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.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

*snip*

GW can try to shove crap like the Crimson Slaughter down our throats as much as they want, but they haven't specifically invalidated the old fluff yet (and if they have I'd like to see examples, so I can finally sever any ties to caring about 40k).

*snip*

I also think one possible way to handle renegades and recent traitors would be a supplement that specifically allowed you to ally the loyalist and chaos/daemon codexes, with reasonable limitations on the units you could use and a new "chapter tactic" to represent the loyalists' fall. That lets recent traitors keep some of their equipment, but gain access to some more appropriate allied units.

Well, actually the Crimson Slaughter sup is not bad I think. It conveys that whole "voices in my head tell me to kill someone"-feeling of the chapter quite nicely methinks. If demon-posessed, half-crazed maniaks are your thing, this is the army list to go for. Much more flavour than the vanilla dex or the black legion supplement (aka "supplement: nothing special").

I think GW should give chapter tactics to the CSM. Hell, 50% of the Black Legion supplement can summarized as "give veterans of the long war to all who can take it". Make that free - bam, one chapter tactic done.
There should be at least some ways to represent the more prominent factions...

It's extremely obvious at this point that there are armies GW cares about, and their are armies GW emphatically does not care about, at least not in this generation.

Loyalist SM, Orks and Eldar have always received a fair amount of love. Consistent releases, generally have stronger rules and a strong fluff presence. Even the current Ork 'dex cut a lot of previously viable builds, it created several new ones, layered on the formation thick and provided a fair number of good rules. No Klan customization, but really, only vanilla Marines have customization anymore, and they stand a decent chance of losing it next book, mark my words.

Those three armies, and Tyranids to a point (but they got tossed around so much with their core codex it's almost hilarious) see consistent attention and releases from GW.

And then you've got everyone else.

Guard, Chaos, Sisters, Necrons to a lesser extent, they follow the "one and done" approach. Shove a few models out, right a rulebook which could be either good or bad, give as little customization as possible, 2 dimensional fluff and call it a day.

More broadly speaking though, I think you lot have hit on something with the "NPC" races. I'd argue, however, that everyone BUT Loyalist Space Marines are the NPCs in GW's eyes. Loyalist marines generate the revenue, or so they claim, make up half the players, so they claim (and is probably true more broadly; my club has few marines, but boy does the one GW have a lot of them) so they get the customization, supplements on top of the customization, the most thought-out and internally balanced rules, most consistent releases, largest model selection, fewest old, outdated models, etc.

Even Eldar have plenty of 2nd and 3rd edition models in their main line up, and they're still ridiculously overpowered to make it not even funny. Yet every colour of the rainbow of Power Armour is well taken care of, provided you are loyal to the Immortal God Emperor.

Chaos? They're an afterthought. Some of the sculptors clearly still care about them, going by the Dark Vengeance marines and new Raptors (and some less so, Dinobots and Helturkey ahoy) as does Forgeworld, but GW prime? Throw them on the pyre with the Imperialum Spacicus Redshirtsicus.

I would say that Guard are among the best loved, while Orks are not. Guard consistently get new stuff and a fairly-competitive book every edition. Orks consistently get goofy stuff with things moved around for no real reason - more like Chaos.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
It's extremely obvious at this point that there are armies GW cares about, and their are armies GW emphatically does not care about, at least not in this generation.

Loyalist SM, Orks and Eldar have always received a fair amount of love. Consistent releases, generally have stronger rules and a strong fluff presence. Even the current Ork 'dex cut a lot of previously viable builds, it created several new ones, layered on the formation thick and provided a fair number of good rules. No Klan customization, but really, only vanilla Marines have customization anymore, and they stand a decent chance of losing it next book, mark my words.

Those three armies, and Tyranids to a point (but they got tossed around so much with their core codex it's almost hilarious) see consistent attention and releases from GW.

And then you've got everyone else.

Guard, Chaos, Sisters, Necrons to a lesser extent, they follow the "one and done" approach. Shove a few models out, right a rulebook which could be either good or bad, give as little customization as possible, 2 dimensional fluff and call it a day.

