With the most recent FAQ Ork Warbosses have lost the ability to ride bikes.
A stat-sheet that has a currently sold model just no longer exists, and not even in "legends" either.
While this isn't the first time a sold model no longer has rules, it is the first time since the "New Age of GW" and sets precedence for other models to be nonfunctional on the tabletop.
Corsairs? They never existed.
Ynnari? Ynno
Kroot? No one bought them anyway
Vespids? Last time I saw them was in dawn of war
Land Speeders? Snapped.
The frankly insulting part was the Warboss on Bike has rules in the most recent codex, had point changes in the latest CA but no longer exists because of an FAQ.
Meanwhile a certain army is getting Chaplains on Bikes.
FIrst the warboss forgot how to wear mega armor, then forgot how to ride a bike, next its going to forget how to hold its choppa, forget how to shoot, and lastly the warboss will forget it even exists...
not to mention our DE overlords forgot how to ride jet bikes, hover boards, etc etc. soon the eldar will forget how to ride jetbikes as well.
"only space marines get to have all the toys" -some gw exec, probably
EDIT
sadly gw has already had precedent for things like this, taking jump packs away from people but marines get to keep theirs on hq's. weapon options, etc etc. i dont think gw will stop until eventually 40k is just horus heresy all over again, nothing but marines with worse technology.
It's not even saying it's forever gone, just temporarily out of stock.
It's incredibly annoying that not only does GW have to keep giving excessive (and powerful) options to SM, but they have to actively kick down and take away options from other factions because Gork forbid that anyone remotely challenges the SM's dominance. It only serves to alienate the fanbase and give the unspoken message that GW don't give a fart about anyone except their cash cow.
His bike was needed to melt down for scrap to make the new Primaris bikers. Sorry. But really, it's your own fault for playing a NPC faction. I mean, what did you expect?
yukishiro1 wrote: His bike was needed to melt down for scrap to make the new Primaris bikers. Sorry. But really, it's your own fault for playing a NPC faction. I mean, what did you expect?
The sad thing is, I don't really care of SM get stuff.
It's just a ball buster when other armies are LOSING options they love while marines get a new model every other week (it feels like...)
If you want to play a bike army with characters, GW would like you to know that there is a very appealing range of miniatures that can help you do that. They're called Space Marines. Check it out on games-workshop.com to get yours today!
yukishiro1 wrote: His bike was needed to melt down for scrap to make the new Primaris bikers. Sorry. But really, it's your own fault for playing a NPC faction. I mean, what did you expect?
The sad thing is, I don't really care of SM get stuff.
It's just a ball buster when other armies are LOSING options they love while marines get a new model every other week (it feels like...)
I only care that SM get stuff because it clogs up the release pipeline for armies that desperately need redone or new models. It took them over a decade to finally give plastic Howling Banshees for Eldar. There's still a bunch of other aspects to go. Orks still don't have an official plastic model for the KFF Big Mek. Meanwhile SM get like 5 Primaris Lieutenant variants every year and a new SM Captain in some new armour.
The Warboss on Bike's points got removed in the FAQ of the new points. This has nothing to do with codex vs forgeworld, all the points for both are in the same document, from which the Warboss on Warbike just got squatted.
Eonfuzz wrote: With the most recent FAQ Ork Warbosses have lost the ability to ride bikes.
A stat-sheet that has a currently sold model just no longer exists, and not even in "legends" either.
While this isn't the first time a sold model no longer has rules, it is the first time since the "New Age of GW" and sets precedence for other models to be nonfunctional on the tabletop.
Corsairs? They never existed.
Ynnari? Ynno
Kroot? No one bought them anyway
Vespids? Last time I saw them was in dawn of war
Land Speeders? Snapped.
The frankly insulting part was the Warboss on Bike has rules in the most recent codex, had point changes in the latest CA but no longer exists because of an FAQ.
Meanwhile a certain army is getting Chaplains on Bikes.
Corsairs had 12 kits at one point in time. And Ynnari has all 3 of their models the other models are just the same units with a different trait like IH compare to IF.
And the Warboss on bike has no model, there is a FW named character but otherwise it was all kitbash. Sadly I hate that GW is doing that, but it is inline with other units that never had a model before.
What is the most odd to me is Honor guard has models and is still being sold but yet they are Legends.
Eonfuzz wrote: With the most recent FAQ Ork Warbosses have lost the ability to ride bikes.
A stat-sheet that has a currently sold model just no longer exists, and not even in "legends" either.
While this isn't the first time a sold model no longer has rules, it is the first time since the "New Age of GW" and sets precedence for other models to be nonfunctional on the tabletop.
Corsairs? They never existed.
Ynnari? Ynno
Kroot? No one bought them anyway
Vespids? Last time I saw them was in dawn of war
Land Speeders? Snapped.
The frankly insulting part was the Warboss on Bike has rules in the most recent codex, had point changes in the latest CA but no longer exists because of an FAQ.
Meanwhile a certain army is getting Chaplains on Bikes.
Corsairs had 12 kits at one point in time. And Ynnari has all 3 of their models the other models are just the same units with a different trait like IH compare to IF.
And the Warboss on bike has no model, there is a FW named character but otherwise it was all kitbash. Sadly I hate that GW is doing that, but it is inline with other units that never had a model before.
What is the most odd to me is Honor guard has models and is still being sold but yet they are Legends.
Eonfuzz wrote: With the most recent FAQ Ork Warbosses have lost the ability to ride bikes.
A stat-sheet that has a currently sold model just no longer exists, and not even in "legends" either.
While this isn't the first time a sold model no longer has rules, it is the first time since the "New Age of GW" and sets precedence for other models to be nonfunctional on the tabletop.
Corsairs? They never existed.
Ynnari? Ynno
Kroot? No one bought them anyway
Vespids? Last time I saw them was in dawn of war
Land Speeders? Snapped.
The frankly insulting part was the Warboss on Bike has rules in the most recent codex, had point changes in the latest CA but no longer exists because of an FAQ.
Meanwhile a certain army is getting Chaplains on Bikes.
Corsairs had 12 kits at one point in time. And Ynnari has all 3 of their models the other models are just the same units with a different trait like IH compare to IF.
And the Warboss on bike has no model, there is a FW named character but otherwise it was all kitbash. Sadly I hate that GW is doing that, but it is inline with other units that never had a model before.
What is the most odd to me is Honor guard has models and is still being sold but yet they are Legends.
Yes, and it's a killer model. I'd hate to see it go away from the table just to make way for those primaris.....things that gw has decided to give the BIKE keyword, despite not being bikes. Sometimes I think gw is biased against good looking models. Or at least the main studio is jealous of what fw sometimes achieves.
Biker HQs have always been my favorite, regardless of faction, and I hate to see them go
But alas this isn't the first time it's happened. I remember taking a DE Archon on jetbike in the old days, but when the 5th ed Codex dropped, no more jetbike. What was even more annoying is that the 7th ed Codex had a 2 page layout about an Archon who rose from a skilled Reaver and whose need for speed was unquenchable. Yet as soon as he became an Archon, he must have put his bike in the garage for good.
Just out of curiosity, in terms of "currently sold model with no datasheet", does this set much more of a precedent than not updating the entire Corsair book and all the 30k Mechanicum stuff at the start of 8e?
AnomanderRake wrote: Just out of curiosity, in terms of "currently sold model with no datasheet", does this set much more of a precedent than not updating the entire Corsair book and all the 30k Mechanicum stuff at the start of 8e?
Galef wrote: Biker HQs have always been my favorite, regardless of faction, and I hate to see them go
But alas this isn't the first time it's happened. I remember taking a DE Archon on jetbike in the old days, but when the 5th ed Codex dropped, no more jetbike. What was even more annoying is that the 7th ed Codex had a 2 page layout about an Archon who rose from a skilled Reaver and whose need for speed was unquenchable. Yet as soon as he became an Archon, he must have put his bike in the garage for good.
-
The Codex also mentions the Archon of the Dark Moon has wings, yet we can't have those either. Fluff from their own books apparently means nothing when it comes to rules.
Galef wrote: Biker HQs have always been my favorite, regardless of faction, and I hate to see them go
But alas this isn't the first time it's happened. I remember taking a DE Archon on jetbike in the old days, but when the 5th ed Codex dropped, no more jetbike. What was even more annoying is that the 7th ed Codex had a 2 page layout about an Archon who rose from a skilled Reaver and whose need for speed was unquenchable. Yet as soon as he became an Archon, he must have put his bike in the garage for good.
-
The Codex also mentions the Archon of the Dark Moon has wings, yet we can't have those either. Fluff from their own books apparently means nothing when it comes to rules.
Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.
Togusa wrote: Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.
They're actively taking things away from factions that aren't their chosen standard bearers, though, so it's not just the supply chain situation.
Eonfuzz wrote: Yeah sorry, my fault for expecting a $150+ purchase would be relevant for more than a few months. My bad.
Yeah, GWs tendency to keep everything super secret until the last moment has caused some pretty crappy moments like that. Once or twice I've bought a codex only to find the new one being released a few weeks later.
Oh of course. It lets them get those last few sales on something before tossing them. It's hardly a nice business practice but it makes sense from their point of view. The alternative is to cut production much, much earlier ahead of time and let the stocks run out months, possibly even a year before the new stock is brought in. Which would also lead to some grumpy customers and possibly more unsold stock.
Galef wrote: Biker HQs have always been my favorite, regardless of faction, and I hate to see them go
But alas this isn't the first time it's happened. I remember taking a DE Archon on jetbike in the old days, but when the 5th ed Codex dropped, no more jetbike. What was even more annoying is that the 7th ed Codex had a 2 page layout about an Archon who rose from a skilled Reaver and whose need for speed was unquenchable. Yet as soon as he became an Archon, he must have put his bike in the garage for good.
-
The Codex also mentions the Archon of the Dark Moon has wings, yet we can't have those either. Fluff from their own books apparently means nothing when it comes to rules.
Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.
have you seem how many different primaris LIEUTENANTS GW have made, just by themselves? There are at least 12 separate, new, plastic models for a single unit entry in the marine codex. Although some have actual names, I don't think those names translate to unique character profiles (they all use the same generic lieutenant entry(s)),
For comparison, non named character models in the 3 eldar armies combined equals 11: 3 DE, 7 CWE, 1 Harlie based on GW's webstore (and the fact that the warlock skyrunner and the farseer are the same box).
that's one HQ unit from the space marine book, which has a ridiculous number of HQ entries, having more examples to purchase than the HQ offerings of 3 entire armies.
