PDA

View Full Version : Why the "dumb down"



Dicey
30-04-2007, 14:18
I have been a DA player for many years now. I am not a good painter nor modeller. My favourite part of the game though is writing my lists. sitting down trying to decide should I give my tactical squad a plasma gun or melta gun? if I give my commander infiltrate with a command squad should I also give him a hommer. Hours of deciding is what I love, the fine tunning of lists after games and games inside my head.

Now I read the DA and Eldar codex and they are written for younger and younger people. In two codex time there will be 3 -4 options 1500, 2000, 2250 point lists!

Do you feel that codexs are becoming simplistic? or do you feel they have improved under this new directrion?

Curufew
30-04-2007, 14:27
No, I don't think they're becoming more simplistic but they're becoming more balance. Moreover, I feel that the game is now more relying on actual tactics/manuvuers than built up a powerful army list and win the game.

azimaith
30-04-2007, 14:27
They're mostly cutting down of on easily exploitable options caused by an very open ended game system and players who are bastards. Its like the people who run over old' folks with their skateboards in parks, they ruin it for everyone else.

The point of the game is to utilize interesting and new tactics to out play your opponent, not to make a "Uberlist".

Besides its hardly dumbed down. The eldar codex has practically as many options as before expcept for options that gave opponents a stroke when trying to kill a falcon.

DA has more options too, there just not the same old no-brainer options as before. Its not like your tactical squad doesn't get to choose plasma guns or melta guns now is it.

brotherhostower
30-04-2007, 14:33
I don't feel the codecies are becoming simplistic, and certainly not to appeal to a younger audience. If you spin through the rules threads here and over at B&C, you'll find large glaring rules gaps in the new C:SM codex. The new format for the DA codex prevents the many many many (did I say many?) problems C:SM currently has. The Eldar codex in 3rd ed changed very little over to 4th ed (stylewise). They only had an armoury that applied to 5 models anyway (3 of which were tanks), so they simply did away with it and included it in those unit entries.

After long deliberation, I have to say I like the direction the game is headed in (I'm both a DA & Eldar player). The hobby is still far more versitile than Warmachine, or any of its other competitors. Now, I also play WHFB, so the new format isn't really new to me, it's almost identical to their fantasy codex formats and no one in their right mind would call WHFB a game for young kids.

Dicey
30-04-2007, 14:35
Azimaith, I would hardly call myself the name you used. I would hope the forum guards deal with this language.


I play my list for fun. Detailing a list is not utilising it to max it ubber, more to suit the style of game I want to play.

ie my DA,
my master and his chosen infiltrate forward and nab the guy/ gal/ thing with the info they need. The rest of the army provides support and a diversionary attack. Thsi was how I played my list. Now my master and his buds cant infiltrate nor have any vet skills. True they are now fearless but I never really counted on this.

I suppose it all comes down to your group you play with, if rules can/ are abused. I am not talking about abusing lists I am trying to talk about the lack of options a list can have, especially marines

azimaith
30-04-2007, 14:42
Azimaith, I would hardly call myself the name you used. I would hope the forum guards deal with this language.

And what name did I call you may I ask? I didn't call you any name, unless of course you happen to go around in parks and run over old people with your skateboard, in which case I would have.


I play my list for fun. Detailing a list is not utilising it to max it ubber, more to suit the style of game I want to play.

Then whats your point? You can still take your plasma guns and melta guns as you like. You can put most of the options you could before, the options that are available just *change* and players need to be willing to change with them.



ie my DA,
my master and his chosen infiltrate forward and nab the guy/ gal/ thing with the info they need. The rest of the army provides support and a diversionary attack. Thsi was how I played my list. Now my master and his buds cant infiltrate nor have any vet skills. True they are now fearless but I never really counted on this.

Well figure out a different way to use them then. Maybe they'd use jetpacks to get in quick and escape. Maybe they drop in by drop pod. The choices are still there.



I suppose it all comes down to your group you play with, if rules can/ are abused. I am not talking about abusing lists I am trying to talk about the lack of options a list can have, especially marines
Oh please, do not come complaining to me about a lack of options. I play *necrons* and I still find enough options to make my army lists interesting.

If your going to make your army story based then expect to play story missions with them so you can make up whatever rules you like. You can't expect the designers to know that their change is going to change your story line. You'll have to adapt or house rule it and thats all there is to it.

Gen_eV
30-04-2007, 14:45
The hobby is still far more versitile than Warmachine, or any of its other competitors.

That's a good point. Anyone complaining about lack of options should look at Warmachine. One character per 500pts, they're all Special Characters, every unit's equipment is pre-determined. A few get the option to add extra models to a unit, akin to Ratling Guns in WHFB Skaven, but mostly the only option is "how many do I take?"

However, although constructing an army list is a lot simpler, that doesn't make it a weak game. 40K will never get that far, as the idea of optional upgrades is stuck solidly in the system.

Therefore, I'm not worried. No matter how far games workshop simplify the army construction process, it'll still be far more in-depth than Warmachine.

I enjoy Warmachine, but do get annoyed at the lack of options -as long as we don't end up with stuff like three 'options' for dreadnoughts ie twin DCCW, Assault Cannon/DCCW, Lascannon/Missile Launcher, with no chance to rearrange as you see fit, there should be enough versatility. (unlike certain big red Warjacks - why oh why can't I have an open fist instead of an axe on my Destroyer?)

Dooks Dizzo
30-04-2007, 14:58
I don't think it is being dumbed down at all. Taking away certain options and providing different options for the sake of balance isn't dumbing down, it's taking the MEQ strangle hold off the game.

I say this as a Chaos player. I am looking forward to having my army made reasonable. All teh uber cheese heads who scream that they are going to quite since they can't use their favorite BS combo? Music to my ears.

Kymar
30-04-2007, 15:01
They're mostly cutting down of on easily exploitable options caused by an very open ended game system and players who are bastards. .

I think he was offend by this, even though I don't think you specifically ment he was one of these people.

As for my response, I'd say the changes to the Eldar codex have increased the value of each unit so there is more competition for points & FoC slots. When designing my lists I constantly have to think about what style of play I want to focus on and can no longer create a list that can deal with every battle in the same way.

From what I've read of the DA codex, I'd say it follows a similar theme, do you go Deathwing or Ravenwing or traditional SM & Scouts with improved equipment? They are all viable and interesting, but its now nearly impossible to play all at the same time so it become a more difficult choice (and such more fun for list construction).

Balanced codex clearly show the players what theme an army can be played as, but doesn't make any one of these themes better then the other.

azimaith
30-04-2007, 15:09
Unless he's admitting to be a player who tries to make the most uber list possible then it really doesn't apply to him. From his response hes obviously not, so I don't see how it could be construed to be insulting to him.

Anyhow, I agree, the hallmark of a good codex is a *difficult* practically excruciating choice between one unit and another. And the newer codexes (Since eldar at least) seem to be doing this, which I think is a good sign. I'm not one for all the doom and gloom floating around these forums currently. 40k is going in a better direction.

Reinhard
30-04-2007, 15:25
I can not really give more than an impression about the DA, as I don’t play them myself. Considering the war gear for the marines I don’t consider tailoring your IC’s or veterans to be the most demanding part of the game, so removing the free for all list and putting the options in the unit entries reduces the abuse and improves the balancing of the units. I have a similar opinion about the combat squads. The Codex SM leads a competitive player to min/maxing because it is the easiest (not necessary the ultimate) way to get a lot of power for few points. The combat squads on the other hand have a lot of subtle advantages if you use them as real marines. All comers at unit level instead of point&click units made out of specialists. I think this rewards smart play over smart (internet copied) lists.

Talking about specialist lets go back to the Eldar. Since the new codex I had maybe some 20 bigger games around 2000 points and about 10 400 point games. Except for the space clowns, the avatar and the special characters, I have used every unit in the Codex and I do not see a single one that is without use to me. Some of them are fitting my style better than others, but there is not a single one that I would not consider to use. Up to now I did not use one list twice. Sometimes I just replaced a single unit (eg. 5 reapers instead of 5 spears) and I could use some completely different synergies and tactics. In 3ed I had 3 different builds and every other option would have meant to use some crap unit, to play a style I do not like or to become cheesy. Now I have lots of possibilities and with very few exceptions they are neither crap nor cheese. If I have to pay with some so called flexibility to get a good balancing I’m willing to pay. So called flexibility, because with all the war gear that SM or CSM can have most of the IC’s and veterans I see in use are extremely similar and the variety is not bigger than the different builds of my autarchs, farseers and exarchs.

If you wonder, why I don’t use harlequins. Well in our group they suck, because my opponents know how to deal with them. One of us used them for a while and he is not happy at all, if they are the victims of a drive by shooting by my dire avengers, or my vibro cannons, or some banshees nearby. Or if I block the hatch of his falcon with some jetbikes. The other players in our group get similar results with their units.

And if you wonder, why I don’t use special characters or avatars, well on my craftworld these guys don’t show up at every second pub brawl.

Dicey
30-04-2007, 16:16
azimaith, I was objecting to the use of the word "bastard". I believe there is no place for fowl language on this forum.

Regarding your points
I see you point and encourgae the discussion.

I really just used the plama melta thing as an example. I agree that causing difficult selction choices makes a good codex, you get varied armies and different themes. I mean whan was the last time you saw DE grotesques used?

Grimshawl
30-04-2007, 16:25
I do think the general trend with these last two codex's has been to dumb them down some what, those who are in favor will call it streamlining or somesuch, but at its heart it is a simplification of one aspect of the game. I am also one of those people who felt giving all troops in 40k one movement rate was a dumbing down of the system. And by that I mean all of a type of troop have the same movement regardless of race, I mean how hard complicated is it to belive that different aliens movement would be greater or less than mankinds?

Zedric
30-04-2007, 16:38
I appreciate the use of quotes on "dumb down" - for a lot of folks it's an overly condescending term that refers to much desired abstraction for which the game is not any less intelligent or sophisticated. ;)

Honestly, the fewer choices I'm given, the less I agonize over them. That's just personal preference though - I want to field things that look or sound good and let my generalship come out on the battlefield, for better or worse.


azimaith, I was objecting to the use of the word "bastard". I believe there is no place for fowl language on this forum.
*narrowly avoids a pun about ducks*

Grimtuff
30-04-2007, 16:48
azimaith, I was objecting to the use of the word "bastard". I believe there is no place for fowl language on this forum.


