Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Buzzsaw wrote:No matter how blameworthy you may feel the community is, it doesn't releive GW of the requirement to competently write their rules

Except, there is no issue here. Space Marines are better than Blood Angels and especially Dark Angels. Dark Angels are a Fluff or model army anyways, so they do not deserve equal footing WRT power options.

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:Just by default players are going to say no when asked if DA, BA, SW or BT can use updated equipment.

That's weak sauce.

I'm going to demand to be allowed to field CSM and Necron units when I play as BA or DA. A couple C'Tan and a Greater Daemon ought to do the trick...

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm just sad GW didn't put their foot down harder and say "No, don't be ridiculous - they're different Codices. It'd be as unfair and unfluffy as fielding Marked Daemons in a CSM army."

Indeed. It doesn't matter if GW is right or wrong half as much as it matters that they're definite and consistent. As it is, they don't appear to have the chutzpah to rule either way, because they're too hung up on the "beer and pretzels" ideal that Jervis, on his happy delusion cloud, so vehemently espouses.

Agamemnon2 wrote: As it is, they don't appear to have the chutzpah to rule either way,

But they did rule one way. They said to use the rules in your own codex by default.

Agreeing with your opponent to play differently has always been an option that applies to every rule in the game. It's not something new that they're throwing in.

GW pointing out that it's an option after making a ruling that they know is going to make some people cranky isn't them being indecisive... it's them reminding gamers that the game can actually be played however you like if you don't like the actual rules as written.

insaniak wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:Other then the problem that using the rules "strictly" leads to ridiculous situations?

That's a problem with the situation created by the FAQ answer... not a problem of not knowing which rules you're supposed to be following...

The FAQ lays out what should be done (i.e., what you strictly should do) and in the next sentence, recognizing that their prior point will lead to ludicrous situations, recommends that you house rule it.

They're not 'recognising' that it leads to ludicrous situations. They're simply saying that if you and your opponent don't like the solution they've given, you should feel free to create a house rule. Not because they think their answer was ludicrous, but simply because they recognise that some people are not going to like the fact that DA and UM versions of the same equipment do different things.

I personally would prefer that an item in one codex do the exact same thing as an identically named item in another codex... but their stance that players should just use the rules in their own codex does at least remove the problem of people needing to buy the newest codex, whether they play that army or not... something that players have been complaining about for at least a decade.

I'll avoid belaboring the point of whether or not the situation is ludicrous (my pedestrian knowledge of Australian films leads me to believe there is quite a difference in humor... I chalk it up to the Coriolis effect); I will however contend that the FAQ writers were aware of the fact that their answer would be poorly accepted and leads to situations that are somewhat, shall we agree to call it, humorous. After all, immediatly after giving their solution, they remind us of what we already must know, namely that we can house rule it. Since House rules represent an explicit rejection of GW's rules, it doesn't exactly reflect a great deal of faith in their answer: "Hey guys, you should do X, but remember, you can always just ignore me!"

Perhaps though we are all reading it incorrectly: GW is simply attempting to have us all accept the Orkish wisdom that painting a shield blue makes it better then painting it red. green or black.

insaniak wrote:GW pointing out that it's an option after making a ruling that they know is going to make some people cranky isn't them being indecisive... it's them reminding gamers that the game can actually be played however you like if you don't like the actual rules as written.

It's certainly not a good sign: Suppose you go to a policeman, and ask him what the law is regarding parking. He tells you, but then immediately adds "but you can always break the law"; it's recognition that the law is so crazy many won't follow it.

It's the same situation: DA/BA/BT can stick to their Codices, where red, green and black are worse then blue, or they can house rule it and be punished. Yes, punished: my whole point here is that the GW FAQ answer destroys portability: the ability to pack up your army and go to a different club and expect to be able to play. Go the house rules way (assume parity of gear) and you're stuck with buying/assembling/converting an army that you may or may not be able to use where and when you want.

Now, you can say that's not a big deal, in the same way a $5 parking ticket isn't a big deal, and it's not, but it's a loss of what was previously a selling point of the game.

I think its funny that Space Wolves who have had their book for what, 9 years? now are laughing to the bank in 5th. Their book refers to the Marines for items but they still pay cheap prices.

But honestly. If DA got the new marine gear, I can just see all Death Wing armies at tournies. Nothing says win like termies as scoring units with 3+ invulns and new cylcones.

