Posted By vhwolf on 08/15/2007 9:13 PM

The fact is that it is only a substandard list in your opinion. Someone else might think it is the best list to run and that yours is  the substandard one. These are opinions not facts. The facts are that there are plenty of choices in the new codex whether you want to admit it or not. The facts are that the Legions are represented in the codex, mabey not in the way some people want them but they are there. Therefore it is not a problem of choice just not the choices that some people want.

Behind door number one: Axe murderer.

Behind door number two: Terrorist.

Behind door number three: Nymphomaniac.

Wow your right, I have plenty of choices and all guarantee I'm screwed.

The thing about the new style of codices is that GW continues to try to make army lists that are versatile enough with the selection of unit types you can take that you can tailor an army to fit a particular style and it will fundamentally play differently then an army focused on a different style from the same codex.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/15/2007 8:22 PM

This is why I hated people whining endlessly about Iron Warriors. Name me one other army that was that powerful when it stuck to its fluff? Good luck with that.

BYE

Posted By Jay of Moore on 08/16/2007 4:53 AM


I never really understood why GW has this incessant need to seemingly start from scratch when they make a new codex. Everyone seems to agree that there were a few broken choices in the last codex that all could have been repaired with a few tweeks rather than a completely redone everything.

I was in this camp as well. However, I'm of the opinion it is apparent that the "starting from scratch" idea is a methodology to sell new miniatures. Their essential calculusis tighten up the existing codex or completely change everything-which one makes sells more?

Posted By yakface on 08/16/2007 12:29 AM
When a new Guard codex rolls around and they allow players to essentially take a mech heavy army, a carapace guard army, a light infantry army, etc all without doctrine rules...

That sounds a bit farfetched IMHO.  While they may allow IG to take mechanized, carapace, light infantry, and drop troop units, I really doubt they will allow them to make mechanized, carapace, light infantry, or drop troop armies.    I'm sure mechanized will be represented by armoured fist squads, carapace and drop troops will be represented by storm troopers, and light infantry will be represented by hardened vets, but I doubt they'll allow you to take an entire armies of them.  I really can't imagine them axing all-infiltrating Alpha Legion armies while keeping all-infiltrating light infantry armies.

I'd expect a new IG codex to follow the same route as the new Chaos codex - essentially a return to Codex: Imperial Guard 3.0.

Posted By Jay of Moore on 08/16/2007 4:53 AM
I never really understood why GW has this incessant need to seemingly start from scratch when they make a new codex. Everyone seems to agree that there were a few broken choices in the last codex that all could have been repaired with a few tweeks rather than a completely redone everything.

Yep.  It's kind of a formula, really. 

After years in the marketplace, everyone knows the problems with a codex are A, B, C and D.  So in the new codex, GW will address A, B and C, ignore D, and create new problems E and F. 

As jfrazell said, the explanation must relate to selling miniatures.  Doesn't mean there aren't unexplainable phenomena, though, such as the Lash...

Posted By Toreador on 08/14/2007 2:26 PM
They stated the want, to do that. But didn't know if they would be able to due to resources. So we have a bit of a wait.

It is confirmed that we have two codexes. What is in the second is up to speculation at this point. TLaTD is covered in apoc.

I don't think the Pro side is going to jump right in and write a review before it has been tested. If it tests well on the board, you will see some pros, if not, you get all the disgruntled reviews.

I could write a Pro review based off of just what H.B.M.C said, but would it be totally truthful or unbiased? No.

here's the thing about debates.  neither side is completely truthful, nor are the unbiased. Part of pro and con is the bias and the "white lies"  While I respect HBMC his opinions, I also realize they are heavily biased due to his play style and his groups outlook on the game and the company in general. 

Just as I would also realize that any pro comments would be heavily biased as well.  I guess I just can't seem to comprehend the total "I hate this crap, it's all crap, why don't they change it, I haven't played it their way in years." yet at the same time the person(s) take as much time as they do to get angry over it.  it just seems counter-productive to me. 

If you don't like lemons, I highly doubt you are going to spend money, time, effort on making lemonaide, just so you can have a reason to hate the growers, shippers and stockers of lemons.  (yes my point is a bit obtuse and quite frankly it is over the top, but I really see it the same.  )

Alright, I have another 2 centicreds to add.

It seems that after all these years, GW still has failed to grasp the fact that point values of stuff are inter related.

Having 10 Wounds on a T1 no save creature ain't all that valuable

The value of a bolter is proportional to the BS of the user and inversly proportional to the survivability of the user.

