ValourousHeart

I wasn’t criticizing your comment. I was stating my view on the hobby. The point I made about the Ravenwing banner and apothecary was about what I experienced in 4th edition when I decided that I just wanted to build them even if they didn’t have rules. Lots of people kept telling me that Ravenwing doesn’t have those. They also complained that I used plasma pistols bits instead of bolt pistols bits on the bikes. It was extremely important for me to use the little piece of plastic that they approved, god forbid I have any creative license with my own models. I’m at a much better store now. But make no mistake, there are plenty of people in the hobby that believe that their interpretation of the universe is the only correct interpretation. My belief is that we all can add a little something of our own. EDIT - I just noticed that your and my comments keep following each other. I see now that might be read as directed at each other, but that wasn’t my intention.

Above is the outside world answer. This is the creative lore reading answer. You won’t likely find any direct reference to a Ravenwing dreadnought in the lore, but you can extrapolate one. Don’t focus on the dreadnought, instead consider the sarcophagus. The marine is put into the sarcophagus, and the sarcophagus is put into the dreadnought. So the sarcophagus is like a cockpit with a dreadnought built around it. What other things could be piloted with this technology? The Rock! So we can either assume that it never occurred to anyone to use it any where else, or just about anything could be piloted in this manner. One of the options I considered before building my dreadnoughts was the land speeder tempest. It had a closed canopy which resembled the sarcophagus on the dreadnought. So was it a closed canopy or a sealed sarcophagus?

Be careful about locking yourself in to a narrow view of 40K. The current game mechanics don’t reflect the depth and breadth of the universe. And the previous versions didn’t either. In 3rd and 4th editions we couldn’t put a banner or apothecary on bike, even though the codex lore identified that Ravenwing had them. We got those realized in 5th edition. We still have them in game now, as long as that box keeps selling. We will probably never get an official Ravenwing themed dreadnought for the table. But this hobby used to encourage creativity, and I am not ready to let that aspect slip away. That is why I made my 2 Ravenwing dreadnoughts. If you want to make something unique and amazing, go for it. Be sure to post pictures so the next person can be inspired.

I beg to differ. Sammie, Talonmasters, black knights, all captains, all librarians, and about half of the chaplains are members of deathwing. And that doesn’t include any of the company veterans many of whom are also members of deathwing. Meaning that it only requires time to get into Deathwing. Here is what I did to show Ravenwing dreadnoughts. Thunderfire canon tracks, gives the impression that they can shift gears and keep up with the bikes. Inspired by The Eliminators, Short Circuit, and Terminator Judgement Day.

Azrael was in 2nd with the combi-plasma. But 2nd was very different to the structural changes to DA that would happen in 4th. In 2nd the difference between DA, BA, SW, and UM was the veteran squads. UM got a veteran tactical squad, SW got a veteran devistator squad, BA got veteran assault, and DA got veteran bikes. When 3rd dropped all of the silliness from 2nd was stripped away and completely new game system was launched (kind of like 10th). You could run DA using all of the elements, but if you wanted to run Ravenwing or deathwing you were put into a very restrictive chart. There wasn’t much flexibility for anyone for most of the 3rd. Marines did rhino rush, until BA codex, then it was BA rhino rush. BA got extra movement from vehicles. Chaos were one of the first to get a 2nd codex in 3rd and that gave them the opportunity to theme their list for a certain chaos god. They were pretty much the only codex in 3rd with that flexibility and flavor. 4th gave that flexibility and flavor to everyone. SM got chapter traits. Ork clans were more than color choices. Basically everyone got the chaos treatment. Within that flexibility certain characters could move units around the force org chart. Sometimes it was just giving a character a bike to make bike squad troop choices. Other times it was taking a named character. DA at this time (4th) introduced the Ravenwing Attack Squadron … 6 bikes, 1 attack bike, and 1 land speeder tornado as a single troop choice if your warlord was corvex (Jetbike) or sableclaw (speeder). The bikes could combat squad into 2 units of 3 bikes. Black knights would be introduced in 5th alongside deathwing knights.

Tell your son that warhammer is the one place in life that it pays to be shallow. Go 100% on what he likes the look of. The rules are guaranteed to change with time. So base purchases on things that change much slower, things they find beautiful and inspiring. At this level your kids won’t be losing based on list construction. Wins and losses will be based on ability to focus on mission and threat assessment of things that will disrupt that focus. This is where you can shine as a parent. Keep your kids away from the competitive scene. Help make their foundational memories around warhammer be positive and uplifting. Not surrounded by people who hate games workshop. Your kids will have plenty of time to meet those people later in life. As to the plasma connection with Dark Angels… that is the result of a marketing blurb for a DA themed tactical squad that was released in 4th edition. DA were the first chapter to get to take a plasma cannon in a tactical squad. That lasted for about 3 months when the SM codex was released. At that time SM also got plasma cannons in tactical squads but also got grav weapons throughout their codex. DA wouldn’t get access to Grav weapons until the next edition. For some reason everyone remembers DA getting plasma first, but doesn’t remember DA getting snubbed on Grav weapons for several years. Hope that helps.

