|
Lord Twisted posted:Yeah the most broken things from IA:13 which stood out to me: This poo poo makes me so jealous as an IG player. (I know, IG are a perfectly strong army and need no help) Heavy weapon squads, which I have about 8 of and are really cool, are worse in every way than those rapier batteries. FW does not understand how points costs work. Hornets are another case in point (I am an eldar player too) - the other weapon options are ok-ish, you pay a little more than a war walker or vyper but it's worth it. Then boom, pulse lasers are the same cost as the vastly inferior star cannons or bright lances. It's completely out of the blue, any random player writing rules off the top of his head would have spotted that was a mistake.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
xtothez posted:edit: GW have probably cottoned onto the fact that ebook editions end up being shared as PDF files within a few hours of release and this is their way to extract as much money as possible before that happens But if you make the physical books and/or pdfs worth owning, the value of pirated copies drops. Lots of companies manage this through a variety of means- for example, some physical books come with a free copy of the pdf with them (which is inevitably superior to the scanned version floating around on torrent sites); books with good reference sections or with useful illustrations can see a lot of use; and when the price point of your book is lower, many customers will buy it simply because they prefer to own things legitimately. Unfortunately, GW is still stuck in the 1990s mentality of "we have to protect our stuff so people can't steal it," which is absurd; people WILL steal it, if it's at all popular. The key is instead to make it so that buying your product is worth customer's money, and I think that's something that GW is growing further and further away from. The fiction in the codices is weaker than before, the organization is inferior, the pictures are less interesting and less useful (what ever happened to putting pics of conversions and Golden Daemon entries in the book?), and the rules are being simplified without actually improving their functionality. I own... very nearly all of the 6E codices and most of the 5E ones, but I haven't bought a single 7E codex yet because I just don't see them as holding enough value for me- and that's not to even bring up the issues with the change to hardback and the resultant price increase. Genghis Cohen posted:This poo poo makes me so jealous as an IG player. (I know, IG are a perfectly strong army and need no help) Heavy weapon squads, which I have about 8 of and are really cool, are worse in every way than those rapier batteries. FW does not understand how points costs work. And yeah, FW's rules decisions are completely baffling at times. I honestly think that the guys doing a lot of their book writing literally do no know the rules of the game they are playing, because when you get stuff like the mispricing on the Hornet, the Manta's functionless Ordnance rule, units being unable to disembark from some of the flying transports, etc, etc, there's really no other explanation. Some stuff you can chalk up to just oversights, but lots of others are just cases where anyone who actually plays the army in question should find it obvious. krushgroove posted:Also, I'm building up this Stormsword for my friend - is it a bad thing (for me, playing against him) that I told him he should have me magnetize the chassis so he can convert it to a Baneblade if he wants? I mean...I get get a little more money for the extra work...but then I'll have to see the damned thing lining up against me on the battlefield. Neither the Stormsword nor the Baneblade is particularly overwhelming. I mean, they're both superheavy tanks with big guns on them, but with the Escalation rules and an army with an eye to killing that sort of thing, they're not really a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:But if you make the physical books and/or pdfs worth owning, the value of pirated copies drops. Lots of companies manage this through a variety of means- for example, some physical books come with a free copy of the pdf with them (which is inevitably superior to the scanned version floating around on torrent sites); books with good reference sections or with useful illustrations can see a lot of use; and when the price point of your book is lower, many customers will buy it simply because they prefer to own things legitimately. I like reading your posts, because you eloquently bring up all the reasons I've pretty much totally gotten out of this hobby
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Huh, 3 zoanthropes for roughly 40 quid. How much did they use to cost?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
