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.

 Massawyrm wrote:

Talking to your friends and saying "You know, I really don't like them. Can we just run CAD?" is acceptable. Have the discussion. That's how this is supposed to work. But if they disagree and you then say you won't play against them, then you are making the choice for them rather than discussing it.

This is kinda the issue. I have had the discussion and they seem to think since its part of the rules that is fair game and I should just deal with it. I had built a Tau army that was too powerful for everyone to deal with it. Since I didn't want to buy new models to tone the list down I instead just shelved the army. I am mostly not being shown the same respect I show them when it comes to enjoyment of the game.

It is really hard to compete when your army does not have access to similar formations. I have already played against it to show how one sided it is and instead I get it rubbed in my face on how I got crushed . My one friend says to think of it as playing hard mode but it is already hard mode when you want to play CSM.

Why does this thread remind me of a girl not wanting to go out with someone because she's not attracted to them, being called stuck up?

Relapse wrote:
Why does this thread remind me of a girl not wanting to go out with someone because she's not attracted to them, being called stuck up?

It's a decent comparison, because regardless of how nice or cruel a rejection is, it's still rejection. No matter how politely worded, rejection is rejection and you'll be accused of being elitist more often than not even if you're a polite elitist.

You can say no anytime you want. My local meta runs them all the time and no one seems to mind, but everywhere is different I guess.

The larger issue right now is only a few armies like Necrons, Eldar, Marines, and soon to be Dark Eldar have a high level of versatility available to them. Everyone else is kinda stuck waiting for their turn. Over time I'm sure it won't be an issue once everyone is done playing catchup. I also like the idea of these detatchments because they encourage some models variability and add some fluffy elements to the table top.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops meant dark Angels.

I actually like the concept behind the Skyhammer. I haven't played a game of 7th yet (nor did I of 6th) so I don't know how dicky it is of me to want to use this formation. All I know is that, as others have mentioned, not all formations are created equally. No one would ever be up in arms over the Green Tide list from the Ork 'Dex...

 Kiggler wrote:

 Massawyrm wrote:

Talking to your friends and saying "You know, I really don't like them. Can we just run CAD?" is acceptable. Have the discussion. That's how this is supposed to work. But if they disagree and you then say you won't play against them, then you are making the choice for them rather than discussing it.

This is kinda the issue. I have had the discussion and they seem to think since its part of the rules that is fair game and I should just deal with it. I had built a Tau army that was too powerful for everyone to deal with it. Since I didn't want to buy new models to tone the list down I instead just shelved the army. I am mostly not being shown the same respect I show them when it comes to enjoyment of the game.

It is really hard to compete when your army does not have access to similar formations. I have already played against it to show how one sided it is and instead I get it rubbed in my face on how I got crushed . My one friend says to think of it as playing hard mode but it is already hard mode when you want to play CSM.

Have you thought that maybe toning down the list to a point your list doesn't get crushed might not be fun for them? Maybe it involves using units/models they don't have and/or don't want to buy?

In.the end, I feel.that when such a problem arises, your opponent has just as much right to expect you to improve your army as you have to expect them to downgrade theirs. If you can reach a middle ground, great. If you can't, you're both equally right and equally wrong.

 Kiggler wrote:

 Massawyrm wrote:

This is kinda the issue. I have had the discussion and they seem to think since its part of the rules that is fair game and I should just deal with it. I had built a Tau army that was too powerful for everyone to deal with it. Since I didn't want to buy new models to tone the list down I instead just shelved the army. I am mostly not being shown the same respect I show them when it comes to enjoyment of the game.

It is really hard to compete when your army does not have access to similar formations. I have already played against it to show how one sided it is and instead I get it rubbed in my face on how I got crushed . My one friend says to think of it as playing hard mode but it is already hard mode when you want to play CSM.

They are part of the game. I want to play hormugaunts as far as the eye can see, so no shooty units.

Right now it sounds like you want to make both lists. If you want to make their list that could work, if they get to make yours. But right now it sounds like here, you take all this infantry with no tank killing, to my whirlwinds, vindicators and redeemers.

There's nothing wrong with saying no to a game of 40k.

However, there's also nothing right with it, either.

The game has moved from percentages of your force, to slots in a chart, to formations in a army. It's the new gimmick of the game. Like it or not, it's here, it's now, it's not yester-edition. Embrace it or deny it, it's what the game currently is.

I have always advocated for voting with your wallet. If you don't like, don't buy into it. It you do like it, support it. Pining for a return to yesteryear when things are "better" is being in denial about how similar changes polarized the hobby back then, too.

