The DW venting thread

[Bryan Blaire]

They did it for the painfully obvious reason that they want to sell models.

While it is obvious that they want to sell models, unless you can provide proof that this change was actually made to do this, you are merely speculating. What you have stated is not a fact, no matter your personal belief.

 

they wanted to make all those players buy the codex

Um, they wanted all players to buy the codex, not just players of a specifically narrow portion of the army list. You actually have to buy the codex to play 7th Edition DA regardless of what you play (unless you want to violate IP laws).

 

I know it sounds like I'm complaining

Yes, yes it does.

 

but I e been playing 40K for as long over 20 years and I'm tired of my army constantly getting the short end of the very tiny stick

Same here, but you are mistaken: the DA are probably in the best place they have been in the last 15 or so years. Whether it is most powerful in the narrow way you have chosen to play them is no one's fault but your own. You could choose to expand the army you play, and it would still be an incredibly fluffy DA army (more so than the pure DW you seem focused on playing).

 

If they cared about their player base and keeping them they would have made the very few obvious fixes and left it at that.

Well, again, all we have here is a personal assertion. I certainly haven't found any comments from GW that say "We don't care about our player base, we're just here to screw you! Give us more money!" This is groundless, personal speculation.

 

For the record I'm not whining. I'm pissed.

Yes, you are whining. You are obviously also pissed. You can be both at the same time, and neither are constructive.

 

A constructive post would look more like "Well, as with all armies with each new edition of a Codex, my DW needs a tweak. Here's what I'll be doing:

Is there anything I might have missed, or other ways folks can see to run this instead?"

 

-----------------------------

 

Seriously folks, we are all here to support the mission of the B&C, to constructively discuss our collective hobby and support each other in a similar fashion (and if you are here and say you don't want to do these things, then perhaps it is time to go back over the Forum mission and see if it still something you can support). Tearing into any portion of the hobby doesn't do any of that. I realize people have frustrations, but letting them get the better of you, divorcing yourself away from parts of the hobby simply because you don't like what has been done, rather than because you don't like that part of the hobby, and are trying to force it to be something it isn't doesn't harm anyone or anything but your personal hobby enjoyment. Expand your hobby horizons some, learn to enjoy new things, shift and flow, but don't let yourself become bitter because things have changed. That is simply all life, and we grow, even in the hobby, my learning to move and adapt.

[aura_enchanted]

 

 

 

Because I am tired of people whining that something cannot be done even though it is obvious that it CAN be done.

 

Legally.

 

Just the way it used to be. Just not in a force org chart.

 

The game has changed. It has been like this for two editions now. The only thing stopping you is pride and an inability to see that the designers want them to work this way. I don't know WHY the designers want it this way but the FAQ shows that whining isn't going to change it back so just accept it and get on with purging the unclean.

 

Work this angst out on the xenos. Lord knows there are enough of them.

Actually, no. We already stated about it being an issue of tourneys and some people refuse to play against unbound. We have been able to do all Deathwing legal army since the 2nd ed codex.

Also, these detachments are meant to be able to be played by themselves and this one is not.

But there is no need to be a dick to people about it in a civil discussion.

 

yes but the deathwing almosty never go it alone, like almost never in fact the deathwing have probably deployed as a dedicated fighting force on only the rarest of occassions probbly a dozen times since the heresy.

 

one cannot justify it fluffily for the deathwing to be a dedictaed army. their meant as the second half of the hunter killer team that is the 1st and 2nd companies the ravenwing find, the deathwing kill this has been there way since time imemorial

 

It is actually Fluffy and it's been part of the rules for every edition there has been a codex for DA, till now. The Detachments are meant to be played by themselves and this appears to be the only one that you can't do that with.

 

in the rules =/= in the lore books i challenge you to find an occurence of them deploying as an enitre unit alone on a battlefield. go i want you to track it down in the current codex or in a work of fiction from black library take all the time you want, you will probably never leave your first hand.

 

using the expanded range of codecies you will potentially reach the 2nd hand but not leave it

 

not in the fluff my friend at all, just because something is in rules doesnt make it fluffy

[ValourousHeart]

 

 

 

Because I am tired of people whining that something cannot be done even though it is obvious that it CAN be done.

 

Legally.

 

Just the way it used to be. Just not in a force org chart.

