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.

Those of you who read the latest White Dwarf may have noticed the army structures they use in the 40K campaign; mainly the GK army displayed, which utilises MSU purifier/Razorback squads and two Psyfleman dreads. As we all know, GW usually promotes diversity in it's armies, so why such a monotonous list? It's out of place, and seems to be the only army doing it in the magazine.

So, what do you make of this? Is it GW encouraging harder lists? Something else?

At times yes. If it makes them money, yes

liquidjoshi wrote:Those of you who read the latest White Dwarf may have noticed the army structures they use in the 40K campaign; mainly the GK army displayed, which utilises MSU purifier/Razorback squads and two Psyfleman dreads. As we all know, GW usually promotes diversity in it's armies, so why such a monotonous list? It's out of place, and seems to be the only army doing it in the magazine.

So, what do you make of this? Is it GW encouraging harder lists? Something else?

Having not bought a WD in many many years, but I can presume this is not the studio army and a personal one. If this is the case then I would not read too much into it.

Most likely is a personal army, but still surprised to see it in there.

I remember an old WD where they had a Dark Eldar player (this was mid-4th edition mind you) flat out tell people not to buy certain GW models because those units were too slow and as a result useless. It was a guide to playing competitively with Dark Eldar, and it was a really lengthy article.

I'm assuming it was a personal army since it's for a campaign full of personal armies. Also, I don't think 'Eavy Metal has even painted up a GK Razorback.

Yeah I remember that article, they just said 'no archon, they are a points sink, no incubi, you aren't SM, you don't need a 3+ save, better off with more raiders/ravagers'. It was really good. Shame I didn't play DE. I wouldn't mind articles like that coming back in, they are interesting, and even though they are encouraging competitiveness, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Beats the hell out of shiny pictures of things to buy page after page

I read that article too.
It was a great read. To bad WD lacks that kind of article now. That one made me really want to play DE.
Back to the topic at hand. I bet its a fan army too. Thats my vote.

liquidjoshi wrote:Those of you who read the latest White Dwarf may have noticed the army structures they use in the 40K campaign; mainly the GK army displayed, which utilises MSU purifier/Razorback squads and two Psyfleman dreads. As we all know, GW usually promotes diversity in it's armies, so why such a monotonous list? It's out of place, and seems to be the only army doing it in the magazine.

So, what do you make of this? Is it GW encouraging harder lists? Something else?

Because all of the real gamers in GW pulled out and are working for other companies. All thats left are bean counters and ambulance chasers.

More structure, less diversification.

Its the GW way!


Don't even think about coming up with your own list. You'd better be using the canned spam, or there's the devil to pay!

Sometimes WD still uses gamers' own armies. They're usually a lot more interesting than the studio armies, because the owners have priorities other than just showing off the models.