We missed our Birthday! (Warning: Bit of a Rant Ahead)

[SvenONE]

I'm not one who is super invested in the competitive scene, so this white scars/ravenwing parallel thing doesn't bother me so much, but I think it's rather alarming that all of the space marine army pictures from LVO are bikes bikes bikes.  When a single unit is so clearly that much better than everything else in the codex that competitive players basically ignore all other units in the codex (with some exceptions, I'm speaking in generalities) that speaks to a poor internal army balance, even if you can build an abstractly strong force with the book.

 

Then again, competitive play is where spam rules, because the point is to win, not tell a story, so I guess it's largely irrelevant to people like me.

 

I build lists that I think are cool and that are in line with a narrative, but even still, it's unfortunate when it seems like there should have been a bike on the cover of the book.

 

 

That's actually a good point about the bike armies - bikes are hot right now.  More to that I think there were only 4 Dark Angels, 2 of them being pure DA in an entire field of 200ish competitors? It's one thing if there's a wide array of armies and say DA just happened to lose - at least people willing to play expect to have fun and maybe try to win, it's another thing entirely when they don't enter at all.

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

This shouldn't be any surprise. If you want a balanced game, don't play 40K, and play something else. Other wise accept the fact GW doesn't care or are incapable of making a balanced game. Once you can do this, life becomes so much easier.

If anything start playing Tyranids. You may seem our DA are not so bad. Problem for me, is they are my other army. Sorry guys, I guess I am a jinx.

It's true, and honestly most big games just aren't balanced. I love comparing competitive 40k to Magic when people want to discuss balance in competitive environments.

At the upper echelons of competitive play there are always just a few very precise decks that dominate a tournament scene, despite nearly infinite possible decks. The competitive community quickly figures out the 2-3 top decks in a format, and the meta becomes a paper, rock, scissor between those, until the next set is released and then things shift for a few weeks until the best builds rise to the top again. Sure, there are plenty of options out there, but when you look at that Top 8 of a tournament, you see the same cards being spammed over and over again, because they are clearly the best.

Of course, the difference is that Wizards of the Coast openly acknowledges that certain cards are not as good as others, but they also design different cards for different formats. You have your constructed, and you have your limited and you have your commander formats. Players are expected to adapt to each of them.

In competitive 40k events, there is often only a "constructed" format, and sideboards aren't even allowed.

But to shift gears, here's some other food for thought, and apologies if it steps on some toes--I don't mean to.

Likewise, given the strong emphasis on narrative that GW puts on their game, one could even argue that GW makes certain forces weaker than others because in the "reality" of the 40k universe, they really aren't equal in strength.

If you look at a bad matchup in 40k as just an abstract matchup between two armies, it can look sad and unfun. But if say it's part of a context where one force is outmanned and outmaneuvered, and their goal is to just to not be tabled until reinforcements arrive, then suddenly getting tabled could be a heroic act!

In the case of the example given here, maybe the relative disadvantage perceived between White Scars and Ravenwing could be that the Ravenwing, with their hidden and myopic agenda makes them less efficient at tasks that aren't directly related to hunting fallen. They are a flawed and sad force, but hey that actually makes them cooler in my eyes, not worse the White Scars.

And as for Scars, they are modeled on the Mongols, who are one of the scariest forces in the history of humanity, and one of the most ruthlessly efficient and indiscriminate. Maybe their overall greater utility in comparison to Ravenwing is reflected in their rules that way.

That's not the same thing as saying that one force is better than another; sure in an objective way Scars might be stronger, but if you play Ravenwing I would hope that you do so because you are drawn to their background, and even their relative weaknesses of approach. I hope i'm not offending anyone by saying so. I personally thing the Dark Angels are infinitely cooler and would never choose White Scars over them were I to start a new army.

[CovertToaster]

This shouldn't be any surprise. If you want a balanced game, don't play 40K, and play something else. Other wise accept the fact GW doesn't care or are incapable of making a balanced game. Once you can do this, life becomes so much easier.

If anything start playing Tyranids. You may seem our DA are not so bad. Problem for me, is they are my other army. Sorry guys, I guess I am a jinx.

It's true, and honestly most big games just aren't balanced. I love comparing competitive 40k to Magic when people want to discuss balance in competitive environments.

