sorry guys, no picture this time. Just a quick post.
The internet is filled to the brink with articles on how escalation, dataslates etc. are changing the game but there is one thing, I'd really like to take under the spotlight. This article (over on 3++) is well written imo, and the end pretty much reflects how I feel.
People are worried about how formations, allies and all sorts of detachments are breaking up the traditional FOC and codex divisions that armies have had. 15 broadsides frightens people as some of the best units in the book are allowed to be spammed even further (and buffed for no extra points). Finland took a 9 broadside, 3 riptide list to the etc this fall. We realised that alot of the other lists (that featured 3-6 riptides and even only 2 riptides) were just better allround lists. Now sure, a 15 broadside tau gunline is gonna just win some matchups outright, but it will leave more opportunities for its opponents to utilise to work around the list and win it. Those same opportunities that could be utilised against our 9 broadside list at the ETC. Recently, Eetu (one of our ETC players) brought a 6 serpent, double wraithknight list to a tourney. He did pretty bad. The list spammed units that seemed great in the book, but fell short on the table.
So if we follow the assumption that variance adds strength (although I have learned that this is not ALWAYS the case) what is the actual effect of the lack of FOC and codex distinctions? Added diversity. More way in which to fit units into your army. We all know that most codices have some highly contested foc slots, and some that are seldom used. This changes that. Although you could argue that all armies will feature the same units due to the lack of codex distinction anymore, that same could have happened before. Why didn't people play with the exact same armies before?
The underlying idea here is that all these changes haven't changed the missions being played, nor the points you have to spend on your army. It has simply allowed players more freedom in choosing what they bring to the table. The fact that formations get special rules for free, and the dataslates are ridiculously priced is besides the point, GW has always been like that.
Oh, but don't get me started on strength D.
The internet is filled to the brink with articles on how escalation, dataslates etc. are changing the game but there is one thing, I'd really like to take under the spotlight. This article (over on 3++) is well written imo, and the end pretty much reflects how I feel.
People are worried about how formations, allies and all sorts of detachments are breaking up the traditional FOC and codex divisions that armies have had. 15 broadsides frightens people as some of the best units in the book are allowed to be spammed even further (and buffed for no extra points). Finland took a 9 broadside, 3 riptide list to the etc this fall. We realised that alot of the other lists (that featured 3-6 riptides and even only 2 riptides) were just better allround lists. Now sure, a 15 broadside tau gunline is gonna just win some matchups outright, but it will leave more opportunities for its opponents to utilise to work around the list and win it. Those same opportunities that could be utilised against our 9 broadside list at the ETC. Recently, Eetu (one of our ETC players) brought a 6 serpent, double wraithknight list to a tourney. He did pretty bad. The list spammed units that seemed great in the book, but fell short on the table.
So if we follow the assumption that variance adds strength (although I have learned that this is not ALWAYS the case) what is the actual effect of the lack of FOC and codex distinctions? Added diversity. More way in which to fit units into your army. We all know that most codices have some highly contested foc slots, and some that are seldom used. This changes that. Although you could argue that all armies will feature the same units due to the lack of codex distinction anymore, that same could have happened before. Why didn't people play with the exact same armies before?
The underlying idea here is that all these changes haven't changed the missions being played, nor the points you have to spend on your army. It has simply allowed players more freedom in choosing what they bring to the table. The fact that formations get special rules for free, and the dataslates are ridiculously priced is besides the point, GW has always been like that.
Oh, but don't get me started on strength D.