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.

A good and interesting, if longish, read. I am unsure, however, how it supports your facially intuitive point. By "golden age," I'm not talking about nostalgia. I'm talking about quality and diversity of product. If anything, that article tends to support my view. With the HH series of novels, which are themselves possible thanks to Ibram Guant and Uriel Ventris, the 40k universe is entering a new phase of cohesiveness. At the same time, the minis and rules are becoming--to my mind--far more attractive to purchase (i.e., quality is finally catching up to price). We've got fluff, we've got crunch--who can stop us but ourselves?

For the GW hobby? YES I THINK IT'S A GOLDEN AGE I've been going a good 15 years and have seen many changes in that time. Some poor, some great.

IntoTheRain wrote:-6 months to a year is fast response time for FAQ?

-Really? Orks? Guard? Not ringing any bells? SW has enough interesting stuff that a high end list will probably come out of it. I really don't see how you think those codexes are in the same league as their previous incarnations. They went from the bottom of the pile to the very top.

-Miniature modeling companies all price gouge because the consumer is willing to pay it and the business is small enough not to get government attention. Compare the amount of plastic to other modeling kits and its not even close. It literally blows my mind that people still buy this stuff. (I have about 2000 points..all I will ever need)

-While White Dwarf has done somewhat better, its a far cry from 'good'. I expect more than just a battle report and a painting class from a hobby magazine, and I expect a hell of a lot more for that kind of money. No featured armies of gamer's work? No terrain class or ideas? No codex design notes? No quick scenario rules for recreations? (the Eldar jetbike vs DE jetbike running battle was one of my favorites of all time)

6months - a year - agree poor, but then my group never play so stricktly that we ever use them Disagreements are settled with a dice roll and a house rule after.

codexes - I'm loving the current lot. Have only bought guard but from comments I've heard and how others have played I think theyre getting them right. Guards if far more 41st millienium than ever, and it offers many different opportunities for making army lists that are usable. SM - tacticals get bolters AND combat weapons - about time! I seriously hope new codexs follow the current trend

Model - I disagree quite strongly with this point - ANY COMPANY would be stupid not to charge the maximum they could for their products as long as poeple will pay it. You buy it. You may buy form a cheaper online source but GW are aware of this as is any other company. Nothing unusual. I usually pay full price. I don't buy a lot but plenty to keep my hobby going with enough spare kits for crazy projects. Amount of plastic vs cost - errr I think it's pretty much on a par with other kits. GW are nice and chuncky with suitable detail for the use rather than being frail models for display. I'm not saying kit's are cheap - they ARE expensive, but what I'm saying is they're not bad value, compared to other plastic kits or what people are willing to pay. And the new extras, from the landraiders interior detail right through to spare wheels or weapon options are a great improvment on 10 years ago.

WD - no comment. It's pants. There's the odd good issue but even those overall are pants. stop showing us new sprues - put those pictures on the website, 1 basic and 1 advanced tutorial a month please, not page after page of repeated tutorials reapeated issue after issue but with a different model. OK, show off you new game but seriously, I picked up an issue off the shelf the other month, flicked through and apart form about 4 pages and the usual adverts it was all space hulk or LOTRs. I don't play either = no buy that! show us more clever ways to use the new kits, and scenary showcases with more on how to make it ourselves.

rant over.

Great to see GW brining out their own model supplies - various scatters, barbed wire, improved paints, more brush variety great. I don't buy it as an get it cheaper elsewhere but it's a good thing for the hobby even from an awareness stand. Heck I remember discovering static grass through wd years back - now that started a whole basing revelation and now gone seem to be the days of a goblin green base. What I would like is more things to be stocked such as platic-card and various plastic rods - something I find difficult to track down (rods in particular). I've found one store in brimingham that stocks it that's easy to get to but even they no longer supply plastic rod, just sheets.

As for the rules. Yes there's holes in them, but there has always been. I'm a fan of the current set and to be honest they're my favourite. They have some of the detail and flavour of 2nd edition yet games flow and allow you to play a largish army in a couple of hours rather than being more of 2eds. skirmishes. The expansions are also very welcome. They do what they say - expand the game yet keep the basic 40K at their heart. They also give gw an excuse to flog us more new models - again good especially when said models are some of the nice building kits and accessories we've seen in recent years. My gaming table is looking better than it ever has!

