View Full Version : OMG who comes up with the stats/rules at FW
Lordgimpet
11-22-2010, 05:39 AM
OK being a dedicated eldar player, I'm used to the BS the army cops in the current edition much like necrons tau, and until last month DE. but looking at Forgworld,s new stuff with the rules for the Eldar Hornet, all I can say is WTF. I'm sure its chimps on red bull at a typewriter or something. if you havent looked it up do so.
but for those that can't be bothered, just think a viper but for 10 points more and you get star engines and scout and no longer opened toped.
I guess that can sound fantastic but then you end up buying weapons one of them can be a pulse laser but buy 2 which you can for 80 points and still not twin linked, great if ya running 2 scatter lasers but bad if you suck with a ballistic skill of 3. what you then end up with is a falcon equilivent armamant skimmer for roughly the same cost as a falcon but is a squadron and carries no troops with an armour of 11, 11, 10.
The model looks great I admit, and I may get one for the collection or 3 and treat them as vipers.
the point of all this though is how dispite the dated over priced units in the codex they come up with new units that carry on the same issues and flaws. even going as far as giving them vectored engines upgrade
that does nothing for a squadron unit and sure as hell not spend the 20 points on a single upgrade.
sure scout is useful but to be honest give that to vipers.
The flipside to that is the Necron unit. I love the idea behind it but I feel its is to expensive for what it is
and it also has half of the USRs at its disposal.
I'm now fearing the actual usefulness of this new aspect that is soon to be released.
Anyhow over to the community, what are your thoughts on the hornet or any new stuff? and or has there been a unit that after all the wait has been nothing more than WTF?
DrLove42
11-22-2010, 06:36 AM
See the Hornet is good i feel. I fulfills the role of weapon platform between Vyper and Falcon, which is what they set out to do
As for continiung the weaknesses Eldar have, and not helping them regain a bit of strength, i agree it could be done. But with IA10 featuring Eldar, and codex eldar still a long way off...i don't see IA10 being an improvement on the codex...and it just has to wait and see if its errated after we get a new codex, like the pdf IA1 and IA2 have been, or if its unit become redundant in light of a new pointed, beefed 5/6th ed codex
scadugenga
11-22-2010, 07:04 AM
Wait--I may be missing something.
Your punking FW for the Eldar Hornet rules, which are relatively balanced, if on the pricey side when pimped.
But have nothing to say about how over-the-top wtfbbq OP rules for the Caestus & Achilles marine vehicles?
Dude, you're priorities are skewed.
Defenestratus
11-22-2010, 07:12 AM
Wait--I may be missing something.
Your punking FW for the Eldar Hornet rules, which are relatively balanced, if on the pricey side when pimped.
But have nothing to say about how over-the-top wtfbbq OP rules for the Caestus & Achilles marine vehicles?
Dude, you're priorities are skewed.
Perhaps he's just an eldar player who was disappointed for what he'd have to pay both in $ and in points for a model that he otherwise thinks is fantastic.
Whereas the Achilles is only likely to be used in apocalypse, these models are targeted for use in normal games of 40k - and I can't say that I disagree with him, the rules are underwhelming for the points cost.
See the Hornet is good i feel. I fulfills the role of weapon platform between Vyper and Falcon, which is what they set out to do
As for continiung the weaknesses Eldar have, and not helping them regain a bit of strength, i agree it could be done. But with IA10 featuring Eldar, and codex eldar still a long way off...i don't see IA10 being an improvement on the codex...and it just has to wait and see if its errated after we get a new codex, like the pdf IA1 and IA2 have been, or if its unit become redundant in light of a new pointed, beefed 5/6th ed codex
Boy are you gonna be disappointed when you open IA10 to find it's Marines Vs Marines...
DrLove42
11-22-2010, 08:02 AM
Whoops, forgotthey decide to push the Eldar book back in favour of more marines
Big suprise there i guess
Whoops, forgotthey decide to push the Eldar book back in favour of more marines
Big suprise there i guess
Can't really push back something that was never announced or scheduled....
DrLove42
11-22-2010, 08:59 AM
Actually i think youll find that (now) IA11, being Eldar vs Space Wolves has been confirmed by the FW staff since the FW open day about 6 months ago.
And back then it was their intention to release it before the second half of Badab.
I know this because i talked to the head of the design studio myself, not only at the open day, but at Games day 2 months ago
scadugenga
11-22-2010, 09:25 AM
Perhaps he's just an eldar player who was disappointed for what he'd have to pay both in $ and in points for a model that he otherwise thinks is fantastic.
Whereas the Achilles is only likely to be used in apocalypse, these models are targeted for use in normal games of 40k - and I can't say that I disagree with him, the rules are underwhelming for the points cost.
I'm an eldar player since RT, and actually I have little issue with the Hornet aside from some model design points.
Points-wise it's still in line with the current edition of the eldar codex. It having scout, turbo & AV11 closed top standard in a fast attack slot is totally worth it. Particularly since you can have two of the same weapon and them not count as twin linked.
chromedog
11-22-2010, 05:11 PM
As an eldar player, I neither like the design of the flying egg nor its rules.