At the upper echelons of competitive play there are always just a few very precise decks that dominate a tournament scene, despite nearly infinite possible decks. The competitive community quickly figures out the 2-3 top decks in a format, and the meta becomes a paper, rock, scissor between those, until the next set is released and then things shift for a few weeks until the best builds rise to the top again. Sure, there are plenty of options out there, but when you look at that Top 8 of a tournament, you see the same cards being spammed over and over again, because they are clearly the best.

Of course, the difference is that Wizards of the Coast openly acknowledges that certain cards are not as good as others, but they also design different cards for different formats. You have your constructed, and you have your limited and you have your commander formats. Players are expected to adapt to each of them.

In competitive 40k events, there is often only a "constructed" format, and sideboards aren't even allowed.

But to shift gears, here's some other food for thought, and apologies if it steps on some toes--I don't mean to.

Likewise, given the strong emphasis on narrative that GW puts on their game, one could even argue that GW makes certain forces weaker than others because in the "reality" of the 40k universe, they really aren't equal in strength.

If you look at a bad matchup in 40k as just an abstract matchup between two armies, it can look sad and unfun. But if say it's part of a context where one force is outmanned and outmaneuvered, and their goal is to just to not be tabled until reinforcements arrive, then suddenly getting tabled could be a heroic act!

In the case of the example given here, maybe the relative disadvantage perceived between White Scars and Ravenwing could be that the Ravenwing, with their hidden and myopic agenda makes them less efficient at tasks that aren't directly related to hunting fallen. They are a flawed and sad force, but hey that actually makes them cooler in my eyes, not worse the White Scars.

And as for Scars, they are modeled on the Mongols, who are one of the scariest forces in the history of humanity, and one of the most ruthlessly efficient and indiscriminate. Maybe their overall greater utility in comparison to Ravenwing is reflected in their rules that way.

That's not the same thing as saying that one force is better than another; sure in an objective way Scars might be stronger, but if you play Ravenwing I would hope that you do so because you are drawn to their background, and even their relative weaknesses of approach. I hope i'm not offending anyone by saying so. I personally thing the Dark Angels are infinitely cooler and would never choose White Scars over them were I to start a new army.

This is quite funny as historically I hate the mongols and would never play a force modelled on them and I believe their hook was ranged light cav so a bike army is quite apt.

As for magic I never played with the top decks as a rule. I always designed decks to target them and copped alot of flak for playing "weak decks" but I became a better player by not having to rely on fishing finishers out of my deck or despairing when I couldn't find them. I also did very well alot of the time because the meta would quickly stagnate so my "weak deck" no longer had to face it's bad match ups and the "hard games" became much easier.

Perhaps there's a lesson there.

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

@coverttoaster

 

I was much the same way when I played Magic.  I also didn't win a lot, but I enjoyed building my own original decks more than I did winning.  I guess the way I play 40k isn't surprising in that regard.

 

And I really think that people concerned with balance should look to Magic, which has a design team that is deeply concerned about balance, and see that the game suffers from the same "dominance of the few" issue as 40k, and realize that it's just the nature of the beast.  

[CovertToaster]

@coverttoaster

 

I was much the same way when I played Magic.  I also didn't win a lot, but I enjoyed building my own original decks more than I did winning.  I guess the way I play 40k isn't surprising in that regard.

 

And I really think that people concerned with balance should look to Magic, which has a design team that is deeply concerned about balance, and see that the game suffers from the same "dominance of the few" issue as 40k, and realize that it's just the nature of the beast.  

 

I know, no matter how many people you pay to balance a game they still make mistakes that the thousands of gamers around the world will find and abuse.

[Interrogator Stobz]

This shouldn't be any surprise. If you want a balanced game, don't play 40K, and play something else. Other wise accept the fact GW doesn't care or are incapable of making a balanced game. Once you can do this, life becomes so much easier.

If anything start playing Tyranids. You may seem our DA are not so bad. Problem for me, is they are my other army. Sorry guys, I guess I am a jinx.

It's true, and honestly most big games just aren't balanced. I love comparing competitive 40k to Magic when people want to discuss balance in competitive environments.

