Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

221 - 240 of 841 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
I think it's a case of "Well if everyone else gets a broken* codex I want one too."



*I still stand by that codexes aren't NEARLY as broken as people claim, but the mindset still exists.
@Mokuren: I wonder if he'll write the eldar codex next and they'll get a fluff alliance with the black templars? lmao

@Zion: definitely, definitely. Phil Kelly writes good dexes, too. ^.^
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #222 (Edited)
I'm confident a 6th Ed is imminent. Simply because of a game I played almost a year ago, where my opponent was having trouble remembering how 5th worked, and kept saying "really?" when I said something worked this way, then showing him the BRB. He also said it about the WH Codex I was using at the time, and it turned out the confusion was because he'd been playtesting the WDDex for months before then.

So I'm confident we aren't seeing huge sweeping changes, but it's different enough to give pause in places. Firing of weapons from vehicles may see some adjustment, as I had a "hang on there" moment or two. But one thing I am confident of: 6th exists. It's been written, tested and is ready to go. Exact dates may vary, but it's there...
Duly noted, and the best confirmation I've heard to date. Added the first post.

Yeah, I actually saw what the new rulebook looks like just a few days ago, like the front cover. Fairly nifty. I can only imagine that it's been printed and waiting for a while now.
Also good news! We're finally seeing something more concrete than BoK and a PDF that was likely put together two years ago. Also added to the first post.

Thanks for the information!

EDIT:

@Mokuren: I wonder if he'll write the eldar codex next and they'll get a fluff alliance with the black templars? lmao

@Zion: definitely, definitely. Phil Kelly writes good dexes, too. ^.^
Personally I don't want "broken" codex books. I just want ones that let you do anything that's in the fluff without options being "must have" choices or unusable options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
Personally I don't want "broken" codex books. I just want ones that let you do anything that's in the fluff without options being "must have" choices or unusable options.
There will -always- be people who work to figure out "the best" units and "the best" unit upgrades.

That's just how gaming works. :\
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
Hmm . . .

Chief Librarian Tigurius as an allied HQ with my XV8's and Fire Warriors, supported by a couple of squads of assault marines.

Somehow, I really cant see this happening. I really think the mention of the tounament allies pdf has coloured the whole "allies" rumour a bit too much.

And even that seems doubtful. The most likely, and common alliance of its day, Chaos and Daemons, was removed from both WFB and 40K, at around the same time (new book development and release dictating specific times), and that really came as a surprise to most of us.

I dont think GW were ever pinned down on a specific reason for the choice either, except to say that it made game dev and army dev that much simpler.

Looking at the way they have brought out army books and codices since, I highly doubt that allied armies will ever feature in anything but tourneys, larger games, or game expansions like Apocalypse.

And I must say, I'm fine with that.

Edit - Actually, that brings to mind a question: Is the "allies" rumour centred around a single army, containing allied forces, or is it multiple players with specific armys, combined into one force, such as Apoc?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #225
There will -always- be people who work to figure out "the best" units and "the best" unit upgrades.

That's just how gaming works. :
Making up you're own rating system to determine what you rate higher or lower is fine, demanding that it's the only right answer and everyone listen to you (as some blogs do) isn't. Opinions are great, but when people start touting them as fact, especially when you ignore play style, local meta, or even personal preferences (this is a folly some people participate in with Mathhammer. Sure the unit works well on Paper, but if you can't play it well (say the meta is bad for it, or you don't like it or try to use it well or your opponent just murders it because they know what it MIGHT do) well then it isn't really that great. Especially when you spend a LOT of points for it. Really in the "best" unit are great, but I often find them no where as good as people claim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
Making up you're own rating system to determine what you rate higher or lower is fine, demanding that it's the only right answer and everyone listen to you (as some blogs do) isn't. Opinions are great, but when people start touting them as fact, especially when you ignore play style, local meta, or even personal preferences (this is a folly some people participate in with Mathhammer. Sure the unit works well on Paper, but if you can't play it well (say the meta is bad for it, or you don't like it or try to use it well or your opponent just murders it because they know what it MIGHT do) well then it isn't really that great. Especially when you spend a LOT of points for it. Really in the "best" unit are great, but I often find them no where as good as people claim.
I'm just stating that power gamers exist and will continue to put their intellectual resources toward breaking game resources in their favor so they can win, and toward determining what their best options are overall.

In any case, I'm not here to argue with you right now.

