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.

pretre wrote:GW could hand out free hundred dollar bills, and puppies with every copy of the main rulebook and players would still complain.

QFT.

On this whole no models on the table equals a loss debate I think it's stellar. Yes, the battle you are fighting represents a small slice of the overall warzone pie. But if you move your forces in and make it halfway across the battlefield with no enemies in sight then you have battlefield dominance. The field is yours, you have won the day. It can be assumed that any attackers will be dashed to bits on your steadfast defenses...
Or it will just keep players from playing like jerks...right...

I don't think there's anything jerklike about playing full reserve. IMO it was a really nice element of 5th, and provided a great counter option for really shooty alpha-strike armies. It was always a gamble, because your stuff tended to trickle in, and might just get pounded as it came on; but better to have an active choice in the matter, I think, rather than being forced to deploy targets.

That said, as long as there's good terrain on the table, this way is okay too.

And it certainly makes all-DS armies like pods and daemons more special, and prevents people countering their unique shtick too easily. Pods went from awesome in 4th to not all that good in 5th because of the option to full reserve. I'm not sure this is the fix I'd have chosen, but so far I find it's okay.

 skkipper wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
Hellblades are swords :(
Kinda glad i didnt give any letters axes.

Just a shame since the last series of letters looked amazing, but had an axe :(

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.

1st bloodletters had swords
2nd bloodletters had swords
3 rd bloodletters had axes
4th. Blood letters had swords
The axes were a abnormality.

Even if they were an abnormality, they were legitimate GW models, and still are. If I owned them (I don't, so this is hypothetical) and brought them to a tournament and was told they were illegal models now and that I couldn't play them, that would be it for me and 40k-I'd walk away from the game then and there. Why such an extreme reaction over something 'little' like power weapon illegality? Because this would be the start of Warhammer going down the road of Magic: you have items in your list that are now illegal to run and HAVE to be traded out for new items. I left Magic for that reason, and if Warhammer takes that route, I'm gone. I know I've said in a few threads I'm almost ready to bail...but this would be the final straw if I were in the boat. I know people are thinking "what about Squats and Genestealer cults"-yes, the rules have been made illegal for them, but a Genestealer Patriarch could always be a cool counts-as Broodlord, right? Squats can fit into an Imperial Guard list. I'm talking about models that get updated with a new version of the same model, but one weapon change and the previous edition's model is suddenly outlawed. I know people who had the old axe-wielding Bloodletters. And I'm glad they gave up Warhammer before this day came.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 skkipper wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
Hellblades are swords :(
Kinda glad i didnt give any letters axes.

Just a shame since the last series of letters looked amazing, but had an axe :(

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.

1st bloodletters had swords
2nd bloodletters had swords
3 rd bloodletters had axes
4th. Blood letters had swords
The axes were a abnormality.

Even if they were an abnormality, they were legitimate GW models, and still are. If I owned them (I don't, so this is hypothetical) and brought them to a tournament and was told they were illegal models now and that I couldn't play them, that would be it for me and 40k-I'd walk away from the game then and there. Why such an extreme reaction over something 'little' like power weapon illegality? Because this would be the start of Warhammer going down the road of Magic: you have items in your list that are now illegal to run and HAVE to be traded out for new items. I left Magic for that reason, and if Warhammer takes that route, I'm gone. I know I've said in a few threads I'm almost ready to bail...but this would be the final straw if I were in the boat. I know people are thinking "what about Squats and Genestealer cults"-yes, the rules have been made illegal for them, but a Genestealer Patriarch could always be a cool counts-as Broodlord, right? Squats can fit into an Imperial Guard list. I'm talking about models that get updated with a new version of the same model, but one weapon change and the previous edition's model is suddenly outlawed. I know people who had the old axe-wielding Bloodletters. And I'm glad they gave up Warhammer before this day came.

pretre wrote:GW could hand out free hundred dollar bills, puppies and hummers with every copy of the main rulebook and players would still complain.

I'm not quite so sure I'd like a hummer from Mark Wells...

This and the old Deamon models (lesser deamons) are without question, better than the new cartoon deamons

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Why such an extreme reaction over something 'little' like power weapon illegality? Because this would be the start of Warhammer going down the road of Magic: you have items in your list that are now illegal to run and HAVE to be traded out for new items.

40K has already been down that road in the past. Las/plas razorbacks were illegal for quite a few years from 3rd edition onwards. And I wouldn't want to try to count the number of models that have been rendered obsolete due to their codex weapon options changing.


You either alter your models to suit, or you count them as something else. For most players, it's not that big a deal.

 insaniak wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Why such an extreme reaction over something 'little' like power weapon illegality? Because this would be the start of Warhammer going down the road of Magic: you have items in your list that are now illegal to run and HAVE to be traded out for new items.