Yeah those damn Chickens! You don't say bastard anymore, you say "love child" ;)

Oh, and to stay OT. Less options does not equal dumbing down. As otrhers have said, the options are still there, just a little more restricted.

Cypher
30-04-2007, 16:58
I thought we said 'cluckers' :p

Ahem - being on topic. I like the new codicies: having options for the sake of them doesnt make a list better. It makes sense, for example, that every squad has a veteran sergeant, pistols and grenades, because that's how the fluff is written. It might be limiting, but it suits the character of the army.

I do agree that the characters in the DA book feel a bit thin and possibly underpowered compared to the vanilla list, but that's about the worst I could say regarding the list.

ashc
30-04-2007, 17:02
I do agree that the characters in the DA book feel a bit thin and possibly underpowered compared to the vanilla list, but that's about the worst I could say regarding the list.

You won't be saying that when the vanilla and chaos lists get redone :p

Ash

WoW_Auron
30-04-2007, 17:55
I am trying to talk about the lack of options a list can have, especially marines

What? Marines? Lack of options? Do i have the wrong codex here, heck. This book even has options / unit types i will never use!

We have THREE HQ choices, command squads and elites can be min/maxed for elite killing power. scrimping on the numbers to max out on the options. Or we can cut out the options for the numbers. Effectively making A small, elite HQ and/or elite squad tooled up with Honors & special weapons, or we can take larger, simpler squads for the numbers and dice.

Tac squads are ( AND ALWAYS WILL BE ) versatile! Hell, we can even take the jump packs off our ASM squads. My friend, SM are spoiled for options. We even have 3 Land Speeder Variants. Then the traits.. I could go on..

I had more to say, but i'd only be repeating a point made by everyone else already. You get the idea.

stonefox
30-04-2007, 18:08
They're mostly cutting down of on easily exploitable options caused by an very open ended game system and players who are bastards. Its like the people who run over old' folks with their skateboards in parks, they ruin it for everyone else.

The point of the game is to utilize interesting and new tactics to out play your opponent, not to make a "Uberlist".


Making an army list is part of the game. If the designers didn't want 6-man lasplas, they would not have made that possible. Admittedly, they are now changing that, which means they used to want 6-man lasplas but now they want 5-man las or plas squads.

To use your analogy, the skate park rules said they could run over old folks. Others, either wanting to call themselves morally superior or some other reason for self-restraint, chose to not run over old folks. The latter group look down upon the former, even if they are doing nothing illegal.

BrainFireBob
30-04-2007, 18:48
Making an army list is part of the game. If the designers didn't want 6-man lasplas, they would not have made that possible. Admittedly, they are now changing that, which means they used to want 6-man lasplas but now they want 5-man las or plas squads

This premise operates on a fallacy, specifically, that the designers foresaw the 6 man las-plas squads. If they simply created variable size Marine squads, and never playtested the Marine gunline, then the fact you can take that option out of the open-ended unit construction emphatically does NOT mean the designers intended you to do it and did NOT therefore, make it possible- they overlooked it.

The fact they're now banning it therefore alternately means that they did NOT intend to "make it possible," meaning they did NOT want you to do it, meaning, from the perspective of the designers, you were doing it wrong, at least from the reference point of how they designed the game to play- which is the whole point of people criticizing powergaming.

There's no rule about running up to the pitcher and hitting him in the head with the baseball bat in baseball, is there? Or the ref when he tries to throw you out? Must mean baseball's intended to play that way- you see why this premise doesn't work, I assume.

EDIT: Or, to use your skate park analogy- the skate park rules never said they couldn't run over old folks, sure the owners said they shouldn't and they weren't intended to, but they're just the owners, the rules don't say what the guys writing the rules said, so apparently those guys don't know what they're talking about.

It's an excuse at worst and at best not thought through as an argument.

eldaran
30-04-2007, 18:52
i reckon its because GW think:

Balance=dumb down.

Unforrtunately, this is not good for those of us who do have the intelligence to cope with an armoury, and are not tournie :Cheese: players.

unfortunately, GW work on the basis of tourney armies, rather than fun armies. (amadan)

Templar Ben
30-04-2007, 19:45
There's no rule about running up to the pitcher and hitting him in the head with the baseball bat in baseball, is there? Or the ref when he tries to throw you out? Must mean baseball's intended to play that way- you see why this premise doesn't work, I assume.

Actually there is a rule about moving towards the mound. Let alone what you are refering to is "charging the mound". Don't compare a sport or fully defined game to 40K please, that is just silly.



EDIT: Or, to use your skate park analogy- the skate park rules never said they couldn't run over old folks, sure the owners said they shouldn't and they weren't intended to, but they're just the owners, the rules don't say what the guys writing the rules said, so apparently those guys don't know what they're talking about.

It's an excuse at worst and at best not thought through as an argument.

Didn't they have 6 man las/plas in 3rd edition? They could have stopped it when they did the 4th edition Codex or the BT Codex. They did not. It seems clear that there is a new sheriff in town and he is changing the game. I am not saying it should not be changed but let's all drop that silly analogy.

Democratus
30-04-2007, 20:02
I like the new changes.

The battle should be fought on the table, not in the army list software.

redbaron998
30-04-2007, 20:12
I like the new changes.

The battle should be fought on the table, not in the army list software.

I agree. List Composition should be used to tailor your army to your personal tasts, and unless you just make really stupid choices your list should have an equal chance to take on any other list of the same points. Power games and cheese armies offset this causing what you refer to as a "Dumb Down"

Yet what is really changing. People say the DA codex has so few choices and will all look the same, yet on B&C no single list looks like another. There are still plenty of choices.

Its not so much a domb down as a reset of focus on the actual playing of the game rather than the choices in your army list.

Lord Balian
30-04-2007, 20:51
I don't think the codex's are simpler per se. I do see your point in that the new format and squad sizes for DA makes it easier to add up and build a list. But that doesn't really make the codex simpler.

I'm of the thought that what they did, and tried to do, is make the building of lists more balanced, and less of the game. You still want to keep the armies diverse and enough so everyone isn't running the same thing, but at the same time they want the game to be about your tactics and use of what you did use. Rather then a game where with just about any opponent and game, you're going to win because of your list. It will be very interesting to see where this game goes when all the codexs have been updates in this manner.

And even though DA HQs are limited, that's really OK for SM. They are more about the troops and units then they are about a single hero who takes out entire squads by himself. That's chaos. If you really look at all the things you can throw into an army now with DA, a little imagination and thinking outside the box can make a lot of different lists. I know a guy taking Sammael, two ravenwing sqauds and 3 devastator squads in rhinos with 4 plasmacannons. Or Sammael with three RW squads, and three Predator destructors. Lots of wild and crazy options now.

BrainFireBob
30-04-2007, 21:32
Didn't they have 6 man las/plas in 3rd edition? They could have stopped it when they did the 4th edition Codex or the BT Codex. They did not. It seems clear that there is a new sheriff in town and he is changing the game. I am not saying it should not be changed but let's all drop that silly analogy.

Wasn't on the tournament radar in third edition. First was rhino rush, that neutered, the proliferation of plasma cannons. In 4th, after blast templates were neutered, you began to see the las-plas gunline. So not quite valid.

Vic
30-04-2007, 22:09
I think rhino rush is coming back in the form of the BA codex....

grimkeeper
30-04-2007, 22:16
while i cant say if the new codexs will bring about balance (the buzz word) or if they will just results in mono, necron style lists, not knocking necrons,only time will tell. But to think that the designers were unable to foresee what they were doing must point to lazyness and a lack of proper play testing ,something that i hope has been put right.Dont forget many new gamers get thier concept of what a balanced list is from the battle reports in White Dwarf.

Damien 1427
30-04-2007, 22:22
I think the real test of this new direction is the Chaos Codex. Marines aren't especially malleable, especially a pretty Codex chapter like the Dark Angels, and Eldar always seemed to be customisation on a larger scale than on insane wargear combinations.

Chaos will either swing one way or the other. Trouble is, if it's slimmed down too much, it'll be like the original 3rd edition book. For those who weren't around, it was crap, essentially a spikey version of the loyalist list with added daemons, which is why Chaos players welcomed the revision with open arms.

Frankly, I'm worried. I don't want a return to the Bad Old Days, but I would like people to shut the hell up about Slaaneshi Sirenbombs and Iron Warrior Pastry Chefs. Frankly, I'd hack out the Legion lists altogether, as that is where the problems seem to lay.

Depends what people want, and me? I love a plethora of options. Might explain what put me off Warmachine (Give me generic 'casters for each faction, damnit!), and what's got me spooked over the revision of what I consider to be by far and away the best codex we've ever recieved.

The Song of Spears
30-04-2007, 23:12
while i cant say if the new codexs will bring about balance (the buzz word) or if they will just results in mono, necron style lists, not knocking necrons,only time will tell.

Necrons eh?

Here is a funny thought... I play necrons and chaos mainly, but i am building Eldar as my main army ATM... anyway.

Necrons have next to no wargear and with what unit options they do have, many are next to worthless when compared to the others.

Chaos is full of so many options you often don't see two armies alike and the codex is a unholy nightmare to understand the first time through (fitting for Chaos IMO)

News flash : GW will be using the Eldar and Da to pave the way of the future, especially when it comes to the new chaos codex. Lots of simplification to be done there.

So I panic my lovingly crafted and well paid for IW army might go the way of the Aliatoc ranger list, or maybe not i dunno.

Oddly enough. The necrons are my fav army to play. Why? There is no list tactics, well not much anyway. And so based on the units i chose to fight with, i have to use all of my table top general skills to pull off wins.

Not so with chaos. There have been tons of games where i have steam rolled the other guy, or been smakced down my self simply due to list design, where even a great general would not have done better.

Do i like all of Chaos' options? Hell ya! Do they make the game often unbalanced or unpredictable? Sometimes, often enough to notice i guess.

So i guess, if Chaos had as few options as necrons (i hope not) i would still oddly enough be happy to use them as long as they played differently than my other armies on the field.

And if i want to play some other kinda of list, i can start working on a new army that is that other kind of list built into its own codex, and not only have the play styles i want, but two cool looking armies.

Shipmonkey
30-04-2007, 23:15
i reckon its because GW think:

Balance=dumb down.

Unforrtunately, this is not good for those of us who do have the intelligence to cope with an armoury, and are not tournie :Cheese: players.

unfortunately, GW work on the basis of tourney armies, rather than fun armies. (amadan)

I reckon you think like this;

Me=superior to all other carbon based lifeforms

Please don't go after the intelligence of other players while at the same time hyping your own. It's not a great postion to take in an arguement like this. I've met plenty of very "intelligent" Chaos players who managed to bungle and fumble lists made using the current unwieldy codex. And it's a pain to try to quickly review a list made from the codex to check point totals.

