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.

jfrazell wrote:(Mod mode on)
HBMC, JohnHwangDD

End the personal attacks. You can agressively attack the argument but please end the personal bickering. Although fun to watch it will ruin a good thread.
Your posts have been edited to preserve the thread.
move along now, nothing to see here
(Mod mode off)

For the good of the board, I have decided to simply Ignore HMBC. Whether he chooses to do the same is up to him.

Thanks for the edits.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
That 55-man Platoon weighs in around 500 points when you factor in Heavy and Special weapons upgrades, so IG can't afford so many of them, particularly at the recommended 1500 pt game size.

Assuming GW does the IG "right", my IG might be like this:
2 KP = Command Platoon & Chimera / Valkyrie
2 KP = Infantry Platoon & Chimera / Valkyrie
4 KP = Mechanized Platoon & 3 Chimeras
1 KP = Demolisher / Hellhound
1 KP = Demolisher / Hellhound
1 KP = Demolisher

That's 11 KP total, which coincidentally is in the same 9-12 range as the typical MEQ opforce.

Actually I was basing my estimate around a 2000pt force (given thats what is usually played where I am). Many MEQ armies will have 7-8 in this range.

Also, take a look at this list instead

Command Platoon:
command squad
heavy weapons squad
heavy weapons squad
heavy weapons squad
heavy weapons squad

Troops:
2x 35man Platoons

Heavy Support:
HWP Platoon
Command Squad
heavy weapons squad
heavy weapons squad
heavy weapons squad


4 Kill points. 4 Platoons. All of a sudden the pendulum has swung the completely opposite direction. KP's were poorly thought out. I realize what their intent was (to provide a balance between objective and annihilation games) however this isn't the way to go about it (as such metabalance may create a good average, with a very ****ed up median, making it useless) and it was poorly implemented as well. Spore Mines from Biovores, Tau Gun Drones, etc should *not* be providing KP's at all, and victory should be determined by the relative fraction of KP's killed (for instance, a 16KP Tau army losing 8 KP's while killing 7 of the 9 in the opposing Chaos Marine army should result in a Tau victory, not a Chaos Victory)

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yup.

Um...sure. Its not realistic either in a real life sense, nor a gaming sense, to form a physical wall around a tank with the bodies of troops, and certainly isn't fluffy for most armies. Also, Jump infantry still will generally will be able to get around such walls. Infantry support comes in the form of suppression fire (which has no real mechanic in 40k other than poorly distributed Pinning) and counter-assaults at the tank attackers, something that mostly (especially with an army like Imperial Guard or Tau) often wouldn't be able to occur until *after* the tank has already been attacked.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except, Tau Warriors and Kroot *should* be their core units, not the suits.

Not the way their codex is currently built and themed. Not in the way I've ever seen a Tau army generally operate.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't see this as a major problem. The main armies all have answers and will do fine.

Tau an Necrons are not mainstream armies? That is news to me. I don't feel its fine when some armies get an inherent major advantage by nature simply because of a new rules change that most armies weren't designed in mind with.

The only problem army DH can be ignored, as they're an insigificant splinter faction with an obsolete Codex.

But not without players. I've seen more DH players than Ork, Blood Angels or Dark Eldar players. Just because an army isn't super popular doesn't mean it can be ignored. That just leads it to become more and more ignored and causes a repeating cycle of failure, never giving it a chance to become successful

When GW finally gets around to the Inquisition Codex to bind them, their Troops will be fine.

Which is looking at this point to be no sooner than 2010 at the earliest.

Yes, some armies do better, and others do worse. Too bad. Play something else until you get your new, shiny toys.

From a marketing, design, and play standpoint, that is... poor advice (to put it nicely). Telling someone that they should simply switch to a different product when their current one is supposedly supported and up to date, but simply performs at a worse standard than others its supposed to be on par with just because and that they should just live with it doesn't go over well, and is infuriating, especially when an update isn't even under discussion, much less on the horizon yet. That's not sound advice, nor a sound argument.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's a *very* Imperial POV.

I don't think so. It's just not an *Eldar* PoV. It works for Tau, Orks, Imperial Guard, Chaos, Space Marines, and Inquisition armies. Given that I don't see why the change was made in the first place I'd be happy to go back to S6 anyway.

Eldar are very heavily affected, as most of their guns are S6.

