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.

 MDizzle wrote:
The Only way I would even listen to an argument like this is if you were a Tyranid player. You most likely built a gimmick army and now you are upset you can't pull shenanigans on people. T

This just in build solid armies that are balanced and you wont have anything to worry about. Now that GW puts out FAQ's in a quicker pace this will save you time and money.

This is just not true. In many cases, it was the guy playing a balanced/fluffy list that got stomped. The player running a 27+lance list for DE is still sitting pretty. The poor folks who bought 30+ finecast wracks for their nifty, original Cult of skin army are hosed.


I have to agree with Nagashek here. I personally welcome more frequent FAQs and rules updates, but so far they do feel fragmentary and inadequate. Here's hoping it improves.

As for the comparison with video games, GW still loses. FAQs and patches are both free, but in video games they mostly mean a change of play style and time investment. In wargames they can (and often do) also bring about massive expenses.

And please, let's not go the "no one is forcing you to buy new models or play the game" route. We can assume that encouraging people to stay in the hobby with the least amount of effort and expense is generally a good thing, right?

You don't see MMOs going "we'll triple the durability damage rate on all gear, make character death incur a 4-hour no-play penalty lock on the character and remove all summon stones and teleports from the game. Let's see if our customers are really dedicated." But that seems to be a surprisingly acceptable mentality here.

Says you I think the guy running the 27 lances is a bad list in this edition everyone's local meta is different maybe he pwnes you with a 5th ed list be he will have to change soon enough. Like I said if you build an extreme army you are going to get FAQed.

 MDizzle wrote:
Says you I think the guy running the 27 lances is a bad list in this edition everyone's local meta is different maybe he pwnes you with a 5th ed list be he will have to change soon enough. Like I said if you build an extreme army you are going to get FAQed.

Tell that to anything the imperial guard make. Tell that to necron flyer spam. Tell that to demon Flying circuis. Their extreme armies in fifth are better now. significantly better. Palladins are still pretty viable even without falling over eachother to spread wounds around since they can reorganize in the shooting phase to do it. Very few "extreme armies" have been FAQd into being worse. It's really just character spam units like nob bikers and palladins

Sixth edition is all about extreme builds using imperial guard allies or imperial guard allying in extreme units. 40ks balance is dead, they're gonna have to FAQ a hell of a lot harder than this to bring it back.

 Surtur wrote:


200 point AV 14 all around not worth it? My land raiders weep for thee.

Fear the mighty monolith weapons - mass bolters! Run, they got bolters! LOTS OF 'EM. Furthermore, can you Land Raider move more than 6'' per turn? Monolith can't. Neither do we have smoke launchers. No melta weapons. One blast weapon, that's all.

Seriously though, a Land Raider is a lot better than the monolith in its current iteration. They certainly serve different purposes, but 200 points for the teleport function is ridiculous.

Sure, the old Living Metal was overpowered like hell, but the current Monolith is a joke. At the very least, it should have melta protection and deepstrike immunity (aka no roll on deepstrike chart if you hit enemy units).

On regard on the balance discussion, I disagree. Yes, WAAC guys will have an easy way with flyer spam, but overall, balance is a LOT better than in 5th where your chances of winning rose exponentially with the number of tanks you took with ya aka ridicolously overpowered transports.

I think you're wrong only time will tell.

I like that Daemon Weapons are now all AP2. Except for the Tzeentch one; it was always supposed to be AP3.

xttz wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:

Games workshop doesn't charge you for changes to the game either, they charge you for models which you can choose to buy, or not to buy. Your old models aren't obsolete, they might just be a bit less efficient which makes people like you upset, because you feel you have some sort of entitlement to win forever because you bought a certain model x years ago.Anyway, back to the point. Much like the games you mention, 40k runs by the exact same principle that changes not only help the balance of the game, but are good for business. League of Legends for example: You can buy their champions, but there are no guarantees that your particular champion will stay useful. In fact, they do patches to re-balance champions at least once a month, so you'll be "inspired" to try other champions. That's healthy for two reasons; 1. It makes the game seem fresh for the player, extending the lifetime of the product continually. 2. it makes you buy more champions. Sound familiar? That's because 40k works that way as well.

