popular. Hell, even GW has removed it as an '40k army' from their website.
If your BA and want a rhino rush your out of luck. That's not of the majority of the armies. If you want to assault with BA, take jump packs or land raiders.
As I said, its a small impact on the game as a whole.

There is so many good options in that book and you complain about a crappy dragon

how many points do you normaly play ? If you take nurgle bikers you wont be able to fit the khorn lord in to it , you also wont be able to take pms and forgefiend may have str 8 small blast templates which have a 24" range and kills around 2 dudes per shot , but those templates cant snap fire and wont target any flyers.

I Am Not Critcizing, just advocating a more fun use of all your hard work. Because the one truest statement I have seen on any of the fan websites was, "No one needs to be told how to have fun."

good for you. Only her we have max 2-3 tables 4x4-6 size and never have any apo games. There is one GW shop in the capital and there are even 4 tables there , but 1 is always taken up by the store clerks painting new stuff , two have the starter WFB and w40k armies on them and the last one is loaded with hobbit . When they made the world wide apo event there , everyone was told to bring 1 squad of no more then 5 models . on that day 2 guys had fun . 1 who brough crisis suits and 2 commanders and the other one had abadon a jugger lord and 3 oblits .
So for me saying that the game is fun at 2k+ size means nothing . I want the game to work at 1500pts or even 1850. Like it did in 3ed 4th and 5th ed.

 Redbeard wrote:
[Exactly. This kid is also likely to quit the game, unless the army is redone before he gets frustrated, so this cyclical design approach is not good for recruiting long-term customers. If someone picks the wrong army to start with, they're not going to enjoy the experience. It's probably good for short-term churn&burn sales though.

There is a lot of discuss here, but my time is short, so I'm going to focus on this...

Ok, so lets take a look at the kid who is buying Eldar. Right now his SOL, as Eldar are close to bottom tier (allies withstanding). However, with the rapid releases he can expect a new book to come out in the next 6-12 months. That's not unreasonable for someone who is enjoying painting, etc.

Compared to the 2006 era, when he would have been told that his next book will be out in another 3-5 years. If you tell that to a 20 year old kid, it a huge time frame! That's not something people will wait around for.

As people have mentioned, the new books are fairly 'bland'. Thus far none of the books released are nearly as overbalanced as IG/SW/GK were. These are good signs for the game as a whole, as it suggests the balanced approach will be used for future books.

Sure, people might complain about 'balanced books' but thus far there have been no 'ZOMG" books released. Helldrakes are good, but they are not an auto-win. DA bolter banner LR crusaders are very tough, but not an auto-win. Thus far things are looking good for 6th.

In regards to one book being 'built to last'. That's not going to happen with new editions of the game being released. The Eldar codex is suffering because the rules have changed. You can't assault from wave serpents. They are not more vulnerable to being assaulted. The holo-field is much weaker when you have only 3 hull points, etc....
If you were to never change the rules, then you could have a codex 'built to last', but since they are tweaking the rules to 'improve' them, then codex's will age. You may agree or disagree that 6th is better than 5th or 4th, but that's a different thread

 labmouse42 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
On the game as a whole though, its actually a fairly minor change. Of all the army lists you can bring today, very few are negatively impacted by the lack of ability to assault from a rhino.

Yep, only Chaos Space Marines, Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Black Templars. 25% of the Codices (two of which are immensely popular) and every single MEQ Codex that's supposed to be meele-centric. No biggie.

Don't be silly.
- Wolves don't care. They drop pod and stand in your face waiting to be assaulted.
- CSM plague marines don't care. They hop out and wait to be assaulted (blight gernades FTW). Only khorne bezerkers care.

So that leaves BA and BT.
BT is not very popular. Hell, even GW has removed it as an '40k army' from their website.
If your BA and want a rhino rush your out of luck. That's not of the majority of the armies. If you want to assault with BA, take jump packs or land raiders.
As I said, its a small impact on the game as a whole.

Considering that you answered with a more eloquent version of (and, admittedly, much more polite) "just shoot the enemy, lol" I think it's pretty clear that you're missing the point I'm trying to make (or I'm failing to make it in a good way, or both): myself and a lot of other players don't want to have to take a (overwhelming) majority of our army as shooting units, we want to be able to play a melee-centric list and not be baby seals waiting for the clubbing. The Rhino nerf absolutely factors into this. Also, I dare say normal CSM would care, except for lacking ATSKNF (a pretty substantial minus, but bear with me) they're just as good as Grey Hunters in CC.

