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.

Posted By Mandrake on 04/08/2007 3:58 PM
"Oh god, that post made me realized something

If DA is the direction there taking the game..

And Orks are coming out for Christmas.."

I'm afraid you're quite correct. 4th ed Orks will all wear dresses and come in combat squads of fives.

Agreed. HAWT!

I'm wondering.
If 'zilla 'nids lists are... you know what I'm not going to go there. Just remember kids it's that easy to start a flame war.
Oh and BTW I haven't read the DA codex but I think it's great!

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/08/2007 8:12 AM

Posted By Slave on 04/08/2007 7:20 AM

Difference being, I never said dakka posters CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT when it comes to the Nid list.  I never said ANYTHING about ANYONE'S opinion on ANY army list.  I never spoke on the list selling.  I never mentioned any other living being when I said the list sucks.  I simply said it sucks, and if the DA list is gonna be the standard for the future codex, we will be in great shape.  So, no, you are wrong, and your anecdote is way off base, and doesn't apply to  what I did or said.

I'm afraid you are failing to apply critical reasoning.  You walked into a forum primarily concerned with competitive play, and claimed that Godzilla nids "suck" and new codex Dark Angels are powerful.

You knew when you did it that these are opinions blatantly contradictory to those held by the majority of posters on this forum, so either you're trolling, you're trying to enlighten us as to data we're missing, or you're just not thinking clearly and unable to predict the obvious response.

In the experience of most of us here, and from what we have observed at GTs and other major competitive events, Godzilla nids include some of the strongest lists in the game.  In the world of computer gaming, World of Warcraft is ridiculously popular and profitable.  When I touch fire, it is hot, and I can burn myself.

If you walk into a group of competitive 40k players and say Godzilla sucks and never wins, or a group of computer game retailers and say WoW is a terrible product and doesn't make any money for stores, or a cave full of GW Stone Trolls and say "No really, fire is good for you!", you should not be surprised if the response you get is less than positive.

Go back through the thread, highlight where I said the DA list was powerful, and copy it to this thread.  Go ahead.

Since when is having a contradictory opinion trolling?  Goes back to my point about being attacked for not agreeing with dakka.  No matter what the majority of the posters think, I am entitled to my opinion, with out being accused of trolling. 

No where did I debate the strengths of a particular list, I simply stated that one in particular sucked, and that I personally had never seen it do well.

In the experience of most of posters here, you may have seen it do well, thats good for you, but I never have.

I should be bal;e to walk into any place I want and hold the opnion that Godzilla nids suck, and be left alone for thinking so.

Where did this warcraft crap come from?  Another poster used it as an example, not me.  I never spoke on its selling rate either, anyone with a PC who cares to look can find out it has sold 6 million copies, why in the hell are you contributing this post to me.

Does Dakka just make people see things they want to see to prove a point?

Disregard, mispost

This is trolling. Not disagreement per se, but the constant cries of victimization.


Edit: I discovered I have more to say.



Similarly, if you wish to engage in an actual internet discussion, it is customary (and often helpful) to support your points with more than the circular argument that such-and-such sucks.

Are you entitled to your opinion?  Certainly.  So are the rest of the people behind the screennames.  To misquote, opinions are like armpits; everyone has them, and they usually stink.

But if you choose to put your opinion on the floor of public debate, you are offering others the chance to disagree with your opinion.  Post after post appeared in the thread, disagreeing with you; many of those offer reasons as to why they disagree.  You don't try to rebut their arguments, or engage in any sort of debate.  Instead, you play the victim card.  And that, good sir, is trolling at its finest - create an argument, and then shift the topic of discussion away from your argument, to provoke further posts.

As to the Tyranids themselves: you offer anecdotal, unsupported evidence for your opinion.  Other posters have offered other anecdotal evidence. 

However, they also point out that, in general, it can be difficult for what is generally viewed as a "balanced" army to both be able to handle other tournament forces, AND face down 32+ T6 wounds, backed by a very significant volume of fire.

