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.

 DarkLink wrote:
The internal balance in a lot of new codices is pretty bad, though. The previous GK book allowed you to take basically anything in the codex as part of a competitive list. Now, half the army is basically worthless in that certain units completely outclass other units they compete with. Why would you ever, ever waste heavy slots on Purgation Squads when you can take Dreadknights? Why would you ever take a unit of Interceptors over a Dreadknight? Terminators as troops are straight up better than Strike Squads in virtually every way.

To be fair, old GK Codex was a one-in-a-million book of brilliance. The sheer amount of fun, awesome and exciting things you could make with henchmen alone was greater than the next best 5 or so codexes taken together.

Was it open to abuse? Probably. But if you could restrain yourself from being TFG, it was quite possibly the best, most diverse and most perfectly internally balanced 40K supplement ever written.

I don´t know if it´s some cultural factor that makes it so much of a hassle to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 for some users in different countries. What some people write makes it seem like you guys are sitting in a court room or a business meeting in order to come to an understanding about the match being played. Sounds a bit like there´s some overstatements being made tbh.

I haven´t encountered any issues or arguments regarding what kind of game will be played myself.

Basically it´s been a choice of either playing competitive armies or toning it down if someone has a fluffy theme army going, and that´s it. Tournaments have been easy, the TO sets the rules and you abide or you don´t participate.

Again, my personal experiences from a duration of 12 years and counting.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
The internal balance in a lot of new codices is pretty bad, though. The previous GK book allowed you to take basically anything in the codex as part of a competitive list. Now, half the army is basically worthless in that certain units completely outclass other units they compete with. Why would you ever, ever waste heavy slots on Purgation Squads when you can take Dreadknights? Why would you ever take a unit of Interceptors over a Dreadknight? Terminators as troops are straight up better than Strike Squads in virtually every way.

To be fair, old GK Codex was a one-in-a-million book of brilliance. The sheer amount of fun, awesome and exciting things you could make with henchmen alone was greater than the next best 5 or so codexes taken together.

Was it open to abuse? Probably. But if you could restrain yourself from being TFG, it was quite possibly the best, most diverse and most perfectly internally balanced 40K supplement ever written.

The last DE codex was also pretty awesomely balanced when it was released wasn't it? Nothing really over the top and the only unit not ever really taken was Mandrakes.

Wonderwolf wrote:
To be fair, old GK Codex was a one-in-a-million book of brilliance. The sheer amount of fun, awesome and exciting things you could make with henchmen alone was greater than the next best 5 or so codexes taken together.

Was it open to abuse? Probably. But if you could restrain yourself from being TFG, it was quite possibly the best, most diverse and most perfectly internally balanced 40K supplement ever written.

Did you mean the 5e codices, or the 6e codices?

Often, I think of the 5e books as the "best" codices, when paired with the rulebooks. However, when I look on it as a whole, the 7e codices with the 7e BRB feel pretty complete too, and it seems like they've addressed a number of the balance issues.

I quite like how in the new Blood Angels codex (I just got mine Friday night, yay!) at first glance. There seem to be many viable paths to a viable army

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t know if it´s some cultural factor that makes it so much of a hassle to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 for some users in different countries. What some people write makes it seem like you guys are sitting in a court room or a business meeting in order to come to an understanding about the match being played.

I haven´t encountered any issues or arguments regarding what kind of game will be played myself.

Basically it´s been a choice of either playing competitive armies or toning it down if someone has a fluffy theme army going, and that´s it. Tournaments have been easy, the TO sets the rules and you abide or you don´t participate.

Again, my personal experiences from a duration of 12 years and counting.

Something I've said before and I'll say again, the fact that any kind of discussion beyond point limit needs to happen before a game is a negative for 40k. Hypothetically you might come across someone who refuses to play you, or won't change their list you don't want to play against, and we can't all be picky about who we play. So you might end up either not playing, or having a crap time because your lovingly themed, converted fluffy army is being decimated. The fact this is a possibility shows the issues with the rules as they are currently.

