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.

Karol wrote:

You got something in return; you got a bunch of miniatures.

If something doesn't work, then it is not a thing. If someone sold you a care and forgot to mention the engine isn't actualy in the car, you would expect a refund. Or at least feel cheated.

I would have no right to feel cheated if I didn't check under the hood prior to purchase.

Herbington wrote:

Karol wrote:

You got something in return; you got a bunch of miniatures.

If something doesn't work, then it is not a thing. If someone sold you a care and forgot to mention the engine isn't actualy in the car, you would expect a refund. Or at least feel cheated.

I would have no right to feel cheated if I didn't check under the hood prior to purchase.

To be fair to Karol, I don't think someone new to the game (or even the edition) should be expected to have a comprehensive view of the meta and faction power levels before making a purchase.

That said, there's no guarantee when buying miniatures that you'll have fun with them. Different people derive fun in all kinds of different ways after all.

The sunk cost fallacy, as others have commented on, is the usually incorrect idea that once you've put money into something you are stuck with it purely because of the money you've spent (the sunk cost), often leading to spending more money on it because you feel invested. Often times you'd be better off in the long run letting it go.

To be unfair to Karol, wargaming forums and discussions of relative power are so widespread and commonplace that I find it impossible to believe that a person cannot get a decent read on a Faction before signing up.

Of course, this logic falls down if he/she bought them in a previous edition and they then got nerfed.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
To be unfair to Karol, wargaming forums and discussions of relative power are so widespread and commonplace that I find it impossible to believe that a person cannot get a decent read on a Faction before signing up.

Of course, this logic falls down if he/she bought them in a previous edition and they then got nerfed.

Yeah but consider how many people are actually active online.
In most gamer clubs only a handful of people are ever online chatting about wargames on wargame forums and some clubs don't even do much if anything online. Even if you head over to Steam, where to play games you're also already registered on their forums, even the biggest of games doesn't have hundreds of thousands chatting on the forums about the game.

Many more either glance and read or just don't go online to "research" things; those that do often do sign up and chat on forums so it can seem that its normal, when in fact its not always. In addition information is rife on the net - as is missinforation. When you know little to nothing about a subject its very very easy to get the wrong end of the stick (that's why Universities have lectures and lecturers to guide students, they don't just give you subjects, reading lists and then an exam after a few months). Or to miss out huge chunks of information because you don't know its even there to Google* it.


https://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp
Google is great, but its not fantastic. The results it shows are based purely on popularity not accuracy or quality; furthermore the way it searches means you've often got to know part of the answer in order to ask the right question to get the right results. Sifting through them also requires some understanding to weed out the exceptions from the accurate. Plus there are a lot more "shock" sites now that work by having titles and articles that are brazenly wrong or highly controversial, just to get attention and clicks.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
To be unfair to Karol, wargaming forums and discussions of relative power are so widespread and commonplace that I find it impossible to believe that a person cannot get a decent read on a Faction before signing up.

Of course, this logic falls down if he/she bought them in a previous edition and they then got nerfed.

Are they though? Are they really?

Not to mention the fact that whenever someone asks about power level or relative power between factions there's people that jump in to tell them that everything will be great as long as they buy models they like. It can be incredibly misleading to someone trying to get started in a competitive meta and wanting a competitive army to be told this, and can lead to them believing that the power level disparity is small enough that they can succeed as long as they play well, when the power level disparity in such a meta will be soulcrushing to someone taking models just because they like them.

Plus, when starting a game like this because you see it being played in store and people are pumped to talk to you about it in person, why would you assume you even need to go online and research what's weak and strong? Why would you not believe it to be relatively balanced without evidence to the contrary? Nobody told me I wouldn't be able to win with my first faction, yet I had no reason to suspect that to be the case until I played several games with them. THEN I got online and started doing research on how to win and discovered "Oh crap I've wasted money and time."

Yes, they are. They're everywhere.

I have very little sympathy for anyone who buys into a salesperson's puffery, makes purchases without conducting their own research and then later claims they were hoodwinked.

GW is not your friend. They are a company that exists to separate you from your money. Caveat Emptor.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

Yes, they are. They're everywhere.

I have very little sympathy for anyone who buys into a salesperson's puffery, makes purchases without conducting their own research and then later claims they were hoodwinked.

GW is not your friend. They are a company that exists to separate you from your money. Caveat Emptor.

How visible are they? Overread had a better response to this, so I'll just let that stand, considering you didn't even respond to it yet.

