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.

 Skriker wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I've said this elsewhere, and I know as a brand-new player my wisdom will be taken with a grain of salt... but GW's pricing, while very high within the context of the rest of our hobby, still isn't insane by macro-"hobby" standards.

If I spend $45 on a Tactical Marine box, I might spend 10-15hrs painting them up nicely, another hour or two figuring out how I wanted them loaded out... etc...

Before even hitting a table for a single game I will have gotten as much "hobby" value out of them as I have many of the video-game I bought, and was immediately bored with.

Your anaolgy doesn't hold when you acknowledge the fact that you can get just as much hobby value out of cheaper products just as readily. The price of the tactical squad box doesn't determine how much enjoyment you get from building the kit and painting the minis. The contents determine that. The price just determines how many you can buy. A perfect example is that I can get a much higher quality plastic armor kit from a company like Acadmey or Dragon with 10x the detail of any plastic GW armor kit available, photoetched parts AND a turned aluminum gun barrel for around $45. Look at the price of the new marine AA tanks. It is crazy. I will have far more enjoyment and modeling time building my new Dragon 1/35 scale mobelwagon *and* converting it for use with my marines as an AA platform than I will get from building a silly GW armor kit AND it will look even better on the table as well because it is so detailed from the get go.

Mind you, you don't have to rationalize your position to me in the end. If you are fine paying the prices as they are now then feel free to do so. I think that is the issue here overall as somehow if you don't want to pay the prices anymore you are some kind of whiner, and if you do keep paying them you are some kind of idiot. When it all depends on what your threshold is. I reached mine, even with what I make and I honestly never thought that would happen. I currently have 11 armies and some parts of a 12th (which will be hitting ebay before too long), and one of those is chaos renegades army full of forge world conversion pieces so it isn't as if I haven't spent a lot on GW in the past. Just won't be much in the future aside from the Ork, DE and SW codecies...

Skriker

Which is fair, but I am trying to take a wider view. You're right, if the sum-total of hypothetical "value" were the painting of the minis, then I absolutely could sit down with a Reaper Miniature KS pledge, and be set for the next year...

That said, there are countless games which I will never get a chance to play, because while I was lured in by "value" and a volume-to-dollar proposition I couldn't resist, I didn't have the presence of mind to realize that "game value" is zero, if I paint those guys and then want to play with them, only to find that no one in 100-miles plays said game. :-p

I don't ever want to be "that guy", but part of WH40k's allure to me as I sit on hundreds and hundreds of unusable minis (many times from AMAZING, but entirely under-appreciate games, mind you), is that I feel like it comes with insurance. When I get my hobby value out of these, then they will have guaranteed game value as well.

 Vineheart01 wrote:

I know very little about the different dreads, but isnt the difference between them literally the weapons and the Ironclad is slightly beefier? Wouldnt be that hard to kitbash the venerable in the kicker kit to be an Ironclad for said droppod.

The difference is mostly in the arms. One of the things that makes the ironclad stand out is that it has a DCCW on both the right and the left. While kitbashing a multi-melta would be a reasonably easy job (assuming you had a spare MM bit) fabricating a close combat arm would be an advanced building project.

I don't think any of the kits in the strike force come with a MM. Land speeders, attack bikes, LRC/R, and devastators I think are your options from a purely marine POV. And most of those are going to want to use the melta themselves...

Oh, and as an aside... you don't have to justify your opinions to me either. :-) People take hobby stuff too seriously sometimes, and feel the need to look down on people who don't come to the same conclusions that they do.

I have a friend who loves 40k more than anything, in any hobby, and his entirely collection is "counts as" from generic 3rd party, cheapie minis lines. And you know what? I'd never suggest he's anything but the biggest 40k fan I know.

Money spent or saved doesn't determine fandom, and there is plenty of room for all folks in table-top gaming. Cheers!

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:Oh, and as an aside... you don't have to justify your opinions to me either. :-) People take hobby stuff too seriously sometimes, and feel the need to look down on people who don't come to the same conclusions that they do.

I have a friend who loves 40k more than anything, in any hobby, and his entirely collection is "counts as" from generic 3rd party, cheapie minis lines. And you know what? I'd never suggest he's anything but the biggest 40k fan I know.

