Reaction to Kauyon and what it could mean for BA

[BadDice0809]

Have you all the links for the Raven Guard and White Scars? New Decurions, formations, Warlord Traits, etc...

 

We can all complain about how we got left behind. .. I know it sucks. But reading this stuff...

 

GW hit it OUT OF THE PARK. These formations look AWESOME for building a strong AND fluffy White Scar and Raven Guard force. Even the Warlord traits are cool, and not just throw out a single special rule...

 

All this has me really excited on what they will do for the Blood Angels. They are providing they can hit powerful and fluff like. I know we probably have a long wait but... I am really confident its going to be the best yet. Just wanted to throw a more positive voice out here for the new stuff.

[Frater Antodeniel]

Hello,

 

For Raging Need, there is this post ===> http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/315285-today-the-rage-stole-my-sanity/

 

For Positive Need, there is this post ===> http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/315319-shield-of-baal-ftsf-un-official-errata-v11/

(The Blood Angels SoB lookalike will come soon, as well as the Flesh Tearers Corrections of their Errata).

 

For the GW Stuff, i think that we can wait 2 years....and more for the Flesh Tearers stuff of course. But for all my complain, i can only say that GW failled to the Blood Angels/Flesh Tearers Shield Of Baal campaign were they succeed with the White Scars/Raven Guard stuff. (WS and RG who definitely needed this rightfull update after waiting many many years to have their part of the cake).

[Arkangilos]

On the contrary, the shield of Baal campaign was a complete success. Since it was the test bed of what was to come, they took it, saw what they liked, and modified it.

[Frater Antodeniel]

Arkangilos, it would have been a complete success if the GW team would have dare provided an Errata worthy of the money people spend. I mean, just look at what i did in 3 hours from 0 =>http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/315319-shield-of-baal-ftsf-un-official-errata-v11/. Recopying everything, imagining things. For a single person of the GW rule team, providing this would have only took 1h at max....

 

It would be simple respect of the GW Rule team to provide the C: BA Errata and SoB : Ex Errata, to the BA customers. That would not cost them an arm to show a little mark of respect.

 

Can ANYONE on this forum argue that providing an Errata for the BA and SoB is IMPOSSIBLE for the GW rules team ? Personnally, i don't forgive them to not be at least polite and to answers to the customers problems with their products !

[Charlo]

I think we have the fluff down, just the power and usability of the formations are a little off.

 

That said enough of those WS/RG formations have furious charge so that we can just insert them in with little hassle :) plus it's more flexible on top of a BSF than a decurion style one.

 

Red Marines hoooo

[Xenith]

My reaction to Kauyon:

AWESOME. Two chapters that  have had virtually nothing to distinguish them from other chapters for around 20 years bar two characters finally get some attention. We are finally going back to small packets of ruls for chapters, like the Index Astartes articles.

 

What it means for BA:

Nothing. We don't use Codex: SM.

 

What it means for Chaos:

Maybe, some day, we will get Legion bloodline rules. Because currently, rulewise, the Imperial Fists 3rd and 4th companies are more different than World Eaters and Thousand Sons.

[tjr]

I am really looking forward to whatever we're getting in the future.

 

Patience is a virtue. Keep calm and release the Death Company.

[Frater Cornelius]

My reaction to Kauyon was to facepalm because of the atrocious and horribly written fluff. Then it was to shake my head because of how much extra money people need to spend for fluffy armies. Then I had a bitter laugh at the resulting bureaucratic nightmare the snippets of rules will cause. Then I looked back at the time where every army had just one book. Then I felt sorry for BA. Afterwards I entertained the thought of burning down one of the GW stores in the city. Then I started thinking how greed and hunger for power will ultimately be the downfall of humanity.

 

Then I shrugged and turned to doing other stuff. I mean, who the hell thought this was a good idea to begin with? For a company focusing on miniatures and not rules, they sure put a lot of effort to sell us rules.

[Charlo]

Riptides that shoot twice in a turn.

 

Just what this game needed! :P

 

Nah, really though you won't see that much. Just have the gentleman's agreement of no sky hammer, no double shooting 'tides.

[Crimson Devil]

So in short, no 7th edition.

[appiah4]

GW just keeps copying the winning Free to Pay videogame formula. Pay for the game, pay for extra content, once you are invested as :cuss just keep paying to stay competitive.