It is a bucketful of suck.
The best thing about the 'new' aspects is that you will probably never see them outside of 'Ard boyz (something I'm quite happy we don't have here. There are enough over-competitive nerds in the scene as it is).
Unless Jes did the original designs, they will also be in the bucket of suck.
Vaktathi
11-22-2010, 06:20 PM
I actually quite like the Hornet, both from a visual and a rules perspective. I think its got an appropriate cost and looks rather awesome, and would like to find room for some in my Eldar army.
eldargal
11-22-2010, 11:40 PM
Actually IA10 was going to be Eldar vs Imperium, but IA9 was split into two books with Eldar vs Imperium becoming IA11. IA10 is still coming out early 2011, with IA11 coming later so for all intents and purposes they were pushed back.
Can't really push back something that was never announced or scheduled....
I like the Hornet and will be buying several, it is expensive but I feel it is worth it.
Actually IA10 was going to be Eldar vs Imperium, but IA9 was split into two books with Eldar vs Imperium becoming IA11. IA10 is still coming out early 2011, with IA11 coming later so for all intents and purposes they were pushed back.
It was hinted at, I know that. Never officially confirmed. It's the same as people complaining that GK are being "pushed back".
eldargal
11-23-2010, 04:05 AM
It depends whatyou consider officially confirmed. There was never any announcement but attendees at the US GD were told by the Forgeworld people there that IA10 would have Eldar vs Imperium and come out early 2011. Either way, work on IA Eldar has been delayed due to the issues with IA9 being too big, which is dissapointing. But these things happen.
Granesh
11-23-2010, 04:24 AM
See, I thought it looked more like a Lobster than a Hornet....anyways, yeah the rules aren't the best, FW is designed much more for fun, fluff based games...well at least they were...before the Achilles came out...holy crap...
See, I thought it looked more like a Lobster than a Hornet....anyways, yeah the rules aren't the best, FW is designed much more for fun, fluff based games...well at least they were...before the Achilles came out...holy crap...
Achilles is the very definition of a unit for fun, fluff based games :P
eldargal
11-23-2010, 05:19 AM
Both Hornet and Achilles rules are experimental, so I wouldn't worry until we have the final version.
Vaktathi
11-23-2010, 11:26 AM
Achilles is the very definition of a unit for fun, fluff based games :P
Except that it doesn't look very fun to play against, and it's got abilities that are useful against a ridiculous array of opponents rather than the ones in the campaign it was designed for.
Connjurus
11-23-2010, 01:30 PM
Except that it doesn't look very fun to play against, and it's got abilities that are useful against a ridiculous array of opponents rather than the ones in the campaign it was designed for.
And you only have to worry about them in Da Boyz, for the most part. Otherwise, just tell your opponent you don't want them to use it. It's a forgeworld model, it requires permission. :P
Vaktathi
11-23-2010, 01:51 PM
And you only have to worry about them in Da Boyz, for the most part. Otherwise, just tell your opponent you don't want them to use it. It's a forgeworld model, it requires permission. :P
Technically, anything does. I'm all for treating FW like codex stuff for the most part, it's just that some of the newer things, primarily SM in nature, have made it difficult (Caestus, Damocles drop pod, Achilles)
Connjurus
11-23-2010, 02:23 PM
Technically, anything does. I'm all for treating FW like codex stuff for the most part, it's just that some of the newer things, primarily SM in nature, have made it difficult (Caestus, Damocles drop pod, Achilles)
I'll admit, the Caestus is a bit much, but the Achilles...isn't that scary, as a Chaos SPace Marine player.
"Oh no, it's immune to the melta rule and lance rule...well, I'm just gonna fly this Daemon Prince over there and cut it in half."
It is NOT immune to rending or monstrous creature rules. Not that bad. Might be a bit tougher to destroy with the -1 to damage roll thing, but I don't necessarily have to destroy it...just knock off a weapon or two.
Vaktathi
11-23-2010, 02:42 PM
The Achilles is about twice as hard for an MC or the like to destroy as a normal LR (assuming 6" movement, you'll need about 11 charges with a non-khorne DP to get 1 "wrecked" result) as a result of the -1 damage result rule (it's also going to be much easier to get rid of that DP that also has to get right up to the achilles). Additionally, stick a 5man scoring unit in it for a game of C&C, and most opponents are playing for a draw, and for a KP game it can probably safeguard up to 3 KP's from most opponents, really making it a force multiplier simply through its resiliency.
Connjurus
11-23-2010, 02:54 PM
The Achilles is about twice as hard for an MC or the like to destroy as a normal LR (assuming 6" movement, you'll need about 11 charges with a non-khorne DP to get 1 "wrecked" result) as a result of the -1 damage result rule (it's also going to be much easier to get rid of that DP that also has to get right up to the achilles). Additionally, stick a 5man scoring unit in it for a game of C&C, and most opponents are playing for a draw, and for a KP game it can probably safeguard up to 3 KP's from most opponents, really making it a force multiplier simply through its resiliency.
