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.

 the_scotsman wrote:
yeah, a DW veteran squad is basically just a Sternguard squad that trades the better guns and better special rule for a 4++.

I dont think that their weird little heavy weapons are some great shakes.

Eh, the Frag cannon is solid for a unit that can deep strike (either with a char or drop pod) and bump range with kraken rounds, but it's a bit of investment.

 the_scotsman wrote:


Competitive players are playing marines...but theyd be stupid to play them as "Adeptus Astartes." Because you literally just give up unit options to do so.

They play marines as Deathwatch, or Space Wolves, or Dark Angels, using the Adeptus Astartes detachment.

Because it costs absolutely nothing to do so.

Unless there was something particularly strong about Robute Guilliman, or Marneus Calgar, or some other such unique Adeptus Astartes character, there would be no reason for a competitive player to run their list as "Adeptus Astartes." as it happens Space Wolves and deathwatch offer the best unique units.

There is: Aside from them both being Beatsticks (Tor may be the only non-Primarch to actually best Calgar) - They've got also both got some pretty hefty CP Generation gimmicks going for them: Calgar just flat gives you your max-one-bonus CP per battle round, while the Infiltrators + Phobos Libby + Guilliman for the Lone Operative Null Zone gimmick also gives you (average) 2/3 of that CP per battle round. - Or he can add (effectively) a second OOM target.

Plus there's Uriel Ventris giving freebie Strats to some Tacticus Primaris Unit AND giving a freebie "drop pod effect" to a Calgar/Biologis Aggressor Bomb.

 vict0988 wrote:
You get feedback from playtesters and competitive players on whether your planned points reductions make up for the planned nerf to Oaths to put SM in a healthy position in the meta.

I'm convinced the feedback from these so-called "competitive" players is garbage, which is probably why we're always in this mess.

Lemondish wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You get feedback from playtesters and competitive players on whether your planned points reductions make up for the planned nerf to Oaths to put SM in a healthy position in the meta.

I'm convinced the feedback from these so-called "competitive" players is garbage, which is probably why we're always in this mess.

What would convince you otherwise? I'd be convinced it was true if I saw some garbage feedback from those players. I've seen some analysis from competitive players that haven't played with a unit thinking it was great when it was trash, is that part of what made you think this or do you simply base it off the game not being more balanced than in 6th when GW had no competitive feedback?

keep in mind its not just a matter of gathering feedback, its what happens then that matters as well

e.g. how is feedback rated, appraised and classified?

is anything seen as "negative" discarded for example

Let me tell you a story:

I work for a company which for decades was absolutely exceptional at gathering customer feedback by directly approaching them, collecting their information and opinions in standardized forms which were sent to the company headquarters where they were sorted by relevant, age groups, etc and then filed into a great archive. There was an entire department which was ready to create reports from all that data when needed.

When the department was finally dissolved a few years ago, millions of forms gathered across the last 10 years were disposed without ever having been considered in a single report.
Despite all that, same year was also the most successful year for the company in its entire history.

And yes, the story is real, and no, despite how much that sounds like GW, I do not work for them

Companies like GW have to make it seem as they care for the well being or expiriance of their buyers. If they don't, which is oddly hard to achive suprisingly. But when a company does show the middle finger to its buyers, it ends up like the whole Bud thing.

What irks me with GW is sometimes a sentance. Something they just shouldn't add to a promo text etc And I do know that the majority of buyers don't read the promos and add etc. The last HH thing for example. Updates with new old armour type, new units, new vehicles, new box. Nothing wrong with showing and talking about that. But then they add something in the line of "And you can use them in w40k too".

After they just legended a ton of HH stuff, classic marines getting removed and replaced etc Is it really need to A lie to part of your buyer base and B be totaly out of touch how people with huge chunks of their collections being no longer legal to play feel.

As long as GW doesn't suffer a huge drop in sales, one which it can not cover with price hikes etc Nothing will ever change. The company has policies it keeps and doesn't want to change, the design studios are the same people. The same things happen every edition, which A for 35+ year old dudes invested in to the game and well off doesn't matter B for teens and kids doesn't matter, because most of them will quit, before seeing any paterns and C GW is having problem with producing enough items for how big they are anyway, so most of the time (save for some VERY unpopular things) they sell 100% of what ever they produce anyway. I think that in 5-10 years, bar for the "to big to fail" GW suddenly die, they are going to be doing the same things WotC does now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

What would convince you otherwise? I'd be convinced it was true if I saw some garbage feedback from those players. I've seen some analysis from competitive players that haven't played with a unit thinking it was great when it was trash, is that part of what made you think this or do you simply base it off the game not being more balanced than in 6th when GW had no competitive feedback?

Yeah, I will never forget that Indian dude writing an article in 8th how it is good that GW nerfed and keeps nerfing GK, because they are too strong and everyone just plays the wrong build for them. And when asked what he thinks people should play, he gave the same list everyone else was playing. That made 13y old me angry for real for the first time in my life.

