MagicJuggler wrote:
Creep implies subtlety. This is full-on codex sprinting.

Drake003 wrote:
Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.

So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.

Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.

 Infantryman wrote:
It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.

GW is a figurine company, not a games company.

M.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Creep implies subtlety. This is full-on codex sprinting.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.

GW is a figurine company, not a games company.

M.

That would explain why the GK and AM codexes were so strong.

Wait, no they aren't, they're distinctly weaker than the codexes that came before them.

GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.

the_scotsman wrote:
on the contrary, I find the AM codex to be the exception, rather than the rule (and even then, the units that were problematic in the codex were almost universally problematic in the index...and they saw nerfs in the codex.)

The stuff that's broken in 40k is almost universally either A) Forgeworld, or B ) in the indexes/interacting with the indexes.

Craftworlds, for instance, would be just fine, with maybe a couple builds using the Alaitoc trait being abusive, if it weren't for the existence of Ynnari and the fact that all the buffs and stratagems CWE get can be used with the broken Ynnari Word of the Pheonix reapers. You can say "OMG so many buffs!" all you like, but when its buffs to stuff like Falcons, which were and are still pretty bad, it's not a bad thing. If anything, a balance pass to SMs, CSMs, GK and Admech is needed analogous to what guard and eldar got.

So far, the only thing we've seen receive significant buffs in the codex having already been seen in the tournament was Dark Reapers, which are broken specifically because of their interaction with the Index Ynnari Word of the Pheonix power, letting them circumvent exactly what Ynnari are intended to be, a close range "high risk high reward" variant of Eldar. The Guard codex at worst kept things we'd seen in tournaments the same, at best nerfed them.

IMO, as soon as we see nerfs to Forgeworld Malefic Lords, Ynnari, Magnus, Arty carriages, etc, and codexes for the other Index factions, we can start looking at codex creep. Heck, if the CA rumors are true, they already are looking at codex creep, which would be awesome.

Breng77 wrote:

Drake003 wrote:
Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.

So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.

Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.

I think sometimes that is for the sake of ease. Maybe some other books are getting a model release with their codex which takes longer. I was actually surprised more Space Marine chapter books were not released earlier, largely they are a copy paste for the main book + their unique options. Much easier to put those out than entire other races.

I agree though largely there is no creep. If you look a tournament performances Chaos and Imperium armies (AM/SM) are doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Admech not so much, and they came after, Ynnari were doing well, but craftworld elder were not, so their faction got a buff, it remains to be seen if they will outshine the earlier books, but I highly doubt it. The same is true for nids.

A lot of what people seem to be reading as creep is "I got an early codex and there was not a huge amount of change from the index, and these newer books got a ton of buffs compared to the index, so codex creep is happening." Without considering that those later armies were pretty crap in their index, or the units that were buffed were not great.

Not saying there are no marine units that need buffing, but they performed well early in the edition, and continue to be solid.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
On a more serious note, the fact that so many tournament armies are Soups rather than complete armies could be a sign that many armies were not designed as coherent wholes, so much as individual groups of units in isolation with relatively little forethought to the "bigger picture." This isn't exactly new: 4th ed Codex Tyranids could easily have been called Codex: Carnifex because it was clear where most of the options and attention went. And this is a relatively benign example.

And of course, for every 7e Eldar, you have a Khorne Daemonkin (or Cadia: An AM Supplement, or Waaagh Ghazgkull, both which came after). For every 8e Guard, an 8e Grey Knights. It could easily be a mix of factors, from certain writers having "favorites" (don't get a Space Wolf fanboy to write Thousand Sons - Wrath of Magnus was a trainwreck, and by the same author of the relatively well-received Genestealer Cults codex), to marketing getting in the way (hence the axing of "no model" options in codexes).

MarkM wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.

This ^^

GW couldn't balance a see-saw never mind a complex game system.

the_scotsman wrote:

Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).

it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Drake003 wrote:
Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.

So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.

Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.

I think sometimes that is for the sake of ease. Maybe some other books are getting a model release with their codex which takes longer. I was actually surprised more Space Marine chapter books were not released earlier, largely they are a copy paste for the main book + their unique options. Much easier to put those out than entire other races.

I agree though largely there is no creep. If you look a tournament performances Chaos and Imperium armies (AM/SM) are doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Admech not so much, and they came after, Ynnari were doing well, but craftworld elder were not, so their faction got a buff, it remains to be seen if they will outshine the earlier books, but I highly doubt it. The same is true for nids.

A lot of what people seem to be reading as creep is "I got an early codex and there was not a huge amount of change from the index, and these newer books got a ton of buffs compared to the index, so codex creep is happening." Without considering that those later armies were pretty crap in their index, or the units that were buffed were not great.

Not saying there are no marine units that need buffing, but they performed well early in the edition, and continue to be solid.

Guard came before Eldar but after AdMech and Death Guard, and are the only book to receive a significant FAQ/Errata in the form of completely destroying one unit based upon its interactions with another unit--and the problematic unit in question(Conscripts) had already received a toning down from its Index to Codex iterations.

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).

it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.

I disagree on this. Cruddace purportedly did Guard and it still reeks of his touch. The lack of options for Sergeants(I mean FFS, they now make it so the chainsword that they shoved down our throat for two editions isn't even a base part of the profile) coupled with the general "bleh" of anything that wasn't Conscripts, Valhallans, or Commissars(apparently his "favorite representation of the Guard") made it a book that while it can be exceedingly powerful(like it could before!) also made it extremely "meh" when doing anything out of the ordinary.

If it truly had been a labor of love, we would have seen some serious shifts in things I feel. But since Cruddace was involved, it's "tides of bodies".

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Drake003 wrote:
Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.

So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.

Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.

I think sometimes that is for the sake of ease. Maybe some other books are getting a model release with their codex which takes longer. I was actually surprised more Space Marine chapter books were not released earlier, largely they are a copy paste for the main book + their unique options. Much easier to put those out than entire other races.

I agree though largely there is no creep. If you look a tournament performances Chaos and Imperium armies (AM/SM) are doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Admech not so much, and they came after, Ynnari were doing well, but craftworld elder were not, so their faction got a buff, it remains to be seen if they will outshine the earlier books, but I highly doubt it. The same is true for nids.

A lot of what people seem to be reading as creep is "I got an early codex and there was not a huge amount of change from the index, and these newer books got a ton of buffs compared to the index, so codex creep is happening." Without considering that those later armies were pretty crap in their index, or the units that were buffed were not great.

Not saying there are no marine units that need buffing, but they performed well early in the edition, and continue to be solid.

Guard came before Eldar but after AdMech and Death Guard, and are the only book to receive a significant FAQ/Errata in the form of completely destroying one unit based upon its interactions with another unit--and the problematic unit in question(Conscripts) had already received a toning down from its Index to Codex iterations.

Not sure what your point is specifically. That it is a newer book that got a ton of buffs to many units (and some nerfs to other units), rather than the SM or CSM dex (first 2) that had little change from their indices?

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).

it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.

I disagree on this. Cruddace purportedly did Guard and it still reeks of his touch. The lack of options for Sergeants(I mean FFS, they now make it so the chainsword that they shoved down our throat for two editions isn't even a base part of the profile) coupled with the general "bleh" of anything that wasn't Conscripts, Valhallans, or Commissars(apparently his "favorite representation of the Guard") made it a book that while it can be exceedingly powerful(like it could before!) also made it extremely "meh" when doing anything out of the ordinary.

