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.

How did you deal with Leman Russ tank companies in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th?

Eldar Seer Council on foot or on jetbikes. Once the unit (or two) is among the tanks, they wiill pop easily to witch blades.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I think this is the motivation behind the Killteam release.

I think there should be a middle ground behind Kill Team and Apocalypse.

 wuestenfux wrote:

How did you deal with Leman Russ tank companies in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th?

Eldar Seer Council on foot or on jetbikes. Once the unit (or two) is among the tanks, they wiill pop easily to witch blades.

Sounds like it would work fine on Baneblades


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How did you deal with Leman Russ tank companies in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th?

Never had personal experience in 3rd. IIRC, was a White Dwarf list circumscribed to the guard, at least in 3rd.

Later , I was the tanks, I had a veterans plus tanks guard in 5th, but I had to stop because I moved.

And correct me if I am wrong, but then even glances could destroy a tank. And assault tanks was easier.

And 3 Leman russ are not 1 super-heavy, we discussed this to death.

Assaulting tanks was harder. Glances could in 3rd and 4th but could not in 5th and 6th. And 3 tanks is absolutely equal to one superheavy for the price - we may have discussed this but I don't think I ever agreed with this premise.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

How did you deal with Leman Russ tank companies in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th?

Eldar Seer Council on foot or on jetbikes. Once the unit (or two) is among the tanks, they wiill pop easily to witch blades.

Sounds like it would work fine on Baneblades

Well, it should work against any tank company. I did it several times vs. LR tanks and it worked very well.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

How did you deal with Leman Russ tank companies in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th?

Eldar Seer Council on foot or on jetbikes. Once the unit (or two) is among the tanks, they wiill pop easily to witch blades.

Sounds like it would work fine on Baneblades

Well, it should work against any tank company. I did it several times vs. LR tanks and it worked very well.

So what is the problem with 3 Baneblades vs 10 Russes? Is Av12 really that much worse than AV11?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

How did you deal with Leman Russ tank companies in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th?

Eldar Seer Council on foot or on jetbikes. Once the unit (or two) is among the tanks, they wiill pop easily to witch blades.

Sounds like it would work fine on Baneblades

Well, it should work against any tank company. I did it several times vs. LR tanks and it worked very well.

So what is the problem with 3 Baneblades vs 10 Russes? Is Av12 really that much worse than AV11?

No, it isn't. Do you have an Eldar list atm?

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

How did you deal with Leman Russ tank companies in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th?

Eldar Seer Council on foot or on jetbikes. Once the unit (or two) is among the tanks, they wiill pop easily to witch blades.

Sounds like it would work fine on Baneblades

Well, it should work against any tank company. I did it several times vs. LR tanks and it worked very well.

So what is the problem with 3 Baneblades vs 10 Russes? Is Av12 really that much worse than AV11?

No, it isn't. Do you have an Eldar list atm?

No. I don't actually own any 40k armies except the IG superheavy tank company from Montka.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I think this is the motivation behind the Killteam release.

I thikn there should be a middle ground behind Kill Team and Apocalypse.

Why? If people want to bring an IG infantry company, they should also be able to bring other IG company types. If people want to bring an IG infantry squad, then play KT.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


So what is the problem with 3 Baneblades vs 10 Russes? Is Av12 really that much worse than AV11?

Look as an example at the targeting, what you can shoot if you shoot artillery, the likelihood of disable a weapon, and so on.

Now do not misunderstand me - I would happily play against 3 Baneblades (and yes, the models ARE indeed very good), I just need to be prepared and there is way,way worse out there.

But IMHO it kills many pickup games and damages the hobby the way GW handles it. and the solution is not simple - you could "fix" it with special rules but this could lead to dilution of the flavour of units and roles (fast attack/heavy support, assault/heavy) and increase the bloat.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Why? If people want to bring an IG infantry company, they should also be able to bring other IG company types. If people want to bring an IG infantry squad, then play KT.

let's just say that skewing is detrimental in general.

They are forcing the scale of the games on us with the formations in the codexes.
I wanted to get some Wraithguard and a Wraithlord into the Eldar Warhost I have, but the only way to do that is with a Wraithknight. There are no formations with Wraith units that do not have the knight. The only way is to add a CAD or ally them in, or go unbound of course.

