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.

Breng77 wrote:
Leafblower was essentially a tide of armored vehicles, so unless you are someone who thinks only Russes are tanks, it was tide of tanks.

5th ed guard was Mech veterans, Mantacores, Vendettas, hydras, colossus etc. Certainly not "tide of bodies" at the very least. I basically never saw blobs of infantry from guard in 5th.

Leafblower was a specific build referring to Vets in Vendettas and Vets in Chimeras both.

When someone says "Tide of Tanks", it's meaning literally that--a tide of tanks.

You can walk your statement back now if you want; you'd still be wrong. There were blobs of infantry from Guard as well as the Leafblower builds, mainly dealing with Chenkov and his "Send in the Next Wave"...y'know, the thing people cried about getting cut from the next book?

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).

it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.

I disagree on this. Cruddace purportedly did Guard and it still reeks of his touch. The lack of options for Sergeants(I mean FFS, they now make it so the chainsword that they shoved down our throat for two editions isn't even a base part of the profile) coupled with the general "bleh" of anything that wasn't Conscripts, Valhallans, or Commissars(apparently his "favorite representation of the Guard") made it a book that while it can be exceedingly powerful(like it could before!) also made it extremely "meh" when doing anything out of the ordinary.

If it truly had been a labor of love, we would have seen some serious shifts in things I feel. But since Cruddace was involved, it's "tides of bodies".

Yeah, they definitely didn't go in depth on anything like

-separate vehicle/infantry traits for almost all factions, only one single repeat trait we'd seen before in the 18" rapid fire out of Steel Legion
-Double-turret shot buff for Leman Russes, Obsec in Spearhead Detachments, Special tank orders
-A special order, stratagem, relic, and warlord trait for all regiments
-Reworks for all the turret weapons on Hellhound tank variants (both stats and points, possibly not the Bane Wolf, I haven't ever used that one but the other two saw significant changes)
-Basilisk extra AP buff
-Massive buffs and changes to Baneblade variants
-Move and fire buff to Valkyries
-New customizable ogryn bodyguard guy

yeah GW definitely didn't give a gak about anything but Conscripts and Heavy Weapon Squads and Infantry Squads, which got huge changes and buffs from Index to codex like

-

When will GW pay attention to tank, airborne, and mechanized guard army players?

Compare the number of actual stat/rule changes in the Guard and Nid codex to the new Eldar codex (disregarding the others since the theory is they were printed pre-game release so they didnt have time to make significant changes). A couple aspects got changed. Path of Command got a thing. Fire Prisms got the shoot twice rule.

Breng77 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.

GW is a figurine company, not a games company.

M.

That would explain why the GK and AM codexes were so strong.

Wait, no they aren't, they're distinctly weaker than the codexes that came before them.

GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.

Yup I've always said this GW has never done creep for dollars, it is always random.

Man, I wish this were (*more*) true simply because it might mean new plastic aspect warriors.

the_scotsman wrote:

Yeah, they definitely didn't go in depth on anything like

-separate vehicle/infantry traits for almost all factions, only one single repeat trait we'd seen before in the 18" rapid fire out of Steel Legion

Let's be honest here. We know that the first 12 books were done(as in: sent to print) over the summer. Until we see all 12, I don't feel comfortable saying this is for sure.

-Double-turret shot buff for Leman Russes, Obsec in Spearhead Detachments, Special tank orders

Special Tank Orders only went to the Regiments that didn't actually get a special Infantry Order. I'd be more inclined for this one if it were a thing in all of them.
We saw the double-turret shot buff in Eldar so it makes me think that was a thing they started doing in non-Marine books. I won't understand why AdMech didn't get it but there it is.

-A special order, stratagem, relic, and warlord trait for all regiments

Everyone got a special Stratagem, Relic, and Warlord Trait in every book prior. Some of the Orders are things that(in my opinion) would be based on characters in armies that are character heavy and, incidentally, are things that I feel would have been in Doctrina Imperatives had Skitarii remained separate to CultMech.