At the upper echelons of competitive play there are always just a few very precise decks that dominate a tournament scene, despite nearly infinite possible decks. The competitive community quickly figures out the 2-3 top decks in a format, and the meta becomes a paper, rock, scissor between those, until the next set is released and then things shift for a few weeks until the best builds rise to the top again. Sure, there are plenty of options out there, but when you look at that Top 8 of a tournament, you see the same cards being spammed over and over again, because they are clearly the best.

Of course, the difference is that Wizards of the Coast openly acknowledges that certain cards are not as good as others, but they also design different cards for different formats. You have your constructed, and you have your limited and you have your commander formats. Players are expected to adapt to each of them.

In competitive 40k events, there is often only a "constructed" format, and sideboards aren't even allowed.

But to shift gears, here's some other food for thought, and apologies if it steps on some toes--I don't mean to.

Likewise, given the strong emphasis on narrative that GW puts on their game, one could even argue that GW makes certain forces weaker than others because in the "reality" of the 40k universe, they really aren't equal in strength.

If you look at a bad matchup in 40k as just an abstract matchup between two armies, it can look sad and unfun. But if say it's part of a context where one force is outmanned and outmaneuvered, and their goal is to just to not be tabled until reinforcements arrive, then suddenly getting tabled could be a heroic act!

In the case of the example given here, maybe the relative disadvantage perceived between White Scars and Ravenwing could be that the Ravenwing, with their hidden and myopic agenda makes them less efficient at tasks that aren't directly related to hunting fallen. They are a flawed and sad force, but hey that actually makes them cooler in my eyes, not worse the White Scars.

And as for Scars, they are modeled on the Mongols, who are one of the scariest forces in the history of humanity, and one of the most ruthlessly efficient and indiscriminate. Maybe their overall greater utility in comparison to Ravenwing is reflected in their rules that way.

That's not the same thing as saying that one force is better than another; sure in an objective way Scars might be stronger, but if you play Ravenwing I would hope that you do so because you are drawn to their background, and even their relative weaknesses of approach. I hope i'm not offending anyone by saying so. I personally thing the Dark Angels are infinitely cooler and would never choose White Scars over them were I to start a new army.

Sorry dude, I don't subscribe to that view at all.

It may wash IRL and for top end no holds barred tounament players but this is normally a game between two friendly players that normally both want to win with lists that include models that they like and have an affinity for beyond MAX carnage.

If the victory points and standard missions reflected options like you gave as an example it might be ok. But they don't and it's not.
If something is better than something else it should cost more in points and vice versa. That way BOTH players get to have a chance at doing ok. One with lesser quality/larger numbers and one with higher quality but fewer minis.

Look at the current mighty TAU: without even using their mighty net trick units they are costed as a horde army but hit like an elite one, nearly every weapon is hitting like a heavy bolter for crying out loud.
I play against a really neat dude that plays quite tame Tau lists, even though everything he has hits harder than the equivalent similar role stuff I face him with he has more of it and is more efficient at damned near every phase of the game. I do win on occasion but usually after min/max tailoring for the job, and even then he still challenges me right to the very end with a generic list. I'd like my generic and fun lists to do well too. THAT is what is called balance.
I love this game and have done for over 25 years, it has never been balanced, I get that and aren't really whining as it is only a game but: I still live in hope that one day they will make an effort

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

Fair enough stobz, I was just thinking aloud, I can understand where you're coming from too.

[Polythemus]

in my opinion this is why campaigns are so much better than tournaments. you can tailor the rules to formulate some kind of balance. the story it self also becomes more important and the unblanced nature of the game can be managed better in a series of games than a one off.

[Komrk]

This shouldn't be any surprise. If you want a balanced game, don't play 40K, and play something else. Other wise accept the fact GW doesn't care or are incapable of making a balanced game. Once you can do this, life becomes so much easier.

If anything start playing Tyranids. You may seem our DA are not so bad. Problem for me, is they are my other army. Sorry guys, I guess I am a jinx.

It's true, and honestly most big games just aren't balanced. I love comparing competitive 40k to Magic when people want to discuss balance in competitive environments.