Furthermore, you didn't look very well. It's in the same place as every other loyalist Marine army bar Grey Knights were before they were updated.

I think the issue isn't just the Rhino nerfs though, so you're right on that, it's the fact that you have to be able to get across the board fast as well. For Marines, short of paying for Land Raiders, Rhinoes, Razorbacks and/or outflanking were the prime ways to do that, but now you can't assault from outflank and you're stuck standing around one turn after jumping out of a Rhino chassi. Add in all the other nerfs and it's getting more and more frustrating to get into close combat and it requires a heavier shooting to melee unit ratio shift to deal with stuff like fliers, which isn't what a lot of players want.

I sure know I could do with assaulting out of Rhinos for my Battle Conclaves and Repentia squads... As it is, they mostly end up chasing tailgates!

Edit: Chains tailgates? wtf Miko...

 labmouse42 wrote:

Ok, so lets take a look at the kid who is buying Eldar. Right now his SOL, as Eldar are close to bottom tier (allies withstanding). However, with the rapid releases he can expect a new book to come out in the next 6-12 months. That's not unreasonable for someone who is enjoying painting, etc.

Well, from what I've seen, most new players don't pick it up because they want to paint, they pick it up as a game. I base this on the number of unpainted armies that I see being played with at the shops, versus the number of painted ones. Also, if you're picking up models to paint, the rules are largely irrelevant. I haven't see Jen Haley or Natalia Melnik ever post in a rules thread. I know one GD painter who games regularly, but again, he's really not into what's good.

Anyhow, so, constraining the discussion to people who want to game and ignoring the idea that someone will be happy painting for six months (and sure, let's call it six months), do you think that the promise of a better book is enough to maintain someone's interest for six months in our society, where we demand instant gratification, and results? If you had bought a PC game and it was buggy (and, in terms of game design, an underpowered codex can be considered a bug), would waiting six months for a patch seem reasonable, or would you move on to something else?

Compared to the 2006 era, when he would have been told that his next book will be out in another 3-5 years. If you tell that to a 20 year old kid, it a huge time frame! That's not something people will wait around for.

Right, but neither is six months. But the other side of this comparison is that in the 2006 era, you didn't have to wait 3-5 years, because there wasn't this level of power difference between books. Like I said earlier, in 2006, I was playing an Ork codex published in 1999 and winning most of my games, and my friend was running DE from a codex published in 1998 and pulling Best Generals at GTs. Codexes of the same age now are Orks, Tau and Eldar, and they're the three you called out, above, as being notably week.

As people have mentioned, the new books are fairly 'bland'. Thus far none of the books released are nearly as overbalanced as IG/SW/GK were. These are good signs for the game as a whole, as it suggests the balanced approach will be used for future books.

Overbalanced? You mean overpowered. My issue isn't that the new books (and, indeed, 6th ed) is bland - though it does feel that way compared to the variety we had to work with in 2006 - it's that this "balanced" approach seems to be based on the idea that if they put enough really random crap in the game, sometimes you'll win and sometimes you'll lose, and therefore that's balance. And, in random crap, I don't just mean the tables you roll on, but also the types of missions, and number of archetypes. There's a much greater feeling of Rock-Paper-Scissors in 6th than I felt before.

My gaming group has noticed this in the number of real mismatch games we experience. Missions like "The Relic" really punish a footslogging force that goes second, while winning First Blood (often before your opponent has taken a turn at all) is the deciding factor in too many battles. I mean, really, if taking First Blood on turn 1 is going to win me the game, why even bother playing the rest of it out?

In regards to one book being 'built to last'. That's not going to happen with new editions of the game being released. The Eldar codex is suffering because the rules have changed. You can't assault from wave serpents. They are not more vulnerable to being assaulted. The holo-field is much weaker when you have only 3 hull points, etc....
If you were to never change the rules, then you could have a codex 'built to last', but since they are tweaking the rules to 'improve' them, then codex's will age. You may agree or disagree that 6th is better than 5th or 4th, but that's a different thread

Well, that's the other problem. They can't decide if they want to do iterative releases, as a progressive codex release schedule suggests, or re-writes, which is what the last couple of editions have been. So they try to do both, and do neither well.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Considering that you answered with a more eloquent version of (and, admittedly, much more polite) "just shoot the enemy, lol" I think it's pretty clear that you're missing the point I'm trying to make (or I'm failing to make it in a good way, or both): myself and a lot of other players don't want to have to take a (overwhelming) majority of our army as shooting units, we want to be able to play a melee-centric list and not be baby seals waiting for the clubbing. The Rhino nerf absolutely factors into this. Also, I dare say normal CSM would care, except for lacking ATSKNF (a pretty substantial minus, but bear with me) they're just as good as Grey Hunters in CC.