JUST PLEASE FIX WD - more about the hobby, less about the new releases please GW!!!!!!

Manchu wrote:A good and interesting, if longish, read. I am unsure, however, how it supports your facially intuitive point. By "golden age," I'm not talking about nostalgia. I'm talking about quality and diversity of product. If anything, that article tends to support my view. With the HH series of novels, which are themselves possible thanks to Ibram Guant and Uriel Ventris, the 40k universe is entering a new phase of cohesiveness.

More like incohesiveness! I find the HH series really bad (both writing and sticking to setting), and Abnett can't write anything without making something up and inserting it.

The quality of BL is really bad in my eyes.

At the same time, the minis and rules are becoming--to my mind--far more attractive to purchase (i.e., quality is finally catching up to price). We've got fluff, we've got crunch--who can stop us but ourselves?

Well, it depends. I think that 40k still suffers from a lot of problems from 3rd edition which won't disappear without a large shake up, which thanks to the fallout of 3rd edition, they won't do due to the backlash then.

The Fluff is getting better (far FAR better than the 3rd -> 4th period), but isn't up to the standard of the Rogue Trader and 2nd edition stuff. Things like the current Space Marine codex read like a poor fanfic compared with the 2nd edition one or even the 1st edition quadruple amputee Calgar one.

Models have improved in quality and scuplts, but many designs don't seem to have the flavour and energy of the older ones.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Golden Age of Modelling

I agree. Having come back into the fold only recently as a 2E player, the models available now are just so much better, and it's nice that you can get more plastic lightweight ones than metal.

Daba wrote:The quality of BL is really bad in my eyes.

Cannot agree. There are stinkers (Goto, much of Heroes of the Space Marines, etc) but have you read Sandy Mitchell? Or the Let the Galaxy Burn anthology, which is pure gold? The HH books are pretty great on balance and even contain very thoughtful insights about the development of religion and the psychology of loyalty. I don't love them all but I love enough of them to recommend the project to any 40k fan without hesitation.

Daba wrote:Well, it depends. I think that 40k still suffers from a lot of problems from 3rd edition which won't disappear without a large shake up, which thanks to the fallout of 3rd edition, they won't do due to the backlash then.

The Fluff is getting better (far FAR better than the 3rd -> 4th period), but isn't up to the standard of the Rogue Trader and 2nd edition stuff. Things like the current Space Marine codex read like a poor fanfic compared with the 2nd edition one or even the 1st edition quadruple amputee Calgar one.

I'm afraid I don't follow your argument on these points. Codex SM fluff is pretty stale--at least until you take a closer look (see my UM thread here)--and is expected to be, I guess. The SW stuff is very well written, though, IMO. I was not at all disappointed. I mean, this is a gothic scifi wargame, not Moby Dick, obviously.

DarkHound wrote:Obviously you do not play Chaos. There is ALWAYS something to be cynical about: almost all the legions play better on other codicies and, as I push the boundries of the current codex, the poor design is starting to get to me.

Then again, I start painting my orks and the endless possibilities of that codex cheers me up.

To start with, i find that offensive. Obviously i DO play chaos, obviously i've been playing it for 8 years.
As your say, there Is always somthing to be cynical about. That applies to Every situation Ever comprehended. Hence, you can't go around saying GW are the bad ones when you, frankly, openly admit to being cynical. "Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity" I dont think Cynasism is somthing you shold be advertising yourself as. And the rules say to attack somones argument, not the person. Dont dare say anything about me, what i play, or how i play every again without the words "sorry" next to it.

In all fairness, Bascilica, I think the "you" in DarkHound's post was directed at me.

IntoTheRain wrote:
-Really? Orks? Guard? Not ringing any bells? SW has enough interesting stuff that a high end list will probably come out of it. I really don't see how you think those codexes are in the same league as their previous incarnations. They went from the bottom of the pile to the very top.