DJ Dizzy posted:Huh, 3 zoanthropes for roughly 40 quid. How much did they use to cost? About £15 each.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:The fiction in the codices is weaker than before I've said this before but my biggest issue with the main GW codex fiction is that they've started taking themselves far far too serious when it comes to writing it. The worst offender I know off the top of my head is the Scion codex which talks about students being ground up and used as mortar for walls among other things because that's grimdark and that's what customers want these days. I mean there are some amusing things such as the obvious Alpha Marine cult cell but that's still mired in overly grimdark material. The IG codex is all about how Guardsmen are all thrown in the horrible grinder of war and how things are so incredibly grim and dark and so on. It's boring, really really boring reading. It's incredibly tiring to read and horribly uninspiring as well because in the end it just all ends up being the same bland grey soup. Not to mention laughable at places as well when it comes as over the top and try hardy. That slight gleam in the eyes from before is more or less gone with all those sly references and British style black humour. Today that's usually only something you'll see in the FFG 40k books these days. Which is a shame really. Not much I can say about the rules since I'm terrible with those and only played 6 games in total and all of them during 6th ed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:Neither the Stormsword nor the Baneblade is particularly overwhelming. I mean, they're both superheavy tanks with big guns on them, but with the Escalation rules and an army with an eye to killing that sort of thing, they're not really a big deal. I know what you mean, but as a group we've played a single Apocalypse game, ever, so the 'big fuckoff gun on a big fuckoff tank' is still a very new thing for us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Cooked Auto posted:I've said this before but my biggest issue with the main GW codex fiction is that they've started taking themselves far far too serious when it comes to writing it. I agree with the over-the-top-but-not-self-aware bit. I actually had a good laugh reading the scions codex at how silly the selection crap was, but I don't think that was the authors' intent. I mean there was one vignette where they had two promising students who are presumably by this point super child soldier SAS troopers, and they had one execute the other as a test of loyalty. Not the old joke where the gun is actually empty, one actually kills the other. And this is sort of standard procedure, so that is 50% attrition on your finished article there, after all the other ridiculous one in a hundred survives training stuff. It's beyond parody but written very straight. @Abusepuppy, I see your point about similar stuff IG can get, but it's telling that that is all forgeworld or allies shenanigans. While I like forgeworld stuff and have some aesthetic upgrades and some of their eldar flyers, it would be nice to have similar options in the codex. I've always thought it odd that IG, the conventional heavy war army, has no artillery in their book while things like eldar and SM that are all fast-moving future manoeuvre warfare do. I think this just highlights the messy state of the current rules. For all its faults I really liked that 5th edition was about putting every army into 1 codex book, and increasing the options within that as much as possible via force org changes etc. Now we are going back to the state of late 3rd edition where a lot of armies (particularly when players want to get the most competitive stuff) are drawn from several limited edition or little-known or out of print magazines/downloads/supplements/campaign books on top of the regular codexes. This sort of thing is obviously meant to add to narrative play or custom scenarios, not to be part of a massive toolbox of shenanigans for tournaments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:I agree with the over-the-top-but-not-self-aware bit. I actually had a good laugh reading the scions codex at how silly the selection crap was, but I don't think that was the authors' intent. I mean there was one vignette where they had two promising students who are presumably by this point super child soldier SAS troopers, and they had one execute the other as a test of loyalty. Not the old joke where the gun is actually empty, one actually kills the other. And this is sort of standard procedure, so that is 50% attrition on your finished article there, after all the other ridiculous one in a hundred survives training stuff. It's beyond parody but written very straight. Oh I had a good laugh at it all that stuff as well when I read it because how utterly ridiculous and overly grimdark it was. Which is also why it's really grating to read it because it's far too much of that same stuff constantly with no real respite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
I'm likely going to pick up a set of the Zoanthropes box to completely fix my pewter bighead problem and, as a bonus, replace all the heavy metal arms of my current Venomthropes so they'll never fall off again. Not a bad deal overall. It's a lot less biting to pick up a $66 box of three models and spare bits versus a $73 for one. Still need to get a couple Tyrannocytes. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:I see your point about similar stuff IG can get, but it's telling that that is all forgeworld or allies shenanigans. While I like forgeworld stuff and have some aesthetic upgrades and some of their eldar flyers, it would be nice to have similar options in the codex. I've always thought it odd that IG, the conventional heavy war army, has no artillery in their book while things like eldar and SM that are all fast-moving future manoeuvre warfare do. Well, no artillery-artillery, but more artillery tanks than every other book in the game put together, so that's something. Thinking about it, there are only... what, three artillery units in the entire base line of codices? Seems a bit silly to have a whole unit type just for them full of special-unique-snowflake rules. But I definitely feel you with respect to being sad about Heavy Weapons Teams; I have a bunch of them that just kinda sit around and do nothing because the rules for them are so weak. krushgroove posted:I know what you mean, but as a group we've played a single Apocalypse game, ever, so the 'big fuckoff gun on a big fuckoff tank' is still a very new thing for us. That's fair- if you've never seen one in action, superheavy vehicles can be really intimidating. Just remember the balancing factors- you get 1VP in the mission for every 3HP you remove from the tank, you get +1 to Seize the Initiative if your opponent has one and you don't, and the tank itself is a huge, obvious target just like any other heavy vehicle would be. The gigantic pie plates they spit out are scary, but they're not really fundamentally any different than the other blast weapons you're used to seeing on "normal" vehicles- spread your guys out so he can't hit three or four units at once, make sure you're in cover whenever possible, aim for the weak facing of the tank. Anything that you would use to kill a Land Raider will do a number of a superheavy vehicle as well, and even stuff like Krak Grenades and Power Fists can get some damage in where needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Does IA13 have the rules for Red Corsairs? I just got back into the game from 3rd-4th and want to rebuild my fallen army. failing any way to use these I have a bunch of unpainted robed dark Angels ready to sell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:Does IA13 have the rules for Red Corsairs? I just got back into the game from 3rd-4th and want to rebuild my fallen army. Not specifically. It's a general book for Chaos Space Marines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:I agree with the over-the-top-but-not-self-aware bit. I actually had a good laugh reading the scions codex at how silly the selection crap was, but I don't think that was the authors' intent. I mean there was one vignette where they had two promising students who are presumably by this point super child soldier SAS troopers, and they had one execute the other as a test of loyalty. Not the old joke where the gun is actually empty, one actually kills the other. And this is sort of standard procedure, so that is 50% attrition on your finished article there, after all the other ridiculous one in a hundred survives training stuff. It's beyond parody but written very straight. I don't see this as being any different than what they've always done. 40K has always been about incredibly absurd poo poo presented with a straight face, so kids will find it super awesome, and adults will see it as the ridiculous joke it really is. quote:I think this just highlights the messy state of the current rules. For all its faults I really liked that 5th edition was about putting every army into 1 codex book, and increasing the options within that as much as possible via force org changes etc. Now we are going back to the state of late 3rd edition where a lot of armies (particularly when players want to get the most competitive stuff) are drawn from several limited edition or little-known or out of print magazines/downloads/supplements/campaign books on top of the regular codexes. This sort of thing is obviously meant to add to narrative play or custom scenarios, not to be part of a massive toolbox of shenanigans for tournaments. This part I agree with. While I actually like the 7E books, finding them well organized and containing interesting and new fluff, I really don't care for all the extra stuff coming out. It's too much to keep up with from both a rules and collecting perspective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:I'm likely going to pick up a set of the Zoanthropes box to completely fix my pewter bighead problem and, as a bonus, replace all the heavy metal arms of my current Venomthropes so they'll never fall off again. Not a bad deal overall. It's a lot less biting to pick up a $66 box of three models and spare bits versus a $73 for one. I want 6 of the tyrannocyte boxes. And 4 boxes of zoanthropes. I am the problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:I think this just highlights the messy state of the current rules. For all its faults I really liked that 5th edition was about putting every army into 1 codex book, and increasing the options within that as much as possible via force org changes etc. Now we are going back to the state of late 3rd edition where a lot of armies (particularly when players want to get the most competitive stuff) are drawn from several limited edition or little-known or out of print magazines/downloads/supplements/campaign books on top of the regular codexes. This sort of thing is obviously meant to add to narrative play or custom scenarios, not to be part of a massive toolbox of shenanigans for tournaments. Yeah this is the worst offender for me the most basic straight forward part of the game should be 'what army should I collect?' but now its incredibly complex when your army could be say space marines, with some knights, maybe some inquisition or storm troopers? Should I stick with a normal FoC or use some formations? Maybe I'll just go unbound and go nuts and add everything! This is without touching forgeworld at all. theres so many books and ebooks and things you need to keep track of, its insane! I miss the days of, 'I collect chaos marines, here is my little paperback codex with all my rules in!'