 ImAGeek wrote:


The last DE codex was also pretty awesomely balanced when it was released wasn't it? Nothing really over the top and the only unit not ever really taken was Mandrakes.

A lot of DE players moaned about how the codex was toned down, and I actually saw a drop in the number of DE players at my FLGS (a lot of them went SM >.<. However, it actually compelled me to start collecting Dark Eldar

Since they are going to be all nicely painted though (no shortcuts; every model, even troops will be display or nearly display quality), it's going to be a loooooong time before I have a playable army

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t know if it´s some cultural factor that makes it so much of a hassle to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 for some users in different countries. What some people write makes it seem like you guys are sitting in a court room or a business meeting in order to come to an understanding about the match being played.

I haven´t encountered any issues or arguments regarding what kind of game will be played myself.

Basically it´s been a choice of either playing competitive armies or toning it down if someone has a fluffy theme army going, and that´s it. Tournaments have been easy, the TO sets the rules and you abide or you don´t participate.

Again, my personal experiences from a duration of 12 years and counting.

Something I've said before and I'll say again, the fact that any kind of discussion beyond point limit needs to happen before a game is a negative for 40k. Hypothetically you might come across someone who refuses to play you, or won't change their list you don't want to play against, and we can't all be picky about who we play. So you might end up either not playing, or having a crap time because your lovingly themed, converted fluffy army is being decimated. The fact this is a possibility shows the issues with the rules as they are currently.

As it stands though, aside from LoWs which is an easy discussion to have, the really problematic lists have largely been reduced to two maybe three books. That's what's being brought up here. The balance trend has imo become very positive. If it continues then your concerns, which are already pretty minor, may become a non issue.

 Las wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t know if it´s some cultural factor that makes it so much of a hassle to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 for some users in different countries. What some people write makes it seem like you guys are sitting in a court room or a business meeting in order to come to an understanding about the match being played.

I haven´t encountered any issues or arguments regarding what kind of game will be played myself.

Basically it´s been a choice of either playing competitive armies or toning it down if someone has a fluffy theme army going, and that´s it. Tournaments have been easy, the TO sets the rules and you abide or you don´t participate.

Again, my personal experiences from a duration of 12 years and counting.

Something I've said before and I'll say again, the fact that any kind of discussion beyond point limit needs to happen before a game is a negative for 40k. Hypothetically you might come across someone who refuses to play you, or won't change their list you don't want to play against, and we can't all be picky about who we play. So you might end up either not playing, or having a crap time because your lovingly themed, converted fluffy army is being decimated. The fact this is a possibility shows the issues with the rules as they are currently.

As it stands though, aside from LoWs which is an easy discussion to have, the really problematic lists have largely been reduced to two maybe three books. That's what's being brought up here. The balance trend has imo become very positive. If it continues then your concerns, which are already pretty minor, may become a non issue.

I agree that the balance has been better lately, although at the cost of a lot of flavour (but that's been discussed already). I'm not sure it's fair to say the concerns are minor, I'm not in a position to pick and choose games, my area is barren gamer wise, and I want to enjoy the games I do get chance to play.

 Las wrote:

As it stands though, aside from LoWs which is an easy discussion to have, the really problematic lists have largely been reduced to two maybe three books. That's what's being brought up here. The balance trend has imo become very positive. If it continues then your concerns, which are already pretty minor, may become a non issue.

Indeed -- I suspect that as revised codices come out, certain lists that are highly abused will be made less attractive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:

I agree that the balance has been better lately, although at the cost of a lot of flavour (but that's been discussed already). I'm not sure it's fair to say the concerns are minor, I'm not in a position to pick and choose games, my area is barren gamer wise, and I want to enjoy the games I do get chance to play.

