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.

oh, that is a kind of a good. Well at least you needed a super heavy detachment to take more then one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 782049 10626602 wrote:
You really, really need to take a step back from 40k Karol.

It is the only thing I get to do besides training for events. Keeps me focused and angry at proper times, not just all the time like in the past.

Karol wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Yes, everyone keeps telling me that GK are not allowed to have good stuff, because at some time they were good for a short time. Clearly eldar were good fo decades, so eldar players should expect that sooner or later they would get a rule set that is bad. As I said before, I have no problem with people not liking bad rules for their faction. What I don't understand is why in the case of eldar players this seems as such a suprise. If the next CA has nerfs for GK direct or indirect, I would not be suprised by it.

You've once again completely missed the point in your eternal quest for victimhood.

Sorry am following you. I really don't understand why eldar player are suprised that they could get a bad set of rules, specially with GW history dealing with other armies. Did eldar players thing that their armies are going to have good rules for ever? Or that they are somehow entitled to good rules? I don't know maybe there is some WD article from 20 years ago, where GW promises they will never give bad rules to eldar. But even if that happened, promises are promises, and life is life.

It's very simple, please listen and try to understand. GW does not specifically set out to make bad rulebooks or Codices. They don't look at how good an army was 2, 5, 10 or 25 years ago and decide to punish that army for being too good at any point in its past. Anybody who tells you otherwise is at best wrong and at worst a liar. If GW produces a book that is too powerful or too weak it's entirely because their playtesting is bad and their grasp of rules writing is equally poor in many cases. That's all there is to it. Also, please stop referring to "all Eldar players" as if they're some unified monolithic group. They're not.

Nobody deserves bad rules because they used to have good rules. That's a stupid attitude in games design just as it's a stupid attitude in life.

 vipoid wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Given the quality of balance between codex all edition I've seriously doubted play testers existence. If play testers exists and you don't listen to their feed back they might as well not exist anyways.

The FLG guys have been play testing for them for quite awhile. As to the quality of their feedback or GW actually listening to them, who knows, but in this case they specifically raised the red flags on this and were ignored.

There was a chap a while back who made a point about historical advisers in films. He spoke of one such adviser who was given a copy of the script and made many notes about historical errors and how to correct them. All were ignored. After that, his job was basically to sit around eating Mars Bars. Only once during filming was he actually asked for advice on anything (it was to do with where a column of infantry would hold a standard - he pointed out that they were currently holding a cavalry standard).

Anyway, the upshot was that he had never been hired.to give any historical advice. Rather, he had been hired so that the film could boast that it had had a historical adviser.

I suspect the same is true of GW's playtesters. They exist not to give the design team advice but so GW can truthfully claim that it has playtesters.

Haha - great story. This also seems pretty likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
This is probably going to be unpopular, but from a marines point of view (I have a whole slew of armies...Dark Angels, Eldar, Deathwatch, Harlequins, Iron Warriors, Ravenguard), I don't consider my armies as "marine" armies. I have Dark Angels, not marines, I have Deathwatch, not marines. So it's easy to understand that players are happy that their faction got a codex and new rules, with that faction being more than just "marines'.

On the flipside, I do feel the hate for the Eldar update....it was pretty lacklustre. There are some shining examples, but overall it feels more like a WD article than a campaign book.

I respect your opinion on this but for me I think this line of thinking is overall very boring. The difference between chapters should not be different armies IMO. They should literally just be a different chapter tactic with some unique units all in the same book. The preponderance on unique marines is very very dull to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:

Karol wrote:
Probably a stupid question, but what is a D-weapon ?

Destroyer weapons were the final answer if you had to remove every single mother f***** from the table.
You can find their rules, but for simplicity let's just say they were normally mounted on Superheavies and were devastating to infantry vehicles and other Superheavies alike.

Strenght D was what came after S 10, basically. As stats were capped at 10

D weapons on a 6 to wound automatically kill anything with 6 wounds or less. FNP could not even be taken. For bigger things...it did 6+d6 automatic wounds. IMO I loved D weapons. The were great for killing death-stars and WK and 3++ save units. on 2-5 they did d3 wounds also which was also very powerful but you got saves against them.