The problem now is that you either have to find a like minded opponent (good luck) or have to try and match what they bring. Unless that is, your willing to be heavily beaten.
I don't particularly like super heavies, gigantic creatures or D-weapons and would be happy to play my games without them. Many players do like them and I don't expect to have to try and force my opinion on them. If there was a pre set restriction in place by way of different levels of aggression, (defcon 1, 2 and 3 for example) I can at least offer a game without trying to sound like I'm tailoring a game to my own preferences.
I'm perhaps sounding a bit hypocritical I know.

I see we've now escalated to "I have superheavies...you should just play killteam..."

Grand.

 Skinnereal wrote:
They are forcing the scale of the games on us with the formations in the codexes.
I wanted to get some Wraithguard and a Wraithlord into the Eldar Warhost I have, but the only way to do that is with a Wraithknight. There are no formations with Wraith units that do not have the knight. The only way is to add a CAD or ally them in, or go unbound of course.

Its the problem of GW letting their "marketing" influence the rules design and not focusing on good gameplay. The "Decurions" for the Orks having 6 units of boyz with the mob rule version that only really works with large blobs or the guard core that has 170 guardsmen at a minimum is trying to push these massive armies onto the player base but has no regard that their bloated rules make massive games take zogging forever to play. If its not unwieldy number of models then its big stompy stuff that is expensive in both points and dollars. Sometimes they get it right with stuff like the Tau Hunter Contingent/Cadre which is incredibly flexible and fun but its adding powerful rules to an already powerful army.

The Dread Mob in the Ghazz Supplement is extremely restrictive in how many dreads and kans you can take while forcing you to take one of the Orkanauts which is generally considered a bad unit and overpriced in terms of dollars when compared to the Stompa. If they didn't try to push the Gorkanaut on every formation then they might see some uptick in sales of their Deffdreads and Killa Kans if they offered a Kan/Dread formation.

 Elbows wrote:
I see we've now escalated to "I have superheavies...you should just play killteam..."

Grand.

I wonder when it will become "I have my Mega-Titan costume and enjoy walking on the table and stomping on models... you should just play whatever".

Super-heavies and gargantuan creatures are just out of place in a 28mm scale, 180x120 gaming table. I don't mind apocalypse nor escalation, but those things should have never been brought to regular 40k. Wanna play with your big toys? Fine, just do it in an appropiate environment.

I'm rather attached to BigHammer & SmallHammer, so as a suggestion:

Kill team: as it is
SmallHammer: <2k pts, 1 CAD & up to 1 Ally, no detachments, limit of 1 flyer OR LoW (6th, basically)
BigHammer: 40k as written

I think SmallHammer would actually be an interesting tournament format.

 malamis wrote:
I'm rather attached to BigHammer & SmallHammer, so as a suggestion:

Kill team: as it is
SmallHammer: <2k pts, 1 CAD & up to 1 Ally, no detachments, limit of 1 flyer OR LoW (6th, basically)
BigHammer: 40k as written

I think SmallHammer would actually be an interesting tournament format.

Nailed it.

I'd have nothing against some formations in SmallHammer, but without changing up rules and formations the above is spot on.

No one is forbidden from playing with the units they have/like, but you're also less likely to get an unbalanced game.

Of course, BigHammer is just Apoc and SmallHammer is 'classic' 40k, so we're just renaming what we previously had.

 malamis wrote:
I'm rather attached to BigHammer & SmallHammer, so as a suggestion:

Kill team: as it is
SmallHammer: <2k pts, 1 CAD & up to 1 Ally, no detachments, limit of 1 flyer OR LoW (6th, basically)
BigHammer: 40k as written

I think SmallHammer would actually be an interesting tournament format.

Cool concept but the game balance is still gak while having an ally still allows for things like Dark Angel Thunder Stars. Eldar, Tau, Space Wolves, and Daemons will still be fully capable of dominating while the lack of formations would be detrimental to armies like Dark Eldar, Orks, CSM, Guard, etc.

Also 1 Flyer OR LoW? How is a flyer even remotely in the same ballpark as a LoW. Even some of the better flyers like the Vulture isn't nearly as disruptive to the game as things like Knights, WK, Stormsurge, etc.

