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.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
While arguing if IG or BA are worse can be fun, the fact that to play some of the factions you either have to play them other armies or use FW is not a good thing. At least imo. If an eldar or necron player can build an eldar army or a necron army and play with it, so should a IG or BA player. But right now playing any of those comes down to, why try to support suck with good stuff, when you can support good stuff with good stuff.

Both IG & BA's can play decently well enough on their own outside of cut throat 'Tournament' styled lists. CSM's less so due to everything about them being slightly over costed & their options being highly limited, but still, as long as your opponent isn't being a complete toolbag you can have some good fun games.

So all people using the Eldar codex are toolbags? Because it's almost impossible to have a good BA vs Eldar game even against the "reasonable" Eldar units. I'll still take CSM over BA because of helldrakes in the current meta and plague marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the Signless wrote:
Using the "you can take allies" argument runs into a flaw because any army can be allied with anything. If allies are included into the discussion, it can be argued that CSM and non-flyrant tyranids are now OP because they can ally in a wraithknight and scatterbikes while also taking the skyhammer.

While some ally combinations do work better (such as the mentioned Librarians + Death Company or the DA + SW that seems to be making its rounds in Dman's threads), it is not evidence that supports a codex's power level.

This. This is why BA are terrible. Because almost every list is strictly better without them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That's ultimately a flawed argument for a mono-build. You could take 3x RG Librarians with Jump in a Conclave. Stick them with 45x Death Company for T1 Shrouded/Stealth and psychic buffs. It's a decent idea.

2x BA Librarians w/JP, ML2 - 210pts
45x DC - 900pts and some upgrades
1x Dante - 220pts
2x Scouts - 110pts
1x RG Conclave (3x ML2 Librarians w/JP) - 315pts

With Misfortune and Prescience your 15x DC can put down a WK in a single turn. With Invisibility, 18x Scatterbikes kill ~1.3 DC in one turn of shooting. ONE. If he's got two Farseers, you have more WC. With 500 points free, what's left that's going to hard counter you? Maybe Seer council but you get a 4+ DTW on any debuff from a Warlock.

But you're apparently telling me, this "might as well be a Vanilla list"?

Substitute vanguards for DC. And in some grav cents. Bam. Better list. BA useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That's ultimately a flawed argument for a mono-build. You could take 3x RG Librarians with Jump in a Conclave. Stick them with 45x Death Company for T1 Shrouded/Stealth and psychic buffs. It's a decent idea.

2x BA Librarians w/JP, ML2 - 210pts
45x DC - 900pts and some upgrades
1x Dante - 220pts
2x Scouts - 110pts
1x RG Conclave (3x ML2 Librarians w/JP) - 315pts

With Misfortune and Prescience your 15x DC can put down a WK in a single turn. With Invisibility, 18x Scatterbikes kill ~1.3 DC in one turn of shooting. ONE. If he's got two Farseers, you have more WC. With 500 points free, what's left that's going to hard counter you? Maybe Seer council but you get a 4+ DTW on any debuff from a Warlock.

But you're apparently telling me, this "might as well be a Vanilla list"?

Don't bother trying to point out perfectly valid arguments to Martel, as far as he's concerned, because he chooses to play his army like it's still 5th edition, it's GW's and everyone elses fault for playing 7th!

I'm not giving GW any more significant amounts of money. Nor should I have to.

I feel if GW would just do the work and release all their Codex at once we wouldn't be having this Creep issue we are having.

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel if GW would just do the work and release all their Codex at once we wouldn't be having this Creep issue we are having.

It wasn't creep. It was a bimodal jump in power level. We had IG/DE/Orks/BA then all of a sudden we got Necron/SM/Eldar/DA. I don't begrudge the DA, really, but those other factions have been too good too long now.

Martel732 wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel if GW would just do the work and release all their Codex at once we wouldn't be having this Creep issue we are having.

It wasn't creep. It was a bimodal jump in power level. We had IG/DE/Orks/BA then all of a sudden we got Necron/SM/Eldar/DA. I don't begrudge the DA, really, but those other factions have been too good too long now.

Well you won't see me disagreeing with you about BA. I want my Chaos Dex to be on the same play level as others, I don't want to have to rely on a cookie cutter list with Drakes and Plague Marines.

CSM and BA are brothers in spirit. CSM had a brief time in the sun before Tau and Eldar crushed their common builds with mass firepower. Meanwhile, BA were languishing with a 5th ed codex that was eviscerated by 6th ed rules.

Now BA get a 7th ed codex that really isn't any better than the CSM 6th ed codex in practice. All I can hope is that CSM gets a decent book in the near future just to shake things up.

