# What Are The Reasons For The Alleged 'Rise Of The Nerf Age'?



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Hey guys

When quite a lot of the new codexs have come out I've heard a lot of people voice the opinion that a lot of lists have been nerfed and how its all Jervis Johnson's fault.

I was out of the loop for a while (basically untill I came here) so I missed all that changing of the Guard.

Anybody care to explain why Andy Chambers left, the new promenance Jervis and the new direction of GW.

(Please don't turn this into a discussion of weather certain codex's have been nerfed or not, or how GW is now full of mean goblins only interested in making money etc as we have all heard those arguments before and the majority of us know where we all stand on those topics).

So yea - what happened?


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

All these people are whinging because they jumped on the most powerful lists and, suprise suprise, the lists got powered down. Templars, Craftworld Eldar, and Chaos got the same treatment, and nobody can say they didn't deserve it.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

*Re: What are the reasons for the rise of the age of Nerf?*



Jacobite said:


> (Please don't turn this into a discussion of weather certain codex's have been nerfed or not, or how GW is now full of mean goblins only interested in making money etc as we have all heard those arguments before and the majority of us know where we all stand on those topics).


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

I can't justify reductions in power if I can't indicate specific cases in which they were entirely valid.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Ok that was me trying very hard to be polite. 

Your post didn't really answer the question that I asked. So rather than turning the thread into a discussion on wether or not the Codex's have been powered down (which I specifcally asked this thread not to be), would you please be able to answer it. If not thats fine but please don't hijack the thread.

Thank you.


----------



## Alexander_67 (May 5, 2007)

It is in my opinion most of what uberschveinen said, i think its because people in their droves were complaining non stop about how cheap certain armies were due to the rules that made them. And to my ultimate shame i have complained once or twice about said powerful armies. I think GW have simply responded to all this critisism and been forced to remove rule lists for armies. 

It wouldnt be fare to simply remove the rules for one army and leave the rest unchanged as that would simply look as if they were either penalising one group of people or admiting blatantly they had made a mistake in the rules. 

So if one had to go they all had to go. And you have the situation we have now. All new armies are vanilla. Bog standard. Cut from exactly the same mould. The only thing that defines them individual is what you give your character and how you paint them. And it is a damn shame


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

Well there was a lot of rumours about why Andy Chambers left GW. I want to make sure that you are aware that these are just rumours, i have no idea if they are true or not! 

The first was that he quit for personal/family reasons. Again i dunno if this is completely true, as there is rarely ever one exact reason. 

The second i heard was. Andy Chambers wanted to move 40k into the "end Game" scenario, and the powers that be said no. So he felt that perhaps he should leave. 

I'm not sure if either/any of these reasons is the actual one, all i know is that he turned up working for the Starship Troopers Miniature game awful quickly! (apparently he's made it a lot better) 

Andy Chambers was/is a big loss to a company like GW (IMO). His knowledge, understanding of the games and people who play it and the vision he might have had for the games future. Jervis is not a bad person, or by any means bad at his job. I (with the exception of the Eldar codex) like the direction 40k has taken. Once ALL of the books are re-done i think it will be a better game. I like the fact that in future people will not win their games at the list design stage. Ok i would have preferred to keep the Legions for example, but these can still be done as long as the person writing the list doesn't jacking off to Lash Princes and Oblits combos! 

I think/hope the game will eventually revolve around tactics and balanced/themed lists. You asked if the codex's are being powered down jaco. Well yes, they appear to be. I'm happy about that. Playing Beard fest's almost made me give up the hobby, or start playing FoW, Warmachine or Hordes (which are great game's). 

One other reason GW probably went in a new direction is that it was floated! GW has investors, share holder etc. They have to have profit margins and business stuff! lol. The games are not really marketed towards us now. This hobby is about 12 year old boys and their parents credit cards. I'm getting on a bit. I'm not their target audience and i can understand why GW acts the way they do. It still frustrates me, but i accept it. We'll just have to see what happens! 


MarzM :mrgreen:


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

The rumour I heard/figured out about Chambers quitting was that with the start of 4th Ed he wanted to completely revolutionise the game system, get rid of U go I go, etc, etc.

The bean counters said No. Too risky, stick with a tried system and milk it til it collapses.

So Andy moved to the company that did the Starship Troopers game which coincidentally forgoes the U go I go system, whilst having a lot of hallmarks of the 40k system...


----------



## Kujo (Aug 13, 2007)

> GW has investors, share holder etc. They have to have profit margins and business stuff! lol.


How could they not be making huge profits when they can sell 15 cents worth of plastic for 15 dollars?????


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

I really don't want to comment on the Nerf Age anymore (I've whined across several forums).

On the one hand I like that Iron Warriors are gone, that Blood Angels don't get 250pts of free stuff, that Ulthwe doesn't have a 60xman Seer Village, etc, etc.

But on the other hand I don't like how the only difference between armies will be what colour you paint them. And having the hard choice between taking a Tactical Squad kitted like A, or a Tactical Squad kitted like A...


I wouldn't mind seeing the Assault Cannon fixed, such a no brainer- the DA/BA solution is GW standard sideways, half-assed but it's tolerable.
And the Holo Fields- of, 'You can't kill me, I win.'


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

I believe that this is what he is referring to Uber:



> Anybody care to explain why Andy Chambers left, the new promenance Jervis and the new direction of GW.


Jac, I don't fully know myself but I seem to recall that Andy was fired, then Pete Haines (not that I might that one) and the Jervis was put in charge of the overall direction for 40K in the forseeable future. Jervis stated ideal is to level the playing field with all the codices, making them all roughly at the same power level and having all units in each codex be as viable as the next. Once the codices are somewhat standardized, then they will concentrate on more add-ons such as Cities of Death and Apocalypse.