However they have the easiest way of maintaining at least a semblance of the mobile firepower they once had thanks to the EML.

One might just as well argue that AssCans and HBs should be nerfed down to S4 to fit the new Defensive Weapons rule.

If it meant reducing their Strength down to 4 when moving, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Marines and Guardsmen aren't selected for intelligence or self-preservation, so the conga line makes perfect sense.

No it doesn't, that is a very poor rationalization. Just because they aren't trained to preserve their lives at all costs doesn't mean they are trained to throw them away without cause either. Guardsmen aren't going to pile out of shelter just because the lead guy got hit. There is *NO* fluff or evidence to support this anywhere. Everything instead points to the conclusion that they would instead hug cover, go to ground, fall back, etc.

Eldar, yeah, if the "dying race" Fluff actually meant something to GW.

I'll agree here, fluff rarely seems to matter to the current design studio

Tau are somewhere in between.

Again, see above.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
In the far future, soldiers are a lot more curious than they ought to be. Most of them are like the idiot in Saving Private Ryan who *removes* his helmet after it takes a thump from an enemy bullet...

They aren't all that stupid, and helmets (especially then) aren't designed to protect against full power rounds anyway, a direct 8mm mauser round to the skull, even with steel WW2 helmet, would be lethal the vast majority of the time.

I think the easiest soloution for the clump of turd clinging onto the arse hairs of 5th edition is to ignore KPs and play victory points instead. It just makes so much more sense. Which do you think the imperium would rather lose, 5 grey knight terminators or 20 guardsmen? Exactly.

What happens if a Tau Devilfish crashes and its drones fail to escape the wreck? Is it worth one KP or two?

Kilkrazy wrote:

What happens if a Tau Devilfish crashes and its drones fail to escape the wreck? Is it worth one KP or two?

Currently, two.

Vaktathi wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
That 55-man Platoon weighs in around 500 points when you factor in Heavy and Special weapons upgrades, so IG can't afford so many of them, particularly at the recommended 1500 pt game size.

Assuming GW does the IG "right", my IG might be like this:
[SNIP]
That's 11 KP total, which coincidentally is in the same 9-12 range as the typical MEQ opforce.

Actually I was basing my estimate around a 2000pt force (given thats what is usually played where I am). Many MEQ armies will have 7-8 in this range.

Also, take a look at this list instead
[SNIP]
4 Kill points. 4 Platoons.

victory should be determined by the relative fraction of KP's killed (for instance, a 16KP Tau army losing 8 KP's while killing 7 of the 9 in the opposing Chaos Marine army should result in a Tau victory, not a Chaos Victory)

I don't feel its fine when some armies get an inherent major advantage by nature simply because of a new rules change that most armies weren't designed in mind with.

Just because an army isn't super popular doesn't mean it can be ignored. That just leads it to become more and more ignored and causes a repeating cycle of failure, never giving it a chance to become successful

Yes, some armies do better, and others do worse. Too bad. Play something else until you get your new, shiny toys.

From a marketing, design, and play standpoint, that is... poor advice (to put it nicely). Telling someone that they should simply switch to a different product when their current one is supposedly supported and up to date, but simply performs at a worse standard than others its supposed to be on par with just because and that they should just live with it doesn't go over well, and is infuriating, especially when an update isn't even under discussion, much less on the horizon yet.


Given that I don't see why the change was made in the first place I'd be happy to go back to S6 anyway.

I sorely doubt IG will have HWPs in the next Codex, and I also expect they'll lose Command HWS as well. These changes discourage pure static shooting by simply removing the option in much the same way that extra-gunline Chaos IW were excised. Most likely, IG HWS will be 0-1 per Platoon, along with 0-1 SWS per Platoon.

For victory, perhaps the criteria should be based on surviving KP, rather than destroyed KP. I.e. Tau have 9 survive (out of 16), while the CSM have only 2 survive (out of 9), so the Tau win.

With every rules change, some armies gain inherent advantage. That's inherent to having varied armies that focus on different aspects and different rules.

GW has a habit of starving unpopular armies, in much the same way that the player base starves GW of revenue connected to those armies. Business 101, and GW simply can't be faulted here.

The idea that all armies should always be balanced at all times is laudable, but not at all reflective of reality in any active gaming system. Change inherently unbalances and rebalances things. A lack of change is stagnation and death. I own 4 armies for 40k, so I have the luxury of switching at any time. From GW's POV, more of their customers should collect multiple armies, preferably *ALL* of GW's armies.