It isn't harder to get a combat patrol game than a regular game. I'm going to assume you have access to a FLGS with other people that play 40k. You ask one of them if they would like to play 40k. They say yes. Then you say, "I'm new, and all I have is a combat patrol." The other more veteran player says "that's fine, I've got enough models to make a combat patrol. How are you enjoying the hobby so far?" Some datasheets have different rules. But all combat patrol datasheets are free. You don't need a codex, all of the rules for the combat patrol are included in the PDF. All you need is the BRB, the combat patrol models, and the free PDF from the community page. So yes as an entry point $65 for the BRB and $168 for the combat patrol of your choice is a lower cost than anything you might identify as a "proper" 40k army. And you don't see your contempt and disapproval of combat patrol is also pejorative? Like I said it isn't harder to get a combat patrol game... you just have to be willing to say yes. So would you say yes if asked? I wasn't saying that you had enough models in your collection to make multiple copies of the same combat patrol. From my collection, without buying anything new, I can field 1) strike team Solarien (phobos), 2) Thoryk's Void Hunters (SW), and 3) The Penitent Host (SOB). And with minimal purchases I could field a few more combat patrols. Specifically, the other SOB, Votann, and the rest of the marine combat patrols. Of course the box doesn't include an opponent. That hasn't been legal in the UK since 1834.

I might be doing that. I often suffer from depression, and to combat that I actively look for positive attributes. There is plenty of research showing that the human mind is really good at imagining all of the most dire outcomes, but struggles to imagine success. Are you down playing everything positive about 40k and only focused on the short comings? That is an accurate statement. However that box set doesn't contain everything I want to play a game. I bought the starter set in 2nd edition because I didn't yet know what armies I wanted to play. I haven't bought a starter set since, because I focused my money on units I wanted. Even though I play marines, there is almost never anything I want in the starter sets. I'm not the target audience for that box set, and it sounds like you might not be either. That doesn't mean that no one could play a game with that starter set. Or even that the starter set isn't a good deal. Don't get those things confused. Believe it or not, learning how to play combat patrol will make you good at Warhammer 40k. And the combat patrols have a relatively low bar for entry. There are no gotchas or cheap tricks or broken combos to exploit. Often some of the veteran players forget that list building is only a small part of the game. Combat Patrol helps you learn all the rest of the game. When I got into 40k there was a big problem with WFB in that the barrier to entry was really high. Certain characters required you to have a minimum 3000 points just to field them. And most armies had a couple of great top tier characters meaning you needed 6000 points to have more than one cool character. That was a lot of cheddar to lay down, even way back then. What I'm hearing you say is that you like an exclusive game where you can tell new players to piss off if they don't have lots of money. Maybe you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, but most of us had to build our collections slowly over decades. It didn't take decades to get to 2000 points, and I'm well past that level now with multiple armies. But my first games all those years ago were small with the models I had. Try taking the chip off your shoulder and let new players enter this hobby at their own pace, like you did. Try meeting them where they are with a combat patrol game. I bet your collection is a lot like mine, and you have everything or almost everything you need for several combat patrols without needing to pick up a new combat patrol. Perhaps you only need to pick up one unit to complete a combat patrol. For me I'm missing Votann Beserks. Because they are the one unit out of the Votann collection that I don't like. Or for my sisters of battle it is the Sacresants... and well when I have the cash they are out of stock. Sure there are benefits to playing larger games of 40k. But that doesn't mean that there aren't also benefits to playing combat patrol.

I'm struggling to see how GW is a predatory business, but I'm willing to have my mind changed. According to google examples of unfair or predatory trade practices include: Deceptive advertising Deceptive guarantees Bait and Switch False free prizes Tied selling Noncompliance with manufacturing standards Targeting vulnerable populations I don't believe that 1,2,3,4,6,&7 apply to GW. Feel free to correct me on your experience concerning those. That leaves number 5, Tied Selling. "the sale of one product ties to the sale of another." Tied sales as I understand it is like a printer with a proprietary ink cartridge. The printer won't work unless you buy the ink from the company selling the printer. But there are other examples of products that move together that are mistakenly identified as tied sales. For example a DIY store will sell paint, brushes, drop cloth, ladders and painter's tape, and a shopper is likely to buy a lot of those things for a single project. That is not predatory, those items are just all needed for that particular project. I'm not sure how changing the items in the example to Codex Dark Angels, Outriders and a Chaplain on Bike would make it predatory. And yes I know your example was the codex, and I'm getting there now. Is it predatory that you have to purchase the players guide for D&D separate from the core rule book? Just because one company gives their rules away for free doesn't mean that a second company selling their rule books is engaging in unfair trade practices. So is this just hyperbolic rhetoric throwing shade at GW? Or is there something I've overlooked?