There is no quick and dirty solution to 40k's problem as its a mixture of the BRB and individual codexes that throw game balance out the window.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
How did you deal with Leman Russ tank companies in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th?

Armoured companies in 3rd? They were definitely a sight to behold! However, the way vehicles worked in 3rd also made them riskier (as was everything in 3rd - the game's rules were sometimes just as deadly as your opponent).

First, there were no hull points. If you penned a tank, you have a 50/50 shot of destroying it (4-6). A roll of 3 destroyed a weapon, and a roll of 2 immobilized it. That's a lot of potentially very bad stuff! Even a roll of 1 would make it unable to move or shoot on its next turn (Crew Stunned). Even glancing hits were no picnic. They got their own table too, though only a 6 destroyed the tank. 5 was weapon destroyed, 4 was immobilized, 3 was stunned, and 2 and 1 were Shaken (couldn't shoot, but could still move... or was it the other way around...). Most people took "Extra Armour" on everything because it allowed you to ignore the Shaken result, or otherwise reduced a Stunned to a Shaken. In effect, the game had a bit of the opposite problem - for Imperial armies, the Autocannon was seen as useless, and the Lascannon was king. Being able to reliable penetrate vehicle armour to get those bigger effects was the name of the game against vehicles.

As such, most armies had ways of dealing with an Armoured Company, though it was definitely a tough nut to crack. Generally, you had to start hitting their side armours in order to not be rolling against AV14 all day - going head to head just wasn't something you could rely on. Only Fire Dragons, Tyranid Carnifexes (all Monstrous Creatures had Armourbane in those days, but hit whatever armour they attacked on), and Tau Railguns stood a chance against that front armour consistently enough for it to matter. If you're wondering why so many Lascannons cost so many points, this was the edition that did it. Imperial Guard Weapons Teams with tons of Lascannon shots each turn could wipe out nearly any vehicle on the table quickly.

Here's the things from each army that were effective against Armoured Companies:

Tyranids: Warp Blast (was just a shooting attack, and a Ld test made it the S10, AP1, Lance that you now know it as), Hive Tyrants (Armourbane, better if hitting sides or rear), Carnifexes. GENESTEALERS (could run + charge, and penetration rolls of 6 allowed you to roll an additional D6 - not just a D3). Note, Tyranid Monstrous Creatures could upgrade to 2+ saves, making the basic Battlecannon nearly worthless against them.

Imperial Guard: Lascannons. All the Lascannons. Plus their own tanks.

Space Marines: Likely the reason people complained, Space Marines didn't have a great way to tackle these. Drop Pods were only introduced towards the end of 3rd edition, and were Forge World only. Outside of this, Space Marines were trying to Infiltrate units close by with meltas, deep striking Assault Marines (risky, due to pie plates, but a 5-man squad with a melta cost less than the tank they might kill), deep striking Land Speeders with meltas, and deep striking terminators with Cyclone Missile Launchers. It wasn't a sure thing, and deep strike mishaps were a lot more dangerous than they are now, making it a risky play - but rewarding. Popping a few tanks would quickly turn the tides against an Armoured Company.

Eldar: Did the Eldar thing. The ACTUAL Eldar thing. They used psychic powers to mask and hide and give cover saves to stuff, used advanced tech and positioning with their skimmers to force Glancing Hits (and then reduce those Glancing Hits to null results), and used powerful Bright Lances to make the max armour of these tanks AV12 to pop them, assuming they weren't already hitting side armour. Wraithlords were tough enough to survive a while against the tanks, but not all game long. Eldar were the only folks with Haywire grenades, which were still quite effective at turning vehicles into useless armour boxes (lots of glancing hits would eventually immobilize them and strip them of their guns), and Fire Dragons in a Falcon were always a force.

Dark Eldar: Take everything I just said about the Eldar's weapons, but replace psychic powers with insane levels of speed.

Tau: They were really the new kids on the block when released in 3rd. Hammerheads and Crisis Suits were the way to go, supported by Broadside suits. Railguns were what was needed, and smart use of move-shoot-move with the suits could keep the big guns from slaughtering the suits. Again, Deep Strike & Melta was a major contributor.

