Librarium Online Forums banner

Why, GW?

2K views 21 replies 13 participants last post by  Captain America 
#1 ·
Why does GW, after all their 'playtesting' and 'rigorous codex planning,' does GW make some pretty stupid units that just don't get used? I mean, an 11 year old might use them, but a lot of the time the units that kind of do well are just far too expensive (points). Or are just far too limited, even in the specialist scope of things.

They just make some silly stuff that they have to realize that nobody intended to win would ever use.

Surely they could make appropriate, yet effective units. Units that still require proper execution to use, but effective nonetheless. Rather than filling an army list with trash, which always ends up in everyone playing a very basic variation of the same list?

This is isn't a whining thread, as those get on my nerves... Is it? 0_o Crap. Oh well. Maybe someone can shed some light on the subject. Without complaining about GW greed.
 
#2 ·
It's a mystery really.. the current epic rules are incredible. the people that really play it have a great input into how the codexes are stuff balance out.

They HAVE done slightly better with the Eldar codex - pretty much everything is usefull.. almost.

Hopefully that'll transpire over to the other codexes.

I long to use biovores for nids.. or possessed.. .or horrors.. or plague bearers...or land raiders.. or terminators.. or chosen.. or...
 
#4 ·
Yeah, the new Eldar codex helps my disillusionment quite a bit. I, too, desperately long for worthy possessed, plaguebearers, terminators, chosen, etc. Chaos is still better than most, though. A pity that the land raider looks great on paper, but every army has land raider can openers issued with their daily food rations.
 
#3 ·
Well which units do you find useless? In fantasy pretty much all units have a porpose, some are good at killing, while others scout and skirmish and give your opponent a head ache, while some are fast and take out warmachines or go for flank charges.

In 40k, it's odd, because all you need to do is kill things most of the time, so the best shooty unit gets taken a lot, and the best close combat unit gets taken alot, the only difference is some close combat units are good at taking out horde units, they tend to have a lot of attacks, and other are good at taking out power armour thing, or high toughness things, they tend to have power weapons, or weapons that reduce armour. and for shooty units you have units for tank killing, and units for horde killing.

Some units in 40k are good at what they do, but otheres are better at it, so the good unit never gets played because the better unit is better at doing what it does. In fantasy most armies tend to have dedicated units, some units hold up units and act as tar pits, almost every army has the standard rank and file units, I could go on, but to the point there are no real units that do the same job as another unit in the army book. Some may do similar things, but have some special rules that seperate them.
 
#5 ·
Good points, but overall, I'd say that fantastic battle was just as abusable as 40K.

It's better - sure, but it's a long long way from being perfect. At least in fantasy battle they have an escalating core choice system depending on the point value - I would love to see that in 40K.
 
#6 ·
I think a lot of it comes down to the story lines of the armies. Sure, not every unit is a tournament winner but they all have a basis in the fluff. As for points imbalances- I think they're usually pretty good. This forum is covered with 'Why would any one use X unit?' or 'What use are Z troops?'. Pretty much every one has someone who has a use for that particular unit. Yes, even Necron Heavy Destroyers.
 
#7 ·
@captain america: love that text at the bottom of your posts, im with ya man!


on topic:
some gw wargear is useless yes, and units.
but i think sometimes its there not so much that its dead on useful, think of it as they give you the option to do something characterful and still be within the rules, if you really want to even though its not tactically sound.
and i do wanna know their system for fairness in points and such.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain America
#8 ·
Games Workshop include units that seem on the face of it not worth taking. However following your argument all armies should only contain uber units that win battles? Kind of makes the game a bit pointless if every one only picks units that are hard as nails. Some people play friendly games and use a bit of fluff in the army they write. Obviously if you are playing competitively you want the best but that won't apply to every one.

GW have tried to keep everyone happy by including hard units, and units that are there based on the fluff for each army.
 
#9 ·
I think it's due to variety really.

I don't know why anyone would want to use a Penitent engine, but I have a few, just for the sheer fun of them.

I mean if you trimmed out all the slightly poo stuff, you'd be left with a dull codex.
 
#10 ·
Its probably because they are so deeply engrained into the old codex's.

I don't think they've quite worked out that under 4th ed units roles change slightly (i.e. no screening) so they haven't really changed units that much since the older edition.
 
#11 ·
I declare that it is not GW who is at fault, it is us gamers.

Why do we only use some of the best units? because people like to powergame and powergaming armies gnerally take the fun right out of it.

Thus to combat said powergamer people sacrifice their favourite units that may not be the most cost efficeint (say, termies or mandrakes, or flayed ones / pariahs etc) for units that do work.

Its like the old eldar codex SC syndrome, why bother with anything other than SC and the BL when playing comeptitively?

IMO 3/4 of friendlies (since both parites aren't going to be powergaming) more unique choices get taken.


I myself will practically always use terminators at 1500 (even just 5), hell I will take 5 asm just so I can get a rather fluffy esque Ultramarine army (i.e one from every slot).
 
#15 ·
Good post outsider. good post.

But, i think that a balance is the best option - and that the game should be stable enough to house both player who are competitive, and players who are fluff driven.
 