At the upper echelons of competitive play there are always just a few very precise decks that dominate a tournament scene, despite nearly infinite possible decks. The competitive community quickly figures out the 2-3 top decks in a format, and the meta becomes a paper, rock, scissor between those, until the next set is released and then things shift for a few weeks until the best builds rise to the top again. Sure, there are plenty of options out there, but when you look at that Top 8 of a tournament, you see the same cards being spammed over and over again, because they are clearly the best.

Of course, the difference is that Wizards of the Coast openly acknowledges that certain cards are not as good as others, but they also design different cards for different formats. You have your constructed, and you have your limited and you have your commander formats. Players are expected to adapt to each of them.

In competitive 40k events, there is often only a "constructed" format, and sideboards aren't even allowed.

But to shift gears, here's some other food for thought, and apologies if it steps on some toes--I don't mean to.

Likewise, given the strong emphasis on narrative that GW puts on their game, one could even argue that GW makes certain forces weaker than others because in the "reality" of the 40k universe, they really aren't equal in strength.

If you look at a bad matchup in 40k as just an abstract matchup between two armies, it can look sad and unfun. But if say it's part of a context where one force is outmanned and outmaneuvered, and their goal is to just to not be tabled until reinforcements arrive, then suddenly getting tabled could be a heroic act!

In the case of the example given here, maybe the relative disadvantage perceived between White Scars and Ravenwing could be that the Ravenwing, with their hidden and myopic agenda makes them less efficient at tasks that aren't directly related to hunting fallen. They are a flawed and sad force, but hey that actually makes them cooler in my eyes, not worse the White Scars.

And as for Scars, they are modeled on the Mongols, who are one of the scariest forces in the history of humanity, and one of the most ruthlessly efficient and indiscriminate. Maybe their overall greater utility in comparison to Ravenwing is reflected in their rules that way.

That's not the same thing as saying that one force is better than another; sure in an objective way Scars might be stronger, but if you play Ravenwing I would hope that you do so because you are drawn to their background, and even their relative weaknesses of approach. I hope i'm not offending anyone by saying so. I personally thing the Dark Angels are infinitely cooler and would never choose White Scars over them were I to start a new army.

Sorry dude, I don't subscribe to that view at all.

It may wash IRL and for top end no holds barred tounament players but this is normally a game between two friendly players that normally both want to win with lists that include models that they like and have an affinity for beyond MAX carnage.

If the victory points and standard missions reflected options like you gave as an example it might be ok. But they don't and it's not.

If something is better than something else it should cost more in points and vice versa. That way BOTH players get to have a chance at doing ok. One with lesser quality/larger numbers and one with higher quality but fewer minis.

Look at the current mighty TAU: without even using their mighty net trick units they are costed as a horde army but hit like an elite one, nearly every weapon is hitting like a heavy bolter for crying out loud.

I play against a really neat dude that plays quite tame Tau lists, even though everything he has hits harder than the equivalent similar role stuff I face him with he has more of it and is more efficient at damned near every phase of the game. I do win on occasion but usually after min/max tailoring for the job, and even then he still challenges me right to the very end with a generic list. I'd like my generic and fun lists to do well too. THAT is what is called balance.

I love this game and have done for over 25 years, it has never been balanced, I get that and aren't really whining as it is only a game but: I still live in hope that one day they will make an effort

You should have your Tau friend play an Auxilliary list. Kroot and Vespids for the WI- I mean for the horrible loss

[Interrogator Stobz]

Haha, actually he made a list that was about a third kroot a while back, I made a reasonable green list and got tabled by the other two thirds (Ion cannons and marker lights and suits and massed railrifles etc.) the Kroot just sat in cover and did nothing.

My best result has been double LRC DW ala Marches style, but that feels forced and he could tune up and waste that list if he wanted.

Still, it's fun to play; we had a couple of neat killteam games the other day and my assault marines did great in one game and three killed themselves landing in Dangerous Terrain the other

[Komrk]

There's a DA player in my group who took a bunch of I believe Company Vets with plasma weapons (I believe 4) They all managed to kill themselves (In kill team) So he killed more of his own guys than the enemy did.

[shabbadoo]

That's why you join a bare bones Level 1 Librarian with Prescience to them for a mere 65 points. Rapid fire plasma lurv...with re-rolls. S'all good.

[Pyro X]

you could do that cheaper with codex inq though 45 points I think it is?