SJ

But my army didn't get any formations and others did. It is easy to play an army with a good formation and say embrace it. What am I suppose to embrace beside the fact that my opponents get yet another way to beat up my already nerfed army?

LordBlades wrote:

Have you thought that maybe toning down the list to a point your list doesn't get crushed might not be fun for them? Maybe it involves using units/models they don't have and/or don't want to buy?

In.the end, I feel.that when such a problem arises, your opponent has just as much right to expect you to improve your army as you have to expect them to downgrade theirs. If you can reach a middle ground, great. If you can't, you're both equally right and equally wrong.

If you have the models to field formations then you usually have the models to make a CAD as well so that is not the problem. In my situation it is the necron decurion that is the issue. I thought about improving my army but it would involve a total rework of my usual lists and would have to purchase several new models and expensive super heavies if I wanted to compete. I might as well start eldar and spam D weapons. I have toned down my list several times to not use maulerfiends since they think they are cheese. Is it so wrong of me to ask the same.

Makumba wrote:
But my army didn't get any formations and others did. It is easy to play an army with a good formation and say embrace it. What am I suppose to embrace beside the fact that my opponents get yet another way to beat up my already nerfed army?

The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little. You'll have your new codex soon, with your own formations to use and abuse. : )

SJ

It's OK to say no to decurions, Gladius and Eldar. If your opponent wants to play one of these, just steer him to one of the other players with a similar list. You are then free to seek out another player.

What if it is bad like the harlequin or the BAs did? I could also have to more or less buy a whole new army to get a working one under a new codex? Am waiting since the end of 6th for a good codex and the only time when my army was ok, was for a short time between 6th and 7th, and only if no one in the area had the cash to buy recast D weapon carriers.
What then wait another 2-3 years ? I can't even sell my army, because no one wants to buy IG here.

If you have the models to field formations then you usually have the models to make a CAD as well so that is not the problem.

Unless marines changed more then I know, am almost sure that it is impossible to have a list made out of devsators drop pods and assault marines supported by centurions. The same goes for the necron formation and the eldar one. In fact eldar without their formation can't play with the 2 WK each one of them used under the old codex.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Formations like the Skyspear and the Demi Company? I agree with you whole heartedly.
Both of these formations are so broken that it has gone beyond a joke and reached pure wtf levels.
Take two droppod Devastators and two Assaulr Marines with Jump Packs. Get the ability to ignore overwatch and buttrape several units on turn one/two.
Take a Captain, a Chaplain and two Tactical Squads. All your transports are free, meaning things like Lasbacks are costing a mere 15 points. Bolterbacks are costing nothing. Bring an extra 50%-100% points worth of stuff for free.

Tell me how either of these are fair or fun to play against oh mighty Space marine players.

It is a good thing that the Demi-Company nothing at all like you described. You need Six tactical squads, two assault squads (or equivalents), two Devastator squads (or equivalents), a Captain, and a Chaplain to get the free transports. Don't spread misinformation just because you are butthurt.

Butthurt or just fed up of being left in the dust as the SM players get all the pretty toys. Hell, you lot dont even need tactics anymore. GW has pretty much seen to that. And in the mean time us IG players will continue to sit here with our over priced units and our sans giant chainsword priests and watch.

 Likan Wolfsheim wrote:
There's nothing wrong with saying no to a game of 40k.

However, there's also nothing right with it, either.

There's actually plenty right with it if someone doesn't want to waste a couple hours doing something they won't enjoy.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Formations like the Skyspear and the Demi Company? I agree with you whole heartedly.
Both of these formations are so broken that it has gone beyond a joke and reached pure wtf levels.
Take two droppod Devastators and two Assaulr Marines with Jump Packs. Get the ability to ignore overwatch and buttrape several units on turn one/two.
Take a Captain, a Chaplain and two Tactical Squads. All your transports are free, meaning things like Lasbacks are costing a mere 15 points. Bolterbacks are costing nothing. Bring an extra 50%-100% points worth of stuff for free.

Tell me how either of these are fair or fun to play against oh mighty Space marine players.

It is a good thing that the Demi-Company nothing at all like you described. You need Six tactical squads, two assault squads (or equivalents), two Devastator squads (or equivalents), a Captain, and a Chaplain to get the free transports. Don't spread misinformation just because you are butthurt.

Butthurt or just fed up of being left in the dust as the SM players get all the pretty toys. Hell, you lot dont even need tactics anymore. GW has pretty much seen to that. And in the mean time us IG players will continue to sit here with our over priced units and our sans giant chainsword priests and watch.