Money spent or saved doesn't determine fandom, and there is plenty of room for all folks in table-top gaming. Cheers!

Legality of the models really only takes place in a GW store or at a tournament. If you got a large enough group where you can play more than say once a month and you hate tournaments, why spend the money if its going to hurt your budget? personally i dont care what people field, unless its one of 3-4 armies i usually dont know what they are without asking anyway lol.

Nevelon wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:

I know very little about the different dreads, but isnt the difference between them literally the weapons and the Ironclad is slightly beefier? Wouldnt be that hard to kitbash the venerable in the kicker kit to be an Ironclad for said droppod.

The difference is mostly in the arms. One of the things that makes the ironclad stand out is that it has a DCCW on both the right and the left. While kitbashing a multi-melta would be a reasonably easy job (assuming you had a spare MM bit) fabricating a close combat arm would be an advanced building project.

I don't think any of the kits in the strike force come with a MM. Land speeders, attack bikes, LRC/R, and devastators I think are your options from a purely marine POV. And most of those are going to want to use the melta themselves...

Ah, ok yea that wouldnt be TOO hard to kitbash into an ironclad. The average joe wouldnt be able to do that though, i agree. Being SM, you kinda have to have the power fist and/or the vice-grip looking thing....too bad they arent orks you can just slap a giant stick on there and call it good rofl

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I've said this elsewhere, and I know as a brand-new player my wisdom will be taken with a grain of salt... but GW's pricing, while very high within the context of the rest of our hobby, still isn't insane by macro-"hobby" standards.

If I spend $45 on a Tactical Marine box, I might spend 10-15hrs painting them up nicely, another hour or two figuring out how I wanted them loaded out... etc...

Before even hitting a table for a single game I will have gotten as much "hobby" value out of them as I have many of the video-game I bought, and was immediately bored with.

Likewise, I have caught myself avoiding playing 40K for years, despite wanting to, because of the price, and yet in doing so, all i've really accomplished is that i've spent thousands on other games/systems, where maybe one out of three is actively played at game-shops. If I had back every $200-300 pledge I made on some pretty box 'o plastic Kickstarter I backed, but then never EVER played, painted, etc... I'd easily have two or three large WH40k armies by now.

Are their prices high versus say Mantic (who, incidentally, I work for)...? Of course they are... but even I know that I can find games of 40k anywhere, any time, in essentially any country... and sometimes that is worth a bit of a premium.

Or, God forbid, you just love the game and want to play it for fun-sake.... and buy "counts as" armies from other producers. :-)

I'd have to agree here, as my other hobby is firearms, and dropping the occasional $400 on a new army or expansion pales in comparison to ordering a good rifle and all the accoutrements necessary to get it up and running, to say nothing of the regular cost of ammo to keep your aim on target

Yeah I've about reached my threshold on prices and will most likely just resort to hoardobits and blackdagger as long as they are around (which probably won't be much longer). Sadly, the new kits, aside from the stumpy baby dreads, are pretty good looking.

Also, whle we are comparing GW to other hobbies, it's so hard for me to support GW after my summer love affair with gamer friendly companies like warlord games and Battlefront (who links people's FOW blogs to their front page).

Sometimes I feel like my favorite grim dark hobby company has been hijacked. I'll never leave the 40k universe, but these new prices will stop me from starting my triannual new Marine chapter.

 Nevelon wrote:


The other nice thing about the strikeforce is that it's a playable army. It might not be a tournament army, but legal and viable on the table. Not sure how it will fare with the points reductions, but I would bring that to a 1,000 point battle and have fun with it. It does lack a HS pick, but add a dev box and you are golden.

But it is a bad army. Dreads are bad, assault sm are horrible outside of BAs . Cpts unless they are on bikes are weaker then librarians and command squads are command squads , not sternguard. If you can play your models at what ever you want to call them , it is great . Here to play something you need the right model for it .But even when your opponent let you do counts as , you still end up with 5 combi weapons and wierd models like the apothecary or the banner dude.

Half of the new strike force is bad investment.