As to the Dark Angels: you, and others, are content with the codex.  Many others want to be content, but are disappointed with the limitations the codex offers, as compared to Codex: Space Marines.  It is difficult, in my opinion, to construct a reasonable argument whereby CA is anything but weaker than C:SM, given the rigid squad requirements and limitations on Assault Cannons...but you are welcome to try, if that is your position. 

The ball is in your court: do you continue to play the internet victim, subjugated by this vile collective you label "dakka" (and never mind the myriads of individuals, whose opinions you devalue by lumping them under a single, overbroad label), or do you engage in a reasoned debate?

Posted By Whatever on 04/08/2007 5:50 PM

My random thoughts from this thread.

I'm currently working on glueing my DA army together.  I think the new 'dex is great except for two minor quibbles.  1:Scouts as Elites instead of Troops and 2:No 10-man Termie squads.  I don't see how people can look at this list and say everyone's list will be the same.  One of the things I love about it is that I can do massive Termie army one game,turn around and do a force of almost nothing but Landspeeders and Bikes the next,then mix them together,or do fairly generic list with none of them.  The list is extremely well balanced,on paper.  When you see the same army over and over again is when you throw in too many options and someone makes something broken like 'Nidzilla out of the new 'Nid 'dex,drop pod SM's,or the 9 Obliterator/3 Defiler/Traiter Basilisk Iron Warriors when the last Chaos 'dex dropped.  Then,you get everybody out there mimicking these broken armies.   For on-field strategy and aesthetics,you want diverse looking armies on the field with a little of this and a little of that.  You don't get that when people are using massive amounts of options to build "do-all" uber-characters and units.  What you get is 200+ point Demon Princes that can walk through at least 1/3 of most people's armies backed up by three Defilers raining Battle Cannon shots down on the poor sob.  Where's the strategy in that? 

I think a lot of this "hate" on the DA 'dex and the direction the 'dexes are going in is from what seems like "tourney" players.   I can respect their perspective,however,in most any hobby/sport/whatever,tournament players are a very vocal minority.  In a typical such industry,usually only 1-5% of the participants are participating in tourneys on any regular basis.  I'm not a tourney 40k player,but I have been a tourney player in other games and recreational sports.  As a tourney game player,you literally try and break the game.  You try to come up with the cheesiest,most min/maxed,munchkined-out creation you can and see how it stacks up against everybody else's.  That's a big part of the fun of it.  Less options=less chance to break the game,killing that aspect of the fun for the tourney players.  I don't expect them to like that,but they are in the minority.  1-5% of GW's audience wants options,while 95% wants game balance.  Casual players don't want to be setting up their armies with the knowledge that they've lost,even before the game begins,because of their opponent's army list.  To keep sacrificing game balance for options doesn't make sense.   GW can still run tourney's with a balanced game.  It's just that now competitors are going to have to win the game on the field instead of on their copy of Army Builder.

As far as the "demise" of the Craftworlds go,it goes with the theme of what Jervis is trying to accomplish.  In the White Dwarf in which he talks about the design of the DA 'dex,he talks about how he wasn't going to write rules for rules sake anymore.  He says items like Purity Seals should be on the models to add flavor to them,not because of some obscure rules bonus.  The same applies to the Craftworlds.  You should play,Ulthwe,for example,because you like their fluff and you want to play with a bunch of Guardians,not because some book gives them BS 4.  You should play Iodin(sp?) because you like their fluff and you want to field a bunch of Wraithlords and Wraithguard.  Why does GW have to write rules to entice players to field and play their armies "the right way?"

For Chaos,I'd like to see a Chaos Undivided 'dex with rules for the other Undivided Legions,like Iron Warriors,Alpha Legion,Word Bearers,etc,much like the current SM 'dex.  Then seperate Codexes for World Eaters,Thousand Sons,Emperor's Children,and Death Guard.  Chaos IS suppossed to be main enemy to the Imperium.  They should get equal time and support in the line,not all just get lumped into one book.

 

 

**Applaudes**

Well said sir.  Whatever's post = best first post ever IMO.

