knife&fork Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 A bunch of units hardly anyone was even using anyway are slightly stronger in one codex than they are in another. *ding ding* Now take a guess why people would like for these units to be relevant on the tabletop.... And yes, I fully expect (in the sense that they should, I don't actually trust them to do anything right when it comes to rules) GW to keep things in line when pushing major updates. They are the worlds largest miniature gaming company, not some small time garage operation for crying out loud. And when even these much smaller companies manage to do the exact things you claim as impossible it kinda undermines your line of thought. --------- On a more constructive note, I do think that some kind of community made FAQ to get things in line would be a good idea. I don't think anyone here has claimed that BA need to be Marines +1, at least for myself I just want some of the much needed tweaks and point adjustment for units already in our codex. Frankly the only thing I really miss from C:SM is the land speeder storm. It's just something that seems so very inline with how both our playstyle and how BA (including successors) are described in the fluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Here here K&F! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquamarine Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Even if GW don't go for a 'stamp of approval' (and I'd be slack jawed with surprise if they did tbh), a B&C FAQ for Blood Angels would be a worthwhile thing. Coming from a 'Games Workshop gaming' forum which is pretty well respected, it could gain approval (albeit 'unofficial') and fairly widespread acceptance within the gaming community. GW are always (controversially) stating that the rules are 'just a starting point' for us, so, let's take that at its word and use it to our advantage for once. If we make our own FAQ and decide that's the ruling for us, and it gains widespread acceptance, then those will be the new rules to all intents and purposes, opponents willing. I will have both BA and SM codexes in my possession by end of next week and would happily do a first draft. What has happened is unfair and annoying, but the BA codex is not trashed; and does not need to be, or should be, a red-colour carbon copy of the new SM dex. We have a different play style and our own advantages based around the Baal detachment, we should not need access to all SM units and formations, and many BA units are still fine, SM codex notwithstanding. And I trashed an ultramarines army in close combat last night For Sanguinius! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrunTeufel Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Of course you're not. The fact that all the changes you're interested in having applied to Codex Blood Angels are the ones that would make the army stronger is pure coincidence. So, me paying the same amount of points for a worse version of the same thing (scouts, dreads) is fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucumon Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Of course you're not. The fact that all the changes you're interested in having applied to Codex Blood Angels are the ones that would make the army stronger is pure coincidence. So, me paying the same amount of points for a worse version of the same thing (scouts, dreads) is fair? In theory, yes as the synergy between units is different between codicies. In this new era of mix-and-match... it's a little weird as you almost need allies to maximize the power of your army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrunTeufel Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Of course you're not. The fact that all the changes you're interested in having applied to Codex Blood Angels are the ones that would make the army stronger is pure coincidence. So, me paying the same amount of points for a worse version of the same thing (scouts, dreads) is fair? In theory, yes as the synergy between units is different between codicies. In this new era of mix-and-match... it's a little weird as you almost need allies to maximize the power of your army. So my scouts suck because of synergy. For the same cost. Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonaides Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Well bang goes my local tounament chances i suspect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Eisenhorn Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Well bang goes my local tounament chances i suspect... Well, I'm not exactly a staple of the tournament scene, but it seems to me that even if the overcosted units in the BA codex were fixed, allied forces would still probably be the way to go to win a tourney. And from that perspective, unless you are running BA for scouts and terminators primarily (and who is, honestly) there's not much damage that's been done to the competitive viability of the book in a meta that uses lots of allies. It's the principle of the thing that gets me regarding our parallel entries being shafted, not the practical aspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 What allies do necrons and eldar need to win tournaments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Eisenhorn Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 What allies do necrons and eldar need to win tournaments? None, but I guess I should clarify. There's been a lot of discussion about how imperial forces are sort of encouraged to ally in order to compete at the level of Eldar and Necrons. It's not my own opinion, since I don't play competitively. I just have read here and elsewhere that at this point we should sort of look at the imperium as one big army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The issue as I see it would be that in doing so you're not really looking for hidden synergies or such. It's simply a matter of cherry picking units from different factions. You end up with a handful or less viable units per codex, and that's a shame. -+- New codex is out and this thread has run it's course -+- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.