Why would anyone play devs in a sm army . In the old dex they were bad and in the new one centurions out perform them .

Makumba wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


The other nice thing about the strikeforce is that it's a playable army. It might not be a tournament army, but legal and viable on the table. Not sure how it will fare with the points reductions, but I would bring that to a 1,000 point battle and have fun with it. It does lack a HS pick, but add a dev box and you are golden.

But it is a bad army. Dreads are bad, assault sm are horrible outside of BAs . Cpts unless they are on bikes are weaker then librarians and command squads are command squads , not sternguard. If you can play your models at what ever you want to call them , it is great . Here to play something you need the right model for it .But even when your opponent let you do counts as , you still end up with 5 combi weapons and wierd models like the apothecary or the banner dude.

Half of the new strike force is bad investment.

Why would anyone play devs in a sm army . In the old dex they were bad and in the new one centurions out perform them .

I'd say we have to wait and see. If the rumors are right Dev's and the Captain may have moved up in the rankings, and no one really knows how the Cets are going to stack up till they hit the table.

I was tempted to pickup a space marine chapter to play with my tau but with all the price hiking I think i can live without. It was bad enough having to buy new broadside for my tau but GW is getting out of control with the price hikes. It feels like every 6 months i hear about how they are getting more expensive. I may have to stop buying into the game before to long. This makes me sad but i'm not going to keep trowing my money at them just to get slapped in the face.

Makumba wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


The other nice thing about the strikeforce is that it's a playable army. It might not be a tournament army, but legal and viable on the table. Not sure how it will fare with the points reductions, but I would bring that to a 1,000 point battle and have fun with it. It does lack a HS pick, but add a dev box and you are golden.

But it is a bad army. Dreads are bad, assault sm are horrible outside of BAs . Cpts unless they are on bikes are weaker then librarians and command squads are command squads , not sternguard. If you can play your models at what ever you want to call them , it is great . Here to play something you need the right model for it .But even when your opponent let you do counts as , you still end up with 5 combi weapons and wierd models like the apothecary or the banner dude.

Half of the new strike force is bad investment.

Why would anyone play devs in a sm army . In the old dex they were bad and in the new one centurions out perform them .

Well that's your opinion. Personally, I like Devs(especially as I play Crimson Fists). The baby dreadnoughts are terrible models. As for out performing them: I guess you have your codex? Until Saturday, I don't think it's fair to say what sucks and what's great.

Makumba wrote:

Why would anyone play devs in a sm army . In the old dex they were bad and in the new one centurions out perform them .

My Tank Hunting Crimson Fist expys would like to have a word with you.

And by word, we mean we're shoving a half dozen missiles, a few lascannons, and an ADL Quad Gun where the sun don't shine.

And we're re-rolling penetration.

Nocturnus wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


The other nice thing about the strikeforce is that it's a playable army. It might not be a tournament army, but legal and viable on the table. Not sure how it will fare with the points reductions, but I would bring that to a 1,000 point battle and have fun with it. It does lack a HS pick, but add a dev box and you are golden.

But it is a bad army. Dreads are bad, assault sm are horrible outside of BAs . Cpts unless they are on bikes are weaker then librarians and command squads are command squads , not sternguard. If you can play your models at what ever you want to call them , it is great . Here to play something you need the right model for it .But even when your opponent let you do counts as , you still end up with 5 combi weapons and wierd models like the apothecary or the banner dude.

Half of the new strike force is bad investment.

Why would anyone play devs in a sm army . In the old dex they were bad and in the new one centurions out perform them .

Well that's your opinion. Personally, I like Devs(especially as I play Crimson Fists). The baby dreadnoughts are terrible models. As for out performing them: I guess you have your codex? Until Saturday, I don't think it's fair to say what sucks and what's great.

Even Saturday will be too soon to say this for sure. If the rumors from 40K Radio are 100% accurate, I'm looking forward to trying out devs in Ultramarines, but until a bunch of games have been actually played, it's all theory and guessing. People had a ton of opinions on Tau the day that codex came out, and look how much lists have changed in the past couple months. Even Deamons, people said was weak and no longer a tournament winning book when it was released, and that doesn't look so smart now.