[Interrogator Stobz]

Unfortunately no HQs in Kill Team Shabbs old sport, you get what you roll :D bugger all synergy apart from the support they naturally bring. Way better than 2nd and 6th Ed's shenanigans ;)

[Varizel]

There's a DA player in my group who took a bunch of I believe Company Vets with plasma weapons (I believe 4) They all managed to kill themselves (In kill team) So he killed more of his own guys than the enemy did.

 

lol, same problem with my LSV. Most of the time that sucka killed itself more than getting killed by my opponents. 2 HP Gets Hot on Heavy 3 plasma blast is harsh man. :D I recently changed my mind about the Vengeance though, and used it in enough games lately. Not stellar performance but it gave nice surprises for me here and there :D. More so than my Darkshroud. So not as HORRID as I thought it would be, still not great though. 

 

But honestly though, our codex wasn't that bad. Missed opportunities with our Veteran Squads, flyers, warlord table, and the new landspeeders, but overall the codex feels right.

 

And for Supplement man, don't think DA needs supplement. What we need is actually just FAQ getting rid some limitations or buffing some of our options. Why pay (if you do actually pay for it) for fixes, when you can and should, get it for free. 

[shabbadoo]

GW have only ever done this for one codex (Codex: Dark Angels 3E; EDIT: er, two...and C:Dark Eldar 3E also :D), and have never before nor since done it again. There is simply no reason to expect that GW will do what you are asking.

As to an FAQ, there is not a single limitation that needs to be gotten rid of that hasn't already been dealt with in the current errata/FAQ. As to buffing anything, there is a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, and they probably won't do it just for only handful of things.  And so we wait again, but so far as i am concerned it is a rather bearable wait compared to the last two times, as I am fairly happy with the current codex.

[Imperialis_Dominatus]

I thought they had done it for Dark Eldar as well. But in any case it
was quite some time ago and you're right, there is no reason to expect
it to happen again.

[march10k]

you could do that cheaper with codex inq though 45 points I think it is?

 

Yegadz!  Not this again...First of all, it's 55 points...ten points cheaper...for  S/T3, admittedly 3 wounds instead of 2, and carapace armor...did someone mention no PFG access?  An inquisitor, besides being unfluffy, is so much easier to kill for such a paltry savings.  

 

My best result has been double LRC DW ala Marches style, but that feels forced and he could tune up and waste that list if he wanted. 

 

Not surprising...tau cheese (riptide+shadowsun) was the inspiration for my list.

[ZONKEY]

Brothers can I ask would you rather be intergrated into the standard space marine codex with a couple of special characters or have our own codex?

[Chaplain Lucifer]

I rather have my own codex thnkyouverymuch. We would lose more than we gain by being folded into a SM Codex. Especially in pages of fluff.

[Master Avoghai]

 

Brothers can I ask would you rather be intergrated into the standard space marine codex with a couple of special characters or have our own codex?

Prefer THIS unperfect codex than being integrated in codex SM and lose the knights and the shroud and the termi mix n match... Without any hesitation

[Pyro X]

we may not lose the knights, templar have the cursader guys and they are the only ones that can take them.

[Master Avoghai]

we may not lose the knights, templar have the cursader guys and they are the only ones that can take them.

So you imagine that by adding DA to the SM, DA will keep

 

The DW knights

The RW Knights

The DW squad and special rules

The RW special rules

The Darkshroud

The Nephilim

The Dark Talon

The Vengeance

 

and that all will be entries "DA only" in the said SM codex...? 

 

Damn... if it's so, the next codex will be as big as a FW Heresy book! :lol:

[Brother dean]

The DW knights

The RW Knights

snip...

The Darkshroud

The Nephilim

The Dark Talon

The Vengeance

 

And consider that our "special snowflake" army gets all these specific units with iconography molded on...  as in "No option to remove" like the icons on the drop pod. Templars dont get LRCs specific to them...  WS only get transfers in the box..  Ultras do get specific icons on minis but they are subtle and infantry models only..  Fists dont,   Now lets throw the Fortress and the DA vets and RW upgrade sprues in on that too...  Only Wolves and BA get close to as many specific kits as we do... 

 

Edit...  Structure and forgot some bits...

[Isiah]

... and Grey Knights. They get a fair bit of branded gear as well.