It was great fun taking eldar armies with majority D weapons. WG/Dcannon platforms/ Hemlocks/ warphunters. Much fun.

kingheff wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Oh cool, I see GW can think of new Relics, Warlord Traits and Stratagems for half a dozen Chaos factions but not a single one for Eldar or DE.

Look I understand the anger about pr as it is pretty weak but why be angry that the legions actually may get something?

Before pa2 my night lords had:
1 relic
1 warlord trait
1 legion specific strategem (admittedly a pretty good one)

Most legions are in the same boat. Does it really matter that we get thrown a few more crumbs in light of what's been given to the loyalists in their supplements which is what is the real problem?

To be fair that's all the different craftworlds have too in terms of separate rules, it's not that legions get something, it's that the eldar got the short end of the stick.

That's my point. Everyone is getting the short end of the stick compared to sm.

I just don't see the point of xenos and chaos players complaining about the crumbs that our respective factions are being thrown in contrast to what sm have gotten.

The problem is that no one seems to be getting rules that bring us on par with sm.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

kingheff wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Oh cool, I see GW can think of new Relics, Warlord Traits and Stratagems for half a dozen Chaos factions but not a single one for Eldar or DE.

Look I understand the anger about pr as it is pretty weak but why be angry that the legions actually may get something?

Before pa2 my night lords had:
1 relic
1 warlord trait
1 legion specific strategem (admittedly a pretty good one)

Most legions are in the same boat. Does it really matter that we get thrown a few more crumbs in light of what's been given to the loyalists in their supplements which is what is the real problem?

To be fair that's all the different craftworlds have too in terms of separate rules, it's not that legions get something, it's that the eldar got the short end of the stick.

That's my point. Everyone is getting the short end of the stick compared to sm.

I just don't see the point of xenos and chaos players complaining about the crumbs that our respective factions are being thrown in contrast to what sm have gotten.

The problem is that no one seems to be getting rules that bring us on par with sm.

It's really just ironhands and CF super doctrines. Seriously. Focus on the issue. Marines without these busted free rules would not be dominating tournaments.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
[size=18]That's my point. Everyone is getting the short end of the stick compared to sm.

I just don't see the point of xenos and chaos players complaining about the crumbs that our respective factions are being thrown in contrast to what sm have gotten.

The problem is that no one seems to be getting rules that bring us on par with sm.

Exactly this. No other faction comes close to SM options at this point, not even their fellow imperium factions.

I wouldn't say everyone....Orks are still top 5 according to tournament placings, Eldar are still very powerful, and Tau are winning majors. So the only ones that still suck are:

Necrons, GSC/Tyranids, AM Pure.

As a matter of fact, when you think about it, it's really just TWO sub factions of Space Marines that are really dominant right now. Most of them suck.

Good: IH and RG
Middling: IF, UM, WS, and Homebrew
Bad: DA, BA, GK, BT, (Whatever the guys who are on fire are), Blood Ravens, Space Wolves, Salamanders, Custodes

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
[size=18]That's my point. Everyone is getting the short end of the stick compared to sm.

I just don't see the point of xenos and chaos players complaining about the crumbs that our respective factions are being thrown in contrast to what sm have gotten.

The problem is that no one seems to be getting rules that bring us on par with sm.

Exactly this. No other faction comes close to SM options at this point, not even their fellow imperium factions.

The same is true of other marine factions compared to ironhands and CF. From what I can see - salamanders have a few busted strats but aren't going to be beating competitive armies. Ironhands turn every heavy weapon into a LR with reroll 1's and -1 AP turn 1....IF get +1 damage against vehicals with all heavies while ignoring cover and having exploding 6's on bolter weapons (all for free) oh and it's all at -1 AP cause dev doctrine.

These are the core issues. IMO where Ultramarines are is about where marines should be in terms of power. Which is kinda of funny because they were the most careful with ultramarines. They still got the much needed doctrine buff and angels of death rule but they were the only chapter whos chapter tactic didn't get buffed (even though it was already the worst). Which in reality is all CSM needs too.