-Reworks for all the turret weapons on Hellhound tank variants (both stats and points, possibly not the Bane Wolf, I haven't ever used that one but the other two saw significant changes)
-Basilisk extra AP buff
-Massive buffs and changes to Baneblade variants
-Move and fire buff to Valkyries

All true.

-New customizable ogryn bodyguard guy

This guy was a hugely welcome surprise, absolutely will admit.

yeah GW definitely didn't give a gak about anything but Conscripts and Heavy Weapon Squads and Infantry Squads, which got huge changes and buffs from Index to codex like

Conscripts got a slight nerf from Index->Codex. They got Orders on 4+'s instead of automatically.

When will GW pay attention to tank, airborne, and mechanized guard army players?

Compare the number of actual stat/rule changes in the Guard and Nid codex to the new Eldar codex (disregarding the others since the theory is they were printed pre-game release so they didnt have time to make significant changes). A couple aspects got changed. Path of Command got a thing. Fire Prisms got the shoot twice rule.

And yet we didn't get Lasguns back for Sergeants and Sergeants lost Powerfists(both of which, by the by, put a hole in the head of the garbage about "Rules for kits!" since one of the only two plastic Guard Powerfists is in the Cadian Command Squad and it is emblazoned with a Sergeant's rank insignia) and we saw only cursory shifts to the problematic Index units.

Sorry for being hyperbolic but I really, really dislike that Cruddace was allowed anywhere near the Guard book still. I just wanted my Lasguns for Sergeants back damnit!

The tanks-double-shoot thing applies only to the Prism in the CWE book. CWE has other HS tanks it would then, in theory, also apply to.

I think they just knew they had to throw Prisms a bone, and didn't really think out if HS tanks in general should have it.

(And then threw Prisms two bones, but Spinners none.)

Bharring wrote:
The tanks-double-shoot thing applies only to the Prism in the CWE book. CWE has other HS tanks it would then, in theory, also apply to.

I think they just knew they had to throw Prisms a bone, and didn't really think out if HS tanks in general should have it.

(And then threw Prisms two bones, but Spinners none.)

The tanks-double-shoot thing only applies to Russes in the Guard book.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Leafblower was essentially a tide of armored vehicles, so unless you are someone who thinks only Russes are tanks, it was tide of tanks.

5th ed guard was Mech veterans, Mantacores, Vendettas, hydras, colossus etc. Certainly not "tide of bodies" at the very least. I basically never saw blobs of infantry from guard in 5th.

Leafblower was a specific build referring to Vets in Vendettas and Vets in Chimeras both.

When someone says "Tide of Tanks", it's meaning literally that--a tide of tanks.

You can walk your statement back now if you want; you'd still be wrong. There were blobs of infantry from Guard as well as the Leafblower builds, mainly dealing with Chenkov and his "Send in the Next Wave"...y'know, the thing people cried about getting cut from the next book?

Leafblower also used the artillery tanks and hydras. I never once saw Chenkov in 5th or blobs. Almost always "mech IG" which was centered around mechanized units not "tide of bodies" So again I'm no more wrong about tide of tanks, than you are saying that Cruddace is always tide of bodies for IG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The issue with Cruddace has been that other than that one book every thing else he has touched sucks (mostly nids).

Aren't russes more a chasis, with different weapon options?

The weapon options on a Fire Prisim is you can replace the stormbolter-like weapon with the CWE HB-like weapon.

Night Spinners, Firestorms, Fire Prisms, and Falcons all share one chasis.

(An actual quesiton about IG, I don't recall for sure)

I mean, OK, you want Lasguns on sergeants (Powerfists on regular sergeants annoys me too, they're only on Veteran Sergeants for some reason) but it's frankly laughable to say they didn't pay attention to army styles other than "wave of bodies" when out of all the vehicles in the codex, the ONLY ones that didn't get SOME kind of change index to codex (whether that be stat change, points change, or special Stratagem referring specifically to that vehicle) were:

-Regular Taurox
-Wyvern? I don't remember whether the Wyvern or the Hydra got the Aerial Spotter stratagem.