I could not agree more with you and the sentiments you express.  If people would learn to win the game through tactical prowess and not through list design, I feel like the game as a whole will improve and you'll start seeing a more diverse tournament attendance, as people will play armies that actually interest them from a fluff perspective, and not because "their rules are better, and allow X, Y, and Z to all be included at the same time making it the uber list."

Regarding your thoughts on Craftword Eldar: *Applaudes again*  Play a Craftworld that interests you and has a back-story that appeals to you.  I played Ulthwe' because I dug the whole "dark scion of the Eldar" vibe that they had.  The one Craftworld that appeared both merciful, and yet sinister at the same time.  Never mind that the Guardians were BS 4, or the other rules that they had.  I didn't know a damn thing about Eldar when I bought the codex and started reading it.  I saw the different paint-jobs displayed and immediately really liked the black, off-white, and red scheme.  It was simple, and very appealing to the eye at the same time.  Then I picked up the Craftworld Eldar supplement codex and lo-and-behold, the Craftworld I had been painting had a name, and special rules!  Sweet! 

Anyway, as I said, Bravo on what I view to be an excellent first post. 

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

If they are going to make lists more limited for the sake of balance (I'm not gonna say what I think about that), I really hope they make a more tactically interesting ruleset while they're at it. It's not like 40k is a bad system, but the characterization if 40k as Fantasy minus most of: psychology, magic, troop maneuvering, and so, on is pretty accurate. I don't want to play WHFB with bolters, but it tends to be that for most armies, your tactics are pretty fixed when you get to a table. Sure, the list of targets you go after first and Nasty Things you avoid changes, but that's not much. To be fair, there is a world of difference between a hard list played well and one played badly, but for a given hard list, if you're playing it well, you could be swapped for another good player at your army type and someone watching the models only would have a hard time noticing. It's not because all good 'Nidzilla players are really part of a hivemind. It's that there's not a lot of room to fiddle around with tactics at the table.

I'm somewhat afraid that each army is going to get standardized and not only will every SAFH foot Guard army play the same game after game, but all Guard players will have SAFH infantry hordes. That is to say, armies that look the same tend to play the same. I don't want them to make many more armies look the same without fixing that.

As a real world contrast, if you take, say, an infantry company with what its service considers appropriate support, modern armies across the world are gonna look very similar. You give them each an identical hill with an identical foe on it that they need to deal with, you could probably see at least a dozen good solutions to the same tactical problem. In 40k, if your army looks like X, it generally plays like Y. And while there are many ways to put together an army, that's acceptable. Not great, but eh. But if all armies start looking like X because they cut the options vastly and they still all play the same, that's not acceptable.

Posted By Janthkin on 04/08/2007 11:12 PM

Goes back to my point about being attacked for not agreeing with dakka.

This is trolling. Not disagreement per se, but the constant cries of victimization.


Edit: I discovered I have more to say.

No where did I debate the strengths of a particular list, I simply stated that one in particular sucked, and that I personally had never seen it do well.

In the experience of most of posters here, you may have seen it do well, thats good for you, but I never have.

I should be bal;e to walk into any place I want and hold the opnion that Godzilla nids suck, and be left alone for thinking so.

Similarly, if you wish to engage in an actual internet discussion, it is customary (and often helpful) to support your points with more than the circular argument that such-and-such sucks.

Are you entitled to your opinion?  Certainly.  So are the rest of the people behind the screennames.  To misquote, opinions are like armpits; everyone has them, and they usually stink.

But if you choose to put your opinion on the floor of public debate, you are offering others the chance to disagree with your opinion.  Post after post appeared in the thread, disagreeing with you; many of those offer reasons as to why they disagree.  You don't try to rebut their arguments, or engage in any sort of debate.  Instead, you play the victim card.  And that, good sir, is trolling at its finest - create an argument, and then shift the topic of discussion away from your argument, to provoke further posts.

As to the Tyranids themselves: you offer anecdotal, unsupported evidence for your opinion.  Other posters have offered other anecdotal evidence. 

However, they also point out that, in general, it can be difficult for what is generally viewed as a "balanced" army to both be able to handle other tournament forces, AND face down 32+ T6 wounds, backed by a very significant volume of fire.