If you ask GW's dev team, and they deign to answer, they'll tell you the change to S4 was to force players to make a more fundamental choice between moving or shooting, rather than having players merely decide where to *move* while always shooting. I *like* the change, as PMSBs and PMHSs are actually worth something now.

I sorely doubt IG will have HWPs in the next Codex, and I also expect they'll lose Command HWS as well. These changes discourage pure static shooting by simply removing the option in much the same way that extra-gunline Chaos IW were excised. Most likely, IG HWS will be 0-1 per Platoon, along with 0-1 SWS per Platoon.

It's possible, but we've heard almost nothing concerning a new IG codex yet, so its too early to speculate on that. Going off the current codex however, 1 KP per platoon would simply be too ridiculous, further highlighting the poor thinking going into the KP system.

For victory, perhaps the criteria should be based on surviving KP, rather than destroyed KP. I.e. Tau have 9 survive (out of 16), while the CSM have only 2 survive (out of 9), so the Tau win.

With every rules change, some armies gain inherent advantage. That's inherent to having varied armies that focus on different aspects and different rules.

Again, I understand this, however the way in which GW goes about releasing armies and editions is a rather poor method of doing so (and not what you see most other game companies do) and leads to inherent imbalances. The big problem with this is how long most armies have to wait to be brought up to speed, only to have to be put right back into line a short time later. Warhammer 40,000 is not successful because of its rules, it is successful because of its models, background, an imagery.

GW has a habit of starving unpopular armies, in much the same way that the player base starves GW of revenue connected to those armies. Business 101, and GW simply can't be faulted here.

Not quite. The armies are expensive to build, and don't get much view time anywhere, and are hardly even mentioned in the rulebook. They were never supported very well from the very outset of their release and had a very limited number of models and mediocre rules to begin with. As a result, not quite as many people played them. If a company doesn't support a product from launch, and then repeatedly fails to support it, at least in relation to other products, of course its going to be an unpopular product. GW *can* be faulted, be because they failed to properly support the product in the first place. Either way, dumping an army by the wayside that they still sell is poor business sense, because it ensures that products failure, rather than a continuous stream of mediocre revenue.

The idea that all armies should always be balanced at all times is laudable, but not at all reflective of reality in any active gaming system.

It's managed pretty well (or at least better) for Battletech, Warmachine (at least in terms of overall faction vs faction balance), Flames of War, and even GW managed to do a pretty decent job with some of their own games like Battlefleet Gothic (notwithstanding a couple exceptions of course).

Change inherently unbalances and rebalances things. A lack of change is stagnation and death.

I understand this, however the issue is that while GW changes some things, it *does* leave others to stagnate and die, for rather unknown reasons. Why was there a need for 7 Space Marine books (2 Chaos and soon 2 Vanilla SM books) before Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Witch Hunters, and Daemon Hunters got an update? I understand that SM's are more popular, however the emphasis on them again creates a cycle of pushing the other armies further down, thereby ensuring they will never achieve the popularity they might otherwise have had.

I own 4 armies for 40k, so I have the luxury of switching at any time.

I have 3 and a half. That doesn't mean I enjoy having only one decent army to play at a time.

From GW's POV, more of their customers should collect multiple armies, preferably *ALL* of GW's armies.

Of course, I won't argue that, however to *bank* on that is slowed business sense, and many people are fanatically loyal to one army or another. There are those with multiple IG armies, all of which may play vastly differently than most marine codex's, and may have spent many thousands of dollars on IG stuff. For GW to ignore these customers (the 20% that account for 80% of repeat business) is *dumb* and setting out a new ruleset that heavily favors some armies over others and then taking *YEARS* to get them all up to speed (in fact, not even getting to each of them before the next one comes out) is a very poor system.

If you ask GW's dev team, and they deign to answer, they'll tell you the change to S4 was to force players to make a more fundamental choice between moving or shooting, rather than having players merely decide where to *move* while always shooting. I *like* the change, as PMSBs and PMHSs are actually worth something now.

I understand their reasoning, I listened to the podcast. However I don't agree that this change was required, and all it did was tell me that they didn't understand why most people took tanks in the first place. It was like using a hammer to fix a problem instead of a scalpel to fix a problem that they had in fact already fixed with the scalpel.