I agree with you that MEQ assault based armies are suffering.

Saying that its the "Assault Vehicle Nurf" as the culprit is not the real problem. In 5th edition, you would could not assault of a rhino if it moved. You were then forced to rush up, and hope that your opponent would stay within 14" of the rhino hatch. That's why it was commonly said 5th edition killed the rhino rush.

The problems with assault based MEQ today are the following
- Helldrake
- Fleet is less effective
- Increase in shooty armies

Look at all the successful assault based units in the game right now. They all have very similar traits -- they have a 12"+ move so are getting into assault quickly.
- Wraithspam
- CSM Spawn
- Seekers/Khorne Dogs
About the only MEQ loyalist squad I can think of that matches that criteria are twolf calvary. All the rest are suffering badly.
The real culprit is the helldrake. If its just as easy to kill MEQ as it is to kill GEQ, then it undervalues the points spent on MEQ armor. Why pay 14 points for a marine when a 5 point guardsman is just as durable? If you bring BA, the helldrakes will table your MEQ spam in 2-3 turns.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Furthermore, you didn't look very well. It's in the same place as every other loyalist Marine army bar Grey Knights were before they were updated.

Your missing the point. BA, SW, and GK all have their own listing on the left. BT are buried under C:SM. I would not be suprised if BT are merged into C:SM on the next C:SM codex release.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think the issue isn't just the Rhino nerfs though, so you're right on that, it's the fact that you have to be able to get across the board fast as well. For Marines, short of paying for Land Raiders, Rhinoes, Razorbacks and/or outflanking were the prime ways to do that, but now you can't assault from outflank and you're stuck standing around one turn after jumping out of a Rhino chassi. Add in all the other nerfs and it's getting more and more frustrating to get into close combat and it requires a heavier shooting to melee unit ratio shift to deal with stuff like fliers, which isn't what a lot of players want.

You could not outlfank and assault out of a rhino in 5th. The rhino had to move to come onto the board. You could walk on and assault, but your opponent had to be pretty close to the side for you to do that.

I've been playing since 1995 and I just don't agree with the OP. Fliers don't rule 6th. Over whelming shooting and deployment zone disruption does. Helldrake with bale flamer however, I've give you that, their a little over the top.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Saying that its the "Assault Vehicle Nurf" as the culprit is not the real problem. In 5th edition, you would could not assault of a rhino if it moved. You were then forced to rush up, and hope that your opponent would stay within 14" of the rhino hatch. That's why it was commonly said 5th edition killed the rhino rush.

Actually, that was true in 4th as well. 4th killed the Rhino rush, and the only vehicles that saw any real play in 4th were skimmers as a result. 5th toned down skimmers, but increased the survivability and decrease the cost on rhinos and chimeras, hence we saw a lot of them, but not the now overpriced skimmers.

6th goes a step further in nerfing assaulting and vehicles. Assault vehicles can only move 6" if you want to get out, and you can't assault out of a non-assault vehicle even if it didn't move.

From the 3rd ed days of rhino rushing, every subsequent edition has further nerfed the use of transports in assault armies.

I'm really just saying that even if you had the ass of a wave serpent to the enemy, sometimes that's a good thing. I'd rather be able to assault from a transport than need to footslog my units.

Better to take a dire avenger volley on the vehicle than on the unit, perhaps.

 Furyou Miko wrote:


You have to have them on the table, yes, but what I'm saying is that they don't have to be sacrificial. They're just a squad that were dropped in two minutes ahead of the rest of the army to deploy locator beacons to make sure the rest of the army arrives on target and deploy the heavier gear (like target relays). Use them tactically, not just as throw-aways to make the army legal.