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:Does IA13 have the rules for Red Corsairs? I just got back into the game from 3rd-4th and want to rebuild my fallen army. In my mind (as someone building a Fallen army right now) there are a couple ways to go about doing a Fallen list: A) Vanilla CSM: This would be for the Fallen who have turned to Chaos, which as far as a the fluff is concerned is actually a pretty small amount (only one of them has ever become a Daemon). B)Allied CSM/SM: This would give you a good mix of guys without the need to take any daemonic or explicitly chaos units. C)Just SM: This is probably the weakest option because if you want to keep your Fallen fluff accurate you're going to be missing a ton of toys. D)SM Legion: As far as fluff accuracy goes this is probably the way to be the most accurate. The Fallen were scattered during the Heresy and so there is no reason for them to follow standard codex organization. If they are a non-Chaos chapter that was still organized in any way it would make sense for them to follow the structure of an SM Legion not a SM Chapter. In addition, if you are going with them being not-chaos aligned then they have no access to any kind of Forge World to produce new equipment meaning they would probably still be using out dated tech like Reaper Autocannons and Volkite weaponry. The downside is you cant use Cypher outside an unbound list, but you can use the dual pistol wielding HQ choice who is probably one of the best HQ's in the entire game, even if he no longer gets 50+ plasma shots on average anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Does feel like we're back to how it was with White Dwarf a couple of years ago with all the extra addition in those but this time around it's a whole lot complicated and way more expensive.Moola posted:I miss the days of, 'I collect chaos marines, here is my little paperback codex with all my rules in!' Love to have see that again as well, or at least something that collects all the rules together. Guess the issue then is that GW increased release schedule makes those books become outdated as well if they start pushing a lot of army specific content. I'd even love to small FW rule compendiums like that 30k book too for that part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
I don't get how anyone can complain that the stormtrooper fluff is too ridiculous. All of the old fluff is a hundred times worse about being ridiculously over the top unworkable. It takes 2000 years and half a million bureaucrats to approve the replacement of a burnt out light bulb! At least the newer fluff tends to show the imperium as at least conceivably functional. The kill your best friend thing isn't presented as standard admissions procedure anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
El Estrago Bonito posted:In my mind (as someone building a Fallen army right now) there are a couple ways to go about doing a Fallen list: I can't remember where I read about the legion list. It's in one of the FW books right? I have the cypher model, and at first was cosmos wrong using the vanilla CSM book, and converted him with the Lightning claw/power fist combo but hated it so now it's the typical cypher model. I like the model though so I like the dual wield idea. Instead of chaos imagery I've taken the DA vets and extra sprees and am making the imperial imagery fed and degraded, like they had tried to remove it or it had worn out. I considered painting them pre-heresy black with white robes, however I don't know if DA green is now retro-canon even pre heresy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:I considered painting them pre-heresy black with white robes, however I don't know if DA green is now retro-canon even pre heresy. AFAIK as of the Horus Heresy FW books it's still Black but without the large amount of red trim they used to give them in the RT/3rd Edition days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Moola posted:but now its incredibly complex when your army could be say space marines, with some knights, maybe some inquisition or storm troopers? Should I stick with a normal FoC or use some formations? Maybe I'll just go unbound and go nuts and add everything! This is without touching forgeworld at all. I think you are blowing it out a bit. Any wargame is like this: what if a new person buys a Gargantuan for Warmachine/Hordes? What if they don't buy a knight for Relic Knights? They basically have an unplayable army. How do you go choosing an army if there is a mercenary component? Malifaux has a faction that is based on mercs, and one that is mostly cross-faction yet it works. Granted there is such a thing as TOO much choice, but it's fairly easy to cut down on choice when making an army. That's the point of fluff (or at least it should be)... Inquisitors have good rules but I bet most people got them because Eisenhorn is a bad rear end. A cheaper starter set wouldn't be bad. Free rules for new models are required if the publication is limited (like the new Fantasy models, new Tyranid models, etc). Anyone new to the hobby doesn't need the other crap, and you will either be playing in an established environment (which is hopefully full of poo poo-lords) or starting another person so the starter set works well. I wonder why GW doesn't have gateway sets. 2 troop, 1 HQ, codex, mini-rules for a reduced price. Can't be that hard... hell just make them web exclusive so you don't have to make fancy boxes for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