 

So glad I bailed out of 40K as a game. It's only a painring and reading hobby to me now lest I lose my sanity.

[Boudan]

The negativity is such a drag to read. Other sites are just ruined by it.

 

I'm happy for my WS/RG brethren to get a little attention paid to their slice of the Warhammer 40K hobby - that particular thing they love and think about often. It must feel great for them as hobbyists and enthusiasts and maybe players of the TT game. And, like mature adults, if they don't like the rules they don't use them.

[evildrcheese]

Yeah take the negativity to Dakka, B&C is a place of hobby hope and good times!

 

Edc

[Frater Cornelius]

Yeah take the negativity to Dakka, B&C is a place of hobby hope and good times!

 

Edc

 

Really hard to keep to that when you are trying better than two years to build your dream army and all you got is a spit in the face from GW.

[Crimson Devil]

Dissent is the natural outcome when people are allowed to have their own opinions.

 

Nor is this your house, so you can't kick anyone out.

[Arkangilos]

No, but if you can complain about GW on almost every thread, we can complain about how you just complain.

 

And I don't see how this is a spit in the face by gw.

[Crimson Devil]

A thread about reactions to a GW product is the correct place for positive and negative opinions. Forums that get reduced to echo chambers lose their value.

[Arkangilos]

A thread about reactions to a GW product is the correct place for positive and negative opinions. Forums that get reduced to echo chambers lose their value.

Right, it's that the people that we are referring to say the same thing in almost every thread... 

[Crimson Devil]

Put them on ignore.

[Morticon]

I'm late to this party.  Apologies to all. 

 

 

Yeah take the negativity to Dakka, B&C is a place of hobby hope and good times!

Edc

 

Firstly, while the sentiment is there, your execution is problematic and also as antithetical to the B&C and the forum as any whining.  So, instead of complete silencing them, maybe pry for positives. 
 

Dissent is the natural outcome when people are allowed to have their own opinions.

 

Nor is this your house, so you can't kick anyone out.

Nope.  That's my job.  And people are more than welcome to express their "negative" opinions in a constructive manner.  
 

A thread about reactions to a GW product is the correct place for positive and negative opinions. Forums that get reduced to echo chambers lose their value.

 

"Negative opinions" are welcome for discussion provided there is a positive spin or a productive or pro-active engagement with the negatives.  

 

Any simple whining for whining sake will treating like the wounded mutt it is and put down accordingly.

[appiah4]

Morticon is like the Astronomican.  His light guides us in the grim darkness of the dark future.

 

I'm probably viewed as a problematic source of dissent by the proponents of the 7th edition and what it has heralded for 40K as a game; well, I understand where you're coming from, and I understand it may be more than slightly jarring to hear that I do not agree with you - but please understand that it's just as jarring for me to see that you agree with the direction that GW has chosen for this game.  It's a double edged sword, without learning to listen to each other, we would simply drive one or the other out of the hobby, make it even more niche and lose whatever contribution the other side could have provided despite the differences.  I mean, I could take my whining elsewhere, but would that not deprive you of the chance to look at my painting or learn from my experience?

 

Try to look at the situation from the other point of view, I'm actually trying to do that.  As someone stated above, it's great for RG and WS players who most certainly appreciate having a distinctive army worth fielding, at long last.  I really wish Iron Hands had the chance too.  

 

But now try to take a look at it from this point of view: Is what GW doing the way to go about doing this?  Has this 'formational proliferation' really been better for the 'game' or the 'hobby'? Is it fair to make an invested player pay rules additions that gives him, arguably, an unfair edge against a fellow player?  What does this mean for us as players already invested in this game?

[Morticon]

What has helped me is the diluting of my BA purity ideals.  

 

I've moved away from the 3rd-5th ed mentality of "one" army and one way from one dex, and looked at ways of playing the models I own competitively. 

 

I don't "like" that i have to use red(and black) SM/DA/SW etc, but I have models I enjoy using and a playstyle I enjoy playing within the parameters of a very very deep and rich core BA history.  (It's why I had so much enjoyment with the DA double-demi).  I play a BA army, not necessarily BA rules, and while its a shame that the two things aren't synonymous-  if only for our own quelling of dissonance- they really dont need to be anymore with how 7th edition has allowed us to be.  