If it truly had been a labor of love, we would have seen some serious shifts in things I feel. But since Cruddace was involved, it's "tides of bodies".

Cruddace wrote the 5e guard book and it was "tide of tanks" so I'm not really sure that your argument holds water. It is more of an issue of the edition favoring certain types of units.

Breng77 wrote:
Leafblower was essentially a tide of armored vehicles, so unless you are someone who thinks only Russes are tanks, it was tide of tanks.

5th ed guard was Mech veterans, Mantacores, Vendettas, hydras, colossus etc. Certainly not "tide of bodies" at the very least. I basically never saw blobs of infantry from guard in 5th.

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).

it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.

I disagree on this. Cruddace purportedly did Guard and it still reeks of his touch. The lack of options for Sergeants(I mean FFS, they now make it so the chainsword that they shoved down our throat for two editions isn't even a base part of the profile) coupled with the general "bleh" of anything that wasn't Conscripts, Valhallans, or Commissars(apparently his "favorite representation of the Guard") made it a book that while it can be exceedingly powerful(like it could before!) also made it extremely "meh" when doing anything out of the ordinary.

If it truly had been a labor of love, we would have seen some serious shifts in things I feel. But since Cruddace was involved, it's "tides of bodies".

Breng77 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.

GW is a figurine company, not a games company.

M.

That would explain why the GK and AM codexes were so strong.

Wait, no they aren't, they're distinctly weaker than the codexes that came before them.

GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.

Yup I've always said this GW has never done creep for dollars, it is always random.

the_scotsman wrote:

Yeah, they definitely didn't go in depth on anything like

-separate vehicle/infantry traits for almost all factions, only one single repeat trait we'd seen before in the 18" rapid fire out of Steel Legion

-Double-turret shot buff for Leman Russes, Obsec in Spearhead Detachments, Special tank orders

-A special order, stratagem, relic, and warlord trait for all regiments

-Reworks for all the turret weapons on Hellhound tank variants (both stats and points, possibly not the Bane Wolf, I haven't ever used that one but the other two saw significant changes)
-Basilisk extra AP buff
-Massive buffs and changes to Baneblade variants
-Move and fire buff to Valkyries

-New customizable ogryn bodyguard guy

yeah GW definitely didn't give a gak about anything but Conscripts and Heavy Weapon Squads and Infantry Squads, which got huge changes and buffs from Index to codex like

When will GW pay attention to tank, airborne, and mechanized guard army players?

Compare the number of actual stat/rule changes in the Guard and Nid codex to the new Eldar codex (disregarding the others since the theory is they were printed pre-game release so they didnt have time to make significant changes). A couple aspects got changed. Path of Command got a thing. Fire Prisms got the shoot twice rule.

Bharring wrote:
The tanks-double-shoot thing applies only to the Prism in the CWE book. CWE has other HS tanks it would then, in theory, also apply to.

I think they just knew they had to throw Prisms a bone, and didn't really think out if HS tanks in general should have it.

(And then threw Prisms two bones, but Spinners none.)

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Leafblower was essentially a tide of armored vehicles, so unless you are someone who thinks only Russes are tanks, it was tide of tanks.

5th ed guard was Mech veterans, Mantacores, Vendettas, hydras, colossus etc. Certainly not "tide of bodies" at the very least. I basically never saw blobs of infantry from guard in 5th.

Leafblower was a specific build referring to Vets in Vendettas and Vets in Chimeras both.

When someone says "Tide of Tanks", it's meaning literally that--a tide of tanks.

You can walk your statement back now if you want; you'd still be wrong. There were blobs of infantry from Guard as well as the Leafblower builds, mainly dealing with Chenkov and his "Send in the Next Wave"...y'know, the thing people cried about getting cut from the next book?

Bharring wrote:
Aren't russes more a chasis, with different weapon options?

The weapon options on a Fire Prisim is you can replace the stormbolter-like weapon with the CWE HB-like weapon.

Night Spinners, Firestorms, Fire Prisms, and Falcons all share one chasis.

(An actual quesiton about IG, I don't recall for sure)

 bullyboy wrote:
???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries (AM)?

Martel732 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries (AM)?

Eldar are OP.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Leafblower was a specific build referring to Vets in Vendettas and Vets in Chimeras both.

When someone says "Tide of Tanks", it's meaning literally that--a tide of tanks.

You can walk your statement back now if you want; you'd still be wrong. There were blobs of infantry from Guard as well as the Leafblower builds, mainly dealing with Chenkov and his "Send in the Next Wave"...y'know, the thing people cried about getting cut from the next book?

the_scotsman wrote:
I mean, OK, you want Lasguns on sergeants (Powerfists on regular sergeants annoys me too, they're only on Veteran Sergeants for some reason) but it's frankly laughable to say they didn't pay attention to army styles other than "wave of bodies" when out of all the vehicles in the codex, the ONLY ones that didn't get SOME kind of change index to codex (whether that be stat change, points change, or special Stratagem referring specifically to that vehicle) were:

-Regular Taurox
-Wyvern? I don't remember whether the Wyvern or the Hydra got the Aerial Spotter stratagem.

All the rest, every SINGLE one, got changed for the better. I'm not sure what it is with you and letting one thing completely ruin an entire release for you, but between this sergeant lasgun thing and the whole "I wish I didn't have to take a couple Enginseers" skitarii thing...I don't know what to tell you, man. We got regiment rules. They're really flavorful and in depth. the internal balance is pretty darn good, amazing by GW standards.

Bharring wrote:
I was surprised when people didn't complain (too much) about Index CWE.

There were still complaints, but not nearly as much.

Turned out, there was more sanity than I expected.

Martel732 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries (AM)?

Eldar are OP.

the_scotsman wrote:
on the contrary, I find the AM codex to be the exception, rather than the rule (and even then, the units that were problematic in the codex were almost universally problematic in the index...and they saw nerfs in the codex.)

The stuff that's broken in 40k is almost universally either A) Forgeworld, or B ) in the indexes/interacting with the indexes.

Craftworlds, for instance, would be just fine, with maybe a couple builds using the Alaitoc trait being abusive, if it weren't for the existence of Ynnari and the fact that all the buffs and stratagems CWE get can be used with the broken Ynnari Word of the Pheonix reapers. You can say "OMG so many buffs!" all you like, but when its buffs to stuff like Falcons, which were and are still pretty bad, it's not a bad thing. If anything, a balance pass to SMs, CSMs, GK and Admech is needed analogous to what guard and eldar got.

So far, the only thing we've seen receive significant buffs in the codex having already been seen in the tournament was Dark Reapers, which are broken specifically because of their interaction with the Index Ynnari Word of the Pheonix power, letting them circumvent exactly what Ynnari are intended to be, a close range "high risk high reward" variant of Eldar. The Guard codex at worst kept things we'd seen in tournaments the same, at best nerfed them.

IMO, as soon as we see nerfs to Forgeworld Malefic Lords, Ynnari, Magnus, Arty carriages, etc, and codexes for the other Index factions, we can start looking at codex creep. Heck, if the CA rumors are true, they already are looking at codex creep, which would be awesome.

Martel732 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries (AM)?

Eldar are OP.

 sennacherib wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries (AM)?

Eldar are OP.

I think the reason. More people are not.comaining is because we are conditioned to elder being OP. Its been their native state for two codex. Why should we be the least surprised that they have remained the same.