That sucks :(

You could always try starting up a new gaming league

 Las wrote:
the really problematic lists have largely been reduced to two maybe three books. That's what's being brought up here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnF2IoRhqbw

 Peregrine wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
You replied to Niirus sentence which was about Unbound by saying opponents consent is just a houserule, and that Unbound is standard. I even supplied both your quotes as you can see from my previous post. No misquoting whatsoever, those quotes were next to eachother in your own post aswell and you directly responded to Niiru regarding Unbound. Just stop, you´re just making yourself look even worse when you can´t admit you were wrong.

READ THE POSTS BEFORE TALKING ABOUT THEM.

Seriously, why are you having so much trouble with this? Read the ENTIRE context of the post, not just the part that lets you "prove" I was wrong about something. Here, I'll even repost the important context that you're ignoring:

As far as I'm aware, the default position on the current rules is "1 FOC, 1 Allies" and thats it (at the 1500-2000pt level). Maybe a lord of war, depending on your play group. Anything other than this, any gamer would/should know to ask for opponents consent.

This is clearly establishing a "tier" system of officialness/permission where battle-forged armies (potentially with other requirements) are the default, and everything else requires SPECIAL permission beyond the permission required to play the "default" army. And this is a house rule, not a rule published by GW.

No, I understand what he is referring to here, he is saying that my stance on the "standard game type" is a house rule, and not an official layout as written by the almighty GW.

This is true, as the official GW ruling is that ""Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies,... etc".

However, my point was that, from the perspective of the players of the game, the "standard" is the battleforged list. Generally this is 1FOC+1Allies, but it can vary. It is definitely not unbound though.

And while this is technically a "house rule", it is a common one. Tournaments, game stores, home friendlies: all of them seem to default to this. So yeh sure its a house rule, but its a pretty big house.

I know you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and this is the internet and I should just ignore you... but attitudes like this bother me. Maybe it's cos I'm a grown up, who liked to play this game for fun, and so I have my own standards of fair play. I will admit to writing up a couple of my own unbound lists, but they have variety and are generally either fluffy or fit a theme. And if I showed the lists to an opponent, I'm confident they would agree to play them, if only because they look fun.

I would always have a backup list though, just in case. A battleforged one.


Back to the actual topic, I am holding judgement until after the tau and eldar codices are released. I would be sad to see Iyanden lists like mine die, as I really like the wraithguard and wraithlord models. But if wraithguard can no longer be made troops (which is the common thread for all the new codices) then they will be a bit trickier to make a competitive list with. Or not, it depends on what else is changed.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Las wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t know if it´s some cultural factor that makes it so much of a hassle to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 for some users in different countries. What some people write makes it seem like you guys are sitting in a court room or a business meeting in order to come to an understanding about the match being played.

I haven´t encountered any issues or arguments regarding what kind of game will be played myself.

Basically it´s been a choice of either playing competitive armies or toning it down if someone has a fluffy theme army going, and that´s it. Tournaments have been easy, the TO sets the rules and you abide or you don´t participate.

Again, my personal experiences from a duration of 12 years and counting.

Something I've said before and I'll say again, the fact that any kind of discussion beyond point limit needs to happen before a game is a negative for 40k. Hypothetically you might come across someone who refuses to play you, or won't change their list you don't want to play against, and we can't all be picky about who we play. So you might end up either not playing, or having a crap time because your lovingly themed, converted fluffy army is being decimated. The fact this is a possibility shows the issues with the rules as they are currently.

As it stands though, aside from LoWs which is an easy discussion to have, the really problematic lists have largely been reduced to two maybe three books. That's what's being brought up here. The balance trend has imo become very positive. If it continues then your concerns, which are already pretty minor, may become a non issue.

I agree that the balance has been better lately, although at the cost of a lot of flavour (but that's been discussed already). I'm not sure it's fair to say the concerns are minor, I'm not in a position to pick and choose games, my area is barren gamer wise, and I want to enjoy the games I do get chance to play.

True, I apologize for making that claim. I think the game is in a brief transitionary phase and people who refuse to acknowledge that and insist on putting down their 5 WAve Serpents outside of a pre ordained competetive environment against an opponent that wants to play in the power context of what is now literally the rest of the factions probably isn't worth playing in the first place.

