HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Share | 
 

 What would GW do?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1249
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: What would GW do?   Mon Jul 11 2016, 06:01

So lately I've felt that we've been spinning our wheels.

Repeating the same questions about why particular units are bad over and over again. We come to the exact same conclusions and nothing changes. That is a good thing because we are asking the very specific question: "What is the best/cheapest/Optimal way to do X" and sometimes we add: "...with constraint Y". I want to ask a very different question hoping for a very different answer: How does GW intend for me to do X.

Due to my current ranking in my local league as I have come up literally the toe of a stompa shy too many times  I've decided to finish out my season playing with this question in focus. I intend to upload detailed battle reports of all my games to the battle report section and link them in this Original post so that this thread can serve three purposes.

1. To serve as someplace to discuss how GW intends for a box of miniatures to be assembled and played. After all, these rules were expressly written with regards to the current unit boxes.
Yes almost everything was ported directly from the 5th edition codex, but lots of the things we lost because those options weren't on the sprue. Power weapons other than power swords/agonizers and bike/jump upgrades for our HQ's being prominent examples.

Lack of haywire grenades on Wyches, and changes of that nature, were adjustments made to the codex to play new-7th. That is, 7th when it dropped. I don't intend to discuss whether those are good or bad decisions, instead focusing on how GW intends for that unit-box to function. Boxes like scourges, Talos, Reavers, etc. are intended to be purchased multiple times, and Kabalites would certainly need to be bought multiple times over if only to arm trueborn.

2.  To serve as a reference for why either GW's conclusions are erroneous, or how I am no longer capable of tactically executing whatever it is they intend for me to.

3.  To serve as a linkable thread whenever people bring up how a given bad unit is viable.




To this end I will undertake this process in 2 distinct steps.

The first will be to determine roughly how I intend to build my army, that is more or less what units I will be taking.
The second is that I will optimize them per however we believe GW expects us to build them.

The list I will use will be posted in the list sub-forum and linked to [here].

I welcome any questions or suggestions on any units or particular builds of units you would like.
Back to top Go down
dumpeal
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 480
Join date : 2015-02-13
Location : Québec

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Mon Jul 11 2016, 15:18

Few very important points to remember.

First one is that what GW want is to sell the most boxes possible of the most expensive units. They are not designed to be optimised. Why sell a box of kabalites with all the special weapon needed when you can put only 1 of each, forcing people to buy more boxes to use the options in the rules to their full extend?

Thats too why they started allowing formations. Formation allow them to push people to buy models they wouldn't normally want to complete the formation and gain the bonus.

Second one is the most played (read "the army that sell most") army must win. They don't need the game to be balanced. If a low selling army as dark eldar had OP units and always beated spaces marines, some spaces marines would give up playing and buying. But people who CHOSE to play dark eldar even though they are not good will remain lawfull to games workshop. Even more, they will buy a second army, to compete, while keeping dark eldar for fun. So, why change anything?

Third point is: There is no such thing as "intended way to play an army". In every codex and between codexes there is always a lot of contradictory rules of so basic level it prove the game mechanic haven't been tested throughfully.
Back to top Go down
Rokuro
Wych
avatar

Posts : 619
Join date : 2014-11-25

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Mon Jul 11 2016, 19:26

dumpeal wrote:
Second one is the most played (read "the army that sell most") army must win. They don't need the game to be balanced. If a low selling army as dark eldar had OP units and always beated spaces marines, some spaces marines would give up playing and buying. But people who CHOSE to play dark eldar even though they are not good will remain lawfull to games workshop. Even more, they will buy a second army, to compete, while keeping dark eldar for fun. So, why change anything?