So I don't really think it's a problem of design space at all....
Has anyone considered that it might show up in the Forge World index/codex/whatever book that is (supposedly, I'll believe it when I see it) coming out?
Because honestly it's more surprising that GW even included it in the mainline Ork codex in the first place given their seeming dislike of including anything Forge World in their main products.
Togusa wrote: Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.
They're actively taking things away from factions that aren't their chosen standard bearers, though, so it's not just the supply chain situation.
you act like Marines didn't lose a ton of biker HQs eaither. grow the feth up, and stop acting like Xenos are the only people who lose stuff to legends.
Togusa wrote: Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.
They're actively taking things away from factions that aren't their chosen standard bearers, though, so it's not just the supply chain situation.
you act like Marines didn't lose a ton of biker HQs eaither. grow the feth up, and stop acting like Xenos are the only people who lose stuff to legends.
GW forcing the steady replacement of old marines does not invalidate the loss of lore rich units and loadout options from other factions. They are all symptoms of GW's pants on head response to chapter house and their relentless profiteering at the expense of the community. People lash out at marine players because they get showered by releases but they often don't see the damage that GW's changes have to people who value previously existing units/options. Not everyone wants to just hoover up every release GW shovels out.
Togusa wrote: Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.
They're actively taking things away from factions that aren't their chosen standard bearers, though, so it's not just the supply chain situation.
you act like Marines didn't lose a ton of biker HQs eaither. grow the feth up, and stop acting like Xenos are the only people who lose stuff to legends.
Except Orks have already lost a ton of iconic classic models that are almost required for the army to even function properly. It's one thing for a unit to not make the cut in a brand new codex, but to delete an an entry on a whim via FAQ is absolutely absurd. Orks are already a DOA army in 9th and this just adds insult to injury.
I play SM, and I know that for every datasheet I lose, there will be 10 more added within months or two. Orks will wait years to get 1-2 datasheet replacements if they ever get them at all.
Except Orks have already lost a ton of iconic classic models that are almost required for the army to even function properly. It's one thing for a unit to not make the cut in a brand new codex, but to delete an an entry on a whim via FAQ is absolutely absurd. Orks are already a DOA army in 9th and this just adds insult to injury.
I play SM, and I know that for every datasheet I lose, there will be 10 more added within months or two. Orks will wait years to get 1-2 datasheet replacements if they ever get them at all.
To be fair though this removal happened long time ago. There's not been actual official datasheet to use biker warboss since legends came out. It's been dead option in official rules since then.
Togusa wrote: Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.
They're actively taking things away from factions that aren't their chosen standard bearers, though, so it's not just the supply chain situation.
you act like Marines didn't lose a ton of biker HQs eaither. grow the feth up, and stop acting like Xenos are the only people who lose stuff to legends.
The difference is that Space Marines get replacements/additions on a regular basis whereas xenos are lucky to get 1 replacement for every 2-3 models lost.
And lets not forget that those replacements tend to be weaker or side-grades to the units they replace, while marine replacements are always all-upside compared to their predecessors.
Jidmah wrote: And lets not forget that those replacements tend to be weaker or side-grades to the units they replace, while marine replacements are always all-upside compared to their predecessors.
well, yes but no?
Considering initially Intercissors and other primaris reminded more of a failure of biles experiments then actual marines...
Not a single primaris unit has any drawback at all besides costs compared to the unit they are replacing.
Points get adjusted twice a year, a terrible datasheet on a xenos unit will never be fixed until the unit runs OOP.
I'd also like to point out that GW also killed the wartrike with this FAQ, leaving the only viable way to run orks - a vehicle list - without a HQ that has any synergy with it.
Jidmah wrote: Not a single primaris unit has any drawback at all besides costs compared to the unit they are replacing.
Points get adjusted twice a year, a terrible datasheet on a xenos unit will never be fixed until the unit runs OOP.
I'd also like to point out that GW also killed the wartrike with this FAQ, leaving the only viable way to run orks - a vehicle list - without a HQ that has any synergy with it.
He i never stated that much i just pointed out that even though primaris were intended as tacs +1 they were not good enough.
But i agree on the datasheet stuff. Terrible datasheets seldom get improved, if anything they most of the time can expect to get worse.
I started in 3rd and I see the same tired complaining each and every edition change and FAQ.............
"My army is dead, GW sucks!" "All they care about is space marines who win everything and spit on Xenos!"
Jesus guys, can you at least alter the complaints a little?
Each edition armies take a hit and each edition Space Marines are up first. They get more than others......if you don't have much sense about how business works even at the most basic level then explaining that Space Marines are the biggest earner for GW won't help.
Jidmah wrote: Not a single primaris unit has any drawback at all besides costs compared to the unit they are replacing.
Points get adjusted twice a year, a terrible datasheet on a xenos unit will never be fixed until the unit runs OOP.
I'd also like to point out that GW also killed the wartrike with this FAQ, leaving the only viable way to run orks - a vehicle list - without a HQ that has any synergy with it.
Da-Rock wrote: Man o Man I see the same thing every new edition!
I started in 3rd and I see the same tired complaining each and every edition change and FAQ.............
"My army is dead, GW sucks!" "All they care about is space marines who win everything and spit on Xenos!"
Jesus guys, can you at least alter the complaints a little?
Each edition armies take a hit and each edition Space Marines are up first. They get more than others......if you don't have much sense about how business works even at the most basic level then explaining that Space Marines are the biggest earner for GW won't help.
If GW repeats the same mistakes every edition, why would you expect people to react differently? If you treat people the same way, you'll get the same reaction. Blaming them for continuing to react negatively to negative treatment is missing the point. The problem is the negative treatment. As long as GW continues to lavish disproportionate attention on Space Marines, adding kit after kit while removing kits from Xenos factions for no apparent reason, you'll continue to get the (perfectly justified) complaints about it.
Not one person in this thread has come up with any reason for why the Warboss on Warbike got squatted. That should be telling. Not even the pro-GW contingent at Dakka can defend this one. So why would you attack people for complaining about something nobody can justify?
Not one person in this thread has come up with any reason for why the Warboss on Warbike got squatted. That should be telling. Not even the pro-GW contingent at Dakka can defend this one. So why would you attack people for complaining about something nobody can justify?
The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one.
If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.
@Stux- yep. And previous editions as well. The idea that marines are always, consistently superior is... less than a year old, actually.
Many of the complaints wouldn't be here if the 2.0 codex (and repeated PA updates) hadn't happened. People just have marines on the brain from the last year.
But they still got kit after kit release during that time. That's the point. It isn't about power levels, it's about the amount of attention they get.
Space Marines get tons of new kits every year, Xenos lose kits inexplicably for no discernible reason. It's reasonable for people to complain about that.
Voss wrote: The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one.
If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.
As has been posted more than once in this thread, GW does, in fact, make one. Not from Citadel, mind, but from Forge World. Still, it's being sold as much as the Valdor (which didn't get squatted from 9th) is.
Voss wrote: The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one.
If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.
FW isn't GW? Then why didn't they squat the whole FW line?
No idea. Perhaps they should have.
In 30-odd years of playing Warhammer I've encountered FW models actually on the table... once? (The giant, because he liked the FW one better). Another guy talked about using a Necron pylon, but never did.
It makes no difference to me.
Voss wrote: The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one. If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.
FW isn't GW? Then why didn't they squat the whole FW line?
No idea. Perhaps they should have. In 30-odd years of playing Warhammer I've encountered FW models actually on the table... once? (The giant, because he liked the FW one better). Another guy talked about using a Necron pylon, but never did. It makes no difference to me.
Ah, yes, the old "I am personally unaffected, therefore (I will imply that) they should squat them." How gregarious! How thoughtful! How charitable and kind! I am sure you always think about the point of view of other people (for example the ones who do play with Forge World lists or models) when making decisions.
Voss wrote: The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one.
If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.
FW isn't GW? Then why didn't they squat the whole FW line?
No idea. Perhaps they should have.
In 30-odd years of playing Warhammer I've encountered FW models actually on the table... once? (The giant, because he liked the FW one better). Another guy talked about using a Necron pylon, but never did.
It makes no difference to me.
Ah, yes, the old "I am personally unaffected, therefore (I will imply that) they should squat them." How gregarious! How thoughtful! How charitable and kind! I am sure you always think about the point of view of other people (for example the ones who do play with Forge World lists or models) when making decisions.
Not even once. That was, in fact, my point.
Because generally the 'other people' I've played with in 30+ years don't play with FW models. I, personally, have more FW stuff than any person I've ever met at a game.
Well, that's rude. You should definitely try to think of other people's wants and needs as well when you do things. I think I learned that when I was like, 7.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Well, that's rude. You should definitely try to think of other people's wants and needs as well when you do things. I think I learned that when I was like, 7.
I do. You're missing my point. I'm perfectly fine with people playing with FW models. But they choose not to, so it does not matter. I'm not being 'rude,' I'm describing the consistent reality of my experience _with_ other people. In real life, at actual game tables.
FW does not come up, except as a proxy, once.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Well, that's rude. You should definitely try to think of other people's wants and needs as well when you do things. I think I learned that when I was like, 7.
I do. You're missing my point. I'm perfectly fine with people playing with FW models. But they choose not to, so it does not matter. I'm not being 'rude,' I'm describing the consistent reality of my experience _with_ other people. In real life, at actual game tables.
FW does not come up, except as a proxy, once.
But then you used that as a supporting argument for an implied normative statement about squatting FW ('perhaps they should'). There is a big difference between stating what you see, and then stating what you see and using it to describe a normative value without considering what other people see.
Jidmah wrote: Not a single primaris unit has any drawback at all besides costs compared to the unit they are replacing.
Points get adjusted twice a year, a terrible datasheet on a xenos unit will never be fixed until the unit runs OOP.
I'd also like to point out that GW also killed the wartrike with this FAQ, leaving the only viable way to run orks - a vehicle list - without a HQ that has any synergy with it.
Which FAQ did what to the wartrike?
Look out sir. Basically there’s no longer a realistic way of protecting the War trike from shooting as it was almost always going to be 8-9 wound buggies.
So it’s basically a dead model after you start moving, or you hide it and it gets no value.
Jidmah wrote: Not a single primaris unit has any drawback at all besides costs compared to the unit they are replacing.
