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.

Points went down by the price of a meltagun.

Ok yeah 50pts for a T7 2W +3 armor TL- lascannon with skyfire and interceptor is a bit rediculous... and you can buy it as part of a platoon?

Jesus no wonder everyone and their mom is taking them.

I mean, I wish heavy weapon squads were a bit better, but even I would feel bad about bringing those to a game. Those things are crazy.

Makes me want to rip my LC HWT's apart and reuse the LC.

MrMoustaffa wrote:Ok yeah 50pts for a T7 2W +3 armor TL- lascannon with skyfire and interceptor is a bit rediculous... and you can buy it as part of a platoon?

Jesus no wonder everyone and their mom is taking them.

I mean, I wish heavy weapon squads were a bit better, but even I would feel bad about bringing those to a game. Those things are crazy.

Oh I felt bad until they interceptor-shot down a Baleflamer Heldrake. Then I felt great

TheLionOfTheForest wrote:Makes me want to rip my LC HWT's apart and reuse the LC.

Do it. Zero regret.

MrMoustaffa wrote:Ok yeah 50pts for a T7 2W +3 armor TL- lascannon with skyfire and interceptor is a bit rediculous... and you can buy it as part of a platoon?

Jesus no wonder everyone and their mom is taking them.

And you wonder why, regardless of the rules, some places are still reluctant to accept forgeworld. Going outside of the codex system to reach for an abomination of game balance makes me wonder how desperate one would have to be to field one.

 Ailaros wrote:
And you wonder why, regardless of the rules, some places are still reluctant to accept forgeworld.

And you wonder why, regardless of the rules, some places are still reluctant to accept games workshop.

(Let's not forget that GW has made more than their share of stupidly overpowered units.)

Going outside of the codex system to reach for an abomination of game balance makes me wonder how desperate one would have to be to field one.

Fortunately one doesn't have to go outside of the codex system, since Sabre guns are a choice from Codex:IG.

Peregrine wrote:Fortunately one doesn't have to go outside of the codex system, since Sabre guns are a choice from Codex:IG.

I'm looking in my codex, but can't find the page number that it's on.

Peregrine wrote:Let's not forget that GW has made more than their share of stupidly overpowered units.

Sure, but for however imperfect the codex system is, it's the one thing that tries to ensure some modicum of game balance.

A system whereby people who have rich parents can go and get expensive things that break game balance reminds me an awful lot of everything I hate about M:TG. If you have money, you shouldn't be able to win games just because you're rich enough to afford forgeworld stuff. If you have any sense that 40k is a tactical game at all, you should be appalled by the notion that you can buy a victory by going outside of the regular options that most people have access to.

Plus, how weak of a player do you have to be that the only way you can win games is with broken units outside of the main codex? How weak of a person do you have to be to pick overpowered stuff just so that you can win a game of toy soldiers?

I guess if you're not a strong enough player that you have to rely on this kind of garbage to win, then I'll offer you my pity. Perhaps at some point you'll be able to play the game without depending on broken forgeworld stuff.

 Ailaros wrote:
I'm looking in my codex, but can't find the page number that it's on.

That's because the paper codex alone is worthless, you need to include all of the additions to the codex such as FW books, pdf FAQs/errata, etc.

Sure, but for however imperfect the codex system is, it's the one thing that tries to ensure some modicum of game balance.

Yeah, because no other GW products make any attempt at game balance...

A system whereby people who have rich parents can go and get expensive things that break game balance reminds me an awful lot of everything I hate about M:TG. If you have money, you shouldn't be able to win games just because you're rich enough to afford forgeworld stuff. If you have any sense that 40k is a tactical game at all, you should be appalled by the notion that you can buy a victory by going outside of the regular options that most people have access to.

And by that standard nobody should ever use anything but the space marines from the two-player starter set. Otherwise it's just not fair that people who can afford more models can have better units. Why should you be able to buy your way to victory just because you could afford that expensive Vendetta kit while I'm stuck with a battleforce?

PS: it's not just rich parents. FW models may be almost as expensive as finecast, but aren't even close to the high end of hobby expenses in general.

Plus, how weak of a player do you have to be that the only way you can win games is with broken units outside of the main codex? How weak of a person do you have to be to pick overpowered stuff just so that you can win a game of toy soldiers?

Nice strawman.

I guess if you're not a strong enough player that you have to rely on this kind of garbage to win, then I'll offer you my pity. Perhaps at some point you'll be able to play the game without depending on broken forgeworld stuff.

Ooh, did you find a two-for-one special on strawmen?

It went down. I suppose you could argue for it if you're opponent would allow it, as with all rules.

I love the back and forth between ailaros and peregrine. I was bored all afternoon but you two just put a smile on my face.

When did marbo get FNP?

 Ailaros wrote:


Plus, how weak of a player do you have to be that the only way you can win games is with broken units outside of the main codex? How weak of a person do you have to be to pick overpowered stuff just so that you can win a game of toy soldiers?

I guess if you're not a strong enough player that you have to rely on this kind of garbage to win, then I'll offer you my pity. Perhaps at some point you'll be able to play the game without depending on broken forgeworld stuff.

Why do you get to define what is weak and what isn't?

You decide its weak to use things from external sources that are released by GW. Do you think its weak to use the FAQ? Do you think Chaos Daemon players are weak for using WD stuff?

You're being a tad ridiculous in insinuating that by taking a strong choice that one is allowed to take, they are a weak player.

Just as you could deem FW weak, I could deem Heavy Support slots weak. It follows the same logic, and sounds equally ridiculous.