LordAba posted:I wonder why GW doesn't have gateway sets. 2 troop, 1 HQ, codex, mini-rules for a reduced price. Can't be that hard... hell just make them web exclusive so you don't have to make fancy boxes for them. Because GW is still in the 90's mindset where if they make an expensive two player box it counts as a board game and they can therefor Trojan Horse it into high street toy shops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Just want to say that despite the other book bullshit, this book is sexy as gently caress. Great size and the skull on the front is in a really nice texture. Going to be waiting for the mini edition from now on I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
LordAba posted:I think you are blowing it out a bit. Any wargame is like this: what if a new person buys a Gargantuan for Warmachine/Hordes? What if they don't buy a knight for Relic Knights? They basically have an unplayable army. How do you go choosing an army if there is a mercenary component? Malifaux has a faction that is based on mercs, and one that is mostly cross-faction yet it works. I see your point and actually I like the allies mechanic and think it's fine. IMO having multiple detachments beyond 1 core and 1 allied is too far in a rules-are-god competitive environment, allies are completely ok. The multiple CAD detachment thing is a really weird thing for the game designers to put in the rulebook as it makes games essentially unbound. But that is not a big deal. Quite frankly in casual games I love to play against some guy with a lovingly created army led by an inquisitor with like 3 different space marine factions fielding squads and then a force of storm troopers and some imperial assassins. Would be fine with a codex drawn from 4 different armies in that case. In practice, boom, eldar with imperial knight allies summoning daemons everywhere. What I am more worried about are 'invisible' rules, eg formation rules and other bonuses which can be changed by the configuration of the same models. Inevitably competitive players pick out these things and therefore quite a few armies at a tournament I attended recently used 3 knights in an 'adamantine lance' formation. This confers a very powerful bonus on an already good unit (re-roll inv saves) for no better reason than the player is fielding 3 of them within a certain coherency. I get why the game designers probably write formation rules - to describe the tactics and units used by the fictional armies and to give players an incentive to use them. I am also aware that a suspicious man might point out the psychological effect of letting everyone with 1-2 imperial knights know that they'd get a huge buff in that upcoming apoc game if they bought a third . . . These formations tend to be in limited edition books, I believe the knight one is the Sanctus Reach campaign book. Basically more and more special rules and potential bonuses, buffs, saves etc are piled on models by all this bloat. One very common piece of advice I've heard for guard players who want to field mass leman russes is to use this one 'steel host' formation which grants preferred enemy in a similar way. In 3rd edition all the best units were just ones with good stats or heavy weapons for cheap cost (I remember some shenanigans with chaos characters, that's about it). Now you ain't poo poo if by stacking allied characters, psychic powers, formation rules etc you don't have a great invulnerable save, potentially stacked with FNP or something, 6 special rules, shrouded, poo poo is just orders of magnitude more extreme. Another example is the warlord traits, random scenario/terrain rules, all the poo poo that can change game to game if both parties use the same army list. There is too much to remember and set up in the game as now. I love that we have more options, but it only works if it is a sandbox based around narrative play. Which I would love to do, but like many guys I move fairly often, I don't have some hobby heaven near me, when I can grab a game with someone I know we are likely to play a straightforward pick up game and being normal, competitive-minded friends we will try and build strong armies. It would be easier and cleaner if the rules were less bloated. Sorry for being a bit of a grognard. TL;DR Games workshop has no idea of game balance or competitive play - more at 11.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Cooked Auto posted:I've said this before but my biggest issue with the main GW codex fiction is that they've started taking themselves far far too serious when it comes to writing it. The big turning point in the story is (spoilers, if you care) when they arrive to help hold a planet against Orks. There are already Raven Guard on the planet, and they have been doing their Raven Guard thing. Iron Hands disagree, they part ways, and at the big super battle where Orks breach the fortifications, the Raven Guard fling themselves into horde. And the Iron Hands straight up stand back and watch the Raven Guard die to the last man, complete with their commander cursing the Iron Hands, before opening fire on the Orks. It's so loving stupid. Why not just request the Raven Guard fall back and open up a field of fire that way? It's Saturday Morning Cartoon levels of treachery, like something you would see on a goddamn goofy Chaos Lord. Instead it's presented straight that the Iron Hands would watch a bunch of their fellow Marines die as part of a greater plan to ensure the perfect field of fire. It's supposed to demonstrate that the Iron Hands are too given over to logic and cold calculation as opposed to passion, but there are a million ways to demonstrate that besides what was written. PeterWeller posted:I don't see this as being any different than what they've always done. 40K has always been about incredibly absurd poo poo presented with a straight face, so kids will find it super awesome, and adults will see it as the ridiculous joke it really is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
