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.

 BryllCream wrote:
So you *do* think that it's legitimate to bash GW for price increases that haven't happened and that we don't know will happen? Just so we're clear. And to try and address actual content rather than "lol bryllcream y you strawknight".

1. That's not what he's saying at all.
2. You are straw-manning. It's what you do. It's what you always do. It's the only thing you do.

You're a straw-based lifeform.

Nobody's bashing GW for doing something they haven't done, they're saying it's perfectly reasonable to expect a price raise like that given recent releases, and to prepare accordingly.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Nobody's bashing GW for doing something they haven't done, they're saying it's perfectly reasonable to expect a price raise like that given recent releases, and to prepare accordingly.

We get that. He doesn't. That's the problem.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Nobody's bashing GW for doing something they haven't done, they're saying it's perfectly reasonable to expect a price raise like that given recent releases, and to prepare accordingly.

We get that. He doesn't. That's the problem.

I know, I was hoping spelling it out simply and concisely might help .

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

I don't see what you're trying to say here? I was addressing speculation on future price rises, which the posts directly above mine specifically mentioned.

So this is addressing speculation?

BryllCream wrote:So we're knocking GW for price increases that haven't even happened/may not ever happen? Awesome.

Can we also knock GW for causing the apocolypse and sinking the Belgrano?

That's not "addressing speculation" that's complaining about people speculating. The post immediately above this was Grimtuff's which was quoting mine.

Again, you're defending against perceived attacks that aren't there by strawmanning like a Victorian farmer at harvest time (or something.) Like usual.

If you weren't specifically addressing our points, then as has been out to you already, its best to quote the posts you're responding to, or people will simply assume that its the one directly above.

So you *do* think that it's legitimate to bash GW for price increases that haven't happened and that we don't know will happen? Just so we're clear. And to try and address actual content rather than "lol bryllcream y you strawknight".

For the love of...

Look, nobody that I've seen, certainly not myself or Grimtuff, who I've assumed you were mainly responding to and have yet to be corrected, were doing any "bashing."

Personally though, if someone were to extrapolate GW's past behaviour and apply it to the rumour of a new kit with increased options, and came to the conclusion that they might reduce the model count while maintaining the price, I couldn't fault their logic.

I wouldn't necessarily agree as I've already stated that I believe the 10 man box will remain and the price go up, but if you can find one instance in this thread where I have bashed GW, I will buy YOU a new Tac Squad if/when they come out, as I personally feel that the SM Tac box is one of the best value kits they do, and still wouldn't feel too hard done by if they charge £30 if they increase the options in the kit.

But yeah, I'm bashing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ha!

I spend a few minutes in the post edit page composing a response, and there's a whole new page refuting what Brylcreem's trying to push!

I'll be (unpleasantly) surprised if GW takes Tacticals to five to a box.

Dire Avengers being five to a box at least make sense in that almost everyone takes them in five-man units-- but the entire point of a Space Marine Tactical Squad is supposed to be that it's ten guys, and if the box doesn't come with ten that's more than a little silly.

I suppose we'll see, though. Truth be told, I have so many Space Marines right now that whether or not I buy is basically down to whether new bitz are cool. Ironically, that means selling a box of five would actually be more efficient for me, as it would likely have a better "new bitz/bodies" ratio-- but boxes of ten seem much more appealing to those who don't already have lots of Marines.

There is also a 5 man combat squad box that doesn't have the special or heavy weapons with it.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Nobody's bashing GW for doing something they haven't done, they're saying it's perfectly reasonable to expect a price raise like that given recent releases, and to prepare accordingly.

So the troop boxes of the releases this year have had a 30% price rise?

 BryllCream wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Nobody's bashing GW for doing something they haven't done, they're saying it's perfectly reasonable to expect a price raise like that given recent releases, and to prepare accordingly.

So the troop boxes of the releases this year have had a 30% price rise?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the only new release/reboxing of a troops choice so far in 6th has been Dire Avengers, so, on that assumption, yes.

Daemons all went from a min 5 to 10 as well, so not a technical increase, but does mean two boxes are needed for a legal army where previously one would have done the job.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Davor wrote:

Locrian wrote:
Anyone else worried that this codex will completely dwarf Codex: Dark Angels which just barely came out this year? Sounds like I'll have to play my DA as generic marines :/

Here we go again 5 years later. I think you are the first DA player to start crying/whining.