Points get adjusted twice a year, a terrible datasheet on a xenos unit will never be fixed until the unit runs OOP.
I'd also like to point out that GW also killed the wartrike with this FAQ, leaving the only viable way to run orks - a vehicle list - without a HQ that has any synergy with it.
Which FAQ did what to the wartrike?
Look out sir. Basically there’s no longer a realistic way of protecting the War trike from shooting as it was almost always going to be 8-9 wound buggies.
So it’s basically a dead model after you start moving, or you hide it and it gets no value.
Couldn't that be fixed by giving it a rule like the one that allows Old One Eye to get protection from a carnifex? "This model cannot be targeted if it's within 3 of a friendly model with the VEHICLE keyword". Something like that?
Couldn't that be fixed by giving it a rule like the one that allows Old One Eye to get protection from a carnifex? "This model cannot be targeted if it's within 3 of a friendly model with the VEHICLE keyword". Something like that?
I mean a rule update could fix it, sure. I'd make it non-character. But as is, he's 125 points of lascannon fodder because people were having Daemon princes hug each other.
It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.
I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.
Considering in a lot of places stores were closed end february, some people didn't even get to play their updated 8th ed books, or enjoy their dominance. Specialy if they just started marines.
I get that people don't like their armies getting beaten, I didn't like it happen to me either. But does anyone think about new players that start marines, because they are a good army? Why should they get the hate. Plus for all we know a codex or two after marines we may get some other OP army
People didn't ask for nerfs to their books in 8th, I doubt they will ask for them in 9th.
Perhaps the people complaining about tell me where the datasheet for the Warboss on a bike is?
Cause it isn't in codex Orks. nor is it in saga of the beast. In fact it's not even in Legends.
In short...
there is no warboss on bike Datasheet
GW isn't going to provide points costs for a datasheet no longer supported. Now given that forge world makes the model. Ork players should make sure they ask GW.. repeatedly, if the 9th edition forge world rules will provide rules for the forge world produced. This is hardly the first time a forge world only model has been removed from a codex.
Ask Imperial Guard players about that
BrianDavion wrote: Perhaps the people complaining about tell me where the datasheet for the Warboss on a bike is?
Cause it isn't in codex Orks. nor is it in saga of the beast. In fact it's not even in Legends.
In short...
there is no warboss on bike Datasheet
GW isn't going to provide points costs for a datasheet no longer supported. Now given that forge world makes the model. Ork players should make sure they ask GW.. repeatedly, if the 9th edition forge world rules will provide rules for the forge world produced. This is hardly the first time a forge world only model has been removed from a codex.
Ask Imperial Guard players about that
And obviously because there's no datasheet they shouldn't support it, and because they're not supporting it they shouldn't make a datasheet... the point is, more Primaris releases, and actually *removing* things from Xenos factions to give them less options.
I thought that gw had been slowly killing the customization and all the cool peripheral stuff for a while now because of chapter house. If it doesn't have its own data sheet, model, and goofy name with copyright then no rules all to stop 3rd party alternatives.
I expect rules and points for it to be available in the upcoming revamped ForgeWorld indices.
I suspect that the omission from the FAQ is more an oversight than an actual squatting - you can never be sure though.
However, I am a bit concerned that there has been near total radio-silence on the new FW books. Considering they announced them over six months ago and referenced them being available on launch of 9e...
Blessed be those npc factions that still exist as a faction and not as a convenient Lore punching bag to underline the supposedly superior punching bag...
BrianDavion wrote: Perhaps the people complaining about tell me where the datasheet for the Warboss on a bike is?
Cause it isn't in codex Orks. nor is it in saga of the beast. In fact it's not even in Legends.
In short...
there is no warboss on bike Datasheet
GW isn't going to provide points costs for a datasheet no longer supported. Now given that forge world makes the model. Ork players should make sure they ask GW.. repeatedly, if the 9th edition forge world rules will provide rules for the forge world produced. This is hardly the first time a forge world only model has been removed from a codex.
Ask Imperial Guard players about that
It's in the Index. Which is still a legal source of datasheets, unless I missed something.
You were wrong about there being no model. You're wrong about there being no datasheet.
The indexes are dead. The Warboss on Bike got caught in a weird space where they didn't Legends it (there is a current Forge World model) but there isn't a Forge World Index datasheet. Cross your fingers and hope it is in the new Forge World Index, whenever that gets released.
* looks at the many different historical autarch model options*
The no model no rule mantra is bs.
Relics give god damn powerful rules and you dont need to model jack.. why why not allow people to convert characters to take cool mounts and weapons ?
WHy not give a farseer a fusion pistol? Why not take exarch weapons on an autarch to make cool conversions.. Like why couldn't he have a scorpion claw ? Hes only got 4 attacks ffs..
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Where did they state the indexes are dead? They definitely weren't in 8th. Did they state that as part of launching 9th somewhere?
There was an FAQ in 8th that introduced "legends" and retirered index flow chart.
But that's simply not right. Legends did not retire the index. Legends just moved a bunch of Index things to Legends; it did nothing to Index sheets that were neither replaced by the Codex nor moved to the Index.
The Warboss on Warbike was very much still a legal unit after Legends. People took them to LVO. They still had a points value in CA 2019. I am not aware of any TOs ruling they were not a legal unit.
The warboss on bike was in a weird place for a long time anyway. First it was purely Da Rippa model which people converted/used as an unnamed warboss. Then for a while Forgeworld sold it as an unnamed warboss on bike while keeping Da Rippa rules around but no model specifically for him. Is it still listed as an unnamed warboss on bike even though now the datasheet has been regulated to legends and he no longer has a listed points?
A few other units around the place have had somewhat similar occurrences, primaris techmarine comes to mind. For a decent length of time there was only the character version, and only recently an unnamed version has been brought out. GW is just really weird with it's releases sometimes.
Galef wrote: Biker HQs have always been my favorite, regardless of faction, and I hate to see them go
But alas this isn't the first time it's happened. I remember taking a DE Archon on jetbike in the old days, but when the 5th ed Codex dropped, no more jetbike. What was even more annoying is that the 7th ed Codex had a 2 page layout about an Archon who rose from a skilled Reaver and whose need for speed was unquenchable. Yet as soon as he became an Archon, he must have put his bike in the garage for good.
-
The Codex also mentions the Archon of the Dark Moon has wings, yet we can't have those either. Fluff from their own books apparently means nothing when it comes to rules.
Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.
have you seem how many different primaris LIEUTENANTS GW have made, just by themselves? There are at least 12 separate, new, plastic models for a single unit entry in the marine codex. Although some have actual names, I don't think those names translate to unique character profiles (they all use the same generic lieutenant entry(s)),
For comparison, non named character models in the 3 eldar armies combined equals 11: 3 DE, 7 CWE, 1 Harlie based on GW's webstore (and the fact that the warlock skyrunner and the farseer are the same box).
that's one HQ unit from the space marine book, which has a ridiculous number of HQ entries, having more examples to purchase than the HQ offerings of 3 entire armies.
So I don't really think it's a problem of design space at all....
Typically once people start crying about the primaris lts, I stop listening. Most of those were LE models for store releases or models for the specific chapters (blood angels, Ultras, etc). You can't even buy over half of them anymore. As I stated before, we've seen new NON primaris characters teased for the fall, including orks, dark eldar, death guard and so on. It's reasonable to assume that once Necrons and the New marine stuff are out, you'll see a shift to one of those other factions with more rules, books, models and kits. Crying about it doesn't do any good. Email the company if you're so upset and tell them you want more support for non-marine armies.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think the Indexes were ever on GW's site, didn't you have to buy them separately?
Battlescribe still has the entry, you can look it up there easily.
I'd imagine they would have still been on the site right? You'd think it would be around where codexes and the like are but can't seem to find them. And don't remember seeing them in a GW brick and mortar store for some time. I can see them removing the points if the datasheet is no longer available in a book that's in print. It's yet another way the Warboss on bike is a weird little anomaly in regards to his datasheet. I think we should call him the Schrodinger's warboss. He simultaneously does and does not have rules depending on if you look.
And battlescribe isn't an overly reliable source as well, it's a bit like using a wiki. They're as likely to be right as wrong.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think the Indexes were ever on GW's site, didn't you have to buy them separately?
Battlescribe still has the entry, you can look it up there easily.
I'd imagine they would have still been on the site right? You'd think it would be around where codexes and the like are but can't seem to find them. And don't remember seeing them in a GW brick and mortar store for some time. I can see them removing the points if the datasheet is no longer available in a book that's in print. It's yet another way the Warboss on bike is a weird little anomaly in regards to his datasheet. I think we should call him the Schrodinger's warboss. He simultaneously does and does not have rules depending on if you look.
And battlescribe isn't an overly reliable source as well, it's a bit like using a wiki. They're as likely to be right as wrong.
Ah yes, I too enjoy looking through peer reviewed data and finding out that half of all samples are incorrect.
Let us look to gamesworkshop to show us the true light on correct data! My S65 Harlequins shall laugh as they take down Aplarius and his men!
Galef wrote: Biker HQs have always been my favorite, regardless of faction, and I hate to see them go
But alas this isn't the first time it's happened. I remember taking a DE Archon on jetbike in the old days, but when the 5th ed Codex dropped, no more jetbike. What was even more annoying is that the 7th ed Codex had a 2 page layout about an Archon who rose from a skilled Reaver and whose need for speed was unquenchable. Yet as soon as he became an Archon, he must have put his bike in the garage for good.
-
The Codex also mentions the Archon of the Dark Moon has wings, yet we can't have those either. Fluff from their own books apparently means nothing when it comes to rules.
Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.
have you seem how many different primaris LIEUTENANTS GW have made, just by themselves? There are at least 12 separate, new, plastic models for a single unit entry in the marine codex. Although some have actual names, I don't think those names translate to unique character profiles (they all use the same generic lieutenant entry(s)),
For comparison, non named character models in the 3 eldar armies combined equals 11: 3 DE, 7 CWE, 1 Harlie based on GW's webstore (and the fact that the warlock skyrunner and the farseer are the same box).
that's one HQ unit from the space marine book, which has a ridiculous number of HQ entries, having more examples to purchase than the HQ offerings of 3 entire armies.
So I don't really think it's a problem of design space at all....