 Formosa wrote:
Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr

 Fafnir wrote:
If we're talking about pure efficiency, Shining Spears are still superior in most regards.

 Fafnir wrote:
Spectres put out about 1.40 S6/AP-3/D1 hits per turn without guide, around 2.39 S6/AP-1/D1 per turn with guide. Spectres can also put out 3.5 S5/AP-1/D1 hits per turn instead.

Spears put out 2 S6/AP-4/D2 and 2.67 S4/AP0/D1 hits per turn without guide, and around 2.67 S6/AP-4/D2 and 3.56 S4/AP0/D1 hits per turn with guide.

Spears also have a 4++ against shooting, further movement range, and can more effectively tie up units they don't kill in close combat.

You're being disingenuous. Spears put out significantly more damage. Unbuffed, Spears are doing more than twice as many wounds in a turn than Spectres against MEQ, and the comparison moves even further in the Spears' favour against multi-wound models. Spectres are solid units, but they're a pale comparison to the damage output that Spears are capable of.

 Kanluwen wrote:

AdMech for me wasn't just the Enginseers thing. It was the fact that all the flavor and feel of my Skitarii army was shitcanned in favor of everything being rolled into one book and then being called an idiot/fool for liking running Skitarii by themselves. If it was just the Enginseers or requiring an AdMech HQ, I would have been mostly okay. If it were just the removal of Doctrina Imperatives, the same thing likely would have been true of me being okay with it.

But that wasn't it. It was the fact that now I have to take an AdMech HQ and I'm saddled with just the Canticles side of things, while losing the ability to run a purely Skitarii army. I wouldn't tell people to take a Marine Captain with a Power Maul and Pistol, then just "pretend" he's a Chaplain if they'd lost the option for Chaplains. I think it was a HUGE misstep to not include a Skitarii HQ option or not to make Doctrina Imperatives an actual ability on Skitarii models.

All of that stuff rolled together is why I refuse to buy AdMech at this juncture and am waiting until there's a Skitarii HQ option, even if it's a single daggone character option, to bring them back.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Sorry to hear you're not happy with the state of your army. I'm curious as to what flavor your felt was lost though. I haven't really looked at their new book yet, but from what I've heard, the stuff we lost was...

* The non-outflanking scout. Which I never really got to work the way I wanted it to in 7th. It was flavorful, but it mostly boiled down to, "Can I sprint up to that next piece of cover turn 1, and if not, can I redeploy behind a wall to hide?"

*The doctrines. I know these were kind of "our thing," but they always felt a little... bland to me. It was nice to have, but it was basically a shoot/punch better/worse slider. The canticles m like a flashier sort of scientific technomagic, which seems a bit more flavorful to me. I assume you disagree?

* The ability to run all "skitarii" units, which admittedly is pretty lame. I play my harlequins more often than I play my skitarii, and I can imagine being quite perturbed if I was forced to field an autarch or something just to fill up an HQ slot. Turning our sargeants into HQs harlequin style would have made a lot of sense. However, I'm not sure the chaplain analogy is completely fair. In the marine scenario you've described, players have lost unit options. In our case, we've actually gained options (without doing ally shenanigans) but also been forced to fill an HQ slot. Do the rules for a techpriest not allow us to make a passably skitarii HQ? My rangers are generally lead by guys with arc mauls and pistol weapons. Surely we can make something comparable out of a tech priest. Or perhaps I'm mistaken?

Infantryman wrote:It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.

GW is a figurine company, not a games company.

M.

MagicJuggler wrote:On a more serious note, the fact that so many tournament armies are Soups rather than complete armies could be a sign that many armies were not designed as coherent wholes, so much as individual groups of units in isolation with relatively little forethought to the "bigger picture."

Davor wrote:

Infantryman wrote:It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.

GW is a figurine company, not a games company.

M.

Really? Someone is still sour on GW and still following them. Or maybe you didn't know that GW has released a few products now that are based on games. If GW was just a figurine company they wouldn't be offering these games with cheaper minis in them. That would mean GW is wasting money on the other parts than minis then.

MagicJuggler wrote:On a more serious note, the fact that so many tournament armies are Soups rather than complete armies could be a sign that many armies were not designed as coherent wholes, so much as individual groups of units in isolation with relatively little forethought to the "bigger picture."

I don't understand this. What is ment by soup? I have read this a few times referring to something in 8th edition and it makes no sense to me.

Wayniac wrote:
I think part of the issue is the game just breaks down at "competitive" play when you only care about optimal choices; half the options in a codex go away because there's something better. While you have solid codexes like Guard and Eldar, they get extreme when you only look at min/maxing and not the entire codex. I think a lot of these issues just aren't there if you are playing in a casual/narrative style where you might take Unit A just because you own/like Unit A, even if Unit B is better and spamming Unit B makes the army "competitive".

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Sorry to hear you're not happy with the state of your army. I'm curious as to what flavor your felt was lost though. I haven't really looked at their new book yet, but from what I've heard, the stuff we lost was...

* The non-outflanking scout. Which I never really got to work the way I wanted it to in 7th. It was flavorful, but it mostly boiled down to, "Can I sprint up to that next piece of cover turn 1, and if not, can I redeploy behind a wall to hide?"

Truthfully, this part was fine to lose. It should have been accompanied by vehicles or alternate deployment methods but c'est la vie.

*The doctrines. I know these were kind of "our thing," but they always felt a little... bland to me. It was nice to have, but it was basically a shoot/punch better/worse slider. The canticles m like a flashier sort of scientific technomagic, which seems a bit more flavorful to me. I assume you disagree?

This is the biggest part. The Skitarii aren't the Magi. They're the military arm of the Mechanicus. The "shoot/punch better/worse" thing was a great reflection of the fact that even though they have arcane weaponry...they're still ground troops. They're trained/programmed to be military units and were introduced to us with no HQ to represent the fact that the Tech-Priest commanding their forces/operating logistics for them was too valuable to potentially lose in combat so was kept in orbit to uplink data to the forces.

They were not disposable corpses with weapons(Servitors) or flocks of Zealots relying on their faith and tech that can potentially kill them(Electro-Priests) or relics of a lost age of technology regarded as walking divine symbols that are shepherded into battle by a priest(Kastelans) and were ultimately led into battle by a priest initiated deep into the mysteries of the Cult(Tech-Priest Dominus).

The fact that now they're required to have an HQ in and of itself isn't an issue. It's the hamfisted way that it was done and how not even a year or two ago it was "too dangerous" for Skitarii to be accompanied by their Priests, instead being led by a specially chosen Alpha or Princeps within the units on the field or in extreme cases by a Cohort Commander who commands the forces with no outside input from a Priest.
It's the hamfisted way that they're now forced to use the "zealot" side of things for special rules instead of having their own special rules remaining in play for the Skitarii side of things. Remember that they separated Canticles and Doctrina Imperatives because DI was a "static" benefit that would affect your Skitarii no matter the number of units you had on the field while Canticles got better and better based upon the number of models you had in play.

* The ability to run all "skitarii" units, which admittedly is pretty lame. I play my harlequins more often than I play my skitarii, and I can imagine being quite perturbed if I was forced to field an autarch or something just to fill up an HQ slot. Turning our sargeants into HQs harlequin style would have made a lot of sense. However, I'm not sure the chaplain analogy is completely fair. In the marine scenario you've described, players have lost unit options. In our case, we've actually gained options (without doing ally shenanigans) but also been forced to fill an HQ slot. Do the rules for a techpriest not allow us to make a passably skitarii HQ? My rangers are generally lead by guys with arc mauls and pistol weapons. Surely we can make something comparable out of a tech priest. Or perhaps I'm mistaken?