GWs recent decision tho simply the game as a method of promoting balance really is a great idea. Complicated rules and bloated wargear choices add little but confusion into the game. Look at most codexes with large wargear amounts of choices. How often do you see all that gear taken? Not often I reckon. For the most part only a couple of choice pieces are taken, the game winners. So why not just take those options and stick the into a units right up? A simple and elegant solution.
For those bemoaning the lack of wargear, look at the Tau and Necrons, neither has much in the way of wargear and they do just fine on the table. Or better yet, look at the Guard codex. Most if it's gear is officer only, their is very little a normal sergeant can take that couldn't be placed right into the unit description.

Lastly, GW tried fun lists. We the fans made those a losing proposition for them. They would give us a fun list in WD and what would happen? First people would start demanding it be tourney legal. Then, people would start demanding a full line of models for the list. Shortly there after, both groups would be bemoanin GW uncarign attitude toward it core fans. If I was GW, I would have stopped the "for fun" lists too. We only have ourselves to blame.

Bloodknight
30-04-2007, 23:26
I wouldn´t compare the chaos book (and the way it may go)with necrons in terms of flexibility. Necrons suffer firstly from having a lot less units than chaos and secondly half of these units is not good enough to be fielded (this is what the new codices address, IMO. Worked especially well with the Eldar).
The Dark Eldar suffer from the same problem - only one troops choice, 2/3 of the elites is crap, FA is completely crap.
Chaos, too, has a lot of crap units and I will instantly want to give up a lot of the wargear list if this makes playing Terminators, Possessed, Horrors, Flesh Hounds, Screamers and Chosen in power armour really worthwhile as competitive choices.
After all, half of the Armoury and daemonic gifts was useless and never taken anyway.

Actually I feel the game gets less dumbed down, as it makes playing well more useful than good list building.

Compare it to Warmachine, if you want: playing is everything there as the units have no upgrades at all. If you´re lucky you are allowed to choose the number of models in a given unit you want to field. That´s all.

cailus
30-04-2007, 23:30
I don't see how the DA Codex is dumbed down. There are so many ways of using each unit that hard decisions must be made on how to utilise the unit. Every unit is also perfectly viable thus making choosing an army even more difficult.

This does not sound like a dumb down unlike the Marine codex where the only armies I see being used are stale and generic internet lists.

BattleofLund
01-05-2007, 00:00
Bloodknight wrote:
'Chaos, too, has a lot of crap units and I will instantly want to give up a lot of the wargear list if this makes playing Terminators, Possessed, Horrors, Flesh Hounds, Screamers and Chosen in power armour really worthwhile as competitive choices.'

I agree, in all but one instance. That being Flesh Hounds, a species I feel is unnecessarily maligned. Come on, only a cat person could NOT love them!

Nebelung_13
01-05-2007, 00:20
the fact is there will allways be ways to use the dexes, everybody shouts out the DA dex is fabulous....from point of view of Fluff and atmosphere i think is Horrible! and there are some choices that are stupid enough to raise your hair ....15 points for extra armour???? thats gotta be both stupid and reasonless.strenght 4 shotguns on "elite" Scouts? what? you got me lost there? why rise the scouts strenght on shotgun????it makes no sense, and they dropped all fluffy stuff intractable stubborn and hunting the fallen ...true they were more backfire , but damn if they start taking off every options just because some players cant handle the "pressure of choosing" then its like playing warmachine on diferent scale.
There are ways of balancing stuff without having to strip it naked of options and fluffy crap .....to make a diference ill go ahead and say i LOve my Chaos SM dex even if it causes me so many headhaches and long times to make lists.....fairly disapointed with DA -for being unfluffy ......that crap of havin~g to pay for stuff i dont want to .strenght 4 shotguns are bad ....bolters are 4 and AP5 and 2 shots so it doesnt make up to it....and Krak Grenades are useless...
If we start cutting to much , might has well start playing Tic-tac-toe to decided who wins the battle!

Bloodknight
01-05-2007, 00:35
The point why I chose Flesh hounds is that Furies have in principle the same profile (-1LD), are more mobile due to flight and they´re a lot cheaper as well.

@Nebelung13: well, 15 points is what extra armour is worth. Also, the DA get their Rhinos far cheaper than anybody else. The 5 points all other armies pay is vastly underpriced for what EA does at least on transports (and yes, I play two of the 5 pt EA armies...). It´s not very useful on battletanks anyway.

cailus
01-05-2007, 00:49
and there are some choices that are stupid enough to raise your hair ....15 points for extra armour???? thats gotta be both stupid and reasonless.

And even with extra armour your DA Rhino is still cheaper than the Codex Marine one by about 9 points! So you're angry that your Rhino is cheaper than a Marine one?!? The Predator Destructor is also cheaper than the Marine version.

I actually hate Extra Armour because I've never seen it modelled. Everyone just says "it's on the inside." :rolleyes:


strenght 4 shotguns on "elite" Scouts? what? you got me lost there? why rise the scouts strenght on shotgun????

Cause no-one on the planet equipped their scouts with shotguns. At S3 even the fluffiest of players just couldn't justify shotguns.

And from a fluff perspective, Manstopper rounds are quite acceptable. Shotguns fire a variety of ammunition. From memory in Necromunda Adeptus Arbites are issued with a variety of shotgun ammunition including Executioner rounds which improved your ability to Hit. Hence the background provision for different types of rounds is there. And as Marines get the best equipment it makes sense their shotguns might get better ammuniton



it makes no sense, and they dropped all fluffy stuff intractable stubborn

Just because they're stubborn gits doesn't mean they will make extremely stupid decisions. They are Marines after all and not 3 year olds.


and hunting the fallen

How often did you use the "Hunting the Fallen" rule. I've never seen it used since 3rd edition came out. It was a pointless rule


...true they were more backfire , but damn if they start taking off every options just because some players cant handle the "pressure of choosing" then its like playing warmachine on diferent scale.
There are ways of balancing stuff without having to strip it naked of options and fluffy crap .....

So there are no options in the DA Codex?

As I have been continously stating the Codex offers options at army and unit level in terms of tactics and flexibility. Just because your Veteran Sergeant can't chose a Thunderhammer or because you can't field a unit with 7 guys, a flamer, a multi-melta and a Veteran Sergeant equipped with a combi-plasma and combat shield does not equate to losing options.

You could for example play traditional Ravenwing or Deathwing tactics or try a combined approach. Your marines can still be mechanised or drop podded. It's just that squads now can do a little bit more than in the past at the expense of irregular squad sizes and some wargear options.

Besides in 2nd edition Marines had bolt pistols and grenades and combat squads.


...to make a diference ill go ahead and say i LOve my Chaos SM dex even if it causes me so many headhaches and long times to make lists.....

Fair enough.



...strenght 4 shotguns are bad ....bolters are 4 and AP5 and 2 shots so it doesnt make up to it...

Buit with shotguns you can fire twice and then charge. With bolters you can only fire twice.


.......and Krak Grenades are useless...

They're not the be-all and end-all of anti-tank weaponry but they provide the option to be used at a relatively cheap price. In certain circumstances such as drop podding armies or mechainsed forces the chances of using them quite high. They could also come in handy when a Walker decides to tangle with your boys. Sure a power fist is much more handy but then 9 additional guys with krak grenades helps push the odds in your favour even if not by much.

GreenDracoBob
01-05-2007, 00:57
Stripped of options? In some ways, yes. Dumbed down? I don't think so. As people have said, if you take away the obvious choices, bringing them more in line with others, you get an army list with more choices. What in the Eldar or Dark Angels lists seems like an absolute waste in comparision to another entry? Next to nothing; arguably, nothing. Also, it shifts the focus from "Who can make the best list" to "Who can play the game better." I think it takes a bit more intellect and cunning to win that way.

But I do think they have gone a bit too far in some respects. Taking out the wargear section in the Eldar codex made sense, due to the few units that could use it and share some items within it. But with DA, it took something out of the list. It does help to say "Replace weapon X with Y" to keep a believable and easy to understand list, but it takes away character. The Dark Angels codex has a new art depicting a Terminator with a power sword and a Thunder Hammer, an option not available to the Dark Angel player. I might want a sergeant with a power weapon and a storm sheild, or a Company Master with a bolt pistol, artificer and a plasma pistol. Effective? Maybe not, but it gave you a character you made, rather than one GW hands to you.

Then is the lack of options with the HQs. Many people like being able to choose between a low or high level HQ choice. With Eldar, it was once again negligible, but the Dark Angels didn't make sense. Space Marines have always had the two levels to the different characters, but instead GW makes us take a lower level or a "special" character. Now it sort of makes sense for the Deathwing Master, until you factor in the multiple chapters the codex is supposed to represent. Combine this with a lack of options in the wargear department, and you have an empty HQ section.

Then the strange lack of options for all the units. Veteran skills don't exist in Dark Angels. Why? I'm not sure, other than the Fearless rule sprinkled within and the extra options/combat squads for the Veterans and Devastators.

Ozendorph
01-05-2007, 01:06
Checkers has wicked balance.

Red or Black? I simply cannot decide! [/Jervis]

cailus
01-05-2007, 01:31
Then is the lack of options with the HQs. Many people like being able to choose between a low or high level HQ choice. With Eldar, it was once again negligible, but the Dark Angels didn't make sense. Space Marines have always had the two levels to the different characters, but instead GW makes us take a lower level or a "special" character. Now it sort of makes sense for the Deathwing Master, until you factor in the multiple chapters the codex is supposed to represent. Combine this with a lack of options in the wargear department, and you have an empty HQ section.

I actually think that Codex Marines will have more variety in the HQ section than Codex DA or the upcoming Codex BA. Both Codex BA and DA represent certain chapters at a specific point in time. Hence the named characters.



Then the strange lack of options for all the units. Veteran skills don't exist in Dark Angels. Why? I'm not sure, other than the Fearless rule sprinkled within and the extra options/combat squads for the Veterans and Devastators.

The lack of Vet Skills may be a push towards balance. The Vet Skills in both the Marine and Chaos codex seem to be used specifically for creating uprated units in a cheap way.