I don't see the problem with GW's answer.

For the handful of tournament players, GW said: use the rules in your Codex.

For everybody else, GW said: do what makes everybody in the group happy.

yeah,
i don't agree John,

I mean i accept you have two differing lists with different options and costs, choose which codex your using... no problem.

I can also accept you use the stat line in your codex, dark angel scouts are better than vanilla ones, some thing in the training...

Picking Dark angels (or Black Templars) should be about getting the options and benifits in that codex, and losing out on the options / new units in the new SM codex

Cost differences are acceptable that's codex variation. And apart of the army you choose.

BUT,
When you have the exact same peice of equipment, it Should have the same rules.. I thought they were Making the game streamLined.
Shouldn't the same Weapons have the same stats regardless of who's firing?
Be it a lascanon (imperial guard SM or Chaos Marine)
or a assault canon (imperial INQ or SM)
Shouldn't transport capacities in vehicles be the same?

I mean if 12 ultra marines use a DA Landraider are they going to fit in? if 12 DA use a UM Landraider are they going to fit in?

easest thing would have been to call the new missile launcher something else, even just 'Cyclone MK2' and keep transport sizes the same.

I play chaos and i don't understand why the Imperial version of standard tanks is so much better!
Land Raider carries more and can target two different units... the vindicator sheild ... for chaos is a dozer blade for imperials is a seige sheild?

I don't care about the point differances, that's a codex thing...I'll pay the same or more or less as I'm told..

but i should get the same tank!
options such as Deamonic possession is something different or the power of the Machine Spirit should be added in later as per the codex i'm using...

but all equipment on the feild should all have the same rules/stats...

PanIc...

The thing everyone has to do is to take a step back and realize that there just isn't any easy option that solves the problem. Any solution that GW puts forth angers some players. So the only real question is if the 'solution' they come up with is the one that angers you or someone else.

From a pure 'game' (rules) point of view the best idea would obviously be to have all the rules for all SM chapters in a single book (both loyalist and renegade). That way all of their rules and equipment would always be the same.

The problem with that concept is two-fold. First, a lot of players like the game of 40k because of its background. Cramming all of the rules for all Space Marines into a single book would mean that all of the background, artwork, etc. for all of these armies would be severely limited. That alone would make players who play those armies very unhappy as their codex doesn't just provide a set of rules for their army, it also provides a sense of identity within the game's backstory.

Second, the codex publications are business model and are how the company sells models. GW is in a fairly unique situation of having an existing game line that is supported by constantly updating their existing armies. Some players may wish they would stop this practice, but the fact remains that most players tend to 'give up' on a game that doesn't receive updated material on a constant basis. Obviously there is a certain limitation on the overall amount of models and armies the game can have before it collapses under its own weight so you just can't keep adding new armies to a game forever.

That means the only way to keep updating an existing game system in a way to keep players spending money is to re-release the rules for the game over and over and over again to constantly give people slightly new ways to play.

Which is why GW releases codexes. Not only are they new game rules, but they also are a full project where the design artists can work on the 'new' look of the army at the same time the sculptors work on the models at the same time the rules-writers write the rules.

Sure you could theoretically produce new models without a codex to back it up, but the fact is that new rules, new artwork and new stories about the race helps to sell the line. The codex itself is as much a marketing tool for retailers to sell the army to consumers as it is a book of rules to use them in the game.

Also, the process of making a codex is intertwined which makes it hard to produce models without a codex. In order to make new models, you need to know what those models are going to look like and have a consistent new idea for the line. Otherwise you end up with an army that is made up of different looking units that were produced randomly throughout the year.

In order to get that consistency you need to have artists to do design work. Once you have artists (both visual and story-based) doing design work for the race it only makes sense to have them also produce artwork for that race which can be used in a codex. And obviously it also helps to have the person writing the rules also involved in the process to make the style also flow into game function. The fact that creating new models works best when the project is worked on as a whole collaborative effort means it always makes the most sense to work on the race as a whole in the form of a codex.

Otherwise they've spent money on design and art and stories that don't have a place in any product they can sell.

So if you can accept that codex revamps are the best (or only) way for a company to profitably revamp their existing game the only question then becomes which races are popular enough to warrant the kind of attention lavished upon them that an individual codex does.