Typically once people start crying about the primaris lts, I stop listening. Most of those were LE models for store releases or models for the specific chapters (blood angels, Ultras, etc). You can't even buy over half of them anymore. As I stated before, we've seen new NON primaris characters teased for the fall, including orks, dark eldar, death guard and so on. It's reasonable to assume that once Necrons and the New marine stuff are out, you'll see a shift to one of those other factions with more rules, books, models and kits. Crying about it doesn't do any good. Email the company if you're so upset and tell them you want more support for non-marine armies.
Apparently when they where just designing the look of primaris they had the entire modeling team each design one. the original intent was to onl;y use one model as the finished product as the primaris Lt. but they liked everything so much they used the other Primaris Lts other people designed for special events minis. so we got a ton of Primaris Lts because GW was using rough drafts.
cody.d. wrote: A large number of people agreeing on something does not make it accurate. Religion is a solid example.
Battlescribe has been wrong from time to time and also takes some time to be updated by it's content creators.
Well if being wrong from time to time is all it takes then GWs no better. I seem to recall a recent CA that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Or was that one of the precious FAQs you mindlessly all seem to worship? The one where they copy pasted out of date #s & allowed for 25 strong bike squads....
cody.d. wrote: A large number of people agreeing on something does not make it accurate. Religion is a solid example.
Battlescribe has been wrong from time to time and also takes some time to be updated by it's content creators.
Well if being wrong from time to time is all it takes then GWs no better. I seem to recall a recent CA that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Or was that one of the precious FAQs you mindlessly all seem to worship? The one where they copy pasted out of date #s & allowed for 25 strong bike squads....
Arguably it's worse if GW makes errors, be they frequent or rare since it's something we as customers are paying for. You'd hope there was some polish. (Though I suspect most of the development money goes into the models with the rules and lore being something of an afterthought.)
For someone who is playing competitively none of the CAs were that useful except for the tiny portion with points updates. Otherwise it's mostly resources for narrative play right? Kind of like newspapers, often you buy it for maybe 2 pages with the rest being of little interest. XP
I doubt anyone worship's the FAQs, but they do frequently tweak or change how things function. And for that group who are trying to play the game in tourneys and the like those rules changes are what they are, for better or worse.
But yeah, GW could indeed put more effort into the book/rule writing sort of things. But I have doubts if that will happen soon.
Galef wrote: Biker HQs have always been my favorite, regardless of faction, and I hate to see them go
But alas this isn't the first time it's happened. I remember taking a DE Archon on jetbike in the old days, but when the 5th ed Codex dropped, no more jetbike. What was even more annoying is that the 7th ed Codex had a 2 page layout about an Archon who rose from a skilled Reaver and whose need for speed was unquenchable. Yet as soon as he became an Archon, he must have put his bike in the garage for good.
-
The Codex also mentions the Archon of the Dark Moon has wings, yet we can't have those either. Fluff from their own books apparently means nothing when it comes to rules.
Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.
have you seem how many different primaris LIEUTENANTS GW have made, just by themselves? There are at least 12 separate, new, plastic models for a single unit entry in the marine codex. Although some have actual names, I don't think those names translate to unique character profiles (they all use the same generic lieutenant entry(s)),
For comparison, non named character models in the 3 eldar armies combined equals 11: 3 DE, 7 CWE, 1 Harlie based on GW's webstore (and the fact that the warlock skyrunner and the farseer are the same box).
that's one HQ unit from the space marine book, which has a ridiculous number of HQ entries, having more examples to purchase than the HQ offerings of 3 entire armies.
So I don't really think it's a problem of design space at all....
Typically once people start crying about the primaris lts, I stop listening. Most of those were LE models for store releases or models for the specific chapters (blood angels, Ultras, etc). You can't even buy over half of them anymore. As I stated before, we've seen new NON primaris characters teased for the fall, including orks, dark eldar, death guard and so on. It's reasonable to assume that once Necrons and the New marine stuff are out, you'll see a shift to one of those other factions with more rules, books, models and kits. Crying about it doesn't do any good. Email the company if you're so upset and tell them you want more support for non-marine armies.
I have emailed them before. I've never seen that have any impact.
As for the limited nature of those Lieutenants, I think that works against your argument, but in favour of it.
A limited item is a luxury within a luxury product line. They take the same amount of time and money to design and produce, but are released without the expectation that they will be turning profit in an ongoing fashion. That's an amazing extravagance.
I'd love to see multiple unique Ork boss models as variants, or a range of Eldar heores that are all exarchs in unique poses and with cool weapon loads.
keep in mind an extravagance like that is also, from a production POV, expensive, honestly it shocks me they do all these limited run minis. it can't be cost effective
BrianDavion wrote: keep in mind an extravagance like that is also, from a production POV, expensive, honestly it shocks me they do all these limited run minis. it can't be cost effective
As GW produces HIPS in house they have the possibility to use other materials for the molds
specially Aluminium instead of Steel, which does not only save money for the material but also cost/time for cutting it
the only downside is, it only lasts for ~10.000 runs until you scrap it which is the perfect way to make small limited edition plastic kits.
it is cheap to produce, no storage space for the mold needed, and you can sell it for more because "limited edition"
GW is only doing it because it is cost effective, and producing a limited edition Primaris model gives them more profit than doing a normal Xenos model
GW produces only stuff that sells, which is a Vicious Circle as old models/designs or an army without a in-consistent design because of that, does not sell well, hence they don't get new stuff and because there are no shiny new lines (not only single models) they don't sell
BrianDavion wrote: keep in mind an extravagance like that is also, from a production POV, expensive, honestly it shocks me they do all these limited run minis. it can't be cost effective
As GW produces HIPS in house they have the possibility to use other materials for the molds
specially Aluminium instead of Steel, which does not only save money for the material but also cost/time for cutting it
the only downside is, it only lasts for ~10.000 runs until you scrap it which is the perfect way to make small limited edition plastic kits.
it is cheap to produce, no storage space for the mold needed, and you can sell it for more because "limited edition"
GW is only doing it because it is cost effective, and producing a limited edition Primaris model gives them more profit than doing a normal Xenos model
GW produces only stuff that sells, which is a Vicious Circle as old models/designs or an army without a in-consistent design because of that, does not sell well, hence they don't get new stuff and because there are no shiny new lines (not only single models) they don't sell
This isn't always the case, I read on here somewhere that there was supposed to be a 2nd wave of harlequins to round the range out, but poor sales meant that got scrapped. That was off the back of a fully redesigned army with new kits.
Dudeface wrote: This isn't always the case, I read on here somewhere that there was supposed to be a 2nd wave of harlequins to round the range out, but poor sales meant that got scrapped. That was off the back of a fully redesigned army with new kits.
It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.
BrianDavion wrote: keep in mind an extravagance like that is also, from a production POV, expensive, honestly it shocks me they do all these limited run minis. it can't be cost effective
My understanding is the savings comes in the mold, by using a cheaper metal that is only good for a limited run. Still expensive, but proportionally less so than the full higrade steel mould.
I remember chasing my first limited model - sergeant centurius 25 years ago. Never got one, but I saw the appeal.
The model should be profitable if you know how many you are making, divided by the profit on each.
Marin wrote: It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.
If they get new boyz be prepared to NOT get full basic equipment.
And artificially scarce new equipment, because feth you.
Oh and at an uptick of 12 $ with less models in it.
Marin wrote: It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.
If they get new boyz be prepared to NOT get full basic equipment.
And artificially scarce new equipment, because feth you.
Oh and at an uptick of 12 $ with less models in it.
But look at the monopose detail.
GW cant write good rules, but their models are fantastic. There is no reason to believe the new models will not be good.
Marin wrote: It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.
If they get new boyz be prepared to NOT get full basic equipment.
And artificially scarce new equipment, because feth you.
Oh and at an uptick of 12 $ with less models in it.
But look at the monopose detail.
GW cant write good rules, but their models are fantastic. There is no reason to believe the new models will not be good.
Looking good =/= functionally good.
Tell me, how'd you like Chaos terminator style equipment loadout, and don't point to the 100s of spike options in there.
Marin wrote: It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.
New boyz means replacing a perfectly fine plastic kit with a more expensive one that has less options. Getting new boyz is not a good thing.
The best you can hope for is that there will be one or two new pieces of equipment in there which will be mandatory for making boyz work, forcing people like me into spending more money despite owning 200+ boyz already.
Marin wrote: It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.
New boyz means replacing a perfectly fine plastic kit with a more expensive one that has less options. Getting new boyz is not a good thing.
The best you can hope for is that there will be one or two new pieces of equipment in there which will be mandatory for making boyz work, forcing people like me into spending more money despite owning 200+ boyz already.
This is preciscly the point i am attempting to make.
Better GW replaces the finecrap left over then replacing the boyz.
Especially because the boyz still can keep up with their looks to modern models.
Well, GW listens to the community now, and there have been tons of idiots who were crying for new boyz because old=bad or because of being insecure over orks buts.
I can't really blame GW for making new boyz, I blame those people.
Jidmah wrote: Well, GW listens to the community now, and there have been tons of idiots who were crying for new boyz because old=bad or because of being insecure over orks buts.
I can't really blame GW for making new boyz, I blame those people.
ehhhhhhh that is debatable.....
but if you add the caveat: if you give them the oppurtunity to actually implement something to milk you, then it is absolutely true.
Marin wrote: It`s sux, but i doubt it`s so bad as you are saying. Orc received alot of new and cool models past 2 years and they will probably get new boys. So its not all gloom and doom.
New boyz means replacing a perfectly fine plastic kit with a more expensive one that has less options. Getting new boyz is not a good thing.
The best you can hope for is that there will be one or two new pieces of equipment in there which will be mandatory for making boyz work, forcing people like me into spending more money despite owning 200+ boyz already.
This is preciscly the point i am attempting to make.
Better GW replaces the finecrap left over then replacing the boyz.
Especially because the boyz still can keep up with their looks to modern models.
There was alot of orc whining about those models and that they needed update.
GW give people what they wanted.
Jidmah wrote: Well, GW listens to the community now, and there have been tons of idiots who were crying for new boyz because old=bad or because of being insecure over orks buts.
I can't really blame GW for making new boyz, I blame those people.
yeah personally I'm of the opinion that Ork Boyz have aged reasonably well. various human models have aged poorly because they're compared to other human mini's, but Orks and Tyranids can get away with slightly older models because it's less obvious
Jidmah wrote: Well, GW listens to the community now, and there have been tons of idiots who were crying for new boyz because old=bad or because of being insecure over orks buts.