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel if GW would just do the work and release all their Codex at once we wouldn't be having this Creep issue we are having.

They don't have to release all the books at once, rather, they simply have to stop radically shifting their designs mid cycle like they always do...

The first 6th ed books with both Chaos 'dexes + DA's were pretty damn level. Tau ramped it up, then Eldar made things nuts with Serpent Shields. (really, the only truly broken/heinous & obnoxious thing about that book)

7th saw books moving back towards a more even keel with the initial 6th ed books, but with the added 'new feature' being the race specific FOC's.

But then GW decided to go completely off the deep end and give us the radically altered & amazingly powerful 7.5 Decurions on top of a model clusterfeth. (aka: Scatbikes)

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel if GW would just do the work and release all their Codex at once we wouldn't be having this Creep issue we are having.

They don't have to release all the books at once, rather, they simply have to stop radically shifting their designs mid cycle like they always do...

The first 6th ed books with both Chaos 'dexes + DA's were pretty damn level. Tau ramped it up, then Eldar made things nuts with Serpent Shields. (really, the only truly broken/heinous & obnoxious thing about that book)

7th saw books moving back towards a more even keel with the initial 6th ed books, but with the added 'new feature' being the race specific FOC's.

But then GW decided to go completely off the deep end and give us the radically altered & amazingly powerful 7.5 Decurions on top of a model clusterfeth. (aka: Scatbikes)

They could at least design them all at once then release them as normal. I would just like a somewhat level playing field.

So much of this stuff relates to MTG. Yes, there are always decks out there that are just going to be superior across the format. But, get someone very good at the game playing a say tier 2 or tier 3 deck, they could easily take down someone who is playing a tier 1 deck who honestly doesn't know the game or his deck well.

I have a feeling that any army considered "OP" or "Tier 1" can be beaten by someone who knows how to play his list well and knows well how the rules of the game work.

SG

 ServiceGames wrote:
So much of this stuff relates to MTG. Yes, there are always decks out there that are just going to be superior across the format. But, get someone very good at the game playing a say tier 2 or tier 3 deck, they could easily take down someone who is playing a tier 1 deck who honestly doesn't know the game or his deck well.

I have a feeling that any army considered "OP" or "Tier 1" can be beaten by someone who knows how to play his list well and knows well how the rules of the game work.

SG

Everybody in mtg has access to multiple decks though by virtue of buying random cards. In warhammer you can't have multiple armies easily. It's like being forced to play only black in mtg. Furthermore in mtg once an edition rotates, all colors are updated simultaneously. It's not like having to stick to 9th edition black while blue is on it's 13th edition.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:
So much of this stuff relates to MTG. Yes, there are always decks out there that are just going to be superior across the format. But, get someone very good at the game playing a say tier 2 or tier 3 deck, they could easily take down someone who is playing a tier 1 deck who honestly doesn't know the game or his deck well.

I have a feeling that any army considered "OP" or "Tier 1" can be beaten by someone who knows how to play his list well and knows well how the rules of the game work.

SG

Everybody in mtg has access to multiple decks though by virtue of buying random cards. In warhammer you can't have multiple armies easily. It's like being forced to play only black in mtg. Furthermore in mtg once an edition rotates, all colors are updated simultaneously. It's not like having to stick to 9th edition black while blue is on it's 13th edition.

I wouldn't say it is all Random buying cards. You can purchase specific cards individually from card shops. Some ranged to $100 per card.

Or you can buy cheap prints. In cases of a few armies, even if you were to buy copies of the actual stuff it still costs a lot. On the other hand MTG fakes are so high standard, you would have to call a deck check every game.

Makumba wrote:
Or you can buy cheap prints. In cases of a few armies, even if you were to buy copies of the actual stuff it still costs a lot. On the other hand MTG fakes are so high standard, you would have to call a deck check every game.

Except the same is also true for 40k, as Chinese re-casters a big deal. If you're going to be unscrupulous and pirate, there's plenty of fakes out there available on-line. Once stuff is painted, it's pretty hard to tell what's legit and what's a re-cast, especially given the age of a large number of models across every army...

It may be easy for example to tell off hand say a fake of the new Bloodthirster or Scatbikes, as those kit are barely half a year old at most. But things like say Warp Spiders or Plaguemarines which are old as dirt? Yeah, good luck trying to tell if it's a cheap knock-off without first scraping off some paint.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
We also have 1-2 annoying little ***** that play Eldar and actually insult players who won't play them, "Grow some balls and fight me".