Anybody who tells you "No no, that is bad. Never play that unit!" about something they have zero experience with or against is being, to be polite, a pinhead.

 Skriker wrote:
A perfect example is that I can get a much higher quality plastic armor kit from a company like Acadmey or Dragon with 10x the detail of any plastic GW armor kit available, photoetched parts AND a turned aluminum gun barrel for around $45. Look at the price of the new marine AA tanks. It is crazy. I will have far more enjoyment and modeling time building my new Dragon 1/35 scale mobelwagon *and* converting it for use with my marines as an AA platform than I will get from building a silly GW armor kit AND it will look even better on the table as well because it is so detailed from the get go.

Why must GW's detractors always plug some other company? I find it pathetic. We're both playing for plastic toys. In the end it's a money and time wasting hobby that we enjoy. If you enjoy some other company's product, good for you. Most of us buy GW models because we like them, not because they're cheap or have some great value. How many tactical squads are you realistically going to buy if they dropped to $1 per box worldwide?

DogofWar1 wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Why would anyone play devs in a sm army . In the old dex they were bad and in the new one centurions out perform them .

My Tank Hunting Crimson Fist expys would like to have a word with you.

And by word, we mean we're shoving a half dozen missiles, a few lascannons, and an ADL Quad Gun where the sun don't shine.

And we're re-rolling penetration.

Yep. What he said...

The issue with Devs in 5th was they were expensive, with their marine costs, and the heavy weapons were more expensive too. The result was that a 10 man squad with 4 heavy weapons was going to cost, at a minimum, 230 points, and that springing for the cheapest heavy weapons. If I wanted to spring for a lascannon, it was literally the cost of a rhino, meaning the cost of a squad could easily end up in the high 200s or low 300s.

Compare that to DA, and presumably C:SM, and you can take 10 men, 2 missile launchers with flakk missiles, and 2 lascannons, for about 230 points, the same as the cheapest loadout in 5th. You saved 40 points between 5th and 6th, and that's WITH flakk. Without flakk, it's a 60 point difference.

I do think there will be things comparable in worth in 6th to devastators, but I think Devastators re-entered the scene as a viable HS option, and I think they're pretty much must take for IF/CF, unless you are running tons of Centurions, who with lascannons, will probably be more expensive than 10 Devastators for 3 of them.

Makumba wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


The other nice thing about the strikeforce is that it's a playable army. It might not be a tournament army, but legal and viable on the table. Not sure how it will fare with the points reductions, but I would bring that to a 1,000 point battle and have fun with it. It does lack a HS pick, but add a dev box and you are golden.

But it is a bad army. Dreads are bad, assault sm are horrible outside of BAs . Cpts unless they are on bikes are weaker then librarians and command squads are command squads , not sternguard. If you can play your models at what ever you want to call them , it is great . Here to play something you need the right model for it .But even when your opponent let you do counts as , you still end up with 5 combi weapons and wierd models like the apothecary or the banner dude.

Half of the new strike force is bad investment.

Why would anyone play devs in a sm army . In the old dex they were bad and in the new one centurions out perform them .

Dreadnoughts are fine, Sternguard are Marines with fancy weapons (easily converted from Command Squad) and the Captain can be used as a Chapter Master with access to the new Relics. Assault Marines are bad in the current Vanilla Codex, they might be playable as Raven Guard in the new Codex. Centurions can't take Plasma Cannons or Multi-meltas and cost 60PPM before upgrades; Devastators are going to put out more firepower but won't be as mobile or tough.

Waaay to expensive for me. I will stick to eBay sniping and proxy models. I would rather stick with GW products but now I shall be filling their competitors pockets by the looks of it. One step too far.

With salvo weapons and lascanon each the centurions out shot devastators .Dreads are bad I haven't seen any one post or use a list with them in 6th . Even rifleman are weak , because av12 and low hull points make them die too fast.

Well as far as Australia is concerned, the new Tacticals are actually rather good. The new Tactical box comes with far more options than the last one and at $65 is only $2 more. The really weird thing is that the Space Marine combat squad is $41. So I could get 5 stock Space Marines with bolters for $41 or 10 with all the different options for $65? I know which ones I am getting. I would also like to weigh in praising the new Sternguard and Vanguard kits, they just look amazing and sooooo many options.