Dude, he said you get free transports for 2 TAC squads and a captain+chaplain. That is straight up wrong. You need, minimum, chaplain, captain, 6 tactical squads, 2 Assault squads and 2 Devastators squads. That's a dude whining because he doesn't know the rules. I've played against this with my orks (I did use one formation, Blitz Brigade) but the marines got utterly obliterated.

 Kiggler wrote:
This is kinda the issue. I have had the discussion and they seem to think since its part of the rules that is fair game and I should just deal with it. I had built a Tau army that was too powerful for everyone to deal with it. Since I didn't want to buy new models to tone the list down I instead just shelved the army. I am mostly not being shown the same respect I show them when it comes to enjoyment of the game.

It is really hard to compete when your army does not have access to similar formations. I have already played against it to show how one sided it is and instead I get it rubbed in my face on how I got crushed . My one friend says to think of it as playing hard mode but it is already hard mode when you want to play CSM.

Yeah, your friends are being douches. I certainly wouldn't drive 2 minutes, let alone 2 hours to be treated like that. They're right about it being part of the game now and that you should adapt, but they're wrong about how they're playing with you. If none of your armies are part of the new wave of codexes, they should be cutting you slack until your codex can compete. Friends don't hammer friends into the dirt because GW chose to give a shot in the arm to their codex first. You're in the right to say "Mother fether, I drove 2 hours for this game, the least you can do is run something balanced so I can enjoy it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Butthurt or just fed up of being left in the dust as the SM players get all the pretty toys. Hell, you lot dont even need tactics anymore. GW has pretty much seen to that. And in the mean time us IG players will continue to sit here with our over priced units and our sans giant chainsword priests and watch.

And your myriad of cheap superheavy choices, and your ObSec tank armies, and your cheap air support, and your Infantry blobs...

 Massawyrm wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Butthurt or just fed up of being left in the dust as the SM players get all the pretty toys. Hell, you lot dont even need tactics anymore. GW has pretty much seen to that. And in the mean time us IG players will continue to sit here with our over priced units and our sans giant chainsword priests and watch.

And your myriad of cheap superheavy choices, and your ObSec tank armies, and your cheap air support, and your Infantry blobs...

500 points for a Super Heavy... Sure its cheap, just keep telling yourself that *cough* fellblade *cough*.

Obsec armies? Never head of them. As for our tanks though, they have been significantly gimped since the last codex as we lost the Lumbering Behemoth rule on them. For no real reason. And ourtank special character is a joke whom costs a total of 70 points plus his tank for a minor buff to the turret and preferred enemy. Remind me again how much the marine variant costs?

Cheap air support? Have you been mistaking the Stormguppy for a IG unit again?

Infantry blobs..... Yeah, we do these well. At about 250 plus upgrades. And a commissar for morale so 380 plus upgrades. Just pray that there is enough terrain to hide in almost every weapon ignores your armour and with a kill rate of about 7 per every 10 shots fired tactical squads can eat these rapidly. And HB devestators just mince them.

 master of ordinance wrote:
500 points for a Super Heavy... Sure its cheap, just keep telling yourself that *cough* fellblade *cough*.

Obsec armies? Never head of them. As for our tanks though, they have been significantly gimped since the last codex as we lost the Lumbering Behemoth rule on them. For no real reason. And ourtank special character is a joke whom costs a total of 70 points plus his tank for a minor buff to the turret and preferred enemy. Remind me again how much the marine variant costs?

Cheap air support? Have you been mistaking the Stormguppy for a IG unit again?

Infantry blobs..... Yeah, we do these well. At about 250 plus upgrades. And a commissar for morale so 380 plus upgrades. Just pray that there is enough terrain to hide in almost every weapon ignores your armour and with a kill rate of about 7 per every 10 shots fired tactical squads can eat these rapidly. And HB devestators just mince them.

Ah, well this makes a lot more sense then: you don't actually know the full scale of your own army.

* Malcador pattern superheavies start at around the price of a Land Raider; Macharian patterns start at 325; and Baneblades - even outside of FW rules - start at 410, not 500. But since you compared it to a FW model, you should already know all that.

* Check out IMPERIAL ARMOUR 1. We have a CAD based armoured army that rocks. Our Troop Choice Russes get ObSec. How do you know what a Fellblade is but never heard of the Armoured Battle Group?