More broadly speaking though, I think you lot have hit on something with the "NPC" races. I'd argue, however, that everyone BUT Loyalist Space Marines are the NPCs in GW's eyes. Loyalist marines generate the revenue, or so they claim, make up half the players, so they claim (and is probably true more broadly; my club has few marines, but boy does the one GW have a lot of them) so they get the customization, supplements on top of the customization, the most thought-out and internally balanced rules, most consistent releases, largest model selection, fewest old, outdated models, etc.

Even Eldar have plenty of 2nd and 3rd edition models in their main line up, and they're still ridiculously overpowered to make it not even funny. Yet every colour of the rainbow of Power Armour is well taken care of, provided you are loyal to the Immortal God Emperor.

Chaos? They're an afterthought. Some of the sculptors clearly still care about them, going by the Dark Vengeance marines and new Raptors (and some less so, Dinobots and Helturkey ahoy) as does Forgeworld, but GW prime? Throw them on the pyre with the Imperialum Spacicus Redshirtsicus.

The Hellturkey is a nice model for what it's worth. Rules aside, the sculpt as such is detailed and nice. Does it fit the rest of the product line? rather no. Does it look good as a standalone display piece? Aye.

Also, I think the SoB deserve their own very special category of negligence by GW. But I wouldn't have pinned the guards down as a neglected faction. With the effective loss of any other troops but cadians they sure took a beating, but I think they maintain quite a nice line still.

I considered having a section of "once loved," which I'd put Chaos and Guard.

Gauging development of the Guard line, we went from 4th edition ultra-customization, but mediocre codex strength to good codex strength, little customization, and godawful internal balance (but a bunch of new plastic kits for 5th). 6th rolls around, lose what little customization is left, maintain awful internal balance, leaves most powerful builds alone, nerfs other builds, new models range from atrocious (Taurox) to lazy (Wyvern/Hydra "dual-kit") and they remove one of the most loved Guard models, the Kasrkin, for super-expensive alright looking, but monopose plastics (Scions).

Guard keeps on trucking through inertia and huge presence with aftermarket produces, from Mad Robot, Maximini, Victoria and many others, and consistent Forgeworld love. The Guard is still loved by many, but GW's handling of them certainly doesn't indicate it.

Orks at least got the awesome, but silly-expensive Flash Gitz kit, the 'Naughts and the Kannons; super overpriced like everything else (remember, the Taurox is smaller than a Chimera but more expensive), and the codex certainly changed dramatically, with running an elite army kicked in the teeth, hard, but Orks remain Orks; they didn't go super-random like Daemons, nor did they lose the aesthetic strengths we all know and love, and got plenty of good rules. Locally at least, Orks have been performing quite well; placing well in tournaments, but also being fun in more relaxed settings, with the Ork players continuing to terrify with the Magic players with enthusiastic "WAAAAAAGH!"s.

Guard is now about as present as Chaos, with both players sharing a distinct kind of ennui regarding their armies; "Yeah, I could make a decent list around Leman Russes+mechvets/Plague marines + Helturkeys, but that's not what I want to do with my x thousands of points worth of stuff, I guess I'll just play something else..."

 MajorStoffer wrote:
I considered having a section of "once loved," which I'd put Chaos and Guard.

Gauging development of the Guard line, we went from 4th edition ultra-customization, but mediocre codex strength to good codex strength, little customization, and godawful internal balance (but a bunch of new plastic kits for 5th). 6th rolls around, lose what little customization is left, maintain awful internal balance, leaves most powerful builds alone, nerfs other builds, new models range from atrocious (Taurox) to lazy (Wyvern/Hydra "dual-kit") and they remove one of the most loved Guard models, the Kasrkin, for super-expensive alright looking, but monopose plastics (Scions).

Guard keeps on trucking through inertia and huge presence with aftermarket produces, from Mad Robot, Maximini, Victoria and many others, and consistent Forgeworld love. The Guard is still loved by many, but GW's handling of them certainly doesn't indicate it.

