[RUMOUR] Blood Angels poster faction for 11th

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

12 hours ago, Karhedron said:

That is your definition of needless bloat. GW seem perfectly happy with the arrangement of mono-loadout squads that they can price individually rather than a single squad with variably priced wargear. That is the reason I don't expect to see any consolidation, it would require a complete 180 from a design paradigm that GW seem quite content with.

My desperate hope is that when GW finally exaust every weapon/armour mark marine comination, they will graciously combine datasheets. I'm thinking 20th Edition. 

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

Yeah I mentioned it above, they've definitely realised the current system isn't working.

Praise the emperor. Getting granular with wargear points was a great source of fun for me when I couldn't be doing actual hobby i.e. sat at my desk at work... Like I am now...

[Orange Knight]

13 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

They're on record on warhammer tv stating they understand that the current system doesn't work and some options are simply not comparable and need a cost. They note sisters with a multimelta as an example in comparison to a heavy bolter.

 

So no, I don't believe it's impossible that they can course correct to some degree.

 

Hmmm that's interesting. The old system didn't work either, it should be said - they've never achieved a balance of points vs performance for wargear, and what is best changes often - which actually punished the hobbyists that make the most effort to correctly equip all their units.

 

Does anyone remember the rush to equip all Marine squads with Grav Weapons during 6th and 7th editions? Ripping those Las Cannons off models, looking for bits on ebay, etc.

Honestly I would just prefer it if they stuck to units with a singular loadout, with som minimal variation. I am so happy that Eradicators just have the Melta Rifles and Multi Melta, and that Hellblasters just have the Plasma Rifles, etc

[Mogger351]

37 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

Hmmm that's interesting. The old system didn't work either, it should be said - they've never achieved a balance of points vs performance for wargear, and what is best changes often - which actually punished the hobbyists that make the most effort to correctly equip all their units.

 

Does anyone remember the rush to equip all Marine squads with Grav Weapons during 6th and 7th editions? Ripping those Las Cannons off models, looking for bits on ebay, etc.

Honestly I would just prefer it if they stuck to units with a singular loadout, with som minimal variation. I am so happy that Eradicators just have the Melta Rifles and Multi Melta, and that Hellblasters just have the Plasma Rifles, etc

Yeah but that doesn't really work outside of marines for a great many factions.

[Karhedron]

42 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Does anyone remember the rush to equip all Marine squads with Grav Weapons during 6th and 7th editions? Ripping those Las Cannons off models, looking for bits on ebay, etc.

 

Yup, and then in 8th edition Thunder Hammers were all the rage. Then they got superseded by Power Fists in 9th and so it went on. The thing is that was largely a Marine phenomenon because of their tactical flexibility. Other armies like Eldar have had squads equipped with special weapons for years so there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept.

[Evil Eye]

Conversely, as a Tyranid fan, the obliteration of options over the years has made me a bit sad, and no wargear prices makes accomodating them basically impossible. Which is a great pity; I remember Tyranid Warriors could be anything from fairly affordable heavy assault infantry or gun platforms to absolute murder machines who still punched above their substantial points costs. Instant death immunity and access to rending and assault blast weapons really made them awesome.

 

As for the meta chasing issue, aside from my general belief that meta chasing is a mistake and you should equip your models based on what you like, it's definitely not helped by GW incessantly changing everything at the drop of a hat and rules not staying current for more than a few months. If there was any degree of stability and balance changes were incremental and slight, such that the game stayed mostly the same with very minor adjustments, it wouldn't be a problem, as any patches wouldn't be major enough to completely turn the meta on its head (to the point you could even relegate points changes to an optional document for tournament play, making it clear that for casual or friendly games the initial printed points take priority as the default). But given even the core rules have been massively changed compared to launch and books are now massively out of date within weeks of release, the meta is too volatile to reasonably prepare for, to say nothing of the futility of these constant revisions given that within hours of a patch going live, the system will be busted wide open and exploits discovered anyway.

[Orange Knight]

38 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

As for the meta chasing issue, aside from my general belief that meta chasing is a mistake and you should equip your models based on what you like.

 

Never going to be an issue if the unit has a single option that it's built to take advantage of.
I always like to point out that having an army with lots of specialised units can actually be more tactical and varied than having a bunch of generalists with some superficial weapon customisation.

 

I completely understand that people like to customise their units. GW can definitely do more in terms of visual customisation and ways to make each model look more unique. We all know how many complaints we had about the new Sanuinary Guard due to the repeat poses.