WoW isn't a good enough example because they don't really have the width in classes to do that, but if they had, you could be pretty certain they'd do the same. Oh and also, you pay a monthly fee to play wow AND you have to buy their stupid expansions. If you want to talk about being "forced to pay", WoW is a great example. 40k certainly isn't, if you have an army done, that army can play (with different efficiency, granted) for years.

Dumb companies balance because things are broken, smart companies balance because that's how you keep your game alive for 25 years. League of Legends is currently one of the most popular games in the world. They are so because of their frequent updates, not based on "things being broken", but shifting the balance of power constantly, meaning that no gamer can ever "settle" and be at the highest efficiency with a single hero for the rest of his life. It's smart and while you may be upset that it hurts your wallet from time to time, that's how good companies operate

The biggest trend I'm seeing here is people complaining how little GW involve their own customers in these balancing processes. As I'm sure you're aware, it's becoming more and more common for games companies to involve fans with the development process to some degree (be that via community forums, beta tests, drunken pub crawls and so on). GW have always been incredibly insular with regards to their development processes, and that results in many situations that could easily be avoided. Sometimes you need to use a wider audience to bounce ideas off or to error-check things for broken-ness. Even putting aside situations with poor or ambigious rule phrasing, you end up with subtley broken codexes that game designers can easily miss.
The sad thing is that GW have a great opportunity in front of them - there's a rabid fanbase just begging to 'work' for free on improving their products. Instead they're too worried about leaking next month's releases to ask for that free help.

And in the spirit of community involvement please read my spergy thread
(not stalking you honest )

O hai :3

MDizzle wrote:The Only way I would even listen to an argument like this is if you were a Tyranid player. You most likely built a gimmick army and now you are upset you can't pull shenanigans on people. T

This just in build solid armies that are balanced and you wont have anything to worry about. Now that GW puts out FAQ's in a quicker pace this will save you time and money.

Actually the opposite is true in some cases. The DE build that was slaughtering in 5th? Venom Spam with 3 units of 4 Blasterborn, units of 5 warriors with Blasters. No CC elements what so ever except Beastpacks if you need to hide the baron. Guess what's winning in 6th? Venom Spam with 3 units of 4 Blasterborn, units of 5 warriors with Blasters. No CC elements what so ever except Beastpacks if you need to hide the baron. You know what I was using? An army made up of 5 man Blaster warriors, 10 man Splinter warriors, Blasterborn, wyches, Incubi, and an Archon. You know what doesn't work in 6th? My 20 Wyches, 5 Incubi, and Archon. So if you don't think that a combination shooting and CC army is balanced, but now has about 40% dead weight is perfectly fine then I don't know what else to say to you. I don't see how one FAQ that changes a rule necessitating a meta shift, then a followup FAQ that changes things AGAIN saves me time and money from remodeling or buying new models every few months as FAQ's are released.

This of course assumes you live in the pipedream that GW will put out any further FAQs until after the next codex is released.

Stoffer wrote:
Games workshop doesn't charge you for changes to the game either, they charge you for models which you can choose to buy, or not to buy. Your old models aren't obsolete, they might just be a bit less efficient which makes people like you upset, because you feel you have some sort of entitlement to win forever because you bought a certain model x years ago.

No, "people like me" feel entitled to win because we are good. We feel entitled to be able to play a game that we enjoy and not have to lose models constantly. We prefer to bemoan having to rebuild our armies from scratch because new, prettier models were released, not because what used to be good sucks, and what is now good never existed. Games Workshop DOES charge me when they change the game. I must buy the new rules, I must replace models that no longer work. My only alternative is to play an older edition of the rules (not an option in my area) or to not play with the models that are no good, and thus play smaller points games. In short, enjoy playing WoW without buying the new expansion, because no one wants to run The Eye with you when Northrend is out. When Assault is obsolete, the Assault elements of my army is obsolete. When the only units capable of doing well in assault are Terminators, or high toughness, high attack, multiwound models that can withstand shooting as well as attacks, Assault units for armies that have none of these things (Eldar of any stripe) are now obsolete. Not less efficient. Obsolete.

