News:

For the most up to date reports about what is going on with the forum, and the latest topics of interest, throw us a like on Facebook, and if you're wanting some light banter with the seasoned and spiced members, join the Second Sphere Members Group.

Main Menu

GW's Latest Release Plan

Started by Chris, March 05, 2014, 11:36:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

CoffeeGrunt

And their Transport can convert Penetrations to Glances on a 2+. Lots of nasty tricks in that Codex.
The only constant in the universe is change; the Wise adapt.

The Man They Call Jayne

Don't get me get me started on the Waveserpent. I consider it to be one of the most broken things in all of 40k. Mainly because of that damn shield gun that you can make TL for minimal points.
Jaynes Awesome Card Counter: +5

Secondspheres Crash Card Counter +4



CoffeeGrunt

Firing the Shield is stupid, and shouldn't really be a feature.

I was talking to my friend who's started Eldar, and we decided that turning Penetrations to Glances on a 2+ isn't so bad. It's a pretty expensive Transport carrying very fragile units. If it blew up it'd tear the squad inside apart, so it makes sense for it to be durable enough to carry them. It's easy enough to Glance AV12 to death anyway.
The only constant in the universe is change; the Wise adapt.

The Man They Call Jayne

I would agree but given its weapons, it is more a tank that can carry troops than an armed transport. It will always have a Jink save as well on top of the almost impossible to glace thing. For what it can do, it is pretty cheap.
Jaynes Awesome Card Counter: +5

Secondspheres Crash Card Counter +4



Narric

The Shield Gun is a bit of a strange addition. The Range and Str make no sense as a wave becomes weaker the further it gets from the source. Pinning and Ignores cover make sense however, as the enemy would be blown of their feet (or at least could). It wouldn't be so bad in my opinion is it was only 12" and Str 4, is it would essentially be a Defensive weapon, allowing the Wave Serpent a chance to relocate to safety.

Looking at the Wargear, I'm now surprised at how many weapons have the "Roll 6, the target takes a wound" special rule. Just going by Distort and Bladestorm I might as well just load up with Guardians with Shurikan Cannons, Warlocks, Vypers, and Support Batterys, just to spam the shit out of Distort and Bladestorm.

The Man They Call Jayne

Pretty much. Max out your troops with Guardians and Guardian Jetbikes and out manuver anything, take a few Wave Serpents if you need to and then a few big guns in cover.
Jaynes Awesome Card Counter: +5

Secondspheres Crash Card Counter +4



CoffeeGrunt

Distort's nastier. Instant Death on a 6 with an AP2 Flamer is just horrible, and on a durable platform to boot!
The only constant in the universe is change; the Wise adapt.

Irisado

There are some worryingly unsubstantiated claims being put forward in this thread, but first let me answer this:

Quote from: CoffeeGrunt on March 05, 2014, 09:55:27 PM
What do you want GW to release? Seriously, what the hell is there they can do to please you? They release kits of much loved minis from their early days, recast in some pretty sexy detail, fully posable from the waist up, with rules that lets them slot into the game if you want them to.

I would like them to stop changing the rules all the time, to stop introducing units that are too big for the game, and instead to actually promote large vehicles in units in a game where they will work properly because the scale will be suitable, in other words, Epic.  All these super heavies, knights, and titans do not fit in regular games of 40K, and nor do flyers.  They're all out of scale, and their rules cannot reflect their true abilities as a result.

Now on to my concerns about some of the claims:

QuoteHow about this, if you don't like it, don't buy it. There's clearly other people out there who are buying and loving these, and 90% of them are hobbyists.

How do you know ninety percent of them are hobbyists?  Have you asked everyone who has bought one?  Has someone done a statistical analysis from which you can draw that conclusion?  If they have, could you please provide a link, because I haven't come across such a source, and I'm curious.

QuoteIt's quite clearly designed for nostalgic oldies and people who love modelling to have fun with, and hell, if you wanna you can play it on the table. What's wrong with that?

Is it?  I've seen new and experienced gamers wanting to buy these in discussion across various internet forums, so again, what do you base this assumption on?

What's wrong with it is nothing at all.  However, there's also nothing wrong with saying that these large units are a bad idea for 40K.  Different opinions and all that :).  I don't see how trying to frame the discussion in terms of 'right' or 'wrong' is helpful to anyone.

Quote from: Deraj on March 05, 2014, 10:57:40 PM
This. GW are doing everything that everyone wanted 5 years ago.

That everyone wanted?  Are you sure about that?  Have you asked everyone who plays the game what they wanted?  If so, again, I'd love to see a source whereby such a wide range of responses in favour of GW's current policy has been given to support the assumption that everyone wants Imperial Knights, super heavies, and lots of supplements.

QuoteNo one plays Armageddon, and don't blame gw for that. They stopped selling because no one was playing it, not the other way around.

Before being turned into Epic 40K.  Epic was GW's third core game.  The big mistake they made was to change it to Epic 40K without enough explanation, good quality marketing, or justification as to why this was necessary.  That was the major, albeit not sole, factor in the demise of Epic.  On that basis, it's actually possible to apportion blame to GW.  The current iteration of Epic is still played, and by a reasonably significant number of people too, so it's untrue to claim that nobody plays it.

QuoteThe game isn't devolving, it's just becoming more and more cinematic and less flat and boring like chess or the 'balanced because everything is the same' 3rd edition.