Obviously Space Marines are the biggest seller for GW and while the fact they push Space Marines the most may be a contributing factor to their success I think most everyone can figure out that in this case GW is really only following where the consumers lead them. There is no doubt in my mind that Space Marines are the most popular iconic entity in their game and it only makes sense for them to flush out this line to the extent that consumers keep wanting more.

So to cram all the SMs into a single codex would be the easiest from a game/rules perspective it would be a disaster from a business perspective as they would have less opportunity to help feature and push the flagship miniature line that helps drive the game in general.


If you're with me up to this point you can understand that any SM chapter that has enough popularity to warrant its own line of specialized miniatures needs (from a business perspective) to have its own codex. But now the issue becomes consistency across codexes.

There are nine codices (currently) that share similarly named wargear (BA,BT,CSM,DA,DH,IG,SM,SW,WH). Anyone who truly thinks that it would be some easy task to update the eight other codices every time a new version of these books is released is simply deluding themselves.

It *is* a lot of work to do this and there is no easy solution that makes every player happy. There are a huge number of players out there who despise big FAQs and would much rather stick with what their codex says than to have to constantly look between several sources to figure out what rules they are supposed to be using.

Everyone just has to face this fact and understand it. For every idea you think that would 'fix' the game there is someone else out there who feels the exact opposite way.

So really the last option would be: Don't allow designers to ever change the items that appear in these 9 codices. Of course the problem with that is the ever-changing nature of the game. To lock certain items into place means you effectively destroy the ability for the game to change over time in those areas. Not to mention that in some cases the way the overall game works can change to the point where some wargear ceases to work and has to be changed in order to have it even make sense.


In the end, while I would like all codices to be consistent from a rules-perspective, I understand that this simply isn't a realistic idea given the slowly evolving nature of the game, the sheer amount of intertwined codices and the amount of players out there who don't care for lengthy sets of additional documents (FAQs) required to use their army.

While I certainly don't blame anyone for feeling angry or unhappy about this development I think if you take a second and step back from your entrenched point of view and think about it from a wider perspective the 'answer' isn't as simple as you first may think.

Buzzsaw wrote:Suppose you go to a policeman, and ask him what the law is regarding parking. He tells you, but then immediately adds "but you can always break the law"; it's recognition that the law is so crazy many won't follow it.

It's the same situation:

No. It's not.

In fact, that's just taken the number 1 spot as the most ridiculous analogy I've ever read. Congratulations.

We're talking the rules for a game of toy soldiers here. A game that for the last 20-odd years has been written with the design philosophy that game rules are there as a starting point, not the final authority.

The law, so far as I'm aware, has no such design philosophy. Driving isn't intended to be something fun you do with your mates while sinking a few beers.

Yes, GW knew that this particular decision would upset people. See Yak's excellent post just above mine. But at least it is a decision one way or another, which is what people are asking for.

As I said, I don't think it's the best one. That would have been to simply update everyone else with the same gear to the same rules, and include those rules in the appropriate FAQ's where necessary. But it's a decision, and it's a game, so changing it is always an option.

Its not like GW did anything crazy like new entries or points in an update or article before. Oh wait, they did with the last DA codex.

Well i gotta throw one in here for alot of people who think its a quick fix.....


Should DA have the cost of deathwing adjusted, the stats on scouts dropped- the chaplains and librarians nerfed?

Should they basically lose the very things that make them dark angels in order to please those who want extra "toys"
why should they get the bonuses without the negatives... at which point you are just playing normal marines anyhow?


I personally like the "stick to the codex as it is" it makes sense for new players and old players alike- you don't have to chase down numerous FAQS just to know how the army functions- you don't need to cart round a pile of codecies in order to play your army...

Its a policy that they are following through with- and it works- wanting to have all sorts of stuff that other armies have is madness in a way... I want landraiders for my harlequins, demolishers for my nids and battlesuits for my orks....
Should I be allowed to do the above then?

They could always correct it in a new printing like they have done so many times before, and not tell anyone, like the have before in stealth printings.

The real problem is the distribution method that GW has chosen. If they were willing to embrace the 21st century, most issues would have simple solutions. I think the core of the problem is that when they want to update a codex, it is a huge task if they also need to worry about the balance of a sub codex or three.

A good example of this is how powerful the Space Wolves codex is at this point. But the solution is not that hard to imagine, just difficult to implement. Many other games have given this a try already, and GW has itself used this on occasion. They need to use the web to distribute free pdf's of their rules books. Updating then is simply a matter of loading a new codex with a few tweaks. If something unexpected happens, then a quick upload with a new modified rule would simplify that.