I can't really blame GW for making new boyz, I blame those people.
yeah personally I'm of the opinion that Ork Boyz have aged reasonably well. various human models have aged poorly because they're compared to other human mini's, but Orks and Tyranids can get away with slightly older models because it's less obvious
Not only that - the ork boyz are identical to the orks found in the burna/loota, warbikers, battlewagon and trukk boxes. Not similar or roughly the same, they are the exact same models, sharing bits for legs, torsos, heads and arms. These are pretty much all the non-nob orks that are made out of plastic that aren't just an upper body sticking out of a plane or naut. One of the best "hacks" for saving money when buying orks is getting a box of boyz to build both burnas and lootas from one box, as they use the same bodies. The only exceptions are storm boyz and the new buggies and even those look very similar.
So if someone claims that boyz need a replacement but warbikers, lootas and burnas do not, they don't know gak about about orks and should just be quiet. They are literally identical models with different wargear.
Outside of plastic Sisters, care to provide evidence to back up that claim?
Debatable options: Genestealer Cults, Indomitus going made-to-order, the forthcoming Old World game, the return of Necromunda.
To be honest I'm split on this point, because I know that a lot of these are profit-driven, and there are still a lot of requests that have so far gone unheeded in the name of Primaris profit. I guess we'll see what happens with Xenos armies in the next year or so.
But things are definitely better than the Rountree days.
Why on earth are people acting surprised by this when it was entirely expected from the moment the Ork codexes released without an entry for the Warboss on Bike?
You've known this day was coming for almost 2 years now...
Because 1) they actively put work into it by moving the warboss on warbike to the forgeworld section for the last CAs, including the one in 9th 2) FW is still selling the model 3) the warboss on warbike was not moved to legends like all the other bike characters
Well, I'm not against new boyz IF they are just updated models in aesthetics, like new sisters or necron warriors and anything that looks better than old models but doesn't squat them at the same time.
I'd hate significantly bigger boyz or boyz with new weapons that force players to re-buy their horde.
New line of models is cool when it doesn't invalidate the old one; orks need some new kits (plastic warboss, big mek with KFF, koptas, all new plastic models for characters/units that are in finecast, some new characters as well, etc), not to get primarized.
Outside of plastic Sisters, care to provide evidence to back up that claim?
Controversial claim: the new space marine book. There has been a year of incessant whining about how poorly written and OP the marine book is, so a new one to try and re-balance them is actually what people wanted (but not what they asked for).
Stux wrote: I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.
There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.
Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.
How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.
It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.
I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.
Thanks for pointing that out, Stux - I was struggling to figure out how June 2017 to July 2020 was slightly more than two years.
I assume we're all just going to forget Razorback spam and Flyer spam (or just Guilliman firebases in general) from the first ~half a year?
Yeah, I don't know, I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that Codex: Space Marines is 1 out of...what...20 codexes? And they spent nearly a year and a half as generally considered the "meta" army to beat.
Of a - mea culpa here - THREE year long edition.
So 1.333/3, carry the 1, hold the fries....
Seems like your expected length of time as the meta top dog as 1/20 factions in the game should be somewhere around....2 months.
Stux wrote: I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.
There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.
Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.
How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.
It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.
I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.
Thanks for pointing that out, Stux - I was struggling to figure out how June 2017 to July 2020 was slightly more than two years.
I assume we're all just going to forget Razorback spam and Flyer spam (or just Guilliman firebases in general) from the first ~half a year?
Yeah, I don't know, I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that Codex: Space Marines is 1 out of...what...20 codexes? And they spent nearly a year and a half as generally considered the "meta" army to beat.
Of a - mea culpa here - THREE year long edition.
So 1.333/3, carry the 1, hold the fries....
Seems like your expected length of time as the meta top dog as 1/20 factions in the game should be somewhere around....2 months.
For each army to get 2 months, that requires an army to be objectively better for 2 months at a time, which I'm not really sure is any healthier than 1 faction being unbalanced at the expense of 19 other being of parity, given whoever gets the first 2 months by proxy would be bottom of the pile for the next 38.
Stux wrote: I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.
There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.
Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.
How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.
It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.
I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.
Thanks for pointing that out, Stux - I was struggling to figure out how June 2017 to July 2020 was slightly more than two years.
I assume we're all just going to forget Razorback spam and Flyer spam (or just Guilliman firebases in general) from the first ~half a year?
Yeah, I don't know, I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that Codex: Space Marines is 1 out of...what...20 codexes? And they spent nearly a year and a half as generally considered the "meta" army to beat.
Of a - mea culpa here - THREE year long edition.
So 1.333/3, carry the 1, hold the fries....
Seems like your expected length of time as the meta top dog as 1/20 factions in the game should be somewhere around....2 months.
For each army to get 2 months, that requires an army to be objectively better for 2 months at a time, which I'm not really sure is any healthier than 1 faction being unbalanced at the expense of 19 other being of parity, given whoever gets the first 2 months by proxy would be bottom of the pile for the next 38.
Or, it requires something like a rotating meta where releases aren't so wildly out of line that an army stays top dog for a full fething year until the game designer heavily nerfs what they added to them in the update.
You know, some kind of situation where GW gives some new tricks to an army, it makes a big splash in the tournament meta, and lists adjust to counter them naturally. Like what the meta did with Codex Drukhari, Codex Orks, Codex Genestealer Cults.... When something comes out and just stays the king undisputed respected saluted and loathed for the bs it is for nearly a year like Codex SM 2.0 or Castellan Soup or Ynnari did, that's a sign that it's fundamentally broken and needs either heavy nerfs or a scrap and a redesign.
"2 months as top dog and then reasonably present for the remainder of the edition" is what the reality was for most factions.it was a pretty dang good edition all told.
Stux wrote: I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.
There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.
Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.
How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.
It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.
I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.
Thanks for pointing that out, Stux - I was struggling to figure out how June 2017 to July 2020 was slightly more than two years.
I assume we're all just going to forget Razorback spam and Flyer spam (or just Guilliman firebases in general) from the first ~half a year?
Yeah, I don't know, I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that Codex: Space Marines is 1 out of...what...20 codexes? And they spent nearly a year and a half as generally considered the "meta" army to beat.
Of a - mea culpa here - THREE year long edition.
So 1.333/3, carry the 1, hold the fries....
Seems like your expected length of time as the meta top dog as 1/20 factions in the game should be somewhere around....2 months.
For each army to get 2 months, that requires an army to be objectively better for 2 months at a time, which I'm not really sure is any healthier than 1 faction being unbalanced at the expense of 19 other being of parity, given whoever gets the first 2 months by proxy would be bottom of the pile for the next 38.
Or, it requires something like a rotating meta where releases aren't so wildly out of line that an army stays top dog for a full fething year until the game designer heavily nerfs what they added to them in the update.
You know, some kind of situation where GW gives some new tricks to an army, it makes a big splash in the tournament meta, and lists adjust to counter them naturally. Like what the meta did with Codex Drukhari, Codex Orks, Codex Genestealer Cults.... When something comes out and just stays the king undisputed respected saluted and loathed for the bs it is for nearly a year like Codex SM 2.0 or Castellan Soup or Ynnari did, that's a sign that it's fundamentally broken and needs either heavy nerfs or a scrap and a redesign.
"2 months as top dog and then reasonably present for the remainder of the edition" is what the reality was for most factions.it was a pretty dang good edition all told.
Yup overall it was a decent edition and like I say they had 2-3 outliers you identified which largely prevented anyone else running away with it. Maybe people are spending too much time fixating on that top - top 3 spots rather than appreciating that the bulk of armies were reasonably represented.
Stux wrote: I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.
There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.
Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.
How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.
It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.
I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.
Thanks for pointing that out, Stux - I was struggling to figure out how June 2017 to July 2020 was slightly more than two years.
I assume we're all just going to forget Razorback spam and Flyer spam (or just Guilliman firebases in general) from the first ~half a year?
Yeah, I don't know, I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that Codex: Space Marines is 1 out of...what...20 codexes? And they spent nearly a year and a half as generally considered the "meta" army to beat.
Of a - mea culpa here - THREE year long edition.
So 1.333/3, carry the 1, hold the fries....
Seems like your expected length of time as the meta top dog as 1/20 factions in the game should be somewhere around....2 months.
For each army to get 2 months, that requires an army to be objectively better for 2 months at a time, which I'm not really sure is any healthier than 1 faction being unbalanced at the expense of 19 other being of parity, given whoever gets the first 2 months by proxy would be bottom of the pile for the next 38.
Or, it requires something like a rotating meta where releases aren't so wildly out of line that an army stays top dog for a full fething year until the game designer heavily nerfs what they added to them in the update.
You know, some kind of situation where GW gives some new tricks to an army, it makes a big splash in the tournament meta, and lists adjust to counter them naturally. Like what the meta did with Codex Drukhari, Codex Orks, Codex Genestealer Cults.... When something comes out and just stays the king undisputed respected saluted and loathed for the bs it is for nearly a year like Codex SM 2.0 or Castellan Soup or Ynnari did, that's a sign that it's fundamentally broken and needs either heavy nerfs or a scrap and a redesign.
"2 months as top dog and then reasonably present for the remainder of the edition" is what the reality was for most factions.it was a pretty dang good edition all told.
Yup overall it was a decent edition and like I say they had 2-3 outliers you identified which largely prevented anyone else running away with it. Maybe people are spending too much time fixating on that top - top 3 spots rather than appreciating that the bulk of armies were reasonably represented.
So, in your life if you have a really excellent thing you're working on and it's got one big glaring flaw but otherwise it's pretty much where you want it to be....do you usually not focus on fixing that flaw first? Does that not usually bug you more than something that's just all-round awful? Because that might just end up being a difference in attitude between the two of us, that kind of situation bugs the absolute hell out of me. If a movie, or a project I'm working on, or a recipe I've cooked is nearly amazing, but there's just one thing that's bad and I can't ignore it, that bothers me far more than something I can just dismiss as a total loss.
Stux wrote: I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.
There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.
Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.
How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.
It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.
I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.
Thanks for pointing that out, Stux - I was struggling to figure out how June 2017 to July 2020 was slightly more than two years.
I assume we're all just going to forget Razorback spam and Flyer spam (or just Guilliman firebases in general) from the first ~half a year?
Yeah, I don't know, I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that Codex: Space Marines is 1 out of...what...20 codexes? And they spent nearly a year and a half as generally considered the "meta" army to beat.