All the rest, every SINGLE one, got changed for the better. I'm not sure what it is with you and letting one thing completely ruin an entire release for you, but between this sergeant lasgun thing and the whole "I wish I didn't have to take a couple Enginseers" skitarii thing...I don't know what to tell you, man. We got regiment rules. They're really flavorful and in depth. the internal balance is pretty darn good, amazing by GW standards.

Bharring wrote:
Aren't russes more a chasis, with different weapon options?

The weapon options on a Fire Prisim is you can replace the stormbolter-like weapon with the CWE HB-like weapon.

Night Spinners, Firestorms, Fire Prisms, and Falcons all share one chasis.

(An actual quesiton about IG, I don't recall for sure)

It was a change from Index to Codex.

In the Index, Leman Russ (Battle Cannon, Eradicator Nova Cannon, Exterminator Cannon or Vanquisher) were one unit at 11PL and Leman Russ Demolishers (Demolisher Cannon, Executioner Plasma Cannon, Punisher Gatling Cannon) were a different unit at 12PL. (In previous editions, the Demolisher family got a higher rear AV, but they had identical stat lines in the Index.)

In the Codex all the (non-FW) turret variants are in one entry at 10PL and thus get some more flexibility about squadroning different turrets together.

 bullyboy wrote:
???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries (AM)?

Eldar are OP.

Martel732 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries (AM)?

Eldar are OP.

Some people just like to complain about Eldar because....well, to complain. Often while their special snowflake SM get all of the nice toys. It reminds me of the kids who have 6/7 action figures, but cry "unfair" when another kid has just the one they're missing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Leafblower was a specific build referring to Vets in Vendettas and Vets in Chimeras both.

When someone says "Tide of Tanks", it's meaning literally that--a tide of tanks.

You can walk your statement back now if you want; you'd still be wrong. There were blobs of infantry from Guard as well as the Leafblower builds, mainly dealing with Chenkov and his "Send in the Next Wave"...y'know, the thing people cried about getting cut from the next book?

I'll agree with you on what the term originally meant, but I think toward the end of 5th it was being applied pejoratively to just about anything that had a Vendetta in it.

I was surprised when people didn't complain (too much) about Index CWE.

There were still complaints, but not nearly as much.

Turned out, there was more sanity than I expected.

the_scotsman wrote:
I mean, OK, you want Lasguns on sergeants (Powerfists on regular sergeants annoys me too, they're only on Veteran Sergeants for some reason) but it's frankly laughable to say they didn't pay attention to army styles other than "wave of bodies" when out of all the vehicles in the codex, the ONLY ones that didn't get SOME kind of change index to codex (whether that be stat change, points change, or special Stratagem referring specifically to that vehicle) were:

-Regular Taurox
-Wyvern? I don't remember whether the Wyvern or the Hydra got the Aerial Spotter stratagem.

Hydra, Manticore, and the Deathstrike didn't get access to Aerial Spotters but both the Wyvern and Basilisk both did.

If I'm going to be honest, I feel like the Hydra really should have gotten something to make it feel different to the other armies' anti-"Fly" keyword capabilities. I don't know what that something should be (whether it is being static BS4 versus both "Fly" and non-"Fly" keywords to represent the fact that it's supposedly just throwing boatloads of shells at the target or having more shots than it currently has), but it just feels exceedingly lackluster for an item described as throwing walls of flak up.

All the rest, every SINGLE one, got changed for the better. I'm not sure what it is with you and letting one thing completely ruin an entire release for you, but between this sergeant lasgun thing and the whole "I wish I didn't have to take a couple Enginseers" skitarii thing...I don't know what to tell you, man. We got regiment rules. They're really flavorful and in depth. the internal balance is pretty darn good, amazing by GW standards.