Furious Charge is a no brainer for any assault unit especially Assault Terminators. Tank hunters was often used to create cheap lascannon alternatives by giving Dev/Havoc squads rocket launchers and tank hunters or in the example of Chaos, giving a unit 4 autocannons and tankhunters (effectively 8 S8 shots a turn against vehicles). Infiltrators was often used in the Chaos dex to create fast infiltrating HQ's. No-one in their right mgiht took Counter-charge.

Perhaps because of this GW views them as too overpowering and has removed them as an optional upgrade?

One_Second_of_Insanity
01-05-2007, 05:36
i know it has been said before but i do not belive there has been a dumb down, in fact i think that it has gone in the opposite direction with the change in the latest 2 codexes. there are now no 'no brainer' choices and it does make for more challenging tactical use of units rather than just plonk down something that others cant match

GreenDracoBob
01-05-2007, 05:47
I actually think that Codex Marines will have more variety in the HQ section than Codex DA or the upcoming Codex BA. Both Codex BA and DA represent certain chapters at a specific point in time. Hence the named characters.

I hope the SM redux has some more variety, considering the amount of chapters it has to represent. But the Dark Angels and, by conjecture, the Blood Angels represent more than just the single chapters, they also represent their successor chapters. Belial might be the Dark Angels Master of the Deathwing, but his stats and abilities aren't exactly the same as the Disciples of Caliban 2nd Company Master. If codices will lack wargear sections, than the HQ units especially should have more wargear options. A Terminator captain with a Thunder Hammer and Power Sword or a Chaplain with Artificer armor.



The lack of Vet Skills may be a push towards balance. The Vet Skills in both the Marine and Chaos codex seem to be used specifically for creating uprated units in a cheap way[...]

Perhaps because of this GW views them as too overpowering and has removed them as an optional upgrade?

That may be, but they add some character to the army nonetheless. They are powerful abilities, but they show how SM forces operate with their years of experience and focused expertise. It also gives a unit more variety, and more flexibilty. If I had my way, I would adjust costs rather than scrapping the abilities.

The Emperor
01-05-2007, 06:01
I think rhino rush is coming back in the form of the BA codex....

It's not coming back. That vehicle upgrade was for Land Raiders and Land Raiders ONLY. In short, it gives Land Raiders an ability which they already possess. It allows troops to assault after disembarking, which is something they can do, already.


Then the strange lack of options for all the units. Veteran skills don't exist in Dark Angels. Why? I'm not sure, other than the Fearless rule sprinkled within and the extra options/combat squads for the Veterans and Devastators.

Why should Dark Angels get Veteran Skills to begin with? They're not known for the ferocity of their attacks. They're not exceedingly adept at siege warfare. Nor are they known to be particularly stealthy. So why in the world should they get Veteran Skills?

Take Furious Charge, for instance. Khorne Berserkers get Furious Charge. Blood Angels Death Company get Furious Charge. And then look at a Deathwing Terminator. Why should he also be allowed to get Furious Charge? The Deathwing Terminator isn't anywhere near as savage as either of those two. It doesn't make an ounce of sense for a Deathwing Terminator to have Furious Charge.

Same goes for those other two. You want a Space Marine force that's adept at Siege Warfare, and has the Tank Hunters skill? Play Imperial Fists. You want a Space Marine force that's skilled at Infiltration? Play Raven Guard. Each of the Chapters have their own specialty, and it's ludicrous for Dark Angels to be just as good as those Chapters, which SPECIALIZE in those specific areas of warfare.

eldaran
01-05-2007, 06:30
I reckon you think like this;

Me=superior to all other carbon based lifeforms.

Actually i think me=some other people. Intelligence is more than being plain clever. it is also the ability to understand. knowledge=clever; intelligence=understanding. intelligence>knowledge.


Please don't go after the intelligence of other players while at the same time hyping your own. It's not a great postion to take in an arguement like this. I've met plenty of very "intelligent" Chaos players who managed to bungle and fumble lists made using the current unwieldy codex. And it's a pain to try to quickly review a list made from the codex to check point totals.

The codex is not unwieldy. it works well enough, although some things, like the Iron Warriors are unbalanced (probably because of the 3.0 ed. codex and wanting to change it ASAP), you can say that about anything in certain lists (ability to have your guard take infiltrate AND move through cover for a point a model)

none of the other Chaos players i know have difficulty checking points totals. All you need is memory and a basic understanding of maths.for example i know that a bunch of 8 Havocs with 4 missile launchers with infiltrate and tank hunters is 224 points, because i know how many points/model each item is.

[/QUOTE]GWs recent decision tho simply the game as a method of promoting balance really is a great idea. Complicated rules and bloated wargear choices add little but confusion into the game. Look at most codexes with large wargear amounts of choices. How often do you see all that gear taken? Not often I reckon. For the most part only a couple of choice pieces are taken, the game winners. So why not just take those options and stick the into a units right up? A simple and elegant solution.[/QUOTE]

C:IG has an armoury, and no-one complains about it. However, i see a fair amount of the gear taken, mostly just for a laugh, but mainly because they sound cool. I soubt anyone would call the plague sword rubbish when they've seen it pwn the nightbringer, for example, and the twisted path psychic power won me a game once.

[/QUOTE]For those bemoaning the lack of wargear, look at the Tau and Necrons, neither has much in the way of wargear and they do just fine on the table. Or better yet, look at the Guard codex. Most if it's gear is officer only, their is very little a normal sergeant can take that couldn't be placed right into the unit description.[/QUOTE]

How do the Tau have a lack of an armoury? There are 7 pages dedicated to 3armouries!

[/QUOTE]Lastly, GW tried fun lists. We the fans made those a losing proposition for them. They would give us a fun list in WD and what would happen? First people would start demanding it be tourney legal. Then, people would start demanding a full line of models for the list. Shortly there after, both groups would be bemoanin GW uncarign attitude toward it core fans. If I was GW, I would have stopped the "for fun" lists too. We only have ourselves to blame.[/QUOTE]

Thats the problems of the players. But some of the players, like a Feral orks player i know, relished the lack of models. Basically, if you don't want to convert to do the models, don't use the lists.


if i'm being condescending, sorry. if you want me to be polite when there are idiots who complain when they don't understand something that is simple to understand with a modicum of intelligence, not going to happen.

the Chaos list IS complex to understand at first, but it really doesn't take that long to grasp.

Occulto
01-05-2007, 06:39
Same goes for those other two. You want a Space Marine force that's adept at Siege Warfare, and has the Tank Hunters skill? Play Imperial Fists. You want a Space Marine force that's skilled at Infiltration? Play Raven Guard. Each of the Chapters have their own specialty, and it's ludicrous for Dark Angels to be just as good as those Chapters, which SPECIALIZE in those specific areas of warfare.

Quoted for truth.

Too many people want to have their cake and eat it too.

One_Second_of_Insanity
01-05-2007, 06:53
i'll have to agree with the emperor and occulto as well, the da are basically codex with a couple of tweaks in organisation and that is what has been reflected in their codex they dont need veteran skills and dont specialise in areas that are covered by them.

Nurglitch
01-05-2007, 07:04
The truth sometimes hurts. In this case it's an unpleasant fact that the majority of the players aren't interested in using their brains. This isn't an insult to these people. It's just a statement of fact. Frankly sometimes we just want a beer and pretzel game to enact a fantasy and distract us from business or the real world or whatever. Other times we want a competitive experience where we can experience the thrills of competition and the opportunity to exercise skill.

By "we" I mean players. Most often though, players just want to push plastic and they want rules they're familiar with. They don't want to over-invest in a leisure activity. So the fans, and not the designers, are the primary obstacle to the development of elegant game rules that would be balanced and enable players to play fair games or unfair games as the shared whim takes them.

The fans don't want the rules to change radically, which they would have to in order to institute proper game balance, and they don't want to change the way they play the game. It isn't a matter of complexity, as if somehow working rules require complexity. It's a matter of the players also being customers that want retro-compatibility and generally a game that lets them push their little painted models around in the way they've always done. Partly this is because the "Hobby" is based on casual gamers, painters, modellers, and role-players as much as gamers.

When people become dis-satisfied with Warhammer 40k as a mental wrestling match (hey, that's just one form of leisure) they simply go play other games. There's simply no incentive for players seeking a better game play experience to play in the Dark Millennium in any way except the GW branded Warhammer way. Without the game the rest of the paraphenalia is just window dressing that can be replaced. There are other miniature companies, other paint companies, and many many many other games.

Despite all the price rises and turn-over of rules editions people keep coming back because of inertia. Perhaps there's a cycle that people go through where they're introduced to the game, get into the game, get into the peripherals of the game, get bored with the game and its peripherals, either try to expand the game or fix the game or justify the game, and eventually abandon the game. I doubt it. Despite their homogeneity people have a way of fitting lots of little differences into general similarities.

If you're going to talk about trends in the behaviour of players, and particularly in terms of "dumbing down", then you might as well talk about whether the game is "dumbed down" or whether the company is simply appealing to the diverse prejudices of the fans and hitting or missing depending on how they appeal to the most common denominator.

The Dude
01-05-2007, 07:58
I would like to say that the "options" in any Codex you'd care to name do not reside soley in the Armoury.

I think may people around here should take care to remember that. :rolleyes:

shabbadoo
01-05-2007, 08:06
If the game was being dumbed down, you'd see it in the rules, not in the army lists.

Regarding the army lists for Eldar and Dark Angels, most of the seldom used or useless wargear has been removed or made to just be for visual purposes on the models (bionics, purity seals, etc.). Eldar lost Craftworlds as they can be represented by the main list well enough. The other main point is that it drops a peripheral codex with not all that much content from the production schedule.

Can anybody really say that the Eldar codex has lost its options or has been dumbed down? More psychic powers, more standard wargear for HQ's and squad leaders, a whole host of options linked to a new HQ- the Autarch, Dire Avengers that can truly be called Aspect Warriors and not "Elite Guardians", and a unit added back into the list that people have been wanting for a decade- Harlequins. The Eldar are hardly dumbed down, and if they are now simplified, then the designers chose an odd way of doing so. The Eldar list is very solid.