Orks at least got the awesome, but silly-expensive Flash Gitz kit, the 'Naughts and the Kannons; super overpriced like everything else (remember, the Taurox is smaller than a Chimera but more expensive), and the codex certainly changed dramatically, with running an elite army kicked in the teeth, hard, but Orks remain Orks; they didn't go super-random like Daemons, nor did they lose the aesthetic strengths we all know and love, and got plenty of good rules. Locally at least, Orks have been performing quite well; placing well in tournaments, but also being fun in more relaxed settings, with the Ork players continuing to terrify with the Magic players with enthusiastic "WAAAAAAGH!"s.

Guard is now about as present as Chaos, with both players sharing a distinct kind of ennui regarding their armies; "Yeah, I could make a decent list around Leman Russes+mechvets/Plague marines + Helturkeys, but that's not what I want to do with my x thousands of points worth of stuff, I guess I'll just play something else..."

Good analysis, have an exalt.

But can you blame the people for wanting to build their desired faction and still be able to at least make a decent build instead of using the 3,5 units that are worth their points regardless of fluff and aesthetics?

And yeah, those damn flash gitz. I've been looking forward to see good models for them and I really do like the approach (10 out of 10) and the model aesthetics (8 out of 10, but that's just my personal opinion) but they cost more for 5 inf units than lots of armor for other factions. It's ridiculous.

Of course not, I'm completely fed up with GW's handling of Guard and Chaos. I'm a guard player primarily, and I have to remind myself to not look at the 4th ed codex, as I always get depressed seeing what was, and I've at least got Forgeworld in my corner for my Death Korps. And as Chaos was once my primary adversary, I bemoan their continual decline. Every single Chaos player I know, save on who's too stubborn (and is an amazing painter and naturally wants to keep putting stuff on the table) have all got different armies. They still call and identify themselves as Chaos players, but they don't want to even think about their, in some cases, 37,000 points worth of Chaos.

As everyone's favourite spinning Commissar pointed out (for fear of getting the letters mixed up) pointed out, the army lost it's soul. Chaos and Guard in particular really don't have a soul to their armies anymore, just a few key units which are effective, and can make a decent army around, but you can never really make the army you want and even pretend to have fun. I honestly don't mind losing with a subpar army if it's a)the army I want it to be and b) there's at least a reasonable chance of winning beyond the enemy rolling 1s for the entire game, and if you avoid the common wisdom with Chaos, that is what happens (unless you're playing against me, common wisdom be damned, I run individual squads of normal bloody guardsmen!).

The current string of codexes don't make me confident in another Chaos book, or any other book for that matter; if you're lucky they'll be a random smattering of nonsensical nerfs and buffs and you'll lose all force-org modifications. If you're unlucky, they'll nerf everything that made the army unique or the core, iconic playstyle in favour of something completely different and maybe drip-feed you some super-expensive compartmentalized DLC rules to make the army pseudo-competitive but still not give you the flavour of the army back, ala Dark Eldar, Tyranids and now Blood Angels.

Necrons will tell whether or not that trend will continue.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
You're still missing the point. The point is not whether the CSM codex properly represents X, Y or Z. The point is we're not supposed to care. They're the badguys - that's all you need to know about them. They're the faceless mooks who are only there to give the goodguys a reason to show up and save the day. Who cares why they're armed with autocannons?

That maybe GW's perspective but its dismissive, condescending, and insincere. I don't demand perfection and I don't expect every thing "I want"; I just expect GW to do what they say they're doing and not just pay lip service to their own concepts for the sake of being lazy.
......

Fair enough, but this is where the disconnect happens. You expect GW to do what they say they're doing, and they're not going to do that. I'm not sure its laziness so much as apathy - people give them money while complaining bitterly, so in the end who really cares?

Well you can spin it both ways, showing how disingenuous it is:
"If they give us money we shouldn't listen. They're happy even if they complain."
Or
"If they don't give us money they're not our customer so why should we listen."