That's the reason I made the comparison I did. A Skitarii Warlord, as fielded in 7th edition, was a guy who could have exactly the same as any other member of his squad. He had Doctrina Imperatives, he could tote a Galvanic Rifle or Rad-Carbine, etc.

Can an Enginseer do any of that? No.
Chaplains have a unique ability and unique wargear. A Captain doesn't have the ability or the wargear, but you can make a "close enough" and call it a day...but it's not the same thing as fielding a Chaplain.

 Zid wrote:

Soup armies consist of detachments from various codices and indexes to make it competitive. What hes saying is that the codexes felt like they weren't designed to cover threats from other armies, and so a single army needs to pick from various places to make it work on the table against any threat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Honestly there needs to be a Skitarii HQ. I'm mad I had to use as many Dominus models as I do.

The question is what the guy would do. I'm personally opting for a Leautenit role where units nearby reroll 1's to wound. I know it's a direct copy-paste but it would work.

 Zid wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think part of the issue is the game just breaks down at "competitive" play when you only care about optimal choices; half the options in a codex go away because there's something better. While you have solid codexes like Guard and Eldar, they get extreme when you only look at min/maxing and not the entire codex. I think a lot of these issues just aren't there if you are playing in a casual/narrative style where you might take Unit A just because you own/like Unit A, even if Unit B is better and spamming Unit B makes the army "competitive".

Definitely agree with this; it has always been this way. Honestly the FOC helped to dull this a bit because you couldn't fill a list with a million of the same unit. I mean, there still was spam, and min-maxing, but I think had they balanced the armies and options a bit better you would have had less of that. Now you can spam whatever you want

 Zid wrote:
I think the largest problem with balancing 40k in general is just that; new editions

Wayniac wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think part of the issue is the game just breaks down at "competitive" play when you only care about optimal choices; half the options in a codex go away because there's something better. While you have solid codexes like Guard and Eldar, they get extreme when you only look at min/maxing and not the entire codex. I think a lot of these issues just aren't there if you are playing in a casual/narrative style where you might take Unit A just because you own/like Unit A, even if Unit B is better and spamming Unit B makes the army "competitive".

Definitely agree with this; it has always been this way. Honestly the FOC helped to dull this a bit because you couldn't fill a list with a million of the same unit. I mean, there still was spam, and min-maxing, but I think had they balanced the armies and options a bit better you would have had less of that. Now you can spam whatever you want

Yeah. I kinda dislike the new detachments because they let you screw around; I get the point of them, but I think they should limit it so you have to completely fill out one detachment to take another (e.g. if you wanted a Battalion, you would have to take every slot allowed before you could add a second Detachment to your list), maybe excluding the Auxiliary Detachments (which on that note I think the superheavy one needs to cost -1 CP like all the others), and find some way to limit traits/tactics so you don't have things like taking a Mars detachment with Cawl and Kastelans and then a Stygies detachment with Dragoons, to maximize the benefits of both.

I also think that they have drifted from what they said CP would be in the previews; they said it would be a reward for playing "fluff" armies but all it's turned into is who can spam the most point-effective unit to take the most detachments to get the most CP to spend on stratagems.

MagicJuggler wrote:

 Zid wrote:
I think the largest problem with balancing 40k in general is just that; new editions

Strong agreement. 4th to 5th transformed Rhinos from deathtraps to annoyingly resilient metal boxes, to redundant in 6th to usable in 7th to pointless in 8th, all due to core rule changes!

5th removed Ordnance Penetrating Hits, made it so only Troops score (even in a dedicated transport), and lowered the vehicle damage chart so glances didn't autokill.

6th added Hull Points, and made it so vehicles couldn't score, even if carrying troops. It also removed the ability to assault from stationary rides.

7th allowed for universal scoring, while lowering vehicle damage some.

Then 8th shifted the rules around, removing Fire Points altogether, upping the cost of Rhinos, and making it so you can only disembark from static vehicles, effectively reducing their "mobility" advantage. In fact, with Orders, it's possible for Guardsmen to outrun their own Chimeras!

Thus, while in 7th you could make the case for a Chimera versus a Taurox, a Rhino versus a Razorback, in 8th, it's a no-contest.

There are plenty of cases of units being screwed by rules updates. Dark Eldar lost a lot of their oomph from 5th to 6th, Killa Kans went from powerful in 5th to near-useless in 6th...And GW arguably adjusts and rebalances points based off the previous edition!

 Zid wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think part of the issue is the game just breaks down at "competitive" play when you only care about optimal choices; half the options in a codex go away because there's something better. While you have solid codexes like Guard and Eldar, they get extreme when you only look at min/maxing and not the entire codex. I think a lot of these issues just aren't there if you are playing in a casual/narrative style where you might take Unit A just because you own/like Unit A, even if Unit B is better and spamming Unit B makes the army "competitive".

Definitely agree with this; it has always been this way. Honestly the FOC helped to dull this a bit because you couldn't fill a list with a million of the same unit. I mean, there still was spam, and min-maxing, but I think had they balanced the armies and options a bit better you would have had less of that. Now you can spam whatever you want

Yeah. I kinda dislike the new detachments because they let you screw around; I get the point of them, but I think they should limit it so you have to completely fill out one detachment to take another (e.g. if you wanted a Battalion, you would have to take every slot allowed before you could add a second Detachment to your list), maybe excluding the Auxiliary Detachments (which on that note I think the superheavy one needs to cost -1 CP like all the others), and find some way to limit traits/tactics so you don't have things like taking a Mars detachment with Cawl and Kastelans and then a Stygies detachment with Dragoons, to maximize the benefits of both.

I also think that they have drifted from what they said CP would be in the previews; they said it would be a reward for playing "fluff" armies but all it's turned into is who can spam the most point-effective unit to take the most detachments to get the most CP to spend on stratagems.

I actually like that -1 CP idea. Right now theres no other cost (other than points) for Lords of War. I also agree that filling out detachments should be a prerequisite. Aux attachments were made so you can tack in a little host of other armies, which is neat and all, but if your going to do that you open yourself to all sorts of rules abuse.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Zid wrote:
I think the largest problem with balancing 40k in general is just that; new editions

Then 8th shifted the rules around, removing Fire Points altogether, upping the cost of Rhinos, and making it so you can only disembark from static vehicles, effectively reducing their "mobility" advantage. In fact, with Orders, it's possible for Guardsmen to outrun their own Chimeras!

 Kanluwen wrote:
Cool, you want a penalized LoW Auxiliary?

Then put a 0-2 LoW option in the Brigade, Battalion, Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider Detachments. As it stands your options for a LoW are:
Supreme Command Detachment (3-5 HQs, 0-1 Elite, 0-1 LoW), Super-Heavy Detachment (3-5 LoW), and Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment(1 LoW).
You don't want that?
Remove the 0-2 Flyers from everything else and make it so the Air Wing Detachment and a Flyer Auxiliary Detachment are the only ways to get them.

There's a reason why the Lord of War Auxiliary has no detriment to your Command Points. It is one of two ways to field a LoW without having to bring a Supreme Command Detachment.
You can field Flyers easier than LoW at this juncture.

ryzouken wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr

Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?