Stoffer wrote:
Anyway, back to the point. Much like the games you mention, 40k runs by the exact same principle that changes not only help the balance of the game, but are good for business. League of Legends for example: You can buy their champions, but there are no guarantees that your particular champion will stay useful. In fact, they do patches to re-balance champions at least once a month, so you'll be "inspired" to try other champions. That's healthy for two reasons; 1. It makes the game seem fresh for the player, extending the lifetime of the product continually. 2. it makes you buy more champions. Sound familiar? That's because 40k works that way as well.

No, those were the games YOU mentioned. Change is not intrinsically good. Example Problem: Bolters can not kill a Landraider. Solution: Change Sniper Rifles to a 48" range. Solved? Nothing. Therefore change itself does not solve problems. Point? The change must be relevant to the problem at hand or it is worthless as a means of fixing game balance. Counter example: Privateer Press noticed that some warcasters had abilities that were game breaking, and other abilities that were never used. Solution: recraft the warcasters so that the overpowered abilites are toned down while maintaining viability and playstyle, and underpowered abilities are upgraded or removed entirely. PP crafted their changes to match the problems. The only thing you HAD to buy between editions was the new rulebook (less than half the cost of the 40k one) and a new deck of stat cards for the models you already owned. Almost everyone got changed abilities, but nearly every model and unit retained its battlefield role and increased or maintained its viability in a list. PP extends its playability lifetime by releasing new expansions and new models yearly. Every faction is balanced against every other. So, you can either play things GW's way by extorting the player base into buying new models because the old stuff they have sucks, or PP's way of getting the player base to buy new models because there are new units being created that interact with old units in fun ways. Like if LoL stopped nerfing old champions just to make the new ones look awsome by comparison.

Stoffer wrote:
WoW isn't a good enough example because they don't really have the width in classes to do that, but if they had, you could be pretty certain they'd do the same. Oh and also, you pay a monthly fee to play wow AND you have to buy their stupid expansions. If you want to talk about being "forced to pay", WoW is a great example. 40k certainly isn't, if you have an army done, that army can play (with different efficiency, granted) for years.

By your example, WoW could easily remedy this by making old classes worthless and creating new ones. But they don't, do they? Why? Because they're already getting money and they don't want to piss off their players by alienating them. LoL uses your example to make ANY money off of their game. GW already makes money off of you with high prices and new books. Now they seek more by rendering old models obsolete, requiring you to pay more to keep playing as you did before (in points level or updated rules) And as I already pointed out, I have played WoW for virtually its entire lifetime for the same cost of ONE of my nine GW armies. I've never once had to put one of my classes on a shelf and not play it because it was unplayable. There were classes and builds who did feel that pain though. But when that happened, did they need to pay another $1k to start playing a different class? Nope. Same monthly fee if you were on the old class or the new one. And if they wanted to tough it out with their old class and build, do you know how long it was before they got looked at again? At most it took until the next expansion came out. A year and a half, tops. How long did DE players have to wait between codecies? WE players? Bretts? OK? Dwarves? Don't even bother making a video games to table top games comparison here. It's deeply flawed and you're just digging yourself deeper.

Stoffer wrote:
Dumb companies balance because things are broken, smart companies balance because that's how you keep your game alive for 25 years. League of Legends is currently one of the most popular games in the world. They are so because of their frequent updates, not based on "things being broken", but shifting the balance of power constantly, meaning that no gamer can ever "settle" and be at the highest efficiency with a single hero for the rest of his life. It's smart and while you may be upset that it hurts your wallet from time to time, that's how good companies operate.

And yet PP just comes out with new casters, new units, and new models without doing so at the expense of everything that came before. Builds change and shift based on meta, and the balance of power does shift within lists, but the factions are still balanced against each other. "Dumb Companies" break things for fun and force change. "Smart companies" entice you with new fun and invite change. Forced change loses players who become fed up with getting jerked around. Invited change keeps players excited. For those who continue to play, both make money, but one has a diminishing player base, the other an increasing one. "WotC" is a smart company. They made Magic: the Gathering. That stuff never goes obsolete, and with two tournament types and super low cost, it likely never will. (Yes, I know that some cards aren't allowed in tournament play anymore, but those are primarily first editions. Most other first edition cards are still in play and with the same rules. How many Rogue Trader units can say the same?)