40K has already been down that road in the past. Las/plas razorbacks were illegal for quite a few years from 3rd edition onwards. And I wouldn't want to try to count the number of models that have been rendered obsolete due to their codex weapon options changing.


You either alter your models to suit, or you count them as something else. For most players, it's not that big a deal.

I started in 5th, so I missed all the stuff that's been rendered illegal and sometimes brought back. I only know 5th and now some of 6th. That said, I played Fantasy for over a decade and those axe-wielding Bloodletters were useable there too, so it would have been fully plausible for me to have them. I also prefer Daemons in 40k, so all my stuff has been switched to round bases. Problem is this is a weapon that used to be a "power weapon" and now the models are said to only be allowed "power swords." Counts-as, in this case, really isn't an option, as all it takes is one opponent to say "I can't keep it straight what they have" to request you be DQ'd from a tournament. And it does happen. I had friends witness it at GTs in the past. Nor do I like the idea of cutting all those axes up, that look awesome, and replace them either with crappy swords from kit-bashing, current bloodletter swords that will probably break off from the metal-on-plastic glue action, or sculpt my own that will either take forever or look piss-poor if I rush them. There is no real option that works in this case. I feel for players in the past who feel their stuff was completely invalidated, like this setup. I'm only arguing on this specific matter because it's the only one I was actually around for from beginning to end.

Rulebook FAQ got updated again. Mostly minor stuff but this caught my eye

Q: If a Flyer suffers Locked Velocity and was moving at Cruising
Speed (18"-36"), what speed is its velocity actually locked at? (p81)
A: 36".

Have to agree... Armies wax and armies wane, it is the way it has always been. I was halfway through building and heavily invested in a BA assault army... then 6th rolled around. Now I am not a fan of what happened to assault in this edition, I don't feel it needed the double penalty of overwatch AND completely random charge length.

I do like overwatch as a concept and a theme though. I just think charges should have been 6" + d6 or something with a 6 inch minimum on 2 dice... like roll 2, anything under you get 6, anything over you keep.

But I digress.

After Thousands in models and 100's of hours of time, I just didn't feel excited about my army anymore, for playing anyways. Yes there are still options for BA to use, but I wanted a jumpy, killy army themed as I envisioned it.

Now, I had three choices -

1. Bitch incesently about the new edition being different. Which is silly to me as obviously, it would be!

2. Change the style and composition of BA I wanted. Not something I hugely want to do.

3. Get a new army.

I went with #3, and now play Necrons, about as opposite to my BA as I could get, but I figure they can bro-fist each other.

I like this for 2 reasons... One: compared to BA, crons are ridiculously easy to paint and as my learning army this is better for me, and 2, I now consider myself to be reasonably on both ends of the spectrum, so whichever way the pendulum happens to swing, I should be viable.

That being said, I am fortunate enough to be in a position to afford doing that. I realize many aren't, or won't be inclined to incur the expense of 2 armies. At which point, they may face the challenge of having to sell what they have to get a viable list.

It is a tough thing, and in a lot of ways, it sucks. But it is also completely and totally nothing new.

 pretre wrote:
Nothing GW can do will ever satisfy the playerbase. GW could hand out free hundred dollar bills, and puppies with every copy of the main rulebook and players would still complain.

Disingenuous hyperbole.

Frequency of updates does not equate to updates of any quality. Just because they do an FAQ doesn't mean the FAQ itself cannot be criticised.

 Rivet wrote:
DE Incubi weapons are now AP2 as are Huskblades.

DE special power weapons get to stay the same while everybody elses' get nerfed big time?
These guys are pretty much the only elite infantry who can kill terminators in melee now

Now, I had three choices -

1. Bitch incesently about the new edition being different. Which is silly to me as obviously, it would be!

2. Change the style and composition of BA I wanted. Not something I hugely want to do.

3. Get a new army.

I can't help but feel that this was a bit targeted at someone.

It is a tough thing, and in a lot of ways, it sucks. But it is also completely and totally nothing new.

Which leads me to wonder why GW still has players at all. It's losing them, certainly, and at an alarming rate, but forcing something like this on a playing population and expecting battered housewife syndrome seems a business strategy that should have seen them exit the marketplace nearly 15 years ago.

I suppose this will probably end with them having a single player left in 40k paying two hundred and fifty thousand dollars per tactical squad box.

That presupposes that I get a job allowing me to afford a quarter million tactical squad.

Rest assured though; if it does come to that, you are all welcome to come over to my house for a game and some really high-quality beer.

 Mannahnin wrote:
That presupposes that I get a job allowing me to afford a quarter million tactical squad.