At least wait for the rules to be know first before you start complaing about plastic toy soldiers.

Having been following this on multiple boards/sites and abusing Google to try and see what else I could turn up I can say he's not the first. DA and CSM players are already getting their panties in a wad over something they don't even know the rules or points costs to.

If that is the case, I am really going to have to try and ignore these posts. I guess I have no one but me to blame if I start arguing with people again. Thanks for the heads up.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
I've been keeping my mouth shut all thread, but the ignorance on display here is astounding. The amount of condescending bull you squeezed into just a few sentences blew my mind.

You think Black Templar players are upset because some specific BT build might be invalidated? And you think if it happens it's their own fault because they went "over the top" with a list that required "one character" to make it function? Dude, try invalidation of their entire army, from all their special traits right down to their basic weapons loadout on their standard marines. And their only fault was buying a codex they liked and believing GW when they said they weren't Squatting any more armies (they might not truly be Squatted, but depending on how the rules shake up it could be close enough for some people).

We've heard rumors that supplements will be somewhat more involved than Iyanden going forward.

So hypothetically speaking, let's say they have their chapter trait in the SM codex (Crusader?). Then in the supplement are the rules for the Emperor's Champ (with a vow system that you get if you take the Champ) and a Crusader Squad Troops choice with CCW options and the ability to attach Scout squads in some way.

Would that really be a travesty for BT players? Certainly it forces them to buy two codicies, which isn't ideal. But doesn't something like what I outlined (obviously roughly) cover the most important bases?

Here's another wild speculation. What if the new Tac Squad (box and rules) has options for CCWs? Then they wouldn't even need Crusader Squad rules in the supplement, and GW wouldn't need to to add another box for BTs. Probably won't happen, but it'd make some sense.

 Kingsley wrote:
...but the entire point of a Space Marine Tactical Squad is supposed to be that it's ten guys, and if the box doesn't come with ten that's more than a little silly..

This is a company that for some years sold Aspect Warriors, with minimum squads size of 5 models, only in blisters of 3 or 4...

I coud very easily see them dropping the Tactical box to 5 guys with 1 each of each special weapon, and keeping the current Combat Squad box to supplement numbers for Tactical and Devastator squads.

 azreal13 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Nobody's bashing GW for doing something they haven't done, they're saying it's perfectly reasonable to expect a price raise like that given recent releases, and to prepare accordingly.

So the troop boxes of the releases this year have had a 30% price rise?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the only new release/reboxing of a troops choice so far in 6th has been Dire Avengers, so, on that assumption, yes.

Daemons all went from a min 5 to 10 as well, so not a technical increase, but does mean two boxes are needed for a legal army where previously one would have done the job.

Oh I missed the line about the reboxing. My bad.

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Nobody's bashing GW for doing something they haven't done, they're saying it's perfectly reasonable to expect a price raise like that given recent releases, and to prepare accordingly.

So the troop boxes of the releases this year have had a 30% price rise?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the only new release/reboxing of a troops choice so far in 6th has been Dire Avengers, so, on that assumption, yes.

Daemons all went from a min 5 to 10 as well, so not a technical increase, but does mean two boxes are needed for a legal army where previously one would have done the job.

Oh I missed the line about the reboxing. My bad.

Huh?

What line?

You asked if the troops of this years releases had had a 30% increase, they have for two releases, as they have had their contents reduced or minimum unit size increased, I don't get why a reboxing (which the DA were, but were sold as a new release cause GW seem to think we're all mentally challenged goldfish) is relevant?

The line in the OP. I didn't realise tactical squads were being reboxed.

 BryllCream wrote:
The line in the OP. I didn't realise tactical squads were being reboxed.

That's because there isn't one?

- There is a new tactical squad. Lots of options as you'd expect, but of particular interest will probably be the grav pistol and grav rifle.

 BryllCream wrote:

- There is a new tactical squad. Lots of options as you'd expect, but of particular interest will probably be the grav pistol and grav rifle.

That says new? That's not necessarily a rebox, in fact, with new options its not possible to rebox it, as the sprues will need to be recut with new moulds.

The Dire Avengers were a rebox, as they simply took a 5 man sprue out, and started selling the 5 man box for essentially the same price as the previous 10, and that is why so many people's noses are out of joint.

The new Tac Squad may well reuse the same components, but they will be on new sprues.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
...but the entire point of a Space Marine Tactical Squad is supposed to be that it's ten guys, and if the box doesn't come with ten that's more than a little silly..