What should our expectations for a company be? -You seem to think we shouldn't have any expectations but there has to be some reasonable standard they are held.

 aka_mythos wrote:


What should our expectations for a company be? -You seem to think we shouldn't have any expectations but there has to be some reasonable standard they are held.

Maybe its because i've watched too much of Gordon Ramsey's Nightmare Kitchens lately, but now each time i see or hear the word Standards, i imagine Gordon barging in a feth gak up until people open their eyes and see the truth...

Darm, makes me want that their would be an equivalant for Gordon Ramsey but with GW..., would be epic.

Is there actually any solid info yet?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I thought assuming the worse about releases was the job of Sisters players.

No, hijacking other threads and trying to steal the spotlight is the job of sisters players


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well, to be fair, no one has ever taken Lucius the Eternally Useless.

I did one time when I was list building while over indulging with some Wild Turkey

 Red Corsair wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I thought assuming the worse about releases was the job of Sisters players.

No, hijacking other threads and trying to steal the spotlight is the job of sisters players

Pft, I wasn't making this a Sisters derail but was instead participating in some self-depreciating humor to try and defuse the building tension.

Frankly GW already broke some of the units I had (I own multiple Defilers that are constructed to have an extra set of combat arms) so I've got nothing to really lose on an update at this point. I really just want to see the book come out feeling balanced. It doesn't have to be perfect, or even packed full of Legion rules if the book doesn't feel like you MUST take X to win and can instead build what you like instead.

Sure those other things would be fething fantastic but I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.

So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?

The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.

The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition.

Please tell me you don't actually believe this?

Please don't tell me you're so naive that you believe perfect internal balance can, or should, be achieved.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.

So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?

The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.

Yeah, your list isn't looking too hot honestly. Mutilators aren't that great (seriously, how are you even getting them too combat to start with?), Defilers are okay, but really need the ability to swap that Battlecannon for a Hades autocannon so they aren't forced to snap fire if they use it, and probably need a Skyfire option. The Possessed aren't all that hot outside of a Crimson Slaughter army because of the way the table works, and generally you listed a bunch of expensive options without explaining how any of it would actually help the army.

And don't start trying to talk down to me about the book being unbalanced on purpose. It's poorly balanced even compared to the toned down 7th books and needs a serious rework. A better book would have more diverse builds that are equally viable, not one or two good builds and a crap load of ones that are just a waste of time to build, and money to buy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Please don't tell me you're so naive that you believe perfect internal balance can, or should, be achieved.

Please don't tell me you're going to argue "perfect imbalance" in a game that can't update as fast as a computer game or card game, and has shown that doesn't even achieve that core concept well.

And yeah, I know that it can be achieved. It's not easy, but it's possible to balance a book completely internally so it can support a wide range of options with different sets of strengths and weaknesses. As for "should", I'd love to see the argument on why it shouldn't happen. What does the game gain by having books that have at most two good builds and easilly a dozen bad ones?

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
You're still missing the point. The point is not whether the CSM codex properly represents X, Y or Z. The point is we're not supposed to care. They're the badguys - that's all you need to know about them. They're the faceless mooks who are only there to give the goodguys a reason to show up and save the day. Who cares why they're armed with autocannons?

That maybe GW's perspective but its dismissive, condescending, and insincere. I don't demand perfection and I don't expect every thing "I want"; I just expect GW to do what they say they're doing and not just pay lip service to their own concepts for the sake of being lazy.
......

Fair enough, but this is where the disconnect happens. You expect GW to do what they say they're doing, and they're not going to do that. I'm not sure its laziness so much as apathy - people give them money while complaining bitterly, so in the end who really cares?

Well you can spin it both ways, showing how disingenuous it is:
"If they give us money we shouldn't listen. They're happy even if they complain."
Or
"If they don't give us money they're not our customer so why should we listen."

What should our expectations for a company be? -You seem to think we shouldn't have any expectations but there has to be some reasonable standard they are held.