Karol wrote:
Companies like GW have to make it seem as they care for the well being or expiriance of their buyers. If they don't, which is oddly hard to achive suprisingly. But when a company does show the middle finger to its buyers, it ends up like the whole Bud thing.

What irks me with GW is sometimes a sentance. Something they just shouldn't add to a promo text etc And I do know that the majority of buyers don't read the promos and add etc. The last HH thing for example. Updates with new old armour type, new units, new vehicles, new box. Nothing wrong with showing and talking about that. But then they add something in the line of "And you can use them in w40k too".

After they just legended a ton of HH stuff, classic marines getting removed and replaced etc Is it really need to A lie to part of your buyer base and B be totaly out of touch how people with huge chunks of their collections being no longer legal to play feel.

A) The line your complaining about was made referencing the coming Mk.III armored Marines.
It's not a lie. Of course you can use them in 40k....

B) Ah Legends.... Totally NOT illegal to use in your 40k games. (GW even tells you this) Just not in tourney play (even then, check with your specific TO....).
It NOT GWs fault if outside tourney play people choose not to use some portions of the rules.

though the "Legends" stuff will gradually fall further and further behind, good for now, maybe less so as time passes

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Companies like GW have to make it seem as they care for the well being or expiriance of their buyers. If they don't, which is oddly hard to achive suprisingly. But when a company does show the middle finger to its buyers, it ends up like the whole Bud thing.

What irks me with GW is sometimes a sentance. Something they just shouldn't add to a promo text etc And I do know that the majority of buyers don't read the promos and add etc. The last HH thing for example. Updates with new old armour type, new units, new vehicles, new box. Nothing wrong with showing and talking about that. But then they add something in the line of "And you can use them in w40k too".

After they just legended a ton of HH stuff, classic marines getting removed and replaced etc Is it really need to A lie to part of your buyer base and B be totaly out of touch how people with huge chunks of their collections being no longer legal to play feel.

A) The line your complaining about was made referencing the coming Mk.III armored Marines.
It's not a lie. Of course you can use them in 40k....

B) Ah Legends.... Totally NOT illegal to use in your 40k games. (GW even tells you this) Just not in tourney play (even then, check with your specific TO....).
It NOT GWs fault if outside tourney play people choose not to use some portions of the rules.

Nah dude, don't gaslight Karol. Everything he said was spot on. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say "la-la-la" all you want but to trumpet the use of the new Mk. III in 40k is just classic GW holding out the football for Charlie Brown to kick. Honestly, I don't even think it will work at all; the 30k crowd will buy the new Marines because they look pretty good but out of my friends who just play 40k, even the most ardent defenders aren't touching firstborn with a 10 foot pole anymore.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Nah dude, don't gaslight Karol. Everything he said was spot on. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say "la-la-la" all you want but to trumpet the use of the new Mk. III in 40k is just classic GW holding out the football for Charlie Brown to kick. Honestly, I don't even think it will work at all; the 30k crowd will buy the new Marines because they look pretty good but out of my friends who just play 40k, even the most ardent defenders aren't touching firstborn with a 10 foot pole anymore.

how is it gaslighting? the MK3 IS 100% useable in 40k? You can say the dorito isn't because of legends but the actual MK3 are just power armor dudes, you can use them as-is for tactical squads/legionnaires/intercessors, or find bits to make them into assault/raptors/hellbalsters/desolators.

Vlad, when 10th started. GW promoted contemptors, scouts, assault marines etc. They gave those units good rules, had articles how fun those things are. They even sold data cards with rules for those units. And then they legened them. And yeah sure you can rebase, stuff beg people to allow you to use your units etc I know people here say that you don't know what real fun w40k till you can afford to buy your own flat or home. So I guess this ain't a problem. But GW does scumy stuff like this all the time. Promote and write how cool it is to run 3 GM NDKs and how THE WAY to play GK is to mix brotherhoods, for them to make one options illegal and the other remove all the rules from your army, so technicaly not illegal, but why would you do it. And I think if your promote something to be X, and then you make it anti X or remove X from it, you are at best doing false advertisment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs 811116 11585107 wrote:

A) The line your complaining about was made referencing the coming Mk.III armored Marines.
It's not a lie. Of course you can use them in 40k....

B) Ah Legends.... Totally NOT illegal to use in your 40k games. (GW even tells you this) Just not in tourney play (even then, check with your specific TO....).
It NOT GWs fault if outside tourney play people choose not to use some portions of the rules.