As to the Dark Angels: you, and others, are content with the codex.  Many others want to be content, but are disappointed with the limitations the codex offers, as compared to Codex: Space Marines.  It is difficult, in my opinion, to construct a reasonable argument whereby CA is anything but weaker than C:SM, given the rigid squad requirements and limitations on Assault Cannons...but you are welcome to try, if that is your position. 

The ball is in your court: do you continue to play the internet victim, subjugated by this vile collective you label "dakka" (and never mind the myriads of individuals, whose opinions you devalue by lumping them under a single, overbroad label), or do you engage in a reasoned debate?

Dang. Someone just played the lawyer card.

Posted By Whatever on 04/08/2007 5:50 PM

I think a lot of this "hate" on the DA 'dex and the direction the 'dexes are going in is from what seems like "tourney" players.   I can respect their perspective,however,in most any hobby/sport/whatever,tournament players are a very vocal minority.  In a typical such industry,usually only 1-5% of the participants are participating in tourneys on any regular basis.  I'm not a tourney 40k player,but I have been a tourney player in other games and recreational sports.  As a tourney game player,you literally try and break the game.  You try to come up with the cheesiest,most min/maxed,munchkined-out creation you can and see how it stacks up against everybody else's.  That's a big part of the fun of it.  Less options=less chance to break the game,killing that aspect of the fun for the tourney players.   

 

 

This is a false argument.  There are some tournaments in which the entire point is to field the nastiest thing you can possibly think of, or to field something else only if you want to see how well you can do using it against such nasty lists.  In the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> these are usually called Gladiators.  Across the pond they call it the UKGT.

 

This DOES NOT mean that that’s the only way to play in tournaments. 

 

Codex:  DA has fewer options, and more expensive, less flexible unit choices.  You don’t have to be a min-maxer to be bitten by and suffer from this.  If your average player makes a DA army and plays it instead of a regular C:SM army, it will tend to be weaker.  The DA player, all other factors being equal, will have less chance of winning a game.  How is that fun?  How is that good design? 

 

I don’t mind the idea of resetting the playing field back to a level below that of the current Space Marine Codex or Chaos, but since the last three, practically brand-new codices, all have very powerful builds which can easily compete with most SM and CSM lists, how soon do you expect this balance to be achieved?  Eldar, Tau Empire, and Tyranids all have very powerful builds.  Are we going to have to wait five or six years until all the codices going back to the one which just came out a few months ago are revised?

 

That just seems dumb to me.  If you build each codex to be competitive with but not dominant over the one before it, balance would be achieved a lot faster.

 

Posted By Whatever on 04/08/2007 5:50 PM

Casual players don't want to be setting up their armies with the knowledge that they've lost,even before the game begins,because of their opponent's army list.  To keep sacrificing game balance for options doesn't make sense.   GW can still run tourney's with a balanced game.  It's just that now competitors are going to have to win the game on the field instead of on their copy of Army Builder.

BTW, this is a completely unrelated and largely unsupportable argument.  Good players are good players, regardless of the strength of the list or lack thereof.  Bad players lose a lot at the UK GT using the nastiest lists they can copy off the internet.  The best players use strong lists and are skilled players.  I’d like to see a new player with Dark Angels NOT be handicapped and have a lower ceiling just because of the codex he picked when he started playing.

Posted By Slave on 04/08/2007 8:44 PM

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/08/2007 8:12 AM

Posted By Slave on 04/08/2007 7:20 AM

Difference being, I never said dakka posters CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT when it comes to the Nid list.  I never said ANYTHING about ANYONE'S opinion on ANY army list.  I never spoke on the list selling.  I never mentioned any other living being when I said the list sucks.  I simply said it sucks, and if the DA list is gonna be the standard for the future codex, we will be in great shape.  So, no, you are wrong, and your anecdote is way off base, and doesn't apply to  what I did or said.

You knew when you did it that these are opinions blatantly contradictory to those held by the majority of posters on this forum, so either you're trolling, you're trying to enlighten us as to data we're missing, or you're just not thinking clearly and unable to predict the obvious response.