Lol, I literally would. After I punch them in the mouth and they look up tearfully and ask why I did that I'll just say "you asked me to fight you, not play you. Now, if it's a game you want then sure!"

Also, isn't it funny that we scared Dman out of his own thread by being such a bunch of "goobs"?!

 Lord Corellia wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
We also have 1-2 annoying little ***** that play Eldar and actually insult players who won't play them, "Grow some balls and fight me".

Lol, I literally would. After I punch them in the mouth and they look up tearfully and ask why I did that I'll just say "you asked me to fight you, not play you. Now, if it's a game you want then sure!"

Also, isn't it funny that we scared Dman out of his own thread by being such a bunch of "goobs"?!

Well his last thread got locked, which was pretty much crying his Eldar got beat. This one needs to be locked as well.

Except the same is also true for 40k, as Chinese re-casters a big deal. If you're going to be unscrupulous and pirate, there's plenty of fakes out there available on-line. Once stuff is painted, it's pretty hard to tell what's legit and what's a re-cast, especially given the age of a large number of models across every army...

Are you real compering the cost of a full recast army vs a MTG fake print deck. Lets say the recasting will save you half the army cost, and no one will ever find out, although it is much easier with recasts then with fake print cards. The army will cost 300-400$. You can get a top quality MTG for less then 100$, if you have some of the commons and lands.

It may be easy for example to tell off hand say a fake of the new Bloodthirster or Scatbikes, as those kit are barely half a year old at most. But things like say Warp Spiders or Plaguemarines which are old as dirt? Yeah, good luck trying to tell if it's a cheap knock-off without first scraping off some paint.

Am sorry, but if the models are out of print, then if anyone suddenly comes up with an army of 40 of those, everyone will think they are recasts. And if someone turns up at a store with an army the store owners knows they didn't buy at the store, he may not even care if they are recasts or "original" GW finecast.

Dman137 wrote:
It's been clearly noted that people hate on eldar a lot but yet lists like the one that won the NOVA GT people seem to be fine with. Clearly theres a issue here.

They see me trollin, they hatin

Martel732 wrote:
Substitute vanguards for DC. And in some grav cents. Bam. Better list. BA useless.

You've probably noticed a number of lists with "useless" units winning tournaments simply because people aren't used to countering them. So, horses for courses.

Mono-BA is not only weak because of the codex, it's also weak because a mono-codex is usually predictable. Or should I say, most players are predictable. Some units are better, some are worse. Allies are strong not only because you can cherry pick the power units, but because you can create unique and powerful synergies that nobody yet expects. You can do this within a mono-faction, Lictors are one example, but you need to use dark horse units that have less obvious strengths.

You might say "SM = better units" but the entire point of 45x DC is to be an immense sponge for psychic buffs and a wound tank for monster ICs like Dante, with enough depth to cycle the core unit twice. Vanguard and Grav Cents defeat synergy, and you can't win without synergy if you're a weaker codex. No, it's not a better list, unless you're seeing something I don't. You missed the entire concept, and novelty is part of it. Would the Thunderdome list that swept NOVA have been better with Grav Cents?

Here's the point. Synergy > units. You typically counter "better units = better synergy". So you then proceed to compare the value of units independently, which morphs instantly into "units > synergy", and you miss the point entirely. Again. You need to organize around desired effects first, practical routes to achieve vital synergies second, and the necessary units to support your strategy last. It's a subtle but very important difference.

Where some see obstacles, others see opportunities. While it's always fun to see you bemoan your beloved and once-glorious Blood Angels, your attitude is reminiscent of a crab trapped in a bucket. No need to change though, you're generally amusing in a light-hearted yet melancholic sort of way. In fact I think I'd kind of miss your negativity if you weren't getting tabled by Scatterbikes about once a week.

I'd be wiling to try it in a computer game, but I can't/won't pay for three more librarians and 20ish more DC.

Interestingly, I've never thought that the BA ever played quite right. Rhino rush (3rd) and razor parking lot (5th) are not really how I ever envisioned them working.

Jump marines have never been that good, and that makes me kinda sad.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd be wiling to try it in a computer game, but I can't/won't pay for three more librarians and 20ish more DC.

Interestingly, I've never thought that the BA ever played quite right. Rhino rush (3rd) and razor parking lot (5th) are not really how I ever envisioned them working.

Jump marines have never been that good, and that makes me kinda sad.

I hate to say it Martel, because you do know a bit about how the game works it seems, but if you are unwilling to try new things at all ever than that might be your problem.

You can't build a list in 3rd and expect it to perform in 5th, let alone 7th. So you must often try new things. The points yoyoyo makes are worth investigating, but you won't even do that. So if you haven't investigated literally every single option ever, then you undermine your own authority when you say BA are bad!