 

The game has changed. It has been like this for two editions now. The only thing stopping you is pride and an inability to see that the designers want them to work this way. I don't know WHY the designers want it this way but the FAQ shows that whining isn't going to change it back so just accept it and get on with purging the unclean.

 

Work this angst out on the xenos. Lord knows there are enough of them.

Actually, no. We already stated about it being an issue of tourneys and some people refuse to play against unbound. We have been able to do all Deathwing legal army since the 2nd ed codex.

Also, these detachments are meant to be able to be played by themselves and this one is not.

But there is no need to be a dick to people about it in a civil discussion.

 

yes but the deathwing almosty never go it alone, like almost never in fact the deathwing have probably deployed as a dedicated fighting force on only the rarest of occassions probbly a dozen times since the heresy.

 

one cannot justify it fluffily for the deathwing to be a dedictaed army. their meant as the second half of the hunter killer team that is the 1st and 2nd companies the ravenwing find, the deathwing kill this has been there way since time imemorial

 

It is actually Fluffy and it's been part of the rules for every edition there has been a codex for DA, till now. The Detachments are meant to be played by themselves and this appears to be the only one that you can't do that with.

 

 

I disagree... the belief that it is fluffy to run DW as a stand alone army stems from an incomplete understanding of this games history.

 

In second edition EVERY MARINE CODEX could field ALL TDA or ALL BIKE armies... DA was not unique in that regard.

What made each codex unique was the back story, archetype and the squad given veteran status.... for DA that was the hunt for the fallen, monks with a dark secret and our bike squads.

The stories back then hinted at the synergy between the different companies.

 

Third edition came about and all aspects of synergy went out the window.

You had 3 choices of how to play given the rules.

1 - GW with the choice to take black and/or white

2 - White only

3 - Black only

 

Fourth came out and the synergy was back... however people didn't want to buy new stuff or change the way they played so they kept the same army they had in 3rd and shoehorned it into 4th.

 

Now we are in seventh and GW has finally put their foot down on the synergy topic.

Their vision of the army is all of the elements working together.

[Master Avoghai]

Seriously folks, we are all here to support the mission of the B&C, to constructively discuss our collective hobby and support each other in a similar fashion (and if you are here and say you don't want to do these things, then perhaps it is time to go back over the Forum mission and see if it still something you can support). Tearing into any portion of the hobby doesn't do any of that. I realize people have frustrations, but letting them get the better of you, divorcing yourself away from parts of the hobby simply because you don't like what has been done, rather than because you don't like that part of the hobby, and are trying to force it to be something it isn't doesn't harm anyone or anything but your personal hobby enjoyment. Expand your hobby horizons some, learn to enjoy new things, shift and flow, but don't let yourself become bitter because things have changed. That is simply all life, and we grow, even in the hobby, my learning to move and ada

Don't be mistaken here, I'm really happy with this codex which is IMO, the best we ever had so far, wether in term of power and diversity in term of units playable. I'm not saying that this codex is the worse we've had just because of that. That's an issue, we had some, we resolved some. I'm just questionning the intent of the game conceptors, cos I don't understand the logic.

 

-It cannot be for introducing a new way to play termis as the detachment works 99% like the redemption force formation that is in the same codex.

-It cannot be for greed, because it makes peiple buy 45€ boxsets of terminators rather than 60€ Land Raiders

-It creates a detachment that it is not usable by itself and require another formation/detachment to work (hence doesn't follow the logic of simplification GW tries to introduce for 2 years now)

 

 

So when I see that they managed to forgot an entire sentence like ... or a character on a space marine bike, I tend to think they can also forget the part between brackets in The units of this formation [that are kept in reserve] must be placed in deep strike reserve... ;)

 

And they didn't notice because it was less obvious than giving 3HQ options with only one ravenwing HQ

 

That's the only a explanation I have and I find it far more logical than the "conceptors' will"

[Harleqvin]

 

 

 

 

Because I am tired of people whining that something cannot be done even though it is obvious that it CAN be done.

 

Legally.

 

Just the way it used to be. Just not in a force org chart.

 

The game has changed. It has been like this for two editions now. The only thing stopping you is pride and an inability to see that the designers want them to work this way. I don't know WHY the designers want it this way but the FAQ shows that whining isn't going to change it back so just accept it and get on with purging the unclean.

 

Work this angst out on the xenos. Lord knows there are enough of them.