EDIT-I haven't been touting my opinion as fact in regards to this rather spirited discussion, and I honestly don't see where you got that or why it's an issue.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #227
I'm just stating that power gamers exist and will continue to put their intellectual resources toward breaking game resources in their favor so they can win, and toward determining what their best options are overall.

In any case, I'm not here to argue with you right now.

EDIT-I haven't been touting my opinion as fact in regards to this rather spirited discussion, and I honestly don't see where you got that or why it's an issue.
I wasn't talking about you, I was speaking in a general sense about the internet. The internet has a nasty habit of latching onto one or two specific things in a codex and never letting go of them as THE choice to take.

Heretics obviously are more forward thinking and independent than that though. At least I like to believe we are.
 

·
Critique for da CriticGod
Joined
·
3,351 Posts
@ Silvertabby - that sounds promising. I for one am looking forward with more hope than skepticism, the closer to 2nd ed's customization and flexibility we get, the better.


Making up you're own rating system to determine what you rate higher or lower is fine, demanding that it's the only right answer and everyone listen to you (as some blogs do) isn't. Opinions are great, but when people start touting them as fact, especially when you ignore play style, local meta, or even personal preferences (this is a folly some people participate in with Mathhammer. Sure the unit works well on Paper, but if you can't play it well (say the meta is bad for it, or you don't like it or try to use it well or your opponent just murders it because they know what it MIGHT do) well then it isn't really that great. Especially when you spend a LOT of points for it. Really in the "best" unit are great, but I often find them no where as good as people claim.
Hmm, I half agree with you. I was always of two minds about power gaming. On the one hand I'd work out the statistics of my guys and their weapons in some hypothetical combats to make sure I was spending my points efficiently. On the other hand I never went min-max on units or armies. I always brought idiosyncratic armies I would have fun with, and my opponent wouldn't feel abused by.

But all of that said, there are and have been objectively better and worse units. Units where, all things being even sort of equal the points don't balance out.

Conceptually points values should all be balanced around an equation like (x dire avengers = y space marines) or some such, or (x bloodletters = y close combat terminators).

Well, perhaps more likely an array where x bloodletters = (y space marines or z dire avengers or d hormagaunts or etc.) And I think ideally it should balance between range, combat, and probability to reach either. For instance Bloodletters in the 3.5/4 chaos codex were ridiculously overpowered. At 26 points a model they were str 5 with power weapons, a bunch of attacks, both armor and invulnerable, and could summon in and charge on the same turn.

If my chaos army got in summoning range and I rolled even middling for reserves, I could wipe out a flank of the enemy's army. And I always reached summoning range.

They were objectively too powerful. For the points they cost and their ability to kill meq or well any troops, they were unbalanced. In an ideal system all equal points values would have some equivalency to cancel each other out. Consequently, victory in the game and skill would be demonstrated by aligning my forces against your forces so that the army functions as more than the sum of its parts. . . . in an ideal world. As it is GW makes this assertion for a whole army, "my 1500 points function equally to your 1500 points." Only it doesn't always/often work out that way.

Okay . . . that turned into a dissertation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
I wasn't talking about you, I was speaking in a general sense about the internet. The internet has a nasty habit of latching onto one or two specific things in a codex and never letting go of them as THE choice to take.

Heretics obviously are more forward thinking and independent than that though. At least I like to believe we are.
Oh okay. I was worried this was going to turn into another tangent. EDIT-screw that. topics and conversations change and evolve. It'll come back to 6th ed eventually, so the mods have nothing to worry about, but we must be free to wander with our thoughts as we desire.

My opinion is: if the internet says it's right, and it plays well for me, then it's right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
I'm just stating that power gamers exist and will continue to put their intellectual resources toward breaking game resources in their favor so they can win, and toward determining what their best options are overall.
I think the hope here though is that while they exist, that the codex's aren't made for them specifically in which a few specific units are incredible and the others just exist to make sure the printer worked before printing the good ones.

Power gamers I don't mind, as long as they are beatable, more than one trick army players and fun to play. I know I go for the good options sometimes, though some of it's just preference in what I like... don't really crunch the statistics too much.

On the topic of the new rulebooks... I hope they come in small this time as well. I do like the ease of flipping through the 5th ed starter rulebook.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #231
Hmm, I half agree with you. I was always of two minds about power gaming. On the one hand I'd work out the statistics of my guys and their weapons in some hypothetical combats to make sure I was spending my points efficiently. On the other hand I never went min-max on units or armies. I always brought idiosyncratic armies I would have fun with, and my opponent wouldn't feel abused by.