As to the Dark Angels, I have seen complaints that have their basis in a comparison of the new Codex: Dark Angels to Codex: Space Marines, when there is no comparison. The designers have already acknowledged there are problems with C:SM, and by problems I mean areas open to heavy abuse or that were just bad ideas. Then there are the special items complaints, such as "It's retarded that my master can no longer take the Sword of Secrets or the Lion Helm!" Well I'm happy to say that the Inquisition is finally beginning to drop the hammer on "Imperial Express" deliveries, whose catch phrase is "Getting unique Imperial artifacts to you anywhere in the universe when you need them the most." Sorry lads, but the Emperor frowns upon shipping the Lion Helm and/or the Sword of Secrets all through out the universe to any and every battlefield other than the one where Azrael is. Unique items are now actually unique! Suck it up *******s! :evilgrin:

Besides, all of those non-special HQ's still have a very nice selection of equipment which, barring just a few choice bits I would have included, are very acceptable. Some their equipment has been limited but with good reason. There are no bikes or terminator armor for company masters, as those bits of wargear are the provenance of the 1st and 2nd companies. Amazingly the wargear options suit the role of the HQ’s in the chapter’s traditions and structure. This doesn’t mean that the army list is dumbed down; just that it makes sense. The army list still plays as strategically as it did before. Some might say you have to play the list a bit smarter due to some in-built downsides. Eldar play just as well, if not better than before due to the changes and additions to the list. The same goes for the Tau.

Cutting out or altering abusive or overly effective options is not dumbing down, it is called “balancing” the game. Those who will complain the most are the ones who favor such choices. I imagine the new Codex: Chaos will boil the bile of many a heretic player. The new models may ease the pain though. :p

logosloki
01-05-2007, 09:24
What I see is not really "dumbing down" its a changing of the core of the game. One of the reasons I see that 'cheese', 'broken', etc... turn up is because was originally intended to be a beer and pretzels game with squads, and a bit of RPG/RTS. This is why the lists contained so much, to make wide, varying armies to play with your friends. Then GW found out about tournement play and its win at all cost mentality.

What GW wants to do now, for both players and profits is to advance the game to be about tournements. The Balances they have been doing are not technically a 'dumbing down' from this POV because what GW are trying to do is change the core of the game from weekends with a sheet spread out on the table to competitive tournements that need TACTICS to win, not just the copy/paste lists I hear about.

Be a part of GW's vision. accept that to advance we must burn some bridges behind us.

Stormsender
01-05-2007, 09:55
Yeah I think it's been getting the dumb down action, for a long time now. That may **** off some of the fan boys but I think with out customization and options the game is going to be about gray, blue, red, colored Eldar, Marine, Chaos, Orc, Tyrnid, Tua, Necron, take your pick the only variation is color. Blah The direction the game is heading in is Warhammer 40k, Risk. IMO it's a damn shame

Adept
01-05-2007, 10:18
Unforrtunately, this is not good for those of us who do have the intelligence to cope with an armoury, and are not tournie :Cheese: players.

unfortunately, GW work on the basis of tourney armies, rather than fun armies. (amadan)

Tournaments are not the cheese-fests you seem to assume they are.

eldaran
01-05-2007, 11:43
i'm working on the basis of extreme examples. Sorry i didn't specify that:o

Gutlord Grom
01-05-2007, 12:52
i know it has been said before but i do not belive there has been a dumb down, in fact i think that it has gone in the opposite direction with the change in the latest 2 codexes. there are now no 'no brainer' choices and it does make for more challenging tactical use of units rather than just plonk down something that others cant match

I can't say that there aren't any no brainer choices, it's just that they've been replaced. For example, what Dark Angels army wouldn't take Deathwing, or Ravenwing unless in tiny games (400 points)? Not many, I imagine, because it wouldn't be good enough. I mean once you look at it, Deathwing and Ravenwing are the best part of the Dark Angel codex, and without them you get a heavily neutered Space Marine list.

And you can still plonk down unbeatable and insane non fluffy units in the new DA codex. Like six cheap as hell Rhinos to block fire lanes, plus th Techmarines who can be taken for every transport on the table.

What I see is not really "dumbing down" its a changing of the core of the game. One of the reasons I see that 'cheese', 'broken', etc... turn up is because was originally intended to be a beer and pretzels game with squads, and a bit of RPG/RTS. This is why the lists contained so much, to make wide, varying armies to play with your friends. Then GW found out about tournement play and its win at all cost mentality.

What GW wants to do now, for both players and profits is to advance the game to be about tournements. The Balances they have been doing are not technically a 'dumbing down' from this POV because what GW are trying to do is change the core of the game from weekends with a sheet spread out on the table to competitive tournements that need TACTICS to win, not just the copy/paste lists I hear about.

Be a part of GW's vision. accept that to advance we must burn some bridges behind us.

No, you don't use more tactics in a Dark Angel list than you do in a regular Marine list. You can plonk down a Doublewing and just charge forward with bikes and deep strike your Deathwing units with no real strategy. And you just copy and paste the same units in.

And please stop touting what you ,or no one for that matter, knows, and won't know if you work in the devolepment studio.

Dicey
01-05-2007, 13:02
I started playing 40 in 1st ed, while I believe the split into inquisitor and 40K as we now know was the correct direction to go in.

armies are now easier to build and options are now on the littler side. for instance I cant put a sneaky teleport hommer on my sarge in DA now. As for vet skills, every other marine army gets them including Ultras. so in this DA lose their codex form.

Upon reading all your comments, I would like to thank you all for your contribution so far. I do believe that 40K, core rules wise is OK. I do dislike some sections but that is a different thread.

My main concern is with lists, the little rules that helped define armies, ie for DA intractable and hunt the fallen. These IMHO were defining characteristics of the DA. GW seem to be "streamlining (perhaps I should of used this instead of "dumb down")" the rules.
As a previous poster has said, the 6" move as standard is a good example. One thing I miss is the range in weaponry that has been lost, I remember the joys of rolling to find out what happened to the chap shot with a conversin beamer. It does not add cheese to an army nor does it really add to the tactics, what it added was fluff. It is in this, that I believe GW stand apart from other games.

But by removing fluff elements from lists I think GW is going down the wrong road.

buzzin_yoof
01-05-2007, 13:04
The two examples given by the OP are rubbish - DA and Eldar. There are tons of options. In fact, I feel that there are effectively more than before. Because of better balancing I feel I can pick anything from either of these lists without feeling rude.

I personally think the last couple of codex books have been spot on.

Shipmonkey
01-05-2007, 13:45
My main concern is with lists, the little rules that helped define armies, ie for DA intractable and hunt the fallen.

Killing the "hunt for the Fallen" rule was one of their best choices. Now I can use the DA list to create an army I've wanted to field for quite sometime, the Ultramarine 1st Company as it was in the Battle of Macrage. The lack of very specific Chapter rules allows you to branch out and play around abit. In fact you can now use the Deathwing list to field any Chapters 1st company. Yup, GW has really stifled use with this list.


One thing I miss is the range in weaponry that has been lost, I remember the joys of rolling to find out what happened to the chap shot with a conversin beamer. It does not add cheese to an army nor does it really add to the tactics, what it added was fluff.

Something like that doesn't add cheese. It adds an extra chart and extra baggage to the game. 40K is trying to lose the belly, not add more bloat.


But by removing fluff elements from lists I think GW is going down the wrong road.

I think we've been over this, the DA list is more fluffy than before. Want to use the Grand Master of the Dark Angels? You got to use Azreal, not some dude you invented. Why? 'Cuase he is the Grand Master. Why do you need to use Combat Squads. Because thats how Marines operate. Most the changes to the army were in line with its fluff.

Dribble Joy
01-05-2007, 13:56
Rules based on background, models based on rules. Or something like that.

SMs, and particuarly DAs who follow the codex astartes tightly, are bound to appear inflexible, they come in 10 and 5 man squads because that's how they opperate (and in game terms this makes them almost more flexible that the current codex marines).

I don't think we can say things are dumbing down untill we see codexes from the more liberal and chaotic armies. Space puppies will in all probability have a looser organisation, as will chaos and especially orks.

Nebelung_13
01-05-2007, 14:29
It's not coming back. That vehicle upgrade was for Land Raiders and Land Raiders ONLY. In short, it gives Land Raiders an ability which they already possess. It allows troops to assault after disembarking, which is something they can do, already.



Why should Dark Angels get Veteran Skills to begin with? They're not known for the ferocity of their attacks. They're not exceedingly adept at siege warfare. Nor are they known to be particularly stealthy. So why in the world should they get Veteran Skills?

Take Furious Charge, for instance. Khorne Berserkers get Furious Charge. Blood Angels Death Company get Furious Charge. And then look at a Deathwing Terminator. Why should he also be allowed to get Furious Charge? The Deathwing Terminator isn't anywhere near as savage as either of those two. It doesn't make an ounce of sense for a Deathwing Terminator to have Furious Charge.

Same goes for those other two. You want a Space Marine force that's adept at Siege Warfare, and has the Tank Hunters skill? Play Imperial Fists. You want a Space Marine force that's skilled at Infiltration? Play Raven Guard. Each of the Chapters have their own specialty, and it's ludicrous for Dark Angels to be just as good as those Chapters, which SPECIALIZE in those specific areas of warfare.

i Dont think when they created furious charge they wanted to give it a aura of Savagery or bloodlust only, i think goes down the line they are more agressive or skilled or beserker, i see it on normal marines(eg. no mutations in Geen-seed) has skill and experience in placing precise decisive blows, for any marine will try to make the most of the charge.

P.S. -I think its more a question of badly employed name by Codex writers.

Nebelung_13
01-05-2007, 14:40
My main concern is with lists, the little rules that helped define armies, ie for DA intractable and hunt the fallen. These IMHO were defining characteristics of the DA. GW seem to be "streamlining (perhaps I should of used this instead of "dumb down")" the rules.
As a previous poster has said, the 6" move as standard is a good example. One thing I miss is the range in weaponry that has been lost, I remember the joys of rolling to find out what happened to the chap shot with a conversin beamer. It does not add cheese to an army nor does it really add to the tactics, what it added was fluff. It is in this, that I believe GW stand apart from other games.

But by removing fluff elements from lists I think GW is going down the wrong road.

You ripped the words right from my mouth, that was exactly what i was trying to say.After all in my Opnion those small flffy rules are the ones that give character and uniqueness to a army, The DA has they are have very litle of Character, yes they are SM and follow the Astartes (at least a good part of the book:angel: ) but they arent so Vanilla Marines or that Codex-followers ....someone that utilizes inner circles, all bike companies for hunting the fallen and virtually follow their own agenda, i wouldnt qualify that has Astartes freaks( like the ultramarines).They deserved a bit more character.

At least for me , what first atractes me to a certain army is their Character, not the rules, rules even if crappy , i canm live with that .

WoW_Auron
01-05-2007, 14:57
Necrons have next to no wargear

True, its a brief list. Not alot there (much like the entire list, expand them already @ GW!)


and with what unit options they do have, many are next to worthless when compared to the others.

