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.

Can't you take an autocannon Sentinel for less than a lascannon sentinel for the same odds against falcons, better against waveserpents, and better kill ratio against any non-meq.

Posted By Alpharius on 07/20/2007 6:07 AM

So at the expense of unique Traitor Legions I get some nifty new color schemes? What a trade!

No M&M's for you.  Have some Skittles instead.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 07/20/2007 10:11 AM

"MathHammer," the way you've used it, is for people who don't understand this game.

How do you breathe?

Posted By ColonelEllios on 07/20/2007 10:42 AM

Mauleed you're correct with the exception that the comments were made in relation to the destructibility of Falcons. I believe I've accounted for this context (since they can't usually be penned).

Falcons DO die 1/3 of the time you glance them, just like the other Eldar tanks. The difference is that most peole opt to spend more than 50% the base price of the vehicle on the upgrades that make it 3x(and some change) more survivable.

The problem with doing this is that it absorbs a much larger chunk of your army point alottment, which means that you'll have less resources in turn to make up for the weaknesses of the Falcon (mainly an inability to damage much of anything).

When all is said and done, regarding 3x Falcon builds, it's pretty much a wash. They're no more or less effective than other builds of Eldar, and are certainly less reliable.

This coming from someone who thinks a Dakkafex is a Heavy Support Carnifex with Venom Cannon/Barbed Strangler, and that those are the "meat" of a NidZilla list is not very credible.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/18/postid/174972/view/topic/tpage/2/Default.aspx

Posted By mauleed on 07/20/2007 10:32 AM

But regardless, the point was the Gav thinks falcons die 1/3 of the time you glance them, and that ridiculous statement is indefensible unless you set the context up as 'I'm playing a slow'.

Good lord that was funny.

Especially since I envisioned a dispassionate Black Adder II yelling at Percy for playing Warhammer with Baldrick...

"No no, Percy. You dont simply allow this urchin from the fringes of snotville to approach you with this carriage, you must poke him in the eye, as a proper noble would to the plebians of the asylum...."

Look, I'd feel bad about jumping down Gav for making a slip of the tongue, or fingers, if this was a one time job. Here's the thing: designing wargames is his job! (or, at least it was until GW learned to simply hide him from any new codex development)

I'm all for giving a good guy a break when he screws up. It's what makes you a decent person. But when somebody is consistently bad at their job, you can't help but laugh at every new screw up. Remember that man only laughs to hide his tears.

Finally, remember that GW only writes rules to sell minis. As long as the minis keep selling, the rules won't get any better. Why write a genuine FAQ when models jump off shelves?

As Ed so poignantly points out, the best thing we all could do for GW is to play something else, except instead of simply playing it, we need to also stop buying it. As long as we keep eating the food pellet, GW will continue to make us beg.

Well, the guy didn't seem to have much of an understanding of the Eldar 'dex when he was writing it, so I can't say I'm surprised that he has no clue about it now.

Posted By Ogiwan on 07/20/2007 8:23 AM
Well, they're obviously following the book.

Unfortunatly, that book is titled, "How to piss off your customers, drive them away, and ruin your business".

And sadly its working. I havent bothered wargaming since April with no real plans to return to it.....

Posted By carmachu on 07/21/2007 7:20 PM

Posted By Ogiwan on 07/20/2007 8:23 AM
Well, they're obviously following the book.

Unfortunatly, that book is titled, "How to piss off your customers, drive them away, and ruin your business".

And sadly its working. I havent bothered wargaming since April with no real plans to return to it.....

Holy Cow! Say it ain't So Carmen! Come back, don't go toward the light...  

You know, this thread has almost completely ignored the one part of Gav's answers that i felt was the most outrageous.

I am all about having rules for renegade chaos space marine armies.  There have been many warbands that have formed since the heresy that are led by great individuals which have their own backgrounds and stories which can be written.  And i agree with Gav where he says chaos should have options to make individual lords that are characterful and that chaos should be chaotic and not adhere to rigid rules about army composition.

The problem is the execution of the above mentioned things.  This new codex completely overrides the previous, so there are no legion rules.  This sucks.  They should have made a codex for renegades and one for the legions.  Another thing is this new codex doesnt seem very chaotic to me.  Chaos marine squads can only take a heavy if there are at least 10 men in the squad?  That sounds rigid and structured to me.  There is only one entry for lesser daemons and one for greater daemons?  That is cutting back on our options as well. 

He also mentions that we shouldn't have to worry about adding all the little pieces of wargear on each guy.  I believe he means aspiring champions getting wargear.  THEY HAVE REMOVED ALOT OF THE OPTIONS FOR ASPIRING CHAMPIONS SO NOW THEY CANT SELECT WHAT WE HAVE MODELED THEM AS ANYMORE!!!! 

No matter what anyone from GW says, jervis, gav, or anyone else, the reason the new codex is the way it is is because they want to simplify, 'balance' and essentially make it easier for 10 year olds to play the game.  The problem is they are beginning to really anger the veterans and they arent giving credit to said 10 year olds.  They are smarter than GW thinks.

I dont want Warhammer 40000 to compete with Clix or Warmachine because those games are wholly different types of games than 40k.

my 2 cents

Sadly its true. Gone back to RPG's and less hassle....and my pocket book is happier to boot!

Wake me when or if GW gets their act together.....

So here's Gav now retracting half of what he said. Someone please stop this madman.