Just a salesperson's "puffery?" I didn't even mention employees, but I guess it could be implied by what I wrote. I just meant "people around you" being excited to talk another person about playing, and maybe you go online to a facebook group, where people tell you it's all gonna be great as long as you like the models. Then you play some games and the power disparity between some factions becomes clear. Then you go online and try to figure out what you're doing wrong - turns out it's nothing, the faction just can't compete like that. It's a feel-bad moment, where a new player finds out how unbalanced factions are.

There's a difference between "misleading information" and being "hoodwinked," the former being very possibly well-intentioned, in a genuine belief of what the person is saying.

Also lets not forget that the local meta, the competitive meta and player skill and interpretation of events all come into play too. I've seen it many times (esp with Warmachine/Hordes) where a faction is considered "weak" until it wins a major competition and then its focused on like crazy.

So even power discussions on armies are not cut and dry affairs with clear answers. Plus who the heck are you people anyway? No seriously anyone online can post anything - I can write an entire website on a faction - it could be all true or all fake. For an experienced person they will spot the fake bits now and then and then realise that most of it is fake (or highly opinionated); whilst a new person can't do that.

Online research is good, don't get me wrong, but its not the be all and end all that will make perfect choices



Plus most people are rubbish players when they get started. No joke; same as in any hobby most people are bad when they get started*. So sometimes its not the game that is at fault but the person playing. Many a gamer starts out thinking "Oh cool I'm going to build the most shooty army ever and its going to be awesome" only to find that they don't actually like it. That they actually prefer close combat. Or they thought they'd like 40k, but instead find Infinity far more fun.
Games and companies and online forums didn't get them wrong, it was just inexperience and then experience that shifted their viewpoint.

*unless the hobby relies heavily on skills they've developed in other hobbies or work

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
To be unfair to Karol, wargaming forums and discussions of relative power are so widespread and commonplace that I find it impossible to believe that a person cannot get a decent read on a Faction before signing up.

Of course, this logic falls down if he/she bought them in a previous edition and they then got nerfed.

Are they though? Are they really?

Not to mention the fact that whenever someone asks about power level or relative power between factions there's people that jump in to tell them that everything will be great as long as they buy models they like. It can be incredibly misleading to someone trying to get started in a competitive meta and wanting a competitive army to be told this, and can lead to them believing that the power level disparity is small enough that they can succeed as long as they play well, when the power level disparity in such a meta will be soulcrushing to someone taking models just because they like them.

Plus, when starting a game like this because you see it being played in store and people are pumped to talk to you about it in person, why would you assume you even need to go online and research what's weak and strong? Why would you not believe it to be relatively balanced without evidence to the contrary? Nobody told me I wouldn't be able to win with my first faction, yet I had no reason to suspect that to be the case until I played several games with them. THEN I got online and started doing research on how to win and discovered "Oh crap I've wasted money and time."

The reason we tell people to start with the faction they like the look of is because you're going to suck for a while using it. So enjoy the models while you learn. Because You have to learn how to play before you can understand how to play competitively. Sure you can buy only the top models and the best net list, but it doesn't mean anything if you don't understand how to use it. And with the current edition any net list you buy has an expiration date on it.

If you hate to waste money then don't play this game competitively, because that is what you're going to do.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
To be unfair to Karol, wargaming forums and discussions of relative power are so widespread and commonplace that I find it impossible to believe that a person cannot get a decent read on a Faction before signing up.

Of course, this logic falls down if he/she bought them in a previous edition and they then got nerfed.

Are they though? Are they really?

Not to mention the fact that whenever someone asks about power level or relative power between factions there's people that jump in to tell them that everything will be great as long as they buy models they like. It can be incredibly misleading to someone trying to get started in a competitive meta and wanting a competitive army to be told this, and can lead to them believing that the power level disparity is small enough that they can succeed as long as they play well, when the power level disparity in such a meta will be soulcrushing to someone taking models just because they like them.

Plus, when starting a game like this because you see it being played in store and people are pumped to talk to you about it in person, why would you assume you even need to go online and research what's weak and strong? Why would you not believe it to be relatively balanced without evidence to the contrary? Nobody told me I wouldn't be able to win with my first faction, yet I had no reason to suspect that to be the case until I played several games with them. THEN I got online and started doing research on how to win and discovered "Oh crap I've wasted money and time."

The reason we tell people to start with the faction they like the look of is because you're going to suck for a while using it. So enjoy the models while you learn. Because You have to learn how to play before you can understand how to play competitively. Sure you can buy only the top models and the best net list, but it doesn't mean anything if you don't understand how to use it. And with the current edition any net list you buy has an expiration date on it.