These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.

But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.

Wayniac wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Cool, you want a penalized LoW Auxiliary?

Then put a 0-2 LoW option in the Brigade, Battalion, Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider Detachments. As it stands your options for a LoW are:
Supreme Command Detachment (3-5 HQs, 0-1 Elite, 0-1 LoW), Super-Heavy Detachment (3-5 LoW), and Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment(1 LoW).
You don't want that?
Remove the 0-2 Flyers from everything else and make it so the Air Wing Detachment and a Flyer Auxiliary Detachment are the only ways to get them.

There's a reason why the Lord of War Auxiliary has no detriment to your Command Points. It is one of two ways to field a LoW without having to bring a Supreme Command Detachment.
You can field Flyers easier than LoW at this juncture.

Good, flyers should be fielded easier than LOW. If you want a LOW, lose 1 command point to do it just like any other "I want to add 1 of X without having to add anything else" detachment. Why should LOW alone be "free" other than points, while if I want to add a 4th heavy support to a Battalion or whatnot I have to lose a CP to do it?

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
A Supreme Command Detachment gives you a CP, and allows the use of 3 HQ Choices. For Guard, that costs a whooping 90 points, and provides 3 models you'd likely want to use anyway. In fact for almost every army the HQ 'Tax' on fielding a Lord of War, are units you'd very likely want to bring.

While a little off topic I take huge issue with this editions desire to ram HQ choices down our throats as a mandatory tax on everything. A Space Marine Captain is supposed to be in charge of 100 [Or 100+ these days] Space Marines, not the 30 odd you seem to need him for these days. Having half a dozen company commanders overseeing a Platoon is equally bizzare, or these small swarms walking around with four or five Hive Tyrants.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Not to mention the guy talked about Lias being OP when in the fact the regular Drop Pod is SO bad you don't take it anyway.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Not to mention the guy talked about Lias being OP when in the fact the regular Drop Pod is SO bad you don't take it anyway.

 Formosa wrote:

ryzouken wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr

Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?

These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.

But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.

Soooo you make a sweeping statement that all forge world is op, provide a couple of admittedly better units, but does that mean all fw is op?

Nope is the answer.

Sicarion venetor, powerful but costs a lot, not op, chaos one is objectively worse, not op.

Doreto dread, pretty good, but costs a lot, rifleman can do a similar job for a lot less, chaos version is better but still costs a lot, not op.

Spartan is not op due to being a lord of war now and this limited in number, oh and costs a hell of lot.

Lolviathans are hella expensive and pretty good, but it's a choice between one of these or 3 standard dread (give or take), situational as to which I'd prefer but not op due to high cost and almost no deployment method anymore.

Comtemptors are solid, but dum dum duuuum, cost a lot of points (relatively), but still the normal dread is better (doesn't degrade).

So yes I contest your sweeping statements that fw is all op, but not that some is defo op, same as regular gw.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Not to mention the guy talked about Lias being OP when in the fact the regular Drop Pod is SO bad you don't take it anyway.

To be fair, Lias has always been a stand-out character...I wonder if it's just because most non Ultramarine characters are just awful?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

ryzouken wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr

Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?

These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.

But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.

Soooo you make a sweeping statement that all forge world is op, provide a couple of admittedly better units, but does that mean all fw is op?

Nope is the answer.

Sicarion venetor, powerful but costs a lot, not op, chaos one is objectively worse, not op.

Doreto dread, pretty good, but costs a lot, rifleman can do a similar job for a lot less, chaos version is better but still costs a lot, not op.

Spartan is not op due to being a lord of war now and this limited in number, oh and costs a hell of lot.

Lolviathans are hella expensive and pretty good, but it's a choice between one of these or 3 standard dread (give or take), situational as to which I'd prefer but not op due to high cost and almost no deployment method anymore.

Comtemptors are solid, but dum dum duuuum, cost a lot of points (relatively), but still the normal dread is better (doesn't degrade).

So yes I contest your sweeping statements that fw is all op, but not that some is defo op, same as regular gw.

Yeah, it's pretty much "lets pick out a handful of units from FW's catalog, and ignore the entire rest of the FW line, and then pretend it's somehow worse than the main studio".

Looking over briefly just the IG stuff, I think people would be rather hard pressed to argue that the Atlas, Salamander (either kind), Hades, Centaur, Trojan, Tauros (again, both kinds), Armageddon pattern vehicles, Bombards, Cyclops, Griffon, Heavy Mortar, Leman Russ Annihilator, Malcador (any variant), Macharius (any variant), Rapiers, Sabres, Medusas, Destroyer Tank Hunters, Sentinel Power LIters, Thunderers, Stormblades, Tarantulas, CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT VEHICLES, Dominus Bombards, Gorgons, Minotaurs, Marauder Bombers, Praetors, Valdors, Avengers, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Vendettas, anything DKoK, etc are in any way broken or overpowered

Formosa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

ryzouken wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr

Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?

These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.

But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.

Soooo you make a sweeping statement that all forge world is op, provide a couple of admittedly better units, but does that mean all fw is op?

Nope is the answer.

Sicarion venetor, powerful but costs a lot, not op, chaos one is objectively worse, not op.

Doreto dread, pretty good, but costs a lot, rifleman can do a similar job for a lot less, chaos version is better but still costs a lot, not op.

Spartan is not op due to being a lord of war now and this limited in number, oh and costs a hell of lot.

Lolviathans are hella expensive and pretty good, but it's a choice between one of these or 3 standard dread (give or take), situational as to which I'd prefer but not op due to high cost and almost no deployment method anymore.

Comtemptors are solid, but dum dum duuuum, cost a lot of points (relatively), but still the normal dread is better (doesn't degrade).

So yes I contest your sweeping statements that fw is all op, but not that some is defo op, same as regular gw.

Yeah, it's pretty much "lets pick out a handful of units from FW's catalog, and ignore the entire rest of the FW line, and then pretend it's somehow worse than the main studio".

Looking over briefly just the IG stuff, I think people would be rather hard pressed to argue that the Atlas, Salamander (either kind), Hades, Centaur, Trojan, Tauros (again, both kinds), Armageddon pattern vehicles, Bombards, Cyclops, Griffon, Heavy Mortar, Leman Russ Annihilator, Malcador (any variant), Macharius (any variant), Rapiers, Sabres, Medusas, Destroyer Tank Hunters, Sentinel Power LIters, Thunderers, Stormblades, Tarantulas, CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT VEHICLES, Dominus Bombards, Gorgons, Minotaurs, Marauder Bombers, Praetors, Valdors, Avengers, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Vendettas, anything DKoK, etc are in any way broken or overpowered

Yep, it basically sounds like the age old BS propaganda "FW IS OP AND MUST THE BEE BANEED!!!!" lol

Kanluwen wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think part of the issue is the game just breaks down at "competitive" play when you only care about optimal choices; half the options in a codex go away because there's something better. While you have solid codexes like Guard and Eldar, they get extreme when you only look at min/maxing and not the entire codex. I think a lot of these issues just aren't there if you are playing in a casual/narrative style where you might take Unit A just because you own/like Unit A, even if Unit B is better and spamming Unit B makes the army "competitive".