I have yet to see a single Predator in a 5th ed game yet, either in one I've played, or one I've watched. In addition to what that means for the armies that have them available (effectively a reduction in viable weapons platforms) it also means GW won't be selling as many of them, not something that is good for GW.

Vaktathi wrote:Warhammer 40,000 is not successful because of its rules, it is successful because of its models, background, an imagery.

Exactly.

Why was there a need for 7 Space Marine books (2 Chaos and soon 2 Vanilla SM books) before Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Witch Hunters, and Daemon Hunters got an update?

That might have something to do with Space Marines being the single largest money-maker for GW, outselling Fantasy combined. When you've got a cash cow, you'll do anything to protect it.

There are those with multiple IG armies, all of which may play vastly differently than most marine codex's, and may have spent many thousands of dollars on IG stuff. For GW to ignore these customers (the 20% that account for 80% of repeat business) is *dumb* and setting out a new ruleset that heavily favors some armies over others and then taking *YEARS* to get them all up to speed (in fact, not even getting to each of them before the next one comes out) is a very poor system.

On Dakka, we like to imagine that we're the handful that keeps GW in business. I'm starting to doubt that. At this point, I'm only spending on maintenance spending and trades. I've consolidated down in armies, so I need fewer Codices and such. Unless I start up another army project, I'll spend less than $300 on GW this year, and most of that will be secondhand. So yeah, I generate some repeat business. But single a n00b buying a new army spends way more than I do. If there are 4 n00bs for each of me, then old-timers like me really don't help GW's bottom line very much.

OTOH, if GW shakes things up to invalidate large portions of my army by nerfing the hell out of them, and then dangles a lot of shiny new uber stuff in front of me, then yeah, I might spend more. I hate to say it, but I think GW's strategy is working to perfection!
____

fixed quotes

For some reason I don't often agree with Mr HwangDD, however I do think he is right about the amount of money spent by kids and n00bs compared to vets.

I know many vets are very loyal, have multiple armies and continue to build more armies. Even so it's obvious that a huge number of spotty 13-year old boys grow up each year and many of them buy into 40K for a couple of years before they discover girls, drugs, religion, etc and give it up.

What army are spotty 13-year olds most likely to favour? [/rhetorical]

I used to think even spotty 13-year olds would get tired of a constant diet of Spase Marienz (Hurr!) but I've been thinking that for 20 years and not been right so far...

That might have something to do with Space Marines being the single largest money-maker for GW, outselling Fantasy combined. When you've got a cash cow, you'll do anything to protect it.

Again, I understand it is their biggest money maker, but how much of that is precisely *because* they have invested so much in one army to the detriment of others? How much could they make from other lines if they put just a little more into each of them?

\
On Dakka, we like to imagine that we're the handful that keeps GW in business. I'm starting to doubt that. At this point, I'm only spending on maintenance spending and trades. I've consolidated down in armies, so I need fewer Codices and such. Unless I start up another army project, I'll spend less than $300 on GW this year, and most of that will be secondhand. So yeah, I generate some repeat business. But single a n00b buying a new army spends way more than I do. If there are 4 n00bs for each of me, then old-timers like me really don't help GW's bottom line very much.

From my personal experience, 2 stores I play at often and a couple others I've dropped into a few times, it's almost always college age people or older playing GW games. There's the odd high school kid, but here in San Diego I've only seen one "noob" kid in middle school (and his dad played before he did) and in Salem, a kid shows up once every couple months with some hand-me-downs, and is never seen again.

I've seen more 40 year olds play 40k than I've seen middle schoolers. Maybe this is different in the UK where GW is located, but almost all the players in my areas are either in college or working full time, with a handful in high school. Most have either more than one army, or a very large single army.

OTOH, if GW shakes things up to invalidate large portions of my army by nerfing the hell out of them, and then dangles a lot of shiny new uber stuff in front of me, then yeah, I might spend more. I hate to say it, but I think GW's strategy is working to perfection!

To me, I'd rather just stop buying the newer stuff and stick with a smaller gaming circle and play whats fun and then maybe pick up again when things change as they do from time to time. I have no problems sitting out an edition or playing an army only with older rules.

I know many vets are very loyal, have multiple armies and continue to build more armies. Even so it's obvious that a huge number of spotty 13-year old boys grow up each year and many of them buy into 40K for a couple of years before they discover girls, drugs, religion, etc and give it up.