This is why people often compare gw to an abusive partner. How they operate is how they operate, they're not going to change. You can talk about standards till the cows come home, as long as you're giving them money that's all that matters. Ultimately it becomes a choice of: are you going to continue giving them any money or not? Myself, i no longer purchase or play gw products. If others prefer to complain and pay, well that's their choice. No spin is necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Please don't tell me you're so naive that you believe perfect internal balance can, or should, be achieved.

Wow. Just wow.

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
Please tell me you don't actually believe this?

He does.

Yeah, I know.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.

So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?

The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.

Yeah, your list isn't looking too hot honestly. Mutilators aren't that great (seriously, how are you even getting them too combat to start with?), Defilers are okay, but really need the ability to swap that Battlecannon for a Hades autocannon so they aren't forced to snap fire if they use it, and probably need a Skyfire option. The Possessed aren't all that hot outside of a Crimson Slaughter army because of the way the table works, and generally you listed a bunch of expensive options without explaining how any of it would actually help the army.

That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. Those units were deliberately selected in order to handicap the army, not to give any sort of advantage during the listbuilding phase of the game. If you are playing another balanced list, and you are actually good at playing, then you should do fine with the units I selected.

You say that internal balance is possible, and that's nonsense. There will always be some imbalance, no matter how hard you try. That's why the meta shifts after every rules and Codex release. GW gets things close enough, which is more than adequate for a Beer & Prezels game. If that doesn't work for you, maybe you should find another game to play.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.

So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?

The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.

Yeah, your list isn't looking too hot honestly. Mutilators aren't that great (seriously, how are you even getting them too combat to start with?), Defilers are okay, but really need the ability to swap that Battlecannon for a Hades autocannon so they aren't forced to snap fire if they use it, and probably need a Skyfire option. The Possessed aren't all that hot outside of a Crimson Slaughter army because of the way the table works, and generally you listed a bunch of expensive options without explaining how any of it would actually help the army.

That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. Those units were deliberately selected in order to handicap the army, not to give any sort of advantage during the listbuilding phase of the game. If you are playing another balanced list, and you are actually good at playing, then you should do fine with the units I selected.

You say that internal balance is possible, and that's nonsense. There will always be some imbalance, no matter how hard you try. That's why the meta shifts after every rules and Codex release. GW gets things close enough, which is more than adequate for a Beer & Prezels game. If that doesn't work for you, maybe you should find another game to play.

He meant hardcore mode as in, by using TS you're handicapping yourself, not that they're too powerful.

And again, like everytime this comes up, no ones arguing for perfect balance. GW could get much much closer than they currently are, however. Relatively easily, if they put a modicum of effort in.

Yep, it's pretty easy to tell if a game's decently balanced: put yourself in a competitive situation and try to figure out if something would be shooting yourself in the foot if you spent points on it or if it's an auto-include regardless of context. If those are the case, it's not balanced well enough. If something's weak or strong, but in the right list or due to your preference/playstyle/niche it fills it becomes an option/less valuable respectively, then it's balanced enough.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. .

Weaker picks with thousand sons? For some reason I suspect you of not playing Chaos Marines

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.

So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?

The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.

Yeah, your list isn't looking too hot honestly. Mutilators aren't that great (seriously, how are you even getting them too combat to start with?), Defilers are okay, but really need the ability to swap that Battlecannon for a Hades autocannon so they aren't forced to snap fire if they use it, and probably need a Skyfire option. The Possessed aren't all that hot outside of a Crimson Slaughter army because of the way the table works, and generally you listed a bunch of expensive options without explaining how any of it would actually help the army.

That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. Those units were deliberately selected in order to handicap the army, not to give any sort of advantage during the listbuilding phase of the game. If you are playing another balanced list, and you are actually good at playing, then you should do fine with the units I selected.