 Las wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

I agree that the balance has been better lately, although at the cost of a lot of flavour (but that's been discussed already). I'm not sure it's fair to say the concerns are minor, I'm not in a position to pick and choose games, my area is barren gamer wise, and I want to enjoy the games I do get chance to play.

True, I apologize for making that claim. I think the game is in a brief transitionary phase and people who refuse to acknowledge that and insist on putting down their 5 WAve Serpents outside of a pre ordained competetive environment against an opponent that wants to play in the power context of what is now literally the rest of the factions probably isn't worth playing in the first place.

No need to apologise. It is admittedly probably quite an isolated issue and in the grand scheme of things 'I can't play with my toy soldiers much' is a minor concern.

Yeah people like that aren't worth playing against. It's just annoying because the rules allow them to do it, and we know from the odd codex that GW CAN make balanced Codexes (although they may have been flukes..) they just don't seem to care about the game to sit down and fix the issues with it, a lot of which are fairly minor but when they all add up... It reminds me of an awesome video game that's filled with annoying little bugs. It doesn't take that much away from the game but it does start to grind your gears and it's so easily fixed.

Niiru wrote:
I know you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and this is the internet and I should just ignore you... but attitudes like this bother me. Maybe it's cos I'm a grown up, who liked to play this game for fun, and so I have my own standards of fair play. I will admit to writing up a couple of my own unbound lists, but they have variety and are generally either fluffy or fit a theme. And if I showed the lists to an opponent, I'm confident they would agree to play them, if only because they look fun.

LOL. I guess that's me, too :| I know I should shut up and move on, but I can't seem to do that, sigh.

I believe that writing unbound lists the way you've described them is pretty much the reason the possibility exists. Frankly, I never have an issue with a list that isn't strictly battle-forged, as long as it's not too silly. However, as you say, most people adhere to battle-forged as the standard, which is a good thing, especially amongst relative strangers.

Niiru wrote:
Just because they now give you the option to play unbound lists (allowing for you to make a fluffy list of your own, and in theory i dont dislike this), doesnt mean that you are forced to play them.

Well if the choice is play a game you don't enjoy or not get any games in, then yeah, I guess no one is forcing anyone to play a game but, is that good for the game? Should someone be content simply with the fact that they're free to choose between not playing or playing but not enjoying themselves? Should someone be content with that arrangement? I could just as easily say "if you find the rules too restrictive feel free to house rule whatever you want" without tearing away at basic game structure. Friends who were long time opponents and trusted each other were doing all sorts of adventurous things without that insanity being codified into the rules as perfect strangers wouldn't naturally be better off starting with, say, missionary position before getting too adventurous. What we have is a legally codified ideal that getting freaky and weird is good, but only done properly because the rules allow you to apparently do things that are wrong without knowing it. I mean rules are meant to be broken, why not still have some for those who wish to follow them?

Niiru wrote:
I, and the people I play against, dont use unbound. There is plenty of room for fun lists within the FOC's that are available, and the forced limitations reduces the possibility of cheesiness.

You don't need to play against unbound to see the insanity. Fun lists are subjective, anyone can play the "you're having fun wrong" game. Restricting detachments can help curb "cheesiness" but the sad reality is if one is financially inclined they can spam, a lot, of whatever they want. Highlander to me is far closer to my ideal for the game than free market 40k.

Niiru wrote:
This seems self evident to me. Everyone moans about how unbound is unfair and is killing the game... except that there's no rule that says you have to play unbound. In fact as far as I'm aware its commonly held as being a "With opponents consent" condition. Much like special characters used to be back in the day.

No, everyone moans that their super heavy or formation isn't allowed in a 1500pt tournament and lose their mind that only one combined arms detachment is allowed. Unbound is just the white wash, the red herring cooked up by jervis as something to point to as assurance that it could be somehow worse, battle forged is the real problem. Event the most permissive play groups and tournaments generally limit the amount of detachments, essentially the amount your army can transform into a pile of stuff, a collection so to speak.