A little more progress. That is all of my outriders and Invaders done. Not sure what is next... Dark Shroud, Nephilim, Black Knights w/ Command, Sammie on Corvex, or Scout LS Storm.

Oh I get that POV. "There is only one good* choice and we all take it." But we also tend to ignore the asterisk in that statement. The one presuming an expected opponent. I'll address this further in a minute. But it doesn't really address the issue. And at best it leaves you with a rather crappy dichotomy of cheap vs best. We already saw what cheap looks like in 3rd edition. Nobody took grenades because you saved 30 points off the cost of a 10 man tactically squad, which covered the costs of your special and heavy weapon. Only focusing on the points cost can only take us so far. And can't give a compelling reason for a 3rd or 4th choice which some units have. Ah yes... the "everyone knows you always take Multi-meltas on your attack bikes." A multi-melta or a heavy bolter should have been a more situational choice, but it wasn't... everyone always took multi-meltas. But why? Because of expected opponent. Nobody was going to travel to a tournament with an all infantry ork army... because they wouldn't be able to get through their turns in the allotted time. I wasn't saying people complained about the existence of points... they complained that the points on whatever unit was front and center this week either cost too many points or not enough. It was a balancing act that GW was never going to get right because the system wasn't granular enough... and there is no one who is looking for 40k to add a couple of decimals to the standard game size for the same number of models. I'm not sure why anyone was caught off guard by the power level being renamed points. That is what AOS does. And all of the communication from GW telegraphed that was their intention very clearly. Now we are getting to novel solutions. If the only thing that can be changed is points... then we are stuck with bad weapon profiles. But if all weapon options were balanced to be situationally optimal then we can make adjustments to profiles if a pairing is out of sorts. That isn't what would happen. People tend to do things for one reason... and it is a very stupid reason... it is because that is what they did before. They pick a choice because of a bias, and then stick with that choice despite changing circumstances. The way you balance things out is you start by identifying broad target groups. In the past it was infantry and vehicles. You could then further break that down into light transports and heavy tanks. If one weapon choice is +10-20 points better than the other choices, some serious updates need to happen to those other weapon profiles. Attack bikes had this issue. 3 in a unit with heavy bolters could really dent some infantry units. But if they had good armor or multiple wounds, the attack bike squadron was unlikely to wipe the unit. 3 multi-meltas on the other hand was going to pop a tank. Then came the invader ATVs... Those got the onslaught instead of the heavy bolter, and last edition had the autobolt rifles instead of bolters. All that meant that they could be a real threat to infantry squads as well. So you had the tactical choice of what roll you wanted your ATVs to play.

I'm curious why everyone wants to return to paying for equipment. Wasn't that what we complained about constantly before, how those point costs were never correct and every change only made things worse? Besides nostalgia, what is the fascination with returning to a system that didn't work? If we, as a community, were rational about it, and not nostalgic, wouldn't we come up with a more novel solution.

That is what I've been experiencing too in 10th. My experience with vehicles was mixed in 8th and 9th. I ran an Imperial Knight list that got mauled half the time.... But I also ran a speeder list that mopped up vs most opponents, but struggled to collect enough objective points. The smaller tables hurts the way I liked to play Ravenwing over the years, as a harassment force... keeping distance and focusing down units. But it does mean that units are never stranded on the far side of the board, which is better for the game. And this is where the lack of identity for bikes in 40k shows up. If bikes could keep their distance and harass the opponent, then their current damage output is ok. But because they have no choice but to get stuck in assault in the middle of that table then they need to be tuned up more.

That is fair. Personally I'm a little split on how weapons should be configured. On one hand, I've been playing Ravenwing for so long that I had to learn how to deal with my whatever my opponent brought with a very limited unit and weapon selection. On the other hand I like weapons to have a preferred target where they are most effective. We had this in previous editions, if I tried to just run Multi-meltas and Typhoon ML on my RW list I would get punished by the Ork player. Same issue if I just ran Assault Cannons and Heavy Bolters. On top of that I think that there should be more parity between weapon options for units. More willingness to reconsider the stats and rules of weaker weapons, and not just points changes for the superior option. This one is trickier... at least for me to figure out. We have lots of stats to choose from, do we always need to start with Strength, Damage and AP. What about number of shots, or access to special rules, or flexibility on when critical hits or wounds occur. I think GW over corrected with armor. I'm not sure that armor needs both really hard to wound and lots of health, AOS gets by with just lots of wounds. But this feeds back into the current unwillingness to reconsider weapon stats leaving us with a few weapons that damage vehicles comically easy and other options that are pale reflections of their former glory.