You say that internal balance is possible, and that's nonsense. There will always be some imbalance, no matter how hard you try. That's why the meta shifts after every rules and Codex release. GW gets things close enough, which is more than adequate for a Beer & Prezels game. If that doesn't work for you, maybe you should find another game to play.

When you play a video game, the "Hardcore" setting is usually the hardest setting. It sometimes gets other labels like "Uber" or "1999 Mode".

You missed the point so hard you landed in another country where it's apparently opposite day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
If something's weak or strong, but in the right list or due to your preference/playstyle/niche it fills it becomes an option/less valuable respectively, then it's balanced enough.

Which is what I really want from the game right now. If we get that then supplements can be added in to handle putting more variants/flavor into the game and I wouldn't complain because at least the game would finally be completely fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GrafWattenburg wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. .

Weaker picks with thousand sons? For some reason I suspect you of not playing Chaos Marines

Or know someone who has played Chaos Marines, or have ever looked at the codex.

Yeah my though exactly.

I want to live in DD's Bizarro World where Thousand Sons are so awesome you need to take Possessed to balance them out.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.

So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?

The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.

Yeah, your list isn't looking too hot honestly. Mutilators aren't that great (seriously, how are you even getting them too combat to start with?), Defilers are okay, but really need the ability to swap that Battlecannon for a Hades autocannon so they aren't forced to snap fire if they use it, and probably need a Skyfire option. The Possessed aren't all that hot outside of a Crimson Slaughter army because of the way the table works, and generally you listed a bunch of expensive options without explaining how any of it would actually help the army.

That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. Those units were deliberately selected in order to handicap the army, not to give any sort of advantage during the listbuilding phase of the game. If you are playing another balanced list, and you are actually good at playing, then you should do fine with the units I selected.

You say that internal balance is possible, and that's nonsense. There will always be some imbalance, no matter how hard you try. That's why the meta shifts after every rules and Codex release. GW gets things close enough, which is more than adequate for a Beer & Prezels game. If that doesn't work for you, maybe you should find another game to play.

When you play a video game, the "Hardcore" setting is usually the hardest setting. It sometimes gets other labels like "Uber" or "1999 Mode".

When I play "Nightmare" mode, I break out the S-Tier Skylanders, not the F-Tier guys.

My point was that the F-Tier guys make it Nightmare mode. As it it's a Nightmare for the person who is using them because they're getting ROFL-stomped all over the board.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
When you play a video game, the "Hardcore" setting is usually the hardest setting. It sometimes gets other labels like "Uber" or "1999 Mode".

You missed the point so hard you landed in another country where it's apparently opposite day.

Yeah, I though the reference was obvious. 1KSons = Harcore Mode, implying that taking 1KSons makes life more difficult for you because you're taking a terrible unit.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
When you play a video game, the "Hardcore" setting is usually the hardest setting. It sometimes gets other labels like "Uber" or "1999 Mode".

You missed the point so hard you landed in another country where it's apparently opposite day.

Yeah, I though the reference was obvious. 1KSons = Harcore Mode, implying that taking 1KSons makes life more difficult for you because you're taking a terrible unit.

I did too, but it seems some people missed that.

Thinking about things, assuming that we are looking at a CSM release and it's not just WFB leakage from Archaon's book, I am hopefully optimistic for the CSM book. The internal and external balance of the 7th edition books is feeling more consistent and even though they're not as powerful as some of the 6th edition ones they look like the rules team is really going a long way to balance the game more. I don't know if it'll result in maybe seeing tournaments come back (though that'd be pretty neat), but at least it should make the game more interesting to play since armies will be less shoehorned into monobuilds if they want a fair chance at winning.

Honestly I don't know if we'll see new models for this release (and kind of don't expect them to be honest), but if Nids have given us any clue (not to mention rumors we had from before 7th launched) we may instead see small releases with the rules for free that eventually get rolled into the next codex (which may or may not get new models with it's release depending on timing and all).

I kind of think GW main is starting to adopt an update method like FW's where they do releases of things outside of when the book drops, and when they update the book they add in those releases and update them if needed.