Makumba wrote:
With salvo weapons and lascanon each the centurions out shot devastators .Dreads are bad I haven't seen any one post or use a list with them in 6th . Even rifleman are weak , because av12 and low hull points make them die too fast.

You get either Grav Cannons or Lascannons on Centurions, not both. At around 80 PPM for TLLC Centurions you can get 2 Devastators with Lascannons. 2 lascannons > 1 TLLC in terms of firepower. The Centurion is T5, has 2+ armour and can move, but is more vulnerable to Force Weapons, S10 weapons and ID in gereral. It's a trade off, but saying that Devastators will have less firepower simply isn't true.

Regarding Dreadnoughts, with the massive shift away from melta towards plasma Ironclads in Drop Pods are pretty good. Riflemen are still fine, although not as good as in 5th.

DogofWar1 wrote:
The issue with Devs in 5th was they were expensive, with their marine costs, and the heavy weapons were more expensive too. The result was that a 10 man squad with 4 heavy weapons was going to cost, at a minimum, 230 points, and that springing for the cheapest heavy weapons. If I wanted to spring for a lascannon, it was literally the cost of a rhino, meaning the cost of a squad could easily end up in the high 200s or low 300s.

Compare that to DA, and presumably C:SM, and you can take 10 men, 2 missile launchers with flakk missiles, and 2 lascannons, for about 230 points, the same as the cheapest loadout in 5th. You saved 40 points between 5th and 6th, and that's WITH flakk. Without flakk, it's a 60 point difference.

I do think there will be things comparable in worth in 6th to devastators, but I think Devastators re-entered the scene as a viable HS option, and I think they're pretty much must take for IF/CF, unless you are running tons of Centurions, who with lascannons, will probably be more expensive than 10 Devastators for 3 of them.

Don't forget Salamanders w/Vulcan for cheap and twin-liked multi-melta shenanigans!

Makumba wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


The other nice thing about the strikeforce is that it's a playable army. It might not be a tournament army, but legal and viable on the table. Not sure how it will fare with the points reductions, but I would bring that to a 1,000 point battle and have fun with it. It does lack a HS pick, but add a dev box and you are golden.

But it is a bad army. Dreads are bad, assault sm are horrible outside of BAs . Cpts unless they are on bikes are weaker then librarians and command squads are command squads , not sternguard. If you can play your models at what ever you want to call them , it is great . Here to play something you need the right model for it .But even when your opponent let you do counts as , you still end up with 5 combi weapons and wierd models like the apothecary or the banner dude.

Half of the new strike force is bad investment.

Why would anyone play devs in a sm army . In the old dex they were bad and in the new one centurions out perform them .

I think you're misunderstanding who the Strike Force is aimed at. It may be a bad investment in terms of building a tournament competative list, but in terms of an entry level army whcih gives a good selection of some of the iconic Space Marine units, it's a good deal. It's also a good selection for people learning the rules, as it's a nice varied selection of units. It may be that the new Codex will mean that the best investment for a competative player would be 9 Centurions or whatever, but I think this is a good box for newer players.

Dundas wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


The other nice thing about the strikeforce is that it's a playable army. It might not be a tournament army, but legal and viable on the table. Not sure how it will fare with the points reductions, but I would bring that to a 1,000 point battle and have fun with it. It does lack a HS pick, but add a dev box and you are golden.

But it is a bad army. Dreads are bad, assault sm are horrible outside of BAs . Cpts unless they are on bikes are weaker then librarians and command squads are command squads , not sternguard. If you can play your models at what ever you want to call them , it is great . Here to play something you need the right model for it .But even when your opponent let you do counts as , you still end up with 5 combi weapons and wierd models like the apothecary or the banner dude.

Half of the new strike force is bad investment.

Why would anyone play devs in a sm army . In the old dex they were bad and in the new one centurions out perform them .