Oh dont get me wrong I deploy them tactically (been using either camo cloak vets with snipers or a standard guard platoon) I ony said they are sacraficial because of the high number of bike armies and other very manuverable/fast lists at my store. No matter what they seem to get pasted by turn two...I really hate Ravenwing

 Redbeard wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Saying that its the "Assault Vehicle Nurf" as the culprit is not the real problem. In 5th edition, you would could not assault of a rhino if it moved. You were then forced to rush up, and hope that your opponent would stay within 14" of the rhino hatch. That's why it was commonly said 5th edition killed the rhino rush.

Actually, that was true in 4th as well. 4th killed the Rhino rush, and the only vehicles that saw any real play in 4th were skimmers as a result. 5th toned down skimmers, but increased the survivability and decrease the cost on rhinos and chimeras, hence we saw a lot of them, but not the now overpriced skimmers.

6th goes a step further in nerfing assaulting and vehicles. Assault vehicles can only move 6" if you want to get out, and you can't assault out of a non-assault vehicle even if it didn't move.

From the 3rd ed days of rhino rushing, every subsequent edition has further nerfed the use of transports in assault armies.

On the other hand, you can now assault much farther out of an Assault Vehicle.

What a lot of people forget: We didn't lose 6" of movement with the change to the disembarking rules, we lost 2" of movement with the change to the disembarking rules and gained a potential 6" of movement.

Now you can move a transport 6", then move out of it 6", then assault 2d6". Before, it was move a transport 12", move out of it 2" then assault d6". Why do I say d6"? Because most of the time the thing you're assaulting will be in cover and you'll be rolling for Difficult Terrain.

on 2d6 with allowed custom bases , which couldnt only be smaller then the original ones .
And you could do it out of every transport that was stationary.

At least bikes are valid models for purchase now, from a CSM player perspective. 5ed was not good for them. 6ed is great on bikes

 labmouse42 wrote:

Saying that its the "Assault Vehicle Nurf" as the culprit is not the real problem. In 5th edition, you would could not assault of a rhino if it moved. You were then forced to rush up, and hope that your opponent would stay within 14" of the rhino hatch. That's why it was commonly said 5th edition killed the rhino rush.

Which is why I said that it's part of the problem. And yes, you couldn't assault out of a moving Rhino, but you'd still be a whole turn faster when it actually mattered. Technically, you can reach the enemy lines faster in a Rhino now (hull points aside), but you can react to the enemy a whole turn faster with 5th ed rules than with 6th. Combined with the unreliability of random charges, overwatch, everyone spamming plasma instead of melta and, as you mentioned, new stuff like Baleflamers, assaulty MEQ, who were moderately fast but had T4 anda 3+ to fall back on, now just drop dead, because shooting is that much better. Focus fire doesn't help either.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Furthermore, you didn't look very well. It's in the same place as every other loyalist Marine army bar Grey Knights were before they were updated.

Your missing the point. BA, SW, and GK all have their own listing on the left. BT are buried under C:SM. I would not be suprised if BT are merged into C:SM on the next C:SM codex release.

Emphasis says it all.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think the issue isn't just the Rhino nerfs though, so you're right on that, it's the fact that you have to be able to get across the board fast as well. For Marines, short of paying for Land Raiders, Rhinoes, Razorbacks and/or outflanking were the prime ways to do that, but now you can't assault from outflank and you're stuck standing around one turn after jumping out of a Rhino chassi. Add in all the other nerfs and it's getting more and more frustrating to get into close combat and it requires a heavier shooting to melee unit ratio shift to deal with stuff like fliers, which isn't what a lot of players want.

You could not outlfank and assault out of a rhino in 5th. The rhino had to move to come onto the board. You could walk on and assault, but your opponent had to be pretty close to the side for you to do that.

Just being able to show up from reserves with an assault unit limits your opponent's deployment. There's a reason why people took Wolf Scouts all the time in 5th and don't in 6th.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

On the other hand, you can now assault much farther out of an Assault Vehicle.

What a lot of people forget: We didn't lose 6" of movement with the change to the disembarking rules, we lost 2" of movement with the change to the disembarking rules and gained a potential 6" of movement.

Now you can move a transport 6", then move out of it 6", then assault 2d6". Before, it was move a transport 12", move out of it 2" then assault d6". Why do I say d6"? Because most of the time the thing you're assaulting will be in cover and you'll be rolling for Difficult Terrain.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather trade the extra range potential for reliability. Because when that turns up and you stand around there looking foolish, it's kinda annoying.

