PDA

View Full Version : A newer player thoughts



Rated_lexxx
28-03-2011, 14:02
I have been playing pretty steadily for the last 3 or 4 months. I think I have gotten a pretty good view of the armies and the game.

I also have read the forums for the last couple of months and here is what I have experienced compared to what I have read.

First thing I have read

"GW favors Space marines"

I thought they did gear a lot of time and effort to them because they are a popular army for them. People like to play them because there easy to point and you can get a 2000 pt army pretty cheap.

I have played against both wolves and blood angels and it has been a steep learning curve.

These two armies are tough as nail, have superior CC and shooting.

I have try a bunch tactics and it's very hard. On the other side of the fence it seems like the marines are having a cakewalk. God help them if they lose 1 marine.

I look at the xeno codexs that have been released and they are so..average when compared to the marine codexs.

I will come back and post some more of my thoughts

LonelyPath
28-03-2011, 14:09
GW put out a lot for Marines since they make up a hefty portion of their sales (nearly half of them). It's not entirely certain the sales are their due to all the push for them or vice versa, but it's in GWs interests to keep supporting that range. Marines don't have it all easy, some armies (like Orks and Guard) can walk all over them if the marine player isn't to careful (I do so routinely with my lists and a few weeks ago all but tables a Wolves army with my Guard).

Ifyou don't mind me asking, what armies do you play yourself?

Rated_lexxx
28-03-2011, 17:08
GW put out a lot for Marines since they make up a hefty portion of their sales (nearly half of them). It's not entirely certain the sales are their due to all the push for them or vice versa, but it's in GWs interests to keep supporting that range. Marines don't have it all easy, some armies (like Orks and Guard) can walk all over them if the marine player isn't to careful (I do so routinely with my lists and a few weeks ago all but tables a Wolves army with my Guard).

Ifyou don't mind me asking, what armies do you play yourself?

Ironically Orks.

I see marines as a more forgiving army to. You can make mistakes and still win.

The last guy I played forgot to deploy his deepstrike guys in(and he rolled to say he could deepstrike them in) Put his stormraven right next to my nobz with power klaws. He forgot that they had power klaws.

I ripped the storm raven to shreds, but it didn't seem to make a difference that I capitalized on his mistake

I also understand why the push for marines and everything. These are just things I have noticed.

I look at the last 2 xeno codexs (tyrnids and dark eldar) and them ok. They seem balanced, but then you look at the marine codex and think wow.

I have also noticed the game is gearing towards tanks, tanks and more tanks. Orks have a bit of trouble with heavily armed vehicles.

When 6th does roll around are marines going to get all new codexs again, or well GW get around to updating old and older codexs ( Necrons I am looking at you)

My last thought is why does wound allocation have to be as complex as it is. I get it now, but why is it like that?

Castigator
28-03-2011, 17:16
Ironically Orks.
When 6th does roll around are marines going to get all new codexs again, or well GW get around to updating old and older codexs ( Necrons I am looking at you)


All Marines? No.
Both Blood Angels and Space Wolves have been 10+ years in the waiting (not counting PDFs) before they got an update. I would not expect them to now jump the fast train.

Basic/Generic Marines? Yes.
A new basic Space Marine Codex has appeared in every edition. Some other armies (Guard, Nids, maybe CSM) also appear to be on the "every-edition" fast track (well, no 5th for CSM yet); at least so far.

LonelyPath
28-03-2011, 18:41
No 5th edition DA yet either. But, they've got it better with the FAQ update frmo last December now so a codex update isn't as urgent.

Rated_Lexxx, Orks can fit 8 Battlewagons in a single FOC (5 for Nobs (troops and elites) and 3 in heavy support), plus even kitted out they are pretty cheap in points (though would put a severe dent in your pocket unless you scratchbuild or convert tanks you buy cheaply, lol).

Aluinn
28-03-2011, 18:53
Ironically Orks.
My last thought is why does wound allocation have to be as complex as it is. I get it now, but why is it like that?

In previous editions of the game, it was essentially always the case that, out of, say, a 10-man squad of Marines with 7 bolters, a special weapon, a heavy weapon, and a Sergeant, the last three alive would be--you guessed it--the special weapon guy, the heavy weapon guy, and the Sergeant, because you didn't really allocate wounds as such. Your opponent rolled to wound against the majority Toughness of the unit, you rolled the majority saves, and you removed whichever models you pleased based on how many saves you failed (though you had to remove whole models with multiple wounds, if the unit was made up of them, when possible). There was a somewhat half-hearted "torrent of fire" rule which could cause an opponent-nominated model to have to take a save or die in 4th Ed., but it rarely came up because meeting the conditions was often difficult, and also because people tended to forget about it.

The only reliable way to get around this and kill upgraded models was "line-of-sight sniping", wherein the firing model was positioned such that it could only see the model(s) that one wanted dead, or at least a small number of models including those that one wanted dead. Because models not visible to the firing unit could not be removed as casualties, this became a way to choose specific targets within a unit, if you could pull it off. Note that this is the primary reason why, in 5th Ed., models can be removed as casualties from shooting even when the firer can't see them. A lot of people rail against this as a stupid rule because it is counterintuitive, but seem not to remember that the other way to do things is also fairly counterintuitive--seeing less models in a unit causing fire to somehow become more "accurate" (in terms of killing more exactly what the player wants to kill) is, likewise, pretty odd. You could of course blame the player of the unit being shot at for leaving Sarge standing in the open, but that usually wasn't how it panned out: Rather, the other player would move the firing unit in such a way that Sarge was "out in the open", even though it could just as easily have moved to see the whole unit, which, one would think, would be more desirable, intuitively.

Anyway, the basic idea is that GW didn't like how upgraded models were always the last to die in a unit. The current wound allocation system makes it so that it is much more likely that a special weapon guy, unit leader, or Independent Character will be wounded by shooting. It still has problems and a lot of people hate it, but that whole discussion is probably best saved for another thread :).