IMO, FALSE.. The choices are few, sure. But the choices they DO have are almost invaluable to a Necron Player, Resurrection Orb anyone? Not to mention the awesoem Veil, Destroyer Body (Lord + 3 Wraiths together = pain), Phase shifter is always going to be nice, even if players don't use it, Disruption fields are crazy. Thats just the stuff i KNOW people use, alot.

As for the rest, imo its ALL useful. Gaze of flame, Phylactery, Solar Pulse, Lightning field. Im sorry, but to me even these sound quite nice.

Does anyone agree with me on this one? ..:eyebrows:

azimaith
01-05-2007, 15:27
True, its a brief list. Not alot there (much like the entire list, expand them already @ GW!)

I don't think the list is brief. They have quite a bit of wargear, the only difference is it only goes on one character. The wargear they have is some of the neatest and most unique in the game.



IMO, FALSE.. The choices are few, sure. But the choices they DO have are almost invaluable to a Necron Player, Resurrection Orb anyone? Not to mention the awesoem Veil, Destroyer Body (Lord + 3 Wraiths together = pain), Phase shifter is always going to be nice, even if players don't use it, Disruption fields are crazy. Thats just the stuff i KNOW people use, alot.

You mentioned the 2 most common bits of wargear. Phase shifter works for destroyer lords all right. Disruption fields are... well practically worthless.



As for the rest, imo its ALL useful. Gaze of flame, Phylactery, Solar Pulse, Lightning field. Im sorry, but to me even these sound quite nice.

Does anyone agree with me on this one? ..:eyebrows:
Gaze of flame? All right.
Phylactery, decent.
Solar pulse, decent, but lacking.
Lightning field.
Only with bugzapper.

The problem isn't the wargear so much that everyone needs to take a res orb and veil of darkness to present a competitive list that can get around the table and stay resilient against las/plas/ordnance considering the price of the models.

Thats why you don't see anything else practically ever. To be honest we'd probably be better off with cheaper models and no res-orbs at all. That would leave us with 40 points of wargear to spend on something other than the ressurction orb.

WoW_Auron
01-05-2007, 15:33
The problem isn't the wargear so much that everyone needs to take a res orb and veil of darkness to present a competitive list that can get around the table

True, you could "just take a monolith" ;) .. Im kidding, the term "just take" is of course meant to be taken lightly. Although seriously, being able to re-appear at that portal is quite nice :p

Not sure about cheaper units. But i agree with "needing" to take the orb.

eldaran
01-05-2007, 18:11
Necrons are cool, but not cheesy. The only problem i have is the "We'll be back" phase, which can get boring and frustrating (especially when one warrior takes three plasma guns to go down:mad:) Apart for that, they aren't that bad a list.

on the topic, looking at peoples replies i've (slightly) changed my mind. they have balanced the lists, but i still think that there need to be the chance for the wacky options, eg:building disadvantages into traits. It just needs to be that all units have just as much appeal.

Vic
01-05-2007, 18:17
It's not coming back. That vehicle upgrade was for Land Raiders and Land Raiders ONLY. In short, it gives Land Raiders an ability which they already possess. It allows troops to assault after disembarking, which is something they can do, already.


Overcharged Engines
* Will be included on Rhinos and Baal Predators
* When employed on a 4+ the engines will make these tanks count as Fast vehicles, moving up to 18”.

NOT referencing land raiders. Will have to wait until BA list comes out in WD to be sure how this all works out, but sounds like BA will be the flavor of the month :) "I'll take two please"

Bloodknight
01-05-2007, 18:24
So the things are unreliable and the marines may still not assault out of them. I fail to see how this brings the rhino rush back.

Vic
01-05-2007, 18:26
Like I said, lets see how the final rule comes out, Im just getting an itchy feeling on the back of my neck is all......

Nebelung_13
02-05-2007, 00:54
Rhino rush coming back? dont think so .....Rhino is pants ......the whole affair of Rushing Icecream Vans is suicide....overcharged engine ...gets them faster ...ok good so they enter the Anti-tank weapons line sight rapidly..... lucky them!"Vet.sargent-lets lose our temper and act like Orks, rush! "...."brother Elios- In our ice-cream vans(rhinos)?"..."V.S.- "yeah kinda like that" ....Elios-"ho boy, our generals are getting very creative"

Ian Argent
02-05-2007, 03:02
And you can still plonk down unbeatable and insane non fluffy units in the new DA codex. Like six cheap as hell Rhinos to block fire lanes, plus th Techmarines who can be taken for every transport on the table.

I just wanted to clear up this error - techmarines may only be chosen 1 per vehicle chosen from the Elites or Heavy Support section of the list; you don't get them for Rhinos, Razorbacks, or landspeeders - only for Dreads, Preds, LRs, vindicators and Whirlwinds. (incidentally, while they are pretty cheap individually, it will add up).

cailus
02-05-2007, 03:35
Regarding Hunt the Fallen, I can't believe that people who utilise Deathwing and Ravenwing need a special rule to go after Fallen Dark Angels in the million-to-one chance that some Fallen are actually present.

How hard is to to attack those Fallen with your DW/RW?

This is totally and utterly ludicrous! Do people need to be told how to do everything?

Even Intractable can be used in the game without a stupid rule to represent it. For example next time that Carnifex is bearing down on a Tactical Squad, don't move the Tactical Squad away from the Carnie. Instead stand still and rapid fire in the vain hope they might take it down. That's intractable i.e. the marines are not giving any ground.

Seems to me sometimes that it's not GW that's dumbing down the game but that the players themselves don't want to put any effort into playing it unless GW specifies something explicitely in the rules.

The Dude
02-05-2007, 04:33
Seems to me sometimes that it's not GW that's dumbing down the game but that the players themselves don't want to put any effort into playing it unless GW specifies something explicitely in the rules.

Amen to that.

I think 3rd edition was a bit of a "Spoon-feeding fest" and it seems to have killed some of the more creative aspects of the hobby. The Craftworld lists are a prime example.

One_Second_of_Insanity
02-05-2007, 04:54
Amen to that.

I think 3rd edition was a bit of a "Spoon-feeding fest" and it seems to have killed some of the more creative aspects of the hobby. The Craftworld lists are a prime example.

i couldnt agree more, the more thinking people have to do to create army lists the better. the game isnt being dumbed down instead it is getting to a point where 40k could be going back to some of its more prosperous times with people putting more effort in. the game is becoming smarter

NakedFisherman
02-05-2007, 05:16
I believe there is no place for fowl language on this forum.

That's why he used such a beefy word.

Gorbad Ironclaw
02-05-2007, 05:43
I
My main concern is with lists, the little rules that helped define armies, ie for DA intractable and hunt the fallen. These IMHO were defining characteristics of the DA.


I'd disagree. In fact, I thought both of them were quite dumb rules.

Hunt for the fallen would hardly ever apply, and do you really think that if there was a fallen within range, DA's would suddenly switch off all higher brain functions and just run mindlessly at him? Sounds like a good way to a) get killed b) not capture the fallen and c) give away your secret.

And intractable, how did that ever made it into the book and is considered fluffy? DA's are supposedly great tacticians, standing your ground and getting killed in the face of overwhelming firepower is hardly an exemple of that. They are also reknown for never giving up, but thats something that would be seen at a strategic level, not in small unit tactics.

The Orange
02-05-2007, 08:02
DA may have lost options that were open to regular SM, but they also gained some options not open to regular SM did they not? The main thing that was lost was access to the armory/individual unit options, am I right? Thus the ability to personalize squads to a prefered role was somewhat lost. But wouldent having that just make DA units exaclty the same as C:SM ? Now with the limited equipment choices (as well as the inclusin of some equipment) you get squads that are prepared for more then one role, instead of being specialized. Does that not give your army a uniqe characteristic? Every unit can now take on AV12, every unit can now shot off thier pistol once before charging in (thus tac marines have good incentive to actually charge in instead of using thier bolters), do you see that with C:SM? Incindiary rounds on the whirlwinds, and manstopper rounds for the scouts shotguns are some unique abilites not found in C:SM, Vetran squads seem to get terminator honors for free too :eek: , so there's something gained right there.

Forgive me if I'm wrong as I'm not that familiar with C:SM and the trait system, but isen't the Deathwing and Ravinwing armies quite unique in itself? And to top it off both can be used in conjunction with each other as well as with a regular DA army (scouting bikes with teleport homors and Deathwing assault FTW). While individual units may have lost thier distinctivness, don't these give the army as a whole a new destinctive flavor? Maybe more so then what trait's could have done?

Having one infultrating commander with a tele. homor, IMO, isen't as destincitive as having multiple bike units running across the board, each potentially helping lead in drop pods and terminators. Now no matter what DA army I face, I'll know to be worried about any ravinwing bikes zooming around, potentially zeroing in drop pods, assault troops, or death wing. My opponent may not have anything scary in reserves, but I won't know that will I. On the other hand, if I see only one assault squad humping a tele. homor across the field I'll have a pretty good idea what's comming don't I. No matter how ineffective krak grenades may be I'll have to always worry about my AV11-12 vehicles getting too close as any DA unit has to potential to do harm. That's never the case with regular C:SM

I admit HQ's seem to have taken the biggest hit. None of them (except Sammael) really excite me (it's much more fun to play around with the Chaos HQ options). But then again it looks like GW sort of spread out the options instead of consolidating everything into one HQ. Why is Belial so bland? Because he's just a regular HQ in terminator armor. Why can't you take artificer armor for your company master? because you can already get it on Azmodia and Ezekiel. How about a bike mounted HQ? Well Sammael fits the bill and more.

I have to agree with the others. C: DA simply re-focuses the game on the army as a whole, instead of on single-uber units. It may be at a small disadvantage now, but that won't last long.

Dicey
02-05-2007, 08:35
Orange
Thanks for your points. As it appears to me the C:SM will be redone in the near future. All marines will get combat squads, bolt pistols and grenades on all models, just as DA. The current variance of DA to me, is not really a problem, per say. Its just that all marine armies are going that way.

ie if I dont use termies ( I dont think they are worthwhile in 1500pts) then my ravenwing bikes/ land speaders become neutered, ie why have a hommer? The generic marines tactical/ assault and devy become standard, 200pts for one of them please Bob.

The differences it would appear would be in the HQ, but this means taking "special" characters to get higher level marines.