Actually, no. We already stated about it being an issue of tourneys and some people refuse to play against unbound. We have been able to do all Deathwing legal army since the 2nd ed codex.

Also, these detachments are meant to be able to be played by themselves and this one is not.

But there is no need to be a dick to people about it in a civil discussion.

 

yes but the deathwing almosty never go it alone, like almost never in fact the deathwing have probably deployed as a dedicated fighting force on only the rarest of occassions probbly a dozen times since the heresy.

 

one cannot justify it fluffily for the deathwing to be a dedictaed army. their meant as the second half of the hunter killer team that is the 1st and 2nd companies the ravenwing find, the deathwing kill this has been there way since time imemorial

 

It is actually Fluffy and it's been part of the rules for every edition there has been a codex for DA, till now. The Detachments are meant to be played by themselves and this appears to be the only one that you can't do that with.

 

in the rules =/= in the lore books i challenge you to find an occurence of them deploying as an enitre unit alone on a battlefield. go i want you to track it down in the current codex or in a work of fiction from black library take all the time you want, you will probably never leave your first hand.

 

using the expanded range of codecies you will potentially reach the 2nd hand but not leave it

 

not in the fluff my friend at all, just because something is in rules doesnt make it fluffy

 

In the army books it talks about how they have been used as a single detachment (not in the RULES section saying they can be fielded, but in the fluff/lore section of the codex.) It doesn't matter that it is in the codex. That is still a part of fluff/Lore, even if they haven't heavily shown it in the novels. It's been talked about a few times in White Dwarf magazine (pre weekly version. I have actually picked up quite a few of the old old WD because of the fluff/lore in them about the DA.)

It's been a staple for DA since their first codex (and yes in that book it says about how they have been used as a pure force. Usually only against very powerful/hated foes.) It makes no sense to remove something that is entrenched in the lore of DA.

 

 

So to get back on topic, yes, The errata/FAQ should have something to adjust this so that a pure DW army can be done inside of Battle-forged list, and it is annoying that they seem to not have something about that in it (as it appears to be the actual FAQ/Errata for actual 7th ed DA codex.)

 

 

[Ipos]

You still have that option...  its called Unbound.

 

I know you dont want to do it and some places dont allow it but it is a major facet of the new ruleset. (actually a facet of 6th edition..)  Just as well say you dont allow buildings at your tournaments because they didnt used to have them, only hills and woods...

So I said 

 

"One of the unique aspects of DA are the three different wings. I wanted a way to play pure DW in a bound army."

 

Unbound is not an answer.

 

And who are you to dictate others tournament rules?

 

 

[Bryan Blaire]

Unbound is not an answer.

Sure it is, and a more valid statement than "Don't give me an answer that includes a valid rule."

 

The real question is who are these tournament organizers to be cutting official rules out of the game arbitrarily? Surely the game creators have more jurisdiction to determine what can or can't be useable rules than someone completely out of the blue...

 

BTW, definition of arbitrary:

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.

 

The decision to cut out a rule definitely falls into #2, and basically hits #1 as well.

[shabbadoo]

You still have that option... its called Unbound.

I know you dont want to do it and some places dont allow it but it is a major facet of the new ruleset. (actually a facet of 6th edition..) Just as well say you dont allow buildings at your tournaments because they didnt used to have them, only hills and woods...

So I said

"One of the unique aspects of DA are the three different wings. I wanted a way to play pure DW in a bound army."

Unbound is not an answer.

And who are you to dictate others tournament rules?

Where did he dictate anything? He's merely criticizing tournament organizers who do not allow Unbound lists, an option which GW very purposely included in the core rule book to do exactly what you and anyone else might want to do with their army list. Unbound is not just very much an answer, it is THE answer. People could just as easily be criticizing a tournament dictate such as:

"1. NO DETACHMENTS/FORMATIONS, EXCEPT Combined Arms Detachments!!! (i.e. NO FREE RULES/MODELS LISTS YOU BEARD-CHEESE DOUCHE BAGS!!!)"

Then people would be complaining that the CAD doesn't allow them to do enough, and blame GW for it rather than tournament organizers who very purposely chose to screw them over by stating, "See these Formations/Detachments in the core rulebook/your codex? Yeah, Well #$@! YOU! YOU CAN'T USE THEM!" Then tournament players would of course be all, like, "GW sucks ARSE! They need to expand the CAD in the next errata/FAQ so that the TROOPS section is 0+ and the other sections are unlimited so as to cater to the tiny percentage of people who play in tournaments!" It would totally happen just that way.