I am not saying that this is likely to occur, but it is a realistic way of imaging a company like this moving forward. GW makes some very nice miniatures, and that should be the driving force behind their profits. Right now they make a decent amount of money off of their published works, but they also spend a significant amount in publishing and shipping these products.

I guess I just believe that in order for any company that has a niche market like this to survive, especially with the economic downturn that the entire world is facing, they need to evolve. This would allow for more balanced armies overall, instead of 3 or 4 top tier armies, I could imagine most armies being competitive.

Bignutter wrote:... at which point you are just playing normal marines anyhow?

For eight out of the ten companies yes. Only bone Terminators and black Bikes and Land Speeders diverge from the codex.

Didn't one of the designers say that the Space Marine wargear is 'mars pattern' wargear and Dark Angel stuff isn't? A house rule that defies the fluff seems like a bad house rule to me.

AngrBodr wrote:The real problem is the distribution method that GW has chosen. If they were willing to embrace the 21st century, most issues would have simple solutions. I think the core of the problem is that when they want to update a codex, it is a huge task if they also need to worry about the balance of a sub codex or three.

A good example of this is how powerful the Space Wolves codex is at this point. But the solution is not that hard to imagine, just difficult to implement. Many other games have given this a try already, and GW has itself used this on occasion. They need to use the web to distribute free pdf's of their rules books. Updating then is simply a matter of loading a new codex with a few tweaks. If something unexpected happens, then a quick upload with a new modified rule would simplify that.

I am not saying that this is likely to occur, but it is a realistic way of imaging a company like this moving forward. GW makes some very nice miniatures, and that should be the driving force behind their profits. Right now they make a decent amount of money off of their published works, but they also spend a significant amount in publishing and shipping these products.

I guess I just believe that in order for any company that has a niche market like this to survive, especially with the economic downturn that the entire world is facing, they need to evolve. This would allow for more balanced armies overall, instead of 3 or 4 top tier armies, I could imagine most armies being competitive.

I completely agree with you obviously being a web-savvy consumer myself.

But the thing is, you need a publication in the stores to help sell the army. And once you officially print a copy of the codex if you make any changes to it via PDF you now have a situation where the printed codex doesn't match the PDF and you start to confuse those consumers who aren't web-savvy.


As I said before, I just don't believe there is an easy solution that doesn't make some group of gamers unhappy.


Also, they *have* gotten rid of the 'sub-codex' idea in that they're not making them anymore. Every codex produced now is completely stand-alone for specifically that reason (so that updating one book doesn't totally destroy the other).

But the problem (that is really being discussed here) is that there are also pieces of wargear that are used in multiple codices that, by common sense, should behave the same but do not because of the stand-alone nature of each codex and the gradual rules updating that is performed with each new release.

Yes, it is a problem. Yes, it is hard to do.

That's why they're getting paid.

I mean, seriously, if you want to change stuff mid-stream, then simply make it fair. If marines paid twice the cost for their cyclone launcher, and got double shots, well, that's reasonable. Paying 1.5x for 2x shots - obviously not fair.

The Marine codex is the worst case I've seen yet. Comparing entries, marines get something like 10 different entries for 10 points cheaper each. In a 1500 point game, that puts the Dark Angel player down a whole squad.

It's not a matter of "getting the new wargear", it's a matter of getting everything cheaper and better. Same for chaos marines. Preds, Vindicatrors, and so on.

@Yakface - yes, I acknowledge this is not an easy task, and there isn't an easy answer for them. But, this is a full-time job for the development staff. Saying "it's hard" should not be an acceptable answer. We, as paying customers, should demand more. I am faced with difficult things every day at my job. It's why I get paid. We aave a saying at my office, "if it was easy, anyone could do it."

"As I said before, I just don't believe there is an easy solution that doesn't make some group of gamers unhappy. "

That's, quite honestly, a cop-out.

Take the vindicator, as an example. They want to introduce a new rule, "siege shield". That's fine. Here are two options that would not upset anyone.

1) New codex gets siege shield. New codex has vindicators priced 10 points more than vindicators in other codexes. (If a dozerblade gets a re-roll for 5 points, then 10 to ignore the test is fair.)

2) (Even better): New codex gets the option to pay for the 'siege shield' rule, at +10 points.