Wings are pretty much a must for Chaos Space Marine Daemon Princes - really cheap at 20 points, rather than the 60 for Chaos Daemons.
Also, Chainfists are another go-to for getting rid of it...not hard to do at all. It really just isn't as bad as it looks - Monoliths are still tougher to deal with except from Strength 10 attacks, I'd say. *shrug*
I'm totally taking one for Chaos Space Marines in Apocalypse, though. ;)
DarkLink
11-23-2010, 10:33 PM
As someone who's played LR spam lists, I can understand how annoying multiple Achilles could be for an opponent, but I am not overly impressed by the competitiveness of the list.
When you have 3 LRs in 1500pts, you have ~800 points in LRs, with only ~700 to spend on an HQ and Troops. Three Achilles are even worse with this. Extra armor is 100% required for all your LRs, so you're looking at 945pts in three vehicles, at an absolute minimum.
With so few points left over, the squads inside can't be much more than scoring units. As soon as they get out of the LR, they're dead. At best, they can blow up a vehicle with a melta or something. But your opponent has an entire army just waiting for your 15 or so Marines to show their faces, and as soon as they do, they're toast.
So basically you're left with 3 mobile, durable, scoring tanks. They don't carry very much firepower, so you're not going to be doing much damage to your opponent. And your opponent only has 3 things to pour their entire army's worth of firepower into.
And when someone hears they're going to be facing 3 Land Raiders, they buy as many AT weapons as they can. Anti-melta/lance rules or not, most armies will be able to dump a ton of firepower into your 3 vehicles. They will eventually immobilize or glance it to death. You will not have 3 LRs left at the end of the game. You probably won't have 2.
I'll note that, unless it happens to be immobilized on top of an objective, an immobilized Land Raider is almost as useless as a dead one. LR spam armies don't have the models to afford anything not being mobile. They rely very, very heavily on being mobile.
And even if you do get immobilized on top of an objective, you're now a sitting target.
So, yeah, it would be an annoying army to face. But from extensive personal experience playing exactly the type of army we're talking about, I will say that this is not an uber-super-unbeatable-competitive list. It would be solid, more competitive than normal LR spam. But so long as you know you'll be facing it, a decent player should be able to counter it.
And that's why I kinda roll my eyes at all the compaining here. I actually agree with Melissia, the rules are a bit over the top. But, it is not some unbeatable, invulnerable, instant win button.
Connjurus
11-23-2010, 10:47 PM
As someone who's played LR spam lists, I can understand how annoying multiple Achilles could be for an opponent, but I am not overly impressed by the competitiveness of the list.
When you have 3 LRs in 1500pts, you have ~800 points in LRs, with only ~700 to spend on an HQ and Troops. Three Achilles are even worse with this. Extra armor is 100% required for all your LRs, so you're looking at 945pts in three vehicles, at an absolute minimum.
With so few points left over, the squads inside can't be much more than scoring units. As soon as they get out of the LR, they're dead. At best, they can blow up a vehicle with a melta or something. But your opponent has an entire army just waiting for your 15 or so Marines to show their faces, and as soon as they do, they're toast.
So basically you're left with 3 mobile, durable, scoring tanks. They don't carry very much firepower, so you're not going to be doing much damage to your opponent. And your opponent only has 3 things to pour their entire army's worth of firepower into.
And when someone hears they're going to be facing 3 Land Raiders, they buy as many AT weapons as they can. Anti-melta/lance rules or not, most armies will be able to dump a ton of firepower into your 3 vehicles. They will eventually immobilize or glance it to death. You will not have 3 LRs left at the end of the game. You probably won't have 2.
I'll note that, unless it happens to be immobilized on top of an objective, an immobilized Land Raider is almost as useless as a dead one. LR spam armies don't have the models to afford anything not being mobile. They rely very, very heavily on being mobile.
And even if you do get immobilized on top of an objective, you're now a sitting target.
So, yeah, it would be an annoying army to face. But from extensive personal experience playing exactly the type of army we're talking about, I will say that this is not an uber-super-unbeatable-competitive list. It would be solid, more competitive than normal LR spam. But so long as you know you'll be facing it, a decent player should be able to counter it.
Exactly. This thing isn't any scarier to me than a normal Land Raider, ESPECIALLY considering its lack of Assault Ramps.
scadugenga
11-23-2010, 10:52 PM
As someone who's played LR spam lists, I can understand how annoying multiple Achilles could be for an opponent, but I am not overly impressed by the competitiveness of the list.
When you have 3 LRs in 1500pts, you have ~800 points in LRs, with only ~700 to spend on an HQ and Troops. Three Achilles are even worse with this. Extra armor is 100% required for all your LRs, so you're looking at 945pts in three vehicles, at an absolute minimum.
1) Extra Armor comes standard--no point increase.
2) You can spend 30 points per to get a HK missile, Pintle storm bolter & siege shield (2 more weapon-destroyed result padding & auto-passing difficult terrain tests.
3) @ 1500 points, you'll probably only face 2 of these things.
4) According to the FW website, the rules are no longer "experimental" and they have not been changed/altered, etc.
I can certainly say I would not play any normal 40k game against this with my eldar. There'd be no way to conceivably destroy it, and any decent opponent would target priority any WL I had to make sure it never makes CC range into the Achilles.
Pure rubbish (once again) from the FW rules design team.
4) According to the FW website, the rules are no longer "experimental" and they have not been changed/altered, etc.
They where never posted as experimental rules. It said in the email "As an exclusive extra, we have prised the rules for the Achilles from Alan Bligh’s grasp and they are available to download for free here."
But some did email Forge World, and Forge World said the rules have been toned down in the book. So please stop being a child and give up on the non stop *****ing. Chances are you will never face one of these outside of apocalypse.
scadugenga
11-24-2010, 06:27 AM
They where never posted as experimental rules. It said in the email "As an exclusive extra, we have prised the rules for the Achilles from Alan Bligh’s grasp and they are available to download for free here."
But some did email Forge World, and Forge World said the rules have been toned down in the book. So please stop being a child and give up on the non stop *****ing. Chances are you will never face one of these outside of apocalypse.
Why don't you come talk to me when your stones drop, rhesus.
And, actually that's just a rumor off of Warsser, that they're toning it down. So we won't know for 100% until the book's actuallly released. You see, there's this little thing called evidence that tends to override rumor. The warseer bit is rumor until there is evidence supplied.
And, witling, if you actually look at the rules downloads page on FW's site, you'll know that anything with "experimental" rules has this big "experimental" stamp on the download. The Achilles does not.
Now that the big kids are discussing things--you can go back to your bridge.
Why don't you come talk to me when your stones drop, rhesus.
And, actually that's just a rumor off of Warsser, that they're toning it down. So we won't know for 100% until the book's actuallly released. You see, there's this little thing called evidence that tends to override rumor. The warseer bit is rumor until there is evidence supplied.
And, witling, if you actually look at the rules downloads page on FW's site, you'll know that anything with "experimental" rules has this big "experimental" stamp on the download. The Achilles does not.
Now that the big kids are discussing things--you can go back to your bridge.
You seem to lack basic reading skills so I'll try my post again, hopefully a little simplified for you:
The posted Land Raider Achilles rules WHERE NEVER experimental rules.
I also believe a first hand response from Forge World saying the rules will be different is pretty damn good evidence to the fact they will be.
I may have snapped a bit, but I've hardly slept in the last few days and I'm just sick of all the whining and *****ing about GW. I came here from Warseer to avoid it, but it seems to have followed me.
DelphicFist
11-24-2010, 08:01 AM
I can certainly say I would not play any normal 40k game against this with my eldar. There'd be no way to conceivably destroy it, and any decent opponent would target priority any WL I had to make sure it never makes CC range into the Achilles.
Could you not just assault it with Swooping Hawks with Haywire grenades? In fact can't other Eldar units get haywire grenades, which should do rather well against it. What about wraith guard in a transport jump out and blast it.
I think it's a tough unit no doubt, but not invincible especially for the price and limited transport option.
Defenestratus
11-24-2010, 08:16 AM
Why don't you come talk to me when your stones drop, rhesus.
And, actually that's just a rumor off of Warsser, that they're toning it down. So we won't know for 100% until the book's actuallly released. You see, there's this little thing called evidence that tends to override rumor. The warseer bit is rumor until there is evidence supplied.
And, witling, if you actually look at the rules downloads page on FW's site, you'll know that anything with "experimental" rules has this big "experimental" stamp on the download. The Achilles does not.
Now that the big kids are discussing things--you can go back to your bridge.
I find it quite hilarious that purported "big kids" are getting so upset over a little plastic and resin toy tank.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play against this thing. You are more than welcome to prove your immaturity by huffing and puffing about it instead of trying to have a good time and play army men like a real adult.
DarkLink
11-24-2010, 11:21 AM
Just noticed that the Achilles uses a different PotMS rule than other Land Raiders. It's modified so you can't fire after using smoke.
Their new PotMS also prevents you from ignoring Shaken and Stunned. It says "...may fire a single weapon if it has suffered a Shaken or Stunned result that turn."
"That turn" refers, by default, to player turn. Meaning if you suffer a Shaken/Stunned result in your player turn, you can ignore it. But if your opponent shot you and caused a Shaken/Stunned reult in their last player turn, you can't ignore it.
That's a pretty significant nerf to the usefulness of PotMS. Great job, FW:rolleyes:.
1) Extra Armor comes standard--no point increase.
Ah, my bad. Makes sense, really, since EA should pretty much always be bought for LRs anyways.
2) You can spend 30 points per to get a HK missile, Pintle storm bolter & siege shield (2 more weapon-destroyed result padding & auto-passing difficult terrain tests.
HK missiles don't count towards weapon destroyed results. And while these are nice little additions, they're also making an already expensive vehicle a fair bit more expensive. LR spam lists are extremely strapped for points, so your opponent taking little upgrades like this can be a good thing for you.
3) @ 1500 points, you'll probably only face 2 of these things.
So you'll have less of them to worry about.
4) According to the FW website, the rules are no longer "experimental" and they have not been changed/altered, etc.
Well, then I guess you'll have to quit 40k forever and go cry in a corner:rolleyes:.
HK missiles don't count towards weapon destroyed results. And while these are nice little additions, they're also making an already expensive vehicle a fair bit more expensive. LR spam lists are extremely strapped for points, so your opponent taking little upgrades like this can be a good thing for you.
Actually they do count for weapon destroyed until you fire them.
DarkLink
11-25-2010, 02:01 AM
Actually they do count for weapon destroyed until you fire them.
Ah, ok, the new version of the rule in the SM codex does work this way. The DH version doesn't, as it's worded differently. The SM codex actually states that it is a one use weapon, while the DH version is more like a krak missile magically appears out of nowhere:rolleyes:.
Ah, ok, the new version of the rule in the SM codex does work this way. The DH version doesn't, as it's worded differently. The SM codex actually states that it is a one use weapon, while the DH version is more like a krak missile magically appears out of nowhere:rolleyes:.
From memory this was specifically mentioned in the lasted Rule Book FAQ.
To get this back on the original topic (of the HORNET):
I think the OP is clearly not knowing his facts right.
The hornets rules are superb and compared to a Vyper it is a STEAL.
Compare the hornet to a Vyper armed with shuriken cannon upgrade and ANY main weapon to a hornet with shuriken cannon and ANY other weapon (so both have the same firepower) the hornet is ONLY 5 POINTS more expensive and gets closed topped, scout and AV11 for that.
If you factor in the STAR ENGINES (which do something very usefull even for squadroned tanks) the equally equipped VYPER would even be 10 POINTS MORE EXPENSIVE!
So yeah I'm gone take that 10 points cheaper, scouting, closed toppen AV11 vyper any day.
I think it is very stupid to dismiss a unit because you think SOME options are not worth the points. Thats like saying all SM captains are crap because the dual-thunderhammer build is not worth the hefty price tag.
Finally I think even the expensive dual-pulse configuration can be worth it if you now what you can do with it (its the cheapest way to get 4 s8 ap2 shots with long range). a squadron of 2 that is guided by a farseer can do to heavy monstrous creatures what the scatter-laser warwalkers can do to infantry units. It is also cheaper than warwalkers if you want to pump s8 firepower into a vehicles side armor by outflanking.
DarkLink
11-25-2010, 02:05 PM
Yeah, pretty much. Though this is also partially due to the Vyper being overpriced, too.
scadugenga
11-28-2010, 12:04 AM
Yeah, pretty much. Though this is also partially due to the Vyper being overpriced, too.
The vyper was okay in 4th (best in 3rd w/CTM) since you could bring the pain w/str 6 defensive weapons.
They suck pretty hard in 5th though.
As much as I want the DE to be a distinctly unique force in the 40k 'verse. "Aerial Assault" would go a long way to make Vypers a good unit to include again.
But only Vypers. Well, and any flyers that they decide to include (probably the Nighwing & Phoenix).
Leave eldar tanks the way they are--they already have enough advantages w/o making them DE fast.
scadugenga
11-28-2010, 12:19 AM
I find it quite hilarious that purported "big kids" are getting so upset over a little plastic and resin toy tank.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play against this thing. You are more than welcome to prove your immaturity by huffing and puffing about it instead of trying to have a good time and play army men like a real adult.
1) Do you really feel the need to intrude in on what is essentially a 1-on-1 snark fest between Gir & myself?
2) Do you realize that your response is just as childish and snarky as what has been posted before? Pot, kettle? Irony??
3) So if the people who are verbose about how stupidly flawed the rules are are "crying/whining/huffing/puffing etc." does that make the stalwart defenders of the rules drooling fanbois waiting to give out free handjobs to FW design staff?
Well, then I guess you'll have to quit 40k forever and go cry in a corner.
Ya know, I had this whole "you're mother's already in that corner" bit lined up, but honestly--just not worth it.
Arguing that the rules design of the Achilles sucks monkey wang is no more "crying" than being in favor of the rules set is volunteering to participate in a free FW circle-jerk.
It is, however, indicative attacking the person, and not the issue at hand.
DarkLink
11-28-2010, 12:51 PM
I'm not really disagreeing that they should tweak the Achilles rules. I'm just wondering why some people are making such a huge deal of it.
Ya know, I had this whole "you're mother's already in that corner" bit lined up, but honestly--just not worth it.
Lol, that would have been hilarious, though:D.
jl97332
11-29-2010, 02:39 AM
1) Do you really feel the need to intrude in on what is essentially a 1-on-1 snark fest between Gir & myself?
2) Do you realize that your response is just as childish and snarky as what has been posted before? Pot, kettle? Irony??
3) So if the people who are verbose about how stupidly flawed the rules are are "crying/whining/huffing/puffing etc." does that make the stalwart defenders of the rules drooling fanbois waiting to give out free handjobs to FW design staff?
Ya know, I had this whole "you're mother's already in that corner" bit lined up, but honestly--just not worth it.
Arguing that the rules design of the Achilles sucks monkey wang is no more "crying" than being in favor of the rules set is volunteering to participate in a free FW circle-jerk.
It is, however, indicative attacking the person, and not the issue at hand.
I've been wargaming for many years, I'm sure none of the FW staff would accept the offer of free handjobs from any wargamer.
The eldar vehicles are all overpriced compared to marine vehicles. People should just learn to accept the fact that GW gives the marines the best stuff.
eldargal
11-29-2010, 02:53 AM
Eldar vehicles are overpriced* because they have an older codex from a time when vehicles cost more in general. When we get a new codex I've no doubt prices will be decreased, or their abilities increased to compensate.
*Not really, though. They are the best vehicles in the game in my opinion, I prefer to think of them as 'very expensive' rather than overpriced.
Vaktathi
11-29-2010, 03:59 AM
Most of the current FW Eldar vehicle pricing hasn't been updated since 4E when they were all quite ridiculous, when Eldar Skimmerspam (courtesy of the 4E SMF rules) was nigh impossible to stop and anything with tracks was a deathtrap or a short lived gunbox. In that light they aren't exactly unreasonable, and most are still rather serviceable.
That said, I think the Hornet is about right for what it offers even in a 5E environment. I particularly like the idea of double-scatterlaser Hornets. 85pts for an AV11 Fast Skimmer with Scout and Star Engines and 8 S6 shots, that is taking up a rather empty FA slot and not forcing out one of my precious HS slots sounds amazing. 95pts for double-EML's isn't too bad either, especially compared with something like an SM Landspeeder. Scout gives it a huge amount of flexibility (especially in light of the newest rulebook FAQ). The upgrades could do with a bit of recosting perhaps but they are standardized to the Eldar codex after all.
scadugenga
11-29-2010, 07:11 AM
I've been wargaming for many years, I'm sure none of the FW staff would accept the offer of free handjobs from any wargamer.
The eldar vehicles are all overpriced compared to marine vehicles. People should just learn to accept the fact that GW gives the marines the best stuff.
And the point...completely missed.
@Eldargal Agreed--on both points. The Hornet points cost is definitely in line with the current codex. I'm sure that it will probably be adjusted when the new eldar codex comes out, just as they have done in the past.
DarkLink
11-29-2010, 09:42 AM
The base cost of most Eldar vehicles is about right. The problem is the weapon upgrades are too expensive. You're forced to keep the cheap weapons unless you want to put a ton of points into your vehicles.
Defenestratus
11-29-2010, 12:13 PM
1) Do you really feel the need to intrude in on what is essentially a 1-on-1 snark fest between Gir & myself?
2) Do you realize that your response is just as childish and snarky as what has been posted before? Pot, kettle? Irony??
3) So if the people who are verbose about how stupidly flawed the rules are are "crying/whining/huffing/puffing etc." does that make the stalwart defenders of the rules drooling fanbois waiting to give out free handjobs to FW design staff?
Your online persona has latent anger issues.
Giving FW employee sexual favors? Good gravy, get a grip dude.
1) Your insistence that my comments were an intrusion on what you claim is a 1-on-1 "snark fest" (what that is, I'm ignorant to) is quite hilarious considering that its posted on a publicly available forum. If you didn't wish for others to "intrude" then perhaps you should have switched this tangent of the conversation to private messaging. Just a thought.
2) My response is childish? Asking people to put their hate-filled rants in perspective? Its a game. Toy soldiers. Made of plastic. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one here telling people that the sky isn't falling because FW made some over-the-top rules for their specialized, "use via permission only" plastic tank.
3) Supporters, defenders, whatever - I don't care. People getting this worked up over anything that doesn't involve a political/socioeconomic issue is pretty funny to me. Continue your downward degeneration into a world full of hate over a rule set intended for use in a non-competitive game.
And next time you accuse me of being childish, perhaps you could leave middle-school era sexual references out of your posts? Maybe?
Thanks!
DarkLink
11-29-2010, 01:00 PM
As far as I can tell, I'm the only one here telling people that the sky isn't falling because FW made some over-the-top rules for their specialized, "use via permission only" plastic tank.
Nah, I'm with you here too. Any contribution I've made to this thread has been to the effect of "WTF, why is this such a big deal?"
scadugenga
11-29-2010, 10:22 PM
Your online persona has latent anger issues.
This...coming from the guy who's online name is derived from the act of throwing someone out a window. Irony!
And...not really. That's your perception. Please try to differentiate between declarative statements and your own personal bias. I'll freely admit to sarcasm issues, sure. Anger? Not so much.
Though, in response--from my perception, your online persona smacks of being an arrogant, condescending prick. Which, to be honest, hits my 'piss off' button pretty square on the head.
Giving FW employee sexual favors? Good gravy, get a grip dude.
It's a stupid analogy, dude. Try reading into the subtext. Or hey, maybe thinking instead of reacting. IE: it's as stupid to call someone a huffing/puffing/crying-in-a-corner child because they think--and are willing to argue/debate the point--that a particular rules invention is skewed as it is for someone to offer FW employees sexual favors, yada yada yada. See?
1) Your insistence that my comments were an intrusion on what you claim is a 1-on-1 "snark fest" (what that is, I'm ignorant to) is quite hilarious considering that its posted on a publicly available forum. If you didn't wish for others to "intrude" then perhaps you should have switched this tangent of the conversation to private messaging. Just a thought.
Maybe if you didn't try to go all "daddy-like" it wouldn't have elicited the response. However, you chose to interrupt a posting exchange that had basically wound down to make a childish attack of your own.
Oh, and "snark" "Snarky"---sarcasm, biting commentary, etc. Seriously, you know what defenestration is, but you don't know snarky? Obviously, sir, you are/were not an English major...
2) My response is childish? Asking people to put their hate-filled rants in perspective? Its a game. Toy soldiers. Made of plastic. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one here telling people that the sky isn't falling because FW made some over-the-top rules for their specialized, "use via permission only" plastic tank.
Yes. It is. "You are more than welcome to prove your immaturity by huffing and puffing about it instead of trying to have a good time and play army men like a real adult."
Not only are you being a condescending prick here, but you're calling me a huffing/puffing immature person because I don't agree with your particular viewpoint. IE, you're attacking me, and not debating the issue at hand.
3) Supporters, defenders, whatever - I don't care. People getting this worked up over anything that doesn't involve a political/socioeconomic issue is pretty funny to me. Continue your downward degeneration into a world full of hate over a rule set intended for use in a non-competitive game.
It's a hobby. Guess what, people who are invested and interested in the hobby will take it seriously and get "worked up" over things. Particularly things like new rules. It happens in just about every hobby. I've seen fights break out over bowling, for chrissakes. BOWLING.
And hate's a pretty damn strong word, chucky. We were at "mildly irritated" at best.
And next time you accuse me of being childish, perhaps you could leave middle-school era sexual references out of your posts? Maybe?
When you stop being a condescending prick? Sure. Without a doubt. I might even make you a sandwich.
And, let's be honest--that's college level sexual references, thankyouverymuch. Either that, or kids are way more advanced in that particular area of interest these days. Maybe it's the internet...
Here's the way it goes, "throws-someone-out-a-window guy," People generally fall into 3 categories on any specific issue: For, Against, and "meh." Calling the "Against" people "whiny crybabies" is just as stupid, (yes, stupid) as calling the "For" people rabid hand-wankers. It's not debating the issue at all, it's codifying and villifying the people on particular sides. And when you do that...guess what, you're the problem, sparky, not the solution.
Thanks!
You're welcome?
Honestly, you might be a decent guy, who knows. You obviously miss a lot of subtext going on. Maybe take a clue from Dark. He seems to get all the snark the way it's intended--slightly tongue-in-cheek. Despite the riffs he tosses out, it's "grin" ready to hand. Hell, I'd toss a few back with him (assuming he's out of the sippy-cup stage--you never can tell with those southern cali-college kids these days--too smart, too young...) after a game or two. Hell, he might even be of average height, which wins him a point. (and yes, that has naught to do with the topic at hand.)
Wait, you know what "naught" means, right? (see? harmless snark!)
DarkLink
11-29-2010, 11:15 PM
He seems to get all the snark the way it's intended--slightly tongue-in-cheek. Despite the riffs he tosses out, it's "grin" ready to hand.
I try :takes a bow::D. And if someone thinks I'm being rude (or if I think someone else is being rude) and we start arguing over it, well, it's an internet argument. Just move on. We're all friends here, after all.
Hell, I'd toss a few back with him (assuming he's out of the sippy-cup stage--you never can tell with those southern cali-college kids these days--too smart, too young...) after a game or two. Hell, he might even be of average height, which wins him a point. (and yes, that has naught to do with the topic at hand.)
Well, not only am I of drinking age, I just so happen to be 5'10", exactly average height for an adult US male:rolleyes:. I am on the muscular side, though, at about 220lbs. I don't actually drink much, never liked the taste of alcohol.
scadugenga
11-30-2010, 07:14 AM
I try :takes a bow::D. And if someone thinks I'm being rude (or if I think someone else is being rude) and we start arguing over it, well, it's an internet argument. Just move on. We're all friends here, after all.
Couldn't be better said...
Well, not only am I of drinking age, I just so happen to be 5'10", exactly average height for an adult US male:rolleyes:. I am on the muscular side, though, at about 220lbs. I don't actually drink much, never liked the taste of alcohol.
Ah, I was mistaken. You're still a bit on the "wee" side then. :) The running joke over here is that to be "average" you need to be about 6'4". I'm not sure where I got the impression you were taller...
Defenestratus
11-30-2010, 07:21 AM
Oooooh Quote bombs. Fun!
This...coming from the guy who's online name is derived from the act of throwing someone out a window. Irony!
Actually, my name is derived from when I was a teenager and worked on high rise renovations, we had a trash chute hooked up to a widow and I was the one who took the pile of "crap" by the window and chucked it down the chute. No anger there, just hard work. But thanks for implying that I am a violent person. I appreciate it.
And...not really. That's your perception. Please try to differentiate between declarative statements and your own personal bias. I'll freely admit to sarcasm issues, sure. Anger? Not so much.
What, you want me to "tag" every one of my statements? Its pretty clear that I'm speaking from a personal perspective, otherwise known as "opinion". You seem to be pretty <opinion>angry</opinion> that I have a problem with your attitude.
Though, in response--from my perception, your online persona smacks of being an arrogant, condescending prick. Which, to be honest, hits my 'piss off' button pretty square on the head.
Looks like I was pretty close. Maybe I don't need to use <opinion> tags anymore since I have a pretty good record of getting it right so far.
Maybe if you didn't try to go all "daddy-like" it wouldn't have elicited the response. However, you chose to interrupt a posting exchange that had basically wound down to make a childish attack of your own.
I wouldn't go all "daddy-like" if I didn't have someone who was going all "petulant child-like" in the thread. Furthermore, telling someone to stay out of a conversation thats taking place on a public forum is quite rich.
Oh, and "snark" "Snarky"---sarcasm, biting commentary, etc. Seriously, you know what defenestration is, but you don't know snarky? Obviously, sir, you are/were not an English major...
Well you got something correct. I was NOT an English major. Got me there. I was a History major and work in Pharmaceutical research. Its been a while since I've actually had to employ any of the skills required of my degree.
booo... I can't split this quote...
Yes. It is. "You are more than welcome to prove your immaturity by huffing and puffing about it instead of trying to have a good time and play army men like a real adult."
Not only are you being a condescending prick here, but you're calling me a huffing/puffing immature person because I don't agree with your particular viewpoint. IE, you're attacking me, and not debating the issue at hand.
Actually, as I have already posted, I don't have a particular agreement/disagreement on this particular toy tank's rules. I'm calling YOU immature because you <opinion>apparently care more about it than you do world hunger, AIDS research, the disappearance of the Californian Golden Condor, or North Korea's continued belligerence.</opinion> Of course, I don't know if you care about all those things, but if you threw yourself at those problems like you did at this poor piece of plastic, then perhaps we would be living in a more synergistic society. In essence, I'm accusing of losing your freaking mind over something ultimately trivial to both the game of 40k, and the world at large. My "issue" with you has absolutely nothing with my personal views on the rules of the tank - as you seem to think.
It's a hobby. Guess what, people who are invested and interested in the hobby will take it seriously and get "worked up" over things. Particularly things like new rules. It happens in just about every hobby. I've seen fights break out over bowling, for chrissakes. BOWLING.
Yes - but you're getting worked up over something trivial and small even in the scope of the overall hobby that people are so invested in. Perhaps find something in a codex or official rule set to get angry over, or something that will actually cause you to lose a game at a tournament (something this thing will never, ever do). The simple solution to this problem, and the reason why I think you getting "worked up" is inane is because, if you think this thing is broken, then just don't play a game against it. Thats all you have to do.
And hate's a pretty damn strong word, chucky. We were at "mildly irritated" at best.
Whose Chucky? Obviously your anger scale goes to 12 if that was "mildly irritated". I get "mildly irritated" over rough toilet paper.
When you stop being a condescending prick? Sure. Without a doubt. I might even make you a sandwich.
You say its condescending, I say its being level-headed amongst the zealots.
And, let's be honest--that's college level sexual references, thankyouverymuch. Either that, or kids are way more advanced in that particular area of interest these days. Maybe it's the internet...
How about we meet in the middle - high school era.
You're welcome?
See its not so hard to be polite!
Oh and Darklink - I sincerely apologize for not recognizing you for being one of the rational ones. I guess, if you aren't setting your hair on fire around here, its hard to get noticed :)
scadugenga
11-30-2010, 09:42 AM
I stand corrected...
You're a hypocritical arrogant condescending prick...with a god complex.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Oh, and I'll compromise with you...we can agree on high school level.
Thanks!
Defenestratus
11-30-2010, 09:47 AM
I stand corrected...
Well, at least you can admit to being wrong.
Thats a start.
Connjurus
11-30-2010, 10:03 AM
So I heard the internet was pretty serious business.
scadugenga
11-30-2010, 10:05 AM
Well, at least you can admit to being wrong.
Thats a start.
Pity you seem to lack that same basic ability...
Defenestratus
11-30-2010, 10:10 AM
Pity you seem to lack that same basic ability...
I wont admit to being wrong, when I have no wrong to admit to in this case. In fact, you very clearly demonstrated that I was correct in my assessment of your anger :)
scadugenga
11-30-2010, 12:23 PM
I wont admit to being wrong, when I have no wrong to admit to in this case. In fact, you very clearly demonstrated that I was correct in my assessment of your anger :)
LOL
You are so way off target that you couldn't find your way back with a GPS unit and a sherpa...
Defenestratus
11-30-2010, 12:28 PM
LOL
You are so way off target that you couldn't find your way back with a GPS unit and a sherpa...
Its a good thing that I know how to navigate by the stars, compass and sextant.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.