Orks: Throw boyz at 'em! Nobz with Power Klaws would rip them apart, and keeping your models spread out reduced the impact of so many large blast templates to the point that they didn't really kill enough. If you wanted to have other kinds of fun, Tank Bustas rolling up in a Battlewagon was also an option, Zzap guns auto-hit but dealt random Strength damage (making them good, but unreliable), and Warbikes were fast enough to get the jump on a tank.

Sisters: Hey, they were a real force back then with a Codex and everything! Litanies of Faith could keep the sisters alive, as having an Inv save for a turn was much better than what Space Marines could do. Again, meltas were the name of the game for them, as they mostly still are now. The vehicle that could shoot d6 Krak Missile each turn was actually considered very strong. The Inquisitors that could be purchased alongside the sisters could also bring some of that zany weaponry with them, and assassins.

Chaos Space Marines: As I'm sure you've heard, the Chaos Space Marine codex in 3rd (technically in 3.5) was OP. Generally, speaking though, you could take lots of vehicles that had some extra layers of protection to pop a couple, the Defiler was able to Run & charge to sprint across the field and into combat, Obliterators were armed with very powerful guns same as now, and there were lots of tricks to set up the Chaos Space Marines in extra-good/extra-evil ways.

Necrons: Their big return started in 3rd, but their model line was far thinner. You either tried to glance them out with Gauss (though, as stated, this was harder to do back then unless you just got a lucky hit), or the Monolith would devastate stuff (AV14 all around, and it ignored all the special rules of everything, making it very very very difficult to kill). Also, the C'tan, while slow enough to keep away from, would wreck the tanks if they got too close (which wasn't easy, and moving and shooting with tanks was far more difficult).

Grey Knights: Depending on how many Demolishers the Armoured Company had, Grey Knight Terminators may or may not have been the answer. Definitely was a tricky match for them, but their psychic powers could save the day.

 Vankraken wrote:

 malamis wrote:
I'm rather attached to BigHammer & SmallHammer, so as a suggestion:

Kill team: as it is
SmallHammer: <2k pts, 1 CAD & up to 1 Ally, no detachments, limit of 1 flyer OR LoW (6th, basically)
BigHammer: 40k as written

I think SmallHammer would actually be an interesting tournament format.

Cool concept but the game balance is still gak while having an ally still allows for things like Dark Angel Thunder Stars. Eldar, Tau, Space Wolves, and Daemons will still be fully capable of dominating while the lack of formations would be detrimental to armies like Dark Eldar, Orks, CSM, Guard, etc.

Also 1 Flyer OR LoW? How is a flyer even remotely in the same ballpark as a LoW. Even some of the better flyers like the Vulture isn't nearly as disruptive to the game as things like Knights, WK, Stormsurge, etc.

There is no quick and dirty solution to 40k's problem as its a mixture of the BRB and individual codexes that throw game balance out the window.

I quite agree there isn't an easy way to solve the overarching issues of independent design concepts being mashed together into a single product (we're still arguing over OpenGL and DirectX in IT for example), but what GW should have provided is a baseline of expectations - what they apparently did with the general's handbook for AoS. What we all want, I think, is an easy way to make pickup games easy and satisfying, since Apoc will generally be with people you know, or organised through the venue that's hosting.

To the other points, a flyer is in the same ballpark (at the low end admittedly) as LOW because it has portable invisibility, and invisibility in that format is not a given any more - no conclaves and 2+ casts. Eldar still dominate because they have unfettered access to the best options in nearly everything, but that, i'd suggest, is a codex design issue and not a army structure issue. This way though at least they'd be working within the same structure as the rest which did damp down the power levels a *bit* back when it applied. There will still be bad matchups under SmallHammer to be sure, but there would at least be a point in playing them instead of 3+ Wraithknights and auto-porting Wraithguard.

As an aside, IG do genuinely benefit from CaD only, because the cost to qualify for it is either practically negligible, or a genuine army asset and it hinders the majority of their 'hard' matchups. That and the majority of their formations are of trivial value unless heavily exploited.

Limiting flyers I can see for the same reasons as super heavies.

They promote rock/paper/scissor play.

One of anything is OK. A TAC should be able to handle it. I have no problems with a single flyer, or a single Imperial knight/baneblade/etc. (just talking about the "reasonable” LoW type stuff here.) But once the spamming starts, even if you have the tools to deal with one of something, can you deal with 3+? Especially when some of the tools you need work poorly vs. everything else (AA).

