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.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
More viable does not mean more powerful.

Making Genestealers 9-10 ppm would not make them more powerful. Each Genestealer would have the same statline and would kill just as much in melee. It would make them much more viable, however.

At the cost of going off-topic, and knowing your (evil) intentions of eventually fixing this in the Proposed Rules section, I would like to point out that costs reduction is usually a bad idea when fixing something.

Genestealers appeared first in Space Hulk. They are close combat total monsters. Normal Marines do not stand a chance in a claustrophobic environment such a Space Hulk, this is the reason they send Terminators. Fighting a Genestealer should be a terrifying prospect. Play some iteration of Space Hulk and you will get it. So the 14 points of the Genestealer against 14 points of a Marine makes sense. They are worthy enemies of each other. And it is quite a "classic" match in w40k.

Genestealers share a problem with many other units: they are units over-especialized in assaulting from reserves. They no longer can do it. Fix the "assault from reserves" rule and Genestealers are fixed. The "units coming from assault can be hit only with Snap Shots" fix is my favorite.

 da001 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Melissa isn't saying they need to be over powered, but more powerful than they currently are. So cheaper, better abilities. Etc. That would make them also a more viable choice

In the case of the Heldrake, it means less powerful, or more expensive. That would make it a viable option for me. Same for Riptides or Serpents. It is not "more powerful". It is balance.

And not losing units. And not needing any of the three Dataslates already confirmed for Tyranids: http://natfka.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/three-tyranid-dataslates-are-scheduled.html

If this succeeds, I would expect eight Ork key units, not four, not appearing in Codex: Orks. And many more nerfed to uselessness. Don´t worry, I am sure you will be able to play Orks thanks to the six Dataslates that will be scheduled for the month after the release.

Losing units? Blame chapter house et al for that. Now we will have to suck it up DLC style, and suffer whining from people who don't understand basic production economics...
Will you "need" them? Who knows

 da001 wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
More viable does not mean more powerful.

Making Genestealers 9-10 ppm would not make them more powerful. Each Genestealer would have the same statline and would kill just as much in melee. It would make them much more viable, however.

At the cost of going off-topic, and knowing your (evil) intentions of eventually fixing this in the Proposed Rules section, I would like to point out that costs reduction is usually a bad idea when fixing something.

Genestealers appeared first in Space Hulk. They are close combat total monsters. Normal Marines do not stand a chance in a claustrophobic environment such a Space Hulk, this is the reason they send Terminators. Fighting a Genestealer should be a terrifying prospect. Play some iteration of Space Hulk and you will get it. So the 14 points of the Genestealer against 14 points of a Marine makes sense. They are worthy enemies of each other. And it is quite a "classic" match in w40k.

Genestealers share a problem with many other units: they are units over-especialized in assaulting from reserves. They no longer can do it. Fix the "assault from reserves" rule and Genestealers are fixed. The "units coming from assault can be hit only with Snap Shots" fix is my favorite.

You absolutely nailed it. But if GW has decided to run with a certain ruleset, however good or bad it may be, they should rebalance the units in each codex respective to it, this should be the point of the codex, not just selling new dragon models. Because now Genestealers are useless for this entire edition.

Oh, I did not intend to actually do that. Just pointed out that points dropping Genestealers makes individual Genestealers be as powerful as currently, while simultaneously becoming more viable, thus proving that powerful =/= viable.

But the whole argument is a clusterfeth anyway and kinda pointless.

We'll see how I intend to fix Genies later over in Proposed Rules, but that's another topic.

I agree that just dropping points values is not ideal in their case.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Making Genestealers 9-10 ppm would not make them more powerful

Yes it would.

Getting the same thing cheaper is more powerful.

I think Melissa needs to take an English class from MWHistorian or read a dictionary.

Well no, both of you are right. The words mean different things, but in this context asking for "more viable units" and "more powerful units" is the same. It's just that we're making assumption that "more powerful" = "overpowered"

 Melissia wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Making Genestealers 9-10 ppm would not make them more powerful

Yes it would.

Getting the same thing cheaper is more powerful.

Or perhaps that it is priced correctly? Not all things magically become powerful when you drop their points cost...

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Some did get cheaper, although most still aren't good choices and the only units that got buffed were Venomthropes and Mawlocs.

This really depends wholly on the meta you play in. In the right meta every unit is a decent choice when you are not regularly playing against min-maxed netlists just out for a quick win. When your meta is not obsessed with the most cost effective units only everything sees light on the table and has an impact. Generally for me if I use a specific unit that someone else things is useless and it performs the duty I planned for it admirably when I chose it, then I really don't care if there was another unit in the codex that could have done the job just as well for cheaper. Had someone argue with me in a thread before that I was wrong for doing that because the most cost efficient choice was the only one you should make. Left me shaking my head...