Again however, this is not my experience. This is of course entirely subjective, and can't count for everyone, but I really just don't see the 13 year olds everywhere, in fact I almost never see them anywhere except the pokemon tables. the 40k and fantasy guys are mainly 20's and older, with a couple late teens.

Games Workshop cannot make a truly good ruleset because of their lack of knowledge about warfare.
I know many will flame me about being "too realism-needy" but this has NOTHING to do with realism;It has to do with unit-type roles, valid tactics, and how(or rather, wether) GW knows/understands them.

First of all, GW make an assumption:
"Troops will get objectives, elites will be more killy".
This is not the case;usually, elites are sent to sabotage, infiltrate, and harrass the enemy while avoiding truly bloody conflicts like the plague, while the infantry kill stuff supported by artillery, protected by vehicles.
In 40k fluff/books, this is nearly the same.BUT in the 40k game, elites are "jedi".

A Navy SEAL costs about a million dollars to train, a rifleman not even a good fraction of that.

Similarly, elites should be overcosted for killy purposes; players should then only take them due to some special skill, like infiltrate, deep strike, and other non-killy attribute.Like the IG players with stromtroopers;these guys are HORRIBLE kills-per-point, but you see 1-2 units of them in lists due to their exotic abilities.thus, balanced.

this does not only apply to the "u must take troops!!!so other units now cannot take objectives, haha, now you must take them" scenario, but virtually everything, and it is merely the codices' fault, not the rulesets.GW should get a military technical advisor on unit roles and stuff-i am not kidding on that.

Other than that, comparing 4th to 5th, i like 5th more-sure, specific armies like IG got hit with a sledgehammer needlessly, but it is a more level playing field for most others.

Vaktathi wrote:

That might have something to do with Space Marines being the single largest money-maker for GW, outselling Fantasy combined. When you've got a cash cow, you'll do anything to protect it.

Again, I understand it is their biggest money maker, but how much of that is precisely *because* they have invested so much in one army to the detriment of others? How much could they make from other lines if they put just a little more into each of them?

If you go back to RT, or even 2E, I don't think things were as unbalanced as today. I think 3E was when things took off in a big way for GW and SM rode those coattails - the *only* way of buying a rulebook also bundling in SM... Although, when you look at the Codex releases and minis released, it's hard to fault GW's efforts on Eldar, Chaos, IG and Orks. All of the majors got pretty decent support in 3E.

Certainly, you can't fault the recent Ork support. And in the interim, Eldar and Chaos got a decent shake - until the revamp, Chaos was unquestionably the strongest Codex available. But by nature, SM are easy to do, what with the inherent modularity and simplicity of the parts. Not to mention the reduced model count.

Structurally, I'm not even sure much else *can* be done with the others. Design-wise, there just isn't much that can be done with the Eldar or Chaos, as both are built antithetically from SM, with Cult / Aspect units that don't swap or share models very easily. So that just leaves the Ork and IG hordes, both of which are hard sells to a new player based on the sheer number of models to build and paint.

Vaktathi wrote:

On Dakka, we like to imagine that we're the handful that keeps GW in business. I'm starting to doubt that. ... Unless I start up another army project, I'll spend less than $300 on GW this year, and most of that will be secondhand. So yeah, I generate some repeat business. But single a n00b buying a new army spends way more than I do. If there are 4 n00bs for each of me, then old-timers like me really don't help GW's bottom line very much.

From my personal experience, 2 stores I play at often and a couple others I've dropped into a few times, it's almost always college age people or older playing GW games. There's the odd high school kid, but here in San Diego I've only seen one "noob" kid in middle school (and his dad played before he did) and in Salem, a kid shows up once every couple months with some hand-me-downs, and is never seen again.

I've seen more 40 year olds play 40k than I've seen middle schoolers. Maybe this is different in the UK where GW is located, but almost all the players in my areas are either in college or working full time, with a handful in high school. Most have either more than one army, or a very large single army.

N00bs aren't necessarily kids, you know. I suspect a lot of them are college age / young adults. I also suspect a lot of them buy at GW stores. They're still n00bs, regardless of how old they are when they start "The GW Hobby' (tm).

