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.

Ailaros wrote:

- And I'll deal with one of these things in specific. Just because something is new does not mean that it represents a fundamental shift in the way that the game is played. It just means it's new. End of.

Yo I have to disagree. Look at it from this perspective; The new IG codex comes out and we see death strike missiles. we all go wow this is going to change everything. 1 hour later we realize that they are crap and have no part in most lists. we move on. Even if they were great and the best unit in the whole 40k universe it still doesn't provide a fundamental shift in the way the game is played because it is only 1 unit in 1 codex. The only way that this unit could fundamentally change the game is if either

a) every single 40k player starts an IG army
b) we can field as many of these super units as we desire regardless of the force org chart.

The RULES which are created and override all previous rules from previous editions on the other hand DO create a fundamental shift in the way the game is played. Why might you ask? well very simply, these rules DRASTICALLY influence ALL units from ALL armies and how they operate because the 6th edition rules tell us how they operate.

You have made some very good points and I respect some of your decisions but regarding your counter argument I would say that your logic is faulty and needs correction.

Well, it's not a matter of a logic problem here.

Those things which affect the game greatly affect the game greatly. Those that don't don't. Their recency has no effect on the substantiality of their effects. If one wants to make an argument that fliers are important, then make the argument that fliers are important. Whatever the rules for fliers a month ago have no bearing on their current utility.

Likewise, the change in a codex compared to the change in a rulebook is a matter of scale, not of scope. You have to judge things by how they are, and how they do affect the game, not how they were and how they're different now.

Looking at the change itself isn't terribly useful (apart from helping yourself not use the wrong (old) rules for something). Implying that because there has been a change that that change therefore must have a purpose, well... that actually IS a problem with logic.

Unless you're a mind reader, saying "because there are allies means the authors intended for you to take them or else be competitive", or any argument along the same lines implies a cause that is not proven. In the vernacular, that's "whistlin' dixie".

But to bring it back to your deathstrike example. Just because something is new doesn't mean it's a big threat. We have to look at things realistically, and not just bandwagon on new stuff, exactly to prevent making the mistake of putting 3 deathstrikes in every list 4 years ago when the guard codex was new. An objective assessment of the deathstrike was useful then, and an objective assessment of the new things will be useful now.

Hmm just to be clear are you postulating that the GW games designers for 6th ed added new rules without the intention for them to be used?

To be clearer in regards to this question im suggesting that the only reason why a games designer would add a rule (especially a rule so drastically different from previous editions) is for the players to use it. This in turn suggests that the purpose behind the addition of this rule is for people to use this rule.

But we don't know WHY the game designers chose to implement the rules that they do. Even if we did, their intentions may well not play out in the real world. I doubt their execution was perfect.

Although, I suppose, one could argue that some of the changes had no purpose, but were more or less random...

In any case, did the game designers add in flier rules for the purpose of them being used? Very much most likely. Does it mean that you need AA to be competitive in 6th ed, or that you need to bring fliers yourself to run a proper list? That quid doesn't pro that quo.

The only way we can even come close to knowing what the game designers intended is to ask the game designers what they intended. Just because something is new doesn't necessarily mean that it reflects a new direction that the game is going in.

For example, they added buildings to 5th ed, and 5th ed didn't wind up becoming buildinghammer. It was just more stuff they added to make things interesting, not some purposeful strategic shakeup of the game.

You need AA to have a balanced list, and as of now, AA is limited to: own fliers, fortification guns, hydra and having insane numbers of twin-linked guns if you do not play with IA.

IA opens up more AA options, like sabre, hyperios, hydra platform, mortis dreads and more fliers for most races.

There is a reason for the "groupthink", there aren't very many good options for AA yet. A game against a flyer heavy list (necrons) will quickly show that it is not very fun to not have dedicated AA, and as such, people grab the few pieces of real AA that exist. The vendetta is probably the most cost-effective AA after the doom scythe.

Sure, but what is required to handle fliers? You NEED something S8+ to have a balanced list, at least as far as a land raider coming at you is concerned. Meanwhile, some fliers can be taken down by bolter fire. Heavier ones just require S6 or autocannons. You're already bringing weapons that can take down fliers. What else do you actually need, given that you can already threaten this target type?

If I'm up against flier spam, it's not going to be enough to have an aegis quad gun or a hydra or two, as they're just going to get instantly obliterated by the fliers before they have a chance to shoot. As such, in order to counter flier spam, by your logic, you would need to engage in AA SPAM, not just include a couple of elements.

Good thing fliers can be taken down by other means, because a 6 hydra list is rather weak now.

You need around 110 bolter shots to down an AV10 flyer if it does not evade. S6-7 for the heavier ones? Good luck with that

You are correct that IMO, 1-2 AA capable units is too little. For AA capability, I bring 2x vendetta, 1x Icarus lascannon and 1x hydra in my current 1750 list. In addition, I have a CCS to twin-link units (3x melta infantry mainly) and an officer of the fleet to keep the planes away for longer. It is a significant investment in AA capable units, but none of those units are ONLY AA capable, even the hydra can do some double duty, as it can engage skimmers (and jetbikes I think) without snap shotting. Even with that amount of AA, I only contest the skies against necrons, I generally loose the air-fight in the end, but I buy enough time and do enough damage for my groundforces to win.

Ailaros wrote:But we don't know WHY the game designers chose to implement the rules that they do. Even if we did, their intentions may well not play out in the real world. I doubt their execution was perfect.

But we do know why. The why has always been to sell models, this is why every edition makes it incrementally more difficult to play without utilizing the new unit types they push. 5th pushed tanks, no surprise why the guard codex got 10 new tank variants and 2 fliers yet the infantry remained nearly unchanged. 6th is continuing this trend even more strongly and is largely pushing to sell fliers and allied detachments.

To try and argue that we don't know whats driving the games designers of a company that openly admits they are a miniature company 1st and foremost is naive. In recent years it has gotten much less subtle as well, you can blatantly see the codex creep trying to push models. Want the best shot at winning? By the latest army book. Want to utilize that book to it's highest potential, follow the direction the rules are driving us towards. I mean you even have an article dedicated to illustrating why mech is king in 6th.