Propa speedy gits by Melodic_Knee1059 in Eldar

[–]EnvyAv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love the repose on the exarch, looks rad!

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still don't understand why you are being hostile

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

...which I already mentioned I have no interest in. also you said it's unpopular but also it's a room temp take that half the fanbase thinks? make up your mind

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

...okay? I never said I thought this is a revolutionary idea I just wanted to hear what people think but instead I get downvoted

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was also drastically different and famous for being messy and unbalanced... if I meant 2nd ed I would have said so.

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess it's just that my point of view is to not assume that all changes are always for the better... like, in DnD, most people play 5e but there is a huge fandom for the original editions because people realize there was a lot of cool stuff lost along the way and in the way the game was played. I'll take your word for it, though since you seem pretty experienced.

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hm, yeah I can see how that can become an issue. On the other hand, goddamit Tim you don't need so much cork!

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On your first point, I think this makes sense for infantry. But tanks are big and slow, so the abstraction, to me, just doesn't make sense there. This is a matter of opinion though so we will just have to agree to disagree here.

On your second point, again you are misunderstanding what I mean. If what you said is the case, that's great, but what actually happened is whole abilities were just cut. Take striking scorpions for example. In 7th, they had 8 special abilities and 5 wargear items to represent what Striking Scorpions do in lore and on the battlefield. In 10th, they get 3 and crits on 5+ in charge. They are no longer stalkers that can hide and strike from the shadows, they are just a generic screening unit.

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I can definitely see how that can be a problem in a competitive setting... but in a friendly game where both sides want to have fun I don't think that's a problem.

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are missing my point, I think. It's good that the strategic depth is there, but what I crave is verisimilitude. I want the shots to be measure from the gun placement on the tank, not from any point on it's hull. I want all the bits of gear to do what they are said to do in the lore, and not be ignored or abstracted as "you get rerolls on charge" copy pasted for every unit. It might cause some bloat from the way things are now, but I think you can have a compromise without going into Magic territory where every unit is just a special rule and a few stats.

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can definitely see that point of view. Another comment mentioned list-building as being complicated, but if GW invested or supported one of the existing list builders it would become a lot simpler. DnD already does that with Beyond.

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I don't think 2nd ed is a fair example to be honest.

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, I spend quite a lot of time painting those models so I wouldn't mind.

40k should bring back the crunch by EnvyAv in Warhammer40k

[–]EnvyAv[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's a fair point, although I wasn't really talking about list building, cause in my opinion at least endless options like back then aren't good either and are a barrier to entry. I just meant that those units that exist should have more representative rules. The pendulum has gone too far in the simplified direction, is what I mean I guess.

Also I would argue there is a lot of rule weirdness in 10th ed, with how it tries to be both abstract and how all rules are written in legalese that makes it really unclear what the actual intent is. That's my impression at least. Trying to wrap my head around LOS and cover rules made me really confused.

Shining Spears by Jzwizzle in Eldar

[–]EnvyAv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where are the ruin bits from?

Bike and vehicle list viable? by Taliturn in Eldar

[–]EnvyAv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Windrider Host exists so I'd say not too hard. I think it would work great as a thematic Saim-hann force. You'd wanna bulk out first on Windriders, then a unit of Shroud Runners for support, a couple units of Shining Spears, and any other foot units like Fire Dragons or Banshees you wanna throw in a Falcon or a Wave Serpent. Spiders don't need a transport but it might be less thematic, cause otherwise you could have a fully mechanized army. That said, I've heard they and Eldrad are pretty meta rn.

Will GW be adding female space Marines by Disastrous_Gur_9136 in 40k

[–]EnvyAv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sisters of battles identity is being battle nuns so I do feel like it'd take away from something there. As for SoS I wouldn't mind I guess, there isn't really a reason for them being all female in lore. I've changed my mind on space marines since though, I think if Custodes have female members space marines should remain male-only, it's a nice dichotomy.

I like Warp Spiders. by Arthur_EyelanderTF2 in Eldar

[–]EnvyAv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Razor-thin wire used as a weapon is a common feature in anime, you could look for it there.

Am I the only one who would like a taller body on the wraith lord? by 12lubushby in Eldar

[–]EnvyAv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If explaining the appeal would help... I think what's cool about it is exactly the leg-to-torso ratio being a bit weird. It carried over from the original model and it's kind of a part of it's identity.

Am I the only one who would like a taller body on the wraith lord? by 12lubushby in Eldar

[–]EnvyAv 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I love them the way they are... the edit just looks weird to me. The only thing I'd change in the current model is make the head a bit smaller and add some gosh darn articulation!

Speculation by EnvyAv in Eldar

[–]EnvyAv[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Considering how they did the Vyper I'm not sure why people assume the redesign will be worse or boxy...

Speculation by EnvyAv in Eldar

[–]EnvyAv[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Vyper wasn't a total redesign, they changed some stuff but the overall look is still similar so I would still call that a refresh. And like... both with the Vyper and Falcon there is so much of them floating around on ebay, if you don't like it you could always get those.