Kirb your enthusiasm!


"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Armies in 5th...changes?

Well since I'm potentially starting another series of Armies in 5th articles I'd thought I'd get a few opinions. So far I've mostly done older books which don't have as many options (i.e. Orks/Tau) or armies which whilst had options were a bit more straight forward in their army styles (i.e. Tyranids). What I seemed to have trouble with was BA due to their vast range of army list possibilities and options to cover. Whilst my original idea of what to do with these articles was cover the army books in how to essentially make a good list, when I do the newer and more varied books I think I'll have to do something else as they are so varied.

So, I'd like to hear your opinions on this. Rather than attempt to cover everything about the army and how to make lists with the newer books, I thought I'd do mini-reviews of each section. After those reviews I would look at over-arching themes or play styles and how they differ from other armies whilst also looking at their perceived level of competitiveness. This narrows down my work-load into more managable specifics and would be easier to read as readers.

So thoughts on this or any suggestions? I'd also like to hear thoughts on adding more Fantasy articles. With the coming of 8th edition I might get into it from a theory based side whilst Vinsanity can offer a more practical outlook.

10 pinkments:

Chumbalaya said...

I'd say do whichever armies you know best. Adapting older books to 5th ed is always good, as is helping folks wade through the massive depth of the newer books.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to hear more about play style and how to write lists based off of how you want to play.

Ixe said...

Fantasy makes me sad. It's a cool and fun system, but it's like they don't even want balance. It seems like the newest book is always unstoppable, much moreso than 40k. I've popped blood vessels in my brain trying to break the game with the new 40k armies. IG and BA, no matter how much people whinge about them, are not broken. Everything you do to try and break the game has a serious flaw in it. Fantasy, from what I hear at least, not so much.

MasterSlowPoke said...

I'd recommend against spending too much time on the old books - no need to write a bunch of articles on Necrons if they're going to be thrown out of the window in a year or so.

Maybe something like Abuse Puppy's articles? Cover each FOC slot and then cover the various theme armys you can make?

Kirby said...

Agree completely Ixe though with 8th around the corner we can hope...

clt40k that'll happen when I put up more army lists I think :P. Outside of that I think when I write army lists on request you get a bit of my perception out but do you think I should flesh that out more?

Kirby said...

Oh ninja'd. I was thinking something like that SlowPoke. I'd held off doing Eldar for your 1st reason as well and remembering my original idea for these articles was to smack on the internet forums which say one army is better or worse than it really is (i.e. Orks, Tyranids, Tau, etc.).

Myke. said...

I liked Abuse Puppy's approach on how to analyse a codex very much because it's easy to find infos about a specific codex entry, and compared to the aspect oriented approach it's not depending on the type of army build. One Entry may serve different roles in different builds, doesn't it?

So what i would like most would be to first have an analysis of the codex based on section (HQ, Elites, ...) and after that some articles about specific army builds. When i take the Tyranids that could be: Reserve Base Army, MC based Army, Without Number based Army. But that approach means you have to do at least 6 Articles and possibly a lot more when there exist several different army build aspects.

So if this is too much effort i'd like the see the aspect oriented approach you did with the tyranids.

Regards, Myke.

Kirby said...

Ya Puppy's review has just overshadowed my Armies in 5th Tyranid articles :P. I think I will do something similar though for the new books, Tyranids was a bit easier because everything really has an identifiable role. BA/SW/IG bit different.

So for the older books I think I might continue in the vein of current Armies in 5th articles but for new books I'll break it down into sections and then overarching themes like I did with BA/Tyranids. This may mean 10 articles but what the heck, content is good! I won't be breaking it down as heavily as Puppy's though, more like what I did with Eldar Aspect Warriors.

Anonymous said...

Maybe MoD and I could help-out with a BT review?? I'd be up for it!

Kirby said...

Who and you? lol. if you'd like. Oh the authors keep on coming!

Post a Comment

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...