Skriker

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Well no, both of you are right. The words mean different things, but in this context asking for "more viable units" and "more powerful units" is the same. It's just that we're making assumption that "more powerful" = "overpowered"

I don't normally comment because I barely play anymore, but people really. This debate is bad.

Power if 40k is almost completely about cost competitiveness. I could write rules for a monsterous creature that had an 8 in every state but if it cost 800 points to play it, no one would ever use it. Take Tactical Squads as an example. On their own tac squads are bad. They cost a lot for a stat line they only use half of and relatively to other troops in other books are not cost effective for what they do. You use them because in C:SM they are typically the best option available. That makes them viable because they are cost competitive to other options in the dex, but not necessarily powerful (i.e. what makes them viable is simply the fact that your other choice is a niche unit except in specialized lists).

Likewise, Termagaunts in the 5th ed book (I haven't read the 6th) were not that great on their own but were better than the other options making them viable. What made them powerful is that they enabled you to make a good HQ that was outcompeted vs the flygrant (i.e. less viable) more viable by moving its position in the FOC. The relative power of the Tervigon didn't change at all but its viability went up because it no longer competed with flygrants and had little competition in the troops slots, likewise even though nothing changed for the termagaunt they became both more powerful and more viable at the same time because relative to other choices they were better to start with and got even better because they let you move the tervigon.

A powerful unit is almost always viable but a viable unit is not always powerful. However making a units more viable typically entails increasing its relative power to other choices so yeah. If you want warriors to be more viable you have to make them more powerful either by making them worth their points (T5) or by bringing their points down. Unless they become cost competitive i.e. more powerful they will be worse than gaunts.

Your argument of Tac Marines doesn't make them "viable", it makes them "the least crappy of crappy choices".

Can they do what they are designed to do? Many people these days are saying "no, no they can not". This means the unit is not viable.

When you ask these people "What do they need to be viable?" you get one of two responses (in the main): Either they need to be buffed in some way (whether that's better saves in ranged combat, better range for damage output, or alterations to assault rules), or they need to be dirt-dirt cheap so you can field more of them.

This makes the unit either more powerful in its stat-line, or more powerful because of weight of fire and weight of numbers. This is often a situation where people begin to say that a given unit-type is "undercosted" for the numbers in which people can field them.

Can you imagine fielding Tac Marines at Guardsman costs? As the saying goes, quantity has a quality all its own.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Or perhaps that it is priced correctly? Not all things magically become powerful when you drop their points cost...

If something is overpriced and you reduce its price, you're increasing its power.

If one army paid five points for a meltagun and another paid 25 points, the latter army is less powerful in regards to its capacity to field meltaguns (and overall anti-tank capability).

You can call it semantics if you want, but this doublespeak is honestly bugging me, so I make no apologies out of making an issue over it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you know, I'll flat out admit it:

I want Orks to be more powerful.

I want tankbustas to be more powerful through better rules.

I want Ork anti-tank to be more powerful through new, cool units.

I want Ork Boyz to be more powerful through more options.

I want new units that can make certain lists more powerful, such as Kommando Bosses to build a sneaky Mork's Blood Axez force.

I want more vehicle options that allow me to build more tanks, thus making vehicle-oriented lists more powerful.

None of this says "I want my Orks ot be overpowered". But it does say I want them to be powerful.

A bit unbelievable really.


1. Mel gets into an argument over the (possible/multiple) meanings of viable vs powerful.
2. I point out that arguing semantics with her is pointless and that I won't be drawn into such an argument.
3. I get temp-banned for pointing this out.
4. The argument goes on, with people getting annoyed at the semantic-style of Mel's argument.

So basically exactly what I said would happen happened, and I got temp-banned for pointing out it would happen before it happened.

Class. Big thanks to the person who "reported" me. It wasn't you Mel, that much I know, so this isn't your fault.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A bit unbelievable really.


1. Mel gets into an argument over the (possible/multiple) meanings of viable vs powerful.
2. I point out that arguing semantics with her is pointless and that I won't be drawn into such an argument.
3. I get temp-banned for pointing this out.
4. The argument goes on, with people getting annoyed at the semantic-style of Mel's argument.

So basically exactly what I said would happen happened, and I got temp-banned for pointing out it would happen before it happened.

Class. Big thanks to the person who "reported" me. It wasn't you Mel, that much I know, so this isn't your fault.

That's beyond ridiculous. Especially due to the fact that she changed her original point of view over the course of the argument, originally it was that all Tyranid players are whiners and want an overpowered codex, by the end she is saying she just wants to point out that asking for useless units to become balanced involves a process of making them slightly stronger (yah Thanks mel, we figured), its blatantly obvious backpedalling and trying to escape moral defeat by arguing semantics (which is beyond childish) and all you did was quite accurately point out what she was doing.


Their point of view has to be really weak when they need to rely on technicalities and post reports to push it through, because the logic behind it = just isn't there.