Truth be told, the Sergeant Lasgun thing is a pet peeve. It hasn't ruined my enjoyment but it does give me something to bring up when people talk about how the book feels "more customizable" than previous ones or things we'd like to have seen done differently. I've actually submitted it a few times for FAQs/Erratas in the hope that someone finally realizes that it's actually a thing that is possible thanks to the kit(which isn't actually doable with the new Laspistol and Frag Grenade loadout I might add, since both of those are the right hands of the model).
It's a pet peeve for me because of the fact that the other three armies I have/had(AdMech which are shelved until Fires of Cyraxus or the FW Cyraxus list gets released whichever comes first, Tau, and Marines/Deathwatch) have Sergeant/Sergeant equivalents rocking the same weapon as the rest of the squad while the one army I have which actually has long held that the weapons of an officer(pistol/sword) were not necessarily for the NCOs. There was a great little fluff bit in "Cadian Blood" where the Whiteshield(Conscripts by another name) leading the squad remarks (paraphrasing here) how he feels foolish waving a sword around like the Captain does, since he's "just" a sergeant equivalent.

AdMech for me wasn't just the Enginseers thing. It was the fact that all the flavor and feel of my Skitarii army was shitcanned in favor of everything being rolled into one book and then being called an idiot/fool for liking running Skitarii by themselves. If it was just the Enginseers or requiring an AdMech HQ, I would have been mostly okay. If it were just the removal of Doctrina Imperatives, the same thing likely would have been true of me being okay with it.

But that wasn't it. It was the fact that now I have to take an AdMech HQ and I'm saddled with just the Canticles side of things, while losing the ability to run a purely Skitarii army. I wouldn't tell people to take a Marine Captain with a Power Maul and Pistol, then just "pretend" he's a Chaplain if they'd lost the option for Chaplains. I think it was a HUGE misstep to not include a Skitarii HQ option or not to make Doctrina Imperatives an actual ability on Skitarii models.

All of that stuff rolled together is why I refuse to buy AdMech at this juncture and am waiting until there's a Skitarii HQ option, even if it's a single daggone character option, to bring them back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I was surprised when people didn't complain (too much) about Index CWE.

There were still complaints, but not nearly as much.

Turned out, there was more sanity than I expected.

They were still too busy complaining about Conscripts.

Martel732 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries (AM)?

Eldar are OP.

Craftworld Eldar are fine. The fact that Ynnari got the same buffs that Craftworlders got is OP.

the_scotsman wrote:
on the contrary, I find the AM codex to be the exception, rather than the rule (and even then, the units that were problematic in the codex were almost universally problematic in the index...and they saw nerfs in the codex.)

The stuff that's broken in 40k is almost universally either A) Forgeworld, or B ) in the indexes/interacting with the indexes.

Craftworlds, for instance, would be just fine, with maybe a couple builds using the Alaitoc trait being abusive, if it weren't for the existence of Ynnari and the fact that all the buffs and stratagems CWE get can be used with the broken Ynnari Word of the Pheonix reapers. You can say "OMG so many buffs!" all you like, but when its buffs to stuff like Falcons, which were and are still pretty bad, it's not a bad thing. If anything, a balance pass to SMs, CSMs, GK and Admech is needed analogous to what guard and eldar got.

So far, the only thing we've seen receive significant buffs in the codex having already been seen in the tournament was Dark Reapers, which are broken specifically because of their interaction with the Index Ynnari Word of the Pheonix power, letting them circumvent exactly what Ynnari are intended to be, a close range "high risk high reward" variant of Eldar. The Guard codex at worst kept things we'd seen in tournaments the same, at best nerfed them.

IMO, as soon as we see nerfs to Forgeworld Malefic Lords, Ynnari, Magnus, Arty carriages, etc, and codexes for the other Index factions, we can start looking at codex creep. Heck, if the CA rumors are true, they already are looking at codex creep, which would be awesome.

Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr

Martel732 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries (AM)?

Eldar are OP.

I think the reason. More people are not.comaining is because we are conditioned to elder being OP. Its been their native state for two codex. Why should we be the least surprised that they have remained the same.

 sennacherib wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries (AM)?