That logic is flawed though.
Firstly: Dark Eldar don't sell so well because their rules are weak, not the other way around. Players buy what is effective in the game.
Secondly: Space Marines being the best army that every other struggles against is a myth. It's true that their stats and gear are what the other armies are measured against, but Tau, Necrons and Craftworld Eldar can make quick work of Space Marines in the hands of players who know what they are doing.
Thirdly: When something outclasses Space Marines, that doesn't mean Space Marine players would quit 40k. The truth is that, if they are genuinely into the game and not blind fanboys, they would probably just give that powerful new army a try. And this has actually happened! Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Dark Angels and Blood Angels each do something much better than Codex Marines, and I know quite a few players who quit Ultrasmurfs only to move on to a more specialized and ornate chapter.
And GW doesn't care if people are buying, say, Annihilation Barges instead of Drop Pods, or even Taloi instead of Dreadnaughts. Money is money.
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Mon Jul 11 2016, 19:50

See my "GW is a crazy homeless guy" analogy in the other thread. Predicting GW behavior is like spinning a roulette wheel. You never know what you're going to get, but you're pretty sure the game is rigged to screw you. Wink

_________________
Back to top Go down
dumpeal
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 480
Join date : 2015-02-13
Location : Québec

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Mon Jul 11 2016, 20:10

Rokuro wrote:
dumpeal wrote:
Second one is the most played (read "the army that sell most") army must win. They don't need the game to be balanced. If a low selling army as dark eldar had OP units and always beated spaces marines, some spaces marines would give up playing and buying. But people who CHOSE to play dark eldar even though they are not good will remain lawfull to games workshop. Even more, they will buy a second army, to compete, while keeping dark eldar for fun. So, why change anything?

That logic is flawed though.
Firstly: Dark Eldar don't sell so well because their rules are weak, not the other way around. Players buy what is effective in the game.

Dark eldar don't sell because their rules are weak, but they are weak because "nobody" buy them. And because people don't buy them, GW think nobody likes dark eldar, and don't focus to improve the rules...

Rokuro wrote:

Secondly: Space Marines being the best army that every other struggles against is a myth. It's true that their stats and gear are what the other armies are measured against, but Tau, Necrons and Craftworld Eldar can make quick work of Space Marines in the hands of players who know what they are doing.

Tau, Necrons and CWE are the new codexes. That's why they are strong for now. But, don't worry, as soon as a new space marine codex will be released, it will be fixed.

Rokuro wrote:

Thirdly: When something outclasses Space Marines, that doesn't mean Space Marine players would quit 40k. The truth is that, if they are genuinely into the game and not blind fanboys, they would probably just give that powerful new army a try. And this has actually happened! Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Dark Angels and Blood Angels each do something much better than Codex Marines, and I know quite a few players who quit Ultrasmurfs only to move on to a more specialized and ornate chapter.

When I say "space marine", I'm not only saying "ultramarine codex". I'm talking about every versions of space marines. Especially Dark angel, space wolves and imperial knights. And about "space marine players wouldn't quit 40k", I personnally know some people who quit 40k solely because they bought 3 imperial knight and were mad because a really better player beated them with I don't remember which army.

Rokuro wrote:

And GW doesn't care if people are buying, say, Annihilation Barges instead of Drop Pods, or even Taloi instead of Dreadnaughts. Money is money.

They don't care, but the overall design cost for a unit is the same whether they sells 1000 or 10 000 models. As there are a lot more space player, it's only natural they create a lot more space units, and because there is a lot more space units, there are more players.
Back to top Go down
Rokuro
Wych
avatar

Posts : 619
Join date : 2014-11-25

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Mon Jul 11 2016, 20:37

dumpeal wrote:
Dark eldar don't sell because their rules are weak, but they are weak because "nobody" buy them. And because people don't buy them, GW think nobody likes dark eldar, and don't focus to improve the rules...

Their rules are weak because their codex was released very early in 7th, before the "Decurion era", and was written with no other intention than being in line with the 7th edition basic rules and the miniature line. And that had nothing to do with sale numbers, but more with the fact that nobody saw a need for radical improvements at that time.
Had our codex been released later, we might very well have been given Craftworld-level firepower and cool new models, maybe even a KEQ.

dumpeal wrote:
Tau, Necrons and CWE are the new codexes. That's why they are strong for now. But, don't worry, as soon as a new space marine codex will be released, it will be fixed.

...

They don't care, but the overall design cost for a unit is the same whether they sells 1000 or 10 000 models. As there are a lot more space player, it's only natural they create a lot more space units, and because there is a lot more space units, there are more players.

I agree. Although I'm sure that nothing short of a Thunderhawk, if any new model at all, could make Codex Marines the top-tier army again.
Their main merit is, and has been for a long time, that they are just so easy to play and have one of almost every possible kind of unit.