(taken from TWF)

Hello,

I'm always happy for people to point out references or
interpretations that shed new light on a rules question. With regard
to the ones being highlighted here, here's my thoughts:

1. Steam Tank victory points. On reflection, 'counts as a war machine
in all other respects' would cover victory points. It's a bit harsh,
but RAW would say you have to destroy the Steam Tank before getting
any VPs. In my defence, I'd prefer it if they did award half VPs, it
seems a much fairer way of dealing with them.

2. Pistols and HW. As pointed out, on page 54 it says, "At the start
of the first turn of a combat, each such unit can choose which of
their weapons to use." You cannot choose to fight with both a hand
weapon and a pistol, just as you cannot choose to fight with both a
hand weapon and spear. If you had a shield, however, the pistol would
count as a hand weapon and therefore you'd get the bonus armour save.
If further evidence is required, there is a specific paragraph that
says, "If a model carries two… or more pistols it counts as being
armed with two hand weapons in close combat". Why would this be
necessary if you could simply use a pistol in combination with the
default hand weapon carried by all models?

3. Salamanders. C'mon, a Salamander is a monster. Quite apart from
the fact that it's a dinosaur that spits fiery acid, it's rules
include, "Salamanders ands their Skink Handlers follow the rules for
skirmishers" and, "Skink Handlers guide the Salamanders into combat."
If the Skinks are Handlers, and there's special rules for Monsters
and Handlers that are pretty much the same as the rules for the unit,
which bit is left to be the monster? "If they fail this test they
must roll on the Monster reaction table…" is another good indication
that Salamanders are monsters!

4. Brian is correct (as usual!). The multiple Skinks under a template
is already covered. My bad. That said, if it's covered, why was I
being asked in the first place?

So mebbe I'll give you two out of the fourteen answers turned out to
be a bit iffy

Cheers,

GAV

I still don't know what the heck to make out of 3. Annoying since they're one of the game's most played units.

Sallies aren't monsters. There's not much more to say on the matter.

Posted By mauleed on 07/23/2007 10:30 AM
Sallies aren't monsters. There's not much more to say on the matter.

Well, one of the lead games designers disagrees with you so apparently there is.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Well, you know, Mauleed is much superior than any ol designer just answering questions on the fly, and then who revisits said answers and corrects himself. Because you know, Mauleed is never ever wrong.

It all seems quite reasonable. Might cause some headaches, but we wait for the FAQ anyway.

Toreador, while I'm flattered that you hold my opinion on par with the game designers, I think most people, even the idiots, will agree that my opinion is irrelevant.

So it doesn't matter what my accuracy is, even though I'm sure it's much better than Gav's ~50%.

Really, no one should ever ask Gav anything. Just flip a coin, it's faster.

 

 

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/23/2007 10:35 AM

Posted By mauleed on 07/23/2007 10:30 AM
Sallies aren't monsters. There's not much more to say on the matter.

Well, one of the lead games designers disagrees with you so apparently there is.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Yes, but he's the same knucklehead that said Steam tanks "obviously" gave up half points, and then a week later said they don't.

Posted By mauleed on 07/23/2007 12:39 PM


Yes, but he's the same knucklehead that said Steam tanks "obviously" gave up half points, and then a week later said they don't.

well at least he's certain :S

And yet even what he says holds no water.

I like ya Mauleed, I think you are an asset to the gaming community. It's your attitude that rubs me the wrong way. Even if Gav is wrong in 2 out of 10 (as he said, and he can make himself as right as he wants with a FAQ) he is still trying to be helpful. Who else from GW do you see out routinely talking to gamers in forums? As he doesn't probably sit around in piles of rulebooks, and he isn't saying anything as "official" he can be wrong. Just the fact that he went back and researched it a bit then came back with an answer shows quite a bit, and he did it with little attitude.

Since he took over as lead on WHFB it has only gotten better. So cut him a little slack.

While I think it's nice he's trying to be helpful, he's not actually being helpful.

He's doing harm.

His intentions might be good, but his actions and their results are not. Hence he should stop.

 

Posted By mauleed on 07/23/2007 1:09 PM

While I think it's nice he's trying to be helpful, he's not actually being helpful.

He's doing harm.

His intentions might be good, but his actions and their results are not. Hence he should stop.

 

<pre>This above all: to thine own self be true. -William Shakespeare

</pre>

If I had that kind of track record at my job I would be fired. When you are the face of the company to the customers, you have very little room to make mistakes.

Posted By carmachu on 07/23/2007 6:59 AM

Holy Cow! Say it ain't So Carmen! Come back, don't go toward the light...

Sadly its true. Gone back to RPG's and less hassle....and my pocket book is happier to boot!

Wake me when or if GW gets their act together.....

Ah. Yeah, been there, done that.

GW? I'm not waiting for them either. Hordes, Warmachine, Victorian Sci-fi, Chainmail, and ACW skirmish baby. And D&D. Call me a mini game anarchist.

I guess that would make me a, uh, mini game conservative democrat? Sort of the Bill Clinton of wargaming, but with twice as much scandalous baggage.

What, you don't want to be Joe Lieberman?

Posted By sparowl on 07/23/2007 1:29 PM

Posted By mauleed on 07/23/2007 1:09 PM

While I think it's nice he's trying to be helpful, he's not actually being helpful.

He's doing harm.

His intentions might be good, but his actions and their results are not. Hence he should stop.

 

<pre>This above all: to thine own self be true. -William Shakespeare

</pre>

Excellent quote for a quote, Sparowl, thus meriting repetition.