But all of that said, there are and have been objectively better and worse units. Units where, all things being even sort of equal the points don't balance out.

Conceptually points values should all be balanced around an equation like (x dire avengers = y space marines) or some such, or (x bloodletters = y close combat terminators).

Well, perhaps more likely an array where x bloodletters = (y space marines or z dire avengers or d hormagaunts or etc.) And I think ideally it should balance between range, combat, and probability to reach either. For instance Bloodletters in the 3.5/4 chaos codex were ridiculously overpowered. At 26 points a model they were str 5 with power weapons, a bunch of attacks, both armor and invulnerable, and could summon in and charge on the same turn.

If my chaos army got in summoning range and I rolled even middling for reserves, I could wipe out a flank of the enemy's army. And I always reached summoning range.

They were objectively too powerful. For the points they cost and their ability to kill meq or well any troops, they were unbalanced. In an ideal system all equal points values would have some equivalency to cancel each other out. Consequently, victory in the game and skill would be demonstrated by aligning my forces against your forces so that the army functions as more than the sum of its parts. . . . in an ideal world. As it is GW makes this assertion for a whole army, "my 1500 points function equally to your 1500 points." Only it doesn't always/often work out that way.

Okay . . . that turned into a dissertation.
That has less to do with power gamers (personally I define these as the ultra-competitive guys who have to crush their opponent's army to have fun.) and more to do with powerful armies (currently that'd be mostly anything Mech armies these days). In theory a points total should be the same strength as another one, but when you start factoring in edition rules and player ability into it then you can start to see different codexes being stronger or weaker (older codexes are legitimately weaker due to the cost of everything in the book being off, but that comes with power creep).

Oh okay. I was worried this was going to turn into another tangent. EDIT-screw that. topics and conversations change and evolve. It'll come back to 6th ed eventually, so the mods have nothing to worry about, but we must be free to wander with our thoughts as we desire.

My opinion is: if the internet says it's right, and it plays well for me, then it's right.
No tangential arguments on this one from me. I know not everyone agrees with me when I say that there aren't any truly broken codexes (if it can be beaten by a different codex, then it isn't broken. It can be poorly balanced to the rest of the game though. But that's just how I see it). Either way it's largely opinion on what is "best" (I happen to use Repentia like a rage powered sledgehammer to run around the table mucking things up but the internet says they're horrible) and if it plays well for you that's the most important thing.

I think the hope here though is that while they exist, that the codex's aren't made for them specifically in which a few specific units are incredible and the others just exist to make sure the printer worked before printing the good ones.

Power gamers I don't mind, as long as they are beatable, more than one trick army players and fun to play. I know I go for the good options sometimes, though some of it's just preference in what I like... don't really crunch the statistics too much.

On the topic of the new rulebooks... I hope they come in small this time as well. I do like the ease of flipping through the 5th ed starter rulebook.
Power gamers (of the "having fun by skull dragging my opponent" variety) do tend to be more of the one trick ponies, but there are some decent playing ones out there too. Either way the best trick I found isn't to try and try to beat them at their own game (unless your army really is better at it) but instead play up to your own strengths instead.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,705 Posts
Regarding Allies: the WH codex got it right, and I hope that if it's included it works similarly.

Simply: if you wanted cool stuff from an ally, you had to take x basic troops first. With the IG allies, you needed 1 troop for marginally cool things, Leman Russes required you take 2. Same with the space marine stuff, with the added restriction you couldn't take Sororitas.

What I would like to see is something akin to: To take an HQ or FA you must take 1 full strength troops choice from your allies. To take an Elite or HS choice, you must take 2 troops choices, one of which must be full strength. These *do* count towards your FOC limits, but do not fill your manditory 2 troops from your own codex.

That'll stop cherry-pickers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
No tangential arguments on this one from me. I know not everyone agrees with me when I say that there aren't any truly broken codexes (if it can be beaten by a different codex, then it isn't broken. It can be poorly balanced to the rest of the game though. But that's just how I see it). Either way it's largely opinion on what is "best" (I happen to use Repentia like a rage powered sledgehammer to run around the table mucking things up but the internet says they're horrible) and if it plays well for you that's the most important thing.
lol @ "rage-powered sledgehammer"

anyway, I still do my best to give what the internet says a try before continuing to fail with my own misbegotten schemes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #234 (Edited)
lol @ "rage-powered sledgehammer"
To justify my Repentia have killed (to date):