One of my favorite little fluff blurbs is in the current chaos marines codex. Some chaos lord gets bored with his massive collection of human skulls so he decides he's going to collect a skull from every warrior race in the galaxy for Khorne. Then he runs into a Tyranid fleet and is so overjoyed by the sheer variety and size of skulls on display that he throws his forces right into the middle of it. This is only a few sentences in the timeline, but it's just so goofy and 40k I can't help but like it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Von Humboldt posted:The Scions poo poo is pretty awful (and a little confusing to me - do all Commissars go through these things, or did GW sort of wave away Gaunt and Cain?) but I was crashing at a buddy's place and burned through both the Scions book and the Clan Raukaan book in the same night, and the Clan Raukaan book is even shittier. Like, the Dark Angels already have the "killed the Fallen, peace out suckers" poo poo going form them, but apparently, the Iron Hands were a million times worse. Like, straight up abandoning Imperial planets and defenders because "they were too weak to defend themselves" or "if they were stronger, this poo poo wouldn't have happened in the first place." Things such as landing on a planet, scooping up a relic versus the Eldar, and then leaving the defenders to die. The Dark Angels at least have their whole "MYSTERIOUS SECRET TO PROTECT" thing going on - the Iron Hands were just straight up being dicks. Wow, that sounds like a really bad attempt at emulating the Wrath of Iron characterization of the Iron Hands. Which is too bad, I had wanted to pick up Raukaan for a while but since I don't play very often anymore it would have been entirely for the fluff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Von Humboldt posted:The problem is that it's gone from being presented with a wink and a knowing smile to being presented completely straight. It's pretty obvious the authors aren't going for "ha, check out how over the top this is" on a lot of things anymore - instead, they've bought into what used to be a joke. It makes the fluff a lot more unbearable, because you get the idea that someone, somewhere, thought this was cool as hell and not at all something that would make fellow adults roll their eyes. Here's my issue with this position: You say this stuff is so completely and ridiculously over the top, yet you also say that the creators are unaware of that. I guess it's really just a matter of how much credit you wanna give them, but I tend to think these guys are clever enough to be in on their own joke. And even if they're not, who cares? Blah blah blah, Roland Barthes. Blah, blah, blah, Stanley Fish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Here's my issue with this position: You say this stuff is so completely and ridiculously over the top, yet you also say that the creators are unaware of that. I guess it's really just a matter of how much credit you wanna give them, but I tend to think these guys are clever enough to be in on their own joke. And I care, because it makes my reading less enjoyable. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Oh man, I'm not saying that you shouldn't care if it's become too grimdark, but you shouldn't care about what the authors think about it. That part shouldn't affect how you think about it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:What I am more worried about are 'invisible' rules, eg formation rules and other bonuses which can be changed by the configuration of the same models. Inevitably competitive players pick out these things and therefore quite a few armies at a tournament I attended recently used 3 knights in an 'adamantine lance' formation. This confers a very powerful bonus on an already good unit (re-roll inv saves) for no better reason than the player is fielding 3 of them within a certain coherency. I get why the game designers probably write formation rules - to describe the tactics and units used by the fictional armies and to give players an incentive to use them. I am also aware that a suspicious man might point out the psychological effect of letting everyone with 1-2 imperial knights know that they'd get a huge buff in that upcoming apoc game if they bought a third . . . I mostly look at the campaign books that a lot of the formations are in as legit campaigns. Otherwise it would be like going to a historics tournament with WWII tanks versus bows. Though I see your point. It's up to the community to draw that line if GW doesn't (and to honest, why would they if it might cost them sales?).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
LordAba posted:I mostly look at the campaign books that a lot of the formations are in as legit campaigns. Otherwise it would be like going to a historics tournament with WWII tanks versus bows. Though I see your point. It's up to the community to draw that line if GW doesn't (and to honest, why would they if it might cost them sales?). Yeah, but for whatever reason the tournament scene doesn't seem to draw that distinction - they see it all as a big soup of 40k rules. I agree it's bonkers frankly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Are you telling all the nid players that they should not use the new sporpod because those rules are in a campaign, so timeline they cant use it against you? To that I say grow up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 22:42
|
|
will blow your mind.