Melissia wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hmmm, i shall wait and see what happens to my guard with the new dex and see how people react. But i still dont remember it being that bad whenever i had a glance. I shall wait and see then.

Guard has changed so much since I first started using them. Mind you, I'm one of the people that still refuses to use vendettaspam, so I'm weird.

It's not weird I have 1, just like my CSM have 1 heldrake, 1 Dark Eldar Razorwing, and I have only 2 Stormravens for BA. I like fliers, but real life price, and my dislike of spamming anything, means I run what I like. (hence my guard will always have ratlings.)

whembly wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I feel the same way about the endless, ceaseless whining.

I'm still not convinced that the whining ever really stopped, from back in second edition when I picked up my first models. It's just one long blur of whine.

No kidding...

I got back into 40k in early late 4th/ early 5th ed... I still remember how the Nob bikers were the ultimate cheese.

Then, it was Blood Angles with the fast spammed razorbacks/preds.

Then... it was Grey Knights who were nigh unstoppable...

The Necrons? Oh my... they couldn't be beaten.

o.O get the picture?

I, for one, am anxiously waiting for the next Ork Codex!

Well yeah but it's still true for GK and Necrons, and oh how to the GODS I wish neither existed.

Backfire wrote:Actually, in case of the Ork Codex, treatment similar to CSM and Tyranids "Copypaste old Codex with minor tuning and coupla new units" would work real well. Difference is that the old Ork Codex is actually very solid in its core, and needs only redoing some units to be good.

By contrast, re-write like Tau or Daemons would be terrible, since they'd probably make up all sorts of wacky rules and destroy what was good in the old book in the process.

You know what would be good for Daemons? Putting the entire list back into the CSM book where it belongs.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 da001 wrote:

And not losing units. And not needing any of the three Dataslates already confirmed for Tyranids: http://natfka.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/three-tyranid-dataslates-are-scheduled.html

If this succeeds, I would expect eight Ork key units, not four, not appearing in Codex: Orks. And many more nerfed to uselessness. Don´t worry, I am sure you will be able to play Orks thanks to the six Dataslates that will be scheduled for the month after the release.

Losing units? Blame chapter house et al for that. Now we will have to suck it up DLC style, and suffer whining from people who don't understand basic production economics...
Will you "need" them? Who knows

Yeah you are right! All blame Chapterhouse! How they dare to do something completely legal and not step back in fear when Mighty GW orders them to stop??

Thanks GW for punishing us all for this.

At the end, it is all our fault, because we shouldn´t have listened to Chapterhouse, nor allow our fellow players to fall to temptation. It should have been obvious that Chapterhouse was Evil, since it is a different company, regardless of what those silly laws said.

I think it is the time to confess that I used some Privateer Press´ Bile Thralls to count as Horrors in a Nurgle-only Daemons army. I am sick of myself, I deserve punishment. Punish me GW!! Bring on the day-one DLCs!! Obliterate my Codex!! Release the Ward!!

 Madcat87 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
If something is obvious it's obvious. Period.

Yes, but in the fine realm of "rules lawyering", "as written" is easier to prove than "as intended".

Rules lawyers are frequently an unpleasant breed of people.

Regardless, I actually kind of wonder how they'll adapt the Weirdboy to the new edition now that I think of it...

Giving Zogwort a BS would be a nice start.

I'll be a miracle if he and wazdakka are even IN the codex after parasite,spore pods and Doom.

Eh, I imagine he'll be in.

I wouldn't mind the DLC style thing if it was easier to get hold of. Even if you do bring it in you look like a complete jerk, bringing in some OP piece of gak no one else has access to.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
I wouldn't mind the DLC style thing if it was easier to get hold of. Even if you do bring it in you look like a complete jerk, bringing in some OP piece of gak no one else has access to.

They didn't have supplements last I played, when I read about them I was like "okay that's cool." Then I saw the price and I was "screw that." From what I hear they don't even do much but change the FOC around for some units, add some characters, and contain massive amounts of fluff.

From what I can tell from Farsight Enclave, they don't even change the points. Just add some IC's, a new unit and make bonding knife mandatory on those new spiffy crisis troops. Why the hell would I bother buying as much as a whole new full Codex for something I can decipher looking at a single list with certainty?

Talk about wasted opportunity. If they aggressively proved their supplements I'd be all behind it. Charge me $20, $25 not $50. That's insane.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
I wouldn't mind the DLC style thing if it was easier to get hold of. Even if you do bring it in you look like a complete jerk, bringing in some OP piece of gak no one else has access to.

They didn't have supplements last I played, when I read about them I was like "okay that's cool." Then I saw the price and I was "screw that." From what I hear they don't even do much but change the FOC around for some units, add some characters, and contain massive amounts of fluff.