The casual gamer doesn't care. They're not upset, that's just how it is. The competative gamer sees the difference as 'the new thing' but realizes that they're paying for it. Maybe not having to spend 10 points to ignore terrain is actually advantage. Who gets upset by this?

Here's what not to do:
Give the new vindicator a siege shield for free, and then drop the price of the vindicator compared to every other codex that can take the exact same model.

Was that rocket science? Balancing identical models between codexes is really not that hard. If you give something a better rule, it gets to cost more. If you take something away, or add a drawback, then reduce the point cost. Is that really so difficult a concept that someone who has designed games for 20 years as a full-time job can't get it?

Redbeard wrote:If you give something a better rule, it gets to cost more.

...unless it was over-priced to begin with, either due to an oversight in original design or a change in the core rules of the game...

insaniak wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:Suppose you go to a policeman, and ask him what the law is regarding parking. He tells you, but then immediately adds "but you can always break the law"; it's recognition that the law is so crazy many won't follow it.

It's the same situation:

No. It's not.

In fact, that's just taken the number 1 spot as the most ridiculous analogy I've ever read. Congratulations.

Marvelous! Of course, given your apparent inability to distinguish between a colon and a period (or perhaps merely to quote the explanatory portion of an analogy), my delight is somewhat tempered.

We're talking the rules for a game of toy soldiers here. A game that for the last 20-odd years has been written with the design philosophy that game rules are there as a starting point, not the final authority.

The law, so far as I'm aware, has no such design philosophy. Driving isn't intended to be something fun you do with your mates while sinking a few beers.

Beg pardon? The overarching design philosophy has not been that the rules as written are meant to be authoritative? How disappointed the folks in the rules forums will be. The notion that GW's rules set does not follow the paradigm of Austinian law is indicative on your part of either a fundamental misapprehension of the law or a substantial difference of perspective of GW's rules, and I'll not derail the discussion further with inquiry (Coriolis effect, no doubt).

Yes, GW knew that this particular decision would upset people. See Yak's excellent post just above mine. But at least it is a decision one way or another, which is what people are asking for.

As I said, I don't think it's the best one. That would have been to simply update everyone else with the same gear to the same rules, and include those rules in the appropriate FAQ's where necessary. But it's a decision, and it's a game, so changing it is always an option.

That is where both you and Yakface are wrong; GW's only decision has been to not make a decision.

The day before the DA FAQ was released, what where your options?
1- Play the rules as written, blue gear is better then green gear.
2- Use house rules, blue and green gear is the same, but if you make an army with this gear in mind, you have no idea if your army will be acceptable at the gaming table next door.

The day after the DA FAQ was released, what are your options?
1- Play the rules as written, blue gear is better then green gear.
2- Use house rules, blue and green gear is the same, but if you make an army with this gear in mind, you have no idea if your army will be acceptable at the gaming table next door.

The DA FAQ hasn't changed anything with regards to this issue!

Listen, in the end people complain about things for (at least) 2 reasons; because they can't stand a company and they see them doing something wrong, or they want a company to succeed and they see the company doing something wrong.

At least in my area of the county, a prime reason to spend money on 40K/WHFB instead of AT-34, Hordes, Warmachines, CCGs or spending money on electronic gaming is that GW, through it's retail operation and it's tournament efforts, has established and promoted it's unmatched portability. No other table top game allows you to paint models in your house, pack 'em in your case and be assured that wherever you go to play, you know the rules and your army plays as you imagined.

That portability has been substantially restricted for anyone that plays non-Blue marines. Ironically, by doing nothing, GW has chosen the worst of the available options for solving this problem. Had they simply said "Play it as it lays, your codex is your codex", skittles marines would be inferior to smurfs, but they already were. If they had said "Use the rules from the SM codex, (and use these new point values)" that would also be fine. Everyone would know what to expect wherever they went, and house rules would remain as they are; the occasional idiosyncrasies of the odd gaming den. As someone that values consistency and portability, it's a decision that's snuffed out any desire I had to invest in any of the non-Codex marine armies, or recommend them to anyone else as a value purchase.

Another problem of GW's non-decision is that it shifts the burden of being a jerk from the rule company to us, the players. I's now up to us to either tell our peers that they have to use the old rules for their armies, or face some truly horrendous situations when codices point balanced with one usage of gear in mind suddenly become very unbalanced. The third option, allow them to use the new rules and try and come up with new prices for old codices, is highly problematic on a number of levels. Not least of which is that it invites (indeed requires) substantial use, alteration and reproduction of material under IP protection. As an IP attorney, this seems to me to be a suboptimal solution, shall we say.