At least point your finger at the guilty party (hint: it isn't GW, who covered their bases completely so far as army construction is concerned).

[Isiah]

[...]

 

The real question is who are these tournament organizers to be cutting official rules out of the game arbitrarily? Surely the game creators have more jurisdiction to determine what can or can't be useable rules than someone completely out of the blue...

 

[/...].

Maybe tourney organisers recognise, like a lot of us, that official or not, unbound is the route to potentially beyond-cheese combination army builds where win at all costs is more important than anything else. And is easier to do.

 

In anything creative, such as list-building is, it's more challlenging to have a set of parameters set to work within. I bet anyone could build a tourney-winning unbound list.

 

Tourney organisers are totally free to set whatever rules they want to that they think would produce as level a playing field that is possible in 40K (which with Codex creep is hard enough anyways).

 

So leave tourney organisers out of it.

 

And you are forgetting that 40K rules are written by a company that are primarily in the business of selling models, and more models, and yet more models. Their primary consideration is not that of creating an even playing field.

 

What better way of throwing in the towel to let 'anything goes' than to invent unbound? An architecture that until this edition we have managed very well without :)

[Master Avoghai]

 

[...]

 

The real question is who are these tournament organizers to be cutting official rules out of the game arbitrarily? Surely the game creators have more jurisdiction to determine what can or can't be useable rules than someone completely out of the blue...

 

[/...].

Maybe tourney organisers recognise, like a lot of us, that official or not, unbound is the route to potentially beyond-cheese combination army builds where win at all costs is more important than anything else.

 

And you are forgetting that 40K rules are written by a company that are primarily in the business of selling models, and more models, and more models.

 

What better way of throwing in the towel to let 'anything goes' than to invent unbound? An architecture that until this edition we have managed very well without :)

Yup people used to discuss before and getting agree on an army list if it didn't respect strictly the army composition. Campaign Masters used to create specific limitations to represent particular events.... So people used to play unbound in very specific case.

 

But the guy who broke the rules had to ask for allowance. Which was nice and prevented abuse.

 

The problem was : the kid who bought a riptide, an imperial knight and any otherbigtobotohmygodmumineedthisonenaaaoooo couldn't play them in store hence rapidly stop to "play" and therefore to buy those expensive kits.

 

So they created unbound. (Note btw that it also allowed them to spend less time creating rules and army since if they did a mistake they could always reply "then go unbound" rather to correct the error.

 

Hence they inverted the concept : it is the one refusing to play unbound that is suspicious.

 

What make the salt of the game is creating a list and manage to create something that fits into limitations. That's a part of the pleasure for lots of us. Unbound kinda negate this pleasure.

 

Unbound is not a solution. It's a opportunity for a newbie to discover the playing rules and handle with them before discovering the pre-game rules. It's an opportunity for a campaign master to create special scenarios (and still, generally he'll create other limitation like "no more model with more than 2W" etc..)

 

Unbound should be consider like an opportunity, not a solution.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

The FAQ thread was getting OT so anything to do with DW can be said here. Vent , let it out, say your piece before this one gets eventually closed because we all know how these threads end...

[Elios Harg]

The annoying part of the Deathwing complaints is that many people ignore the fact that the DWSF *is* usable as a stand alone detachment. It just has to be used in very specific ways. You must include dreadnoughts in drop pods and you cannot include Land Raiders or start on the board. In fact the DWSF and the DWSF have some interesting and effective synergy since you can put all of your dreads in the SF and the rest in the RS and make sure everyone is on the board by turn 2.

 

That said, it would have been nice to have the option to field Land Raiders. In fact, a simple additional line to the summoned to war stating "or deployed as normal in a dedicated transport" would have sufficed. Also, it would have allowed Ezekiel, Asmodai and Azrael to be included in Deathwing armies. Even if they said Land Raiders could be included but units in land Raiders had to deploy into standard reserves. At least the mechanized option would be there. The current restrictions makes it seem as though Deathwing never uses Land Raiders.

[Roland]

"Unbound is not the solution".

 

It is, it just begs a question: how do you balance Unbound?