Rest assured though; if it does come to that, you are all welcome to come over to my house for a game and some really high-quality beer.

I hope you are a man of his words! I am waiting for that day.

What I find annoying is just as I am starting understand and get familiar with everything now they change it with FAQs. Since now most people in my GW doesn't check the FAQ much I have to either print them all out or pause my game constantly to check the website for the correct changes.

Tom, I think that was a good plan and look forward to watching your Crons in action! On the painting/gaming table.

I am happy that drop pods are still viable, and so I will stick with my BA

ShumaGorath wrote:

Now, I had three choices -

1. Bitch incesently about the new edition being different. Which is silly to me as obviously, it would be!

2. Change the style and composition of BA I wanted. Not something I hugely want to do.

3. Get a new army.

I can't help but feel that this was a bit targeted at someone.

It is a tough thing, and in a lot of ways, it sucks. But it is also completely and totally nothing new.

Lol, honestly no. You are far from the only one in the Red camp that was upset about the changes and vocal about it, amongst others. You fit the bill don't get me wrong lol! but no, and honestly I do have a degree of sympathy. Like I said though, there isn't much to be done about 6th now, Faqs will change things a bit and fix some things, but fundamentally I don't think they would go so far as to power up assault again. I dunno though, you are a long time player, do you not have enough stuff to field a non-BA army or at least a BA army proxied in for something else? I don't have much experience with the game, but I do have a bit now, and I have to say that it was fun playing 6th. Very random yes, but still there was enjoyment to be had... I guess though that if I had a lot of stuff hardwired into me by experience that I liked, it would be tough to give it up for something that felt worse to me personally.

So, in short, no, not directed at you. I do hope though that you find a way to enjoy the game on different terms somehow.

RiTides wrote:Tom, I think that was a good plan and look forward to watching your Crons in action! On the painting/gaming table.

I am happy that drop pods are still viable, and so I will stick with my BA

I'm gonna learn with the crons, but then try BA later on again and see if I can find something that fits the bill! I must admit, I am finding shooting appealing and like many others although BA can do it, my interpretation of them was always assault based, even though fluff wise they have been a mixed force all along... They do push the assault angle in the BA specific units, which is why I think a lot of people (including myself) really discount playing them any other way.

Tom, you've got an awesome SR, and can field DC (or assault terminators) and a Furioso. You can assault if you want to.

Amon wrote:

DE special power weapons get to stay the same while everybody elses' get nerfed big time?
These guys are pretty much the only elite infantry who can kill terminators in melee now

Given the ubiquitous storm shields, phase shifters and whatnot, Incubi will all too often get the game-breaking ability of making their enemies rolls a 3+ save instead of 2+.

Which is already something, mind you. Not complaining in that regard. If you want to keep your terminators safe, just down the Incubi's paper plane and put cover between them and your guys.

Sounds like you need to check your FAQ privilege.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Nothing GW can do will ever satisfy the playerbase. GW could hand out free hundred dollar bills, and puppies with every copy of the main rulebook and players would still complain.

Disingenuous hyperbole.

Frequency of updates does not equate to updates of any quality. Just because they do an FAQ doesn't mean the FAQ itself cannot be criticised.

What part gave it away? Was it the puppies ?

The puppies, of course. Everyone knows the player base is basically a bunch of cat people.

Noticed this in the new FAQ:

Q: Can I charge an enemy unit that I can’t hurt? (p20)
A: Yes.

Could've sworn I saw something just the other day about that not being the case (and was excited that basic troops couldn't just tie up Triarch Stalkers anymore). Did it get flopped in the stealth update to the BRB? Did I misread something somewhere?

 ShumaGorath wrote:
...but forcing something like this on a playing population and expecting battered housewife syndrome seems a business strategy that should have seen them exit the marketplace nearly 15 years ago.

That seems to suggest that you feel the ruleset is universally disliked...

The thing is, we see similar complaints every edition. The wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the supposed exodus from the game, when 3rd ed first rolled in was truly awe-inspiring... and yet there are a lot of players out there who still hold 3rd edition up as their favourite edition so far.

People will complain about changes to the game. Other people will enjoy those changes. It's been my experience that human nature tends to lead people to be more vocal about the stuff that displeases us... and it's easy to see that vocalisation on forums with a far lesser amount of praise balancing it out, and assume that it actually means something siginificant.


The first (and so far only) tournament that I played in for 6th was largely fairly positive about the new rules... The main complaints I came across were about wrapping heads around all the changes, not with the rules themselves. And that's a tournament for an edition that is supposedly deliberately geared away from tournament play. My own opinion is still a little mixed, but overall I'm liking the changes so far. But that won't stop me from complaining about rushed FAQs, poorly edited rules, or the parts of the new system I don't like


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:
Noticed this in the new FAQ:

Q: Can I charge an enemy unit that I can’t hurt? (p20)
A: Yes.