This is a company that for some years sold Aspect Warriors, with minimum squads size of 5 models, only in blisters of 3 or 4...

I coud very easily see them dropping the Tactical box to 5 guys with 1 each of each special weapon, and keeping the current Combat Squad box to supplement numbers for Tactical and Devastator squads.

I could definitely see the Tactical box becoming five guys and the current sprue with the ML/special weapons/Sergeant, but I wouldn't particularly like it!

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 5deadly wrote:

Dark Angel players with “now my codex sucks…” Black Templars “I want special scouts and 12 man squads….”
If you buy an Army and that army relies on one characters rules to make it function and you go over the top with your build and that Army Now is completely Null and Void because of 2 simple 20 word paragraph rule changes…

I don’t feel sorry for you.

I've been keeping my mouth shut all thread, but the ignorance on display here is astounding. The amount of condescending bull you squeezed into just a few sentences blew my mind.

You think Black Templar players are upset because some specific BT build might be invalidated? And you think if it happens it's their own fault because they went "over the top" with a list that required "one character" to make it function? Dude, try invalidation of their entire army, from all their special traits right down to their basic weapons loadout on their standard marines. And their only fault was buying a codex they liked and believing GW when they said they weren't Squatting any more armies (they might not truly be Squatted, but depending on how the rules shake up it could be close enough for some people).

Couldnt have said it better myself.

 Kingsley wrote:
Dire Avengers being five to a box at least make sense in that almost everyone takes them in five-man units...

So doubling their price "made sense"?

 gorgon wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
I've been keeping my mouth shut all thread, but the ignorance on display here is astounding. The amount of condescending bull you squeezed into just a few sentences blew my mind.

You think Black Templar players are upset because some specific BT build might be invalidated? And you think if it happens it's their own fault because they went "over the top" with a list that required "one character" to make it function? Dude, try invalidation of their entire army, from all their special traits right down to their basic weapons loadout on their standard marines. And their only fault was buying a codex they liked and believing GW when they said they weren't Squatting any more armies (they might not truly be Squatted, but depending on how the rules shake up it could be close enough for some people).

We've heard rumors that supplements will be somewhat more involved than Iyanden going forward.

So hypothetically speaking, let's say they have their chapter trait in the SM codex (Crusader?). Then in the supplement are the rules for the Emperor's Champ (with a vow system that you get if you take the Champ) and a Crusader Squad Troops choice with CCW options and the ability to attach Scout squads in some way.

Would that really be a travesty for BT players? Certainly it forces them to buy two codicies, which isn't ideal. But doesn't something like what I outlined (obviously roughly) cover the most important bases?

Here's another wild speculation. What if the new Tac Squad (box and rules) has options for CCWs? Then they wouldn't even need Crusader Squad rules in the supplement, and GW wouldn't need to to add another box for BTs. Probably won't happen, but it'd make some sense.

Right. And next year Puppies and Team Edward get their own books.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
Dire Avengers being five to a box at least make sense in that almost everyone takes them in five-man units...

So doubling their price "made sense"?

He never said that doubling their price made sense, he said making them five-man units made sense.

Another strawman from HBMC.

I never claimed he said that. I asked him a question, hence the "?" at the end of my sentence.

Lern 2 reed.

I see yet another thread has degenerated into The Bryllcream Show.

The Blue Knight does have a unique way of altering the world around him.

 Ouze wrote:
I see yet another thread has degenerated into The Bryllcream Show.

Can we get together and pay to send him on a course to learn to respond to what's written rather than what he reads?

I can 2 reed. I can 2 reed very well.

The crux of your question, the variable thats nature you were seeking to clarify, was whether or not the poster you were quoting "made sense". You even specifically quoted the words "made sense", to emphasise that your query was relating to the notion that those words represented.

Since this variable that you were questioning, whether or not a doubling in price made sense, did not exist in the original post (as he explicitly stated halving the box made sense, and nothing else), you were questioning a notion that was never expressed - what you would call a "strawman".

I guess we now know what it's like to live a life free of irony.

Or, at the very least, one that's unaware of it...

Does anyone have rumors about how Chapter tactics work with generic characters? Will it be similar to the 4th edition ones or predefined like 5th? I'm very interested, as to the replicability of Blood Ravens, BLUUD REHVENS!!!