5 Tactical Marine Squads (and their transports)
3 Sternguard Squads (and their Razorbacks)
3 Venerable Dreadnoughts
4 Drop Pods
5 Dreadnoughts
3 Hive Guard
2 Land Raiders
1 Vindicator
8 Bike Marines
1 Attack Bike
1 Libarian (on a bike)
12 Gaunts

EDIT: I forgot a couple
8 Scouts (7 with Sniper Rifles, 1 with a Heavy Bolter)
1 Bjorn the Fell Handed
Not bad for something that has to "borrow" a Rhino to get around in, eh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
To justify my Repentia have killed (to date):

5 Tactical Marine Squads (and their transports)
3 Sternguard Squads (and their Razorbacks)
3 Venerable Dreadnoughts
4 Drop Pods
5 Dreadnoughts
3 Hive Guard
2 Land Raiders
1 Vindicator
8 Bike Marines
1 Attack Bike
1 Libarian (on a bike)
12 Gaunts

Not bad for something that has to "borrow" a Rhino to get around in, eh?
;u; it's beautiful <3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
I forgot the squad of Scout Snipers from Sunday as well. They're my armies MVPs at the moment. :biggrin:
LAWL! I hate scout snipers. My friend would always use them in lower-point battles with my CSMs

this is back when I used CSMs, of course, and not my wonderful, wonderful DE <3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
Regarding Allies: the WH codex got it right, and I hope that if it's included it works similarly.

Simply: if you wanted cool stuff from an ally, you had to take x basic troops first. With the IG allies, you needed 1 troop for marginally cool things, Leman Russes required you take 2. Same with the space marine stuff, with the added restriction you couldn't take Sororitas.

What I would like to see is something akin to: To take an HQ or FA you must take 1 full strength troops choice from your allies. To take an Elite or HS choice, you must take 2 troops choices, one of which must be full strength. These *do* count towards your FOC limits, but do not fill your manditory 2 troops from your own codex.

That'll stop cherry-pickers.
If allies come back, they should work exactly like they do in Fantasy. (ie: they're for multi-player games and/or 'opponents permission' type games and most definately NOT! for mainstream play!)

Allies coming back, especially into any kind of a competitive setting will just screw up the entire edition and turn it into a giant mess of OTT stupidity. Doesn't matter how you try and restrict it, all allies will do is allow armies to ignore their buint-in weaknesses and the game will suck rotten monkey-balls.
Imagine for example a GK paladin army, now backed-up by blobsquads of IG?!
Or how about CSM's summoning in bloodcrushers + plaguebearers?!
God forbid you run into Eldar teaming up with their dark cousins! (fotuned venoms & doomed squads getting hit by wyches should be real fun, right?!)
I'd hate to be the poor bastard getting to fight hordes of Ork boyz backed-up by Plague Marines & Oblits...

Allies just break the game. Leave them to multi-player & special senarios, or else risk destroying the entire game for the next 4-5+ years!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,811 Posts
To justify my Repentia have killed (to date):

5 Tactical Marine Squads (and their transports)
3 Sternguard Squads (and their Razorbacks)
3 Venerable Dreadnoughts
4 Drop Pods
5 Dreadnoughts
3 Hive Guard
2 Land Raiders
1 Vindicator
8 Bike Marines
1 Attack Bike
1 Libarian (on a bike)
12 Gaunts

Not bad for something that has to "borrow" a Rhino to get around in, eh?
I've been wanting to run some, they are actually very good under the right circumstances, such as vs dreadnoughts. Unfortunately DCA are cheaper and my Sister list has no shortage of anti tank.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #240
I've been wanting to run some, they are actually very good under the right circumstances, such as vs dreadnoughts. Unfortunately DCA are cheaper and my Sister list has no shortage of anti tank.
I only run one Battle Conclave in my army (with 5 DCA and 2 Crusaders) so the Repentia make a great second combat unit because they're pretty flexible in terms of what they can kill (3 attacks each on the charge, hitting Marines on 4s and wounding them on 2s without saves is rather fun to throw about the table), and have one of the few Acts of Faith I actually want to go off every turn (the rest are rather meh). Plus at less than 200 points (they're like 210 with the borrowed Rhino with a Dozer Blade I usually give them from one of my Battle Sister squads (aka "Grand Theft Rhino" or "The Can of Rage")). Meltas are nice for anti tank, but I like the strength of the number of attacks the Repentia can drop in a turn which allow me murder vehicles, and they fit pretty well into lower point games (Dominions aren't bad, but the ability to bring a mini-nuke like Repentia is pretty fun in my book).
 
221 - 240 of 841 Posts
Top