* Nope. Valks get beefy quick for very few points. Vendettas are awesome for their price. And the FW variant flyers are INCREDIBLE for their cost. Vultures are AAAAWWWWWWWESOME.

* Not to mention we have Elysians, D-99, DKoK, and MT as legit choices for our armies/allies, so we're not exactly hurting for choice.

AM may not have gotten their big update yet, but it's coming. But we ain't hurtin'. We've actually got a hell of a lot more options than any other army in the game right now.

To be fair, Malcador suerpheavies are usually pretty terrible however, and and an actual Baneblade starts at 525pts, 575 with traditional single-sponson set.

Yes IA1 has an armoured battlegroup list, but it's still all stuck using the 5E book's pricing, meaning all those Russ tanks are ~15-20% more than in the basic IG codex

Likewise, while Vendettas are solid, Valkyries are rather expensive for what they offer, 125pts for an AV12 flyer with a single Multilaser and two one-shot S8 missiles that prevent anything else from firing? 135 to swap them out for some S4 blast weapons? Not terribly inspiring particularly as a dedicated Fast Attack choice.

And while IG has a large number of "alternate" style armies, most of them are pretty terrible.

They're an army that got balanced around a 5E paradigm about 5 or 6 weeks before 7E hit. Lots of options, but most of them are bad.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, Malcador suerpheavies are usually pretty terrible however, and and an actual Baneblade starts at 525pts, 575 with traditional single-sponson set.

Yes IA1 has an armoured battlegroup list, but it's still all stuck using the 5E book's pricing, meaning all those Russ tanks are ~15-20% more than in the basic IG codex

Likewise, while Vendettas are solid, Valkyries are rather expensive for what they offer, 125pts for an AV12 flyer with a single Multilaser and two one-shot S8 missiles that prevent anything else from firing? 135 to swap them out for some S4 blast weapons? Not terribly inspiring particularly as a dedicated Fast Attack choice.

And while IG has a large number of "alternate" style armies, most of them are pretty terrible.

They're an army that got balanced around a 5E paradigm about 5 or 6 weeks before 7E hit. Lots of options, but most of them are bad.

* Sure, but I didn't say Baneblade. The Banehammer is 410, built from the same kit these days.

* The tanks are pricier, but come with ObSec. The elite choices include some pretty beefy upgrades like Monster Hunter shells. It's a great list that plays very well - and can be used as allies BEAUTIFULLY.

* You forgot to mention the 10pt Lascannon swap and the 20pt Heavy Bolters, which are arguably the best mods, depending on your needs.

* Pretty terrible? Both Elysians are great Alpha Strike armies/allies and DKoK are AMAZING. MT is a terrible list on its own, but solid allies, as I believe was intended.

I strongly disagree that most of the options are bad. They're bad in the Tourney meta, but not any of standard 8 recognized styles of play. They do very well - and will of course do better when we get our shiny new codex (probably later this year.)

Sure some of the variants are cheaper, I'll grant, though also often much less intimidating.

Yeah, in the IA1 list your Russ Tanks can get Obsec, but ObSec is already highly situational on the first place, and on Heavy vehicles that can't move more than 6" a turn period (and where if anything makes it into base contact, they're dead) the value is essentially nill. I've run the list quite a bit, it's fun, but not really particularly effective. The Beasthunter shells are nice, but largely end up being the crutch that saves the army from total obliteration rather than a serious edge.

Yes, the Valkyrie can take a lascannon and heavy bolters, but then you're talking about a ~165pt Flyer that's relatively undergunned next to the Vendetta, and if it's running around acting as a transport, it's likely not utilizing that power super effectively.

DKoK are great at alpha striking against certain opponents, but absolutely fall apart against others (drop pods, FMC's, etc) and are extremely heavily dependent on getting first turn (and the Assault Brigade list is outdated...). They've also got obscenely expensive infantry for no good reason and are typically highly reliant on their artillery units (and if those are neuttralized, they army ceases to function). Elysians have similarly big problems with many common units seen on tables these days, and have artificially limited things like Veteran weapons upgrades (only one special weapon per Vet unit) and have to rely on Elites for pretty much all of their infantry based killing power.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Formations like the Skyspear and the Demi Company? I agree with you whole heartedly.
Both of these formations are so broken that it has gone beyond a joke and reached pure wtf levels.
Take two droppod Devastators and two Assaulr Marines with Jump Packs. Get the ability to ignore overwatch and buttrape several units on turn one/two.
Take a Captain, a Chaplain and two Tactical Squads. All your transports are free, meaning things like Lasbacks are costing a mere 15 points. Bolterbacks are costing nothing. Bring an extra 50%-100% points worth of stuff for free.