Since when is having a contradictory opinion trolling?  Goes back to my point about being attacked for not agreeing with dakka.  No matter what the majority of the posters think, I am entitled to my opinion, with out being accused of trolling. 

I should be bal;e to walk into any place I want and hold the opnion that Godzilla nids suck, and be left alone for thinking so. 

As you can see right above if you actually read my post, I advanced three possible explanations for why you would post the opinion.  Either you're trolling, or you think we're mistaken and want to correct the error, or somehow you lack the ability to do cause & effect reasoning.

I'd like to believe it's the middle option.  But you're not providing any reasoned analysis of WHY the Nids aren't effective in your opinion.  Maybe there is some unusual metagame in your enviroment, with lots of Escalation.  Maybe the Nid players where you are use unusual builds, with minimal shooting, trying to get big, slow HtH things across the table and consequently losing left and right.

But you're not actually discussing it.  You're not offering any data about WHY you think the Nids suck, or what they're doing wrong in your area, nor are you asking what they're doing that's so nasty everywhere else.  You're just throwing out an inflammatory and unsupported opinion.  That's trolling, buddy.  Starting an argument for the sake of starting an argument, without any effort to engage in debate and the exchange of real ideas.

Posted By Slave on 04/08/2007 8:44 PM

Where did this warcraft crap come from?  Another poster used it as an example, not me.  I never spoke on its selling rate either, anyone with a PC who cares to look can find out it has sold 6 million copies, why in the hell are you contributing this post to me.

 

I used it as an example, or simile.  Please make an effort.  WoW is, by any objective standpoint and with minimal observation, a fantastically popular and successful game.  It IS possible that there is some town or city on Earth where they play computer games but no one likes WoW.  A person living in this city might form the opinion that WoW "sucks" and is a complete failure as a product, because his local store never sells any copies.  But that does not make said opinion factual, and if said person went into an internet discussion forum and stated that opinion in an arrogant or confrontational fashion, we would expect him to be corrected in short order.

 

List design is a much a part of the game as deployment, moving, shooting, or assaulting. What you bring to the table is just as important as how you use it.

Posted By Furious on 04/09/2007 7:02 AM

If people would learn to win the game through tactical prowess and not through list design, I feel like the game as a whole will improve and you'll start seeing a more diverse tournament attendance, as people will play armies that actually interest them from a fluff perspective, and not because "their rules are better, and allow X, Y, and Z to all be included at the same time making it the uber list."

List design is a much a part of the game as deployment, moving, shooting, or assaulting. What you bring to the table is just as important as how you use it.

Oh of course.  I realize that list design is part and parcel to the game as a whole.  Trust me, I play Eldar, I'm keenly aware of the potential list design elements.

To make my point though, here's a thought

How many viable heavy support choices do Eldar have?  Well it depends on what you want your list to do.  Dark Reapers, Fire Prisms, Falcons,  Support weapon batteries, etc. etc.  All have their place and preform different functions, but all of them are also viable choices in the list. 

How many elite and fast attack choices are there in the eldar codex?  Hell, how many different HQ choices are there?

My point is building a list is a lot more fun when there are many viable elements in each of the army's component sections (elite, HQ, troops, etc) rather than really only having one thing worth taking to the exclusion of anything else: I.E. Obliterators in an Iron Warriors army. 

Now I know someone's going to bring up the fact that DA only have one troops choice, but they're unique in that you can buy one ten man tactical squad and have two totally different scoring units in it.. 

Anyway, that's what I meant in any event.

Take it easy everyone.

-RT-

Let me present a slightly different viewpoint from the polarized groups in this discussion.

First, I applaud anyone in Games Workshop for taking ownership of what they do, and thus also fail to do,  because for the most part no one there does. They tout what a great game it is, and either tell us that there are no faults or mistakes that need a fix, or grudgingly make stop-gap reactions instead of concise, easily understandable corrections. Taken as an army building tool, I believe that the DA codex, with its unification of choices within a unit's block is great. If this is the shape of things to come, I believe that it will allow many more people to clearly understand how to build their army, and make the hobby that much more accessible to new people. Streamlining makes sense, reduces questions and misunderstanding. Applied across 40K as a whole, along with balance, this should correct a lot of problems, and actually streamline both your home game and tournament play, promoting much more good cheer, happiness and satisfaction. Whereas right now, rules discrepancies or misunderstood rules or abilities in someone else’s army usually causes ill will, bad feelings and unsportsmanlike conduct and scoring. Bleh.