The price is the worst thing about 40k. Bar none.

Experimentation is nicer when you're not down 7$ a model for a 50/50 idea.

Yoyoyo wrote:
The price is the worst thing about 40k. Bar none.

Experimentation is nicer when you're not down 7$ a model for a 50/50 idea.

I can execute 15 different terran builds in one evening of Starcraft. If they fail, I loose a little ranking that I can get back by playing staple builds well. It's not that I'm conceptually against allies, but I'm just not willing to pay real money to GW for the plastic for said allies. Needing allies to even remotely compete is distasteful, but the money is the real kicker.

Martel732 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
The price is the worst thing about 40k. Bar none.

Experimentation is nicer when you're not down 7$ a model for a 50/50 idea.

I can execute 15 different terran builds in one evening of Starcraft. If they fail, I loose a little ranking that I can get back by playing staple builds well. It's not that I'm conceptually against allies, but I'm just not willing to pay real money to GW for the plastic for said allies. Needing allies to even remotely compete is distasteful, but the money is the real kicker.

That is a better reason! I just thought you were being obstinate about your BA. Yes, money is not something one should easily part with.

The way I see it that on a powerscale of 1 to 10, mono codices should have builds available to them in the 6-8 range. I have no problem with 9 and 10's being possible only through allies. After all, an 8 still hasva chance against a 10.

What we have instead is some monodexes going up to 10 and others maxing at 3.

Martel732 wrote:
The way I see it that on a powerscale of 1 to 10, mono codices should have builds available to them in the 6-8 range. I have no problem with 9 and 10's being possible only through allies. After all, an 8 still hasva chance against a 10.

What we have instead is some monodexes going up to 10 and others maxing at 3.

I disagree. Allies shouldn't be a "make your list more broken" card. Maybe a bit more powerful, but no more than any monocodex list.

Will every army have builds that are better than others? Sure. But in a ideal world, those ideal builds should be balanced against those form other codexes. The problem, as you put it, is that allies are necessary for some factions and armies to approach the power that certain armies can have without allies.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The way I see it that on a powerscale of 1 to 10, mono codices should have builds available to them in the 6-8 range. I have no problem with 9 and 10's being possible only through allies. After all, an 8 still hasva chance against a 10.

What we have instead is some monodexes going up to 10 and others maxing at 3.

I disagree. Allies shouldn't be a "make your list more broken" card. Maybe a bit more powerful, but no more than any monocodex list.

Will every army have builds that are better than others? Sure. But in a ideal world, those ideal builds should be balanced against those form other codexes. The problem, as you put it, is that allies are necessary for some factions and armies to approach the power that certain armies can have without allies.

I don't consider going from 8 to 10 to be "breaking" the game. I think that it's inevitable that a few mathematically optimal combos are to be found by combining codices. Just not to the point that it exists now.

The problem I have (playing 3 IoM factions myself) is the assumption that they should all count as one big Codex to balance it. feth that, I don't want to buy 9(!!!) Codices at full price because my Space Wolves really aren't up to snuff without that Smurf ladies man Tigurius or a Ravenwing bike formation. I don't want to NEED a Knight to give my Guard a snowball's chance at winning. But that kind of is how it is.

So yeah, Martel, I get what you mean when you say you don't want that. You want to play your Blood Angels because you like their background and quirks. There is very little reason right now to play them over Ultramarines, and it's bs.

Well said! Exalted!

Dman137 wrote:
Unit is 1391pts and is;
Wolf lord w/TW SS TH with 2 wolves
3 iron priests in TWs with 4 cyberwolves each.
6 ravenwing knight command with 1 apothecary
Chaplain on bike
3 level 2 librarians on bikes

28 models.

This is pretty much the whole army, the rest was scouts

How is that legal? Thats 8 characters.

 Gunnvulcan wrote:
How is that legal? Thats 8 characters.

It's a SW formation called Champions of Fenris IIRC

 Gunnvulcan wrote:

Dman137 wrote:
Unit is 1391pts and is;
Wolf lord w/TW SS TH with 2 wolves
3 iron priests in TWs with 4 cyberwolves each.
6 ravenwing knight command with 1 apothecary
Chaplain on bike
3 level 2 librarians on bikes

28 models.

This is pretty much the whole army, the rest was scouts

How is that legal? Thats 8 characters.

Space Wolf unique detachment allows the four Wolf characters, Interrogator-Chaplain as HQ for an allied DA detachment, allied SM Librarius Conclave formation.