I think you're misunderstanding who the Strike Force is aimed at. It may be a bad investment in terms of building a tournament competative list, but in terms of an entry level army whcih gives a good selection of some of the iconic Space Marine units, it's a good deal. It's also a good selection for people learning the rules, as it's a nice varied selection of units. It may be that the new Codex will mean that the best investment for a competative player would be 9 Centurions or whatever, but I think this is a good box for newer players.

I don't see new players spending 140€ + rulebooks for an army they might not like in a game they might not like. Both 40k and Fantasy lack real entry level packages (appart from DV of course ) which give new players the opportunity to simply try out the game and their favourite faction without spending lots of money first. Of course, a weak (or let's call it unfocused if you prefer) entry level army which forces the new player to buy new units just to have a somewhat adequate chance of winning a game isn't that helpful either.

It doesnt force anyone to buy anything. Once again it is a OPTION that people have.

I would rather have more options than few. If I was going in this would be a nice price break point. Since from a discounter the strike force goes for like 165 it really is a good entry point for someone who wants to start.

Just saw that Thunderfire cannons have Barrage on all shot types now. I don't think I ever saw that in the 40k radio or other rumors until now....

If this is true, that makes me extremely happy

Makumba wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


The other nice thing about the strikeforce is that it's a playable army. It might not be a tournament army, but legal and viable on the table. Not sure how it will fare with the points reductions, but I would bring that to a 1,000 point battle and have fun with it. It does lack a HS pick, but add a dev box and you are golden.

But it is a bad army. Dreads are bad, assault sm are horrible outside of BAs . Cpts unless they are on bikes are weaker then librarians and command squads are command squads , not sternguard. If you can play your models at what ever you want to call them , it is great . Here to play something you need the right model for it .But even when your opponent let you do counts as , you still end up with 5 combi weapons and wierd models like the apothecary or the banner dude.

Half of the new strike force is bad investment.

Why would anyone play devs in a sm army . In the old dex they were bad and in the new one centurions out perform them .

Others have already summed up my thoughts on your reply, but I want to put in my own two cents on a few points.

I have sitting on my workbench a captain and command squad box I picked up before the new sternguard were announced/leaked. The plan was to assemble them as sternguard, so I would have more variety then the ones I was currently using (the old metal box for 5, tyrannic vets for 4, and one really old vet) The command squad box has shoulder pads with terminator honors, the captain box has spare combi weapons. Both boxes have lots of ornate bits and extras enough to bling out marines. You don't need a spare torso to replace the apothecary, if anything, you need more bolter arms. While there may be stores out there that require the exact specific kit to represent a unit, I think those are going to be the minority. WYSWYG sternguard can be as simple as a tac marine with a specific paint job. The sculpted terminator honors and extra bits are just gravy.

C:SM have a number of ways they can be played. Probably more ways then there are players. Some are more competitive, yes, then others. Some units are also better in certain roles. I field a lot of stuff that the internet frowns on. Not all of it in one list, mind you. I'll toss a dread in a list, or field a 5 man assault squad. And they do work. It's easy to get caught up in "BA assaults are better then vanilla" and "Grey hunters out perform tac squads" But I'm playing the game with the cards I've been dealt. I don't ally, I use my units. And while my Ultramarine assault squad is not the flying blender that BA can produce, it is a fine backfield harassment/counter charge unit that has won me games. It's also been mowed down like chumps, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

With the new codex, particularly the new chapter tactics, we are going to have to re-evaluate everything.

Even in the 5th ed codex I'd recommend new players picking up a dev box. Even though devs themselves were mediocre, adding the options to your tac squads was priceless. And even though point-inefficient, devs still work at getting firepower downrange.

The strikeforce is something around $310 worth of stuff for $225. And it's not a one-click bundle, so presumably will be available though your FLGS a/o discounter at whatever better price you can get from them. You can pick 2-3 kits worth of stuff you don't like, throw it out, and still be ahead of the game. If you sell/trade/ebay the stuff you don't want, the deal gets even better. Or just paint and play it, you might be surprised...

KingDeath wrote:

Dundas wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


The other nice thing about the strikeforce is that it's a playable army. It might not be a tournament army, but legal and viable on the table. Not sure how it will fare with the points reductions, but I would bring that to a 1,000 point battle and have fun with it. It does lack a HS pick, but add a dev box and you are golden.