 Darth Bob wrote:
I like that Daemon Weapons are now all AP2. Except for the Tzeentch one; it was always supposed to be AP3.

Just as planned.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Darth Bob wrote:
I like that Daemon Weapons are now all AP2. Except for the Tzeentch one; it was always supposed to be AP3.

Just as planned.

Indeed. All plans bend to the will of the Great Blue Chicken. ^_^

Balance and what units are best always shifts every time a new edition or new codex for your army comes out. This keeps the play environment fresh and drives sales for GW.

I don't think assault is significantly worse in this edition than it was in 4th. 5/6 missions still focus on objectives, and assaulty armies are still better at controlling the table and taking objectives. You do need to make sure they're durable. I'm still fielding primarily assaulty armies with my BA, and consistently winning most of them. I do use the units which have benefitted from the rules changes, like Death Company and Storm Ravens.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Games workshop hasn't broken 40k this badly since second edition. The sixth edition rulebook is one of the worst written and most poorly edited technical documents I have ever read. Sure, they've always had FAQs. They've never had a product so in need of so many at once though. Even if the edition didn't require major FAQs for every codex the rulebook contradicts itself dozens of times anyway, and that's when it bothers to be detailed in the first place. I'm shocked people are even able to play this game without having Matt Ward in the room with them to adjudicate the rules disputes that occur every five seconds.

What sixth is going to need is a rerelease of the core rulebook. They sold a broken and dysfunctional document.

You've probably reached this point long before I have, but having gone out for some 40k last night, I've come to terms with the fact that maybe this isn't the edition for me, and maybe GW just isn't the company that wants to deal with me anymore. I'll probably take a break from 40k for a few months, and hopefully the new codecies will come with something that will break 40k back into shape, but if not, I can only wait and hope for a new edition. 6th edition as it is now is just not something I want to play.

6th edition is terribly written, and the updates are just as bad. There's not much I can do about it anymore.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Balance and what units are best always shifts every time a new edition or new codex for your army comes out. This keeps the play environment fresh and drives sales for GW.

I don't think assault is significantly worse in this edition than it was in 4th. 5/6 missions still focus on objectives, and assaulty armies are still better at controlling the table and taking objectives. You do need to make sure they're durable. I'm still fielding primarily assaulty armies with my BA, and consistently winning most of them. I do use the units which have benefitted from the rules changes, like Death Company and Storm Ravens.

The only assault units worth taking now are tarpits. Anything else just isn't worth taking for close combat, since they'll just get stuck in with a tarpit for the rest of the game anyway.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Surtur wrote:


200 point AV 14 all around not worth it? My land raiders weep for thee.

Fear the mighty monolith weapons - mass bolters! Run, they got bolters! LOTS OF 'EM. Furthermore, can you Land Raider move more than 6'' per turn? Monolith can't. Neither do we have smoke launchers. No melta weapons. One blast weapon, that's all.

Seriously though, a Land Raider is a lot better than the monolith in its current iteration. They certainly serve different purposes, but 200 points for the teleport function is ridiculous.

Sure, the old Living Metal was overpowered like hell, but the current Monolith is a joke. At the very least, it should have melta protection and deepstrike immunity (aka no roll on deepstrike chart if you hit enemy units).

On regard on the balance discussion, I disagree. Yes, WAAC guys will have an easy way with flyer spam, but overall, balance is a LOT better than in 5th where your chances of winning rose exponentially with the number of tanks you took with ya aka ridicolously overpowered transports.

I wouldn't call "imperial guard players" or "space wolf players" or "grey knights" players WAAC players. The game just favors their armies and playstyle extremely heavily now (as it did before).

 Fafnir wrote:
6th edition is terribly written, and the updates are just as bad. There's not much I can do about it anymore.

I disagree. I do think it was a step back in terms of clarity in comparison to 5th, but it's still a functional and enjoyable game. The FAQ updates have helped a lot, IMO. I've only gotten around twenty games of 6th in, so far, and I'm still adapting and learning new stuff, but I'm still enjoying the games and winning most of them (with BA, primarily).

 Fafnir wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Balance and what units are best always shifts every time a new edition or new codex for your army comes out. This keeps the play environment fresh and drives sales for GW.