Toss weakness aside; how foolish is a player that doesn't make full use of their tactical options available to them?

This sounds more like your past tirade upon the Allies system. "I don't like them, and if you do, then you're bad."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
I love the back and forth between ailaros and peregrine. I was bored all afternoon but you two just put a smile on my face.

Its always the same. Ailaros preaches Codex purism, and Peregrine picks apart logic and rule interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:

A system whereby people who have rich parents can go and get expensive things that break game balance reminds me an awful lot of everything I hate about M:TG. If you have money, you shouldn't be able to win games just because you're rich enough to afford forgeworld stuff. If you have any sense that 40k is a tactical game at all, you should be appalled by the notion that you can buy a victory by going outside of the regular options that most people have access to.

Behold, peasants, the Vulture! A unit only a King could afford!

But seriously. You hardly need to be rich to afford FW. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I choose to buy resin instead of plastic if the resin stuff is better. A Vulture costs like 95 dollars; its 155 points for it with Punisher cannons. That's a very similar dollar to point conversion as an Infantry squad. A LC sabre is 35 bucks, and costs 50 points. The exact same as infantry squads.

FW is totally affordable. It just scares people because it costs more than the plastic stuff that they can settle for.

TheCaptain wrote:Why do you get to define what is weak and what isn't?

In some cases, it's pretty obvious.

In the case of a sabre, we're comparing it to a lascannon scout sentinel for the same price. The difference is that the sabre is twin-linked, has skyfire, has interceptor, has T7 3+ (instead of open-topped AV10), and comes from troops, which means it both not only doesn't take up a fast attack slot, but it also scores.

You'd have a hard time explaining why a lascannon sentinel is stronger. In fact, you'd have a hard time explaining why any lascannon-toting infantry model in the guard codex is stronger.

Peregrine wrote:Nice strawman.

Weak players need strong lists to win games. Not everybody needs to over-compensate by cramming over-powered units into their armies.

Attempting to hide wounded pride behind misused logic doesn't change this.

 Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:Why do you get to define what is weak and what isn't?

In some cases, it's pretty obvious.

In the case of a sabre, we're comparing it to a lascannon scout sentinel for the same price. The difference is that the sabre is twin-linked, has skyfire, has interceptor, has T7 3+ (instead of open-topped AV10), and comes from troops, which means it both not only doesn't take up a fast attack slot, but it also scores.

You'd have a hard time explaining why a lascannon sentinel is stronger. In fact, you'd have a hard time explaining why any lascannon-toting infantry model in the guard codex is stronger.

Comparing one of the worst options available to one of the best is hardly a justified argument. But the sentinel can move, outflank (allowing it to shoot rear armour) and has a scout move. It has LD10 effectively, and can take more than one wound in close combat. It can have two weapons, and can't be killed by shooting a t3sv5+ model.

I'd say thats pretty even; if your force is mobile, take a sentinel (or something better). If its not; take a sabre.

Comparing things in the codex is ridiculous though, and means nothing. Just because two things cost the same does not mean they are equally good. A squad of Ogryn and a Vendetta cost the same, for instance.

Weak players need strong lists to win games. Not everybody needs to over-compensate by cramming over-powered units into their armies.

If you don't need a strong list, your meta probably isn't very good. In my case, my meta is top notch players with top notch lists, so yeah; I need a pretty good list with the best options. Sorry, but I can't afford to be fluffy, or worry about what some others might consider "OP", because if everyone else is using everything they can, I should too. You're needlessly handicapping yourself by doing otherwise.

A weak player needs a great list to have a chance against a decent player with a decent list; A Great player can use a weak list and have a chance against a decent player with a decent list, but Even a Great player will need a great list against another great player with a great list.

As far as codex purism goes, I've been playing since 2nd Ed. and you could take allies back then, so to me personally putting allies back in IS a purist move.

Now everyone must conform to my ideals, embrace allies and include them or else you are a nob!

I think a smart player, who is playing competativly would be a fool not to use every tool in his tool box. You cant complain that you don't like units x, y and z because you believe them to be overpowered but then complain when you have a hard time competing with a less than optimal list.

One issue we as guard players have been trying to figure out is getting scoring units into place with out them gettin annihilated, in addition to our lack of cc. We have allies at hand. If you choose not to use them, then you are stuck with choices from the guard dex. Allies, FW, fortifications, vendettas, GK and Necron cheese is here and part of the rules. We can't pick the rules we want to use and ignore the rules dont like.

The other part of the problem is that GW is marketing their game and releasing rules and units in a set order to drive SALES. This is an entirely seperate issue. All we can do is decide to play or not and find a group that plays the ruleset we like. There is a group of 50+s who play 2nd Ed at my FLGS on Tuesday nights. Too them any GW game that isn't Epic or 2nd Ed isn't worth playing.

 Ailaros wrote:
Weak players need strong lists to win games. Not everybody needs to over-compensate by cramming over-powered units into their armies.

Attempting to hide wounded pride behind misused logic doesn't change this.

And again, nice strawman.

Maybe the person taking Sabre guns is playing in a super-competitive environment where that AA firepower is necessary to counter Necron flyerspam?

Maybe the person taking Sabre guns is mostly concerned with the cool model, but is happy to benefit from its good rules?

Maybe the person taking Sabre guns bought them in 5th when they were weak and is happy that their list is now better?

Maybe the person taking Sabre guns filled the rest of their slots with weak "fluff" units and taking this single powerful unit just brings them up to the average level of their opponents?


But of course you're the expert and you know that everyone who takes them is over-compensating and sucks at 40k.