Eldar are OP.

I think the reason. More people are not.comaining is because we are conditioned to elder being OP. Its been their native state for two codex. Why should we be the least surprised that they have remained the same.

Last two? Which codex have they had that was not top of the pile? They only time they haven't been at least top three are the editions where they didn't get a new codex.

 Formosa wrote:
Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr

Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?

These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.

But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.

The problem with Codex Craftworlds Aspect Warriors and Shadow Spectres isn't that spectres are massively better. It's that Scorpions and Banshees are just plain bad. Even Warp Spiders are better at being the one thing Striking Scorpions are good at than Striking Scorpions are. If we're talking about pure efficiency, Shining Spears are still superior in most regards.

But maybe I'm just buying them because I like the models.

 Fafnir wrote:
If we're talking about pure efficiency, Shining Spears are still superior in most regards.

Similar move speed, spectres have the extra -1 to hit vs the spears extra wound and T, both put out about 3 S6 hits per battle round (if the spectres manage to hit all 3 times) with spears having an extra AP and D. Spectres have their secondary fire mode of heavy flamers, however. So they're pretty close to par with one another. Except the shadow spectres cost 8ppm less than the spears.

I'm not sure I see the superiority.

Spectres put out about 1.40 S6/AP-3/D1 hits per turn without guide, around 2.39 S6/AP-1/D1 per turn with guide. Spectres can also put out 3.5 S5/AP-1/D1 hits per turn instead.

Spears put out 2 S6/AP-4/D2 and 2.67 S4/AP0/D1 hits per turn without guide, and around 2.67 S6/AP-4/D2 and 3.56 S4/AP0/D1 hits per turn with guide.

Spears also have a 4++ against shooting, further movement range, and can more effectively tie up units they don't kill in close combat.

You're being disingenuous. Spears put out significantly more damage. Unbuffed, Spears are doing more than twice as many wounds in a turn than Spectres against MEQ, and the comparison moves even further in the Spears' favour against multi-wound models. Spectres are solid units, but they're a pale comparison to the damage output that Spears are capable of.

 Fafnir wrote:
Spectres put out about 1.40 S6/AP-3/D1 hits per turn without guide, around 2.39 S6/AP-1/D1 per turn with guide. Spectres can also put out 3.5 S5/AP-1/D1 hits per turn instead.

Spears put out 2 S6/AP-4/D2 and 2.67 S4/AP0/D1 hits per turn without guide, and around 2.67 S6/AP-4/D2 and 3.56 S4/AP0/D1 hits per turn with guide.

Spears also have a 4++ against shooting, further movement range, and can more effectively tie up units they don't kill in close combat.

You're being disingenuous. Spears put out significantly more damage. Unbuffed, Spears are doing more than twice as many wounds in a turn than Spectres against MEQ, and the comparison moves even further in the Spears' favour against multi-wound models. Spectres are solid units, but they're a pale comparison to the damage output that Spears are capable of.

I forgot about the shuriken catapults on their bikes. That does shift things offensively in the spears's favor, to a degree.

Melee unit v ranged unit comparisons are always a bit hard. How do you value melee attacks bearing in mind that the enemy might get overwatch, the possibility of failing a charge, and the additional possibility of suffering return strikes for anything that survived your attack? You get a 4++ vs shooting, but you invite the enemy to damage you up to three times as often as the spectres would. And tying up units in close combat? No, at best all you do is turn off their shooting for a turn.

I don't think the comparison can be made as clear as either of us have tried to do thus far, upon further inspection. The rest of my examples stand, however.

Once again, Scorpions and Banshees are just bad even before you factor in Spectres.

Hawks and Spiders function adequately as MSU deep-striking objective grabbers and area deniers. Hawks are cheap, and Spiders are slightly tanky.

Spears and Reapers are the best of the aspect warriors, with Spectres rounding out a decent third place, which is well within reason.