Now then though, the DA codex makes my skin creep and I dread to see the Chaos Codex. I have no feelings on the terminators being restricted to 1 assault cannon, nor the point increase in the Tornado. I do think it heavy handed to have both applied to one army, but ok, these are not in themselves game winners nor crushing. Characters missing individual items in there selectable wargear, ok, it cuts down on personal character for those people who selected those items before the codex came out. Combat squads are great, cut out the min/max. Vet Sgt's in every squad, restrictive, but ok, cool, got it, most people are playing with them minus their min/max. The fact that we are going to jack all points cost back to 3rd edition character points cost - REALLY? Space Wolves and Chaos in 3rd Ed set the bar for the hidden powerfist(PF) and made Vet Sgts/Asp Champs worth taking. Codex DA makes it ridiculous to take a PF, and certainly not a plasma pistol(PP). Especially in Assault Squads, where the regular joe could have a cheap PP even in 3rd Ed. Now my choice is to take way way overpriced PP or nothing. Thanks. And oh, I can trade out 10 jump packs for a rhino at half their cost, or a drop pod at 2/3. Gee Thanks for the choices. Craptacular. And wow, we'll give you a moderately priced Plasma Cannon(PC) because we made some stuff up last edition, but because everyone plays plasma guns(PG), we're going to crank that up to ridiculously priced, but we'll make the flamer a point cheaper, because people only really play those for aesthetic reasons, or if swarm armies are big in their area.

To sum up, I like to layout and simplicity of the DA codex for the game's sake. Did they dumb it down? Perhaps. Is it too restrictive? No, not really, as this is for ONE chapter, not to be the bar when set against Codex SM. Is it a blueprint for the future Codex SM? Yeah, some things are. But not all of them, as they can't shoehorn everything in for the broad spectrum the Codex SM covers. I don't like the fine print in Codex DA, where they sought to "begin balancing" 40K. I fear for specific things in Chaos, like squad size, multiple special weapons, veteran skills- specifically infiltrate and furious charge(as "too many people play these" , marks becoming too many points for a standard troop in this new age of 'character cost pricing', etc. I don't fear for Iron Warriors being toned down, they need it. I fear for the loss of non-aligned chapters, Word Bearers, Alpha Legion, etc. They'll become the craptastic equivalents of the Raven Guard and Crimson Fists in codex SM. Yay. Mark em off as why bother. But, we'll have to wait and see.

My two cents.

 

With all due respect Mann (uh-oh), why is this thread continuing? It's completely off-topic, and the parts that AREN'T a public flame war are focused entirely on the strength of various builds for tournaments. Tertiarilly this is related to what Yakface said PAGES ago, but that this point, it's just more fuel to stoke certain fires.

The mods of this forum have shut down discussions for far less; let's just snuff it now before it brings out yet more assclownery.

Translation: In before lock.

But you're not actually discussing it.  You're not offering any data about WHY you think the Nids suck, or what they're doing wrong in your area, nor are you asking what they're doing that's so nasty everywhere else.  You're just throwing out an inflammatory and unsupported opinion.  That's trolling, buddy.  Starting an argument for the sake of starting an argument, without any effort to engage in debate and the exchange of real ideas.

Dude, I never said nids suck, I play nids, I said that the Zilla nids suck.  I never said I wanted to discuss this OPINION with anyone, nor was I interested in hearing your opinion, as I don't care if you like the damn list or not.  Get that?  I don't care.  It's okay if you like it or love it, great for you, or not, so what. Its not an inflammatory opinion, unless you want it to be.  Its also not starting an argument, as I never cared to discuss that list with anyone here.  It's not that I don't think people here are intelligent, or good players, it's just that I didn't care if you like what I like, its your right to like it, mine to not like it.

