Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
You're seriously overestimating the difficulty of making interesting options that are still balanced.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The Conqueror loses the Large Blast on its cannon, so its main gun is Str 8 AP3, small blast. But it also loses lumbering behemoth, so it can move 12" and go flat out. Almost no one takes this option except for looks. How would you fix it?
Give it the old "lumbering behemoth" rule back so it can actually move 6" and still fire the main gun + coax gun at full BS. Alternatively, just remove it from the game and use the model as an alternate LRBT with a storm bolter upgrade. The Conqueror is a relic of 3rd/4th-edition rules, it has no purpose in 6th.
The Annihilator replaces the battle-cannon with a twin-linked lascannon. However, a Vanquisher with a co-axial stubber is the superior tank destroyer in every case. Almost no one takes this option except for looks, or perhaps a world that doesn't use projectile weapons. How would you fix it?
I wouldn't do anything, except maybe lower the cost a bit. The LR Annihilator is already cheaper than the other variants, and that's all it needs to be. It can be balanced with the LR Vanquisher if there's a serious debate over whether you should be willing to pay +X points for the Vanquisher's superior firepower.
The Eradicator fires a sub-atomically charged shell that is Str 6 AP4, heavy 1, Large Blast that ignores cover rather than the standard battlecannon profile. However, the regular Leman Russ (at least in the Armored Battlegroup list) can buy infernus shells, which don't replace its battlecannon but do give it the option to fire a Str 6, AP4, ordnance 1, Large Blast that ignores cover. This option is also 10 points cheaper than the Eradicator. How would you fix it?
I wouldn't do anything, because infernus shells are only available on command and commissar tanks, not regular LRBTs. A powerful upgrade that makes LRBTs "redundant" isn't a big deal if it's on a tank that is only available in limited numbers and only at the cost of wasting your precious BS 4 tanks on a blast weapon. The only relevant change here would be to make ABG troops tanks scoring, so you have the choice of a "superior" infernus shell LRBT that doesn't score, or a LR Eradicator that can't kill marines as well but can claim objectives.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/14 10:27:19
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I'd like some price slashes; they're making WAAAAAY to much profit a our expense. Make it as cheap as Wayland Games and then you get more new players, sort out the rulebook and some of the vets come back... sooooo much potential if they just realised it!
Unit1126PLL wrote: Except that there is no bad thing about having those options. You shouldn't take them away, and they're fine where they are - people will take them if they want to, and they won't if they don't.
Except there IS something bad. Needing to support redundant "options" adds to the bloated mess of rules and gets in the way of cleaning up the mess, which is the first step in making a better game. And it means that certain models, which many people might enjoy, have weak rules and so those people are constantly frustrated with the fact that they have to choose between winning games (or even having fun in their games) and playing with the model they want. A better version of 40k would probably have fewer options, but all of them would be interesting options that would appeal to more than just the "casual at all costs" masochists.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
i dont think they will change anything, in fact they will probably just keep throwing more crap on top of the crap pile.
thinking about it, my theory is they want it to be everything to everyone. they want it so that no matter who you, you will find something that interests you.
space viking, space mongols, space vampires, space undead/Egyptians, space terminators as seen in the popular movie terminator and terminator 2 judgement day, space rambos, aliens as seen in the movie aliens, space crusaders, space elves, space drow, space knights, female space knights etc etc etc. they try to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. lets throw in artillery, lets throw in giant tanks, add giant robots, add all kinds of fliers, big battles, small battles, apoc, kill team etc etc etc.
theyre just trying to find that one small thing that will hook you in. and they seem to take the same approach to rules writing. throw in as much crap as possible. maybe in all the junk you will find something that interests you.
for older people we just see the heap of crap for what it really is. jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind. we want 40k to decide what it wants to be, which is the exact opposite of what they want. we want a game that picks what it's about and does it well. they would much rather try to do everything even if it means doing it poorly. little timmy doesnt really care after all, he's just happy that he found space vampires in power armour and the sales guy told him about this awesome game he gets to play with them. OMG so cool!!!!11
Okay, to answer the general idea of the thread and withholding my oppinion on various Leman Russ Versions:
I see my ideal 40k as a game between small skirmish games of 5-15 heads on each side and large battle games like apocalypse where whole battalions face each other.