Vaktathi wrote:

OTOH, if GW shakes things up to invalidate large portions of my army by nerfing the hell out of them, and then dangles a lot of shiny new uber stuff in front of me, then yeah, I might spend more. I hate to say it, but I think GW's strategy is working to perfection!

To me, I'd rather just stop buying the newer stuff and stick with a smaller gaming circle and play whats fun and then maybe pick up again when things change as they do from time to time. I have no problems sitting out an edition or playing an army only with older rules.

You can bet GW doesn't give 2 figs for my $300. So if you're not spending enough to be part of GW's market, why should GW care about you?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

I definitely like the Defensive Weapon change from S6 down to S4. This penalizes everybody, as opposed to just Eldar (as most Imperials are wont to do), so it's basically fair. PMSB is now meaningful.

Definsive weapons were strength 5, NOT strength 6.

It killed any reason to take pred destructors. I use to use two. Moblie gun platorms.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you go back to RT, or even 2E, I don't think things were as unbalanced as today.

Between armies no, however there were some wargear and unit options that were quite silly.

I think 3E was when things took off in a big way for GW and SM rode those coattails - the *only* way of buying a rulebook also bundling in SM... Although, when you look at the Codex releases and minis released, it's hard to fault GW's efforts on Eldar, Chaos, IG and Orks. All of the majors got pretty decent support in 3E.

With the release of 3rd ed yes, however since then, the IG have been almost purposely left mediocre, and Orks were left to do whatever until 7 months ago.

Certainly, you can't fault the recent Ork support.

No, however it was also a long time in coming and they shouldn't have waited as long as they did.

And in the interim, Eldar and Chaos got a decent shake

Eldar have always had decent armies, and the current Eldar army I think was bar none the best in 4th and is definitely top 3 in 5th.

- until the revamp, Chaos was unquestionably the strongest Codex available.

mmm...probably until the Eldar codex came out. The previous codex's problem was that there were a couple things that were just beyond brutal, and some very very poor things as well. Eldar currently really have nothing that you couldn't see taking.

But by nature, SM are easy to do, what with the inherent modularity and simplicity of the parts. Not to mention the reduced model count.

Won't argue with that, however it doesn't mean that they shouldn't support other armies that really need it.

Structurally, I'm not even sure much else *can* be done with the others. Design-wise, there just isn't much that can be done with the Eldar or Chaos, as both are built antithetically from SM, with Cult / Aspect units that don't swap or share models very easily.

Throwing out decent Legion lists with a couple Legion Specific models would work wonderfully, same with the Eldar, maybe making craftworld specific units?

So that just leaves the Ork and IG hordes, both of which are hard sells to a new player based on the sheer number of models to build and paint.

Imperial Guard was my first army I can understand this point, but I think there are ways with both armies to keep overall model count fairly low (my IG army has 76 models total at 2000pts) or to make them a bit more friendly. I don't think being harder for new players to pick up should mean they get left by the wayside.

N00bs aren't necessarily kids, you know. I suspect a lot of them are college age / young adults. I also suspect a lot of them buy at GW stores. They're still n00bs, regardless of how old they are when they start "The GW Hobby' (tm).

Oh I know, but the older players generally aren't attracted instantly to SM's like 13 year olds are, and will generally have more patience and tolerance for an army that isn't super easy mode to assemble and paint.

You can bet GW doesn't give 2 figs for my $300. So if you're not spending enough to be part of GW's market, why should GW care about you?

Because if they did I might spend a hell of a lot more, or bring more consumers to their product

carmachu wrote:Definsive weapons were strength 5, NOT strength 6.

In 4th Edition, defensive weapons were Strength 6, hence why Eldar could fire a Shuriken Cannon, Scatterlaser, and Pulse Laser from a Falcon moving 12".

carmachu wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I definitely like the Defensive Weapon change from S6 down to S4. This penalizes everybody, as opposed to just Eldar (as most Imperials are wont to do), so it's basically fair. PMSB is now meaningful.

Definsive weapons were strength 5, NOT strength 6.

Really? That's not what my rulebook (p.63) says:

Any weapon of Strength 6 or below ... is called a defensive weapon

Vaktathi wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you go back to RT, or even 2E, I don't think things were as unbalanced as today.

Between armies no, however there were some wargear and unit options that were quite silly.

Yup, tho Vortex grenade returned for Apocalypse, so you never know...