If you hate to waste money then don't play this game competitively, because that is what you're going to do.

Not to mention that hobby scores are becoming more and more of a thing among tournaments meaning you'll want to paint something you like over something you hate.

Further, probably half the armies in the game have had a place in the top list at one point or another over the course of the last year. Off the top of my head:

-IG
-Marines
-CWE
-DE
-Harlies
-Custodes
-BA
-CSM
-DG
-TS
-Nids
-Custodes
-Knights

 Excommunicatus wrote:
To be unfair to Karol, wargaming forums and discussions of relative power are so widespread and commonplace that I find it impossible to believe that a person cannot get a decent read on a Faction before signing up.

Of course, this logic falls down if he/she bought them in a previous edition and they then got nerfed.

If we all just listened to wargaming forums like this one to identify relative power, then a prospective new hobbyist would be led to believe that every opponent is a top 16 tournament player, every game is determined entirely on the first turn, every unit is bad because focus fire can kill it, every faction is horribly broken and needs a full rewrite, and unless you buy knights you're doing it wrong.

Since none of those things represent actual reality in 99.9% of gaming communities, I'm hesitant to agree that communities like this one (where the hardcore discuss the minutiae of the game) is of any real use to newbies. I mean, the servers that host dakka haven't been plugged in for 5 years - they're run entirely on a constant stream of hyperbole, Ork whining, and poking fun at Tau players.

The only real advice we can provide is this - things change in this game. Things have been changing pretty quickly and pretty regularly in this game. We've had the longest period of time with a stable meta in 8th edition, and it's only been 5 months.

Lemondish wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
To be unfair to Karol, wargaming forums and discussions of relative power are so widespread and commonplace that I find it impossible to believe that a person cannot get a decent read on a Faction before signing up.

Of course, this logic falls down if he/she bought them in a previous edition and they then got nerfed.

If we all just listened to wargaming forums like this one to identify relative power, then a prospective new hobbyist would be led to believe that every opponent is a top 16 tournament player, every game is determined entirely on the first turn, every unit is bad because focus fire can kill it, every faction is horribly broken and needs a full rewrite, and unless you buy knights you're doing it wrong.

Since none of those things represent actual reality in 99.9% of gaming communities, I'm hesitant to agree that communities like this one (where the hardcore discuss the minutiae of the game) is of any real use to newbies. I mean, the servers that host dakka haven't been plugged in for 5 years - they're run entirely on a constant stream of hyperbole, Ork whining, and poking fun at Tau players.

There are plenty of people here who recommend playing what you like over the current hotness to maintain some level of interest in the faction. Furthermore, we all recognize that even if you play what you like (say Grey Knights) you may need to balance that by taking the best stuff in the book if you want a strong crunch even if you like certain units better.

This is largely why I tend to approach the game from more of a hobbyist approach: I can collect the stuff I like and even if my army isn't the most finely tuned I can still field what I enjoy fielding. Plus not grabbing the faction crutches has made me a better player over the years as I've learned to run stuff I like more effectively in order to play the mission and win more games.

I would also add that there are more than a few people who I've had conversations with along the lines of: "So, I've been looking at my first army, and I've zeroed it down to armies X, Y and Z based on the models/aesthetic. Beyond that, I'd be happy with any of them, so is there anything about the rules that might sway me?" In that case, if one of those armies is Grey Knights you bet I'm gonna try to warn them off.
On the other hand, if they were to say "I definitely want to play Grey Knights, they look really cool, how do they play?" then my answer is "Not great at a comp. level, but nothing we can't correct for in our friendlies." If they truly like the models, that should be enough. If not then they shouldn't be playing the army, nor should they be sneered at for wanting an army with a functional rule-set.

 rayphoton wrote:
Is it not kosher to make a IG army and call them chaos? (I ask cause that's what I'm doing)

Nobody is going to give you a hard time, though certain rules, options, or allies interactions may not work or be available.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
I would also add that there are more than a few people who I've had conversations with along the lines of: "So, I've been looking at my first army, and I've zeroed it down to armies X, Y and Z based on the models/aesthetic. Beyond that, I'd be happy with any of them, so is there anything about the rules that might sway me?" In that case, if one of those armies is Grey Knights you bet I'm gonna try to warn them off.
On the other hand, if they were to say "I definitely want to play Grey Knights, they look really cool, how do they play?" then my answer is "Not great at a comp. level, but nothing we can't correct for in our friendlies." If they truly like the models, that should be enough. If not then they shouldn't be playing the army, nor should they be sneered at for wanting an army with a functional rule-set.