40k should be a game between several platoons, a half-company per side, give or take. I'd love distinct factions with very little in the way of alliances. Things like Inquisition and LotD as allies to other imperial factions is ok, but not taudar, necrons+marines, orks + dark eldar or anything of that sort.
Furthermore, I'd love to see units that actually fit this "half-company" description. I agree that the occasional superheavy keeps the game fresh, but not omnipresent hordes of them, especially when speaking about really rare things such as knights.
And I'd love to have some semblance to actual ballance. Sure, some units may still be a little bit better than others, but I'd love to see every unit a viable choice for at least some job.
Peregrine wrote: You're seriously overestimating the difficulty of making interesting options that are still balanced.
And you are seriously underestimating it, perfect balance to remove "best" lists is incredibly difficult in a document as complex as a codex, doing it across a dozen that interact through allies is a logistical nightmare.
Peregrine wrote: And it means that certain models, which many people might enjoy, have weak rules and so those people are constantly frustrated with the fact that they have to choose between winning games (or even having fun in their games) and playing with the model they want. A better version of 40k would probably have fewer options, but all of them would be interesting options that would appeal to more than just the "casual at all costs" masochists.
So there are people who keep playing despite taking issues with all the games perceived problems and getting angry about it yet you are calling the people who make small in game group personal tweaks to add to their own enjoyment masochists? You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
You have to understand *you* think 40k would be better with fewer options and no need for a group to self regulate but others think it's better with more options and the need to do a little self regulating. Neither is *better* it's what you'd prefer.
The writers of 40k seem to prefer the latter so trying to sculpt them to your will just wont work. Best bet is either forge your own version with your gaming group or find a game that better suits your vision.
It sucks that the game has perhaps for you gone to a place where you have lost interest but you are arguing with the sea that you think it would look better in purple, you can and should express the opinion but the sea is as likely to listen to you as GW
Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Breng77 wrote: Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Living rules are good and they would certainly help but it really is that hard, seriously, try it some time. Play 10 different people across varying board types, army types and "competitive" scales and watch units bounce around vastly in utility and power then try and suggest a points/rules shift based on what you saw. Closer is good, perfect is better, I just think that the level some people want is out of reach.
A little in house tweaking lets you enjoy the crazy a lot more
I'd like to see a more balanced approach to the races. The multiple writers showing such heavy favoritism and plot armor make some of the fluff downright foolish. I understand suspense of belief, but sometimes it gets a little off the wall when Space Marines are involved.
Like other systems where players can choose a faction and play, stop setting up one side as the 'Awesome' and the others as the 'Suck' in the writing. If one army gets a dramatic feat that shouldn't be possible, write the same kind of fluff for the other armies too. Not that hard.
Farseer Faenyin 7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc) Record for 6th Edition- Eldar: 25-4-2
Record for 7th Edition -
Eldar: 0-0-0 (Yes, I feel it is that bad)
Battlefleet Gothic: 2,750 pts of Craftworld Eldar
X-wing(Focusing on Imperials): CR90, 6 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Interceptors, TIE Bomber, TIE Advanced, 4 X-wings, 3 A-wings, 3 B-wings, Y-wing, Z-95
Battletech: Battlion and Command Lance of 3025 Mechs(painted as 21st Rim Worlds)
Breng77 wrote: Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Living rules are good and they would certainly help but it really is that hard, seriously, try it some time. Play 10 different people across varying board types, army types and "competitive" scales and watch units bounce around vastly in utility and power then try and suggest a points/rules shift based on what you saw. Closer is good, perfect is better, I just think that the level some people want is out of reach.