From what I can tell from Farsight Enclave, they don't even change the points. Just add some IC's, a new unit and make bonding knife mandatory on those new spiffy crisis troops. Why the hell would I bother buying as much as a whole new full Codex for something I can decipher looking at a single list with certainty?

Talk about wasted opportunity. If they aggressively proved their supplements I'd be all behind it. Charge me $20, $25 not $50. That's insane.

Me: HEY AN IMPERIAL FISTS SUPPLEMENT
Imperial fists supplement: I'm 40 bucks and digital only. *COUGH*
Me: um I'll pass then.

And now digital only? That's dumb. Don't they only sell the books via iPad's and Kindles? Some of us are already burning our money on plastic with little left for useless gadgets

 LordofHats wrote:
And now digital only? That's dumb. Don't they only sell the books via iPad's and Kindles? Some of us are already burning our money on plastic with little left for useless gadgets

You get on computers to. But good look dragging your desktop down to your FLGS

Yep, printing out is so, so hard....

Ds001- missed the point by a mile

GW are a business selling models for a game. They produce cyclical sets of rules in print for an army.

The duration of the cycle means they either , in the pre DLC days, release one codex with all models available. Or, one with more options, but not all models available at launch. Now, all gaps are filled, and if it is economic to produce a plastic model , they can do so with DLC.

Chapter house et al undermined the core concept, by filling this gap before GW did. Now, I agree this is fairly stupid of GW, but also incredibly understandable, from a company viewpoint - they aren't cannibalising their own sales, in their eyes. If you haven't bought a X from chapter house but scratch built it,they think you will then buy the "real" GW one.

Your hyperbole just showed nothing but your lack of understanding.

Chapter house et al undermined the core concept, by filling this gap before GW did

Lack of understanding? If GW doesn't want players filling the gaps they create in their own market, they can't very well complain that players are doing something they don't. Either players create the model themselves or buy something to stand in.

GW entire business model is ultimately flawed (evident by the fact nearly every other table top company doesn't use it because they have one that makes sense). You can recognize their model is flawed or blame the end result of the system which only exists because the model is flawed.

Why people have this obsession with blaming Chapter House completely baffles me. GW overreached when it sued them and now people blame them for GW's own failures.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A bit unbelievable really.


1. Mel gets into an argument over the (possible/multiple) meanings of viable vs powerful.
2. I point out that arguing semantics with her is pointless and that I won't be drawn into such an argument.
3. I get temp-banned for pointing this out.
4. The argument goes on, with people getting annoyed at the semantic-style of Mel's argument.

So basically exactly what I said would happen happened, and I got temp-banned for pointing out it would happen before it happened.

Class. Big thanks to the person who "reported" me. It wasn't you Mel, that much I know, so this isn't your fault.

Yeah, welcome back... can we all just move on from the semantic arguments? Clearly we're all looking at this from different, irreconcilable contexts...

Depending on the extent at which it was done, I would actually really appreciate a "Tyranids treatment" for Blood Angels. The dex is actually pretty good. It just needs a lot of the good things reduced in price and I would like some new toys/kits. Baal Predators, dreads everywhere and Special characters are fun but I'd like something a little more unique. Maybe they'll still "just be red marines" but having some rapid redeployment options besides bikes/packs, Ravens and Drop pods would be awesome and fluffy.

 bocatt wrote:
Depending on the extent at which it was done, I would actually really appreciate a "Tyranids treatment" for Blood Angels. The dex is actually pretty good. It just needs a lot of the good things reduced in price and I would like some new toys/kits. Baal Predators, dreads everywhere and Special characters are fun but I'd like something a little more unique. Maybe they'll still "just be red marines" but having some rapid redeployment options besides bikes/packs, Ravens and Drop pods would be awesome and fluffy.

You want things removed, points cost wildly fluctuating and a general worsening of your wargear?

And no book powers? Or allies?

 LordofHats wrote:

Chapter house et al undermined the core concept, by filling this gap before GW did

Why people have this obsession with blaming Chapter House completely baffles me. GW overreached when it sued them and now people blame them for GW's own failures.

It's strange that people feel compelled to blame only GW or ]only Chapterhouse. They were both a little bit dodgy. Chapterhouse lifted GW ideas and sold them, using GW names, as in the (rather underwhelming and expensive) tervigon conversion we bought. However you look at it, it's leeching off someone else's IP. GW hugely over-reacted, and tried a stitch-up on their own artists. Neither one emerges with any credit.

Our army revolved around mycetic spores - they took ages to make, check 'em out in our sig. But you know what? We've had some great games with the new codex. Quite possible we could still get massacrted by Tau , but if one of the dataslates gives us a viable new build, maybe MC or flyer only we'll count the whole thing as pretty positive.

With orks, a new codex is only a real threat, if you have a very specific Ork army, optimised to the present codex, without other back up units. A bit like our Ork army...