Of a - mea culpa here - THREE year long edition.
So 1.333/3, carry the 1, hold the fries....
Seems like your expected length of time as the meta top dog as 1/20 factions in the game should be somewhere around....2 months.
For each army to get 2 months, that requires an army to be objectively better for 2 months at a time, which I'm not really sure is any healthier than 1 faction being unbalanced at the expense of 19 other being of parity, given whoever gets the first 2 months by proxy would be bottom of the pile for the next 38.
Or, it requires something like a rotating meta where releases aren't so wildly out of line that an army stays top dog for a full fething year until the game designer heavily nerfs what they added to them in the update.
You know, some kind of situation where GW gives some new tricks to an army, it makes a big splash in the tournament meta, and lists adjust to counter them naturally. Like what the meta did with Codex Drukhari, Codex Orks, Codex Genestealer Cults.... When something comes out and just stays the king undisputed respected saluted and loathed for the bs it is for nearly a year like Codex SM 2.0 or Castellan Soup or Ynnari did, that's a sign that it's fundamentally broken and needs either heavy nerfs or a scrap and a redesign.
"2 months as top dog and then reasonably present for the remainder of the edition" is what the reality was for most factions.it was a pretty dang good edition all told.
Yup overall it was a decent edition and like I say they had 2-3 outliers you identified which largely prevented anyone else running away with it. Maybe people are spending too much time fixating on that top - top 3 spots rather than appreciating that the bulk of armies were reasonably represented.
So, in your life if you have a really excellent thing you're working on and it's got one big glaring flaw but otherwise it's pretty much where you want it to be....do you usually not focus on fixing that flaw first? Does that not usually bug you more than something that's just all-round awful? Because that might just end up being a difference in attitude between the two of us, that kind of situation bugs the absolute hell out of me. If a movie, or a project I'm working on, or a recipe I've cooked is nearly amazing, but there's just one thing that's bad and I can't ignore it, that bothers me far more than something I can just dismiss as a total loss.
Hard to say, it depends what it is. My monitor with a literal bug stuck in bothers me more than if it had broken completely for example. The issue here is my monitor minus the bug functions perfectly on it's own, however it isn't THE perfect monitor, it's not that big, it's max resolution isn't 4k, it hasn't got in-built speakers etc.
I do acknowledge that it's fine for my needs, I have no requirement or want to have the best monitor where in your example you would since it hasn't got the perfect refresh rate or w/e, it just does what it's supposed to at an acceptable level. Extrapolating that to 40k, my current monitor is a mid tier army with a completely dud unit in that I enjoy playing but don't care that it's only 75% as powerful as the top army.
Stux wrote: I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.
There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.
Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.
How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.
It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.
I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.
Thanks for pointing that out, Stux - I was struggling to figure out how June 2017 to July 2020 was slightly more than two years.
I assume we're all just going to forget Razorback spam and Flyer spam (or just Guilliman firebases in general) from the first ~half a year?
Yeah, I don't know, I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that Codex: Space Marines is 1 out of...what...20 codexes? And they spent nearly a year and a half as generally considered the "meta" army to beat.
Of a - mea culpa here - THREE year long edition.
So 1.333/3, carry the 1, hold the fries....
Seems like your expected length of time as the meta top dog as 1/20 factions in the game should be somewhere around....2 months.
For each army to get 2 months, that requires an army to be objectively better for 2 months at a time, which I'm not really sure is any healthier than 1 faction being unbalanced at the expense of 19 other being of parity, given whoever gets the first 2 months by proxy would be bottom of the pile for the next 38.
Or, it requires something like a rotating meta where releases aren't so wildly out of line that an army stays top dog for a full fething year until the game designer heavily nerfs what they added to them in the update.
You know, some kind of situation where GW gives some new tricks to an army, it makes a big splash in the tournament meta, and lists adjust to counter them naturally. Like what the meta did with Codex Drukhari, Codex Orks, Codex Genestealer Cults.... When something comes out and just stays the king undisputed respected saluted and loathed for the bs it is for nearly a year like Codex SM 2.0 or Castellan Soup or Ynnari did, that's a sign that it's fundamentally broken and needs either heavy nerfs or a scrap and a redesign.
"2 months as top dog and then reasonably present for the remainder of the edition" is what the reality was for most factions.it was a pretty dang good edition all told.
Yup overall it was a decent edition and like I say they had 2-3 outliers you identified which largely prevented anyone else running away with it. Maybe people are spending too much time fixating on that top - top 3 spots rather than appreciating that the bulk of armies were reasonably represented.
So, in your life if you have a really excellent thing you're working on and it's got one big glaring flaw but otherwise it's pretty much where you want it to be....do you usually not focus on fixing that flaw first? Does that not usually bug you more than something that's just all-round awful? Because that might just end up being a difference in attitude between the two of us, that kind of situation bugs the absolute hell out of me. If a movie, or a project I'm working on, or a recipe I've cooked is nearly amazing, but there's just one thing that's bad and I can't ignore it, that bothers me far more than something I can just dismiss as a total loss.
Hard to say, it depends what it is. My monitor with a literal bug stuck in bothers me more than if it had broken completely for example. The issue here is my monitor minus the bug functions perfectly on it's own, however it isn't THE perfect monitor, it's not that big, it's max resolution isn't 4k, it hasn't got in-built speakers etc.
I do acknowledge that it's fine for my needs, I have no requirement or want to have the best monitor where in your example you would since it hasn't got the perfect refresh rate or w/e, it just does what it's supposed to at an acceptable level. Extrapolating that to 40k, my current monitor is a mid tier army with a completely dud unit in that I enjoy playing but don't care that it's only 75% as powerful as the top army.
Yeah, that's usually my attitude when pretty much any army but marines is the top dog. When Tau are broken overpowered, that means one army owned by one single guy where I play is broken overpowered...and he usually swaps over to one of his other three when that happens, because he's a competitive player and doesn't enjoy stomping people with OP rules in a non-tournament setting.
When knights are overpowered, that means....no army owned by anybody where I play is overpowered. When Custodes are, that's 2 people who also have other armies. Ditto for CWE. For Guard it's 4 guys, one of which only plays guard. When Drukhari are overpowered it's literally just me, and I own tons of different armies. You get the idea.
When marines are overpowered, that means 20/50 players have the unbeatable tournament-tier army that is miserable to play against, and what happens is, nobody has fun playing against the marines, the marines end up playing only against each other, they don't have fun because non-marine players avoid them, and attendance at the club drops massively.
As it did, a year ago, when marines 2.0 hit. Our attendance dropped from roughly 50 to roughly 20 over the last year of 8th. We started rebuilding during quarantine, ironically, and with the excitement surrounding 9th. I was really really hoping 9th would fix the issue of the most ubiquitous army in the entire game being the miserable one to play against, but given the leaks we're getting for the upcoming codex, I'm becoming less and less hopeful about it.
Marine players love being the exception when it comes to model releases, supplement books, subfactions, lore books, etc - they love being treated like more than just 1 of 20 factions when it comes to positive attention and extra goodies. But when it comes to negative attention because everyone feels it 10x more when they're the unbeatable OP army, suddenly it's unfair that people complain more when they're OP then they do when some faction 1/50 people plays like Necrons or Drukhari is unbeatable.
Stux wrote: I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.
There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.
Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.
How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.
It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.
I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.
Thanks for pointing that out, Stux - I was struggling to figure out how June 2017 to July 2020 was slightly more than two years.
I assume we're all just going to forget Razorback spam and Flyer spam (or just Guilliman firebases in general) from the first ~half a year?
Yeah, I don't know, I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that Codex: Space Marines is 1 out of...what...20 codexes? And they spent nearly a year and a half as generally considered the "meta" army to beat.
Of a - mea culpa here - THREE year long edition.
So 1.333/3, carry the 1, hold the fries....
Seems like your expected length of time as the meta top dog as 1/20 factions in the game should be somewhere around....2 months.
For each army to get 2 months, that requires an army to be objectively better for 2 months at a time, which I'm not really sure is any healthier than 1 faction being unbalanced at the expense of 19 other being of parity, given whoever gets the first 2 months by proxy would be bottom of the pile for the next 38.
Or, it requires something like a rotating meta where releases aren't so wildly out of line that an army stays top dog for a full fething year until the game designer heavily nerfs what they added to them in the update.
You know, some kind of situation where GW gives some new tricks to an army, it makes a big splash in the tournament meta, and lists adjust to counter them naturally. Like what the meta did with Codex Drukhari, Codex Orks, Codex Genestealer Cults.... When something comes out and just stays the king undisputed respected saluted and loathed for the bs it is for nearly a year like Codex SM 2.0 or Castellan Soup or Ynnari did, that's a sign that it's fundamentally broken and needs either heavy nerfs or a scrap and a redesign.
"2 months as top dog and then reasonably present for the remainder of the edition" is what the reality was for most factions.it was a pretty dang good edition all told.
Yup overall it was a decent edition and like I say they had 2-3 outliers you identified which largely prevented anyone else running away with it. Maybe people are spending too much time fixating on that top - top 3 spots rather than appreciating that the bulk of armies were reasonably represented.
So, in your life if you have a really excellent thing you're working on and it's got one big glaring flaw but otherwise it's pretty much where you want it to be....do you usually not focus on fixing that flaw first? Does that not usually bug you more than something that's just all-round awful? Because that might just end up being a difference in attitude between the two of us, that kind of situation bugs the absolute hell out of me. If a movie, or a project I'm working on, or a recipe I've cooked is nearly amazing, but there's just one thing that's bad and I can't ignore it, that bothers me far more than something I can just dismiss as a total loss.
Hard to say, it depends what it is. My monitor with a literal bug stuck in bothers me more than if it had broken completely for example. The issue here is my monitor minus the bug functions perfectly on it's own, however it isn't THE perfect monitor, it's not that big, it's max resolution isn't 4k, it hasn't got in-built speakers etc.
I do acknowledge that it's fine for my needs, I have no requirement or want to have the best monitor where in your example you would since it hasn't got the perfect refresh rate or w/e, it just does what it's supposed to at an acceptable level. Extrapolating that to 40k, my current monitor is a mid tier army with a completely dud unit in that I enjoy playing but don't care that it's only 75% as powerful as the top army.
Yeah, that's usually my attitude when pretty much any army but marines is the top dog. When Tau are broken overpowered, that means one army owned by one single guy where I play is broken overpowered...and he usually swaps over to one of his other three when that happens, because he's a competitive player and doesn't enjoy stomping people with OP rules in a non-tournament setting.