Tell me how either of these are fair or fun to play against oh mighty Space marine players.

I won't defend Skyspear, but with the Demi-Company thing you're thinking about, you need tons of Tactical Marines, and they aren't worth the price of a free Razorback. It also isn't practical even at the 1850 range. Start hitting 2250+ and we start to have a problem.

It took a while but I found out who wrote the codex

For all the bashing I see of IG, I have to wonder if Manticores are only being used in my area. Backed up with units(tank or infantry)that strip armor off the table, I have seen Manticores every game eliminate entire infantry units per turn from the table.
What am I missing that makes it so hard for the IG to win games in your areas? There are really good players here for all factions, so it's not a sole question of competence on the part of everyone.

 Massawyrm wrote:
* Sure, but I didn't say Baneblade. The Banehammer is 410, built from the same kit these days.

It's also garbage. That's the problem with IG superheavies, they're either terrible (Malcador) or expensive but mediocre (the decent Baneblade variants). If you're taking a cheap IG superheavy it's because you love the fluff and/or model and don't care too much about winning.

* The tanks are pricier, but come with ObSec. The elite choices include some pretty beefy upgrades like Monster Hunter shells. It's a great list that plays very well - and can be used as allies BEAUTIFULLY.

It's also a very one-dimensional list that often either wins overwhelmingly (your opponent isn't prepared for lots of tanks) or gets massacred without any hope of winning (they are). It averages out to being a decent list, but it's far from the top tier of competitiveness.

* You forgot to mention the 10pt Lascannon swap and the 20pt Heavy Bolters, which are arguably the best mods, depending on your needs.

They're still not very impressive. You're paying ~150 points for some pretty underwhelming guns that are only useful against infantry. And TBH neither of the upgrades are all that great. The LC sucks because you're never using a Valkyrie against vehicles if you have any possible alternative, and the HBs suffer from limited firing arcs and the "four weapons at full BS" limit. It's not going to cripple your list to take a Valkyrie or three, but it's certainly not a unit that people are going get excited about.

* Pretty terrible? Both Elysians are great Alpha Strike armies/allies and DKoK are AMAZING. MT is a terrible list on its own, but solid allies, as I believe was intended.

Elysians are mediocre at best. Their alpha strike ability is worse than drop pod marines, even without considering the blatantly overpowered drop pod formation. It's a fun concept if you want to use normal human troops instead of space marines, but there are much better options if you want to win games.

DKoK just plain suck. The only thing they have that's even remotely useful is the death rider detachment, and even that mostly gets its favorable opinions from the long-unfulfilled desire to have rough riders be useful. Other than that everything else in their list can be done just as well, if not better, by a codex army.

 Massawyrm wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, Malcador suerpheavies are usually pretty terrible however, and and an actual Baneblade starts at 525pts, 575 with traditional single-sponson set.

Yes IA1 has an armoured battlegroup list, but it's still all stuck using the 5E book's pricing, meaning all those Russ tanks are ~15-20% more than in the basic IG codex

Likewise, while Vendettas are solid, Valkyries are rather expensive for what they offer, 125pts for an AV12 flyer with a single Multilaser and two one-shot S8 missiles that prevent anything else from firing? 135 to swap them out for some S4 blast weapons? Not terribly inspiring particularly as a dedicated Fast Attack choice.

And while IG has a large number of "alternate" style armies, most of them are pretty terrible.

They're an army that got balanced around a 5E paradigm about 5 or 6 weeks before 7E hit. Lots of options, but most of them are bad.

* Sure, but I didn't say Baneblade. The Banehammer is 410, built from the same kit these days.

* The tanks are pricier, but come with ObSec. The elite choices include some pretty beefy upgrades like Monster Hunter shells. It's a great list that plays very well - and can be used as allies BEAUTIFULLY.

* You forgot to mention the 10pt Lascannon swap and the 20pt Heavy Bolters, which are arguably the best mods, depending on your needs.

* Pretty terrible? Both Elysians are great Alpha Strike armies/allies and DKoK are AMAZING. MT is a terrible list on its own, but solid allies, as I believe was intended.

I strongly disagree that most of the options are bad. They're bad in the Tourney meta, but not any of standard 8 recognized styles of play. They do very well - and will of course do better when we get our shiny new codex (probably later this year.)