I mean it's just speculation, but it fits some of the rumors we were originally hearing about 7th being a long term edition with a lot of smaller releases (which would allow GW to monetize armies more consistently and over longer periods of time by releasing 1-2 kits now and then instead of a whole bunch of kits at once). Ideally it'd even out their cash flow (making it less 1x a month, and even a bit less seasonal. Assuming they spread the releases to 2x a month every month that is) from players and require less money to go into building up for releases each month since 2 kits would cost less to stockpile up than 3+ kits.

Mind you that's just my speculation and a gut feeling right now, but I don't think it's an unreasonable guess to make right now.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd be pretty happy to just be able to do something as simple as put Thousand Sons on the board without feeling like I'm playing on Hardcore mode.

So when you field a kSons backed by MoT Warp Talons, Defiler, MoT Possessed and Mutilators, you're still in "Hardcore" mode? Really?

The whole point of CSM having uneven internal balance is to allow players to adjust the power level of their lists according to the strength of their competition. There is no law for taking a sub-optimal list. Sometimes, it's a good idea to do so simply for the additional tactical challenge. Or variety's sake.

Yeah, your list isn't looking too hot honestly. Mutilators aren't that great (seriously, how are you even getting them too combat to start with?), Defilers are okay, but really need the ability to swap that Battlecannon for a Hades autocannon so they aren't forced to snap fire if they use it, and probably need a Skyfire option. The Possessed aren't all that hot outside of a Crimson Slaughter army because of the way the table works, and generally you listed a bunch of expensive options without explaining how any of it would actually help the army.

That's the entire point, and it went screaming over your head. You came in with the notion that kSons are automatically "Hardcore", and I'm saying that, no, they don't have to be if you balance the army out with weaker picks. Those units were deliberately selected in order to handicap the army, not to give any sort of advantage during the listbuilding phase of the game. If you are playing another balanced list, and you are actually good at playing, then you should do fine with the units I selected.

You say that internal balance is possible, and that's nonsense. There will always be some imbalance, no matter how hard you try. That's why the meta shifts after every rules and Codex release. GW gets things close enough, which is more than adequate for a Beer & Prezels game. If that doesn't work for you, maybe you should find another game to play.

When you play a video game, the "Hardcore" setting is usually the hardest setting. It sometimes gets other labels like "Uber" or "1999 Mode".

When I play "Nightmare" mode, I break out the S-Tier Skylanders, not the F-Tier guys.

Its so hard to argue with TitsMaggie, when i look at what he wrote and the avatar he chose I cant help but smile and think of the bimbo pointing at her perky tits.

JohnHwang, let me explain this in the most sincere way to your Double D tits, 1kson are over costed and utterly useless compared to plague marines that cost 1 pt more. 1kson have an aspiring sorcerer tax that is stuck at lvl 1 psyker lvl. The rubric marines have inferno bolters with ap3 shots but need to be 24" or 12" to shoot. There 4++ save is not so good. By taking 1ksons, you have less points to make a proper army thus making it hardcore mode for the CSM player.

BTW, whats her name in your avatar? I want to google her.

Aside from that, I really wish GW would drop this whole crap with their overpriced books and the digital version costing just as much. I understand the business model of publishing books and earning money on a physical medium but we now live in the modern age where you can easily torrent/piratebay pdf.

If it was DND, which is a company that survives on book publishing and earning supplement revenue from selling minis, dice, terrain, etc... then I think they are justified for pricing their books. Their books are written well and are somewhat balanced in each of their edition with exception to the 3.5 having so much 3rd party publishing. There is no such thing as power creep and undercosted and overpowered because it does not have army codex to regularly update.

I think GW needs to make their rule free and easy to access on their main site. Eliminate books and publish it all on their website so it is easily errata or price fixed to resolve so much imbalance. GW should be earning sales from their models not gouge us on their books that get outdated within years or not even accepted in tournaments. They wont ever do this because they will lose so much profit. but the only way to get them to do this is for us to STOP BUYING their books.