I’m not saying we need to rigidly enforce WD battle report style army lists (One of everything!), but as the game drifts towards the extremes, the RPS-style of game play become more evident. I’d rather see battle determined on the table, then at the list building stage.

 Nevelon wrote:
Limiting flyers I can see for the same reasons as super heavies.

They promote rock/paper/scissor play.

One of anything is OK. A TAC should be able to handle it. I have no problems with a single flyer, or a single Imperial knight/baneblade/etc. (just talking about the "reasonable” LoW type stuff here.) But once the spamming starts, even if you have the tools to deal with one of something, can you deal with 3+? Especially when some of the tools you need work poorly vs. everything else (AA).

I’m not saying we need to rigidly enforce WD battle report style army lists (One of everything!), but as the game drifts towards the extremes, the RPS-style of game play become more evident. I’d rather see battle determined on the table, then at the list building stage.

Once, both WHFB and 40k had units, for balance and flavour, that had a "0-1" tag (rarely 0-2). This gave you tools and avoided spamming.

But people complained. And GW did see a way to sell more models, and the evil limitations started to have exceptions, generally for flavour, again.

An example of this is the night lords in 3.5 CSM: they did lose a lot of stuff compared to Black Legion, but removed the 0-1 for the raptors.

But this was not enough for the greedy GW - because this mindset, still rooted in the concept that a list is interesting not only for what has access to, but even for what has not access to, still limits the impulse buy.

Flash forward now.

I think they should just bring back the CAD and HQs that make cretin models troop choices

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Once, both WHFB and 40k had units, for balance and flavour, that had a "0-1" tag (rarely 0-2). This gave you tools and avoided spamming.

But people complained. And GW did see a way to sell more models, and the evil limitations started to have exceptions, generally for flavour, again.

An example of this is the night lords in 3.5 CSM: they did lose a lot of stuff compared to Black Legion, but removed the 0-1 for the raptors.

But this was not enough for the greedy GW - because this mindset, still rooted in the concept that a list is interesting not only for what has access to, but even for what has not access to, still limits the impulse buy.

Flash forward now.

Yup. And special characters used to require your opponent’s permission to field. But all those pesky restrictions on what you could field impacted sales. I’d love to see a return of that kind of limits, but frankly I think that genie is out of the bottle, and nothing can get it back in.

I do think the rules guys need to step on the marketing people a little bit though. Things like the fact that every eldar bike kit comes with the options to make a heavy weapon does not mean that every one in an army list should be allowed to. If we want to have a game worth playing, there needs to be some checks and balances.

 Elbows wrote:
I noted this several years ago when the flyers showed up. I was hosted a game at a convention which was also running a 40K tournament. I walked around early in the con when everyone was showing off on display boards --- and I had never seen flyers before. Of the sixty+ people involved, I'd say 45 had flyers on the board...often more than one.

I was blown away. Fast forward a year or two and it became Knights and similarly obscenely large items. It is for this reason I can't think of a way GW can get me back into 40K with a new edition. I frequently think to myself "what would the point be of a normal Imperial Guard squad on today's tabletop...".

The level of the game is a huge turn off for me.

There hasn't been a point to having normal Imperial Guard squads(or Imperial Guard as a faction in general) for at least two editions now.

The old Armored Company lists were pretty easy to deal with. Very slow, easy to lock down and suppress with older edition damage tables, really the only edition they ever worked halfway competently in was 5th and by then their rules were out of date and didnt get a proper update until 6E when the core rules slammed tanks again.

Looking at a hyper-competitive tournament and judging that the entire game is now irredeemably ruined because people use extreme strategies in tournaments...yawn.

Ever seen a Warmahordes tournament? Armies that bring enormous swathes of LOS blocking terrain vs armies that buff all their models up to nigh-invulnerable levels of durability vs armies that can sprint half the board and one-shot casters. Just because previously, 40k could only muster up a list that spams the most powerful units available and couldn't stack rules and allies to create a true skew list, doesn't mean that skew lists existing mean the game is "dead."