The random charge distance thingie is the melee equivalent of shooty units having to test for (5th ed) Nightfighting every time they want to shoot (hey, there's a lot of smoke and fire covering the sight on a battlefield...).

So you get lucky to roll nightfight with Dark Eldar, are happy that your "superior" tactics are close to winning you the game at the end of turn 2. But your opponents reserves come and extend the game from near annihilation and he wins in turn five? Sounds like fun, sorry your "superior" tactics can't account for your opponent building and playing his army to counter whatever is thrown at him. Can't say how many times I've seen naked Necron warriors blast flyers right out of the air. I've played since RT too, thankfully, things change. I for one love flyers even when I'm not using them. Not sure how we got through all those earlier editions where armies are descending from space to a planets surface, but somehow forget to bring something without wheels to get them around.

 dracpanzer wrote:
So you get lucky to roll nightfight with Dark Eldar, are happy that your "superior" tactics are close to winning you the game at the end of turn 2. But your opponents reserves come and extend the game from near annihilation and he wins in turn five? Sounds like fun, sorry your "superior" tactics can't account for your opponent building and playing his army to counter whatever is thrown at him. Can't say how many times I've seen naked Necron warriors blast flyers right out of the air. I've played since RT too, thankfully, things change. I for one love flyers even when I'm not using them. Not sure how we got through all those earlier editions where armies are descending from space to a planets surface, but somehow forget to bring something without wheels to get them around.

nightfight first turn+ nightshields+ careful set up equates to a large portion of trolling, if played right it can devastate an opposing force sufficiently to ensure thay have an uphill struggle. I did this to guard once then 3 vendettas came on turn 2 and turned the game around, never again...

Flyers can dominate especially when you bring them on in the right position to strike, in a multiplayer game the weekend just gone my GK stormravens and my SW stormeagle turned up and screwed over a SM tank charge, 3 vindicators and a LR all turned to scrap, plus a dreadnought got smoked as well then theirs turned up (including 2 flamer drakes that really did bugger all, ) we shot at each other and eventually all the flyers were dead, though mine killed the most

40k has its ups and downs but games like the one mentioned above always warm the heart, transports are still highly useful (even if that means a GK strike squad or two sit in them for the whole game spraying psycannon shots out of the hatch ) assaults are now far more effective after the firepower has done its job, and you need to remove a squad from an objective asap- providing you have a unit that can do the job.

40k is better than it was, we've had far more laughs so far that in any other edition, though GW prices are hitting the area that ever so slightly reaks of 'too expensive' for those of us who have large collections, though partly we are edition proof

I'm a total newcomer to Wh40k but I really enjoy 6th ed and the fliers (I did play 15ish years ago with Chaos Space Marines whichever that edition was but is beside the point).

The game I played last night was why I'm really enjoying flyers. I played Orks (with a Dakajet) vs Dark Eldar (With Aegis line with quad and the DE Flyer). His flyer turned up top of turn two and bombed the hell out of my Ork boyz but thanks to my Big Mek quite a few survived. Then bottom of turn two my Ork flyer turned up and the quad gun opened fire and my Ork pilot (who is being enshrined my hall of fame) made four jink saves!! He then opened up his three twin linked shooter and anhilated a unit of 10 scourges (we were playing that mission where fast attack is extra VPs). His flyer then pivoted and started shooting at my Flyer and his quad gun opened up. Another 4 jink saves later and my flyer was down a hull point and a set of twin-linked shootas. The Ork flyer then opened up another fast attack choice and whitled them down before being shot down in th fourth turn and nearly crashing into a unit of warriors. Even in death he was trying to win me the game!!

I've also had a game where I had a dogfight with a valkyrie (ended badly) and when a strafuing run wiped the floor with imprial guard before a unit a heavy bolters shot him down.

I think the superiority of flyers is spot on. Think of the real world. Wasn't it stated that the allies would never have attempted the D-Day landings if they hadn't already won superiority of the skies? And the Nazis nearly turned the tide of the war when they unleashed their (superior) jet fighters. Air superiority has won all wars since the plane graced the field of battle.

 Cortez667 wrote:


One last point: The army that went UNDEAFETED at BAO 2013 did not contain a single flyer. And there were a metric TON of 2-3 dragon CSM lists there.

Does anyone have a link to these results, I was wondering how it went.

2nd- 3rd Edition was my golden age in 40k. no comment on fliers.