The whole idea of it being 'his fault' stems from his White Dwarf articles that often make reference to his young son and that people feel that whatever is being done with 40K right now is not for veteran players but is instead all focused on making it as easy as possible for said child to play. Which is a load of hogwash. GW is a business and I am fairly certain they realize that appealing to the younger market will only gain them more revenue (which many feel is the single most evil thing they can do, gasp, a company making money.....). I simply look at it as a smart move as it just means more players for me to crush in the future


----------



## hephesto (Feb 24, 2007)

Good question, if they are indeed levelling all armies and codexes there is bound to be some powering down of armies and units. And in many cases this is a good thing as there were quite a few broken, overpowered things out there. For example as an Iron Warrior player I'm the first to admit that that list was indeed very open to abuse and there were many, many others.

As such I'm hoping that the current line of powering down codexes doesn't take things to far and forces people to chuck half their excisintg armies in the bin (poor alpha legion player  ). Good example here is the chaos codex, read it cover to cover, and I like it a lott, especially the very nice, fluff sections and stories (the wolf of Fenris and Kharn stories are so damn cool). And I can fully understand why certain things were cut/changed, but I do have the feeling that a lott of long-time chaos player will have the feeling that the only thing that differentiates 1 chaos army from the next will be the colourscheme and how abusive a unit choice a player will make. In fact there's an army pic in the codex that demonstrates this very well - a red corsair force with allies from the cleaced. Fancy names and very cool colourscheme, but they're all the same chaos marines.

The strange thing is if this is indeed there planned course, then why are the putting such extreme effort into apocalypse. Doubt it will help to make things simpler or more balanced....although funfactor should go up x-fold. Ah well, the only thing I can truly say is that the next 2 should show us just how far gw is taking this. I'm pretty sure the daemon codex will make chaos very special again, orks should be fine (I hope) with some old units coming back and if the rumors are true necrons should be getting an tau-styled update. And while a lott of people are afraid they'll loose their "we'll be back roll", I really doubt it as the apocalypse phalanx still uses it and makes it even better.

In fact the only thing I'm truly disappointed in so far is the annoying new codex layout, thanksfully I have a decent memory but otherwise I'd be turning pages until my fingers would go dumb. Still this is just a personal thing :wink:


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Wraiths about covered it with his answer.

I don't agree with the 'Hogwash' bit though it is being dumbed down, but as Wraith said its to make it marketable to younger players and to move us Vets the newer add ons which are more complicated.(Edit: There was a time when due to lead content the lower age limit for the hobby was 14 yrs.)
This policy (whilst I/you may not like it.) spans from Battle for Macragge to Cities of Death and Apocalypse and is designed to create generations of players all buying different versions of the game. Then get the younger players to purchase the next one up the chain as they mature.
It make sense, how many times have you seen younger brothers get frustrated in a shop because they could not play? 

Andy Chambers had his own ideas about the direction of 40k which while probably good from a narritive point of view were not so hot from a business standpoint.
(A memory stirs of rumours...... the collapse of the Imperium...... enclaves of loyalist holding out in isolated pockets of resistance....etc.)


Ubers forgotten Dark and Blood Angels.... :lol:

Edit: sorry Heph your reply was not there when I started typing (slowly). The quicker you wear your codex out the more copies you will have to buy.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

I have a feeling Apocalypse is supposed to make all the older gamers think, hang on, it's OK to field all the units that have been 'nerfed', now I've got an extra 1000(+) points to play with and no force-org charts to worry about... Jervis does care about us after all (and why not? He's older than me (pretty old) and has been at GW since about 1985, several years before Andy Chambers joined).

It's (Apocalypse) not really aimed at the younger market, granted, but they don't want all us oldsters to bog off. Just shut up, I suspect.

As to the min age being 14, not so sure about that. I remember when they started putting warnings on citadel miniatures, I *think* it was 1984, and I think they were 'not recommended for children under 12'; but there was also a big price rise around that time to do with international bismuth and antimony trading, leading to GW trying new (lower lead content) alloys and also moving into plastics with the FF plastic figures and slottabases. So I'd dispute that 14 was ever a lower end - I didn't start playing Warhammer till I was fourteen and 40k at 18 or 19, but only because that's how old I was when Rick Priestly wrote them. I started collecting and gaming with lead miniatures when I was 10.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Sweet cheers guys. That clears it up well.

I know what you mean about Andy Chambers, his ideas for the 40k universe would have been very interesting imho, not sure how they would sell though, many people may have taken it as meaning that the 40k line of mini's were being discontinued.

Is Space Mcquirk and Fat Bloke still working there?


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

I cannot find any early packaging for 40k in my Dungeon at the moment, the only reference to 14yrs I could find was on Space Marine. "Complexity: 14yrs to adult"
so you may be right Red Orc. You will be the first to know if I can find it though :wink: .

Not sure about those two Jacs I think Fat Bloke was one of those shunted sideways into the journal bunker, but don't qoute me on it.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Dunno about Space but I am fairly certain that Fat Bloke is gone too.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Hmm thats a pity - I always thought Space's stuff was cool. Good writer imho. Strange he hasn't done any novels.

And Fat Blokes seris of WD articles on his chaos legion in the early 2000's was great.

Thats a bit of a loss I think.


----------



## Alexander_67 (May 5, 2007)

Red Orc said:


> It's (Apocalypse) not really aimed at the younger market, granted, but they don't want all us oldsters to bog off. Just shut up, I suspect.


Sounds about right, but being a game vet gives the right to complain about the state of affairs now. Its just they way of things.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't get all this "nerf age" BS, I don't feel like anythings been nerfed, DA got better, BA got better (apart from a few poorly written things), Chaos got much better, and all of them were apparently nerfed, so I just don't get it


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Viscount Vash said:


> I cannot find any early packaging for 40k in my Dungeon at the moment, the only reference to 14yrs I could find was on Space Marine. "Complexity: 14yrs to adult"
> so you may be right Red Orc. You will be the first to know if I can find it though :wink: .


LOL

As is only right and proper, VV; if I'm being a pompous/self righteous arse, I more or less insist that you go, "well actually, you're being a pompous self righteous arse"!

And I'm not just saying this because I've (just now) found something from '87 that says...

...drum roll...

...wait for it...

...not recommended for children under the age of...

...no I can't...

...oh all right then.

14.

You were completely right and I was wrong, I totally admit it.

But in my defence I'll say;
1 - it's 1987 not 1984, maybe they changed the warnings in 1986; and,
2 - I'm a senile old git. I died in the war for people like you, my wife got a V2 on her head etc etc

then I *might* get away with it.

:cyclops:


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Stella Cadente said:


> I don't get all this "nerf age" BS, I don't feel like anythings been nerfed, DA got better, BA got better (apart from a few poorly written things), Chaos got much better, and all of them were apparently nerfed, so I just don't get it


Depends on who you talk to. People like us who see the newest books as improvements obviously don't think they are nerfed, but talk to the min/mas power gamer who only ever fields 6 man las/plas squads and you will hear an entirely different opinion.

The fact remains that GW is attempting to both level the playing field and do away with the ultra cheesy combinations. The people complaining about it, in the main, are those who are of the mindset that tactics aren't what wins a game, the list is. And for years now they have been building lists that do not require them to think at all during the game itself as the list does all the work.

THAT is who feels that the new books are nerfed. Not all of them, but in the main, most of them.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Cheers Red Orc I thought I was going senile for a wee bit there.

Its the loss of wargear that has made my bottom lip tremble the most in the recent codexs Wraith.
I used all that funky kit to (hopefully) make fairly original characters not power game (nothing like the comment 'I hadn't thought of that  .).

Tactics are the use of the resources you have in any given situation, the list is a valid part of your tactics.
That said any monkey can work out the most beardy army from any given codex nerfed or not, its happened in every edition of the the game since RT......
New rules=lots of whining, two months later every power gamer has worked out the 'best' combos and thats what you will see on table.

But if there is one thing I have learned about GW in the last 20 or so years is...
'Evolve or die, as long as you buy.'


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

No, no, Vash, you can't have another valid reason for not liking the new Codex's- anyone who doesn't is a power gaming beard monster, all bow before Jervis.



> Depends on who you talk to. People like us who see the newest books as improvements obviously don't think they are nerfed, but talk to the min/mas power gamer who only ever fields 6 man las/plas squads and you will hear an entirely different opinion.


Strange, my Tau and Eldar opponents never used 6xman las/plas squads and they will now wipe the floor quite easily with these new weaker Codex's.



> The fact remains that GW is attempting to both level the playing field and do away with the ultra cheesy combinations. The people complaining about it, in the main, are those who are of the mindset that tactics aren't what wins a game, the list is. And for years now they have been building lists that do not require them to think at all during the game itself as the list does all the work.


The sad truth of 40k is that the army list makes up at least 60% of winning. And I agree that your first sentence is what GW are trying to do, but it will be years before Tau and Eldar are redone to fit the new power level- years of a hideous power imbalance between them and the new Codex's.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

It my be true that the list makes up at least 60% of winning (possibly explains why I lose so often!); luckily for many people, winning makes up a lot less than 60% having fun.

I've said on other threads before that IMO, an uber-list approach to gaming leads (by reductio ad absurdem) to 2 people sitting over a table shouting numbers at each other, or even one player going, 'nah I can't beat that list, you win mate'. 

For anyone who thinks that the point is to win at all costs, that's probably OK, but if the idea is to tell a story, the list is probably less important a part of the tactics than as an excuse to come up with some particular fluff: why are there three dev squads and no tanks? Why is the commander leading an assault unit? How did a combination of Shgining Spears and Rangers appear in this desert anyway? Why do I have 120 gretchen and no heavy weapons?

I dunno, maybe I just find it easier to come up with a justification for a non-optimized list than optimize the list in the first place!

BTW, I've never really gotten my head round the terminology - which is "cheese" and which is "beard"?

:cyclops:


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

> I dunno, maybe I just find it easier to come up with a justification for a non-optimized list than optimize the list in the first place!


Your preaching to the choir here, mate.

I took Sisters to the UKGT Final, I've just taken Deathwing to Open War 8...the only DA army there.

It doesn't change the fact 60% of the game's outcome is decided before the players show up. Just that the 40% of skill, luck, right mission, right terrain better be on your side with 'non-optimised' armies.



> BTW, I've never really gotten my head round the terminology - which is "cheese" and which is "beard"?


They've kind of merged to mean the same thing, which is different per person as it isn't a strict definition.

To me cheese is a filthy unit combo, like Sirenbomb, etc. an army list thing.

Beard is performing a rules loophole, or trick irrespective of army list- like the 2 units lining up so you can't charge either.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

I would never say the majority of strategic advantage in the game is obtained by building a good list. It is a very good deal, but I've beaten far too many 'good lists' with what has been called inferior to believe that. Your list construction is very important, but only just as important as the way you use that army. A brilliant army composer and a brilliant strategist will have a more or less matched battle, in my experience. Luck, too, is important, but skilful army composition and use reduces your reliance on it significantly. At leats 40% of any game is in assembling your forces, 40% in using them, and the last 20% is what goes wrong or right. These numbers are the result of brute experience, and I can tell you that the best strategy with a mediocre list will beat the best list with a mediocre strategy as often as it does not.

What I find strange is that people complain about how other people win with luck or lists. This is a war game. A game intended to replicate, on some level, war. Wars are won and lost by what troops you send in and what goes tits-up in the heat of battle as much as they are by strategy. A thousand Marines can't beat an aircraft carrier, a beachhead force is screwed if subs show up, and any number of identical situations. The U.S. keeps using the broken combination of better-quality infantry with armoured and air support, or at sea, the Carrier battle formation. The Israeli codex is leagues better than the Palestinian codex, especially with the Ignore Civilian Casualties doctrine. The fact that we have a close to balanced set of rules, where there is nothing, no army, that is truly broken and undefeatable, is very good. Some people put as much, if not more, time into planning their lists than I do planning my strategies. Good for them. They earned that advantage. And before someone screams ZOMG NETLIST, let me be simple. Netlists are ass. They're not customised for the player, his opponents, or his skill, and by being that publicised, everybody knows how to beat them. They are a disadvantage in almost every way, and worse, they indicate the total lack of confidence the opponent has in his own abilities. The only way for a netlist to be good is if it is so genuinely powerful that it screws with the metagame.

As for luck, well, why complain? You're playing a game with dice, and you have to take what they roll. You knew that when you signed up. There's nothing wrong with complaining a little about how the dice hate you, but the moment you're serious about what you say, you're doing it wrong. It's a war game, and things go to hell during war. Besides, your 'crap luck' stories are sometimes even worth telling later. Complaining about luck and meaning it only proves to everybody else that you aren't weilling to accept your own lack of skill, be it at building or using your army. For so long as you blame your losses on luck, you'll never improve.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

I think I'm the person who mentioned losing a lot, so that may be directed at me - if so, I completely agree with you Uber (if it wasn't directed at me, I still agree!)

I wasn't complaining about losing - just trying to point out that to some of us "it's not whether you win or lose, it's whether or not one of your grunts pulls of something that you can talk about afterwards" or something. If winning all the time was an important aspect of gaming for me, I'd;
1 - get better at list building;
2 - get better at tactics;
3 - get better at both; or
4 - give up and find a game I was better at.

As it is, I look on it as being about the story, which is another way of saying, I'm entirely comfortable with my lack of skill in both selecting and using my army, and I need to find some other way of deriving enjoyment from a pasting.

:cyclops:


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

The Wraithlord said:


> Stella Cadente said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get all this "nerf age" BS, I don't feel like anythings been nerfed, DA got better, BA got better (apart from a few poorly written things), Chaos got much better, and all of them were apparently nerfed, so I just don't get it
> ...


Amen brother.

While I think the _blandness_ of the new Chaos SM Codex is a bit weird, I think the "_nerfing_" was actually a good thing, bringing everything back on an even footing. At least it's getting there.

I think that any pushing of the limits of the army, chimping out the list to make them even more uber lethal is going to be all that more obvious now. A khornate army with Slanneshi bosses, kitted out w/ 2 lashes...yeah, you go ahead and play over THERE [points to the table with the smelly guy].


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

Just because a netlist is widely known doesn't make it suddenly easy to beat.

Most of the harsh netlists like Godzilla, Iron Warriors, Siren, Skimmer Spam, etc almost play themselves.

I know a fair few players that did do things the hard way, did work their way to a highly competitive list through experience and playing- one of them practically invented the Tau netlist, whilst another invented the Infilspeedlord.

I'm sure there are others out there that came to the same 'optimal' conclusions the same way.

But the majority simply click search on forums like this, and voila, you have instant advantage over a balanced list.



> What I find strange is that people complain about how other people win with luck or lists. This is a war game. A game intended to replicate, on some level, war. Wars are won and lost by what troops you send in and what goes tits-up in the heat of battle as much as they are by strategy.


Ah, this old chestnut. This is a game about war, not a war about a game.

"I should bring the filthiest netlist because in real war they do..."

Aside from the fact in real war most field commanders don't have a free pick'n'mix of uber units available, making do with what they have...

This is a game, the aim is for both players to have fun.



> These numbers are the result of brute experience, and I can tell you that the best strategy with a mediocre list will beat the best list with a mediocre strategy as often as it does not.


So the guy that plays better only beats the guy with a netlist half the time. Hence take a netlist and your odds of winning rise dramatically.

I stand by 60% list.

As for luck, I wasn't bitching about it, just stating the % I think it affects a game of 40k.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

I disagree with all of it, I say that the game is won 70% by placement of troops/movemet phase/strategy and the game is won 30% by luck. list falls under strategy, but list cannot win by itself, a list needs someone to play it and make decisions.


----------



## rokassan (Jan 24, 2007)

In the end I just hate losing all of my options as a Chaos player, as Im sure most other players didnt care to lose their options. I agree people abuse the rules. But the flavor of Chaos has diminished. The only options you have are what gun your aspiring champion is carrying. The Traitor Legions special rules are gone...why not keep them and just revise what needs to be revised, Im sure there could have been a way to streamline the codex without completely castrating it. Regular Chaos Marines are just loyalists with spikes on their armor. As has been mentioned before, theres no real customization at all ...vet skills, demon abilities. Does the Apoc book have advanced rules? No. It just allows you to field 80 marines ,10 Leman Russ Tanks or a Titan. Theres not much advancement in the rules. The Cities of Death sup was nice I must admit. I enjoy the stratgems and revised rules for fighting. Maybe GW should print an advance rulebook for players over the age of 14. Appeal to both sides.

In conclusion dont castrate .....revise fix the problems. If you have a wart on your hand you have it removed correct.....you dont amputate the arm because its unsightly. I dont know if the analogy makes sense....who cares.


EDIT: Jacobite. Just edited your post so that you get the right codex - Apoc rather than Armaggedon. And yes your statement does make sense.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

There's more to netlisting than the pure power of the list. They have that advantage over others. What they do not have is the strategic advantage of knowing what the opponent will play. Against a known netlister, I can tell most of what they'll use and their strategy before the battle even starts, and with that in mind, I have a very large advantage in army construction. When the battle starts, I knwo almost exactly what they'll do, and can react accordingly. They don't have a clue what I'm going to do and so must play reactively, meaning they lose the initiative they need to win. A netlist is not just advantage, against a decent strategist it is also a significant weakness.

The players who use netlists and win are those who have the skill and talent to adjust the list to better suit their playstyle and their opponent. This takes as much, if not more, skill than designing the netlist in the first place, and those with this talent to remove the netlist's weaknesses deserve fully the reward for their skill.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

I have to disagree, first off what army/ list are you using, is it a netlist itself (by netlist I mean it is similar to the popular build for that army, *not* that you didn't work on it yourself).

Second, just because you know how a netlist is going to play doesn't make it easily beatable, most netlists rely on simple basic tactics that are very hard to counter.

Example 1: IW's- Uber Prince, 2x 6xman Las/plas. 9 Oblits. 3xPredator. 1xDefiler.

They will castle in good cover, trying to cover the board with fire lanes. Make a checklist of the opponents most threatening units and work down the list.
If you hide, they pie, and advance with Oblits & tanks to objectives.
If you try to meet them in a firefight, you lose.
If you try to charge, be prepared to lose most of your assault force to shooting....then face a Daemon Prince.

I know how it plays, doesn't mean it isn't very hard for a balanced list to compete against.

Example 2: Godzilla Nids, 3 Gunfex. 3 Dakkafex. 1 flyrant. 1gunrant. filler troops as counter-assault.

They will castle in good cover, trying to cover the board with fire lanes. Make a checklist of the opponents most threatening units and work down the list.
If you hide, they advance with army.
If you try to meet them in a firefight, you lose.
If you try to charge, be prepared to lose most of your assault force to shooting....then half a dozen Tyranid Monstrous Creatures, and the counter-assault Genestealers/Raveners.

There are netlists for Eldar and Tau but they require more skill to play. The above two examples are the best for showing that some netlists don't require much skill to use, as their tactics are boringly simple regardless of opponent.



> Against a known netlister, I can tell most of what they'll use and their strategy before the battle even starts, and with that in mind, I have a very large advantage in army construction.


This quote sticks out, it's very hard to tailor your list in tournaments. And not really the classy thing around my area in friendly play- "Just a minute, I've seen your list, give me half an hour to completely re-write mine."



> The players who use netlists and win are those who have the skill and talent to adjust the list to better suit their playstyle and their opponent. This takes as much, if not more, skill than designing the netlist in the first place, and those with this talent to remove the netlist's weaknesses deserve fully the reward for their skill.


Have to disagree, examples above.


----------



## anathema (Jan 24, 2007)

Depends on your definition of nerfed and better. From a competitive standpoint, all 3 codexes have been made weaker. However, BA and Chaos have IMO become more balanced at the expense of variety in the case of Chaos. DA have just become generally weaker I think with the unpleasant addition of forcing player to take Special Characters. Combat squads has caused a rather large power down. I don't expect to see many basic marine squads in many new chaos or BA lists.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

anathema said:


> I don't expect to see many basic marine squads in many new chaos or BA lists.


And I'm being serious when I say thats a pity.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

So the irony of the new Codex's that attempted to remove the 6xman las/plas minimum troops and put Tactical Marines/Chaos Marines back as the bulk of an army.....is that they encourage even fewer basic Marines.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

I'm going to be sad when I can no longer give my BT Chaplain artificer armor, bike, and a thunder hammer. especially cause I just completed the conversion last night.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

I dunno, as a Chaos and Tsons player, I can still see the use of basic marines quite easily. With Icons to alter the squads to your preferred style of play the basic marine squad becomes something more than the sum of its parts. Even my Thousand Sons list has a 10 man squad with the Icon of Tzeentch in it. The 5+ save the squad gets because of the IoT is a huge benefit in this game where anti-MEQ weapons seem to be a dime a dozen and if you take 10 you get a large, hard to kill scoring unit with 2 specials or 1 special and a heavy if you prefer. Sure, min/max squads are cheap but they are also extremely easy to dispose of.

The Legion troops are the best bet obviously but I really can't agree that the basic troops aren't worth taking. Troops are definitely the bulk of my armies and always have been. The fact that so many people have to get used to this new shift is somewhat disheartening. It only points to the fact that whether they want to believe it or not, most players are looking at their lists in the 'what is the most effective expenditure of points' mindset. I think the new direction of the above mentioned codices is going to, hopefully, correct that eventually.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Oh the ten man squad one heavy one special doesn't offend me in the slightest, it just means my old brain goes back to second edition marine units.  

GW change stuff around every few years I have had to learn to lump it.
(see my original comments in this thread 16 ago to see my main objections to the changes  .)

Whats for sure is one of these new 'nerfed' codices will end up being moaned about as beardy or cheesy in the future as the power gamers find the loop hole and monster combos :wink: .


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

_"Whats for sure is one of these new 'nerfed' codices will end up being moaned about as beardy or cheesy in the future as the power gamers find the loop hole and monster combos ."_


I can guarantee that.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

anathema said:


> I don't expect to see many basic marine squads in many new chaos or BA lists.


I dunno about that, my Chaos list will hopefully have 40 chaos marines in it, no death guard, or thousand sons, or slaneesh, or Khorne, sure two of the squads will have the mark of khorne, and the other two Nurgle, but there still bog standard.

and my planned BA list had 40 tactical marines and 20 devvie, so you will see basic from me, you can count on that


----------



## rokassan (Jan 24, 2007)

Monster combo's....you can just mix all of the Cult troops with no restrictions. Noise Marines fighting shoulder to shoulder with Berserkers. Plague Marines guarding the flank of Thousand Sons Marines unit.....what is that crap. All of the cult Marines count as troops for the force organization. You never have to use regular Chaos Marines.I got a look at the new codex. I guess aspiring Champions cant get lightning claws anymore and Loyal Marines have Artificer armor, but theres no more Demon armor for Chaos. What a really dull and soulless codex. You do have the option of deciding whether your Asp. Champ gets a plasma pistol or bolt pistol and oh yea whether he wants a power fist or power sword......and thats it.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Minned down basic troop choices are hardly a new thing.

I always had four troops, but they were almost all scouts, back in the day.


----------



## Pandawithissues... (Dec 2, 2007)

Fat bloke did indeed get shunted to the journal, and that was a long time back. WD hasnt had a decent, stable, editor since, and believe me it really shows.
I'd agree that a lot of it has to do with getting the younger kids into the hobby, but that has always been, and will always be a good thing. I'm just sorry a lot of things that i enjoy have been shafted over the last 4-5 years.

'Specialist games' were promised a lot of support such as their own magazines and stuff that GW quietly euthanised with the excuse of putting the stuff onto the net, like the journal and the short lived fanatic magazine, and these were things that typically apealed to, and were supported by the older gamer. Seems like in the stores recently theres a lot more young people, and less of the older group, to me at least, which is a shame, as you lose the experience and camaraderie these people could bring. Some stores, the age of the staff seems to have decreased to a younger level, which it not necessarily a bad thing, but when you hire students, the employee turnover gets higher, and again, from a stability standpoint thats a shame.

However, on the plus side, the level of some of the new models is extremely high - the new (ish) wood elf range is gorgeous, and from a modeling perspective, this is a great thing for the older hobbyists, who are often more concerned with that side of it.

So, some good, some bad.

P.S, the prices havent really seemed to get much more to me, and i've been buying for 12 years. Just they are making more ambitious kits than they used to, and charge more for them.

Just a quick query: Does ANYONE care about the LOTR range? I know they make VERY little money off it.


----------



## foulacy (Nov 24, 2007)

im new to all this game rules nerfing/changing thing but im picking up points here and cant decide wether its better or worse or if im evan understanding the concept correctly,

im gonna interprit this into my own game (halo) i no its completely different but i think its sort of same level of how it started off better and for the more skilled player and then through the trilogy theyve changed it to what it is now which is what people call "noob friendly" so correct me if im wrong but im getting the opinion of some of these posts that GW is changing the game (wther you thinking its advancing or backtracking) for the lesser skilled people to play it.. e.g if you were new to the game with not alot of skill tactics or experiance you were bad at the game (most of the time) but now there making it so its more fair for those guys...


i dont no maybe im just reading it wrong. it is 4:14 in the morning lol


----------



## darkane (Nov 14, 2007)

just a quick note about the crowd being younger and store employees being younger...lets face its, games like these are loved by kids, and you also have to figure alot of people as they grow up stop playing. when you are 20 a 25 year old looks old to you, when you are 30 they look wet behind the ears. to a certain extent a bit of this "everyone is getting younger" could be from an aging perspective. I have had that happen to me in the past as i grew up and older in certain scenes. not trying to criticize by the way, i have just always thought it was an amazing transition.

ps. 
40k RULES!


----------



## cerrakoth (Nov 7, 2007)

In white dwarf(in early 90's) It says In bright yellow writing at the bottom of almost ever page 'you must be 14yrs+ to buy GW models'=] hope this cleared things up(if It hadn't been answered I only read like 3 pages)also warhammer 40k will not advance dramatically in story line until a dip in sales so not for many many a year as LOTR has brought in many new youngsters who have watched the films who have progressed into the other systems, mainly 40k because apparently everyone likes guns=]
P.S they make more money on LOTR than any other system I asked a guy at warhammer world as im in Nottingham.


----------



## torealis (Dec 27, 2006)

> P.S they make more money on LOTR than any other system I asked a guy at warhammer world as im in Nottingham.


thats a freakin lie. WW might make more on LOTR, though i doubt it. if you want the figures, 40k makes up 60% of the sales, with LOTR and WFB roughly equal at 20% each.


----------



## Sister Sin (Nov 27, 2007)

The Target Audience is much younger than before the and rules are being made easier to understand and learn. Or so it has been said.

Sister Sin


----------



## cerrakoth (Nov 7, 2007)

trust me LOTR makes them the most amount of money If you go down to warhammer world on a Sunday or Saturday all you see is 7-14 year olds playing lord of the rings, I cant speak for the rest of the world but certainly in Warhammer World the LOTR figures sell for a lot more, admittedly not as much as once they did(closer to the movies and before they introduced the stupid expansion or w,e they're supposed to be) but I personally think it is a good system and I like it, although sorry for taken this forum off subject


----------



## Dartanyun (Nov 14, 2007)

I like the way they have emphasized larger squads over small without forcing it. In chaos you can take a 5 man squad; if you give it an icon the price is fixed. At ten the points break even, about the same as the cost when you marked each man in the old dex. But if the squad is 20 men strong the icon gives a benefit for half the cost per man. Those who have armies from the legions may be complaining but look at it from the perspective of some one just starting. Before you had to pick a cult or unit and they could only really be used for that. With the new dex just take 9 vanilla marines (even loyalist models will work) and then make an extra 5 men with the icons that come in the box chaos troop box. Then you have one ten man squad with six uses. Unmarked and one for each cult. You can then just add regular marines from any chapter loyal or traitor to make one squad of each icon. Much cheaper, still lets you convert, and lets you be flexible. 
Now while the GW fluff has been pared down considerably, you are now free to make your own and play it without house rules. AC marines, ok just take transports for all your men and take vehicle heavies. Every thing is open so that you can limit yourself. Now you can play your fluff (non traditional fluff) and still play in GT. Often I come up with a neat idea only to not be able to flesh it out due to the limits of the base army. 

Basically there is still fluff; it is now just up to the player not GW. This I think is actually better. “Here’s your tools, have fun- GW”


----------



## Bishop120 (Nov 7, 2007)

I argue the opposite.. Rather than a bunch of extra stuff giving you the option to make what ever you want you have to buy the custom stuff extra. Its like ... here you can build one missle launcher with your Tactical squad.. OH you want something else here pay us another $6-$10 for a custom heavy weapon OR you can buy all whole box of weapons buy only build half of them for $35. There are ways around the way the box stuff but as always you have to buy MORE models. Last thing I did was buy the new plastic Devastator squad and then bought a Tactical squad to make all the extra heavy weapons that comes with the Devastator box. End result was spending $70+tax to make a total of 9 Heavy weapons, 2 special weapons, 1 Vet Sgt, and 3 regular guys. BTW.. did anyone notice that the new Tactical squad boxes dont come with PFs or PWs for the Sgt??


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

On the subject of nerfs, yes it was needed. A couple of years back I remember being on one of the higher tables at a GT with my Tau army, table 3 or so. I was playing against iron warriors and all the other players on the same row as me were using either iron warriors or eldar (mostly ulthwe but one or two alaitoc). Something had to be done to reduce the absolute dominance of these lists.

Personally I have always been rather less concerned about list imbalance in tournaments than in casual play. Tournament players exist in a weird bubble that is pretty distinct from the rest of the hobby. The thing that actually bothered me was people downloading netlists and taking them to oblitorate the "normal" gamers at their local club. I really think that these armies spoiled the whole environment of the hobby.

I don't completely agree with the statement that the current codices, chaos in particular, are less interesting. I recognise that this is an unusual position to take.

The old chaos codex was a really interesting book that produced really, *really* boring armies. Yes, you could make a legion themed army, have all different kinds of daemons and so on, but very few people did. Instead, an absolute ton of people played iron warriors.

The problem was that, between the bewildering array of available options, there was very little balance. There were many poor options and a few strong ones, and people just took the strong ones.

The different units in the new dex are now far more balanced. The book hasn't been out for very long but already I think I've seen all the available units fielded in competitive army lists. To me that is far more intersesting than having a book full of hundreds of options, five of which ever get used.

Chaos marines, with their two weps in CC, are now quite effective assault troops, where before they were just "wounds" for the guy with a lascannon. That alone is a huge improvement.

I don't think the exercise has worked as well with eldar. Skimmers are very dominant at the moment. Rumours about 5th may change that though, which would be a good thing.


----------



## Bishop120 (Nov 7, 2007)

Yeah but now Imperial Marines are completly dissuaded from assualting Chaos marines as they have double the odds in combat. At least out of combat they stand on equal terms with bolters. If we want BP/CCW we have to take a trait and then we loose our Bolter. Dont get me wrong.. Army list wise I like the new Chaos Dex better than the old one but fluff wise the new Dex is HORRIBLE. Its like they didnt even spend 5 minutes reading their old material before they wrote the new stuff. Codex Chaos Space Marines should have been titled Codex Space Marines Renegades and should have all the Legion characters removed from it and just recieved their own special characters like Huron.

Yes there was a list imbalance from the old days especially with the Iron Warriors but rather than trying to balance out the new dexes they just nerfed them back down and are giving people the idea of makeing cookie cutter forces. If you really read through the codexes you can get an idea of the force they want you to make.. the force they want you to buy. Then you go to make anything diffrent and you will have to pay out the wazoo for it.


----------



## Dartanyun (Nov 14, 2007)

Bishop120 said:


> Codex Chaos Space Marines should have been titled Codex Space Marines Renegades and should have all the Legion characters removed from it and just recieved their own special characters like Huron.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## RPD_Tyrant (Dec 21, 2007)

Jeridian said:


> I really don't want to comment on the Nerf Age anymore (I've whined across several forums).
> 
> On the one hand I like that Iron Warriors are gone, that Blood Angels don't get 250pts of free stuff, that Ulthwe doesn't have a 60xman Seer Village, etc, etc.
> 
> ...



I loved my Iron Warriors, I loved my Blood Angels, and i loved my Ulthwe :angry:.


:biggrin: I understand why the did what they did, but in my defense for chaos.. If you Unite Chaos armies........ Then you shouldnt call them Chaos because chaos means CHAOS, not united :laugh:.

Personally i dont like that they increased the cost of Blood angel units AND took away the Furious Charge rule from them. That is not cool :ireful2:. You dont increase the price just to make them to same as others :ireful2:. GW im on to you :threaten:


----------



## PAw (Dec 20, 2007)

*becomes a long fanged Wolf priest* Children! come sit and listen!
In a age long past 40k was fun and good but it was in need of Change. so came the Fourth edition of 40k and lo it was good but it still had some kinks which were being straightened out. there were two special people in Games work shop who Were Great masters of 40k Jes goodwin and Andy chamber. jes goodwin was the master creater of the Smurfs and Andy chambers was a master of a librarium.

Gamesworkshop was not pleased with Andy chambers Conduct with giving Hints to the pups. The Great Sage was Casted down by GW and place "Gav Thorpe" in control of 40k's destiny... The Great sundering came... first it was the Eldar who was smote with thorpe's Wand of nerf! Then the Chaos! Black templar! he Ruined the once great 40k and is continuing. 
The only way to Stop this Man is if the pups stop buying GW products! which cannot happen. so we are in a rut.. Abandon our beloved game to make it better or Tough it out and hope for Thorpse to die in a Tragic ice fishing accident.

it is Gav thorpe who brought the Age of Nerf to us!

EDIT:
I HATED ULTHWE! doesnt mean i wanted it to disappear! i hated IW and BA but i dont want them to Disappear in a cloud of Nerf mist!


----------



## CATzeentch (Dec 25, 2007)

You are a really good story teller.(Sorry about off topic)

Do you wright?


----------



## PAw (Dec 20, 2007)

no i havent written before.
i used to write Scripts and other Stories and stuff.
i wrote a Fantasy book about cinderella when i was in year 5 about how the humans where Destroying the elven lands and killing their people and how Cinderella was actualy a elf and well cut down the prince and took the thrown XD it was a very good novel ^_^ i threw it out
EDIT:
i used the sort of language that a writer would use also for a Mature age fantasy book.
sorry for off topic


----------



## CATzeentch (Dec 25, 2007)

Interesting

And I do Agree that Gav Thorpe is the root of our problems
He is a very scary man in person.


----------



## Captain Micha (Nov 2, 2007)

Honestly, everyone that claims things have been made bland really are sorely lacking in imagination, I don't require rules to tell me how to make things different from each other. Especially when the rules made an over exaggeration of the army in question. Yes Uthwe has seer councils.. but do they -always- have them? Are Biel Tan -always- going to to go war with nothing but dark reapers? 

Are the legions always going to cartoon themselves? No to all of the above. I am all for a flexible main list, where everything is relatively speaking as good as the other units within. (even if they botch a unit here and there. looking at you spawn. ) 

With a flexible main list you can easily emulate the styles of whatever 'sub' list that you played before. 

I am of the opinion that Gw is moving in the right direction. They are getting away from cheeselist hammer and moving into strategy hammer. 

I love the new chaos and Eldar books. I also love the Dark Angels book. (I do not count Ba as being released yet.. it's not a true codex... -yet-. But if I run across a Ba player I will play him with either rule set as I view both equally valid. not everyone has access to Wd after all)

The hobby is about converting your models to customize them. To give a good example of a model not needing special rules to exist, I have jet pack equipped guardsmen for my Vespid. They are my Firestorms packing a detuned but more portable plasma gun. They look good, they count as vespid. I don't need "jet pack guardsmen special sublist rule alpha nine zero ten" to represent them. 

I came in from Whfb. where converting is -expected- of you not something you do just to get a special benefit.

I don't think anyone is to 'blame' for this. It is simply a change in design philosophy. Someone did the smart thing and realised that really they are stifling creativity rather than aiding it with excess rulehammer.

Another reason for this alleged rise is people are 'upset ' that their borderlined broken army has been taken away from them. So 'whinehammerists' of course complain. 

And then you have the people who are out right phobic of change.


----------



## darkane (Nov 14, 2007)

don't have white dwarf? print it here http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/bloodangels/gaming/codex/default.htm

imo thats just as official as a 22 dollar codex. 

im not to big into modding my minis. why? not my style i was the leggo guy who only built what was on the cover of the box and left it at that. sure i love building and painting my minis, its one of my favorite parts, but i dont want to convert lol. (maybe someday so stop cringing you heavy mod lovers!) 

i think the problem right now is that we are in the middle of a change and people are going to be nervous abotu it and complain about it, but until all those 4th ed dexs are out we will not have a full view of where they are going with the game.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

I've read this thread and many others like it on the net.

I firmly believe that GW are tweaking the hobby with only one goal in mind. That is to make money. However I think that they realise that the hobby needs depth and charachter as well as parity between codices. For them to make money in the long run they must entice younger players into the game and keep the older players happy.

I believe they are doing this and i also believe that the vast majority of players are happy. There will always be a vociferous minority who will hang on to conspiracy theories but they are clearly insane.

We now have apocalypse which as well as encouraging bigger armies (and sales) should satisfy the people trying to chisel any adavantage by removing list restrictions. This also however allows fluffy armies (ie my four land raider force under construction).

In summary "the future's bright"


----------



## SPYDeR13 (Dec 18, 2007)

We can thank Mr.Jervis at Gw for allot of the codex nerfs. He wants them to be easier for the younger players to pick up and understand.

So Mr.Jervis this is for you.....:fuck:


----------