A little in house tweaking lets you enjoy the crazy a lot more
But you can't go on the road with that. I might as well play a system I like better with a lot smaller player base if each little home group is going to have their own game. Having to negotiate lists and a dozen rules before EACH GAME is unacceptable to me. Am I supposed to tell the Eldar guy who wont' back off Serpent Spam that I just won't play him? What's the point of a community of players then?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/14 15:20:07
Breng77 wrote: Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Living rules are good and they would certainly help but it really is that hard, seriously, try it some time. Play 10 different people across varying board types, army types and "competitive" scales and watch units bounce around vastly in utility and power then try and suggest a points/rules shift based on what you saw. Closer is good, perfect is better, I just think that the level some people want is out of reach.
A little in house tweaking lets you enjoy the crazy a lot more
But you can't go on the road with that. I might as well play a system I like better with a lot smaller player base if each little home group is going to have their own game. Having to negotiate lists and a dozen rules before EACH GAME is unacceptable to me. Am I supposed to tell the Eldar guy who wont' back off Serpent Spam that I just won't play him? What's the point of a community of players then?
How about you stop basing your idea of fun on whether or not you win at the game, then there's no reason to ask the Eldar player to back down from serpent spam?
Breng77 wrote: Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Living rules are good and they would certainly help but it really is that hard, seriously, try it some time. Play 10 different people across varying board types, army types and "competitive" scales and watch units bounce around vastly in utility and power then try and suggest a points/rules shift based on what you saw. Closer is good, perfect is better, I just think that the level some people want is out of reach.
A little in house tweaking lets you enjoy the crazy a lot more
But you can't go on the road with that. I might as well play a system I like better with a lot smaller player base if each little home group is going to have their own game. Having to negotiate lists and a dozen rules before EACH GAME is unacceptable to me. Am I supposed to tell the Eldar guy who wont' back off Serpent Spam that I just won't play him? What's the point of a community of players then?
How about you stop basing your idea of fun on whether or not you win at the game, then there's no reason to ask the Eldar player to back down from serpent spam?
Sorry but losing every game due to picking the "wrong army" isn't fun in any way, shape or form.
Breng77 wrote: Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Living rules are good and they would certainly help but it really is that hard, seriously, try it some time. Play 10 different people across varying board types, army types and "competitive" scales and watch units bounce around vastly in utility and power then try and suggest a points/rules shift based on what you saw. Closer is good, perfect is better, I just think that the level some people want is out of reach.
A little in house tweaking lets you enjoy the crazy a lot more
But, this is fine.
A unit or wargear choice that varies in effectiveness depending on opponent, scenario or table layout is not a problem. A choice that is always effective, regardless of scenario, opponent or table layout is what we are talking about. Even then, it isn't necessarily a problem if that unit or choice is costed appropriately, the problem arises when we have units that offer a high degree of utility and are also an efficient use of points. That happens a bit too often in 40K.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Slot is important as well. Take the Wave Serpent for example, swaps its rules with the falcon (i.e. make it a heavy support choice, probably keep the dedicated falcon with capacity 10 though, and swap WS to 5), and it is much less of a big deal. now you are capped at 3, and taking 3 means no wraithknights, or other Heavy Support units.
Same is true for say the Night Scythe if it is not dedicated, it is not a huge deal.
The other thing with living rules is that you are not looking at feed back from 10 people, you are looking at hundreds, and if 80% say x is OP or underpowered, then you tweak it.
Breng77 wrote: Actually most of us that want balance want the same options just more balanced...and it is really not that hard (and no one is I don't think claiming total balance, just better). GW just needs living rules. If something slips through that is too powerful...errata to fix it...if something is horribly underpowered, errata to fix it.