People are leaving this game for greener pastures for a reason and it has nothing to do with consent and everything to do with the quality of the game and with how divisive it is to have to "build a game" every time you meet a new opponent. The game is too bloated, too regional and you risk alienating yourself even for voicing your preferences, and that cuts both ways. People are lucky to be able to find a group or set of a opponents they gel with. A wide open rule set turns the already nerve wracking experience of meeting new people and spending protracted periods of time in close proximity into a socio economic/political minefield where we're suspicious of each other and make assumptions, often baseless because of what army or units someone fields.

Niiru wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the default position on the current rules is

The default position is be on the same page, that's essentially it. That's not a ruleset nor a format and it's about as useful as informing gamers that they should also agree to date and time in the future in order to have a game.

The end result is no one disagrees that it is important to have a talk with a new perspective opponent about "what type of game" they want to have, but lament this because it used to simply be "how many points?". It can now be often unpleasant experience.

Niiru wrote:
Anything other than this, any gamer would/should know to ask for opponents consent.

Culture is not a replacement for a ruleset. Every game is with consent, they'll either play you or they won't.

Niiru wrote:


If you are having issues, then I suspect you're playing against 12 year olds in pick up games.

I'm having issues because there's fewer and fewer people playing period and the ones that are left started in 7th and think 5 robots is an army. I've been having issues since 6th, the biggest being friends are leaving the hobby and I can only shine so much gak and put on a rosie face for so long.

Niiru wrote:
I suggest taking them by the shoulder, and teaching them the error of their ways in a calm and gentle tone.

You would wouldn't you, well tell you what man, you can speculate all you want that my problem is I'm playing 12 year olds, this might shock you, but my problem is I'm playing what they're calling 40k right now, and I'm struggling to make some sort of game out of it.

I love this game, but it's hurting and this might shock you, but it's not players at fault, it's the people tasked making rules for the game.

Niiru wrote:
Preferably without looking like you're about to molest them.

I'll defer to your expertise on the matter.






To bring us back to the topic, being the balance of the newest codices, I think it's only possible to conceive of their relative strength and weaknesses in the context of a game where one codex and only one fought another at a time. It's a bit like the people who are very positive about the new dark eldar dex as you realize half their list is just eldar. It's hard for armies to have much character or identity in a system that allows for failry absurd combinations. It's all one big codex unless you reel it back and put some limits and rationalize that there actually used to be a distinction between apoc and 40k.

In the context of the highlander format, I'm stoked that maybe in the end we'll have a bunch of blander codex's but it will feel a bit more balanced and we'll see more variance to the armies people play. Eldar and tau players must dread their new codex's.

 Crablezworth wrote:

I dunno, I mean it's a shrinking community, I don't really have that many regular opponents, I don't want to offend anyone, but I also don't want to give people the impression I enjoy playing against anything under the sun when I really don't. Setting up games just feels too political now, it used to be so much simpler communicate and be on the same page.

I haven't found a gaming group out here yet, so all my games in 6th and 7th have been among friends, or have been demo/starter games for friends who are interested in wargaming. That said, I can only imagine what it'd be like at the GW in town. Popped in a few times and wasn't exactly thrilled to see what was going on there.

I am missing the foc swaps, that's some blandification I could do without, especially as an ork player . The real joke isn't unbound, it's battle forged.

Unbound is a sad replacement for FoC swaps. However, the different FoC we're getting with supplements are cool, and really is the solution for having different armies and more options without going full slow with Unbound.