Therefore, It was not trolling, and it never was. 

The original point was lost a long time ago, with all the dakkaites flamming me for hating a stupid army list. 

My point as and still is that if the future codexes are like the DA codex, like the original point of the thread was saying, then we will be fine.

More useful units, less abusive units, less min/maxing, we will be okay.  If you agree with that, cool, if not, so what?

The godzilla nids is psuedo min/maxed list, and I have seen the DA codex do extremely well against it.

This was my expierence, added to the fact that I think the Godzilla list sucks.  The fact that I have seen the list do well against several supposed over power lists, colored my expierence, and I drew my opinion from it.  The way I feel has no effect on you. 

See there, I wasn't flaming anyone, wasn't trying to bait people.  I simply stated a few things that people chose to ignore, and I disagreed with a dakka law apparently, as I hate an army list, and that is apparently starting an argument and trolling.


Let me make sure I got the dakka laws down before this thread is locked:

Do not share expierinces that contradict Dakkaites expieriences (this is flaming), as demonstrated several times in this thread.
Do not say the Godzilla Nids suck as this , and I quote you: You're just throwing out an inflammatory and unsupported opinion.  That's trolling, buddy.  Starting an argument for the sake of starting an argument, without any effort to engage in debate and the exchange of real ideas.
If I post, assume its to exchange REAL ideas and exchage in debate, because just saying that I think a list sucks is just: You're just throwing out an inflammatory and unsupported opinion(because one MUST support his OPINION here, he is not entitled to just feel a certain way), and one again That's trolling, buddy.

Are there anymore laws I need to follow in the future?  Anymore army lists I should be liking, so I don't get accused of: You're just throwing out an inflammatory and unsupported opinion, and That's trolling, buddy.

So, in short, you wanted to throw your opinion out on a public discussion board, but you don't want to talk about the basis for it, and you're offended both when people disagree with you, and when people want to discuss your opinion in more depth.

Okay. Troll.

Posted By Whatever on 04/08/2007 5:50 PM

My random thoughts from this thread.

I'm currently working on glueing my DA army together.  I think the new 'dex is great except for two minor quibbles.  1:Scouts as Elites instead of Troops and 2:No 10-man Termie squads.  I don't see how people can look at this list and say everyone's list will be the same.  One of the things I love about it is that I can do massive Termie army one game,turn around and do a force of almost nothing but Landspeeders and Bikes the next,then mix them together,or do fairly generic list with none of them. 

The key here is that the army lacks a flexible build that is suitable for -take all comers - tournament play by providing either a steady ROI on points spent per unit or good durability (VP denial). 

I haven't played with the new dex, but I was watching a casual game where they were being used and asking questions about the dex.  The answers I recieved convinced me that while new possibilities were opened up, simultaneously, limits were placed, immediately reducing the ROI (points) of these choices:

Example 1.

Combat squads and rebate on transports.  This seemed awesome, until I found out that his vet sgts were mandatory.  Then I asked why he didn't pile 'em into a razorback and give the vet sgt a combi-weapon.  The DA player said that that is no longer an option!   He tells me Jervis, in his infinite wisdom said you can put all your combi-weapon guys in one squad and make 'em veterans...!  So while you have a lot of scoring units, these scoring units are comparitively underpowered compared to opposing units due to small unit size, and high unit cost...  (No signums or auspexes either, apparently)

Example 2.

Ravenwing bikes.  There's no reason that the RW bikes should be priced the way they are (in a vaccum).  Unless you use them to teleport Terminators, they give the appearance of being horribly overpriced.  Essentially, you have a stock marine bike, with a mandatory veteran sgt, teleport homers and scout.  We had a small discussion on how scout seemed to be overpriced, especially in light of the cost of infiltrate... but I digress.

There's probably more, but that's all I can think of - and the combat squads thing, to me, is a big deal.

This thread is getting a bit circular, so I'm closing it. If there are elements here you'd like to continue to discuss, please start a new thread with a focused topic.

Thanks!