 Xenomancers wrote:
They still got the much needed doctrine buff and angels of death rule.

I think the Combat Doctrines buff was poorly handled, honestly. GW went to the trouble of making an anti-alpha strike stratagem (Prepared Positions - 2CP) and immediately nullified it by giving the most common faction in the game +1AP in it's first turn with every weapon capable of alpha strike.

Combat Doctrines needs to be modified as such:

- T1: Intel and Mobility
- T2: Devastator
- T3: Tactical
- T4: Assault

I think this would go a long way towards making this ability feel more balanced while retaining accuracy to the idea of fighting by the SM codex.

 Xenomancers wrote:
These are the core issues. IMO where Ultramarines are is about where marines should be in terms of power. Which is kinda of funny because they were the most careful with ultramarines. They still got the much needed doctrine buff and angels of death rule but they were the only chapter whos chapter tactic didn't get buffed (even though it was already the worst). Which in reality is all CSM needs too.

Well, I disagree. Even UM are over the top, they're just less over the top compared to the obviously busted Chapters you highlighted. The Super Doctrines were a bridge too far, utterly ridiculous.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
They still got the much needed doctrine buff and angels of death rule.

I think the Combat Doctrines buff was poorly handled, honestly. GW went to the trouble of making an anti-alpha strike stratagem (Prepared Positions - 2CP) and immediately nullified it by giving the most common faction in the game +1AP in it's first turn with every weapon capable of alpha strike.

Combat Doctrines needs to be modified as such:

- T1: Intel and Mobility
- T2: Devastator
- T3: Tactical
- T4: Assault

I think this would go a long way towards making this ability feel more balanced while retaining accuracy to the idea of fighting by the SM codex.

Aye I agree that some changes to doctrines would be neat. Devastator IMO is Too powerful and I have suggested that instead of -1 AP it give the move and shoot without penalty. More or less this would be a -1 AP to ironhands and IF armies and a boost to every other chapter and actually give EVERY chapter a reason to leave the dev doctrine at some point.

All the new marines are top tier armies. They all have a chance to win a major, the tools to deal with most threats in the meta and present tough problems to be solved. Splitting hairs to rank them. No way Salies are on par with the non-astartes PA armies (even once they get their OP nah, nah, can't shoot me strat fixed).

GSC + pure AM are pretty solid mid-tier at this time. GSC coming down from near the top of the pile doesn't mean they are all of a sudden bottom tier.
Crons are doing really well in the marine meta (they and tau have solid answers for a lot of the marine stuff).
Custodes are still viable, just not top tier anymore (now that their tanks are somewhat reasonable).
Mono eldar has taken a big hit but still have viable builds.
DA still strong, harlies are boring but viable, Yanarri are like the BA of the eldar codex (soup in an character or two but that's about it) but they seem to have been specifically designed for this role.
Ork builds have changed a lot (smasher guns, oh so many smasher guns) but they can still win given the right build.

It's mostly Nids and the non-"Astartes" PA that are scrapping the bottom of the barrel now. At least that's how I read the tournament data and current meta mind-set.

SM are the new knights. Don't leave home without the tools to deal with them or you'll end up 3-3/4-2(submarine your way to the bottom tables and then club those seals!!) at best.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
These are the core issues. IMO where Ultramarines are is about where marines should be in terms of power. Which is kinda of funny because they were the most careful with ultramarines. They still got the much needed doctrine buff and angels of death rule but they were the only chapter whos chapter tactic didn't get buffed (even though it was already the worst). Which in reality is all CSM needs too.

Well, I disagree. Even UM are over the top, they're just less over the top compared to the obviously busted Chapters you highlighted. The Super Doctrines were a bridge too far, utterly ridiculous.

More or less I agree super doctrines are the biggest issue. A few custom traits are too strong too (MOA-Always in cover). Ultras and white scars super doctrines aren't really an issue though because #1 Ultras (doctrine is strong) but basically have no chapter tactic #2 White scars can't get into assault until turn 3.