As for the non-codex chapters: Space Wolves are the next in line, but I wouldn't bet on them getting any model newer than the Wulfen.
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Mon Jul 11 2016, 22:14

Rokuro wrote:

Their rules are weak because their codex was released very early in 7th, before the "Decurion era", and was written with no other intention than being in line with the 7th edition basic rules and the miniature line. And that had nothing to do with sale numbers, but more with the fact that nobody saw a need for radical improvements at that time.
Had our codex been released later, we might very well have been given Craftworld-level firepower and cool new models, maybe even a KEQ.

I don't completely disagree, but it's significantly more complicated than that. It's not just that we didn't get a decurion detachment. It's these nerfs on TOP of not really being a part of the "Decurion Era" detachments system:

¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥

¤ Vect Gone.
¤ Malys Gone.
¤ Duke Sliscus Gone.
¤ Baron Sathonyx Gone.
¤ The Decrapitator Gone.(Admittedly not a huge loss.)
¤ Haemonculus Ancients Gone.
¤ Agonizers got the poisoned USR instead of simply always wounding on 4+(meaning they only wound on 6+ vs GMCs)
¤ Huskblades(AP3 instead of AP2),
¤ Orbs of despair(only useable by a haemonculus selected from the covens book and S1 instead of S10) <-----a S1 weapon for 25 points. Think about that.,
¤ The crucible of malediction(Max 1 wound/unit instead of model),
¤ Soul traps(instead of doubling their S for killing characters or MCs, get +1S for wounding but now only works on characters),
¤ Demiklaives(-1S,),
¤ Liquifier guns(-1S),
¤ Stunclaws(lost the ability to snatch, gained instant death instead on an AP6 weapon who will never be fighting ICs or MCs. SUPER USEFUL RIGHT?),
¤ Hellglaives(-1A)
¤ Flesh gauntlet(was poison 4+ with instant death, now 4+ and only instant death on a 6+ to wound),
¤ Ichor injector(was poison 3+ with instant death, now fleshbane, but only instant death on a 6+ to wound),
¤ Mindphase gauntlet(used to be take both a str and ld test on any HIT, regardless of wound, then if you fail either, no attacks that phase. Got concussive instead.)
¤ Baleblast(got soulblaze instead of pinning),
¤ Casket of flensing(Only useable by Urien now)
¤ Phantasm grenade launcher(No longer provides assault grenades to the whole unit)
¤ Clone field(4++ instead of D3 hits automatically nullified per round)
¤ Venom blade(Can only be taken by 1 non-CC unit in the entire codex now, instead of being available to almost all characters)
¤ Vexator mask(used to be a normal 10 point item that stopped your opponent from being able to attack that round on a failed leadership test, now is a unique artifact that gives -5 initiative.)
¤ Scissorhand(was poisoned(3+) and gave +2 attacks w/another CC weapon, now is poisoned(4+) with rending)
¤ Shatter shards(completely gone)
¤ Dark gates(completely gone)
¤ Bloodstones(completely gone),
¤ Wych weapons(can only be taken 1 per 5 now, even on bloodbrides)
¤ Hydra gauntlets(Used to give 1d6 extra attacks, now gives shred)
¤ Shardnet & impaler(Used to give -1A to every enemy in base contact, now rerolls 1s to hit & wound)
¤ Razorflails(used to reroll both hits and wounds, now rerolls hits)
¤ Haywire grenades(only useable by characters now)

List brought to you by BetrayTheWorld.

¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥¤¥

_________________
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 6632
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Mon Jul 11 2016, 22:37

dumpeal wrote:
Tau, Necrons and CWE are the new codexes. That's why they are strong for now. But, don't worry, as soon as a new space marine codex will be released, it will be fixed.

Just wanted to point out that the SM codex was released after Necrons and CWE. You can really pinpoint the Blood Angels codex as the end of the 'toned down' period. Then Necrons hit and everything went nuts!

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
dumpeal
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 480
Join date : 2015-02-13
Location : Québec

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Mon Jul 11 2016, 23:30

Count Adhemar wrote:
dumpeal wrote:
Tau, Necrons and CWE are the new codexes. That's why they are strong for now. But, don't worry, as soon as a new space marine codex will be released, it will be fixed.