 

Something like Community Comp would be the answer there.

[Elios Harg]

Unbound actually works quite well if you can find somewhere to play it that way. Unbound Knights in Land Raiders and a squadron of venerable dreadnoughts go nicely with a shooty DWRF.

[Inverse]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because I am tired of people whining that something cannot be done even though it is obvious that it CAN be done.

 

Legally.

 

Just the way it used to be. Just not in a force org chart.

 

The game has changed. It has been like this for two editions now. The only thing stopping you is pride and an inability to see that the designers want them to work this way. I don't know WHY the designers want it this way but the FAQ shows that whining isn't going to change it back so just accept it and get on with purging the unclean.

 

Work this angst out on the xenos. Lord knows there are enough of them.

Actually, no. We already stated about it being an issue of tourneys and some people refuse to play against unbound. We have been able to do all Deathwing legal army since the 2nd ed codex.

Also, these detachments are meant to be able to be played by themselves and this one is not.

But there is no need to be a dick to people about it in a civil discussion.

yes but the deathwing almosty never go it alone, like almost never in fact the deathwing have probably deployed as a dedicated fighting force on only the rarest of occassions probbly a dozen times since the heresy.

 

one cannot justify it fluffily for the deathwing to be a dedictaed army. their meant as the second half of the hunter killer team that is the 1st and 2nd companies the ravenwing find, the deathwing kill this has been there way since time imemorial

It is actually Fluffy and it's been part of the rules for every edition there has been a codex for DA, till now. The Detachments are meant to be played by themselves and this appears to be the only one that you can't do that with.

in the rules =/= in the lore books i challenge you to find an occurence of them deploying as an enitre unit alone on a battlefield. go i want you to track it down in the current codex or in a work of fiction from black library take all the time you want, you will probably never leave your first hand.

 

using the expanded range of codecies you will potentially reach the 2nd hand but not leave it

 

not in the fluff my friend at all, just because something is in rules doesnt make it fluffy

 

In the first chapter of master of sanctity the DW go in alone and they comment on it multiple times.

 

They first say "wish ravenwing was here to scout for us" and then critize Sammy for not finishing the fight on Pascina.

 

They also mention in that chapter that when a situation is too dangerous for normal dark angels the deathwing go in alone and show them how its done.

 

I don't know how you can be so adamant it is not in the fluff tlat all that DW go in alone. The whole point of the first company is they will go in and deal with situations involving the fallen to protect the ignorance of their brothers in the rest of the 9 companies.

[Canadian_F_H]

Don't you mean the other 8 companies? The raven wing are aware of the existence of the fallen also, are they not?

[Brother dean]

SOME of the RW.... The Black Knights do....

[Chaplain Lucifer]

I will try to be pragmatic and objective.

 

1. We can play pure DW through a DWSF or DWSF+DWRF

2. We can play pure DW through Unbound.. It's not Unbound as in taking 6 Riptides, so with permissive opponents we can do it... and maybe in some tournaments.

 

So, that established, what did we lose from in version to another of DW?

Previously we could foot-slog it from turn 1 and we could mechanize DW, now we can't. That's two losses there, no dispute.

What did we gain? New special rule run: shoot and run. Not having to take Belial as mandatory. Two gains there.

Verdict? Tied, although it can be disputed that the losses hurt more than the gains.

 

But let's take a look at the big picture. We "lost" DW Land Raiders and foot-slogging turn 1, but compare it with what we don't have from other Space Marines that could be a great tool in our arsenal like Centurions, Sternguard and Vanguard vets, Thunderfire Cannons, Storm talons, Ironclad dreads, and many others. Does the loss of a DW style of play can compare not having those models in our arsenal?

But we never had them, some might say, so they don't count as losses. But remember you are complaining about being limited on how you play DW and not having access to so many units is also limiting and to a greater degree.

What about the single biggest loss of DW, that transcends any other? The ability to take a second heavy weapon in a squad of 5 men. That does more than limit the style of play, that limits the power of the army itself! Why are people complaining so much about having to play DW in different terms then they were used to, when we lost a second heavy weapon and moved on, having to make do?

Why can't we do it also now, accepting that DW armies in the current codex are limited to a style of play.

How many of us complaining actually played a DWSF? How many even played pure DW? Are we just complaining for the sake of complaining because sense of loss or is it totally legitimate?