Third edition wasn't balanced in any shape or form.  I'm sure that some here will remember the Blood Angels and Rhino rush to name but two problems we had back then.

I don't see how sixth edition is any more cinematic than previous editions.  Whether something is cinematic is all down to the imagination and perception of individual players.  You could have cinematic games of Rogue Trader just using infantry.  I have fond memories of my first ever game when I was nine or ten of my Orks trying to take the farm from my dad's Space Marines in the original Battle for the Farm scenario.  That was cinematic to me, so I really don't understand your point at all I'm afraid.
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

CoffeeGrunt

Irasado, your post basically boils down to, "not everyone wants this, so I'm gonig to argue against it."

The options are now there for those who want it. The beautiful, fantastic, amazing thing about options is that no-one is forcing you to take them. Don't like? Don't do.

QuoteAll these super heavies, knights, and titans do not fit in regular games of 40K, and nor do flyers.

Superheavies don't, that's why you play Escalation if you want them. Also, Fliers aren't even that bad.
The only constant in the universe is change; the Wise adapt.

Irisado

#24
Quote from: CoffeeGrunt on March 07, 2014, 01:55:46 PM
Irasado, your post basically boils down to, "not everyone wants this, so I'm gonig to argue against it."

I'm arguing against it, because I disagree with it.  As part of that disagreement, I  challenged a series of assumptions that have been made in this thread, and you didn't address those points which I made.

QuoteThe options are now there for those who want it. The beautiful, fantastic, amazing thing about options is that no-one is forcing you to take them. Don't like? Don't do.

I don't feel compelled into using units which I don't want to, on that issue we're in agreement; however, those of us who don't think that these units fit into what 40K is supposed to be can give that opinion.  There's nothing wrong with holding a different view.

GW does some things I like and it does some things that I don't like.  I was positive about sixth edition initially, but the more that they add to it, the less keen I am on the direction in which they're taking 40K.

QuoteSuperheavies don't, that's why you play Escalation if you want them. Also, Fliers aren't even that bad.

Escalation is still the wrong scale for superheavies.  The board area isn't large enough for such large vehicles.  The rules for flyers are extremely clunky, because they're designed for a playing area that's too small for them.  I think that you may have assumed that I was referring to power level, I wasn't, and I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.  The problem for me is size and scale.
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

CoffeeGrunt

The only constant in the universe is change; the Wise adapt.

Irisado

That doesn't answer the points I've put to you at all.  I'm not discussing whether they should or shouldn't be used.  I'm talking about whether they actually are a good fit for the game at this scale.  I'm also still waiting for an answer to the questions I asked you earlier.

It would be great to have a discussion about this, but if you don't want one, just say so :).
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Narric

I'm afraid that I must agree with Irisado, CoffeeGrunt. She has given plenty of valid arguments and you are simple passing them off with a literal "Don't like? Don't do" response. If you feel you have made your point and do not wish to go further with the discussion then do say so, but don't just respond with "Don't play them, then." when someone says they don't like a unit or codex.

Irisado

Note that I'm also happy to be proved wrong.  If someone has a good argument as to why I've got the wrong end of the stick, so to speak, then I'm more than willing to listen to it.  I'm not someone who rants against GW, as I said earlier, I like some things that they've done, and dislike others, I'm just very unconvinced by the growing tide of old Epic stuff being converted to 40K, but maybe that's just because I play Epic.
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

CoffeeGrunt

The reason I'm not replying is that I'm tired of arguing this over the internet. Blame Bell of Lost Souls, it's incessant over there.

Yes okay, I personally have not played Superheavies, and have no plans to. This is mostly because of Tau's pretty mediocre selection, and partly because they don't seem worth it for the points. If someone else were to offer a game with Superheavies in their army, I'd plan, but with a few conditions on what type of weapons they field, etc, etc.

As far as, "do they fit on the table," I dunno. Nids can choke a table pretty easy nowadays, and we were planning an event where 4 players take 500pts of units, and another plays 2K of Plague Zombies, before realising that it was impossible to fit in the deployment zone.

I personally don't see the problem with the options, models and rules being there. Hell, one day I might field the Orca Dropship list I talked about for a while, because it'd be a fun, cinematic list that I'd love to play once I got something approximating a UNSC Pelican to proxy the Orca as. Is it bad that I have that option in a standard 40K game? The Orca's a bit laughable for 3000pts, really, even by Codex standards. Hell, the 520pt Tigershark brings the same weapon as a 130pt Barracuda. It's just twin-linked and more durable...

Is the game going down the pan? No, it's better than ever. You just need to have a good group to say, "hey, how about we all talk over this, we look at Forge World, but we agree not to take it too far." That's what we do here, and it's working well.

To be honest, the main reason I didn't argue against your points, was that you presented opinion as fact. There's no point me saying that your personal preference for Epic is wrong, it obviously isn't, but nor is it more right than playing the current 40K as it stands now. It felt very much like a YouTube comments argument, there's no quantifiable science behind "this is fun, this isn't." Hence why I couldn't really make an argument on that basis.

What were my "statistics" based on? My local store, where the Knights flew off the shelves, but everyone's been so busy painting them since. Not slapping them on the table with one arm glued on, painting. On the internet, it seems more people are talking about the technical progress GW have made with it, how articulate it is, and that sounds pretty awesome.

I just don't see why less choice is a valid argument. If you can't stand in front of a buffet table without clearing the thing, that's the fault of the client, not the buffet provider...
The only constant in the universe is change; the Wise adapt.