 Kanluwen wrote:

AdMech for me wasn't just the Enginseers thing. It was the fact that all the flavor and feel of my Skitarii army was shitcanned in favor of everything being rolled into one book and then being called an idiot/fool for liking running Skitarii by themselves. If it was just the Enginseers or requiring an AdMech HQ, I would have been mostly okay. If it were just the removal of Doctrina Imperatives, the same thing likely would have been true of me being okay with it.

But that wasn't it. It was the fact that now I have to take an AdMech HQ and I'm saddled with just the Canticles side of things, while losing the ability to run a purely Skitarii army. I wouldn't tell people to take a Marine Captain with a Power Maul and Pistol, then just "pretend" he's a Chaplain if they'd lost the option for Chaplains. I think it was a HUGE misstep to not include a Skitarii HQ option or not to make Doctrina Imperatives an actual ability on Skitarii models.

All of that stuff rolled together is why I refuse to buy AdMech at this juncture and am waiting until there's a Skitarii HQ option, even if it's a single daggone character option, to bring them back.

Sorry to hear you're not happy with the state of your army. I'm curious as to what flavor your felt was lost though. I haven't really looked at their new book yet, but from what I've heard, the stuff we lost was...

* The non-outflanking scout. Which I never really got to work the way I wanted it to in 7th. It was flavorful, but it mostly boiled down to, "Can I sprint up to that next piece of cover turn 1, and if not, can I redeploy behind a wall to hide?"

*The doctrines. I know these were kind of "our thing," but they always felt a little... bland to me. It was nice to have, but it was basically a shoot/punch better/worse slider. The canticles m like a flashier sort of scientific technomagic, which seems a bit more flavorful to me. I assume you disagree?

* The ability to run all "skitarii" units, which admittedly is pretty lame. I play my harlequins more often than I play my skitarii, and I can imagine being quite perturbed if I was forced to field an autarch or something just to fill up an HQ slot. Turning our sargeants into HQs harlequin style would have made a lot of sense. However, I'm not sure the chaplain analogy is completely fair. In the marine scenario you've described, players have lost unit options. In our case, we've actually gained options (without doing ally shenanigans) but also been forced to fill an HQ slot. Do the rules for a techpriest not allow us to make a passably skitarii HQ? My rangers are generally lead by guys with arc mauls and pistol weapons. Surely we can make something comparable out of a tech priest. Or perhaps I'm mistaken?

Wyldhunt wrote:

Sorry to hear you're not happy with the state of your army. I'm curious as to what flavor your felt was lost though. I haven't really looked at their new book yet, but from what I've heard, the stuff we lost was...

* The non-outflanking scout. Which I never really got to work the way I wanted it to in 7th. It was flavorful, but it mostly boiled down to, "Can I sprint up to that next piece of cover turn 1, and if not, can I redeploy behind a wall to hide?"

Truthfully, this part was fine to lose. It should have been accompanied by vehicles or alternate deployment methods but c'est la vie.

*The doctrines. I know these were kind of "our thing," but they always felt a little... bland to me. It was nice to have, but it was basically a shoot/punch better/worse slider. The canticles m like a flashier sort of scientific technomagic, which seems a bit more flavorful to me. I assume you disagree?

This is the biggest part. The Skitarii aren't the Magi. They're the military arm of the Mechanicus. The "shoot/punch better/worse" thing was a great reflection of the fact that even though they have arcane weaponry...they're still ground troops. They're trained/programmed to be military units and were introduced to us with no HQ to represent the fact that the Tech-Priest commanding their forces/operating logistics for them was too valuable to potentially lose in combat so was kept in orbit to uplink data to the forces.

They were not disposable corpses with weapons(Servitors) or flocks of Zealots relying on their faith and tech that can potentially kill them(Electro-Priests) or relics of a lost age of technology regarded as walking divine symbols that are shepherded into battle by a priest(Kastelans) and were ultimately led into battle by a priest initiated deep into the mysteries of the Cult(Tech-Priest Dominus).