Living rules are good and they would certainly help but it really is that hard, seriously, try it some time. Play 10 different people across varying board types, army types and "competitive" scales and watch units bounce around vastly in utility and power then try and suggest a points/rules shift based on what you saw. Closer is good, perfect is better, I just think that the level some people want is out of reach.
A little in house tweaking lets you enjoy the crazy a lot more
But you can't go on the road with that. I might as well play a system I like better with a lot smaller player base if each little home group is going to have their own game. Having to negotiate lists and a dozen rules before EACH GAME is unacceptable to me. Am I supposed to tell the Eldar guy who wont' back off Serpent Spam that I just won't play him? What's the point of a community of players then?
How about you stop basing your idea of fun on whether or not you win at the game, then there's no reason to ask the Eldar player to back down from serpent spam?
Because playing a game with a predetermined outcome is not fun. Whether I win or lose.
kb305 wrote: i dont think they will change anything, in fact they will probably just keep throwing more crap on top of the crap pile.
thinking about it, my theory is they want it to be everything to everyone. they want it so that no matter who you, you will find something that interests you.
space viking, space mongols, space vampires, space undead/Egyptians, space terminators as seen in the popular movie terminator and terminator 2 judgement day, space rambos, aliens as seen in the movie aliens, space crusaders, space elves, space drow, space knights, female space knights etc etc etc. they try to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. lets throw in artillery, lets throw in giant tanks, add giant robots, add all kinds of fliers, big battles, small battles, apoc, kill team etc etc etc.
theyre just trying to find that one small thing that will hook you in. and they seem to take the same approach to rules writing. throw in as much crap as possible. maybe in all the junk you will find something that interests you.
for older people we just see the heap of crap for what it really is. jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind. we want 40k to decide what it wants to be, which is the exact opposite of what they want. we want a game that picks what it's about and does it well. they would much rather try to do everything even if it means doing it poorly. little timmy doesnt really care after all, he's just happy that he found space vampires in power armour and the sales guy told him about this awesome game he gets to play with them. OMG so cool!!!!11
I believe your right.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
for older people we just see the heap of crap for what it really is. jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind. we want 40k to decide what it wants to be, which is the exact opposite of what they want. we want a game that picks what it's about and does it well. they would much rather try to do everything even if it means doing it poorly. little timmy doesnt really care after all, he's just happy that he found space vampires in power armour and the sales guy told him about this awesome game he gets to play with them. OMG so cool!!!!11
Please don't assume that you speak for a section of the 40k community. Replace 'we' with 'I' and you've got it right.
I suppose I'm older at 34 and I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been in. I'm a big fan of allies, flyers, Escalation, Stronghold Assault, dataslates etc. etc. I've never had so much choice when it comes to list building. As I've stated before there are lots of options now for different types of games, and 40k is very clear about the type of game it wants to be.
I don't really care about balance, I play for fluff and because I like the models, so 40k is perfect for me. If I cared more about balance I would choose another option. If you think it's a heap of crap, maybe time to try one of those other options?
for older people we just see the heap of crap for what it really is. jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind. we want 40k to decide what it wants to be, which is the exact opposite of what they want. we want a game that picks what it's about and does it well. they would much rather try to do everything even if it means doing it poorly. little timmy doesnt really care after all, he's just happy that he found space vampires in power armour and the sales guy told him about this awesome game he gets to play with them. OMG so cool!!!!11
Please don't assume that you speak for a section of the 40k community. Replace 'we' with 'I' and you've got it right.
I suppose I'm older at 34 and I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been in. I'm a big fan of allies, flyers, Escalation, Stronghold Assault, dataslates etc. etc. I've never had so much choice when it comes to list building. As I've stated before there are lots of options now for different types of games, and 40k is very clear about the type of game it wants to be.
I don't really care about balance, I play for fluff and because I like the models, so 40k is perfect for me. If I cared more about balance I would choose another option. If you think it's a heap of crap, maybe time to try one of those other options?