Why do you say that as if it is a bad thing? Should the relative power between various armies be forever fixed so that SM/CSM always rule and IG/Orks always suck? Now, if they make an existing top tier army even more powerful, then you might have a point.

Manchu wrote:
Cannot agree. There are stinkers (Goto, much of Heroes of the Space Marines, etc) but have you read Sandy Mitchell? Or the Let the Galaxy Burn anthology, which is pure gold? The HH books are pretty great on balance and even contain very thoughtful insights about the development of religion and the psychology of loyalty. I don't love them all but I love enough of them to recommend the project to any 40k fan without hesitation.

I'll leave an exception for Sandy Mitchell, I think he puts something clearly missing from the rest of BL so he gets a thumbs up from me.

However, I cannot agree on the HH books. I found those 'insights' were extremely superficial at best, childish, infantile or just plainly moronic and insulting otherwise.

Feel free to disagree, but that was what I got out of them. I actually prefer Heroes of the Space Marines as more 'fun' novels, with action in instead of treading on areas the authors are not up to writing. Abnett is good reading but not 40k, no more than the older books derided earlier anyway.

Sorry for any abrasiveness, but most BL novels are clearly not my thing, and have actually detracted from my enjoyment of the setting.

I'm afraid I don't follow your argument on these points. Codex SM fluff is pretty stale--at least until you take a closer look (see my UM thread here)--and is expected to be, I guess. The SW stuff is very well written, though, IMO. I was not at all disappointed. I mean, this is a gothic scifi wargame, not Moby Dick, obviously.

To clarify: in 3rd edition the fluff took a severe dive. Everything in 3rd edition was pretty lazy, if it was done at all; 4th edition was a bit better and has been (generally) improving in 5th, with a few bloopers (Codex SM).

It's getting better, but not up to the standard in Rogue Trader or early 2nd edition.

I don't expect to read it like a story, I want it to give me a feel of the universe. 2nd and 1st gave better, though 5th is good. 3rd was an embarrassment.

I would say it's a far better 'age' than 3rd to 4th, but I wouldn't call it 'golden'.

Daba wrote:I found those 'insights' were extremely superficial at best, childish, infantile or just plainly moronic and insulting otherwise.

Well, no point in digging around for a lot of quotes that you might not care about in the first place, but one moment really sticks out in my mind and it may be worth bringing up here. There is a part where Kyril Sindermann is musing over the emergence of the Imperial Cult and says something along the lines of "we must be careful what we worship, for what we worship is what we are becoming." I'm a fairly religious person myself (Catholic) and do not feel at all insulted or disappointed by that notion--in fact, I agree with it completely and it expresses the logic of my faith. Now, some of the 'insights,' especially about religion, are plainly dumb. "The Last Church" comes to mind immediately. Contemporary British pop culture is plagued by the utter banality of Dawkins/Hitchens on religion and I guess 40k couldn't help but be infected, as well. I really must insist that HH has handled what is in all accounts an epic, legendary period with a great deal more grace than I would have expected. It's going to be somewhat hamfisted, of course. We don't have Milton around to write this for us and he wouldn't be bothered with it, either. For pulp scifi, it's kept me well-entertained, which is more than I can say for the likes of J. K. Rowling and her imitators.

Ohh, whoops! my appologies DarkHound... I geuse Tzeench isnt excactly one to support sanity.

To comment on the topic, though, GW are about to release some brilliant looking Skaven models. Absolutly beautiful, as Skaven can be...

@ Manchu

That's fine, I think I may have overreacted as the negatives tend to accentuate themselves to me more.

I think I agree with you about 'Pulp Sci-Fi', although I don't enjoy them so much there's certainly much worse.

I think it's just I find the HH a period that would have been better left shrouded in mystery, and although there are some good ones as you attest, the bad ones stick out and make the whole meal hard to swallow for me.

I think concerning books you probably have a more balanced view than me!

Also, I liked the Wolf stuff as well; I think it's just Matt Ward isn't as good a writer as Phil Kelly or some of the others which is why the Codex: SM book came out a bit badly to me fluffwise.

