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.
Pretty much. I am shelving mine completely. 100% will not buy any more. They even made sure to make our Start Collecting formation absolutely garbage.
I'm not shelving the boys in red just yet - I've spent too much time and money to let them languish in a 'shelf crusade'. They'll continue to see battle, and I'll keep trying to make the codex work, I'll fail I imagine - but I refuse to be beaten by GW's blatant disregard for common sense rules.
And no, I won't 'just use the C:SM book', because I didn't BUY the C:SM book, I bought the BLOOD ANGELS book and collected a BLOOD ANGELS army. If I wanted to be a power gamer I wouldn't have chosen them in the first place.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
2016/06/30 14:03:19
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 FAQ Draft p36 Dark Angels
I'm not shelving the boys in red just yet - I've spent too much time and money to let them languish in a 'shelf crusade'. They'll continue to see battle, and I'll keep trying to make the codex work, I'll fail I imagine - but I refuse to be beaten by GW's blatant disregard for common sense rules.
And no, I won't 'just use the C:SM book', because I didn't BUY the C:SM book, I bought the BLOOD ANGELS book and collected a BLOOD ANGELS army. If I wanted to be a power gamer I wouldn't have chosen them in the first place.
Ditto. I don't have Codex : Space Marine because I am not into smurf marine.. I am more Angel marine like Dark Angel and Blood Angel
2016/06/30 14:45:31
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 FAQ Draft p36 Dark Angels
Pretty much. I am shelving mine completely. 100% will not buy any more. They even made sure to make our Start Collecting formation absolutely garbage.
I'm not shelving the boys in red just yet - I've spent too much time and money to let them languish in a 'shelf crusade'. They'll continue to see battle, and I'll keep trying to make the codex work, I'll fail I imagine - but I refuse to be beaten by GW's blatant disregard for common sense rules.
And no, I won't 'just use the C:SM book', because I didn't BUY the C:SM book, I bought the BLOOD ANGELS book and collected a BLOOD ANGELS army. If I wanted to be a power gamer I wouldn't have chosen them in the first place.
You can still use them as castually markers, damsil in distress or body sheilds.
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
Too bad the looted wagon does nothing for us. If you are going to run things alternate to trukks and wagons, the forgeworld ones are far far better than this last minute abomination of a thought.
warhammer 40k mmo. If I can drive an ork trukk into the back of a space marine dread and explode in a fireball of epic, I can die happy!
jreilly89 wrote: So, to clarify, people were mad the Looted Wagon wasn't in the codex, now they're mad it's being released for free? K.
Rather, they're mad because it (unfortunately) like all of the ork codex, sucks. It's what, a slightly more expensive rhino without any upgrades, and nearly double the cost of a rhino if you give it a killkannon, that sometimes must move flatout? One immobilization damage roll, and it's dead without any upgrades. Hell, compare it to the trukk, which is 7pt cheaper (12 is you don't want the wagon to die after an immobilization), gets a big shoota, gains the fast type, and doesn't waste a heavy support slot, but is only AV10 and not a tank (not that AV11 on F or S matters much, or the tank type really).
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/06/30 21:20:42
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
The five point skorcha is a pretty good option for it...and you can take 3. It's one more "distraction carnifex" in a codex filled with distraction units, but at 52 points is pretty cheap for something that will draw fire from more expensive units.
You can only fire the Skorcha if you move 6" though, and can't fire all 3 at once if you move at all.
I just wish that it had more options that allowed you to do things like improve its armour or give it the fast or heavy type to represent many more different types of looted vehicles.
jreilly89 wrote: So, to clarify, people were mad the Looted Wagon wasn't in the codex, now they're mad it's being released for free? K.
Rather, they're mad because it (unfortunately) like all of the ork codex, sucks. It's what, a slightly more expensive rhino without any upgrades, and nearly double the cost of a rhino if you give it a killkannon, that sometimes must move flatout? One immobilization damage roll, and it's dead without any upgrades. Hell, compare it to the trukk, which is 7pt cheaper (12 is you don't want the wagon to die after an immobilization), gets a big shoota, gains the fast type, and doesn't waste a heavy support slot, but is only AV10 and not a tank (not that AV11 on F or S matters much, or the tank type really).
This was released entirely as a fluff piece. Anyone who expected it to be great is a fool. The Ork codex is not a Decurion power level codex, it's a "for fun" codex and the rules represent that. The Looted Wagon is not the nail in the coffin people are claiming it to be. It's just another unit there for fluff.
jreilly89 wrote: So, to clarify, people were mad the Looted Wagon wasn't in the codex, now they're mad it's being released for free? K.
Rather, they're mad because it (unfortunately) like all of the ork codex, sucks. It's what, a slightly more expensive rhino without any upgrades, and nearly double the cost of a rhino if you give it a killkannon, that sometimes must move flatout? One immobilization damage roll, and it's dead without any upgrades. Hell, compare it to the trukk, which is 7pt cheaper (12 is you don't want the wagon to die after an immobilization), gets a big shoota, gains the fast type, and doesn't waste a heavy support slot, but is only AV10 and not a tank (not that AV11 on F or S matters much, or the tank type really).
This was released entirely as a fluff piece. Anyone who expected it to be great is a fool. The Ork codex is not a Decurion power level codex, it's a "for fun" codex and the rules represent that. The Looted Wagon is not the nail in the coffin people are claiming it to be. It's just another unit there for fluff.
I don't see a problem with a codex being fluffy, fun, AND competitive. But, apparently that is too much to ask, and anyone who wants that is a fool. Seriously, this game needs some serious balancing and the recent blood angels faq is a complete joke. And no, I do not play orks or blood angels. I just want my opponents to be able to give me a good game without me having to comp them points or me having to dumb down my list for them (especially when I also have to deal with a bunch of other very competitive armies).