When knights are overpowered, that means....no army owned by anybody where I play is overpowered. When Custodes are, that's 2 people who also have other armies. Ditto for CWE. For Guard it's 4 guys, one of which only plays guard. When Drukhari are overpowered it's literally just me, and I own tons of different armies. You get the idea.
When marines are overpowered, that means 20/50 players have the unbeatable tournament-tier army that is miserable to play against, and what happens is, nobody has fun playing against the marines, the marines end up playing only against each other, they don't have fun because non-marine players avoid them, and attendance at the club drops massively.
As it did, a year ago, when marines 2.0 hit. Our attendance dropped from roughly 50 to roughly 20 over the last year of 8th. We started rebuilding during quarantine, ironically, and with the excitement surrounding 9th. I was really really hoping 9th would fix the issue of the most ubiquitous army in the entire game being the miserable one to play against, but given the leaks we're getting for the upcoming codex, I'm becoming less and less hopeful about it.
Marine players love being the exception when it comes to model releases, supplement books, subfactions, lore books, etc - they love being treated like more than just 1 of 20 factions when it comes to positive attention and extra goodies. But when it comes to negative attention because everyone feels it 10x more when they're the unbeatable OP army, suddenly it's unfair that people complain more when they're OP then they do when some faction 1/50 people plays like Necrons or Drukhari is unbeatable.
What's going on in the world, there's a positive discourse about the marine imbalance without screeching, GW shaming or flinging insults. I doff my cap sir.
I understand your perspective there entirely, I'd emphasise there's a degree of player agency involved in finding an appropriate balance point in your group maybe where the marine players need to be spoken to and asked to tone it down slightly if possible like the Tau player. I'd personally hate to think people despised games against me and would tone my lists down or w/e to make it a good atmosphere, so that might be part of the issue.
My only other thought is that no press is bad press. If GW sees people constantly talking about marines in a positive way - release more. If they see negative feedback, re-balance them which is an excuse to release more. The best thing a community can do to temper the release pattern is simply ignore them right now imo.
Stux wrote: I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.
There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.
Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.
How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.
It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.
I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.
Thanks for pointing that out, Stux - I was struggling to figure out how June 2017 to July 2020 was slightly more than two years.
I assume we're all just going to forget Razorback spam and Flyer spam (or just Guilliman firebases in general) from the first ~half a year?
Yeah, I don't know, I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that Codex: Space Marines is 1 out of...what...20 codexes? And they spent nearly a year and a half as generally considered the "meta" army to beat.
Of a - mea culpa here - THREE year long edition.
So 1.333/3, carry the 1, hold the fries....
Seems like your expected length of time as the meta top dog as 1/20 factions in the game should be somewhere around....2 months.
For each army to get 2 months, that requires an army to be objectively better for 2 months at a time, which I'm not really sure is any healthier than 1 faction being unbalanced at the expense of 19 other being of parity, given whoever gets the first 2 months by proxy would be bottom of the pile for the next 38.
Or, it requires something like a rotating meta where releases aren't so wildly out of line that an army stays top dog for a full fething year until the game designer heavily nerfs what they added to them in the update.
You know, some kind of situation where GW gives some new tricks to an army, it makes a big splash in the tournament meta, and lists adjust to counter them naturally. Like what the meta did with Codex Drukhari, Codex Orks, Codex Genestealer Cults.... When something comes out and just stays the king undisputed respected saluted and loathed for the bs it is for nearly a year like Codex SM 2.0 or Castellan Soup or Ynnari did, that's a sign that it's fundamentally broken and needs either heavy nerfs or a scrap and a redesign.
"2 months as top dog and then reasonably present for the remainder of the edition" is what the reality was for most factions.it was a pretty dang good edition all told.
Yup overall it was a decent edition and like I say they had 2-3 outliers you identified which largely prevented anyone else running away with it. Maybe people are spending too much time fixating on that top - top 3 spots rather than appreciating that the bulk of armies were reasonably represented.
So, in your life if you have a really excellent thing you're working on and it's got one big glaring flaw but otherwise it's pretty much where you want it to be....do you usually not focus on fixing that flaw first? Does that not usually bug you more than something that's just all-round awful? Because that might just end up being a difference in attitude between the two of us, that kind of situation bugs the absolute hell out of me. If a movie, or a project I'm working on, or a recipe I've cooked is nearly amazing, but there's just one thing that's bad and I can't ignore it, that bothers me far more than something I can just dismiss as a total loss.
Hard to say, it depends what it is. My monitor with a literal bug stuck in bothers me more than if it had broken completely for example. The issue here is my monitor minus the bug functions perfectly on it's own, however it isn't THE perfect monitor, it's not that big, it's max resolution isn't 4k, it hasn't got in-built speakers etc.
I do acknowledge that it's fine for my needs, I have no requirement or want to have the best monitor where in your example you would since it hasn't got the perfect refresh rate or w/e, it just does what it's supposed to at an acceptable level. Extrapolating that to 40k, my current monitor is a mid tier army with a completely dud unit in that I enjoy playing but don't care that it's only 75% as powerful as the top army.
Yeah, that's usually my attitude when pretty much any army but marines is the top dog. When Tau are broken overpowered, that means one army owned by one single guy where I play is broken overpowered...and he usually swaps over to one of his other three when that happens, because he's a competitive player and doesn't enjoy stomping people with OP rules in a non-tournament setting.
When knights are overpowered, that means....no army owned by anybody where I play is overpowered. When Custodes are, that's 2 people who also have other armies. Ditto for CWE. For Guard it's 4 guys, one of which only plays guard. When Drukhari are overpowered it's literally just me, and I own tons of different armies. You get the idea.
When marines are overpowered, that means 20/50 players have the unbeatable tournament-tier army that is miserable to play against, and what happens is, nobody has fun playing against the marines, the marines end up playing only against each other, they don't have fun because non-marine players avoid them, and attendance at the club drops massively.
As it did, a year ago, when marines 2.0 hit. Our attendance dropped from roughly 50 to roughly 20 over the last year of 8th. We started rebuilding during quarantine, ironically, and with the excitement surrounding 9th. I was really really hoping 9th would fix the issue of the most ubiquitous army in the entire game being the miserable one to play against, but given the leaks we're getting for the upcoming codex, I'm becoming less and less hopeful about it.
Marine players love being the exception when it comes to model releases, supplement books, subfactions, lore books, etc - they love being treated like more than just 1 of 20 factions when it comes to positive attention and extra goodies. But when it comes to negative attention because everyone feels it 10x more when they're the unbeatable OP army, suddenly it's unfair that people complain more when they're OP then they do when some faction 1/50 people plays like Necrons or Drukhari is unbeatable.
What's going on in the world, there's a positive discourse about the marine imbalance without screeching, GW shaming or flinging insults. I doff my cap sir.
I understand your perspective there entirely, I'd emphasise there's a degree of player agency involved in finding an appropriate balance point in your group maybe where the marine players need to be spoken to and asked to tone it down slightly if possible like the Tau player. I'd personally hate to think people despised games against me and would tone my lists down or w/e to make it a good atmosphere, so that might be part of the issue.
My only other thought is that no press is bad press. If GW sees people constantly talking about marines in a positive way - release more. If they see negative feedback, re-balance them which is an excuse to release more. The best thing a community can do to temper the release pattern is simply ignore them right now imo.
It's just human nature that people are going to complain about something that gives them bad games. If their army is bad, they have bad games every game. If one out of 10 of their opponents' armies is OP, they have bad games maybe once every 2 months. If 5 out of 10 of their opponents' armies is OP, they have bad games every game. and WAY more people regularly play against marines than who play whatever the current worst faction in the game is.
Marines have the most players by incredibly far, and the most releases. People are not going to "just ignore them" because you just physically cannot play 40k and avoid playing against them nearly every other game. Especially when the biggest offender units come in the dang starter boxes of the game, so everyone has them. Throughout the entire Castellan meta, not a single person where I play bought a knight castellan. As of right now, we have 10 people painting up Eradicators.
That's also why there's far more complaining about Eradicators and Intercessors and Chapter Masters etc than there is about Chaplain Dreadnoughts and Leviathan Dreadnoughts. The squeakiest wheel gets the grease and the wheel that hits the potholes the most is going to squeak the most.
Dudeface wrote: I understand your perspective there entirely, I'd emphasise there's a degree of player agency involved in finding an appropriate balance point in your group maybe where the marine players need to be spoken to and asked to tone it down slightly if possible like the Tau player. I'd personally hate to think people despised games against me and would tone my lists down or w/e to make it a good atmosphere, so that might be part of the issue.
I'd emphasize that it's GW's responsibility to create a better game.
When marines are overpowered, that means 20/50 players have the unbeatable tournament-tier army that is miserable to play against, and what happens is, nobody has fun playing against the marines, the marines end up playing only against each other, they don't have fun because non-marine players avoid them, and attendance at the club drops massively.
So you're saying your clubs SM players only have fun when playing unbalanced games? Give them an even match & they get all pouty?
When marines are overpowered, that means 20/50 players have the unbeatable tournament-tier army that is miserable to play against, and what happens is, nobody has fun playing against the marines, the marines end up playing only against each other, they don't have fun because non-marine players avoid them, and attendance at the club drops massively.
So you're saying your clubs SM players only have fun when playing unbalanced games? Give them an even match & they get all pouty?
No, not at all. Just that it's boring to play against only Space Marines all the time, which is what they organically end up having to do when people who don't play marines get stomped, decide "well, that didn't feel particularly fair, I'm probably gonna take a couple weeks off" or "OK, definitely feel like my ticket's been punched for marines for a while, I'm going to specifically set up a game with someone I know doesn't have a marine army the next few games."
There's no grand conspiracy, and nobody is particularly evil, or entitled, or whiny or whatever. It's a natural reaction to showing up to play a game and feeling like you didn't get beaten by the player but by the crazy rules that they get to want to try and seek out different people to play against. In particular it happens most often when they playstyle of the army appears to be extremely basic - which is why all the most traditionally despised armies are the ones that win by either having just a couple really big models or the ones that just sit in their deployment zone shooting all game long.
If your impression at the end of the game is "well that stunk, I got basically tabled and my opponent didn't even move his stuff" you'll just try to avoid that army for a bit.
Stux wrote: I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.