Daba wrote:I think it's just I find the HH a period that would have been better left shrouded in mystery, and although there are some good ones as you attest, the bad ones stick out and make the whole meal hard to swallow for me.

Very understandable! I tried to get through the DA books, I really did, but it wasn't my prejudices as a SW player that kept me from turning the pages . . . And TBH I can only read so much of Abnett at a go, and only Eisenhorn not Ravenor at that. I think that we can agree that "it is what it is" and that's not much but it's alright for "what it is." I just think the HH series is part of what I would call this golden age and you'd call . . . maybe more effective product placement and distribution?

To comment on the topic, though, GW are about to release some brilliant looking Skaven models. Absolutly beautiful, as Skaven can be...

I think the product placement/distribution could be a big factor, too.

I'm not sure I can agree it's a 'golden age', but maybe I would say 'silver age'?

It doesn't have the 'freshness' of when 40k was new (it can't) but it's recovered a lot, and there's lots of good models and fluff to choose from.

(my favourite factions are still those from 1st and 2nd though!)

Not sure I'd say its a golden age but after 15 years of buying GW products my personal opinion is:

the models and quality thereof has improved immensely.
value for money (on some units/armies) has improved.
paint quality/brush quality VASTLY improved.
scenery packs atm are brilliant.

The release of Apoc rules was a real winner imo (sure its a blatant money maker) but I love having the chance to play Epic-style games with 40k models.
Who can say honestly they dont think the stompa and super heavies are excellent?

I used to be a big GW basher and my mate still is but perhaps as Im getting older I can see the good as well as the bad and ride with it.

For those that remember the 2nd ed kits/models/rules and even prices, saying that things havent moved on is just plain nonsense.

the models and quality thereof has improved immensely.
In sculpting, yes, definitely. Concept and design arguably not (new Orks are great though)

value for money (on some units/armies) has improved.
Apart from a few kits (WHFB Cavalry mostly), I can't really agree. Even accounting for inflation, you got a lot more minis / £ than you do now. £5 for 4 or 5 Aspect Warriors in a blister, with £3 characters, you had. Plastic kits were cheaper too, some of which haven't changed (like Eldar vehicles). The only thing I think that hasn't gone up so much is Jetbikes (at least in the UK) who are quite similar to their original price.

paint quality/brush quality VASTLY improved.
Kind of agree and disagree. The older paints, in the old flip top pots were really good (when they were in round pots, then hexagonal). When they went to screw lids, there were a lot of problems. I still have some of the old pots usable now, but none of my screw-top pots I bought later survived.

scenery packs atm are brilliant.
Agree, though I do wish they did more 'DIY' scenery in WD.

value for money (on some units/armies) has improved.
Apart from a few kits (WHFB Cavalry mostly), I can't really agree. Even accounting for inflation, you got a lot more minis / £ than you do now. £5 for 4 or 5 Aspect Warriors in a blister, with £3 characters, you had. Plastic kits were cheaper too, some of which haven't changed (like Eldar vehicles). The only thing I think that hasn't gone up so much is Jetbikes (at least in the UK) who are quite similar to their original price.

Unfortunately you are looking at this from an english perspective, with the exchange rates back in the day and Ireland using the Punt we got hit hard on prices, for me personnaly a lot of kits are now better value for money.

Manchu wrote:I've gotten to thinking. Are we in a golden age of gaming?

No.

40k V5, while being the best version of 40k to date, is still a far cry from something that could be considered a "golden age". Here are the major problems in my mind:

1. The points system is merely a guideline and is not there for game balance. This is the only logical reasoning given that each codex contains overpriced and/or useless units as well as some underpriced units as well. One would expect points values to represent the model's power level and utiltiy, but this is certainly not the case in 40k. The huge swings in unit effectiveness between codex editions is also a problem, but this is symptomatic of the designers not properly assigning points values and would go away if points actually meant anything.