As a choas player myself (BL) I know where you are coming from. You know I fully expect CSM to get something equivalent to doctrines soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:
All the new marines are top tier armies. They all have a chance to win a major, the tools to deal with most threats in the meta and present tough problems to be solved. Splitting hairs to rank them. No way Salies are on par with the non-astartes PA armies (even once they get their OP nah, nah, can't shoot me strat fixed).

GSC + pure AM are pretty solid mid-tier at this time. GSC coming down from near the top of the pile doesn't mean they are all of a sudden bottom tier.
Crons are doing really well in the marine meta (they and tau have solid answers for a lot of the marine stuff).
Custodes are still viable, just not top tier anymore (now that their tanks are somewhat reasonable).
Mono eldar has taken a big hit but still have viable builds.
DA still strong, harlies are boring but viable, Yanarri are like the BA of the eldar codex (soup in an character or two but that's about it) but they seem to have been specifically designed for this role.
Ork builds have changed a lot (smasher guns, oh so many smasher guns) but they can still win given the right build.

It's mostly Nids and the non-"Astartes" PA that are scrapping the bottom of the barrel now. At least that's how I read the tournament data and current meta mind-set.

SM are the new knights. Don't leave home without the tools to deal with them or you'll end up 3-3/4-2(submarine your way to the bottom tables and then club those seals!!) at best.

Dude I am sorry but if you can't see the major difference between ironhands and ultramarines I don't know what to say. There is nothing wrong with marines being a top teir army...like eldar and knights and tau are top teir armies. The issue is when they are so powerful that they have unfair advantages - like iron-hands.

bananathug wrote:
All the new marines are top tier armies. They all have a chance to win a major, the tools to deal with most threats in the meta and present tough problems to be solved. Splitting hairs to rank them. No way Salies are on par with the non-astartes PA armies (even once they get their OP nah, nah, can't shoot me strat fixed).

GSC + pure AM are pretty solid mid-tier at this time. GSC coming down from near the top of the pile doesn't mean they are all of a sudden bottom tier.
Crons are doing really well in the marine meta (they and tau have solid answers for a lot of the marine stuff).
Custodes are still viable, just not top tier anymore (now that their tanks are somewhat reasonable).
Mono eldar has taken a big hit but still have viable builds.
DA still strong, harlies are boring but viable, Yanarri are like the BA of the eldar codex (soup in an character or two but that's about it) but they seem to have been specifically designed for this role.
Ork builds have changed a lot (smasher guns, oh so many smasher guns) but they can still win given the right build.

It's mostly Nids and the non-"Astartes" PA that are scrapping the bottom of the barrel now. At least that's how I read the tournament data and current meta mind-set.

SM are the new knights. Don't leave home without the tools to deal with them or you'll end up 3-3/4-2(submarine your way to the bottom tables and then club those seals!!) at best.

DA still strong? Are you really aware of the current meta and gaming environment?

 Xenomancers wrote:
As a choas player myself (BL) I know where you are coming from. You know I fully expect CSM to get something equivalent to doctrines soon.

I do not share your optimism. I believe PA is what we're getting and that will be it for a loooong time.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
These are the core issues. IMO where Ultramarines are is about where marines should be in terms of power. Which is kinda of funny because they were the most careful with ultramarines. They still got the much needed doctrine buff and angels of death rule but they were the only chapter whos chapter tactic didn't get buffed (even though it was already the worst). Which in reality is all CSM needs too.

Well, I disagree. Even UM are over the top, they're just less over the top compared to the obviously busted Chapters you highlighted. The Super Doctrines were a bridge too far, utterly ridiculous.

More or less I agree super doctrines are the biggest issue. A few custom traits are too strong too (MOA-Always in cover). Ultras and white scars super doctrines aren't really an issue though because #1 Ultras (doctrine is strong) but basically have no chapter tactic #2 White scars can't get into assault until turn 3.