Okay, let us dissect this for now:

*Banehammer - Requires you to get close. With a 6" move rate. Any sensible opponent will obliterate this long before it can do any real damage. Sure there is the Malcador and the Machirus. Just be prepared to pay far more than what they are worth, the Malcador, for instance, costs as much as a Land Raider, has 2SP and armour 13, 12, 10. And is slow and easy to immobilise.

*Our tanks are pricier. And just not worth it, as Peregrine pointed out it is either an all or nothing and once your opponent knows what you are bringing they just bring lots of anti tank and kill it.

*Ahhhh the Lascannon/Heavy Bolter swaps. So tell me oh might SM overlord, do you pay 50 points on your flyers for one Lascannon and two Heavy Bolters at BS 3? No? Didnt think so.

*DKoK.... Well, regular veteran squads are cheaper than engineers, most units are over priced and there is a general lack of great units. Death Riders suffer from being essentially slightly buffed Rough riders, and we all know just how terrible they are. Elysian's are wannabe SM drop pod assault troops. Just without the survivability and hitting power of SM's. But close to the same cost. Maybe not such a good choice after all.

So, we IG players are forced to play from a 5th edition list in 7th edition 40K, without the priceings or upgrades or general buffs that we need. Ogryns for instance cost as much as a battle tank - yes, a BATTLE TANK, for THREE. And they are highly situational to use, and struggle against heavier units (no AP on their attacks and a 5+ save). And Bullgryns are even worse.
Our version of the Razorback, the Taurox, costs a hell of a lot more and is no where near as good.
And we do not have any of these fancy formations to play with. We have to win through skill and it is an uphill battle every step of the way.

Vaktathi: 10 of the 12 missions from the BRB are objective based. "Highly situational?" No. Just, no. In ITC-hammer maybe, but not in 40k. ObSec is a game winner. It's one of the things folks playing these new detachments will eventually learn the hard way.

Peregrine: In what world is a 25 troop transport with 14/13/12, 9 structure points and a S8 AP3 massive blast that also kills 1/6th of the survivors "garbage" for 410pts? Are there other variants I like better? Sure. But for 410, it's a GREAT tank. And the ABG is only 1 dimensional if you play it that way. Sure, it can be crippled by a heavy anti-tank army, but that's not the current meta. AV14 isn't the thing right now. People love their Gravcannons and their Scatterlasers. That's great for tank armies. I just shrug that gak off. And saying Elysian alpha strikes are worse than drop pod marines? What color is the sky on your world, P? 110pts gets me 10 DS dudes with 3 meltaguns at BS4. 15 more points gets me a ML with it or plasmaguns instead. Marines can't even touch that. For 110 they can get 5 DS dudes with 1 plasmagun. Elysians go down like chumps - just like every AS army - but they hit hard when they come down. Which is why you get more of them for the points. They hit WAY harder than SM. But if they can't wipe the opponent, they won't stick around long afterward. That's the tradeoff.

Master of Ordinance: Dude. Just....dude. Crack a codex, my man. We're talking about the Banehammer, not the Hellhammer. The Banehammer has a 60" range. It can deploy in the corner and hit almost anything on the board. The add ons on the Valk are 30, not 50pts, and yes, they're quite valuable when used right. But I was speaking more about the rest of the IG airforce than our standard workhorse. No one seems to want to gak on the Vulture. And for good reason. That thing is a beast for its points and at the heart of my initial comment. And the DKoK don't run. Which is why they cost more. You build them differently from standard IG, but their tenacity makes them amazing when used right.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, we IG players are forced to play from a 5th edition list in 7th edition 40K, without the priceings or upgrades or general buffs that we need. And we do not have any of these fancy formations to play with. We have to win through skill and it is an uphill battle every step of the way.

Yes. Welcome to Warhammer 40k. Where your codex will always fall to the back of the pack only to get a new bright and shiny codex that everyone else will eventually whine about on release. Does it suck that the AM codex fell so far behind so quickly? Yep. Sure does. It took the design team a while to figure out what they thought 7th should be. But with 10 codexes released in the first 6 months of this year, I have no doubt will get our new bright and shiny detachment/formation filled codex soon enough. Until then, pour over a couple of books and learn that we have a lot more options than you think we do.

I can definitely understand not wanting to play against the "Decurion-style" Formation-of-formations in casual or friendly games, especially if you're playing a 6th edition/early 7th edition codex. Some of those formations, especially the Decurion, can be quite nasty against lists that aren't designed to be competitive.

There's also the problem of new players, as they might not understand the Decurion way of list-building. The CAD, Formations/FOCs, and Detachments can be hard enough to wrap one's head around.