Could've sworn I saw something just the other day about that not being the case (and was excited that basic troops couldn't just tie up Triarch Stalkers anymore). Did it get flopped in the stealth update to the BRB? Did I misread something somewhere?

It's the case for vehicles. The FAQ was just clarifying that it doesn't apply to other units.

Amon wrote:

 Rivet wrote:
DE Incubi weapons are now AP2 as are Huskblades.

DE special power weapons get to stay the same while everybody elses' get nerfed big time?
These guys are pretty much the only elite infantry who can kill terminators in melee now

Which makes sense, otherwise there'd be nothing to kill a Terminator in melee with in the whole book. (Huskblades are IC only and Power Axes negate the advantage of Initiative the Elves rely on.)

These guys are pretty much the only elite infantry who can kill terminators in melee now

Lychguard, Chosen, Nobz, Wraiths, women on their sides, I'm sure there are more.

Unless you meant within the Dark Eldar book, in which case, pretty much. But, that's why Slaanesh gave you Disintegrators, after all. I'm pretty sure that's how it went down, anyway.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

These guys are pretty much the only elite infantry who can kill terminators in melee now

Lychguard, Chosen, Nobz, Wraiths, women on their sides, I'm sure there are more.

Unless you meant within the Dark Eldar book, in which case, pretty much. But, that's why Slaanesh gave you Disintegrators, after all. I'm pretty sure that's how it went down, anyway.

And Incubi, husk-blades and agonizers. Those have been upgraded to AP2 iirc.
Aren't lances AP2?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

These guys are pretty much the only elite infantry who can kill terminators in melee now

Lychguard, Chosen, Nobz, Wraiths, women on their sides, I'm sure there are more.

Unless you meant within the Dark Eldar book, in which case, pretty much. But, that's why Slaanesh gave you Disintegrators, after all. I'm pretty sure that's how it went down, anyway.

And Incubi, husk-blades and agonizers. Those have been upgraded to AP2 iirc.
Aren't lances AP2?

Lances are indeed AP2

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Which leads me to wonder why GW still has players at all. It's losing them, certainly, and at an alarming rate, but forcing something like this on a playing population and expecting battered housewife syndrome seems a business strategy that should have seen them exit the marketplace nearly 15 years ago.

Is GW losing players? At least locally, I'm seeing more and more people getting into 40k, and I expect a further influx with Dark Vengeance-- not to mention the crossover people who will be pulled in by The Hobbit!

 Mannahnin wrote:
Tom, you've got an awesome SR, and can field DC (or assault terminators) and a Furioso. You can assault if you want to.

and you can leave your friends behind, because if your friends don't let you play assault armies, then they're no friends of mine!

 Alpharius wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Tom, you've got an awesome SR, and can field DC (or assault terminators) and a Furioso. You can assault if you want to.

and you can leave your friends behind, because if your friends don't let you play assault armies, then they're no friends of mine!

I bro-love you... bro.

 Kingsley wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Which leads me to wonder why GW still has players at all. It's losing them, certainly, and at an alarming rate, but forcing something like this on a playing population and expecting battered housewife syndrome seems a business strategy that should have seen them exit the marketplace nearly 15 years ago.

Is GW losing players? At least locally, I'm seeing more and more people getting into 40k, and I expect a further influx with Dark Vengeance-- not to mention the crossover people who will be pulled in by The Hobbit!

Every financial report they give indicates a continuing loss in sales volume that is made up for by a continuing rise in product prices. Something to the tune of 10% lower volume annually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
...but forcing something like this on a playing population and expecting battered housewife syndrome seems a business strategy that should have seen them exit the marketplace nearly 15 years ago.

That seems to suggest that you feel the ruleset is universally disliked...

No, it very strongly suggests that I feel that GW invalidating peoples collected armies in it's wild meta swings is universally disliked by the people whose armies suddenly become paper wights. I'm pretty sure I was explicit about that. I'm also pretty sure I'm not wrong in that regard. Lots of people like sixth, it's a fluffy and fun ruleset with plenty of options. It's broken, but it's fun if you can get past that to enjoy the multitude of new options to explore. Those are the same people that are happy to solve rules conflicts with a die roll because it doesn't matter which way the results go. GW picked their camp, I'm not really even sure if they picked the wrong one. 40k wasn't a very good tournament game thanks to codex imbalance which isn't an issue that can be solved quickly or easily.

In my personal experience sixth edition drove about two thirds of my 40k playgroup into the arms of other games. GKs had set those pins up though, I think everyone was just tired of the unbalanced metagame which sixth didn't solve.