As a choas player myself (BL) I know where you are coming from. You know I fully expect CSM to get something equivalent to doctrines soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:
All the new marines are top tier armies. They all have a chance to win a major, the tools to deal with most threats in the meta and present tough problems to be solved. Splitting hairs to rank them. No way Salies are on par with the non-astartes PA armies (even once they get their OP nah, nah, can't shoot me strat fixed).

GSC + pure AM are pretty solid mid-tier at this time. GSC coming down from near the top of the pile doesn't mean they are all of a sudden bottom tier.
Crons are doing really well in the marine meta (they and tau have solid answers for a lot of the marine stuff).
Custodes are still viable, just not top tier anymore (now that their tanks are somewhat reasonable).
Mono eldar has taken a big hit but still have viable builds.
DA still strong, harlies are boring but viable, Yanarri are like the BA of the eldar codex (soup in an character or two but that's about it) but they seem to have been specifically designed for this role.
Ork builds have changed a lot (smasher guns, oh so many smasher guns) but they can still win given the right build.

It's mostly Nids and the non-"Astartes" PA that are scrapping the bottom of the barrel now. At least that's how I read the tournament data and current meta mind-set.

SM are the new knights. Don't leave home without the tools to deal with them or you'll end up 3-3/4-2(submarine your way to the bottom tables and then club those seals!!) at best.

Dude I am sorry but if you can't see the major difference between ironhands and ultramarines I don't know what to say. There is nothing wrong with marines being a top teir army...like eldar and knights and tau are top teir armies. The issue is when they are so powerful that they have unfair advantages - like iron-hands.

I think it's a little deeper than super docs. As you noted WS don't benefit until turn 3, but they're doing really well. Is it just because of Centurions on top of the strats? If Cents were more points would they be as good?

Its the stratagem and WL trait that are too strong. I bring a unit of 3x assault cents in my ultras list (transport options are totally unplayable so they have to walk) at their speed of 4 " they are just a short range support unit that can be completely ignored or destroyed quite easily (comparable in cost to a redemptor dread) they have about the same durability but trade speed for firepower and range. Shoving them into an opponents face with the ability to advance and charge is beyond idiotic. I just hate stratagems. I really REALLY hate them at this point. They should just be neat little trap cards. They shouldn't be the sole reason you can use a unit.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
They still got the much needed doctrine buff and angels of death rule.

I think the Combat Doctrines buff was poorly handled, honestly. GW went to the trouble of making an anti-alpha strike stratagem (Prepared Positions - 2CP) and immediately nullified it by giving the most common faction in the game +1AP in it's first turn with every weapon capable of alpha strike.

Combat Doctrines needs to be modified as such:

- T1: Intel and Mobility
- T2: Devastator
- T3: Tactical
- T4: Assault

I think this would go a long way towards making this ability feel more balanced while retaining accuracy to the idea of fighting by the SM codex.

So WS and BT rules would kick in on turn 4? The games is more or less done by then.

DA was a typo - should have been DE (dark eldar). DA are relly bad (I play angels and we are with the non-new astartes PA trash).

IH > UM for sure but UM are still a top tier army.

UM are probably the most reasonable marines and they are still really good and probably should be about where marines end up after whatever nerfs they should (put probably won't) get.

Karol wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Yes, everyone keeps telling me that GK are not allowed to have good stuff, because at some time they were good for a short time. Clearly eldar were good fo decades, so eldar players should expect that sooner or later they would get a rule set that is bad. As I said before, I have no problem with people not liking bad rules for their faction. What I don't understand is why in the case of eldar players this seems as such a suprise. If the next CA has nerfs for GK direct or indirect, I would not be suprised by it.

You've once again completely missed the point in your eternal quest for victimhood.

Sorry am following you. I really don't understand why eldar player are suprised that they could get a bad set of rules, specially with GW history dealing with other armies. Did eldar players thing that their armies are going to have good rules for ever? Or that they are somehow entitled to good rules? I don't know maybe there is some WD article from 20 years ago, where GW promises they will never give bad rules to eldar. But even if that happened, promises are promises, and life is life.

ya know Kartol with all your whining about grey knights, to point where thats all you ever do and you hijack other threads to whine about it, one would think you'd have some empathy for others who are upset their army isn't as strong. don't get me wrong I honestly don't disagree that some of the complains, SOME I'll note, are hyperbolic. but it seems to me your additude is wanting to see the whole world dragged down to the level grey knights are at right now and thats an absolutely toxic additude.