I don't think assault is significantly worse in this edition than it was in 4th. 5/6 missions still focus on objectives, and assaulty armies are still better at controlling the table and taking objectives. You do need to make sure they're durable. I'm still fielding primarily assaulty armies with my BA, and consistently winning most of them. I do use the units which have benefitted from the rules changes, like Death Company and Storm Ravens.

The only assault units worth taking now are tarpits. Anything else just isn't worth taking for close combat, since they'll just get stuck in with a tarpit for the rest of the game anyway.

I spent a good amount of thinking time this last week on lists I think could take on Tony's blob and wipe it out, while taking on the rest of the army, and being viable against all comers. I have a couple of good ones in mind. Suffice it to say I believe you're mistaken, and judging hastily. Adapting to a new edition is a challenge, but it can be an enjoyable one.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I wouldn't call "imperial guard players" or "space wolf players" or "grey knights" players WAAC players. The game just favors their armies and playstyle extremely heavily now (as it did before).

GK players are WAAC players. Anyway, I never said that all armies from a special faction automatically are WAAC. I specifically referred to the currently tastiest slice of cheese, flyer spam where Necron and IA excel at.

I spent a good amount of thinking time this last week on lists I think could take on Tony's blob and wipe it out, while taking on the rest of the army, and being viable against all comers. I have a couple of good ones in mind. Suffice it to say I believe you're mistaken, and judging hastily. Adapting to a new edition is a challenge, but it can be an enjoyable one.

I wish you good luck, I'm playing assault heavy BAs (well, was playing) and with evidence that they can work I would be much more interested in investing time into the game again. Do you use transports or is it entirely jump based? How do you get around palladins, demon flying circuis, or imperial guard gunlines? In my experience my army and any derivation I could make with the almost 4 thousand points of models I own couldn't dent these builds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I wouldn't call "imperial guard players" or "space wolf players" or "grey knights" players WAAC players. The game just favors their armies and playstyle extremely heavily now (as it did before).

GK players are WAAC players. Anyway, I never said that all armies from a special faction automatically are WAAC. I specifically referred to the currently tastiest slice of cheese, flyer spam where Necron and IA excel at.

Imperial guard don't need a single vendetta to table someone in three turns, their firepower has risen greatly in this edition since cover has been reduced dramatically. Also, I don't think palladins is a WAAC build, it's just the most common extreme build out there. I know too many people with no interest in high competitive play and who love paladins because they're cheap, cool and fun (for them, not me).

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I wouldn't call "imperial guard players" or "space wolf players" or "grey knights" players WAAC players. The game just favors their armies and playstyle extremely heavily now (as it did before).

GK players are WAAC players.

Yeah, because having a massive hard-on for the Inquisition, and playing GKs back when they were part of the worst codex in the game, and sticking with my first and favourite army, despite the fact that it's a codex that I'm not entirely enthusiastic about, makes me a WAAC donkey-cave.

Seriously? And this is coming from a guy who plays Necrons?

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I spent a good amount of thinking time this last week on lists I think could take on Tony's blob and wipe it out, while taking on the rest of the army, and being viable against all comers. I have a couple of good ones in mind. Suffice it to say I believe you're mistaken, and judging hastily. Adapting to a new edition is a challenge, but it can be an enjoyable one.

I wish you good luck, I'm playing assault heavy BAs (well, was playing) and with evidence that they can work I would be much more interested in investing time into the game again. Do you use transports or is it entirely jump based? How do you get around palladins, demon flying circuis, or imperial guard gunlines? In my experience my army and any derivation I could make with the almost 4 thousand points of models I own couldn't dent these builds.

I have a similar amount of models painted, and am having to get more jumpers together and other new stuff (like tacticals). Allies help too. A Farseer or Runepriest can make a psker-enhanced blob significantly less scary. I'll keep posting battle reports, and I can throw up a couple of lists in army lists if folks are interested.

@ShumaGorath
No you can't play heavy assault BA anymore but you can take plenty of units that can shoot a little and assault well enough to still get in there and fight 6th is a shift suck it up and adapt.