[SNIP general commentary - all agreed]

Vaktathi wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: Structurally, I'm not even sure much else *can* be done with the others. Design-wise, there just isn't much that can be done with the Eldar or Chaos, as both are built antithetically from SM, with Cult / Aspect units that don't swap or share models very easily.

Throwing out decent Legion lists with a couple Legion Specific models would work wonderfully, same with the Eldar, maybe making craftworld specific units?

Even if they do that, the armies still won't have the kind of modular swap-out capability that is inherent with SM. A grey Bolter Marine can be almost anything from Devastator to Veteran, Dark Angel or Black Templar. An Aspect with Power Weapon can only ever be a Banshee. Besides, GW has already stated plans to fracture Chaos with Power-specific books, rather than Legion-specific books, over the coming several years. For the Eldar, I'm just hoping that Biel-Tan becomes the default structure when the army is redone.

Vaktathi wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: So that just leaves the Ork and IG hordes, both of which are hard sells to a new player based on the sheer number of models to build and paint.

Imperial Guard was my first army I can understand this point, but I think there are ways with both armies to keep overall model count fairly low (my IG army has 76 models total at 2000pts)

Mech Guard with 100+pt Chimeras really isn't the answer to driving down the IG model count. :(

Vaktathi wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: You can bet GW doesn't give 2 figs for my $300. So if you're not spending enough to be part of GW's market, why should GW care about you?

Because if they did I might spend a hell of a lot more, or bring more consumers to their product

I dunno. At some point, I think one surveys their stuff and deems it sufficient for the task at hand.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Even if they do that, the armies still won't have the kind of modular swap-out capability that is inherent with SM. A grey Bolter Marine can be almost anything from Devastator to Veteran, Dark Angel or Black Templar. An Aspect with Power Weapon can only ever be a Banshee.

True, it does make them easy to write army lists for and start armies for. That said, if someone likes the look of an army, they generally will go for it, especially over something that may be a little easier but may not hold as much appeal or they may not know now what that SM's are so modular.

Besides, GW has already stated plans to fracture Chaos with Power-specific books, rather than Legion-specific books, over the coming several years.

Personally I'd hope for Legion lists rather than just the 4 legions dedicated to a god (I think the WB's, NL's, IW's and AL are all more characterful for the most part) but again, its likely that we won't see anything new for chaos until 2011.

For the Eldar, I'm just hoping that Biel-Tan becomes the default structure when the army is redone.

Personally, I don't think the current codex does a terrible job of it, but I agree it could be better.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Mech Guard with 100+pt Chimeras really isn't the answer to driving down the IG model count. :(

Sadly true, but it does look cool

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I dunno. At some point, I think one surveys their stuff and deems it sufficient for the task at hand.

Oh, I could go on forever with my Imperial Guard practically. lets make a drop troop army, lets make a massed chamelioline infiltrating army, lets make an army built almost entirely around artillery (thudd guns, HM's, Bassy's, with a few lascannon shoved in), lets make a hideously nasty gunline, etc ad nauseum.

With my Chaos, I've got enough to make 2 or three armies, and I'd still consider buying more basic CSM's, especially for heavy weapons and flamer troopers, possibly more Oblits, and maybe more Raptors so I can field like 30.

I dunno, I think I could go on for each of my armies save for my Tau for some time, even my WIP Eldar.

Vaktathi wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: Besides, GW has already stated plans to fracture Chaos with Power-specific books, rather than Legion-specific books, over the coming several years.

Personally I'd hope for Legion lists rather than just the 4 legions dedicated to a god (I think the WB's, NL's, IW's and AL are all more characterful for the most part) but again, its likely that we won't see anything new for chaos until 2011.

IMO, the current CSM book does the MoCU guys just fine - Legions are defined by *what* the player chooses to take (or not take), rather than by explicit rules and restrictions.

Vaktathi wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: For the Eldar, I'm just hoping that Biel-Tan becomes the default structure when the army is redone.

Personally, I don't think the current codex does a terrible job of it, but I agree it could be better.

It's not terrible, but it bothers how difficult it is to base the army around anything but massed Avengers, when CSM can mass Cult Marines. IOW, if all-Berzerkers are OK, then all-Scorpions must also be OK. So I'd just move most ordinary Aspects (Avengers, Dragons, Banshees, Scorpions) to Troops, leaving Elites for Wraithguard, Harlequins, and Rangers / Pathfinders.