2. Homogenized movement. This has been a problem since 2nd edition. It is utter idiocy that everything is shoehorned into a few movement bands. All that gak about it being hard to keep track of is bollocks, considering that nobody has this probem in WHFB. In addition to this, to somehow remedy this, GW implemented "fleet of foot" and "run", both of which result in RANDOM extra movement, with the latter ability available to everyone. This doesn't add anything to strategic play as any good general knows, good players seek to minimize randomness... making extra speed into a core mechanic, making it RANDOM - and then giving it to everyone is highly frustrating.

3. Transports and vehicles. GW keeps mucking about with the transport and vehicle rules - and NOT getting them right - and then in hindsight patching some armies, but not patching others...! Defensive weapons was a good idea. Making them S4 was a bad idea - making Guard tanks be able to shoot everything again while keeping V5 Tau with no defensive weapons was a bad idea. Making troops disembark from the hatches was a good idea. Making troops being able to shoot from fire points was a good idea. Making troops unable to assault from moving transports was a good idea - if they gave Eldar assault ramps for their zero fire point, one hatch, super expensive taxis for super expensive HTH guys...! Otherwise, it is fairly pointless... as this rule was made to nerf V3 Rhino Rush and the new rapidfire rules effectively fix this by making the old marine rhino rush of old shoot OR assault instead of both!

4. Artificial limits on how units may engage one another. Ask anyone with a small elite army. The change from V3 to V4 where you have to assault what you shoot hurt small elite armies a lot. For example, in V3, a unit of Grey Knights, outnumbered 4:1 could shoot one target and assault another - wiping out neither. On their opponent's turn, they would have 2 full squads that couldn't shoot the Grey Knights, and two crippled units. The Grey Knights would then be tarpitted at a 2.5:1 assault... Not so bad right? In V4/V5, that same unit would annihilate one of the enemy squads, then eat 3:1 shooting and/or assault and be oblitterated. Combined with the gimpy transport rules and homogenized movement, it is pretty near impossible to combine shooty and fighty squads for any sort of coordinated strike due to artificial limitations on timing... and even if the timing issue wasn't a problem being forced to enage a single enemy each usually results in the destruction of the attacking player's units in the following turn by overwhelming numbers...!

5. Not a problem in itself, but now that GW has saddled itself with these horribly limiting core rules, they go about writing special rules to circumvent them. Idiocy of the highest degree... having to insert a bunch of exceptions to achieve variety means that the core ruleset is lacking.

I agree with the other posters that it is a Golden Age of modelling... but for gaming... that rennaisance is far away.

I think that GW is actually putting out a solid product, and if we're not in a Golden age, it's still a good time to be in the hobby.

The models, as has been covered, are much better than when I started in mid-3rd. The fact that now we look at kits like assault marines, which were amazing when I started, as getting long in the tooth, is a real step forward.

As for the rules, I don't want to question anybody's experience, but you get a lot of conflicting complaints. Some miss the days of chapter approved, others want a return to a tighter rule set, and I'm not sure when GW ever had a tighter rule set for 40k.

The rules are better. I think there is a solid balance between assault and shooting, and mechanized armies are viable without being broken like in 3rd.

there are fewer types of armies available, which is a shame, but there are far more armies that are actually competitive, which is a good thing. Go back to any other time before now, and how many armies were seriously considered strong? Look at what we have now, with a half dozen strong books (SM, IG, Orks, Chaos, Demons, Eldar).

Everybody is going to remember most fondly the time when they had the most fun gaming, and that generally has little to do with the rules. If you had a great gaming group in 3rd, than odds are 3rd is your favorite, at least for nostalgia purposes.

Polonius wrote:there are fewer types of armies available, which is a shame, but there are far more armies that are actually competitive, which is a good thing. Go back to any other time before now, and how many armies were seriously considered strong? Look at what we have now, with a half dozen strong books (SM, IG, Orks, Chaos, Demons, Eldar).

There's the rub. There are more competitive codexes, but those armies have few effective builds. A lot of playstyle is dictated by restrictions in the core rules. I haven't seen any true combined arms type armies since V3. Are players satisfied by having GW dictate to them what their armies must contain to be successful? I for one am not.

Manchu wrote:Brother SRM: You replaced Gwar! in my sig, mate.