Yes I know, in your world, where you yourself you don't care about rules or how the game is played, Legends are as playable as non legends. Sadly this is not the case around the world. The uproar about contemtpors and other HH tanks being suddenly legend is not something coming from me. I don't care about HH, because there is no GK stuff in it. The World on the other hand does care. You don't have to look at eastern europe forums or content creators to find people unhappy about it. Reddit, english/german/french YT was full of people unhappy about it too.
Although it does make me rather unhappy to be the owner of 3 dreadnoughts with illegal weapon load outs. Ah and telling people to buy tacticals when GW clearly is removing the model line from the game is scummy. Ah and if we would go by what is technicaly is legal. I could buy a bunch of salt crystals stick them on to proper bases, and play them as any army I want, claiming it is a "crystal xeno race". The crystals could be colour coded, different size depending on the unit etc. 100% WYSIWYG. I just think that no one would want to play against an army like that.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Companies like GW have to make it seem as they care for the well being or expiriance of their buyers. If they don't, which is oddly hard to achive suprisingly. But when a company does show the middle finger to its buyers, it ends up like the whole Bud thing.

What irks me with GW is sometimes a sentance. Something they just shouldn't add to a promo text etc And I do know that the majority of buyers don't read the promos and add etc. The last HH thing for example. Updates with new old armour type, new units, new vehicles, new box. Nothing wrong with showing and talking about that. But then they add something in the line of "And you can use them in w40k too".

After they just legended a ton of HH stuff, classic marines getting removed and replaced etc Is it really need to A lie to part of your buyer base and B be totaly out of touch how people with huge chunks of their collections being no longer legal to play feel.

A) The line your complaining about was made referencing the coming Mk.III armored Marines.
It's not a lie. Of course you can use them in 40k....

B) Ah Legends.... Totally NOT illegal to use in your 40k games. (GW even tells you this) Just not in tourney play (even then, check with your specific TO....).
It NOT GWs fault if outside tourney play people choose not to use some portions of the rules.

Nah dude, don't gaslight Karol. Everything he said was spot on. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say "la-la-la" all you want but to trumpet the use of the new Mk. III in 40k is just classic GW holding out the football for Charlie Brown to kick. Honestly, I don't even think it will work at all; the 30k crowd will buy the new Marines because they look pretty good but out of my friends who just play 40k, even the most ardent defenders aren't touching firstborn with a 10 foot pole anymore.

I'm not gaslighting Karol. I'm telling him that (once again) he's wrong.

As for the MkIII not working in 40k? Hey, guess what? You're wrong as well!
Because 1) despite whatever you & your friends prefer, there's still plenty of us that do use 1st born in our loyalist forces. We don't see the need to re-buy/build/paint large chunks of our armies. 2) Those models (and the other MKs) will also work very nicely for CSM of varying sorts. So yeah, works in 40k.

leopard wrote:
though the "Legends" stuff will gradually fall further and further behind, good for now, maybe less so as time passes

They do keep updating Legends stuff; more than I ever expected them to. They're not getting patched mid edition by any means, but the stuff I thought would be gone years ago is far more relevant than I expected.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Companies like GW have to make it seem as they care for the well being or expiriance of their buyers. If they don't, which is oddly hard to achive suprisingly. But when a company does show the middle finger to its buyers, it ends up like the whole Bud thing.

What irks me with GW is sometimes a sentance. Something they just shouldn't add to a promo text etc And I do know that the majority of buyers don't read the promos and add etc. The last HH thing for example. Updates with new old armour type, new units, new vehicles, new box. Nothing wrong with showing and talking about that. But then they add something in the line of "And you can use them in w40k too".

After they just legended a ton of HH stuff, classic marines getting removed and replaced etc Is it really need to A lie to part of your buyer base and B be totaly out of touch how people with huge chunks of their collections being no longer legal to play feel.

A) The line your complaining about was made referencing the coming Mk.III armored Marines.
It's not a lie. Of course you can use them in 40k....

B) Ah Legends.... Totally NOT illegal to use in your 40k games. (GW even tells you this) Just not in tourney play (even then, check with your specific TO....).
It NOT GWs fault if outside tourney play people choose not to use some portions of the rules.

Nah dude, don't gaslight Karol. Everything he said was spot on. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say "la-la-la" all you want but to trumpet the use of the new Mk. III in 40k is just classic GW holding out the football for Charlie Brown to kick. Honestly, I don't even think it will work at all; the 30k crowd will buy the new Marines because they look pretty good but out of my friends who just play 40k, even the most ardent defenders aren't touching firstborn with a 10 foot pole anymore.

You realize right there's several datasheets you can use mk3's right?

Even in 10th codex.

 LunarSol wrote:

leopard wrote:
though the "Legends" stuff will gradually fall further and further behind, good for now, maybe less so as time passes

They do keep updating Legends stuff; more than I ever expected them to. They're not getting patched mid edition by any means, but the stuff I thought would be gone years ago is far more relevant than I expected.

During 9th large parts of the ork legends were unusable because they were referencing rules that didn't exist anymore, were missing keywords that were necessary for them to function properly and in general were completely out of whack when it came to point costs - if they had any to begin with.