Vaktathi wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: Mech Guard with 100+pt Chimeras really isn't the answer to driving down the IG model count. :(

Sadly true, but it does look cool

It'd look even cooler if it didn't play so badly.

Vaktathi wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: I dunno. At some point, I think one surveys their stuff and deems it sufficient for the task at hand.

Oh, I could go on forever with my Imperial Guard practically. lets make a drop troop army, lets make a massed chamelioline infiltrating army, lets make an army built almost entirely around artillery (thudd guns, HM's, Bassy's, with a few lascannon shoved in), lets make a hideously nasty gunline, etc ad nauseum.

With my Chaos, I've got enough to make 2 or three armies, and I'd still consider buying more basic CSM's, especially for heavy weapons and flamer troopers, possibly more Oblits, and maybe more Raptors so I can field like 30.

I dunno, I think I could go on for each of my armies save for my Tau for some time, even my WIP Eldar.

In my case, I'm now looking at the FOC as a stopping point. That is, I probably don't need more than 3 Elite, 6 Troops, 3 Fast, and 3 Heavy for any given army. And as that type of configuration typically weighs in at well over 2000 pts, it's enough to have a few tailoring picks and swaps around a well-developed base army concept.

But yeah, it's fun to have more Tanks and stuff. No argument there!

I love 5th Ed.

And I have been playing GW games since '87.

*Drops walking stick, and put up Fists...

"You want some of this spice, sonny???"

When I am NOT at work, I will go into a longer winded opinion.(I bet you all can't wait for that!! lol)

JohnHwangDD wrote:
IMO, the current CSM book does the MoCU guys just fine - Legions are defined by *what* the player chooses to take (or not take), rather than by explicit rules and restrictions.

See, I think there is just so much room for expansion within each legion. Iron Warriors could have an engineer unit with meltaguns and mortar type weapons with equipment to mess up deep striking or tunneling. Night Lords could have an army wide special rule for causing morale penalties to enemy units and have something like a Horrofex type weapon, and be focused around jump infantry and deep striking terminators, etc...

JohnHwangDD wrote:
It's not terrible, but it bothers how difficult it is to base the army around anything but massed Avengers, when CSM can mass Cult Marines. IOW, if all-Berzerkers are OK, then all-Scorpions must also be OK. So I'd just move most ordinary Aspects (Avengers, Dragons, Banshees, Scorpions) to Troops, leaving Elites for Wraithguard, Harlequins, and Rangers / Pathfinders.

The one caveat I'd have with this is that for dedicated Legion cult units outside of troops, I'd probably go with that the entire army would have to be Legion cult based, thus one could not mix Berserker Terminators with a Lash Prince or Thousand Sons troops with Nurgle Raptors. With an Aspect list it would probably need a little more defined structure as well.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
It'd look even cooler if it didn't play so badly.

Quite so. In 4th it worked ok against lists that weren't designed to be super competitive (e.g. Nidzilla, Mech Eldar, etc) or were armies like Dark Eldar, other IG armies, or =I= armies, and a few others. I even managed a pretty stunning win against an all infiltrating space marine force at the last 4th ed tourney I played at, as he decided to place his infiltrators out in the open in tightly packed groups within LoS of my 3 Russ tanks (he lost a third of his army turn 1)

The army worked in 4th ed when it wasn't a super competitive situation, but that sadly seems to be the case with all IG armies.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
In my case, I'm now looking at the FOC as a stopping point. That is, I probably don't need more than 3 Elite, 6 Troops, 3 Fast, and 3 Heavy for any given army. And as that type of configuration typically weighs in at well over 2000 pts, it's enough to have a few tailoring picks and swaps around a well-developed base army concept.

With my Chaos, I like to have enough of many different units to field vastly different lists at will. One day I may bring 24 raptors, 2 DP's, 6 Oblits, and 30 CSM's to the table, the next it may be 16 termi's, 1 DP, 30 CSM's, 2 Havoc squads and a small Raptor squad.

But yeah, it's fun to have more Tanks and stuff. No argument there!

Always

akira5665 wrote:I love 5th Ed.

And I have been playing GW games since '87.

*Drops walking stick, and put up Fists...

"You want some of this spice, sonny???"

When I am NOT at work, I will go into a longer winded opinion.(I bet you all can't wait for that!! lol)

By all means please do!