Twinkle, Twinkle little star.
I ran over your Wave Serpents with my car.
jreilly89 wrote: So, to clarify, people were mad the Looted Wagon wasn't in the codex, now they're mad it's being released for free? K.
Rather, they're mad because it (unfortunately) like all of the ork codex, sucks. It's what, a slightly more expensive rhino without any upgrades, and nearly double the cost of a rhino if you give it a killkannon, that sometimes must move flatout? One immobilization damage roll, and it's dead without any upgrades. Hell, compare it to the trukk, which is 7pt cheaper (12 is you don't want the wagon to die after an immobilization), gets a big shoota, gains the fast type, and doesn't waste a heavy support slot, but is only AV10 and not a tank (not that AV11 on F or S matters much, or the tank type really).
This was released entirely as a fluff piece. Anyone who expected it to be great is a fool. The Ork codex is not a Decurion power level codex, it's a "for fun" codex and the rules represent that. The Looted Wagon is not the nail in the coffin people are claiming it to be. It's just another unit there for fluff.
I don't see a problem with a codex being fluffy, fun, AND competitive. But, apparently that is too much to ask, and anyone who wants that is a fool. Seriously, this game needs some serious balancing and the recent blood angels faq is a complete joke. And no, I do not play orks or blood angels. I just want my opponents to be able to give me a good game without me having to comp them points or me having to dumb down my list for them (especially when I also have to deal with a bunch of other very competitive armies).
Were you expecting points updates in an FAQ? If so, no wonder you were disappointed.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
EnTyme wrote: Were you expecting points updates in an FAQ? If so, no wonder you were disappointed.
This exactly. If people keep thinking these FAQs are for balance it actually hurts their cause. They need to be pushing GW as hard as they can for a rebalancing after these FAQ are done, not during.
I don't know how many of us it will be required to make that happen, but it will only do so if we make a convincing case to GW. Keep advocating for a balancing pass before 8th drops and it just might happen. Not likely, but anything is possible. Just don't waste your effort expecting it on these FAQs.
Were you expecting points updates in an FAQ? If so, no wonder you were disappointed.
No, I wasn't expecting points updates in faqs. That would be silly. I was expecting them to at least clarify the rules for the formations they made to make the formation usable. Which it was crazy to hope for that I know.
Twinkle, Twinkle little star.
I ran over your Wave Serpents with my car.
Were you expecting points updates in an FAQ? If so, no wonder you were disappointed.
No, I wasn't expecting points updates in faqs. That would be silly. I was expecting them to at least clarify the rules for the formations they made to make the formation usable. Which it was crazy to hope for that I know.
So what UNCLEAR WORDING cleared up would help formation? You know job of FAQ is to answer frequently asked questions(hint is kinda at the name). Not really to change the rules.
So expecting formation rules to be changed...Yeah that's crazy. Not job of a FAQ.
I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
EnTyme wrote: Were you expecting points updates in an FAQ? If so, no wonder you were disappointed.
This exactly. If people keep thinking these FAQs are for balance it actually hurts their cause. They need to be pushing GW as hard as they can for a rebalancing after these FAQ are done, not during.
I don't know how many of us it will be required to make that happen, but it will only do so if we make a convincing case to GW. Keep advocating for a balancing pass before 8th drops and it just might happen. Not likely, but anything is possible. Just don't waste your effort expecting it on these FAQs.
We definitely need to encourage a rebalance after the FAQ, but people need to remember that calm, well-articulated arguments will be much better received than venomous, vitriolic screaming about how one faction or the other is OP/UP. Be adults, people. More flies with honey and all that.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
Technically the Dreads are a little better.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
Technically the Dreads are a little better.
The SW Dreads are better, as they get the 3++ with the axe, but they all have the same basic profile now.
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
Technically the Dreads are a little better.
The SW Dreads are better, as they get the 3++ with the axe, but they all have the same basic profile now.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
I don't 'hate on BA' and neither do any of the other collectors as far as I know - and the Dreadnought attacks and Scout WS/BS stats are not the major issue with the book (although, I will admit it's nice to be included with the rest of the Space Marines in this update), a discrepancy that shouldn't have existed in the first place. Blood Angels pay the premium SM price for sub-standard units throughout the codex - with no options like the formations present for the other chapters to make up for it. The one formation that was ANY good (and I'm being rather loose with the term 'good' here) that BA had access to, got a nerf with the FAQ - it's hard to remain objective when even something as simple as that gakky formation gets the nerfhammer.
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
Technically the Dreads are a little better.
The SW Dreads are better, as they get the 3++ with the axe, but they all have the same basic profile now.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the entry in the BA codex where I'm allowed to give my Dreadnoughts 3++, could you site the page number where that wargear entry is please?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/01 16:26:38
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
The DAFAQ disgusted me with their stance on the Deathwing detachment autolosing on Turn 1 because of that damn rule.
And the staple response from a GW Manager on the page?
Use Unbound. Use Unbound.
When pointed out that at higher tier competitive level play and hell, most store events that Unbound was not an option his response was to 'not give negative feedback on a FAQ but to go to TOs instead.'
That's right. To address problems with core rules and detachments and to give feedback about a decision we....go to people that don't have anything to do with them at all....?
What?
Uhm. Why is this GW fault? GWclearly states that Unbound is legal choice. When store events and tournaments don't allow Unbound those are "house rules", so why is it up to GW to do anything about it when people are changing the rules?
It's the stores and the people who are changing GW rules. So you either accept it or you don't. Unbound is perfectly legal. It gives us the way to play how we want. It's other people who say you can't play as you want. So again why are you ranting on GW and not other people?
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points) 
8k points
3k points
3k points
~1.5k
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