The value of a power weapon is proportional to the number of attacks, the WS, thie inititative

Everything is proportional to the unit type (assault sergeants should pay more for power fists then dev sergeants do)

etc. etc. etc.

Because they have failed to grasp this, they cannot write good options.  They simply do not realize that the value of an item in the hands of a Lord with 3 wounds, 2+/5+ armor and T 5 is more than the value of the same item in the hands of a 2 wound 3+ saving sorceror.

They are on the right path to getting there, since now every entry has the available options and point costs listed, but instead of asking how many points is OPTION A worth on this guy, they are saying OPTION A is worth 10 points, is that appropriate for this guy, if not, scratch it off the list.

This also needs to be done for armies!  If one squad has a special rule, it is worth something different then if every unit has it.  One unit with Feel no Pain is hard to kill, and generally very irritating.  A whole army with it is damn near pull your hair out aggravating.

---

Also, fluff is what makes 40k into 40k, otherwise i could play a game of chess for strategic wargaming

Eldar are incredibly concerend about every life they lose, they practice battle so they may preserve their race...  obviously BS3 and 5+ armor

Orks are deadly meaty creatures, nigh impossible to stop...  we don't need no stinking armor saves

Chaos is the stuff of corruption, the antithesis of the light of the emperor, man given to his basest desires and rewarded with power...  would you like to play yahtzee to see what your possessed and dreads do this battle?

Posted By Jay of Moore on 08/16/2007 4:53 AM
It seems that most people on this thread are falling into two camps. Either they're not happy about the new codex because of the lack of variation, or they're looking forward to it because they couldn't stand a few broken aspects of the last codex and feel that the new codex will be more balanced. What I don't really get is why you can't have both.

Posted By Dragonmann on 08/16/2007 7:38 AM

The value of a bolter is proportional to the BS of the user and inversly proportional to the survivability of the user.

The value of a power weapon is proportional to the number of attacks, the WS, thie inititative

Everything is proportional to the unit type (assault sergeants should pay more for power fists then dev sergeants do)

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/15/2007 10:18 PM

Posted By vhwolf on 08/15/2007 9:13 PM

The problem is one of choice.  The new Chaos Codex permits you little to no choice.  That is the problem; it is not the solution.

 

I can accept that other people don't feel this way, but really, what is the point of the whole list creation process if you will always end up (more or less) at the same few, tried and true ends (if you are facing someone else who is doing the same thing?).  Sure; you can choose to deliberately play with a substandard list; doesn't change the fact that it is substandard....

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/15/2007 9:12 PM

I want everything to be powerful. That's every army, every list, every unit. I'm not just out for myself. I'm not angry because my pet unit got depowered. I'll be annoyed if anything gets depowered. Every list should be powerful, and every powerful list should be fluffy. Then the game can be about two people playing against each other, rather than two people tweaking a list into oblivion.

BYE

Posted By Therion on 08/16/2007 7:22 AM

Yep. It's kind of a formula, really.

Each time I've mentioned this people have just shrugged it off like it wouldn't be true. GW pays a lot more attention to tournament armies than people think. What did Space Marine armies look like before fourth edition and the latest vanilla SM codex? They were either Rhino rushes or stand and shoot armies with mostly las/plas squads and Dev squads. Aha! Let's make Rhinos absolutely useless and let's push another completely imbalanced upgrade forward, the assault cannon, in order to sell Land Speeders, Dreadnoughts and Terminators. What did Eldar armies look like? Masses of Guardians, Wraithlords, Seer Councils, Rangers. Aha! Let's nerf all of the previous completely and push Aspect Warriors and Grav-Tanks and make a new completely imbalanced unit, the Harlequins! What did Chaos Space Marine armies look like? Possessed Predators, Basilisks, las/plas squads, daemonbombs. Aha! Let's completely nerf the possessed Predator, remove the Basilisk and daemons, ban 5man las/plas squads, and start pushing Cult Troopers forward, in order to sell something. Let's also add something completely broken like the Lash of Submission to make sure people don't give up on Chaos. Let's rape the background material too and allow people to take two Daemon Princes so that the existing Chaos players have to buy another, and the new players two!

Does anyone really think this is a coincidence, or that this is GW attempting to balance their game? It was never about that. It's about selling models, and with each revision and each new edition most of your units are intended to suck so that you have to buy something again. If they can't outright ban or nerf your current army they'll just make sure that something you didn't have has become so outrageously underpriced and broken that you have to buy a new army.

Posted By Dragonmann on 08/16/2007 7:38 AM

It seems that after all these years, GW still has failed to grasp the fact that point values of stuff are inter related.