 

[Evil Eye]

29 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Never going to be an issue if the unit has a single option that it's built to take advantage of.

But I don't want monobuild hyper-specialized units. I want heavy customization. Not every army should be "Oops! All Aspect Warriors!".

[Karhedron]

I don't think that the meta churn is as bad as people make out unless you play at tournament level (which most people don't). I have been playing at my local club all edition and my Marine armies have not changed greatly.  My Blood Angels remain focused on jump infantry and melee. My Space Wolves are a mechanised force with melee and close-range fire support as backup. Despite the various changes, my win rate has not changed radically. Most armies have been sitting in the 45-55% with rate bracket for about a year now so for most games, the meta feels more balanced than I can remember in years outside of the top tier  

 

My Eldar are slightly different and have taken a substantial nerf. But I don't mind as they were brokenly overpowered at the start of 10th. It was so bad that I stopped playing them as it was not fun to curb stomp opponents like that.

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

11 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

I don't think that the meta churn is as bad as people make out unless you play at tournament level (which most people don't).

Big agree. Tournament play should really not have as much influence as it does. I have to laugh at people complaining about "the current state of 40K" and their main gripes are things like "I hate L shaped ruins!". Like, Bro, you set up your own table do whatever you want? There are no terrain police that spring out from under the table when a 40k game starts.

[Karhedron]

22 minutes ago, ChapterMasterGodfrey said:

Tournament play should really not have as much influence as it does.

 

I do quite like GW using tournament data to balance the game because a game that is well balanced for top tier play will inherently be better for casual players too. I do agree that some things like terrain layouts are a bit prescriptive for casual play though. 

[Marshal Reinhard]

As someone who does not mind the Primaris Hover Bricks, a 40k era Land Raider kit still sits near the top of the wish list.

 

It's just THE terminator ride, y'know?

 

[DemonGSides]

24 minutes ago, ChapterMasterGodfrey said:

Big agree. Tournament play should really not have as much influence as it does. I have to laugh at people complaining about "the current state of 40K" and their main gripes are things like "I hate L shaped ruins!". Like, Bro, you set up your own table do whatever you want? There are no terrain police that spring out from under the table when a 40k game starts.

 

It's just easier for people who don't play the game to complain about competitive stuff because that's the complaints that they can co-opt from other sources on the internet.  I think it's usually pretty obvious when someone complains about 10th when they haven't actually played the game since either the start of the edition, or never played a game to begin with.

 

Same situation with grumblers about Legends.  Have played many games against and with Legends units, have literally never been an issue, but with the way certain people around here talk about it, you'd think people show up and beat you up if you bring anything outside of a GW printed codex.

[Mogger351]

23 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

It's just easier for people who don't play the game to complain about competitive stuff because that's the complaints that they can co-opt from other sources on the internet.  I think it's usually pretty obvious when someone complains about 10th when they haven't actually played the game since either the start of the edition, or never played a game to begin with.

 

Same situation with grumblers about Legends.  Have played many games against and with Legends units, have literally never been an issue, but with the way certain people around here talk about it, you'd think people show up and beat you up if you bring anything outside of a GW printed codex.

As a chaos knights owner, I can honestly say a unit of spindle drones is gold for sitting on an objective/corner and filling points.

[jaxom]

40 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

I do quite like GW using tournament data to balance the game because a game that is well balanced for top tier play will inherently be better for casual players too. I do agree that some things like terrain layouts are a bit prescriptive for casual play though. 

An issue any dataset like this has is correctly interpreting data for low floor, high ceiling options. I don’t know how exactly GW does their analysis for factions like this.

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

It's just easier for people who don't play the game to complain about competitive stuff because that's the complaints that they can co-opt from other sources on the internet.  I think it's usually pretty obvious when someone complains about 10th when they haven't actually played the game since either the start of the edition, or never played a game to begin with.

 

Same situation with grumblers about Legends.  Have played many games against and with Legends units, have literally never been an issue, but with the way certain people around here talk about it, you'd think people show up and beat you up if you bring anything outside of a GW printed codex.

Legends has multiple issues though. Not only are several keywords, rules, and points grotesquely out of date or non-functioning, there's the sheer audacity for GW to say we need the opponent's permission to run them. 

 

I shouldn't NEED permission to run a unit because they can't be bothered to make sure the half-assed rules are up to date. 