Absolutely not and I think that's what is so cruel about the way they're doing the supplements. The reason the marine dex had such a good reception was the same thing that's worked so well for a lot of beloved codex's, multiple factions present in one book, multiple play styles and rules. A sense of identity. But at the same time, internal balance rears its ugly head, I know I use white scars traits most of the time and that's simply because of how crazy good hit and run is. I gotta say, it's not that the fluff is unwelcome but paying 60 dollars for a book with 2 pages of rules and a bunch of superfluous stuff in terms of functionality (one isn't required to read the additional fluff to be able to build operate the army). Look at the farsight enclave book, You could literally commit the relevant portions to memory and be able to play them with just the tau empire book. They all cost a ton but the level of value varies drastically. I'm almost embarrassed for gw with stuff like the legion of the damned auto lose army,

I'd be a lot happier with GW if rules only books/downloads were released and at a very low price, if not free. I enjoy fluff and pretty pictures, but sometime all I want/need is a book or a few pages with the relevant rules. As an example, I think Knights are cool, and I'd like to have the rules around for if I ever one day decide to make a Knight force. However, I refuse to shell out $60 for what amounts to two pages of half baked rules. Same goes for the Scions supplement.

I'm fine with them selling a book of fluff and art, though I think they could stand to come down in price significantly too.

The amount of relevant content (rules to be able to play them in the game errr "shared experience") varies drastically, and I think they've blurred the line too much between "hey, if you like allies here's some more" and "hey, here's a new flavour of an existing army that can stand on it's own because it draws most or all of its units from its parent codex but does things a little differently".

Knights have one unit effectively, with two wargear loadouts. Scions have no new units that aren't covered in the IG book, and have some new orders and detachments that could fit on a page. I don't think its unreasonable to expect stuff like that to appear within its parent codex so that you get a little more bang for your buck.

Shame. With GW its often a case of great ideas marred by poor execution, or one step forward, two steps back. The codices being better balanced externally is nice, but still have pretty poor internal balance, while losing out on flavour. Supplements are a good idea, but are way too costly and contain too little crunch to be really worth buying.

I have mixed feelings for the Guard 7th update. I imagine it'll be mostly the same, but you can never be quite sure these days.

 Blacksails wrote:

I'd be a lot happier with GW if rules only books/downloads were released and at a very low price, if not free. I enjoy fluff and pretty pictures, but sometime all I want/need is a book or a few pages with the relevant rules. As an example, I think Knights are cool, and I'd like to have the rules around for if I ever one day decide to make a Knight force. However, I refuse to shell out $60 for what amounts to two pages of half baked rules. Same goes for the Scions supplement.

I'm fine with them selling a book of fluff and art, though I think they could stand to come down in price significantly too.

My ideal situation would be:

1. Rule book edition every 3-4 years @ $75 USD
2. Imperium Army Lists Compendium for all IoM, printed every year @ $75 USD
3. Xenos Army Lists Compendium for all alien races, printed every year @ $75 USD
4. A set of fluff books that are updated every 5 years or so, at whatever price. Extra scenarios or campaign-style stuff in them

Tau can be good.

Eldar is irredeemably OP as an army and has eradicated anything resembling balance.

Eldar is not at all fun to play IMO. If the Eldar codex were to be removed tomorrow the game's balance would begin to improve tenfold.

But yeah SM is pretty balanced. Nowhere near as good or fun as HH lists.

Eldar is not at all fun to play IMO. If the Eldar codex were to be removed tomorrow the game's balance would begin to improve tenfold.

But if you did that no one would take dark eldar. Dark eldar work, because they can eldar as battlebrothers.

Are you talking about a Grey Knights CAD with Space Marine AD Centurions in Space Wolves/Blood Angels AD Drop Pods vs. singular Astra Militarum CAD?

yes or simple GK builds that take 3 NDKS instead of 2 and ally. and 2 GK libbies instead of tigurius.

I 100% agree with the OP and I have to say, that I really love the way GW is going with the game. There will always be people who have a reason to complain, but for me the trick is to simply ignore these people since it is impossible to please everyone.

I play Orks in 7th Edition and the games I had against Dark Eldar, both in a friendly and tournament environment, where the most balanced, most fun, and most intense games I ever had in WH40k and I loved them!

It´s wonderful when you have to be concentrated until the very end, when everything is possible until the very end, and when at last one dice will rule them all.