|
I don't see why you're telling me to 'grow up'? I'm not saying anyone should arbitrarily limit what they use, and I'm sorry if I come off as whining - I am just stating where I think the rules need to be reined in. I absolutely wouldn't stop any tyranid player from using their new models. That is a (as far as I know) isolated example of new units+models being introduced outside codexes, which games workshop has traditionally avoided. I am saying specifically that there are too many rules across too many sources that give benefits/effects which are divorced from the models.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
WhiteOutMouse posted:Are you telling all the nid players that they should not use the new sporpod because those rules are in a campaign, so timeline they cant use it against you? To that I say grow up. The rules for the new nid stuff are actually free on the GW website, so they're not tied to the campaign at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
BoLS had a post about this on their front page (http://dld.bz/d2ktm), saying that this is like first edition (which I'm totally unfamiliar with), where potentially you'll need to carry several books, a White Dwarf and dataslate print-outs to run. I was going to ask you guys what you all think about it, but I have an idea...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Speaking of rules: I'd say 1/3rd of my games have been against Eldar and after this afternoon I just don't ever want to play them again. 2000 pts of Eldar vs 1000 of my IG and my buddies DA. First two turns gave us hope, we killed a Wraith Knight, were whittling down wraith guard, had killed the warp spiders and taken down the harlequins. Soon we had nothing left to try and kill but wave serpents and a crimson hunter. Got the hunter down to one hull point, killed one wave serpent in close combat with krak grenades. Meanwhile anything the Eldar looked at just died outright. We conceded on turn three I think, maybe four - it all kind of blended together. They amount of saves and special rules and re-rolls they get are just unfun to play against. Way too grim, no fun. I was also told afterwards that this was a soft list. Edit: Butthurt, and a bad taste in my mouth after that one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Sir Teabag posted:Speaking of rules: I'd say 1/3rd of my games have been against Eldar and after this afternoon I just don't ever want to play them again. 2000 pts of Eldar vs 1000 of my IG and my buddies DA. First two turns gave us hope, we killed a Wraith Knight, were whittling down wraith guard, had killed the warp spiders and taken down the harlequins. Soon we had nothing left to try and kill but wave serpents and a crimson hunter. Got the hunter down to one hull point, killed one wave serpent in close combat with krak grenades. Meanwhile anything the Eldar looked at just died outright. We conceded on turn three I think, maybe four - it all kind of blended together. They amount of saves and special rules and re-rolls they get are just unfun to play against. Way too grim, no fun. Pretty much. I once made the mistake of playing against a taudar list in 6th edition. I never play against eldar/tau anymore if I can avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
This whole thing reminds me a lot of the D&D 3.x splatbook bloat, where you ended up with like two dozen different books that players could pick and choose among for their characters (and DMs could do the same for their campaigns). It was really good if you wanted to customize the poo poo out of your experience, but potentially really bad if you weren't playing with people you could trust, because--much like GW--Wizards didn't really worry too hard about balancing stuff across the range of their game, let alone worrying about stuff that was outside the core line. I don't think it's a good thing for 40K to go unchecked down the same road.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 00:50
|
|