I'm playing assault heavy. Stormravens help a lot.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I spent a good amount of thinking time this last week on lists I think could take on Tony's blob and wipe it out, while taking on the rest of the army, and being viable against all comers. I have a couple of good ones in mind. Suffice it to say I believe you're mistaken, and judging hastily. Adapting to a new edition is a challenge, but it can be an enjoyable one.

I wish you good luck, I'm playing assault heavy BAs (well, was playing) and with evidence that they can work I would be much more interested in investing time into the game again. Do you use transports or is it entirely jump based? How do you get around palladins, demon flying circuis, or imperial guard gunlines? In my experience my army and any derivation I could make with the almost 4 thousand points of models I own couldn't dent these builds.

I have a similar amount of models painted, and am having to get more jumpers together and other new stuff (like tacticals). Allies help too. A Farseer or Runepriest can make a psker-enhanced blob significantly less scary. I'll keep posting battle reports, and I can throw up a couple of lists in army lists if folks are interested.

I know this is what we're 'supposed' to do now, but it still makes me sad...

 MDizzle wrote:
@ShumaGorath
No you can't play heavy assault BA anymore but you can take plenty of units that can shoot a little and assault well enough to still get in there and fight 6th is a shift suck it up and adapt.

I'm going to translate that for you.

 MDizzle wrote:
@ShumaGorath
Call them space wolves and ally in guard, blood angels aren't viable and won't be unless you buy units that in no way represent blood angels, how they were designed to play, how they were advertised to play, or how they play in the fluff.

Yeah, thanks. That's helpful. I wonder if I can counts as my army on ebay and play a game from a company that values its players, it's fluff, it's rules, or the concept of game balance. Nah, I don't think people would be fooled into thinking they were wolves in the auction, I can't just tell ebay to pretend my army is something it's not like I'm apparently expected to here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I'm playing assault heavy. Stormravens help a lot.

Yeah, I was worried that I'd have to spend 200+ dollars on fugly tonka planes and xenos units to make my army viable. It's a step I'm not willing to make.

 BladeWalker wrote:
I don't understand why full reserve armies are not allowed. What is the point in giving full reserve armies an auto lose at the end of turn 1?

The point is that your opponent wants to be playing a game, not standing around waiting for your army to decide to show up...

 insaniak wrote:

 BladeWalker wrote:
I don't understand why full reserve armies are not allowed. What is the point in giving full reserve armies an auto lose at the end of turn 1?

The point is that your opponent wants to be playing a game, not standing around waiting for your army to decide to show up...

And what if you want to play a game, not deploy and then undeploy on your first turn because there is a guard army across the table? Without a step between taking the models out of and putting them back into the case the games a lot less fun.

Kinda of expected, really, since the current model itself shows a sword.
But then again, the old (and superior versions, imo) had an axe.
I'd hate to see the reaction of an old demon player who had the old bloodletters.

Alot of weapons are different from the actual model, rules wise.
Also, the axe really is a trademark of khorne, which is why im kinda pissed the letters have swords :(
May buy some old ones again and use them as swords, but thats simply because the old models were the best ones they have made.

 insaniak wrote:

 BladeWalker wrote:
I don't understand why full reserve armies are not allowed. What is the point in giving full reserve armies an auto lose at the end of turn 1?

The point is that your opponent wants to be playing a game, not standing around waiting for your army to decide to show up...

We aren't standing around, we just go to my Turn 2 and you take as many moves as you are due.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 MDizzle wrote:
@ShumaGorath
No you can't play heavy assault BA anymore but you can take plenty of units that can shoot a little and assault well enough to still get in there and fight 6th is a shift suck it up and adapt.

I'm going to translate that for you.

 MDizzle wrote:
@ShumaGorath
Call them space wolves and ally in guard, blood angels aren't viable and won't be unless you buy units that in no way represent blood angels, how they were designed to play, how they were advertised to play, or how they play in the fluff.

In the fluff they use Tactical marines and combined arms regularly. Mech spam blood angels were an optimal choice in 3rd ed and 5th ed as a product of how the rules were written at those times. I sincerely disagree that the current rules making combined arms more optimal is in any way not representative of BA, not now they were designed to play, how they were advertised by GW, or how they play in the fluff. You can still make great use of jumpers, and IMO Rhinos can still be viable even if it's primarily a way to get a squad 24" across the table in one turn before they die. Predators are still good, and Storm Ravens unquestionably better.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, thanks. That's helpful. I wonder if I can counts as my army on ebay and play a game from a company that values its players, it's fluff, it's rules, or the concept of game balance. Nah, I don't think people would be fooled into thinking they were wolves in the auction, I can't just tell ebay to pretend my army is something it's not like I'm apparently expected to here.