Definitely agree with this; it has always been this way. Honestly the FOC helped to dull this a bit because you couldn't fill a list with a million of the same unit. I mean, there still was spam, and min-maxing, but I think had they balanced the armies and options a bit better you would have had less of that. Now you can spam whatever you want

Yeah. I kinda dislike the new detachments because they let you screw around; I get the point of them, but I think they should limit it so you have to completely fill out one detachment to take another (e.g. if you wanted a Battalion, you would have to take every slot allowed before you could add a second Detachment to your list), maybe excluding the Auxiliary Detachments (which on that note I think the superheavy one needs to cost -1 CP like all the others), and find some way to limit traits/tactics so you don't have things like taking a Mars detachment with Cawl and Kastelans and then a Stygies detachment with Dragoons, to maximize the benefits of both.

I also think that they have drifted from what they said CP would be in the previews; they said it would be a reward for playing "fluff" armies but all it's turned into is who can spam the most point-effective unit to take the most detachments to get the most CP to spend on stratagems.

I actually like that -1 CP idea. Right now theres no other cost (other than points) for Lords of War. I also agree that filling out detachments should be a prerequisite. Aux attachments were made so you can tack in a little host of other armies, which is neat and all, but if your going to do that you open yourself to all sorts of rules abuse.

Cool, you want a penalized LoW Auxiliary?

Then put a 0-2 LoW option in the Brigade, Battalion, Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider Detachments. As it stands your options for a LoW are:
Supreme Command Detachment (3-5 HQs, 0-1 Elite, 0-1 LoW), Super-Heavy Detachment (3-5 LoW), and Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment(1 LoW).
You don't want that?
Remove the 0-2 Flyers from everything else and make it so the Air Wing Detachment and a Flyer Auxiliary Detachment are the only ways to get them.

There's a reason why the Lord of War Auxiliary has no detriment to your Command Points. It is one of two ways to field a LoW without having to bring a Supreme Command Detachment.
You can field Flyers easier than LoW at this juncture.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It wasn't a complete rewrite every time though.

 Zid wrote:

Flyers have been part of the game since 5th and, honestly, during 5th they were just like any other vehicle other than the skimmer rules (which skimmer rules were bs...). Then 6th came along, made them actual fliers, which was cool and all, and they did some pretty unique things. But the rules were unwieldy. I think fliers should be more common than LoW because, lets be honest, a battalion of valk's would be more common than imperial knights stomping everywhere.

Essentially the game allows fielding super-heavies for no trade off. Which would be fine, but the addition of CP's kind of changes things. You should have to think before adding in a LoW instead of it being an auto include for many armies currently (Gulliman, Morty, Magnus....). A -1 CP isn't a lot, but its enough to make people think about what they build.

 Zid wrote:


No ones arguing that a lot of FW is fine, however, there are a few items that are legitimately broken;

Forgeworld models are made to be impressive and have fun with. They are excellent, excellent models, and I loved buying them in my old armies to have fun with. However, they aren't balanced properly.

We all know that 40k has a bit of pay to win in it, forgeworld exacerbates that tremendously; many players are unfamiliar with the dozens of units forgeworld has, and even fewer own models from FW. Even if the units were properly balanced, the knowledge difference between players creates a huge gap, and in wargames knowledge is power.

Wayniac wrote:
(Forgeworld being usually imbalanced is another issue, for everything that's fine you get garbage like Malefic Lords).

Kanluwen wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Flyers have been part of the game since 5th and, honestly, during 5th they were just like any other vehicle other than the skimmer rules (which skimmer rules were bs...). Then 6th came along, made them actual fliers, which was cool and all, and they did some pretty unique things. But the rules were unwieldy. I think fliers should be more common than LoW because, lets be honest, a battalion of valk's would be more common than imperial knights stomping everywhere.

Essentially the game allows fielding super-heavies for no trade off. Which would be fine, but the addition of CP's kind of changes things. You should have to think before adding in a LoW instead of it being an auto include for many armies currently (Gulliman, Morty, Magnus....). A -1 CP isn't a lot, but its enough to make people think about what they build.

Just so we're clear, Flyers were present before 5th. They were a FW only thing though...same as LoW were at the time.

So once again: why is one thing acceptable but the other isn't? Because you think that one would be more common?
There are entire Houses of Knights, with some sworn to the Mechanicus and some sworn to the Imperium and a third group that operate as individuals sworn to a specific task.
You're about as likely to run into an Imperial Knight, considering those circumstances, than you are "a battalion of Valkyries"--which are primarily earmarked for special Regiments or high ranking Imperial officials.

Hell there are regiments of Super-Heavy Tanks for the Imperial Guard...but rarely are they ever fielded en masse. They usually are (shock and gasp...) placed under the command of an Armoured Regiment or attached as part of its order of battle.

TLDR: -1 CP for a Superheavy is stupid when you can't place them into a normal FOC. It's a points heavy investment for something that usually can't claim Cover saves easily and in the case of the Primarchs is vulnerable to being singled out barring some gimmicks like the Deathshroud.

Vaktathi wrote:

 Zid wrote:


No ones arguing that a lot of FW is fine, however, there are a few items that are legitimately broken;

Sure, but not really any moreso or at any greater rate than main Studio stuff.

Forgeworld models are made to be impressive and have fun with. They are excellent, excellent models, and I loved buying them in my old armies to have fun with. However, they aren't balanced properly.

Less well than mainline studio stuff? I don't see that there's any data for that, most tournaments allow it and FW stuff isn't routinely dominating tables or required to win by any means, certainly wasn't the case in previous editions.

We all know that 40k has a bit of pay to win in it, forgeworld exacerbates that tremendously; many players are unfamiliar with the dozens of units forgeworld has, and even fewer own models from FW. Even if the units were properly balanced, the knowledge difference between players creates a huge gap, and in wargames knowledge is power.

In theory I can get that argument, but in practice I just can't lend it a lot of credence. The internet exists, and, like it or not, the FW rules stuff is just as accessible as anything else (legally or illegally) unless you're somehow unable to use the internet and can only ever buy stuff from a brick and mortar store, so are forums and discussion groups where people talk about them,etc. Furthermore, not everyone is familiar with everything from the main studio, I've had people flummoxed by Obliterators and Hellhounds and Wave Serpents before, relatively common mainline units. I just can't bring myself to be terribly sympathetic to the ignorance issue, and, looking at tournament results for both 7E and 8E, the pay2win stuff hasn't generally been in the FW court. Do they have a few stinkers? Yes. If you banned FW would the game be appreciably more balanced? Not really. In fact, in general, when the main studio writes rules for FW models, they usually make them dramatically more powerful.

Wayniac wrote:
(Forgeworld being usually imbalanced is another issue, for everything that's fine you get garbage like Malefic Lords).

Hrm, it's usually more "for every stinker like Malefic Lords, there's two dozen units that are just fine or underpowered". Even most of the IG stuff that people complain about, like Earthshaker platforms, aren't unreasonably costed next to their tracked counterparts (you save 21pts but are much easier to kill, are vulnerable to morale, lose a heavy weapon, and are immobile) but rather the issue is more of an inherent metagame alpha strike issue where if that goes off right everything else becomes irrelevant.

ryzouken wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr

Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?

These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.

But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.

tneva82 wrote:

ryzouken wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr

Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?

These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.

But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.

Then "conveniently" forget all the broken stuff codexes have. But yeah it's okay for codex to be broken but numerically lower amount of FW and it's all FW stuff is bad.

Howabout if you want to ban FW stuff for being OP I want to ban all codex stuff since codex also has broken stuff? Fair is fair. Anything that contains OP stuff needs to be flat out banned after all.