Regarding the eldar codex, a bit I think is good is the starcannon re-definement. as it is now 2 shot and the multi laser is 4 shot, eldar players now need to think more on what option to take, for lists that can take on all commers. ie I havnt faced an eldar army with stupid amount of starcannons since the new codex came out. This is where I hope codexs will go, not so I can create uber lists but so I can play with my list, endless tinkering :D



I had hoped that this chat would focus on the trend of codexs not just DA.

Stormwarningz
02-05-2007, 10:23
One GW needs more players whats the easyest way to get them. Yes you guessed it. It's a shame that there going about it all worng with pricing.

Sakura
02-05-2007, 10:50
I had hoped that this chat would focus on the trend of codexs not just DA.

I hope you know there has only been one "dumbed" down codex which is the Dark Angels.
Thats why the comments focus on DA's. It's hard to include other codeices. Unless you think the dumb down relates to 4th ed in general, which is a fair call.
I was thinking more a long the lines of --Since the format change. (Which I find highly irritating and a failure format.)
Eldar was satisfactory as they wernt exactly super customisable before.
Where as the Dark Angels HAD a lot of opertunities like the space marine codex.

I agree that the Eldar codex removed all the exploitable rules.
I was a very highly strung Eldar player.

BUT!

The Dark angel codex was indeed dumbed down.
To all those people that disagree, well, more fool you.
¬There are exploitable lists like the Rhino wall army off doom.
"Rolling thunder"
¬A whole bunch of pointless point increases.
¬Less customisable leaders however characterful they are:rolleyes:
¬Turning up with the same army as someone else is a very high probablity.
¬Retricted upgrades on the premises to remove cheese when it in fact just harms the unit a great deal when there was an easier way around it.

Thank god I didn't play DA's before cos I sure arnt now.

And I DREAD where this is going.
It's already infecting the Chaos codex (Where most of my hobby $$ are invested)
And that will be the end of my gaming career if it takes away my Chaos customisability.

Curufew
02-05-2007, 11:19
Points increases are to balances out the wargear. Previously, it's a no brainer choice to take a Powerfist over a Power Weapon since it only cost 5 points more and allows you to strike at X2 strength. Now, you must think whether to take the p.weapon or the fist.

The Eldar HQs are also low on choices. The only reason why the Autarch has so many options is because he is a master of all the paths.

And to end things off,

The powergamers of Warhammer 40K fear many things.

They fear discovery, defeat, despair and death.

Yet there is one thing they fear above all others.

They fear the day when their codex are updated and de-cheese !

shabbadoo
02-05-2007, 12:01
I’d say that the new Codex: Dark Angels is now easier for dumb people to play if I were dumb myself. :D Read on for a bit of elaboration on the point.

Codex: Dark Angels is anything but dumbed down, mainly due to the lack of tweaks included that can be made to units for them to be more viable, such as more heavy weapons for termies, 6 marines per squad of whatever type for optimal Leadership and objective control, the option to min-max unit equipment options, etc. I fail to see how these restrictions actually make the list easier to play, such that the codex is now dumbed down. All of these changes in fact make Dark Angels MORE difficult to play, as one cannot inherently hedge their bet through optimizing their army list in any and all ways.

Ianos
02-05-2007, 12:46
Dumpdown would be appropriate indeed considering what some had before and what they will have after. For the Eldar things only got better because apart from the starcannon madness (which I never found really powerful anyway) and the council of doom, they had to rely on very few units to operate. Now they got rebalanced and everyone is happy because the race became stronger as it was in a disadvantageous position previously.

On the other hand we have races that are quite powerful to play just because they have point efficient options without any significant weaknesses to compensate, and these races belong to the MEQ variety. Chaos is a great example of that with the marines following just one step behind, necrons can also come really close. 65% of players play MEQ and this not only happens because of marketing but also because everyone knows that these races are over the bar and this knowledge is the first thing one obtains when starting 40k or will obtain after a few months of battles. The only reason the other races can really come to terms with the MEQhammer, is the fact that because everyone is MEQ they are not prepared for Xenos armies so well and thus negate their advantage of being MEQ in the first place.

GW has seen this and has realized the power of MEQ armies and what options make them so strong which are:
1)Extreme customizability, chaos have it on unit (any skill for almost any unit and any wargear for almost any squad/army leader), and marines have it not only in unit options and squad min/maxing but also in traits, effectively breaking almost all force organization chart rules (6 devastators anyone?) with laughable disadvantages (we stand alone? As if they need allies!!!)
2) Extreme versatility, almost any unit can be configured to any role and do it well enough even unsupported, also units that can do anything at the same time. Classic example is the defiler which can kill from distance unseen and when one finally can see it, it has high AV, immunities and can flame/autocannon anything and then even charge! Or the 6 man las/plas for minimal points and extreme resilience for its size and damage output. Oh and lets not forget the better than any other gun at their own specialty, costing less than anything else… assault cannon, which is one of the reasons DA’s got the new rules.
3) Extreme resilience, which is the favorite of most players especially beginners, other races get crushed in terrain lacking fields yet the MEQs can just stand there out in the open and do the job, cover is vital to most nonMEQ thus negating their mobility and forcing them to specific routes and maneuvers but not for the MEQ. This is especially felt from the undying Necrons (75% return on casualties with a monolith!!!) and the Chaos beefy lords and squads.
4) Almost immune to morale dynamics, chaos will re-roll or be fearless, the dead necrons will not fall back (if they fail with LD 10...) but instead rise after their mates fled the table (which usually is the fewest that left and the more that stayed). On top of the pyramid are of course the marines who will not only leave dangerous predicaments but will also face none of the negative effects for doing so, and even if they stay in combat they will not suffer the extra casualties for being essentially fearless and all that with no cost!
5) The most important, they get all the above with no real drawbacks and extra costs.

Everything is so apparent that it has finally hit the bone and GW is in for major overhaul of the races, they are re-doing chaos who have one of the latest codices despite orks and DE who need them desperately and that is not only to sell more, I honestly think that they know that by balancing the game other races will also get more popularity and what is best to start with than the ones who make the game lose balance?

Gutlord Grom
02-05-2007, 12:46
I’d say that the new Codex: Dark Angels is now easier for dumb people to play if I were dumb myself. :D Read on for a bit of elaboration on the point.

Codex: Dark Angels is anything but dumbed down, mainly due to the lack of tweaks included that can be made to units for them to be more viable, such as more heavy weapons for termies, 6 marines per squad of whatever type for optimal Leadership and objective control, the option to min-max unit equipment options, etc. I fail to see how these restrictions actually make the list easier to play, such that the codex is now dumbed down. All of these changes in fact make Dark Angels MORE difficult to play, as one cannot inherently hedge their bet through optimizing their army list in any and all ways.


It's been dumbed down by the fact that it forces you to take one troop choice, where there formally two. Also the list 60% of its effectiveness if you don't take as many Deathwing and Ravenwing squad as possible. Tac Marines are still the same las/plas in your ten man squad, because you can now take Combat squads, which just splits it in half, and have a powerfist in the advancing squad. By the way, did you know that the Ravenwing can get a first turn charge and the Deathwing can first turn deepstrike?

ashc
02-05-2007, 12:57
It's been dumbed down by the fact that it forces you to take one troop choice, where there formally two.

How so? I always see marine armies with at least 2 squads of space marines irregardless of how they are kitted out, and i do not often see scouts used much at all anyway.

And besides, Dark Angels can take Deathwing and Ravenwing as Troops with their respective HQ choices, which kind of defeats the need for even more Troop options.

Ash

Gutlord Grom
02-05-2007, 13:09
Dumpdown would be appropriate indeed considering what some had before and what they will have after. For the Eldar things only got better because apart from the starcannon madness (which I never found really powerful anyway) and the council of doom, they had to rely on very few units to operate. Now they got rebalanced and everyone is happy because the race became stronger as it was in a disadvantageous position previously.

On the other hand we have races that are quite powerful to play just because they have point efficient options without any significant weaknesses to compensate, and these races belong to the MEQ variety. Chaos is a great example of that with the marines following just one step behind, necrons can also come really close. 65% of players play MEQ and this not only happens because of marketing but also because everyone knows that these races are over the bar and this knowledge is the first thing one obtains when starting 40k or will obtain after a few months of battles. The only reason the other races can really come to terms with the MEQhammer, is the fact that because everyone is MEQ they are not prepared for Xenos armies so well and thus negate their advantage of being MEQ in the first place.

GW has seen this and has realized the power of MEQ armies and what options make them so strong which are:
1)Extreme customizability, chaos have it on unit (any skill for almost any unit and any wargear for almost any squad/army leader), and marines have it not only in unit options and squad min/maxing but also in traits, effectively breaking almost all force organization chart rules (6 devastators anyone?) with laughable disadvantages (we stand alone? As if they need allies!!!)
2) Extreme versatility, almost any unit can be configured to any role and do it well enough even unsupported, also units that can do anything at the same time. Classic example is the defiler which can kill from distance unseen and when one finally can see it, it has high AV, immunities and can flame/autocannon anything and then even charge! Or the 6 man las/plas for minimal points and extreme resilience for its size and damage output. Oh and lets not forget the better than any other gun at their own specialty, costing less than anything else… assault cannon, which is one of the reasons DA’s got the new rules.
3) Extreme resilience, which is the favorite of most players especially beginners, other races get crushed in terrain lacking fields yet the MEQs can just stand there out in the open and do the job, cover is vital to most nonMEQ thus negating their mobility and forcing them to specific routes and maneuvers but not for the MEQ. This is especially felt from the undying Necrons (75% return on casualties with a monolith!!!) and the Chaos beefy lords and squads.
4) Almost immune to morale dynamics, chaos will re-roll or be fearless, the dead necrons will not fall back (if they fail with LD 10...) but instead rise after their mates fled the table (which usually is the fewest that left and the more that stayed). On top of the pyramid are of course the marines who will not only leave dangerous predicaments but will also face none of the negative effects for doing so, and even if they stay in combat they will not suffer the extra casualties for being essentially fearless and all that with no cost!
5) The most important, they get all the above with no real drawbacks and extra costs.

Everything is so apparent that it has finally hit the bone and GW is in for major overhaul of the races, they are re-doing chaos who have one of the latest codices despite orks and DE who need them desperately and that is not only to sell more, I honestly think that they know that by balancing the game other races will also get more popularity and what is best to start with than the ones who make get plays out of balance?


1)Yes Marines are exetremely customizable, however Marines have to pay alow for super sergeants and mega squads. For example a squad of Marine pukes cost 210 points with two trait upgrades, without any other upgrades at full strength.