Your hyperbole and relentless negativity make discussing this stuff with you less pleasant and the prospect of getting together with you for a game less appealing. I think you're a good guy, but I'm surprised at the way you protray yourself as blowing a gasket over this edition change. Literally every single edition and codex update requires adaptation and changes. It's situation normal for GW. Either you enjoy painting and modeling new stuff, you enjoy the challenge of adapting to a changing metagame environment, or you don't. If you don't, maybe this isn't the game for you. I've found it really enjoyable and rewarding over the last thirteen years, but obviously different folks' mileage will vary. I recommend that you either a) put some more effort into adapting, and tone down the tirades, or b) sell now and quit complaining; put your money where your mouth is. If your models are well-painted you'll most likely get some decent cash for them even if they're not the current optimal build.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
[

 Mannahnin wrote:
I'm playing assault heavy. Stormravens help a lot.

Yeah, I was worried that I'd have to spend 200+ dollars on fugly tonka planes and xenos units to make my army viable. It's a step I'm not willing to make.

I like SRs, and I do think they can be made more attractive with some easy minor conversions and paintwork. If you can't stand them, you'll need to find another build that works. There was a scary drop-pod focused build using Sternguard at NOVA, from what I heard. Terminators are still good (in some ways even better). Jumping Assault Marines are still good (but definitely make sure they have priest support). Using and/or countering Allies is a big part of top level competition in 6th edition, at least for some armies. I don't think they're mandatory, but if you want to take on a unit which derives a large part of its power from unit-buffing psykers, they are a big help.

Sure... because spending half the game just shuffling models around the board waiting for something to shoot at is awesome fun for everyone involved

And yes, I realise there's a certain amount of hyperbole in that statement, but the point remains. All reserve armies just delay the actual playing the game part of the game, unless they have some mechanic for getting on the board in turn 1.

Your hyperbole and relentless negativity make discussing this stuff with you less pleasant and the prospect of getting together with you for a game less appealing. I think you're a good guy, but I'm surprised at the way you protray yourself as blowing a gasket over this edition change. Literally every single edition and codex update requires adaptation and changes.

The changes have never required the purchase of several hundred dollars worth of models, some of which have to be outside of the faction I have chosen to play, to deal with new forms of gameplay that never existed before. The change into fourth de emphasizing mech was big, but not as big as this. They added flyers but didn't give armies defense against them, they added allies and truly overblown psychic powers without giving armies the capacity to compete with those things without joining in. They severely nerfed assault and created mission structures that devalue timing or maneuvering in favor of luck. I'm incredibly down on the edition because it's the precise opposite of everything I had been hoping it would be. I've played this game since I was a little kid, being pushed out of it like this is a big deal to me.

I also dislike the edition in general since I think it severely de emphasized skill and brought significant randomness to every portion of the game. That's just a personal opinion though. I'm kind of just punching waves at this point, I can't stop the tide. I'lll exit the thread since I really am just being a negative person with nothing to add. My own issues with this edition are mine.

Jumping Assault Marines are still good (but definitely make sure they have priest support). Using and/or countering Allies is a big part of top level competition in 6th edition, at least for some armies. I don't think they're mandatory, but if you want to take on a unit which derives a large part of its power from unit-buffing psykers, they are a big help.

And I find that sad. A large portion of what makes an army unique is its insular and unique nature. When everyone is sharing around rune priests and farseers that goes away.

 insaniak wrote:
Sure... because spending half the game just shuffling models around the board waiting for something to shoot at is awesome fun for everyone involved

And yes, I realise there's a certain amount of hyperbole in that statement, but the point remains. All reserve armies just delay the actual playing the game part of the game, unless they have some mechanic for getting on the board in turn 1.

I disagree, my reserve armies engage you and give you something to shoot from Turn 2 onward. Is it more fun and less of a delay for there to be a model of mine hiding on my side of the board during the first turn?