Yakface, gotta agree w/Redbeard on this one. I think you are way outta left field totally wrong on this one to the point of almost sounding like a fanboi. It's not that hard to fix, it makes sense to fix, and not fixing it causes a further loss to an already dwindling player base. I'm not gonna go out and buy more Dark Angels if playing them sucks. Conversely I already have enough of them that if I want to play them as regular marines I'm not buying new stuff that way either. And, they are at serious risk of pissing me off enough that I won't play either anymore thus losing my business all together.

It is far more confusing to have one thing actually cost and work differently across several different codexes than it would be to clarify it w/ one simple faq stating that if it says it is a Land Raider then it is a Land Raider. Same points, same abilities, same everything. See how much simpler that is for tournament organizers, players, and readers of Dakka?

yakface wrote:But the thing is, you need a publication in the stores to help sell the army. And once you officially print a copy of the codex if you make any changes to it via PDF you now have a situation where the printed codex doesn't match the PDF and you start to confuse those consumers who aren't web-savvy.

They could just put it in a White Dwarf. But that would make sense...

And honestly, anymore, how many players of 40K aren't web savvy. A pretty tiny percentage I would bet.

The thing is, the more I think about it, the more I think that GW is just trying to whittle away the nonBlue Marines. Avoid making a good decision w/ the faq. So, fewer players are willing to play DA due to the inferiority of the codex and the hassles involved w/transporting house rules. So then along comes 6th edition and guess what. No new DA codex releases. Maybe they throw us a bone and include a DA special character in the Space Marine codex. Less work for them. More streamlining of their business. Less creative options available for players.

I'm actually going to agree with Yakface on this. Why? Look what happened to Warlord, Reaper's game. They put out a rulebook and stat cards with figs, revised the rules in a new book (plus army books), then revised all the army stats AGAIN and put it out as an online .pdf. I think many a folk were turned off by that experience, having shelled out money for the rulebook. So making the DA codex irrelevant a year-ish after publication was going to fly as well as, well, this faq.

Where I disagree is in terms of the solution.They HAD to know by the time the DA book was coming out that they were going to revise C:SM; maybe it wasn't in any kind of final form, but I'm sure it was already on the drawing board. IF the intention was to test out ideas with Codex: DA, then they should have put it out as an online .pdf or as a list in WD and present the final version in a combined book. OR, the dev team should have worked backwards and try to keep the two rules sets in line with each other from the very beginning.

All of this is irrelevant, of course. GW Dev. team has made their decision, and it was against consistency in favor of 'fun'. This is their business model and their development model. Play the game or play something else. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was...

Man, I just wish they would bring more consistency to the game though. I realise that we DA players have been a real pain in the ass about the new rule block. We have been like, give us this, and give us that. Yet we never ask for any of the anti goodness that the dex brings. Like the new scout stats, Rites of Battle being withdrawn for the most part and the reductino fo psychic hoods. The thing is, I would be willing to have all of the reducs if I got the new equipments stats. I don't even want the new units. I don't really need a redeemer, a thunderfire, or an Ironclad. I just want my Deathwing to smash any other termies into tiny little bits like they should be able too.

And in all actuallity, I really would not have minded having the DA dex written into the new one. As long as we still got our special characters and fluff pages I would have been cool.

Ratbarf wrote:Man, I just wish they would bring more consistency to the game though. I realise that we DA players have been a real pain in the ass about the new rule block. We have been like, give us this, and give us that. Yet we never ask for any of the anti goodness that the dex brings. Like the new scout stats, Rites of Battle being withdrawn for the most part and the reductino fo psychic hoods. The thing is, I would be willing to have all of the reducs if I got the new equipments stats. I don't even want the new units. I don't really need a redeemer, a thunderfire, or an Ironclad. I just want my Deathwing to smash any other termies into tiny little bits like they should be able too.

And in all actuallity, I really would not have minded having the DA dex written into the new one. As long as we still got our special characters and fluff pages I would have been cool.

My favorite anti-update people so far are the apologists that think just because no one has said to give DA the drawbacks that they wouldn't gladly take them along with their consistent gear and costs. I am sure there are a few that would want all the good and none of the bad, but I'm even more sure there are a lot that would take both.