#12 ·
It's like the units switch usefulness between editions/codexes. One unit that would rock the house suddenly blows. Then that garbage unit turns into a golden egg.

I like to take the fluffy units, anyway, evenif they aren't the most effective. I hate shameless cheese armies that someone obviously just made for one reason and one reason only. They seem to get no joy out of the game unless they achieve a massacre every time. It's sad.

Some of it is on us. But a lot of it is on GW, too, for making such imbalance in the lists to begin with. Right now, Eldar are good. Space Marines would be better off if every army wasn't specifically designed to mush their armor. Daemonhunters = ultimate fluff = damn I got my butt spanked. Too bad. I would love to collect them.
 
#13 · (Edited)
Personally I put a lot of it down to people bitching on the internet because they don't win every game with a massacre (omgwtfbs my GK lost to an armoured company!!!! sorta thing).

They are actually very, very few useless units. Some units just do not have generalist roles (i.e pariahs).

[Ninja edit] As far as truly useless units only the DE and Ork codex have any substantial amount. All the other newer codexes actually have a use for 3/4 of the units (the other 1/4 are time and place units).

You ever tried to take a godzilla list with necrons without heavy destroyers? its next to impossible.

People need to stop whining and learn the time and place to use certain units.

BTW this isn't directed at anyone in particular.
 
#17 ·
And why can't that army be dangerous competitive army as well?

Don't get me wrong - i think it's great that you're playing the army that you want to. Maximus respect al grande fortissimo for that (or something).

But there's no reason why a fluffy army should be 'weak' hmm?

I'm not accusing you of being/having crap.. but you know what i mean.
 
#18 ·
There you get the ago old problem why do fluff and rules not agree with each other?

IMO this isn't easy to simply go "make all units good" then you are essentially making (for example's sake) an army made entirely up of tactical marines.

Everything has a designed role. If we continue this trend I say we completely lose techmarines and command squads from the SM because they are poorer choices.

I'm ranting but basically without something being superior to something else at any given role why bother?

I've seen entire threads dedicated tothe fact that IG are broken because lasguns suck (which is blatantly BS).
 
#19 ·
I concur with the idea of the player's being at fault in this situation. Its a snowball in a way.

I routinely get folks telling me to add more genestealers to my tyranid list (because "genestealers rock", or whatever), and thats nice and all, but I like going for the swarm. I'd rather win a battle with my dinky little gaunts and use the genestealers as a distraction.

If everyone plays the game the same way, we might as well just come down to our local gameshop with calculators and reams of statistics.

I've smashed 10 man, powerfisted blood angels tac-squads with my spinegaunts before.
My Tyrant's been cut apart by combined small arms fire.

An ork player (I've yet to see a powergaming ork) can probably explain the concept of 'fun, even when you're getting your ears boxed' better then me.

I want to play the game. Not watch as someone's "l33t forum army" beats the canastas out of me...that brings back too many Magic: The Gathering memories.

As for me, I don't use a lot of rare units (devourer gaunts, gargoyles, etc) because I don't have the cash for many of them.

Cover your army in a soft veneer of velvet nonsense that only you understand. And use scenarios. Different scenarios inspire different unit choices. Most folks in my experience tend to go for take and hold, or cleanse missions, and it shows in most army builds.

And keep the fluff in your mind. If you look at the army on your table and it doesn't -look- right, rethink it (the 3 monolith'd necron army they're talking about in the Eldar forum springs to mind.)

Sorry for the long disjointed rant, just my $.02.
 
#20 · (Edited)
Yeah, most people tend to settle into a "Der, MONGO SMASH" scenario all the time. I've only played one interesting scenario. I was extremely inexperienced. I still am, but that's not the point. The other guy was too, and was an extremely good sport, which made things fun, too. It was another match between space marine armies (that's all anyone played at the store) and it was that scenario where you are searching for the 'football,' a VIP, or something like that, with the pieces of paper turned upside down all over the table, only one of them containing the number of the actual treasure everyone is searching for.

The game went back and forth. It was great. Poorly constructed terminator squad fought poorly constructed terminator squad. Assault squads racked up some 1's jumping into terrain they had no business even looking at. The 'football' changed hands several times, ending up in a very narrow win for him at the end. Despite the loss, it was one of the most fun games I've ever played.

In comparison, some of the worst were games against players who took themselves far too seriously. One loss against an Orks player (I hang my head in shame) was particularly not fun because the guy rubbed in every single kill. He also decided to not help me learn the rules of minefields beforehand... SOB... Its not his responsibility to tutor me, but he knew I was an uber-noob. I was satisfying seeing the look on his face when my assault squad initiate (black templars) survived a third round in combat with his warboss, due to a storm shield! I didn't know.

So a lot of this is in the eye of the players. I only play good sports or nice people from now on. L33t dickheads who only care about winning, don't make the game fun and such are to avoided at all costs.

Fluffy can be fun. ANd their 'effectiveness' can be in the mind of the beholder. But things begin somewhere. And it's GW making bogus units. I couldn't contradict my own thread!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karmoon
#22 ·
I plan on branching out into a Wood Elves army. But GW is releasing Dark Angels soon! Oh well. DA won't take long.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top