But it is a bad army. Dreads are bad, assault sm are horrible outside of BAs . Cpts unless they are on bikes are weaker then librarians and command squads are command squads , not sternguard. If you can play your models at what ever you want to call them , it is great . Here to play something you need the right model for it .But even when your opponent let you do counts as , you still end up with 5 combi weapons and wierd models like the apothecary or the banner dude.

Half of the new strike force is bad investment.

Why would anyone play devs in a sm army . In the old dex they were bad and in the new one centurions out perform them .

I think you're misunderstanding who the Strike Force is aimed at. It may be a bad investment in terms of building a tournament competative list, but in terms of an entry level army whcih gives a good selection of some of the iconic Space Marine units, it's a good deal. It's also a good selection for people learning the rules, as it's a nice varied selection of units. It may be that the new Codex will mean that the best investment for a competative player would be 9 Centurions or whatever, but I think this is a good box for newer players.

I don't see new players spending 140€ + rulebooks for an army they might not like in a game they might not like. Both 40k and Fantasy lack real entry level packages (appart from DV of course ) which give new players the opportunity to simply try out the game and their favourite faction without spending lots of money first. Of course, a weak (or let's call it unfocused if you prefer) entry level army which forces the new player to buy new units just to have a somewhat adequate chance of winning a game isn't that helpful either.

They do spend that much though. I've seen it happen quite a few times in my local GW shop. Typically, they have a friend who plays, and they'll spend a couple hours in the shop talking to people and watching some games. They then think about what army they would like, and buy a bunch of the models.

That's the kind of person the Strikeforce is aimed at, and I think it's a good option.

The other kind of "new player" is the one who is given the game as a gift. These are the people who typically just buy the starter box, or are given the starter box.

This is the kind of person the Strikeforce is NOT aimed at.

There's also the third kind of "new player", who drops $1000 and jumps in the deep end. They are more rare, but it happens.

This is the kind of person who buys the Ultrabox, or whatever that super box is called that has a ton of stuff in it.

Just my experience.

KingDeath wrote:

Dundas wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding who the Strike Force is aimed at. It may be a bad investment in terms of building a tournament competative list, but in terms of an entry level army whcih gives a good selection of some of the iconic Space Marine units, it's a good deal. It's also a good selection for people learning the rules, as it's a nice varied selection of units. It may be that the new Codex will mean that the best investment for a competative player would be 9 Centurions or whatever, but I think this is a good box for newer players.

I don't see new players spending 140€ + rulebooks for an army they might not like in a game they might not like. Both 40k and Fantasy lack real entry level packages (appart from DV of course ) which give new players the opportunity to simply try out the game and their favourite faction without spending lots of money first. Of course, a weak (or let's call it unfocused if you prefer) entry level army which forces the new player to buy new units just to have a somewhat adequate chance of winning a game isn't that helpful either.

I more meant newer players, not completely new players. If I was GW I'd see this as mainly being marketed as people who'd bought DV, liked it and were looking to expand a marine army. For that, I think it fits the bill. Better than yet another 1 click bundle!

So um ... at the risk of not getting involved in pricing complaints ... I noticed on the GW site that the Centurions are in both heavy AND elite slots. Has anyone heard anything on this? Looking at that it almost seems like you could have as many as six squads of them in one army if you filled all three heavy and three elite slots. If the cost of a regular marine falls in line with DA/CSM, you could then fill your remaining points with a horde of cheap MEQ and have what looks to be a pretty shooty army.

Tycho wrote:
So um ... at the risk of not getting involved in pricing complaints ... I noticed on the GW site that the Centurions are in both heavy AND elite slots. Has anyone heard anything on this? Looking at that it almost seems like you could have as many as six squads of them in one army if you filled all three heavy and three elite slots. If the cost of a regular marine falls in line with DA/CSM, you could then fill your remaining points with a horde of cheap MEQ and have what looks to be a pretty shooty army.

Assault Centurions are Elites

Devastator Centurions are Heavy Support

So yes, you could have 6 squads of them. 3 each of assault and devastator.