Buzzsaw wrote:I's now up to us to either tell our peers that they have to use the old rules for their armies, or face some truly horrendous situations when codices point balanced with one usage of gear in mind suddenly become very unbalanced.

Oh yes. I'm sure that if we let Dark Angels use Land Raiders that hold 12 marines, or pay a few fewer points for assault marines, the results would be nothing short of horrendous![/sarcasm]

Pariah Press wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:I's now up to us to either tell our peers that they have to use the old rules for their armies, or face some truly horrendous situations when codices point balanced with one usage of gear in mind suddenly become very unbalanced.

Oh yes. I'm sure that if we let Dark Angels use Land Raiders that hold 12 marines, or pay a few fewer points for assault marines, the results would be nothing short of horrendous![/sarcasm]

Gorsh, what was I thinking? No doubt the BA Codex was scrupulously costed with the ability to field 3 squads of veteran assault marines with FNP. And don't be silly, SM and BA both get 5 termies for 200 points. Ooops, I meant, BA get 5 and a 30 point Death Company for free, well at least they pay for stormshields... Wait, what?

Buzzsaw wrote:Suppose you go to a policeman, and ask him what the law is regarding parking. He tells you, but then immediately adds "but you can always break the law"; it's recognition that the law is so crazy many won't follow it.

I should also point out that my fiance, who doesn't even play 40K, immediately pointed out that a better analogy would be the policeman pointing out to you what the parking law is, but then adding that it only applies when parking on the street... on your own property, you should feel free to park wherever you like.

The day after the DA FAQ was released, what are your options?
1- Play the rules as written, blue gear is better then green gear.
2- Use house rules, blue and green gear is the same, but if you make an army with this gear in mind, you have no idea if your army will be acceptable at the gaming table next door.

I'm not seeing your point here... because that's the exact same pair of options you have for every single issue addressed in any GW FAQ.

Had they simply said "Play it as it lays, your codex is your codex", skittles marines would be inferior to smurfs, but they already were.

And that's what they said.

So why is this even an issue?

yeah,
Yak very few people don't have access to the interwebs these days, and even if they don't they must have a friend who does? they are involved in a expensive hobby.

Space marines are their flag ship range, so I would have thought the idea was to get it right? across the range?
So what was the point of releaseing a wargear book? (i know it's outta date now...). they wanted people who play 'nids or eldar to now what kinda weapons the enemy have...

So far everyone knows that a LR carries 10 and that a cyclone missile fires once and that the dozer blade gives a re-roll.

This is a period of massive upheaval, new rule book and the flagship range has had it's stats tweaked, I think people will accept FAQs:
Put them online,
Hand them out with online purchases,
Hand them out at stores,
Put all the 5th edition FAQs in WD.

If they didn't want to do FAQs for the old Codexs... Simple don't change equipment entries!!!

How hard would it have been to have worded the blue marines terminator entry to allow them to take two cyclone launchers in the squad?
Have LRs and Drop pods carry 10
and have blue vindicators with a dozer blade take the 1/36 chance of getting stuck in difficult terrain like everyone else...

... there is no fluffy way out
Onboard the Green battle barge:
A tactical squad is all geared up and ready to go, and the chaplin walks over and says sorry johnny I'm taking your space, you can sit this one out... johnny's thinking that makes sense a drop pod can only hold 10...

Onboard the Blue battle barge:
A tactical squad is all geared up and ready to go, and the chaplin walks over and says hey johnny your Going to sit on the floor, I'll you hold on to you while we blast through space... johnny's thinking that's not in the safety manual a drop pods only ment to hold 10... look ten spaces...

As it is now they have pissed off everyone who plays, I'm a chaos marine player (mostly) and if I'm playing Green marines and any one asks me can I use stuff from the Blue codex I'll say no.
And I don't think I'm being a jerk... I think what's the point in even using a codex list if your going to change it?
I know we're all here to have fun... but fairs fun right? using the rules as intended is fun?... but begging for an advantage? wheres the fun in that?

I've got three sets of Marines from AOBR and I'm thinking of making a BT army and a GW red shirt in the shop couldn't work out why i'd do BT, he kept saying but blue marines are so much better... and in the end he's probabily right...

SO honestly how difficult would it have been to put out a FAQ adjusting stats and points values in all the SM codexs... I thinkI could do it in a week... with playtesting.

PAniC


Edit: Spelling etc..