Having 10 Wounds on a T1 no save creature ain't all that valuable

The value of a bolter is proportional to the BS of the user and inversly proportional to the survivability of the user.

The value of a power weapon is proportional to the number of attacks, the WS, thie inititative

Everything is proportional to the unit type (assault sergeants should pay more for power fists then dev sergeants do)

etc. etc. etc.

QFF.

Although GW has still not realised that everything is not inter-related but you need a set core and a specifically defined way of assigning points to stats, units, characters, etc.

A Lascannon costs 15 for a Tac Squad. It costs 25 for a Dev Squad. It costs 25 for an IG Squad. This is foolish. The Lascannon is exactly the same weapon for all three and thus should cost the same. The additional cost from any benefits should firstly be reflected in the stats (increased BS, increased survivability, none of which Space Marines truly pay for), then by unit availability and options.

It's simple, effective, and practically every historical wargame that allows options does it. GW don't.

Lascannon's are a great example, of where they sort of did it right.

For marines a tac squad pays 15, a dev 25.  Well, the Devs are about 10 times more likely to stand still and fire every turn while the Tacs may or may not do so, not to mention that the possibility of concentrated fire makes them more valuable for devs, because 4 lascannon shots is usually simply better than 1 (unless you KNOW that you will hit, pen, destroy, and if you do, what are tomorrow's lotto numbers please)

Then, you flip open IG, and discover that they are the same price for Las cannons there as for devs.  Well Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, I am not getting focused fire, I am not getting the same accuracy, and hell, when the shooting starts, the ablative armor on a IG squad lasts a lot less time then the same on marines.  hmm, maybe an anti-tank team could pay 20, and all othe guardsmen 10...

As it sits now, heavy weapons are so expensive for guard that you cannot afford to take them and not fire, so guard must stand still.  SMACK, 90% of scenarios involve the army taking ground/objectives/deployment zones, etc.

GW needs to sit down and figure out that there point values are based on:

Ballistic ability - BS + weapon carried

Assault Ability - Number of attacks, with some factor based on Initiative and WS + weapon

Survivability - Armor/Toughness/Wounds together

Morale - Leadership + squad size

Type - Assault squads pay less for stuff that hurts their assault ability...  etc

And - Miscelaneous - special rules

And if the rest of the rules were well written, it would be formulaic.  NOT SIMPLE mind you, but formulaic.  

Hm BS 4 uses column 4 on the weapons table

3 Attacks at WS3 I3 is worth less than 3 attacks as WS4 I4... how novel

Posted By vhwolf on 08/16/2007 7:51 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/15/2007 10:18 PM

Posted By vhwolf on 08/15/2007 9:13 PM

The problem is one of choice.  The new Chaos Codex permits you little to no choice.  That is the problem; it is not the solution.

 

I can accept that other people don't feel this way, but really, what is the point of the whole list creation process if you will always end up (more or less) at the same few, tried and true ends (if you are facing someone else who is doing the same thing?).  Sure; you can choose to deliberately play with a substandard list; doesn't change the fact that it is substandard....

The fact is that it is only a substandard list in your opinion. Someone else might think it is the best list to run and that yours is  the substandard one.

Yes, but I think we're assuming that the goal of the list is to make winning less difficult rather than more difficult.  Of course if the goal is to make it easier for the opponent to win then a very powerful list would certainly be "substandard".  Well I'm glad we cleared that up.

Posted By vhwolf on 08/15/2007 9:13 PM
These are opinions not facts. The facts are that there are plenty of choices in the new codex whether you want to admit it or not. The facts are that the Legions are represented in the codex, mabey not in the way some people want them but they are there.

Posted By Dragonmann on 08/16/2007 9:55 AM

Lascannon's are a great example, of where they sort of did it right.

QFF... unless you meant to say the perfect example of how wrong their points system is. You yourself even use the IG example.

But a Lascannon is a Lascannon is a Lascannon. End of story. It should cost the same for whatever unit uses it.

If a model with it has a higher BS than another model, then that should be reflected in the model's points cost and not the cost of the weapon.

If a unit can get more of them, then that should be reflected in the cost of the unit and not the cost of the weapon.

If a unit is more likely to survive longer and thus pump out more shots, then that should be reflected in the cost of the unit and not the cost of the weapon.

Finally, if a unit has a particular place in an army and is worth more or less depending on that place, then that should be reflected in the cost of the unit and not the cost of the weapon.

Posted By Dragonmann on 08/16/2007 9:55 AM

GW needs to sit down and figure out that there point values are based on: