Not all concerns are legitimate. I will, however, attempt to be less flippant.
And through it all people complained "there's too many books coming out" and "I shouldn't have to buy 2 books to get content that could go into one book."They didn't change things to answer criticisms. And no one's complaining about options, either. Let me see if I can get around your attitude enough to explain this again.
Codex: Orks came out, had a new detachment style and basic formation. It was followed with a supplement with lots of other formations, another detachment style, some other stuff. This is the "new style." Cool, okay, I can dig it. Space Wolves and Dark Eldar followed in the same suit. Meanwhile, Grey Knights got an update, and the Blood Angels, pretty much the same, only sans a supplement, because, well, there's only so much you can do with them. Mostly these armies were toned down, too. This is the new 7th edition style. Okay. Most of these also saw some stuff in campaign supplements.
First, Epic has absolutely nothing to do with the reclamation legion. Second, which is more options, having the FoC only, or having the option to choose between the FoC or the reclamation legion?Then Necrons show up. Suddenly instead of a new FOC detachment (which they actually got in a supplement, strangely), they get a mega-detachment meant for Epic 28mm sized games. Oh, and if you want to run that, you MUST take a certain combo of units. It actually presents less choice than a standard FOC detachment would.
Which directly deals with the whole "too many books coming out" and "I shouldn't have to buy two books to get what should be in my single codex".Formations were folded into the book, no supplement.
Ok, slow down. Eldar has formations as well as the warhost, which is itself, just a large formation. There is no difference between it and any other detachment or formation or the FoC. Harlequins and Skitarri were both smaller releases, so they it is no surprise that they don't have a formation with the flexibility of the warhost / decurion. They do, however, have large formations / detachments. I'll admit, I don't know if Daemonkin has other formations or not. Either way, they're all just options and other ways to bring armies. Options are good.Harlequins come along, do the whole formations in the book thing, but go right back to a normal new FOC detachment. Then Daemonkin, with the Epic 28mm detachment. Then Skitarii with the FOC detachment. Then Eldar with the Epic 28mm detachment. And, of course, with the big ones, you must take X and Y to have Z... so not really as much flexibility. And we're now about to have Knights and then Cult Mechanicus, with the Knights confirmed to have a FOC detachment.
No one is arguing that the Wraithknight isn't under priced. For all that I love the Eldar codex, even I say it was a mistake. I do have a question though. Is the bloodthirster of insensate rage a LoW slot, or an HQ choice, if HQ slot, is it unique? Not that it matters a whole lot, just for my own curiousity.And even within that series of books, the balance is off. You have a Bloodthirster of Insensate Rage in the Daemonkin book priced at 275 points. Then you have a Wraithknight in Craftworld Eldar at 295 points. The Wraithknight is much tougher than the Bloodthirster, pretty much just as fast, has a Str D CCW that strikes at Initiative, has Stomp attacks to deal even more damage to hordes of infantry, same armor and inv. save, and is just so much better. And yet, it's only 20 points more.
Are price drops a bad thing? This is what I don't get. You're complaining about this, but it is a step in the right direction. Sure, it sucks for orks players, space wolf players, and dark eldar players (of which I am one), but just because it sucks for them should it not be fixed for everyone else?We'll just set aside the valid complaint that people with Orks, Space Wolves, and Dark Eldar had to pay $100 for what newer codices are charging $50-$58 for. The style is flip-flopping, and there's not much cohesion to the internal contents.
Ok, being able to scout move a fortress is a bit hilarious, but really, is it game breaking? Ditto the allying in Khorne daemonkin with CSM? You complain that they aren't power houses, perhaps those codices have those types of things in mind when they're published.And in some cases, it seems they aren't considering the potential ramifications of some of the rules they're printing, such as being able to Scout a bloody Fortress of Redemption (which you can totally do in the Skitarii codex). Or that you can ally Khorne Daemonkin with CSM, attach characters to CSM units (like Havocs), and get Blood Tithe points for units they destroy (while using psykers to get buffs and maybe even summon in more Daemons, because why not?).
How so? I don't feel like I'm suffering. I'm excited, half the units in my old codex were totally unplayable. Now I can field Aspect Warriors. The tournament scene hasn't died. Where is this suffering, other than in people that just want to complain because someone else got something nice?but the game itself feels like it's starting to suffer.
Again, a totally legitimate gripe. I don't have a kindle so I wouldn't have a clue how it looked on one.Oh, and charging me $35 for a Kindle version of a codex that looks like no one bothered to put in serious effort? Not cool. Those things have lines where the font is so big they wrap around, unit profiles and other tables designed as images that don't show up at the proper size and are barely readable, and are overall just ugly looking. The iPad version they like to show off might seem pretty, but the version for Kindles, which is still freaking $35, looks like they didn't even try. Sorry, but if I'm paying $35 for an ebook, it should have some effort and testing put into it.
Why does that matter in the least?Let's see... Triple Flyrant, IIRC, is something you need a supplement for, and is a specialized style of Tyranid army.
I'm pretty sure Daemons have been getting top spots in tournaments about as consistently as the old Eldar codex that people griped was so broken.Daemons *aren't* particularly great if you're not using the cheeky buggery tricks (which still aren't as potent as they used to be). Not going to say they "suck," but I won't put basic Daemons "up there."
Which matters in what way?And you also give an example of a "death star" backed by units not in the codex and sold by Forge World, so not considered part of a "codex list."
So anyone who plays the game differently than you do is having bad wrong fun and should stop? How does this comment do anything but insult other people's play styles?Yeah, death stars can fight other death stars. What an interesting game that is. (That was sarcasm, since I'm sure people didn't catch that, and I think a lot of people actually believe Cheesehammer *is* interesting.)
I'm just telling you how the whole gaming industry works, it isn't GW out to be evil or anything, its the common and best practice. It is what it takes to keep people buying new stuff, to keep the meta changing to new stuff. I mean, how boring would the game be if you just bought 1850 points of an army and never changed it, never had to adapt to other armies or power changes in your codex, you just kept using the same army from the 1990s. Do you think your opponents would enjoy playing against the exact same thing every time for 20+ years?As to the other "point," I don't play MtG for a reason. And yeah, way to go comparing a card game to a miniatures game. Want to justify GW's moves with stuff EA does in video games?