Hatin on BoLS - Apples and Oranges

The best thing about hating BoLS is that they give you so many opportunities to point out their shortcomings. I could make an entire blog just for that.

Today's hate is directed towards Black Blow Fly and his article entitled "40k: Devgants vs. Purifiers." The article is full of half-baked ideas, unfinished thought and ultimately full of fail. I really do not care to take it apart piece by misbegotten piece. That would take up valuable painting time. What I will do is copy a short excerpt from the article that is rife with not only logical fallacy, but also indicative of his overall poor writing and the poor writing common on BoLS.

"No this is not another batrep... Heh. Let's take two units from two totally different codices and compare them.

One unit is selected from the Tyranid codex which is often said to be the worst codex released during fifth edition (there is some contention for Dark Angels though for sure). The other unit is selected from the Grey Knight codex which is often said to be the most broken over the top codex ever released. How can we compare the two?"

For starters, this should be one paragraph. I am continually frustrated and confused as to why this seems to be such a common thing. Is it that these people genuinely do not know how to use a paragraph break. That could be more easily forgiven than doing this intentionally for... what? Attention? To make their writing seem more exciting? I am at a loss to explain or understand this.

It gaunts not gants. Usually, it is pedantic to point out spelling errors but when it is perpetrated throughout the article, and even in the very title, it becomes less likely it is a typo and a legitimate point. Hormagaunts and termagaunts are plastered all over the Codex. It is even is the slang where people call Termagaunts with Devourers "Devgaunts." This is really sad and indicative of his lack of attention to detail. While it may not be logically consistent, it makes it hard for me to trust his detailed analysis when he can't pay attention to the small detail of spelling the name of one of the units correctly. At least he got Purifiers right. Half credit but still failing.

Purifier image courtesy of here.

He also make several similar but equally unsupported premises. Namely that the Tyranid Codex is the "worst" Codex of 5th Ed, that Dark Angel Codex was tied for worst of 5th and that the Grey Knight Codex is "broken and over the top." I have no problem with people making these kind of claims but you have to support them or at least offer some evidence other than that they are obvious. If it is his opinion, then he should offer it as such and not try to leave it out there unsupported as if it was undisputed fact. 

I do not accept that the Tryanids are the worst codex of 5th. In the list of 5th edition Codices (Sisters, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar, Blood Angles, Tyranids, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard and Space Marines), it is my opinion that the Space Marine Codex is the weakest of that lot. It was the first out and a lot has changed in the game in that time and that Codex has fallen behind. Conversely, the Tyranid Codex came near the end of 5th and is still relevant very competitive. 

He is also completely wrong about Dark angles getting a 5th Ed codex. They have not had a Codex since 4th. They got an Update in late 5th but no Codex. Yet again he is comparing two unequal things when he tried to propose that Tyranids and Dark Angles could even be tied for worst Codex of 5th. Wrong on all counts. 

What does this picture have to do with anything? Ever?

I do agree that the Grey Knights codex is rather powerful but it is hardly over the top or broken by any means. The same was said of every codex released in 5th save for perhaps Space Marines and Sisters of Battle. When Dark Eldar came out it was said that they were broken and overpowered. Same for Blood Angles before that, and Tyranids before that and, Space Wolves before that. If I were inclined to (and I am absolutely not) I could go through forum and blog posts and find someone calling each of these armies broken and over the top when they were first released. I could probably find all of them on BoLS. The point is, the new thing is often called broken and over the top. That is until the next new thing comes out. Grey Knights are only "broken" now because they are new and the hobby has not had a chance to adapt to the addition of a game-changing army.  

There is an unspoken trend in 40k of armies getting more powerful and circus-like since the start of 4th Ed. Has always been a power creep in 40k (save for the 3rd Ed reset) but it borders on exponential growth in the last 5 years. With that growth, the new Codices are going too outshine the older ones. There is no way to pump up the game without doing this aside from a complete reboot (which I would be in favor of, but that is a different post). 

He ends the paragraph with a question about how can you possibly take two different units from two different Codices and legitimately compare them. When you propose a question in your opening paragraph, it is understood that at some point in your writing that you will get to answer that question. To propose a question that points our a massive loophole in your reasoning then not to answer it is  poor writing. 

In that last bit, he almost points out the biggest error and most common complaint with this article. How is it possible (or useful) to compare two completely different thing? The short answer to his question is not only is it difficult to compare two very different units but it is futile to try. You do not get anything useful out of such a comparison, just a there is little of use in this article.