HERETIC! MAY RUSS STRIKE YOU DOWN WHERE YOU STAND FOUL BEAST!

Also, to sum it up:
Models are better now than then.
Rules were better then than now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

keezus wrote:I haven't seen any true combined arms type armies since V3. Are players satisfied by having GW dictate to them what their armies must contain to be successful? I for one am not.

No offence, but if GW didn't dictate what our armies are made of, there would be no codex's.

Being a Good General outweighs your armies build any day of the week.

Ive been very pleased with 2009 so far. GW have released 3 codexs! Isnt that a record?

But Guard were good, SM are good and SW are excellent.

Hopefully next year were see Nids, Tau and Necrons brought up to date. In 2011 I hope to see Chaos Legions, DE and Inqusition.

keezus wrote:

Polonius wrote:there are fewer types of armies available, which is a shame, but there are far more armies that are actually competitive, which is a good thing. Go back to any other time before now, and how many armies were seriously considered strong? Look at what we have now, with a half dozen strong books (SM, IG, Orks, Chaos, Demons, Eldar).

There's the rub. There are more competitive codexes, but those armies have few effective builds. A lot of playstyle is dictated by restrictions in the core rules. I haven't seen any true combined arms type armies since V3. Are players satisfied by having GW dictate to them what their armies must contain to be successful? I for one am not.

I'm not sure what kind of combined arms forces your talking about, nor am I sure what codices had multiple top shelf builds in the past. Chaos 3.5 had a few great builds, but the rest tended to be pretty mono-focused.

If you provide some examples for your points, that might help.

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure what kind of combined arms forces your talking about, nor am I sure what codices had multiple top shelf builds in the past. Chaos 3.5 had a few great builds, but the rest tended to be pretty mono-focused.

If you provide some examples for your points, that might help.

By combined arms I mean multiple units supporting one another for tactical benefit. In the V5 days, it is all about the general statline of the base trooper as they usually have to perform their task unsupported. Infantry models typically advance, do their thing, be it shooting of assault, and then sit there to reap the whirlwind of retaliation. The best you can do is have multiple units in range to eat this retaliation and hope you have stuff left over to move and shoot/assault with on the next turn. An oversimplification, certainly, but this is why MEQ type troops and Plague Marines especially are so good - as their extra toughness and MEQ save and FNP lets them weather this inevitable result.

Weaker troops such as Eldar Guardians or Tau Firewarriors as befitting their lower cost, lack the punch and/or resilience to win toe-to-toe fights. This is partly the because they are poorly costed, but also because they have few ways to support one another outside of firefights. As weaker troops, any engagmement that these units are put in are decisive ones, due to the lethality of close range firepower and the new assault rules. Without being able to dictate the flow of battle, putting these in combat at a 1:1 basis vs better troops = defeat. It is only through combined firepower/assault that these units are able to prove any worth.

Example: Eldar Guardians x10 + Waveserpent != 1 Tactical Marine Squad w/ Rhino. The Marines are better at shooting, AND at assault, actual projection of firepower is roughly equal, although the eldar need the transports much more as their squad has no resilience. Those 10 guardians can put 2 unsaved wounds on average on to that Marine squad by shooting. If they were alowed to assault, they'd add an additional 1 MEQ casualty, taking 2 casualties in return. This is a loosing proposition, as that Marine squad WILL win in HTH. You'd need 2x 10 guardians to go against that one unit -and- be able to charge to do anything meaningful. What's more, is that without the ability to go into assault, the guardians will be shredded by return fire. While they may not win in assault, they will certainly last longer there, AND prevent the unit in assault from shooting. That flexibility in using crappy troops is largely gone. Cheap troops do not tarpit well due to the new assault rules, they are not durable enough to sieze and hold objectives, and usually lack the punch to damage the high value items that the top armies are packing.