Just stop and think if the matter is not being blown out of proportion, because we changed in the past and the future will also bring change. If you play a GW game, don't get attached to what you can do, because it will always change, sometimes for better, some for worse.

[Inverse]

Don't you mean the other 8 companies? The raven wing are aware of the existence of the fallen also, are they not?

Only those who have completed the seven rites of raven such as the black knights.

[Brother dean]

At least we aren't having to rip arms off due to weapon option losses...

[Canadian_F_H]

 

Don't you mean the other 8 companies? The raven wing are aware of the existence of the fallen also, are they not?

Only those who have completed the seven rites of raven such as the black knights.

Thanks for the clarification. So it's all dw, most senior officers, and the uppermost echelon of the 2nd company.

[SvenONE]

What strikes me about this whole situation is:  Why GW did this in the first place?  They sort of had a nice thing going with the 6th edition codex rules.  While they moved away from FOC changing options game-wide, there doesn't strike me as anything that is inherently gamebreaking when it comes to running an all terminator list.  After all, there IS a codex that is predicated on such a concept.  This game overall I don't find particularly favors terminators to begin with, so allowing an all terminator army doesn't sound all that bad.  I always asserted that DW lists didn't win because of terminators, they won because of Deathwing Vehicle bearing Land Raiders, seemingly indestructible Landraiders that delivered relatively unharmed terminators to where they needed to be.  But in a game full of high volume high strength shooting, I don't see a problem with the tradeoff.  I rarely saw DW games be lopsided for the DW player (including myself the few times I ran it).

 

If you as a game developer writes a rule like the Unbound detachment, this says to me as a player of the game and a customer: I don't really care how you play, just play.  So why go out and write a formation or detachment as restrictive as the DWRF or DWSF? Knowing what the previous DWA rule was, this tells me that the developers sat down and willfully acknowledged that there was something so wrong about Land Raiders or Turn 1 DS in a DW formation that it needed to be removed.  I haven't played enough DW in this edition  to really determine whether it would be that strong, but my gut feeling says it wouldn't given the fact it's still an expensive army to run.

 

Even as a commercial expedition this doesn't make sense to me as allowing DW players to bring Land Raiders would mean that a prospective DW player would entertain the notion of buying, building, and painting Land Raiders.

 

I tell you what, I'd like to see a community project in which we write (and somehow agree) on a B&C Unofficial DW formation that doesn't feel too strong, but has the tactical flexibility of old.

[shabbadoo]

The Deathwing go in "by themselves" only a few times, but it is not a problem because the rules cater to that very thing (among others).  The only problem I see is that the Deathwing Formation and Detachment are too similar in content, rules, and purpose. One should have been the "Deepstrikes in on Turn 2, 3, or 4 in support of other forces" list, and the other should have been a "Deathwing Company" list, complete with Land Raiders and Venerable Dreadnought Squadrons, and with options for regular deployment, Deepstrike deployment, or a combination of the two.  In fact, there could have just been one Formation that did this very thing, and it could be turned into the support Formations we have simply by leaving out the units that are required to deploy normally.  Instead, somebody thought about it too much and mucked it up.  Still doesn't mean we can't field a proper list though, but the Formation could have been more simple, more elegant, and yet cover everything.

[Isiah]

 

I tell you what, I'd like to see a community project in which we write (and somehow agree) on a B&C Unofficial DW formation that doesn't feel too strong, but has the tactical flexibility of old.

There is one ongoing here: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/317292-dw-formation-detachment-creation/?do=findComment&comment=4256581

 

Cheers

I

[Isiah]

How many of us complaining actually played a DWSF? How many even played pure DW? Are we just complaining for the sake of complaining because sense of loss or is it totally legitimate?

Just stop and think if the matter is not being blown out of proportion, because we changed in the past and the future will also bring change. If you play a GW game, don't get attached to what you can do, because it will always change, sometimes for better, some for worse.

While I sympathise with this view and agree that GW can essentially do what they want with their game, it doesn't stop the need to stop think 'why' this done.

 

After all, no way were our pure DW armies overpowered. Are we thinking that GW are very thoughtfully saving us from ourselves from the folly of using such a force in non-unbound environment?

 

I'm only surprised a topic like this hasn't popped up before (I really am very out of touch here and feel very rusty).

 

I'll post more later. I'm now taking my son off to rugby training ^_^.