Yeah, some people will play anything regardless, but if they want sometbing that plays well, noting that factor is totally valid, and being stuck with an army that doesnt play well is a huge turn off for most people even if its of secondary importance.

Y'all can find as many ways as you like to excuse willful ignorance. None of them wash.

The information is out there. Don't cry later on because you chose to remain ignorant.

Caveat Emptor is a thing for a reason..

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Y'all can find as many ways as you like to excuse willful ignorance. None of them wash.

The information is out there. Don't cry later on because you chose to remain ignorant.

Caveat Emptor is a thing for a reason..

There is willful ignorance and then their is unwillful ignorance. A lot of new players suffer from the later instead of the former.

That said, hobby vets who know the game better should be steering new players away from the duds and more towards armies they like, so you can argue it's a community problem that extends past the internet.

Herbington wrote:

Karol wrote:

You got something in return; you got a bunch of miniatures.

If something doesn't work, then it is not a thing. If someone sold you a care and forgot to mention the engine isn't actualy in the car, you would expect a refund. Or at least feel cheated.

I would have no right to feel cheated if I didn't check under the hood prior to purchase.

I did. On polish forums the advice was to buy a 1100$ army, which I couldn't afford. On 4chan people just insulted me. Then I found about this forum. I never played table top games before, and the friends that did, that told me to start playing had no such problems with their armies. Or the problems were not visible at the time of me starting. The guy that played BA quit for example, after the deep strike FAQs. At the store I didn't knew any of the vets, and all the info I got from the store owner was that I need 2000pts to play the game. No where on the GW site or anywhere else did I find someone saying that GK are unplayable. In fact it there was little to no info about them, specially in polish.

Also even here people weren't very specific on how bad GK had. When I came to this forum, people said they are hard to play, that it depends on the meta, that I will have to wait for FAQ changes etc. I expected that this ment GK were like a bottom mid tier MtG deck. Destroy by any real tournament deck, that probablly costs 10 times as much, but still fun to play on sundays with some friends. No told me GK are unplayable, till after I got the army, played 4-5 games and started to ask question about what am missing from the list.

Karol wrote:

Herbington wrote:

Karol wrote:

You got something in return; you got a bunch of miniatures.

If something doesn't work, then it is not a thing. If someone sold you a care and forgot to mention the engine isn't actualy in the car, you would expect a refund. Or at least feel cheated.

I would have no right to feel cheated if I didn't check under the hood prior to purchase.

I did. On polish forums the advice was to buy a 1100$ army, which I couldn't afford. On 4chan people just insulted me. Then I found about this forum. I never played table top games before, and the friends that did, that told me to start playing had no such problems with their armies. Or the problems were not visible at the time of me starting. The guy that played BA quit for example, after the deep strike FAQs. At the store I didn't knew any of the vets, and all the info I got from the store owner was that I need 2000pts to play the game. No where on the GW site or anywhere else did I find someone saying that GK are unplayable. In fact it there was little to no info about them, specially in polish.

Also even here people weren't very specific on how bad GK had. When I came to this forum, people said they are hard to play, that it depends on the meta, that I will have to wait for FAQ changes etc. I expected that this ment GK were like a bottom mid tier MtG deck. Destroy by any real tournament deck, that probablly costs 10 times as much, but still fun to play on sundays with some friends. No told me GK are unplayable, till after I got the army, played 4-5 games and started to ask question about what am missing from the list.

As a rule, 4chan insults everyone. It's their way of being edgy and inclusive all at the same time.

GK are casually playable, but they are the lowest possible tier right now. I wouldn't call them completely unplayable, but competetive play is a different story.

The thing is, no one on here knows what gets played in your local meta, or how CA or FAQs are going to change any army. Heck, my GSC just got popped in the gob by the change to reserves affecting their Cult Ambush and I'm still building the army regardless. Point is we all get surprises and it's up to us as individuals if we keep on playing the army that way.

If your only enjoyment in the game is winning games, then you're going to struggle quite a bit at the start regardless. No player becomes great overnight, and while your army choice can make it harder to win, it doesn't change that fact at the end of the day.

And in the meantime, have you considered proxying your army as Vanilla Marines or Deathwatch to try something else out without dropping the cash on a new army right away?