Wow, way to come over self entitled. "I'm happy, so screw the rest of you, feth off and play something else!"
Suffice to say, my experiences here and in the real world suggest you're in a minority.
Oh, and if 40K was clear about the sort of game it wanted to be in the slightest, then it would play a lot better than it does currently.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
IF GW plc was JUST writing the rules for you , and DID NOT include PV or F.O.C. then every one would be happy!
Because those that would like a war game suitable for pick up games without hours of negotiation would not play it!
But while GW plc give the illusion that 40k is suitable for random pick up and play games , then expect players to want the game to have enough clarity and balance to work in this way.
Like previous posters have said, 40k should pick what GAME it wants to be , then focus on being the best version of that it can be.
Currently the 40k rules and codex books are short term sales strategy that is failing..
When 6th ed came out it was beautiful. So much promise and the daemons, csm, and dark angel dexs were well written and well balanced. I would have liked tau, eldar, and their supplements to have followed suit. I would have liked fortifications for all armies.
What I really want is a new TO. GW doesnt sell those and mine burnt out.
You say you hate it but you wont do anything about it? What the serious ork?
Please don't assume that you speak for a section of the 40k community. Replace 'we' with 'I' and you've got it right.
I suppose I'm older at 34 and I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been in.
I don't really care about balance, I play for fluff and because I like the models, so 40k is perfect for me. If I cared more about balance I would choose another option. If you think it's a heap of crap, maybe time to try one of those other options?
And thus speaks the man who knows more about GW's market demographics than GW does. quote"GW doesn't cater for tournament players because they are such a small part of its market."
The vast majority of 40k gamers will never see a tournament and many find the idea of plying competitively off-putting.
.Please don't assume that you speak for a section of the 40k community.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
for older people we just see the heap of crap for what it really is. jack of all trades, master of none comes to mind. we want 40k to decide what it wants to be, which is the exact opposite of what they want. we want a game that picks what it's about and does it well. they would much rather try to do everything even if it means doing it poorly. little timmy doesnt really care after all, he's just happy that he found space vampires in power armour and the sales guy told him about this awesome game he gets to play with them. OMG so cool!!!!11
Please don't assume that you speak for a section of the 40k community. Replace 'we' with 'I' and you've got it right.
I suppose I'm older at 34 and I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been in. I'm a big fan of allies, flyers, Escalation, Stronghold Assault, dataslates etc. etc. I've never had so much choice when it comes to list building. As I've stated before there are lots of options now for different types of games, and 40k is very clear about the type of game it wants to be.
I don't really care about balance, I play for fluff and because I like the models, so 40k is perfect for me. If I cared more about balance I would choose another option. If you think it's a heap of crap, maybe time to try one of those other options?
Wow, way to come over self entitled. "I'm happy, so screw the rest of you, feth off and play something else!"
Suffice to say, my experiences here and in the real world suggest you're in a minority.
Oh, and if 40K was clear about the sort of game it wanted to be in the slightest, then it would play a lot better than it does currently.
My experiences in the real world suggest you're in a minority. I game with a group of friends who have been into 40k since 1st or 2nd edition and they all agree that, while not perfect, this is the best rules set yet. However this is all anecdotal.
You've introduced so much hyperbole into my original post that it's almost not worth responding; however, I was not telling people to 'feth off' and play someting else', I was saying that there are lots of other options [which I'm sure we can all agree is a good thing]. If people are so clearly unhappy with one, perhaps it's time to try one of those other options. Or, just moan about how it doesn't fit their expectations on discussion forums dedicated to the game they are so unhappy with - whatever they find most constructive.
No hyperbole here, merely paraphrasing, if I've taken a different message from your post than the one you intended, then perhaps you haven't expressed it in quite the manner you desired?