ERJAK wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

ryzouken wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr

Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?

These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.

But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.

Then "conveniently" forget all the broken stuff codexes have. But yeah it's okay for codex to be broken but numerically lower amount of FW and it's all FW stuff is bad.

Howabout if you want to ban FW stuff for being OP I want to ban all codex stuff since codex also has broken stuff? Fair is fair. Anything that contains OP stuff needs to be flat out banned after all.

This would be a fair point if you weren't so full of gak it was coming out of your ears. What broken stuff? What codex so far has been 'broken' in comparison to the indexes? Pretty much only AsMil right? And they got their most broken thing absolutely torn to bits in an FAQ. Everything else was just stuff from the index that didn't get nerfed (girlybro) or gimmick combos people flipped out about that actually kinda suck (infinte poxwalkers).

Meanwhile forgeworld have superchicken, malefic lords, and even the SoB repressors creating a pretty ridiculous power vacuum.

ERJAK wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

ryzouken wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr

Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?

These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.

But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.

Then "conveniently" forget all the broken stuff codexes have. But yeah it's okay for codex to be broken but numerically lower amount of FW and it's all FW stuff is bad.

Howabout if you want to ban FW stuff for being OP I want to ban all codex stuff since codex also has broken stuff? Fair is fair. Anything that contains OP stuff needs to be flat out banned after all.

This would be a fair point if you weren't so full of gak it was coming out of your ears. What broken stuff? What codex so far has been 'broken' in comparison to the indexes? Pretty much only AsMil right? And they got their most broken thing absolutely torn to bits in an FAQ. Everything else was just stuff from the index that didn't get nerfed (girlybro) or gimmick combos people flipped out about that actually kinda suck (infinte poxwalkers).

Meanwhile forgeworld have superchicken, malefic lords, and even the SoB repressors creating a pretty ridiculous power vacuum.

 Zid wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Flyers have been part of the game since 5th and, honestly, during 5th they were just like any other vehicle other than the skimmer rules (which skimmer rules were bs...). Then 6th came along, made them actual fliers, which was cool and all, and they did some pretty unique things. But the rules were unwieldy. I think fliers should be more common than LoW because, lets be honest, a battalion of valk's would be more common than imperial knights stomping everywhere.

Essentially the game allows fielding super-heavies for no trade off. Which would be fine, but the addition of CP's kind of changes things. You should have to think before adding in a LoW instead of it being an auto include for many armies currently (Gulliman, Morty, Magnus....). A -1 CP isn't a lot, but its enough to make people think about what they build.

Just so we're clear, Flyers were present before 5th. They were a FW only thing though...same as LoW were at the time.

So once again: why is one thing acceptable but the other isn't? Because you think that one would be more common?
There are entire Houses of Knights, with some sworn to the Mechanicus and some sworn to the Imperium and a third group that operate as individuals sworn to a specific task.
You're about as likely to run into an Imperial Knight, considering those circumstances, than you are "a battalion of Valkyries"--which are primarily earmarked for special Regiments or high ranking Imperial officials.

Hell there are regiments of Super-Heavy Tanks for the Imperial Guard...but rarely are they ever fielded en masse. They usually are (shock and gasp...) placed under the command of an Armoured Regiment or attached as part of its order of battle.

TLDR: -1 CP for a Superheavy is stupid when you can't place them into a normal FOC. It's a points heavy investment for something that usually can't claim Cover saves easily and in the case of the Primarchs is vulnerable to being singled out barring some gimmicks like the Deathshroud.

I can see your point. Honestly, I would have rather super-heavies have been a niche-funsies thing permanently. But I can see why people dislike them too. I mean they have become a normal part of the game, I just wish they weren't the linchpin in many typical archetypes you see; but then again, its been the same since forever. Some guy finds an army that is super hard to beat, and everyone copies it. I think its just pretty crappy that games involving LoW's boil down to; kill the lord, I win, don't kill the lord, I lose sorts of things.

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I mean, OK, you want Lasguns on sergeants (Powerfists on regular sergeants annoys me too, they're only on Veteran Sergeants for some reason) but it's frankly laughable to say they didn't pay attention to army styles other than "wave of bodies" when out of all the vehicles in the codex, the ONLY ones that didn't get SOME kind of change index to codex (whether that be stat change, points change, or special Stratagem referring specifically to that vehicle) were:

-Regular Taurox
-Wyvern? I don't remember whether the Wyvern or the Hydra got the Aerial Spotter stratagem.

Hydra, Manticore, and the Deathstrike didn't get access to Aerial Spotters but both the Wyvern and Basilisk both did.

If I'm going to be honest, I feel like the Hydra really should have gotten something to make it feel different to the other armies' anti-"Fly" keyword capabilities. I don't know what that something should be (whether it is being static BS4 versus both "Fly" and non-"Fly" keywords to represent the fact that it's supposedly just throwing boatloads of shells at the target or having more shots than it currently has), but it just feels exceedingly lackluster for an item described as throwing walls of flak up.

All the rest, every SINGLE one, got changed for the better. I'm not sure what it is with you and letting one thing completely ruin an entire release for you, but between this sergeant lasgun thing and the whole "I wish I didn't have to take a couple Enginseers" skitarii thing...I don't know what to tell you, man. We got regiment rules. They're really flavorful and in depth. the internal balance is pretty darn good, amazing by GW standards.

Truth be told, the Sergeant Lasgun thing is a pet peeve. It hasn't ruined my enjoyment but it does give me something to bring up when people talk about how the book feels "more customizable" than previous ones or things we'd like to have seen done differently. I've actually submitted it a few times for FAQs/Erratas in the hope that someone finally realizes that it's actually a thing that is possible thanks to the kit(which isn't actually doable with the new Laspistol and Frag Grenade loadout I might add, since both of those are the right hands of the model).
It's a pet peeve for me because of the fact that the other three armies I have/had(AdMech which are shelved until Fires of Cyraxus or the FW Cyraxus list gets released whichever comes first, Tau, and Marines/Deathwatch) have Sergeant/Sergeant equivalents rocking the same weapon as the rest of the squad while the one army I have which actually has long held that the weapons of an officer(pistol/sword) were not necessarily for the NCOs. There was a great little fluff bit in "Cadian Blood" where the Whiteshield(Conscripts by another name) leading the squad remarks (paraphrasing here) how he feels foolish waving a sword around like the Captain does, since he's "just" a sergeant equivalent.

AdMech for me wasn't just the Enginseers thing. It was the fact that all the flavor and feel of my Skitarii army was shitcanned in favor of everything being rolled into one book and then being called an idiot/fool for liking running Skitarii by themselves. If it was just the Enginseers or requiring an AdMech HQ, I would have been mostly okay. If it were just the removal of Doctrina Imperatives, the same thing likely would have been true of me being okay with it.

But that wasn't it. It was the fact that now I have to take an AdMech HQ and I'm saddled with just the Canticles side of things, while losing the ability to run a purely Skitarii army. I wouldn't tell people to take a Marine Captain with a Power Maul and Pistol, then just "pretend" he's a Chaplain if they'd lost the option for Chaplains. I think it was a HUGE misstep to not include a Skitarii HQ option or not to make Doctrina Imperatives an actual ability on Skitarii models.

All of that stuff rolled together is why I refuse to buy AdMech at this juncture and am waiting until there's a Skitarii HQ option, even if it's a single daggone character option, to bring them back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I was surprised when people didn't complain (too much) about Index CWE.