Formations, unbound, detachments- they've all given us a way to play the models we love, with the history we love.  

The only restrictions we have are the ones we place on ourselves.  GW has given us more to work with, not less - albeit within a particular framework.  

[appiah4]

Is that so? Is money not an issue, a restriction here? How about availability - is white dwarf a fair channel for selling rules? What about ease of reference and transportation? Lastly what does this change imply for the learning curve beginners face in order to avoid getting crushed by things like op eldar and tau formations? I started playing BA in late 3e; I can't fathom anyone starting playing BA in 7e unless they shell out money for multiple codici and formations - but why would they? Why should they?

[Morticon]

Is that so? Is money not an issue, a restriction here? How about availability - is white dwarf a fair channel for selling rules? What about ease of reference and transportation? Lastly what does this change imply for the learning curve beginners face in order to avoid getting crushed by things like op eldar and tau formations? I started playing BA in late 3e; I can't fathom anyone starting playing BA in 7e unless they shell out money for multiple codici and formations - but why would they? Why should they?

 

For start-up army- defs.  100%. Its incredibly prohibitive. huge barriers to entry.  

 

 But, again, i think people are purists here in terms of newest, best, unmodified and "authentic".

 

I'm a South African, which means two things for 40k.  1, I pay more for 40k at the FLGS than anyone else in the world- even australia.  2, Relative to my standard of living (and teacher's salary to boot :( ) 40k is far, far, far more restrictive by taking up a far larger % of earnings to me than to many other people elsewhere in the world.

 

I have gone 2nd hand, ebay, chinese knock-offs, casted my own stuff, built my own stuff, modified and modeled as well as downloaded content.  That's why the hobby has appeal for me personally. That being said, Im a gamer at heart, so i dont care if the models aren't perfect or have imperfections- its not why I'm in it.  Though i can appreciate people that are.

 

 

Ive been collecting for years - which is to my benefit, so i have most of the stuff I need, and only occasionally am i  tempted to get a new kit. And I do very, very well. 

 

I don't buy rules either - at least not everything I play with.  Call me a filthy amoral pirate.  I'll buy what I can afford - the BA book, always, and if i can get a mini rulebook - that.  I dont need the fluff and 300 other pages of fluff.  I want the rules.  I'm a gamer.  The majority of gamers locally have adopted this stance too.  Everyone has downloaded digi-dexs, and maybe 1 or 2 books of their own.  When a full-price codex is 1/20th of your salary, that hits hard.  So, if you're being restricted in an environment that demands "legal" and "official"  - then i feel your pain.  I just think that's backwards and to assert that the system is broken because of a requirement (that isn't really a requirement)  is maybe misdirected.

 

Take the skyhammer formation, or the Double-demi  - two of the strongest marine detachment/formations.  

 

I have pods. I have devs, I have jumpers.  I go online and DL a jpeg.  This is no effort for me.  No "pay to play" barrier.  If you didnt have jumpers, or devs to start- then sure.  I get that.   Likewise, the double demi.  50 marines and associated vehicles is hardcore.  But, again, are we talking existing players, or new ones.  

 

New ones- yes.  Huge barriers.  (But do it on the cheap).  

Old players - not as much.  You should have 80% of this stuff.. 

 

 

 

BA are definitely weaker (without a doubt) in terms of their rules.  But so what.  We as gamers group our armies as the combined set of their rules, instead of their history, their colours, their fluff, their heraldry.  Syncronised rules would be stellar.  But, they're not a requirement to play a Blood Angel army. Just a bit of imagination and investment i feel.

[appiah4]

Don't get me wrong Mort, I dont mean to judge. We are in similar boats, where I live we have no official GW coverage, few LGSs, weak currency and terrible exchange rates as well. I just choose not to resort to blac/gray market alternatives. The thing is, neither should you have to, or anyone for that matter. Making the shiny new toy desirable is an agreeable business model, but that is half the story here. GW's business model is rotten, they sell you rules and models for an army, then deliberately keep progressively proliferating options until you cannot hope to enjoyably play the game without investing further into (limited run) rule expansions, not only models. I digress though. I believe all sides to the discussion said enough, I will step back herw.