 Overread wrote:

1) Change to a different hobby - put the models and tools in a box and try something else. Sports, walking, drawing, writing, reading etc.... Ergo you try out something else. The money on the first hobby isn't wasted, its just invested into something you're not using right now and which you can always come back too.

2) Try something different within the hobby. You might start converting; or a new paint scheme; or a new army. IF you've not bought any new models for your current army in a long while you might buy some to change your army composition etc...
This can often work when you're just in a small bored phase and you do something a little different. Games like Necromunda and Bloodbowl are ideal GW examples of smaller games many shift to for a change in pace. Kill Team is another; or you could try Infinity or Malifaux if they are played locally - again low investment changes within the hobby to give you renewed interest.

My problems is I put all my money in to w40k. I can't start buying books or other games, because I don't have a way to buy more stuff. I asked about kill team or the AoS version of it, but no body plays it around here. It is only w40k, AoS/9th age, infinity and warmachine. Some dudes play wwII skirmish games, but it is in a different district. They are supporters of other team, and I would risk being beat up every time I go to play. Plus I doubt, I could use the GK models in it.

Thank you for explaining the fallacy thing.

The exact circumstances are unfortunate, because I think that came from people forgetting how fundamentally stupid the GK codex is. As a Necron player, I'd prefer a minor re-write, but sufficient point drops in CA will do just fine. You could crater the costs in the GK codex, and the design of that codex would still be too much for me.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The exact circumstances are unfortunate, because I think that came from people forgetting how fundamentally stupid the GK codex is. As a Necron player, I'd prefer a minor re-write, but sufficient point drops in CA will do just fine. You could crater the costs in the GK codex, and the design of that codex would still be too much for me.

I stand by the costs are half the problem for the army, the other half being the issue all Marines have: a lack of true durability in this edition.

Karol wrote:

My problems is I put all my money in to w40k. I can't start buying books or other games, because I don't have a way to buy more stuff. I asked about kill team or the AoS version of it, but no body plays it around here. It is only w40k, AoS/9th age, infinity and warmachine. Some dudes play wwII skirmish games, but it is in a different district. They are supporters of other team, and I would risk being beat up every time I go to play. Plus I doubt, I could use the GK models in it.

Thank you for explaining the fallacy thing.

See this is just totally alien to the vast majority of people playing Warhammer that I'm almost lost for words that you'd be playing in an area and with people so violent in relation to Warhammer. Normally the hobby itself doesn't attract people with that kind of casual violent mentality. It's certainly behaviour most would consider very abnormal within the community and within their Warhammer/Wargaming community.

Yes there's the odd person here or there, but by and large most geeks are pretty chill and friendly in person - or more insulting by being somewhat socially inept/inexperienced.



Also sometimes you have to take the first step and instead of waiting for someone else to play a game, you have to start it. Ergo you setup a killteam table and game and then coax someone else to join in for a few games.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
[

And in the meantime, have you considered proxying your army as Vanilla Marines or Deathwatch to try something else out without dropping the cash on a new army right away?

People only allow counts as at the store if the stuff is WYSIWYG. So a DA rhino as a SW rhino is ok. GK can't pass as any other army. Even custodes won't work, because of the heavy weapons and swords on some of the models. I asked about that when the summer store even started.

As a rule, 4chan insults everyone. It's their way of being edgy and inclusive all at the same time

the insults aren't that bad, it is that most of the time I don't understand what the people are saying or if they are serious or not. I have problems with that in polish too, and I first has to translate stuff from english on most forums. .

The thing is, no one on here knows what gets played in your local meta, or how CA or FAQs are going to change any army.

People play the usuall stuff that is complained around here. Inari soups, some imperial knight +something or custodes+IG+something. most mono guys quit. There is some DE, and demon players. The store owner has orcs, but not an army a collection of uncountable points, he has like 5-6 orc knights and 2 things that have to be orc titans, because they are 1/3 of my hight. He never plays them though, just his eldar. There is no FW, because people don't like it and the store doesn't allow it. no tau, no necron, 2 tyranid players with vast collections. Both horrible dudes.

Ergo you setup a killteam table and game and then coax someone else to join in for a few games.

Nah that wouldn't work, if the store owner doesn't allow a game to be played at the store. I would just get kicked out. We had a guy whose parents lived in the SWE for a very long time try to play some sort of wild west skirmish game. got kicked out, didn't even get the money back for 1hour of table time.

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
[

And in the meantime, have you considered proxying your army as Vanilla Marines or Deathwatch to try something else out without dropping the cash on a new army right away?