There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.
Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.
How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.
It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.
I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.
Well if you want to be all, technical i'll match you. Marines were top dog during index phase due mostly to Stormraven spam. At the first LVO in 8th edition (Jan 2018) the Marines featured in 4 of the top 10 places. in 2019 they finished in many top lists but only as supporting cast because Knights + The Loyal 32 were just too powerful and 2020....well, 2020 was a feth storm of awful rules writing and nonsense, pretty much the moment Space Marines got their new codex it was GG for most everyone.
So Marines controlled pretty much most of 8th, just like they controlled most of 7th, just like 6th etc. etc. etc.
Here is the thing, every edition a couple armies will always stand out as benefiting most from rules and what not. Orkz in 7th were horrendous. I mean we were bottom of the barrel, garbage. I literally went to tournaments and had opponents apologize to me. 8th edition orkz did ok, we had some serious issues and the index phase was god awful but we were pretty close to top tier for a bit. Space Marines on the other hand....have literally never had a bad edition. They might have had PART of an edition where they weren't top tier, or maybe the spent most of the edition in the top half of mid tier, but they have never had a bad edition. And 8th...wow. First part of 8th you guys were dominating with girlyman. Than you got massive primaris releases, than you had the last year of 8th where Iron hands and other shenanigans were top dog again. 2020's LVO was almost exclusively Space Marines in the top 10 lol.
Hecaton wrote: I'd emphasize that it's GW's responsibility to create a better game.
I'd emphasize that 40k never had been a balanced game since I started playing in 3rd edition.
Waiting for a better game to happen is a waste of your time, as is complaining about conceived imbalance. GW will do what they did for the past 20 years: Pump out great models with some random rules.
If you feel other players in your group have stronger armies, then ask them to tone it down. That's the fastest way to getting a better game experience, outside of playing a different game.
Stux wrote: I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.
There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.
Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.
How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.
It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.
I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.
Well if you want to be all, technical i'll match you. Marines were top dog during index phase due mostly to Stormraven spam. At the first LVO in 8th edition (Jan 2018) the Marines featured in 4 of the top 10 places. in 2019 they finished in many top lists but only as supporting cast because Knights + The Loyal 32 were just too powerful and 2020....well, 2020 was a feth storm of awful rules writing and nonsense, pretty much the moment Space Marines got their new codex it was GG for most everyone.
So Marines controlled pretty much most of 8th, just like they controlled most of 7th, just like 6th etc. etc. etc.
Here is the thing, every edition a couple armies will always stand out as benefiting most from rules and what not. Orkz in 7th were horrendous. I mean we were bottom of the barrel, garbage. I literally went to tournaments and had opponents apologize to me. 8th edition orkz did ok, we had some serious issues and the index phase was god awful but we were pretty close to top tier for a bit. Space Marines on the other hand....have literally never had a bad edition. They might have had PART of an edition where they weren't top tier, or maybe the spent most of the edition in the top half of mid tier, but they have never had a bad edition. And 8th...wow. First part of 8th you guys were dominating with girlyman. Than you got massive primaris releases, than you had the last year of 8th where Iron hands and other shenanigans were top dog again. 2020's LVO was almost exclusively Space Marines in the top 10 lol.
Bit like eldar and tau, consistently top tabling since 5th.
Hecaton wrote: I'd emphasize that it's GW's responsibility to create a better game.
I'd emphasize that 40k never had been a balanced game since I started playing in 3rd edition.
Waiting for a better game to happen is a waste of your time, as is complaining about conceived imbalance. GW will do what they did for the past 20 years: Pump out great models with some random rules.
If you feel other players in your group have stronger armies, then ask them to tone it down. That's the fastest way to getting a better game experience, outside of playing a different game.
In my perfect world?
40k would be a tight, well-balanced game.
In a more realistic, but still better world?
40k would be a reasonably balanced game, or at least every Codex is capable of competing, but there'd be absolute pooptons of customization. You could represent most anything from the background-from biker bosses to winged archons to even crazier things.
If 40k isn't going to be balanced, they can at least include rules for lots of customization.
Hecaton wrote: I'd emphasize that it's GW's responsibility to create a better game.
I'd emphasize that 40k never had been a balanced game since I started playing in 3rd edition.
Waiting for a better game to happen is a waste of your time, as is complaining about conceived imbalance. GW will do what they did for the past 20 years: Pump out great models with some random rules.
If you feel other players in your group have stronger armies, then ask them to tone it down. That's the fastest way to getting a better game experience, outside of playing a different game.
I do mostly play better games. Because I have self-respect and am not satisfied with shoddy rulesets designed around marketing more than balance or fun. The fact that so many of you are is a problem, and that's why GW has no incentive to ever improve.
I shouldn't have to ask other players in my playgroup to "tone it down" and not play with models that they bought. I shouldn't have to have options for my armies removed so that little Timmy with his Primaris always feels like he's gonna win. Both of these things are GW's fault, not my opponent's or other people in my playgroup, and I'm going to levy blame where it's due.
Hecaton wrote: I'd emphasize that it's GW's responsibility to create a better game.
I'd emphasize that 40k never had been a balanced game since I started playing in 3rd edition.
Waiting for a better game to happen is a waste of your time, as is complaining about conceived imbalance. GW will do what they did for the past 20 years: Pump out great models with some random rules.
If you feel other players in your group have stronger armies, then ask them to tone it down. That's the fastest way to getting a better game experience, outside of playing a different game.
In my perfect world?
40k would be a tight, well-balanced game.
In a more realistic, but still better world?
40k would be a reasonably balanced game, or at least every Codex is capable of competing, but there'd be absolute pooptons of customization. You could represent most anything from the background-from biker bosses to winged archons to even crazier things.
If 40k isn't going to be balanced, they can at least include rules for lots of customization.
Yup, right now 40k is poorly balanced *and* hostile towards customization. What's the point?
In Age of Sigmar, they let you kitbash your own character, and have rules on how to use it in matched play.
In 40k, they ban you from using a model they sold you in the first place.
You know, if I didn't love modeling my orks as much as I do I'd wonder why I even bother with 40k as a game. I mean heck when we finally got our looted vehicles back they didn't even have the audacity to give us actual points (god I despise power level).
Whether its a ploy to get us to buy the wartrike, or the competitive scene and ITC strangleholding the game for everyone, or just a case of pure ol' stupid, I don't care. Repeatedly kicking xenos players in the groin has reached its breaking point. I hope the community continues to be more vocal about their distaste in the current direction of Primarishammer.
Yeah, that is another one of those things that irk me.
Every random BSF expansion model (except the flash git, obviously) has points so you can include them in your tau/eldar/chaos/imperial army if you really want to. Random promotional models get points so you can field them in matched play games, even the kill team boxes have points.
But when orks get something like the looted wagon or the goff models, they are PL only. Can't risk someone bringing those to a tournament, right?
Yeah, it is odd and annoying how unwilling GW seems to be in regards to giving orks one off type stuff or making it PL only. Would love to have the goff rokkas in normal play. Have him following Ghaz in a horde army as his own personal Hype Ork.
They seem irritated by Ork players excessive creativity. Viewing it not as the purest form of wargaming hobby expression but a threat to profit. (Despite tons of the creations coming from more $ in kits than just buying existing units)
Eldarain wrote: They seem irritated by Ork players excessive creativity. Viewing it not as the purest form of wargaming hobby expression but a threat to profit. (Despite tons of the creations coming from more $ in kits than just buying existing units)
In fairness they gave space marines "vehicle construction rules" for land raider varients and those are also "power level only"
Eldarain wrote: They seem irritated by Ork players excessive creativity. Viewing it not as the purest form of wargaming hobby expression but a threat to profit. (Despite tons of the creations coming from more $ in kits than just buying existing units)
In fairness they gave space marines "vehicle construction rules" for land raider varients and those are also "power level only"
Yeah that would have been massive fun to play with too. None of those vehicles were especially strong as I recall, but flavourful certainly. Imp fists would get a bolt raider, salimanders would get a flame raider.
Eldarain wrote: They seem irritated by Ork players excessive creativity. Viewing it not as the purest form of wargaming hobby expression but a threat to profit. (Despite tons of the creations coming from more $ in kits than just buying existing units)
In fairness they gave space marines "vehicle construction rules" for land raider varients and those are also "power level only"
The "vehicle construction rules" let you swap out parts they sell for that weapon slot on the Land Raider. They didn't really stretch anyone's creativity with those.
cody.d. wrote: Yeah, it is odd and annoying how unwilling GW seems to be in regards to giving orks one off type stuff or making it PL only. Would love to have the goff rokkas in normal play. Have him following Ghaz in a horde army as his own personal Hype Ork.
cody.d. wrote: Yeah, it is odd and annoying how unwilling GW seems to be in regards to giving orks one off type stuff or making it PL only. Would love to have the goff rokkas in normal play. Have him following Ghaz in a horde army as his own personal Hype Ork.
They remade the Rokkas?
Rules? Pics?
That may be a reference to the fact that they made the guitar Noise Marine as a one-off but couldn't be bothered to do the same for the Orks.
cody.d. wrote: Yeah, it is odd and annoying how unwilling GW seems to be in regards to giving orks one off type stuff or making it PL only. Would love to have the goff rokkas in normal play. Have him following Ghaz in a horde army as his own personal Hype Ork.
They remade the Rokkas?
Rules? Pics?
I mean, Kinda? It was in last months white dwarf (454). A pair of pages had Open/narrative play rules for Grukk facerippa, some special nobs for him and Goff Rokkas. (truth be told the rokkas were pretty good and would have seen action in most if not all Goff lists)
cody.d. wrote: Yeah, it is odd and annoying how unwilling GW seems to be in regards to giving orks one off type stuff or making it PL only. Would love to have the goff rokkas in normal play. Have him following Ghaz in a horde army as his own personal Hype Ork.
They remade the Rokkas?
Rules? Pics?
I mean, Kinda? It was in last months white dwarf (454). A pair of pages had Open/narrative play rules for Grukk facerippa, some special nobs for him and Goff Rokkas. (truth be told the rokkas were pretty good and would have seen action in most if not all Goff lists)
A nice conversion with it too.
Thanks. I don't generally bother with WD so I'll have to track this issue down.
Lack of pts isn't a deal breaker in my group as we can all do math & figure out about how many pts 1 PL =.
And besides, we're about to start a Crusade, so PL only is just fine for the moment.