Maybe Is it my english, although am not very fluent in polish either. I said, I understand that people not like having bad rules, I just don't understand how they could think that at some time they would get them. Am deeply suprised by it, because here everyone knows that good times are just a short break between long times of bad.

Am suprised that somehow eldar players were expecting that GW would be making good eldar rules. It is strange to me.

My problem with GK are that they are bad when I play them, if the uncoming CA made them awesome for a year, and then again they would be bad. I would be okey with them being bad again. The problem is that sometimes factions wait decades to get a good book. I don't even know what I am going to be doing in 2 years, 10 years is more then 2/3 of my life.

Karol wrote:
Maybe Is it my english, although am not very fluent in polish either. I said, I understand that people not like having bad rules, I just don't understand how they could think that at some time they would get them. Am deeply suprised by it, because here everyone knows that good times are just a short break between long times of bad.

If you dont understand why players would be surprised and disappointed that their particular faction, regardless of ear point quotient, got terrible rules in competitive game, no amount of explaining is going to help you.

Karol wrote:

My problem with GK are that they are bad when I play them, if the uncoming CA made them awesome for a year, and then again they would be bad. I would be okey with them being bad again. The problem is that sometimes factions wait decades to get a good book. I don't even know what I am going to be doing in 2 years, 10 years is more then 2/3 of my life.

You're *so* close to understanding the issue, yet you dont even realize it.

I say this sincerely and with no snarkiness whatsoever: you need to get out of 40k. It, and the people who apparently play it with you, are an exceptionally toxic influence on your life if what you communicate to us here is accurate. Find something that makes you happy. It doesnt matter what that is, but 40k clearly is not it.

I can't speak for all Aeldari players but I wasn't looking for "good" rules from Phoenix Rising in the sense that they were strong (that's actually been done, more or less, with stuff like Expert Crafters, the CHE buffs and Dark Technomancers).

What I was looking for were rules that made sense and were somewhat consistent. Phoenix Rising very much failed in those regards. Why did Jain Zar, a barely used model anyway, get made weaker? Why did long range heavy firepower Aspect Warriors get access to skills which only help them in melee? Why did DE get so few rules compared to Craftworlds, and why didn't either of them get the expanded lists of warlord traits, stratagems or relics that Black Templars and the Chaos Legions are getting in Faith and Fury?

It's just... a bizarre, and ultimately very disappointing release.

 Burnage wrote:
I can't speak for all Aeldari players but I wasn't looking for "good" rules from Phoenix Rising in the sense that they were strong (that's actually been done, more or less, with stuff like Expert Crafters, the CHE buffs and Dark Technomancers).

What I was looking for were rules that made sense and were somewhat consistent. Phoenix Rising very much failed in those regards. Why did Jain Zar, a barely used model anyway, get made weaker? Why did long range heavy firepower Aspect Warriors get access to skills which only help them in melee? Why did DE get so few rules compared to Craftworlds, and why didn't either of them get the expanded lists of warlord traits, stratagems or relics that Black Templars and the Chaos Legions are getting in Faith and Fury?

It's just... a bizarre, and ultimately very disappointing release.

Hard to argue with that.

Karol wrote:
So WS and BT rules would kick in on turn 4?

No -- Combat Doctrines are not "WS and BT rules". In fact, what you said is the perfect encapsulation of the problem with how players are seeing Combat Doctrines. There's a particular way the Astartes go about fighting and it's supposed to be restrictive. That's why non-codex chapters exist. It's not supposed to just be "hey, free -1AP, thanks".

Karol wrote:
Maybe Is it my english, although am not very fluent in polish either. I said, I understand that people not like having bad rules, I just don't understand how they could think that at some time they would get them. Am deeply suprised by it, because here everyone knows that good times are just a short break between long times of bad.