People only allow counts as at the store if the stuff is WYSIWYG. So a DA rhino as a SW rhino is ok. GK can't pass as any other army. Even custodes won't work, because of the heavy weapons and swords on some of the models. I asked about that when the summer store even started.

As a rule, 4chan insults everyone. It's their way of being edgy and inclusive all at the same time

the insults aren't that bad, it is that most of the time I don't understand what the people are saying or if they are serious or not. I have problems with that in polish too, and I first has to translate stuff from english on most forums. .

The thing is, no one on here knows what gets played in your local meta, or how CA or FAQs are going to change any army.

People play the usuall stuff that is complained around here. Inari soups, some imperial knight +something or custodes+IG+something. most mono guys quit. There is some DE, and demon players. The store owner has orcs, but not an army a collection of uncountable points, he has like 5-6 orc knights and 2 things that have to be orc titans, because they are 1/3 of my hight. He never plays them though, just his eldar. There is no FW, because people don't like it and the store doesn't allow it. no tau, no necron, 2 tyranid players with vast collections. Both horrible dudes.

Sounds like you have a crunchy, neckbeardy meta. And you have a casual only army choice and players who don't respect the "spirit of the game".

Hate to say it, but I have a feeling that even if you were playing a stronger army they'd be trying to curbstomp you for fun.

I stand by the costs are half the problem for the army, the other half being the issue all Marines have: a lack of true durability in this edition.

To actually drag this back to the original topic, I think a lot of (uncharacteristically reasonable) dissatisfaction with GW's output is that many armies waited with bated breath for a codex just so their armies could be played functionally, got lumbered with sloppy rules, and now are effectively a few steps behind. Some armies are waiting for new and cool additions to their armies, others are waiting to see how buffs/nerfs are going to shake out, others (namely, marines) are effectively STILL waiting for a (rewritten) codex.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:

I stand by the costs are half the problem for the army, the other half being the issue all Marines have: a lack of true durability in this edition.

To actually drag this back to the original topic, I think a lot of (uncharacteristically reasonable) dissatisfaction with GW's output is that many armies waited with bated breath for a codex just so their armies could be played functionally, got lumbered with sloppy rules, and now are effectively a few steps behind. Some armies are waiting for new and cool additions to their armies, others are waiting to see how buffs/nerfs are going to shake out, others (namely, marines) are effectively STILL waiting for a (rewritten) codex.

I think that an even bigger problem is that when GW finally did start making characterful marine armies like the BA, later on they did a full 180 to force people in to playing those armies as red ultramarines. I understand that the charge out of deep strike stuff was hurting the tournament meta game. But to be honest I don't know what is worse. Having BA players have fun with a strong BA army, and some other people being salty about it. Or only eldar getting the first child treatment from GW.

Karol wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:

I stand by the costs are half the problem for the army, the other half being the issue all Marines have: a lack of true durability in this edition.

To actually drag this back to the original topic, I think a lot of (uncharacteristically reasonable) dissatisfaction with GW's output is that many armies waited with bated breath for a codex just so their armies could be played functionally, got lumbered with sloppy rules, and now are effectively a few steps behind. Some armies are waiting for new and cool additions to their armies, others are waiting to see how buffs/nerfs are going to shake out, others (namely, marines) are effectively STILL waiting for a (rewritten) codex.

I think that an even bigger problem is that when GW finally did start making characterful marine armies like the BA, later on they did a full 180 to force people in to playing those armies as red ultramarines. I understand that the charge out of deep strike stuff was hurting the tournament meta game. But to be honest I don't know what is worse. Having BA players have fun with a strong BA army, and some other people being salty about it. Or only eldar getting the first child treatment from GW.

BA will never be red Ultramarines due to the differences in their army rules and extra units that they Ultramarines can't take. They're basically Vanilla +1.

And as we all know, the consistency of Eldar rules is a bribe for not updating their delightful model range.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

BA will never be red Ultramarines due to the differences in their army rules and extra units that they Ultramarines can't take. They're basically Vanilla +1.

Now I am not BA or ultramarine expert, but the fact that a unit exists and is chapter specific, does not mean it will get used. If the optimal way to run BAs is the same style of MSU shoting army with only difference being slam cpts instead of Gulliman, then the lists aren't different enough to warrent maybe even the existance of BA as a separate faction.

I get the looks part, or that someone likes the esthetic of something like a Death Company, but if no one uses those, who cares if it is an option in the codex.