With that in mind I hate it when a new codex is released and everyone is just like: "The new codex is nice, but guess what? It will lose hard to Tau and Eldar" No gak Sherlock! But it will be pretty decent and fun to play against the other 7th Edition codices.

What I also see in this thread is that the players who played back in 3th, 4th or 5th edition are the hardest to please because they liked what they had back then, and formations, allies, fliers and all of these are just nothing for them. For me, who started with the 6th Edition, I like all these things.

I remember when Unbound wasn´t released and just announced, and everyone was raging over it. To be honest I never played or saw a single unbound game, except the one where a super new player wanted to play with detachments, but since he was so new and fresh to the game, he ended up with unbound in a not cheesy way. Every big tournament that is not directly hosted by a GW has unbound banned anyway.

So to make a long story short, I like the way the game is going, and I hope that Tau, Eldar and to some degree even Space Marines will get hit by the nerf bat, to bring them back in line to the other 7h edition codices, because it’s a hell lot of fun to play the game right now.

Talys wrote:


My ideal situation would be:

1. Rule book edition every 3-4 years @ $75 USD
2. Imperium Army Lists Compendium for all IoM, printed every year @ $75 USD
3. Xenos Army Lists Compendium for all alien races, printed every year @ $75 USD
4. A set of fluff books that are updated every 5 years or so, at whatever price. Extra scenarios or campaign-style stuff in them

Take off roughly $50 from your list, and I'd agree with you.

I don't think a rulebook needs to sell for more than $50. Many on the market are around the $25, and others are offered for free. Same goes for army lists.

At least you hope they get brought in line. It's at least a step in the right direction.

Thing is, most of the 6th books are reasonably well set against one another too.

Then you have the brain farts like Tau and Eldar that spoil it for everyone.

I would love for 7th to be the edition where they have a chance to get all the books operating off a roughly similar base line, but until those two books are a memory, all we have is a bunch of reasonable books and those two.

I have ambivalent feelings about it.

Like Crablezworth mentioned; if 40k had been a game between two codexes, it would have been awesome and normal units of dudes would be at the centre of attention, but since this is not what the game is currently, the effect is the opposite. Codexes get toned down, but there are still abominations that make so many things flat out irrelevant. Until Apocalypse goes back into its corner, nothing else really matters.

At least Superheavies can, in the main, simply be not played if the players don't wish to.

When the only transport in the book is one of the most imbalanced units in the game, it's a whole different prospect to correct.

Maybe the FW ones. But withe escalation being part of the core rules the ctan and the eldar titan are no questions asked.

Of course they're "questions asked" but then, you post like you're the most helpless person in the world and are powerless to affect the world around you in any way, so wouldn't expect you to get that.

Makumba wrote:
Maybe the FW ones. But withe escalation being part of the core rules the ctan and the eldar titan are no questions asked.

If the ctan and Revenant are "core rules" and no questions asked then so are the FW superheavies.

No I think Dark Eldar was a terrible codex with a huge chunk of the army list (wyches) unusable. Whats meant to be a glasshammer assault army can only be used as a shooting army.

Plus, no skyfire and aweful fliers.

Fauk wrote:
I play Orks in 7th Edition and the games I had against Dark Eldar, both in a friendly and tournament environment, where the most balanced, most fun, and most intense games I ever had in WH40k and I loved them!

That's one data point, but let me offer mine: most of the games of 7th I've played have (even ones I've won) have felt like the outcome had way more to do with GW's balance issues, most of them new things in 7th, than who played a better game. 5th and 6th had their problems, but 7th feels so much worse.

I remember when Unbound wasn´t released and just announced, and everyone was raging over it. To be honest I never played or saw a single unbound game, except the one where a super new player wanted to play with detachments, but since he was so new and fresh to the game, he ended up with unbound in a not cheesy way. Every big tournament that is not directly hosted by a GW has unbound banned anyway.

So unbound is ok because everyone realized that it's a stupid idea and refused to play against it?