Am suprised that somehow eldar players were expecting that GW would be making good eldar rules. It is strange to me.

My problem with GK are that they are bad when I play them, if the uncoming CA made them awesome for a year, and then again they would be bad. I would be okey with them being bad again. The problem is that sometimes factions wait decades to get a good book. I don't even know what I am going to be doing in 2 years, 10 years is more then 2/3 of my life.

part of the problem with PA is it didn't really help the CWE or DE units that needed a bit of buff love, mostly the ones that have been copy/pastes for the last few editions, and even the rules that do help them are better, for the most part, on the already good units

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

Karol wrote:
Maybe Is it my english, although am not very fluent in polish either. I said, I understand that people not like having bad rules, I just don't understand how they could think that at some time they would get them. Am deeply suprised by it, because here everyone knows that good times are just a short break between long times of bad.

Am suprised that somehow eldar players were expecting that GW would be making good eldar rules. It is strange to me.

My problem with GK are that they are bad when I play them, if the uncoming CA made them awesome for a year, and then again they would be bad. I would be okey with them being bad again. The problem is that sometimes factions wait decades to get a good book. I don't even know what I am going to be doing in 2 years, 10 years is more then 2/3 of my life.

part of the problem with PA is it didn't really help the CWE or DE units that needed a bit of buff love, mostly the ones that have been copy/pastes for the last few editions, and even the rules that do help them are better on the already good units

Every aspect got better with maybe the execption of banshees...banshees didn't really get better.
3d6 pick the highest advance is great for fire dragons.
5++ save is great for swooping hawks
Dires got 2 good abilities - exploding 6's and +1tohit and wound after losing a model
Shinning spears got the absurd 3++ exarch and the also really good 6" pile in
Warp spiders can now come in RR all hits from DS or get a free move shunt on any turn
Crimsons got 2+ to hit ability
Scoprs can take -1 to hit in cover OR 5+ to deal mortals
Reapers got a free EML shot per squad.

You could realistically take any of these units but banshees and put them to great use if you so desired in in competitive. Not to mention ignore cover and always counts in cover for some really easy mode games. +4 inch shuriken range is also REALLY good. Plus the new warlock powers? Some of those are pretty good too.

DE did get pretty screwed but it's not like they really needed better rules. Realistically the Drazar buff makes taking 2 kabal batalions much more palpable. Plus now that you can take ynnari HQ's in detachments so you don't have to take 3 redundant archons. They did get some okay buffs to covens (I really don't care about covens). Scourges and mardrakes and incubi not getting their kabal traits is PRETTY effing weak though...they should really fix that...it is so annoying not getting my flayed skull trait on scourges.

Ynnari I feel got the most screwed. They are just so bad - no reason to ever play them.

Sure 3-4 units got better for CWE, but not for DE, literally the same units are still being played and played EVEN MORE SO. Kabals, Raiders, Venoms, Wracks, Talos, RWJF, Ravagers, and the limited of Wych/bomber. The only new model some are playing with is Drazhar.

What it didnt help with? The other units that no one plays with; Khymeraes, Fiends, RWF, Beast masters, Reavers, Hellions, Cronos, Incubi, Scourges, Sslyth, Ur-gul, Lhamaean, Tantalus.

What about those models?

 Xenomancers wrote:

DE did get pretty screwed but it's not like they really needed better rules.

Yeah, I mean, who'd want more than a single generic HQ choice, right?

Or for even a single HQ choice in an army supposedly known for its speed to have even a single mobility option?

Or for an army of space-pirates and mad-geneticists to have something remotely fun?

off.

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

DE did get pretty screwed but it's not like they really needed better rules.

Yeah, I mean, who'd want more than a single generic HQ choice, right?

Or for even a single HQ choice in an army supposedly known for its speed to have even a single mobility option?

Or for an army of space-pirates and mad-geneticists to have something remotely fun?

off.

No DE player (EDIT: that i talked to, and its a lot) cared more about Incubi and Drazhar over better HQ options... and GW knows this, but what did we get? ffs