There were still complaints, but not nearly as much.

Turned out, there was more sanity than I expected.

They were still too busy complaining about Conscripts.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Flyers have been part of the game since 5th and, honestly, during 5th they were just like any other vehicle other than the skimmer rules (which skimmer rules were bs...). Then 6th came along, made them actual fliers, which was cool and all, and they did some pretty unique things. But the rules were unwieldy. I think fliers should be more common than LoW because, lets be honest, a battalion of valk's would be more common than imperial knights stomping everywhere.

Essentially the game allows fielding super-heavies for no trade off. Which would be fine, but the addition of CP's kind of changes things. You should have to think before adding in a LoW instead of it being an auto include for many armies currently (Gulliman, Morty, Magnus....). A -1 CP isn't a lot, but its enough to make people think about what they build.

Just so we're clear, Flyers were present before 5th. They were a FW only thing though...same as LoW were at the time.

So once again: why is one thing acceptable but the other isn't? Because you think that one would be more common?
There are entire Houses of Knights, with some sworn to the Mechanicus and some sworn to the Imperium and a third group that operate as individuals sworn to a specific task.
You're about as likely to run into an Imperial Knight, considering those circumstances, than you are "a battalion of Valkyries"--which are primarily earmarked for special Regiments or high ranking Imperial officials.

Hell there are regiments of Super-Heavy Tanks for the Imperial Guard...but rarely are they ever fielded en masse. They usually are (shock and gasp...) placed under the command of an Armoured Regiment or attached as part of its order of battle.

TLDR: -1 CP for a Superheavy is stupid when you can't place them into a normal FOC. It's a points heavy investment for something that usually can't claim Cover saves easily and in the case of the Primarchs is vulnerable to being singled out barring some gimmicks like the Deathshroud.

I can see your point. Honestly, I would have rather super-heavies have been a niche-funsies thing permanently. But I can see why people dislike them too. I mean they have become a normal part of the game, I just wish they weren't the linchpin in many typical archetypes you see; but then again, its been the same since forever. Some guy finds an army that is super hard to beat, and everyone copies it. I think its just pretty crappy that games involving LoW's boil down to; kill the lord, I win, don't kill the lord, I lose sorts of things.

Speaking for myself, until Lords of War differentiate between Superheavies and Characters...it's a pointless exercise to ask for there to be a penalty.

the_scotsman wrote:

Alright, then the only two vehicles in the codex that were not changed for the better were the Hydra (which is average-to-good depending on your regular opponents) and the Manticore (which is bordering on OP or is OP, depending on who you ask.) Everything else got some kind of rules/stats change, not even looking at points. The codex is more customizable than previous codexes not because it has more options in it, but because it has the same number of options but way, way, WAY more of them are viable choices and internally balanced against the rest of it. We're living in a world where people whine about BULLGRYNS on these forums.

You know, I would feel more for you about the removal of doctrina imperatives if they had been removed.They still exist, and they're actually a much better buff than they used to be. If you're willing to take three enginseers (and given that Enginseers run around with Guard regiments, I'm not sure how unfluffy it is to see them in a Skitarii army) you can take a whole Brigade detachment of just skitarii units and have enough command points to use both the Doctrina Imperatives stratagems every single turn if you want to. And it'll even be a pretty solid army - take it with Graia, Agripinaa, Stygies, or heck Metalica tactics depending on your composition and you've got a perfectly solid Skitarii army. Skitarii are among the few things that actually got solidly buffed with the new codex, points dropped on both skitarii infantry types, the Taser Lance got a buff from Ironstriders, and the new Doctrina stratagems are balls-awesome when used with Taser and Plasma weapons.

3 Enginseers, 6 units of Skitarii, 3 units of Infiltrators, 3 Dunecrawlers, 2 Balistarii and 1 big unit of Ironstriders with the Stygies tactics is a perfectly competitive army in 8th.

 BoomWolf wrote:
TBH, this is a bit your fault here.

The fact admech and skitiarri would become one was obvious, very obvious.
Heck, people complained on the fact they are not one army from the day they dropped.

 BoomWolf wrote:
TBH, this is a bit your fault here.

The fact admech and skitiarri would become one was obvious, very obvious.
Heck, people complained on the fact they are not one army from the day they dropped.

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Alright, then the only two vehicles in the codex that were not changed for the better were the Hydra (which is average-to-good depending on your regular opponents) and the Manticore (which is bordering on OP or is OP, depending on who you ask.) Everything else got some kind of rules/stats change, not even looking at points. The codex is more customizable than previous codexes not because it has more options in it, but because it has the same number of options but way, way, WAY more of them are viable choices and internally balanced against the rest of it. We're living in a world where people whine about BULLGRYNS on these forums.

That's a fair assessment I guess. I will say that there are still some "dud" options that really could have been avoided such as Special Weapon Squads. Why they still can't be full 6/6 Special Weapons, I will never understand.

You know, I would feel more for you about the removal of doctrina imperatives if they had been removed.They still exist, and they're actually a much better buff than they used to be. If you're willing to take three enginseers (and given that Enginseers run around with Guard regiments, I'm not sure how unfluffy it is to see them in a Skitarii army) you can take a whole Brigade detachment of just skitarii units and have enough command points to use both the Doctrina Imperatives stratagems every single turn if you want to. And it'll even be a pretty solid army - take it with Graia, Agripinaa, Stygies, or heck Metalica tactics depending on your composition and you've got a perfectly solid Skitarii army. Skitarii are among the few things that actually got solidly buffed with the new codex, points dropped on both skitarii infantry types, the Taser Lance got a buff from Ironstriders, and the new Doctrina stratagems are balls-awesome when used with Taser and Plasma weapons.

3 Enginseers, 6 units of Skitarii, 3 units of Infiltrators, 3 Dunecrawlers, 2 Balistarii and 1 big unit of Ironstriders with the Stygies tactics is a perfectly competitive army in 8th.

Competitive or not...it's still 3 Enginseers that I didn't have to take last edition.

I ran the Skitarii War Cohort for 7th or alternated it with a Skitarii Maniple Detachment and a Killclade Formation.
I never ran Sydonian Dragoons either. Just Ballistarii.

I think at this point we'll just both have to accept that our ideas differ. I wanted to be able to keep a purely Skitarii army with the Skitarii special rules and you don't see a problem with the fact that I now have to add models I didn't before and use rules I specifically went out of my way to avoid.

the_scotsman wrote:

I suppose we'll have to. To me, "convert or add three human-sized models to my army" is one of the single lowest bars I personally would have ever had to get under to make my army work in the new edition. I've already converted at least a dozen Harlequins, swapped the loadouts of half my Skyweavers, changed all my Autarchs to remove weapon options that no longer exist, and converted several Leman Russ tanks and metal vostroyans for the same reason.

I don't dispute the "My army doesn't play the same as it used to" portion, nor the "it would have been preferable if GW had included a character option for me" part. It's the "and there's nothing I can do to change the situation, therefore everything is ruined and I must shelve my 500+$ skitarii army until this gross injustice is corrected!" I do not see why you can't take a minute to calm down, put on your big boy pants, and convert a couple HQs to use as Enginseers and just call them skitarii commanders. You are not going to convince me that shelving an army that you probably spent hundreds of hours building and painting over having to add three models for the new edition is not the height of childish behavior.