Your experiences within an insular social group are, as are mine, subjective, but as I play regularly in a large club against people that range from long standing friends to almost total strangers, I'd argue my experiences are closer to an objective view of the game than yours.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
azreal13 wrote: No hyperbole here, merely paraphrasing, if I've taken a different message from your post than the one you intended, then perhaps you haven't expressed it in quite the manner you desired?
Your experiences within an insular social group are, as are mine, subjective, but as I play regularly in a large club against people that range from long standing friends to almost total strangers, I'd argue my experiences are closer to an objective view of the game than yours.
Actually, I would contest this too. At my last club [in East London] it was virtually impossible to get a game of 40k. 'Games Workshop' was seen as a bad word, and club forums were full of vitriol against the evil of Kirby. The club chairman was a long time GW fanboy who finally snapped when a large part of his fully painted and magnetized Orcs and Goblins army was invalidated by the latest army book. Taking his lead, the vast majority of the club began to play Warmahorde, which effectively killed the 40k scene. Whenever someone tried to start up a 40 campaign there was a flurry of anti-GW posts from disaffected gamers. As I couldn't get a game, I left, and then ended up leaving London altogether.
Two doors up from me where I now live in Herts there is a wargaming group who play in the British Legion. The vast majority of games are 40k, or X-Wing, which is really big at the club. Unfortunately their chosen gaming time [Sundays] is really bad for me. However I never see anti-GW posts on their FB page or forum, and there is a thriving 40k community who seem very happy with the 6th edition ruleset.
My point is that there are lots of local and regional variances with the popularity of different games, so please don't assume your club is representative of the country as a whole.
Then clearly 40k isn't for you. There are lots of other options though. 40k lets me do what I want to do, which is play narrative games with the awesome models GW and FW make. If I wanted a tight, balanced game with very similar units on each side I would pick another option. You won't find me posting on Warmachine/Infinity threads about how the game should be more beer & pretzels though.
tyrannosaurus wrote: A few real stinkers? Have your read the codex? Problem with CSMs is that there are only a limited amount of competitive options, which is why you see so much Heldrake spam. There was a lot of criticism in 5th of cookie cutter lists [twin lash Daemon Princes springs to mind] but that was because there were very few viable options. And the 6th edition codex did nothing to improve this. My Emperor's Children have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust since the new dex dropped and I can't see that changing for a good few years. Plus the new models are horrible [aside from the cultists].
Emphasis mine.
Just curious how you reconcile these two statements, or are you, just, as it appears on first look, a massive Internet contrarian and hypocrite?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/15 22:32:40
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I want my 40k to be written and tested with as much love and attention to detail as we put into painting our armies, so we don't have so many bitterly disappointed players. If this weren't possible, games like Infinity wouldn't exist.
Then clearly 40k isn't for you. There are lots of other options though. 40k lets me do what I want to do, which is play narrative games with the awesome models GW and FW make. If I wanted a tight, balanced game with very similar units on each side I would pick another option. You won't find me posting on Warmachine/Infinity threads about how the game should be more beer & pretzels though.
tyrannosaurus wrote: A few real stinkers? Have your read the codex? Problem with CSMs is that there are only a limited amount of competitive options, which is why you see so much Heldrake spam. There was a lot of criticism in 5th of cookie cutter lists [twin lash Daemon Princes springs to mind] but that was because there were very few viable options. And the 6th edition codex did nothing to improve this. My Emperor's Children have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust since the new dex dropped and I can't see that changing for a good few years. Plus the new models are horrible [aside from the cultists].
Emphasis mine.
Just curious how you reconcile these two statements, or are you, just, as it appears on first look, a massive Internet contrarian and hypocrite?
Good to see you find my posts so interesting that you track them over multiple threads. I was very disappointed by the CSM dex and model releases so rather than bemoaning the fact, I instead began to collect Sisters of Battle. I love the models [Repentia are probably my favourite all time GW sculpts, despite being terrible in game] and the Inquisition dex allowed me to take really interesting and varied alternatives. CSMs didn't work out for me, so I chose an alternative.