The fact that now they're required to have an HQ in and of itself isn't an issue. It's the hamfisted way that it was done and how not even a year or two ago it was "too dangerous" for Skitarii to be accompanied by their Priests, instead being led by a specially chosen Alpha or Princeps within the units on the field or in extreme cases by a Cohort Commander who commands the forces with no outside input from a Priest.
It's the hamfisted way that they're now forced to use the "zealot" side of things for special rules instead of having their own special rules remaining in play for the Skitarii side of things. Remember that they separated Canticles and Doctrina Imperatives because DI was a "static" benefit that would affect your Skitarii no matter the number of units you had on the field while Canticles got better and better based upon the number of models you had in play.

* The ability to run all "skitarii" units, which admittedly is pretty lame. I play my harlequins more often than I play my skitarii, and I can imagine being quite perturbed if I was forced to field an autarch or something just to fill up an HQ slot. Turning our sargeants into HQs harlequin style would have made a lot of sense. However, I'm not sure the chaplain analogy is completely fair. In the marine scenario you've described, players have lost unit options. In our case, we've actually gained options (without doing ally shenanigans) but also been forced to fill an HQ slot. Do the rules for a techpriest not allow us to make a passably skitarii HQ? My rangers are generally lead by guys with arc mauls and pistol weapons. Surely we can make something comparable out of a tech priest. Or perhaps I'm mistaken?

That's the reason I made the comparison I did. A Skitarii Warlord, as fielded in 7th edition, was a guy who could have exactly the same as any other member of his squad. He had Doctrina Imperatives, he could tote a Galvanic Rifle or Rad-Carbine, etc.

Can an Enginseer do any of that? No.
Chaplains have a unique ability and unique wargear. A Captain doesn't have the ability or the wargear, but you can make a "close enough" and call it a day...but it's not the same thing as fielding a Chaplain.

I would like some to explain exactly what is OP in eldar. Right now the only things i am that peaked my interest and are possibly OP. The dark reapers and alaitoc -1 to hit stacking.

As a harlequin player, there is nothing the codex is offering that i was not already going to take. That being hemlock or crimson hunter exarch. As good as the dark reapers are i won't be making room for them.

Seriously what is this OP boogeyman?

I think the largest problem with balancing 40k in general is just that; new editions.

I get that they want to sell models and books, I really do. But why do we need new editions every few years? Why take a game system that is tried and true and completely turn it on its head, making models I loved to play obsolete (or worst case, unusable anymore), and then redoing the way my army plays?

8th is a good step forward for the company toward being a game company that sells models as opposed to a model company that sells games. FAQing broken stuff quickly, releasing "patch" books (CA), etc. Honestly if they could make the game system work and, instead of rereleasing brand new codices, go the warmachine route with expansion books they would make a crapload more money and people would be happier with the game overall.

I was actually extremely happy with 5th ed, much like many were happy with 4th. If they had taken what worked and just tweeked the stuff that didnt for 6th I wouldn't have quit in the first place. Instead they broke the game even more with allied detachments and all that BS, gave us rediculous rules interactions, and made forgeworld tourney legal; all of which ruined the game for me.

Yes, power creep is a thing no matter what game system you play (Magic is the same, pretty much any cell phone game with gatchas/cards, etc.). However, it would be much less of a thing if GW made a game system, and instead of scrapping it every so many years, they patch it and turned it into something that works that they can expand on. You'll still have a bit of power creep from new units and things, but its much easier to balance things then.

Infantryman wrote:It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.

GW is a figurine company, not a games company.

M.

Really? Someone is still sour on GW and still following them. Or maybe you didn't know that GW has released a few products now that are based on games. If GW was just a figurine company they wouldn't be offering these games with cheaper minis in them. That would mean GW is wasting money on the other parts than minis then.

MagicJuggler wrote:On a more serious note, the fact that so many tournament armies are Soups rather than complete armies could be a sign that many armies were not designed as coherent wholes, so much as individual groups of units in isolation with relatively little forethought to the "bigger picture."

I don't understand this. What is ment by soup? I have read this a few times referring to something in 8th edition and it makes no sense to me.