2)Can assault squads take out tanks at long range? Can a Dev Squad fight a unit of Berzerkers in hand to hand? Honestly every unitin Codex SM is specialized for its roles. The most customizable are the Tactical squads, and the commanders.

3)Yes they are resielent, but again their not cheap for that tougness. And remember, they have to to get in your range to that be a problem. If they just sit and take pot shots at your tanks, if you're a Guard player you've won a game that rquires for you to have more units alive in your army. And most non Marine or Necron armies have more than enough weapons, whih are quite common, they can easily hurt Marines.

4)Morale plays so little in 40k anyway. Even in Eldar, are there any real morale checks? No, and most of those can rely to be passed on higher LD.

5) I laugh at you for this final statement
a) They cost a lot points wise.
b) Once you lose a squad, or degrade a squad with a few casualties, you've lose a very expensive unit that can only hope to distract your foe fo a turn or moreas he laughs at its demise, or cleans it out with a few bursts of heavy weapons.
c)Marine armies are predicatable. You can figure out there tactyics easily, so you can really figure out a way to kill 'em.
d) Most of the time Traits cost a lot,and as above the major disadvantages can really hurt your army.
E) And finally, A lot of our best tanks are pretty expensive, and a lot of the time arew pretty specialized, unlike Leman Russes or Falcons.

Also, 65% percent of all 40k players Meq players? That's pretty stupid to state without a real statical chart. Because most statistics are made up on the spot on these forums.

shabbadoo
02-05-2007, 15:10
Tac Marines are still the same las/plas in your ten man squad, because you can now take Combat squads, which just splits it in half, and have a powerfist in the advancing squad.

I’m not sure that you understand what las/plas is all about. The las/plas set-up goes for maximum firepower in the smallest package. You can set it up in a 5-man squad, but most people go with a 6-man squad for the benefit of the enemy needing to kill 4 models rather than 3 to reduce it below half strength and render it a non-scoring unit. The unit can be set up in this way for a mere 100 points. Compare that with Dark Angels who would have to spend a minimum of 200 points for the same weapon load-out, but with 10 marines (including a veteran sergeant no less). The main point is that Dark Angels *have* to buy all ten men just to have the *option* of taking a lascannon. If the unit stays all together then the veteran sergeant will pretty much be wasted extra points if the unit wants to shoot. If the unit is split, the veteran sergeant’s 5-man squad and the other 5-man las/plas squad now lose the benefit of an even squad number for casualties/scoring unit status, but at least the veteran sergeant and his squad can run amok.

The point is to get the las/plas for as cheap as possible and then either load up on them or use the other points saved (by comparison that would be 100 points in this case) to buy even more tricked-out units. It’s all about getting the most bang for your buck. Dark Angels cannot fully take advantage of the optimal las/plas set-up, and must instead rely on tactical support and cooperation among their combat squads for overall effectiveness, as you yourself have illustrated. Do you see this as an example of “dumbing down”?

Let's go for he perfect point comparison example though. Here is how a comparison of equal points for acquiring the las/plas turns out:

Dark Angels Tactical Squad 1: Combat Squad 1- Veteran Sergeant, 4 marines; Combat Squad 2- 5 marines, lascannon, plasma gun.

vs.

C:SM Tactical Squad 1: 5 marines, lascannon, plasma gun.
C:SM Tactical Squad 2: 5 marines, lascannon, plasma gun.

Who's dumbed down again?

And yes, half of all Deathwing units (rounded up) held in reserve can Deep Strike on turn 1. This is sooo much more dumbed down than Lysander Wing to be sure. ;)

Gutlord Grom
02-05-2007, 15:26
So your way just splits it in half? Amazingly complex.

Altasmurf
02-05-2007, 15:34
I just figured I'd weigh in with my 2 canadian cents (what is that now a days, half a peso) on this idea of dumbing down. I figure it's not so much a dumbing down, but a refocus.

To me the best army lists were the ones in the back of the 3rd edition big black book. After starting in 2cd where there was a metric tonne of options for characters led to hero hammer, 3rd was refreshing for me. It moved from a game of character based paper, rock, scissors to an actual game of tactics and planning and utilizing your troops properly on the field. As codexes were developed and a few more options sprang up it wasn't to bad your basic troop could still hold it's own in the battle. Then IMHO the big down fall came in the form of the chaos codex. All the options and specializations were beautiful, however the return of herohammer was not. For me the new demon princes went back to 2cd edition character wars. The game became not a game of how do I use my troops, and specialized squads to win, but how do I build a super killy character. Now it looks like the plan is to move power back to the basic squad.

Now does this mean that if you like hero hammer, I think you're a punk? No not really, I understand it's just a different play style. For some people it's about building the perfect list, for me it's about playing the perfect game. So like i say it just seems like the game is refocusing.

I guess the way I look at it the less options in a codex, the options on the battlefield. But hey that's just me ;)

DesolationAngel
02-05-2007, 15:35
You certainly get less options than before and as some options aren't that good, competitive lists will tend to be Ravenwing ones avoiding the weaker stuff. Just a shame that while other races have 2 decent compuslory troop choices while DAs get stuck with 2 ineffective 5 man squads, when they need a heavy weapon to deal with other armies.

Curufew
02-05-2007, 15:55
You can upgrade your "ineffective" 5 Man Squad to a 10 Man one in order to get your heavy weapons

Democratus
02-05-2007, 16:01
Just a shame that while other races have 2 decent compuslory troop choices while DAs get stuck with 2 ineffective 5 man squads, when they need a heavy weapon to deal with other armies.

Which is why you have Devistator squads for the heavy weapons. Troops choices become more efficient at fulfilling their proper role. Sounds like a good change to me.

ashc
02-05-2007, 17:26
I hate this idea that for troops (particularly marines) to be effective they have to be toteing special/heavy weapons.

One thing i know from playing this game for over a decade is that the best players get the best out of every one of their troops, and not just 'lascannon duuuude and his 5 meatshield buddies'.

Ash

Carlos
02-05-2007, 18:23
Exactly. There is no dumbing down to speak of. If anything, 40K got loads more logical thanks to easier to digest army lists. Hell, I might be an Eldar player but I have to say our new codex is the best one GW have ever written. Ever.

Anything that eliminates cookie-cutter lists, unorthodox, anti-fluff armies (Space Marines dont have access to huge reams of exotic wargear) and actually forces players to think about army composition is fine by me.

Hell, I was playing my Old Chaos Nemesis last weekend and was telling him about the elimination of the Legion lists and he said it was a great idea as it will make army lists easier to compose! I take his opinion very seriously as hes always right.

Mixalos
02-05-2007, 18:31
Well changing the codex of DA made it cheaper for their opponents. They do not need to buy lubricant anymore. just the condom

grimkeeper
02-05-2007, 19:26
if rumors are to be belived then the plastic Baneblade will be useable by several armies,is this balanced or a way of recouping development costs ,have the implecations of its arrival been fully looked at and play tested properly. special charecters now no longer needing opponents permission (Hero Hammer) or away of wowing the kids by the red shirts, weve all heard them , while i will always welcome improvements in fluff ,rules and figs icanot help feeling bewildered at times.

Nebelung_13
02-05-2007, 20:34
I'd disagree. In fact, I thought both of them were quite dumb rules.

Hunt for the fallen would hardly ever apply, and do you really think that if there was a fallen within range, DA's would suddenly switch off all higher brain functions and just run mindlessly at him? Sounds like a good way to a) get killed b) not capture the fallen and c) give away your secret.

And intractable, how did that ever made it into the book and is considered fluffy? DA's are supposedly great tacticians, standing your ground and getting killed in the face of overwhelming firepower is hardly an exemple of that. They are also reknown for never giving up, but thats something that would be seen at a strategic level, not in small unit tactics.

well DA Deathwing when in sight of a fallen willl forget everything and just go hunt them thats their porpuse above all and Ravenwing above all things has the porpuse (still unknown to the Marines of the given company) to recon ahead for fallen and with Deathwing right behind them to capture the fallen, 13th black crusade is an example how far the DAs hunt went (they simply removed themselfs from the main battle areas and went to pursue clues to the whereabouts of some fallen, and that is not the only example , the DAs are not known for being all goody good , they are know for their own secret agenda , and they will try to fufill it above all, for that same secret can put a halt to DAs future in the imperium of man.
Every marine legion has a briliant mind behind it , but thats hardly the point ,for there are some character defining things to every legion, and DAs were famous for their reluctancy to give away even a inch of terrain, more then the reasonable. But you say at strategical level , well marines above all are defined by their genes ,and their genes some times dictated certains aspects that can be both good and bad, thus the Stubbornness of DA warriors can be also understanded at individual manner, depends of the point of view.

RavenMorpheus
02-05-2007, 21:06
I have been a DA player for many years now. I am not a good painter nor modeller. My favourite part of the game though is writing my lists. sitting down trying to decide should I give my tactical squad a plasma gun or melta gun? if I give my commander infiltrate with a command squad should I also give him a hommer. Hours of deciding is what I love, the fine tunning of lists after games and games inside my head.

Now I read the DA and Eldar codex and they are written for younger and younger people. In two codex time there will be 3 -4 options 1500, 2000, 2250 point lists!

Do you feel that codexs are becoming simplistic? or do you feel they have improved under this new directrion?


They're not dumbing down, they're making the rules easier for people to understand, or so I've been told :wtf: :D . :confused:

cailus
02-05-2007, 23:24
Turning up with the same army as someone else is a very high probablity.

So how is this different to Codex Space Marines?!?

The Marine lists I see floating around my club are all very similar as are the ones posted on the internet.

GreenDracoBob
03-05-2007, 02:39
I have to agree that lists are not a dumb-down, but rather a new direction. Rules based on fluff, models based on rules. But I do think I will miss the armory if they continue to omit from the codices. Not for any particular reason, other than character of the hobbyist's army.

I fear for the future of some codices, though. Tau where the Battlesuit comes pre-equipped with a Command and Control Node, a Plasma Rifle and a Drone Controller. You can upgrade those to very specific options, but none of what a person may actually use effectively. Or Inquisitors kitted out with the codex's shiny demon/heretic/xenos frying weapon, unable to be upgraded, because what else would they use against their specific enemy?

@Nebelung_13: As much as those rules may have shown a character of the Dark Angels, they went over the top to do so. The DA are supposed to be the greatest of Space Marine tacticians. For this to be so, they'd realize that doing such things wouldn't always be in their best interests. Keep an eye on the Fallen, wait for the right opportunity, rather than charge like a maniac. Hold your ground, unless that will cause more harm than good to the battle.