My criticism of CSMs is based upon fluff/narrative reasons. I always hated taking obliterators but there were no other viable options. I still ran my NM in units of 6, despite this being a big self gimp. I was really hoping for more options in the latest dex but this did not happen. You may also note while trawling through my posts that I'm not a fan of the Crimson Slaughter dex as I feel that many more factions were more deserving of support. Not being happy with the current state of CSMs is not the same as an attack on 40k in general.
Rather than posting on forums about how much I disliked the new codex I instead changed my army. I was drawn into this discussion on the merits of the latest CSM dex as I felt I had something to contribute to the discussion, but in future I will ensure that all of my numerous posts do not contradict each other in the slightest.
Juicifer wrote: I want my 40k to be written and tested with as much love and attention to detail as we put into painting our armies, so we don't have so many bitterly disappointed players. If this weren't possible, games like Infinity wouldn't exist.
Maybe.
Tried Infinity and hated it.
I want my 40K to be different to Infinity, cause Infinity sucks donkey-balls (in my personal, biased opinion... if you like it... have fun with it).
Then clearly 40k isn't for you. There are lots of other options though. 40k lets me do what I want to do, which is play narrative games with the awesome models GW and FW make. If I wanted a tight, balanced game with very similar units on each side I would pick another option. You won't find me posting on Warmachine/Infinity threads about how the game should be more beer & pretzels though.
tyrannosaurus wrote: A few real stinkers? Have your read the codex? Problem with CSMs is that there are only a limited amount of competitive options, which is why you see so much Heldrake spam. There was a lot of criticism in 5th of cookie cutter lists [twin lash Daemon Princes springs to mind] but that was because there were very few viable options. And the 6th edition codex did nothing to improve this. My Emperor's Children have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust since the new dex dropped and I can't see that changing for a good few years. Plus the new models are horrible [aside from the cultists].
Emphasis mine.
Just curious how you reconcile these two statements, or are you, just, as it appears on first look, a massive Internet contrarian and hypocrite?
Good to see you find my posts so interesting that you track them over multiple threads. I was very disappointed by the CSM dex and model releases so rather than bemoaning the fact, I instead began to collect Sisters of Battle. I love the models [Repentia are probably my favourite all time GW sculpts, despite being terrible in game] and the Inquisition dex allowed me to take really interesting and varied alternatives. CSMs didn't work out for me, so I chose an alternative.
Yeah, weird isn't it? It's almost like I read more than one thread concurrently, and retain some memory as to who has said what in recent history.
My criticism of CSMs is based upon fluff/narrative reasons. I always hated taking obliterators but there were no other viable options. I still ran my NM in units of 6, despite this being a big self gimp. I was really hoping for more options in the latest dex but this did not happen. You may also note while trawling through my posts that I'm not a fan of the Crimson Slaughter dex as I feel that many more factions were more deserving of support. Not being happy with the current state of CSMs is not the same as an attack on 40k in general.
Why are you concerned about viable options? Apparently you play fluffy, narrative driven games with your friends, surely you're not concerned with how "viable" a unit is, that's one of those words that us filthy pro-balance people use?
Rather than posting on forums about how much I disliked the new codex I instead changed my army. I was drawn into this discussion on the merits of the latest CSM dex as I felt I had something to contribute to the discussion, but in future I will ensure that all of my numerous posts do not contradict each other in the slightest.
So you rewarded GW for turning out a poor book with options that didn't allow you to fully express how you wanted your army to work with a bunch of cash for possibly the most expensive, direct only, army they make? Bravo, that'll learn them.
Why not use all this vaunted freedom you allegedly have within your inner circle of gaming friends and just house rule the CSM book to work more how you wanted? Or is that just a bunch of Internet nonsense too?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/15 23:29:12
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Waaagh an' a 'alf
1500 Pts WIP 
Farseer Faenyin 
7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc) 