Yes, it is possible to create far more powerful gamed-up lists than in previous editions. It is also more easy to create armies with a very cool theme throughout. In 5th, people wanted to be able to play their chapter, their theme, weird armies like Genestealers Harlequins and Admech, and they had to just fake it.

the_scotsman wrote:
Looking at a hyper-competitive tournament and judging that the entire game is now irredeemably ruined because people use extreme strategies in tournaments...yawn.

The problem, which has plagued every edition, is that such lists dont stay in tournaments, and casual play for leagues or pickup gaming has become something of a nightmare to sort out.

Yes, it is possible to create far more powerful gamed-up lists than in previous editions. It is also more easy to create armies with a very cool theme throughout. In 5th, people wanted to be able to play their chapter, their theme, weird armies like Genestealers Harlequins and Admech, and they had to just fake it.

I dont think anyone has an issue with seeing genestealer cults back or AdMech finally introduced. What people have issues with is the way GW seemingly goes out of their way to half ass these releases and then push insanely overpowered stuff while allowing and incentivizing stupid army builds that are either completely divorced from the background material outside of the most forcibly contrived fantasies, or horribly broken, or commonly both.

the_scotsman wrote:


Yes, it is possible to create far more powerful gamed-up lists than in previous editions. It is also more easy to create armies with a very cool theme throughout. In 5th, people wanted to be able to play their chapter, their theme, weird armies like Genestealers Harlequins and Admech, and they had to just fake it.

The fact that is easier and easier to screw-up the game with a certain army combination is a good reason to be mad or at least concerned.

Furthermore, none says that genestealer cult is not awesome. But if you add formations and minidex, at the very least, you add them in a well thought manner without skyhammers, or tempestus lacking of half of the needed tools and with 5 units, 4 of which have been errataed like 4 days later (sign of complete disregard for the customer, lazyness, tight time schedule, underpaid workers, and other bad stuff).

Want to add units? And campaigns? Good. Release ONE book every long time, with loads of units, better rules, and better fluff because for each faction the authors would write just few thing and would be encouraged to do not spam grimderp Scheiße (again, tempestus, part of the fluff is really cringeworthy).

Think about Admech. I love admech, the aesthetic and so on. But WHY in the name of the Omnissiah is in 2 books if not for money-grabbing?

And this, conseidering what they add. Because other factions have the codex written as we were in 5th edition. CSM? The guard?
The guard codex in 6th looked like a nice tuning down for 5th edition guard. One, almost two, editions too late.This is, at best, sloppy.

Oh christ the Tempestus book was awful. It basically read like "Hostel Hogwarts". How anyone thought that was good enough to submit to an editor, much less be approved, printed and sold, is beyond me.

And to cap ot all off...despite being raised in such a place, Stormtroopers are still the same Ld as basic putz Guardsmen

In what way is gw "pushing" the kind of extreme builds you see at tournaments? When was the last time any bit of GW promotional material featured even an unbound army much less something like flyramts and riptides?

Gw doesn't push overpowered models. They just don't care about competitive balance. A company that wanted to push new stuff by making it op would never shoot themselves in the foot with stuff like Electropriests, Sicarians, the Deathwatch rules from DWO, the Harlequins release immediately followed by the eldar release, etc

If the releases being good or being garbage seems largely arbitrary (which it is) it's better and more reasonable to assume balance isn't taken into account at all and gw is just sitting in their studio playing basic fluffy armies like we see in every one of their batreps.

the_scotsman wrote:
In what way is gw "pushing" the kind of extreme builds you see at tournaments? When was the last time any bit of GW promotional material featured even an unbound army much less something like flyramts and riptides?

Gw doesn't push overpowered models. They just don't care about competitive balance. A company that wanted to push new stuff by making it op would never shoot themselves in the foot with stuff like Electropriests, Sicarians, the Deathwatch rules from DWO, the Harlequins release immediately followed by the eldar release, etc

If the releases being good or being garbage seems largely arbitrary (which it is) it's better and more reasonable to assume balance isn't taken into account at all and gw is just sitting in their studio playing basic fluffy armies like we see in every one of their batreps.

Did we talk about turnament exclusively? Do not think so. With Unit1126PLLMade in gb and Malamis we discussed abuout the fact that we like 2 different warhammers.

And if GW is stupid, instead of evil, does not make the problem lesser. It makes it worse actually: you can smite or redeem evil, but stupidity is the stronger force in the universe.