Edited Friday at 04:01 PM by HeadlessCross

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

I do quite like GW using tournament data to balance the game because a game that is well balanced for top tier play will inherently be better for casual players too. I do agree that some things like terrain layouts are a bit prescriptive for casual play though. 

Exactly. Casual play suffers MORE from imbalance due to someone just liking Iron Hands more to begin with. 

[jaxom]

2 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Exactly. Casual play suffers MORE from imbalance due to someone just liking Iron Hands more to begin with. 

Like long term faction loyalists getting the ups and downs?

[HeadlessCross]

5 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

Does anyone remember the rush to equip all Marine squads with Grav Weapons during 6th and 7th editions? Ripping those Las Cannons off models, looking for bits on ebay, etc.

That's why you run agnostic weapons. I bought a ton of the Volkite Culverins from FW and used them for everything from Plasma Cannons to Grav Cannons to Multi-Meltas and even Frag Cannons. As long as you're consistent with how you do loadouts, you shouldn't have a need to tear apart that many miniatures. 

 

[DemonGSides]

17 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Legends has multiple issues though. Not only are several keywords, rules, and points grotesquely out of date or non-functioning, there's the sheer audacity for GW to say we need the opponent's permission to run them. 

 

I shouldn't NEED permission to run a unit because they can't be bothered to make sure the half-assed rules are up to date. 

 

You've got a strange way of interacting with the world and I wish you luck with it going forward.

[Dudley Nightshade]

7 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

You've got a strange way of interacting with the world and I wish you luck with it going forward.

This comes across as a barb rather than addressing the point. I can see both sides of this using experience from before Legends was a thing, and it's frustrating. One of my regular opponents in 4th/5th routinely brought a Forge World flier to our games. He put a lot of effort into it, and it was a glorious model (a Thunderbolt, IIRC), so I was happy to play against it. But the rules SUCKED if you were a defender. He basically got several autocannon shots at me every turn, and my only practical choice was to take it in the rear, because shooting at fliers wasn't something my army was tooled up to do. I would have liked to have said, "please don't bring your flier". Maybe I should have.

 

From his perspective, though, he purchased a Games Workshop, official model for a large number of dollars, sunk a ton of time into building and painting it, and put the effort into building it into a productive unit in his army list. Shouldn't have have the right to bring it to every game?

[DemonGSides]

41 minutes ago, Dudley Nightshade said:

This comes across as a barb rather than addressing the point. I can see both sides of this using experience from before Legends was a thing, and it's frustrating. One of my regular opponents in 4th/5th routinely brought a Forge World flier to our games. He put a lot of effort into it, and it was a glorious model (a Thunderbolt, IIRC), so I was happy to play against it. But the rules SUCKED if you were a defender. He basically got several autocannon shots at me every turn, and my only practical choice was to take it in the rear, because shooting at fliers wasn't something my army was tooled up to do. I would have liked to have said, "please don't bring your flier". Maybe I should have.

 

From his perspective, though, he purchased a Games Workshop, official model for a large number of dollars, sunk a ton of time into building and painting it, and put the effort into building it into a productive unit in his army list. Shouldn't have have the right to bring it to every game?

 

It wasn't a barb more of a "I'm not interested in having the 'Use your words' conversation" again.  Anyone who's somewhat into talking about 10th ed has seen A) What those conversations entail and B) how they always end up, so rehashing it again is useless.

 

 

Edited Friday at 05:13 PM by DemonGSides
Can't claim I don't want the argument then immediately start arguing. NVM!

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

It wasn't a barb more of a "I'm not interested in having the 'Use your words' conversation" again.  Anyone who's somewhat into talking about 10th ed has seen A) What those conversations entail and B) how they always end up, so rehashing it again is useless.

 

 

There's a principle that it shouldn't NEED to be a conversation, simply because GW won't keep their rules updated. 

[jaxom]

[crimsondave]

5 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

It's just easier for people who don't play the game to complain about competitive stuff because that's the complaints that they can co-opt from other sources on the internet.  I think it's usually pretty obvious when someone complains about 10th when they haven't actually played the game since either the start of the edition, or never played a game to begin with.

 

Same situation with grumblers about Legends.  Have played many games against and with Legends units, have literally never been an issue, but with the way certain people around here talk about it, you'd think people show up and beat you up if you bring anything outside of a GW printed codex.

I didn’t quit playing the game at game stores because of complaints I co-opted from the internet.  Your experience =\ mine.