Elite troops such as Terminators, Sternguard, Aspect Warriors, Pariahs etc. - While these have fantastic offensive possiblities, they are often not much more survivable than other "MEQ type" troops. Due to everyone moving at the same rate in 40k, these are usually transported if possible to reduce attrition from shooting and to better direct their force. Unfortunately, this means that outside of firefights, their weaker brethren can not support them by tying up enemy shooters in assault. These units also have few to no options to engage multiple weaker enemies other than trying to assault multiple units. The new rules are very unfriendly to said units as they are prone to wiping out enemies in assault and getting shot at by superior numbers, or fighting in assault where a loss results in huge outnumbering.

Extending the above example: This can be extended to Aspect Warriors where if you had 1x unit Firedragons and 1x unit Scorpions in WS vs 2 MEQ units, you'd shoot both squads at one and have both teams assault the other (in V3). In V4, you'd shoot with the Dragons and probably get assaulted in return and loose combat. The scorps would either stay in the vehicle and risk "hatch blockage", or disembark, shoot their pistols and eat a whole pile of firepower on the next turn. They could charge whichever squad was left over, but their chances only look even against the marine remnants. In V3, you'd probably crush the opposition, but then again, at almost 2x the cost of 2 MEQ units, that's the way it should be... where in V4, you'd probably loose as your oppnent may have more than 2 MEQ units handy, or at best, break even. Not good.

Anyhow... that was a bit OT, but IMO, this lack of flexibilty is very frustating to me. These days it seems 40k is pretty much, set up move forward shoot/assault. Rinse repeat. Maneuvering is largely a joke. Strong abilities like outflank and deepstrike are very random. Troops can not combine abilities easily due to timing issues. There's no reward for cleverly moving your troops as any sort of combined thrust is telegraphed to your opponent either through forced disembark, or stuff staying stationary. On the flip side, the percentage of your army required for such a maneuver, and the low chances of success make it an idiots gambit in the current environment.

Manchu wrote:Five months is not a long wait when the purpose of the document is to work out what has turned out to be problematic (but I'm a lawyer, so long waits for documents are to be expected as far as I'm concerned). As to 'Ard Boyz, I'm not surprised that DE didn't go home victorious if that's what you're saying. Pricing we can throw out, sure. And WD has--probably more than any other aspect of GW that we can reasonably expect improvement--a long way to go. If I was going to level an impossible cirticism, I'd say "support BFG or you're an evil empire!!!" but it just ain't gonna happen. Although, now that I think about it, they did release a new AdMech ship last year, right? I haven't even begun to talk about the greatness that is the HH series, by the way.

I say, usher in the Golden Age! (if it isn't already upon us)

It is a long time when the consumer (us) notices the issues on the first reading of the codex on the day it's released.

If we can see the issues that quickly, GW should have seen the issues before it was sent to the presses.

Saldiven wrote:It is a long time when the consumer (us) notices the issues on the first reading of the codex on the day it's released.

If we can see the issues that quickly, GW should have seen the issues before it was sent to the presses.

Sorry, but I noticed a hell of a lot about 3 weeks before the codex was released, and released the first version of my FAQ 2 weeks before it was released to the General Public.

If I can do that in my spare time, GW has no excuse, they are just lazy and Incompetent.

@ Keezus: Thanks for the explanation, but I'm really not sure it's worst now than in 3rd. How many games in 3rd edition were "Turn 1: Move rhinos 12", pop smoke. Turn 2: assault."? In third edition, if you weren't playing mechanized assault, you were playing to lose.

Look at the modern IG book: those are fragile squads that excel though mutual support and their transport. Marines don't win anything with a single tactical squad. Even orks have to have help.

Yes, compared to a game like Flames of War 40k does descend into sending squads into the fray, but I'm not sure that's changed for the worse. The 5th edition codices are all much better, btw, than the earlier ones for that sort of thing.

@OP: Yes, the models look great.

And the prices have gone up to match.

Tough call.
____

@Polonius: A lot of them started like that against my Eldar, and all of them ended like this: Turn 3-4 Eldar utterly savage the Marines with Starcannons & Alpha-strike counterassaults, Turn 5-6 Eldar mop up.

Third edition was also a time when there were hideous rock/paper/scissors situations. The eldar book was nothing but a "how to beat space marines" manual, and Codex: Craftworlds made it even easier, either with BS4 guardians or simply taking scorpion serpent rush.