Just wanted to point out that the SM codex was released after Necrons and CWE. You can really pinpoint the Blood Angels codex as the end of the 'toned down' period. Then Necrons hit and everything went nuts!

I went a little too far saying the space marines were the best. But just a little. Anyway, the point of my comment was not to start the debate on how dark eldar sucked. I was only saying I doubt GW really tried to make our codex work.

Rokyro wrote:

Their rules are weak because their codex was released very early in 7th, before the "Decurion era", and was written with no other intention than being in line with the 7th edition basic rules and the miniature line. And that had nothing to do with sale numbers, but more with the fact that nobody saw a need for radical improvements at that time.
Had our codex been released later, we might very well have been given Craftworld-level firepower and cool new models, maybe even a KEQ.

While this is true, you have to admit GW would never have released a space marine codex "written with no other intention than being in line with the 7th edition basic rules". But they did it for dark eldar.

But, OK. Back to topic. Morale shenanigan is clearly intended, with moral debuf everywhere. So, the Freakshow list make sense.

Wyches with an champion equipped with an agoniser can threaten MEQ, since it's AP3, wound on 4+. Wyches weapon serve to lower space number of attack. It's overpriced for the efficiency, but could kinda work. (with a big IF)

Empty raider should be used more to block and cause cover save, during your shooting round, when you see the result of your shootings.
Back to top Go down
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1249
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Mon Jul 11 2016, 23:35

Pre-wolfen space wolves and Blood angels would like to have a word with you about that.

Having said that thanks for the contribution! I figure sergeants are intended to always be taken, and that five man squads should have venoms and larger squads should have raiders. Are Reavers supposed to be taken in sets of three? Or in sets of 5 which comes up to an even cost.
Back to top Go down
Rokuro
Wych
avatar

Posts : 619
Join date : 2014-11-25

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Tue Jul 12 2016, 07:51

amorrowlyday wrote:
Are Reavers supposed to be taken in sets of three? Or in sets of 5 which comes up to an even cost.

Reavers are best taken in multiples of 3, since every third one gets to take special weapons.
Back to top Go down
Painjunky
Wych
avatar

Posts : 851
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Sunshine Coast

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Tue Jul 12 2016, 08:01

What would GW do?

Well GW wants to sell you multiple boxes of the new hotness. Failing that they want you to buy multiple boxes of the old busted that is not selling and wasting space.

Think of GW as that redshirt you met that time. You remember him, very chatty, drunk on the kool-aid, reeking of desperation, you know, THAT guy.

He would passionately advise you purchase multiple new starter boxes, the new flyer book, and 4 voidravens so you can use the "devastating" formation.

That's what GW thinks your list should look like. Smile
Back to top Go down
dumpeal
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 480
Join date : 2015-02-13
Location : Québec

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Tue Jul 12 2016, 15:20

Painjunky wrote:
What would GW do?

Well GW wants to sell you multiple boxes of the new hotness. Failing that they want you to buy multiple boxes of the old busted that is not selling and wasting space.

Think of GW as that redshirt you met that time. You remember him, very chatty, drunk on the kool-aid, reeking of desperation, you know, THAT guy.

He would passionately advise you purchase multiple new starter boxes, the new flyer book, and 4 voidravens so you can use the "devastating" formation.

That's what GW thinks your list should look like. Smile  

THAT. And that explain why GW don't fix wyches. People already own them. Fixing them won't lead to new purchases.
Back to top Go down
Rokuro
Wych
avatar

Posts : 619
Join date : 2014-11-25

PostSubject: Re: What would GW do?   Tue Jul 12 2016, 23:44

dumpeal wrote:
And that explain why GW don't fix wyches. People already own them. Fixing them won't lead to new purchases.

Bloodbrides though. Imagin if they were given an own kit.

But we really shouldn't expect changes like that outside a new codex, or supplement at least.
Remember how GW "fixed" Coven units? When that supplement came out, people got a reason to really love Grotesques. And had GW not missed the opportunity to make a plastic kit for them, Dark Eldar players would buy them in spades.

Besides, not fixing Wyches won't lead to new purchases either.
Back to top Go down
 
What would GW do?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

COMMORRAGH TACTICA

 :: Dark Eldar Tactics
-
Jump to: