Just a thought on the main page stories

[Ming]

Ya know, some of the main page BOLS articles are starting to get a little old in their format - you know, claim something to create a 2-way comparison (mech vs non-mech, hide vs not hide, melta vs bubble gum). The writing meta-style needs a 5th edition revamp! Focus on setting up one thing or one idea and go for it!

Why not try EXPLAINING codexes on a basis of story line and army psychology. Somebody is out there playing a dark angels army and complains about them as compared to vanilla marines. Why? Because they are not building lists and acting in character as DAs are intended. Every army has different characters, costs, tactics, and playstyle. What is the intended style? We do not need a "rundown" on units. Even within a single codex there are numerous styles and character types to build around - Shadowsun lists and tactics vs brightsun lists and tactics.

Instead of a comparative article on hiding or not hiding, why not a focused tactical article such as the best way to set up your opponent using C'tan or Harlies? Instead of saying DEs are out of date, is it actually because people are trying to play them the wrong way? Just as in chess there are whole books on how to "control the center", there can be tactical articles based on distance, squares, and game sequence to set opponents up with.

[Cryl]

Ya know, some of the main page BOLS articles are starting to get a little old in their format - you know, claim something to create a 2-way comparison (mech vs non-mech, hide vs not hide, melta vs bubble gum). The writing meta-style needs a 5th edition revamp! Focus on setting up one thing or one idea and go for it!

Why not try EXPLAINING codexes on a basis of story line and army psychology. Somebody is out there playing a dark angels army and complains about them as compared to vanilla marines. Why? Because they are not building lists and acting in character as DAs are intended. Every army has different characters, costs, tactics, and playstyle. What is the intended style? We do not need a "rundown" on units. Even within a single codex there are numerous styles and character types to build around - Shadowsun lists and tactics vs brightsun lists and tactics.

Instead of a comparative article on hiding or not hiding, why not a focused tactical article such as the best way to set up your opponent using C'tan or Harlies? Instead of saying DEs are out of date, is it actually because people are trying to play them the wrong way? Just as in chess there are whole books on how to "control the center", there can be tactical articles based on distance, squares, and game sequence to set opponents up with.

That's just it though, 40k isn't chess. It's not as easy to define specific tactics based upon positions of peices as there is no board, no consistent map or 'army' like there is in chess. The sides are inherently unbalanced and different and the board will always be, effectively, random. Focussed tactical articles describing how to do something with harlequins (to use your example) would be pretty hard to write because of the shifting variable nature of the game. Sure you could describe the strengths and weaknesses of the unit in certain situations but I'm not sure if that's what you mean?

Also I'm not sure there's a need to write tactics articles based on an armies background... playing to a background is usually for the friendly casual player, there aren't as many tournament armies that play heavily to background (there will be countless examples that prove me wrong here but I'm pretty comfortable making the generalisation). Generally if people want to play to a specific background they have a reasonable idea of how it would play, tactical articles can then be used to support how they want to play rather than dictating it.

It would, though, be nice to see battle reports come with a tactical analysis talking about what could / should have happened at a certain point, a little like a post-match analysis when watching football or any other sport, circling the players and indicating intended / actual directions and showing gaps in the plan. I think that would be the best way to do what you suggest and help players to understand

BoLS articles are still amongst the best written for this game, not just in terms of content but their style and the intellegent way in which they are presented & the community supports and discusses them. There's a lot of value in this site that's missing in some of the others, if you're not getting what you want from the articles then perhaps some examples of what you want would help the Fly Lords in deciding what other things to include?

[DarkLink]

Plus, things like character and such are highly subjective. People argue over the meaning of the rules in the BRB and codecies, and they're as close as we get to being written in stone.

On the other hand, some people often reject large sections of fluff, because they don't like them, or because they contradict other portions of fluff. A lot of Grey Knight players I've seen on places like Bolter and Chainsword liked the Grey Knight books, but don't consider some of them to be true cannon, because they just don't fit the fluff given in the codex well. Sometimes it seems like they're written about a whole different chapter of Space Marines called the Gray Knights, who also fight daemons and stuff.

[Melissia]

Similarly to how some people reject the fact that only a single Sister has ever fallen to Chaos, as well.

[DarkLink]

As a Grey Knight player, I'll admit that the fluff of only a single sister ever falling is like a slap in the face. The thing that makes us special is 1. We're literally the best of the best of the best of everything, excluding primarch's and similar legendary heroes and massive daemons, and 2. not a single Grey Knight has ever fallen, or even faltered in battle.

It just feels like GW was thinking "ok, so no sister has ever fallen- oh, wait, that's Grey Knight territory... eh, whatever, let's just say only a single sister has ever fallen".

[imperialsavant]

Similarly to how some people reject the fact that only a single Sister has ever fallen to Chaos, as well.

:confused: I thought in the Daemonfugue book (Sister Stern) that they found a whole Priory had been corrupted by Slannish? :eek:

[Melissia]

Which directly contradicts a very specific statement in the codex. *shrug* I don't consider Daemonifuge to be canon.

DarkLink: The Grey Knights also have existed for about twice as long as the Sisters IIRC. Regardless, I don't really like the fact that they chose that the one Sororitas that ever fell, fell to worshipping Slaanesh. *eyeroll* Stupid perverted males...

[DarkLink]

Regardless, I don't really like the fact that they chose that the one Sororitas that ever fell, fell to worshipping Slaanesh. *eyeroll* Stupid perverted males...

Lol, I'd think that Khorne would be a more likely canidate, seeing as a Sister could get a little carried away with her burninating of heritics.

And for the Grey Knight novels, a lot of stuff indirectly contradicts our fluff, as well. Suddenly Grey Knights have Chaplains, don't teleport (they use Drop Pods and Thunderhawks) and so on and so forth. I haven't read the later ones, but I heard they get even more far out.

In fact, the entire second half of the book could be cut down to a chapter or two, if Alaric just remembered that, instead of making a suicide run with a Thawk through an Imperial Navy fleet, then assaulting an entire regiment of IG and a large group of Sisters of Battle, fighting through them, and only then finally get to the bad guy summoning the daemon, they could just teleport straight to their target and kill it. At least the Sisters figured out they were being tricked by the bad guys, and turned around to help the Grey Knights.