http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/6.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net
http://rapidshare.com/files/121731491/40KReferenceSheetUS_1_.pdf.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/121731675/40KPOSMajorChangesFlyer_1_.pdf.html


Pics:

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v694/AgeOfEgos/Untitled-1.jpg[/img]

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v694/AgeOfEgos/Untitled-2.jpg[/img]
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309874.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309874.page GMT GW cool with these being out?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309882.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309882.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309890.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309890.page GMT Thanks for those.

I'm getting a big NO NO ! on the links though. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309897.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309897.page GMT
Help?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309898.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309898.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309904.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309904.page GMT
And the PDF that I was able to download is corrupted.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309907.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309907.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309909.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309909.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309963.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309963.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309992.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/309992.page GMT
booo for rapidshit, if you have the files, put them up on something such as filefront etc.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310059.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310059.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310179.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310179.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310185.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310185.page GMT
My fav bit is this:

[quote]Another point they'll want to talk about is vehicles. Overall, the balance has shifted ... [b]This is all for [u]the benefit of the game as a whole[/u], and not designed to 'nerf' or 'buff' any one army...[/b][/quote]

That sounds just about as hollow as the '[i]Your armies won't change! Everything is still valid[/i]' claptrap they spewed before 4th came out.

Then there's another bit:

[quote]Some players may be worried that their favorite tactic or army combo is no longer valid. In some cases this might be true, but explain there are plenty of new tricks to try out. [b]The new rules are designed to even out the armies and put everyone on a more level playing field[/b][/quote]

Yeah. Sure.

BYE]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310193.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310193.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310203.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310203.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310205.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310205.page GMT
My fav bit is this:

[quote]Another point they'll want to talk about is vehicles. Overall, the balance has shifted ... [b]This is all for [u]the benefit of the game as a whole[/u], and not designed to 'nerf' or 'buff' any one army...[/b][/quote]

That sounds just about as hollow as the '[i]Your armies won't change! Everything is still valid[/i]' claptrap they spewed before 4th came out.

Then there's another bit:

[quote]Some players may be worried that their favorite tactic or army combo is no longer valid. In some cases this might be true, but explain there are plenty of new tricks to try out. [b]The new rules are designed to even out the armies and put everyone on a more level playing field[/b][/quote]

Yeah. Sure.

BYE[/quote]


But what [i]would[/i] make you happy? A miniatures game that doesn't receive updated rules = a game that very people play.

Change is the lifeblood of the hobby. If you don't like particular rule changes fine, but to complain simply because they're changing the rules is pretty petty IMHO.

The fact is, you *can* play with your existing units and armies. They won't always be the most efficient choices anymore but that doesn't mean you still can't plunk them down on the table and play a friendly match with them.

The important thing is that there *is* change to give people new ideas and choices and to make for their armies and games and to help generate sales in order to keep the game and business alive.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310220.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310220.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310221.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310221.page GMT
I DO agree with you on the rest of it, but honestly...

Where is your Khorne Berserker army?

Your lost and the damned army?

Just saying, not everything is peachy keen...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310239.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310239.page GMT
I DO agree with you on the rest of it, but honestly...

Where is your Khorne Berserker army?

Your lost and the damned army?

Just saying, not everything is peachy keen...[/quote]


I'd say that the 'run' mechanic help make bezerker armies MORE playable in v5, but I think you're referring to stuff like the pure World Eater army list, right?

It does suck when an army list goes away but IMHO they've been frank about the fact that in the waning days of the Andy Chambers regime the game designers were given incredible license to publish new rules and army lists without considering the ramification that publishing those lists gives the impression that the company will support that variant list forever; something they simply do not have the resources to do.

So while I do find it regrettable, I completely understand the need to eliminate variant lists to move forward with a clear slate of armies that are fully supported.


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310276.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310276.page GMT are no partial hits from template weapons.[/b][/quote]
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310308.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310308.page GMT
Variant lists should be encouraged, but use models people have or at least that exist so support can be maintained indefinitely.

Anything you have to convert or make is bad business for GW, but they keep on doing it. Even in the era of clean slates.

Clean slate is boring. Red, blue, green marines. Hurr.

Maybe they can make a marine chapter for every color...hey wait a minute! ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310323.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310323.page GMT
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310348.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310348.page GMT
Updating rules and changing rules are two very different things Yak. Updating rules would be improving upon them, making things tighter and more clear, changing concepts that don't work. GW, on the other hand, just changes rules. They give the big ol' pendulum of their's a nice big push and change the rules to where ever it swings.

[quote=yakface]Change is the lifeblood of the hobby. If you don't like particular rule changes fine, but to complain simply because they're changing the rules is pretty petty IMHO.[/quote]



Tsk, tsk, tsk Yak. I expected better of you.

There's nothing inherently wrong with change. Change is good, as long as the changes are done for the right reasons. I hate to use them as a posterchild example again (because I don't want to derail the topic), but take the Classic BattleTech team as an example of positive and [b][u]appropriate[/u][/b] change. They have had some significant rules changes over the years, tied into the over-arcing plotline of the game, a plotline that actually moves forward (unlike some other games we know). In that time, two types of changes have occured:

1. [b]Rule Mechanics Changes[/b] - They've spent 25 years going from 1st to 5th Edition, each time striving to improve upon the rules. Things that blatantly didn't work were fixed (aerospace), and if they still didn't work they were fixed again (vehicles). Some things that didn't work were dropped (Land-Air 'Mechs).

2. [b]Faction Changes[/b] - People here complain when something gets 'nerfed' or is 'too powerful', as these changes within 40K seem to come at the whims of the minature designers. Got a nice new plastic kit to sell? Here, have some great new rules. Not due for a new model or re-cut sprue? No new rules/bad new rules for you then!!! In BattleTech, there are 'Mechs that simply don't work. They're terrible, and if you fielded them against any of the new units you would probably lose. And there are 'Mechs that were just amazingly powerful when they first debuted, armed with some of th most outlandish and powerful technology the players and the in-game universe has ever seen. But this is intentional - the story has moved forward so what was cutting-edge tech when the game began is now a relic of an era long passed. Things get left behind as new things replace them - things change and get better or worse depending on where the story of the game takes you - rather than randomly swinging back and forth with that pendulum depending on what '[i]Oooh shiny![/i]' they want to foist onto us this month. Think of the CBT guys like the guys at Forge World, only they have a clue, and know what customer service is.

[quote=yakface]The fact is, you *can* play with your existing units and armies. They won't always be the most efficient choices anymore but that doesn't mean you still can't plunk them down on the table and play a friendly match with them.[/quote]

Ok, I'll just get out my Word Bearers, Iron Warriors, World Eaters, Death Guard, Alpha Legion and Lost & The Damned armies shall I? I can use them against my friends Alaitoc and Ulthwe Lists, and in a few months I'll challenge my Salamander and White Scar friends to a match. Sounds awesome!!!!!!!! Oh wait... none of those armies exist any more (or, in the case of the Marine ones, they won't by the end of the year).

Of course, none of that has [b]anything[/b] to do with 5th Ed, but is indicative of a style of 'change' that does not work. They're not changing to move the game forward or improve things, they're changing things because the stuff that was popular before is already owned by everyone, so they have to make a 'new hotness' so everyone can clamour to buy that instead. And in cases where they can't go and make the old stuff suck (Stealth Suits being the perfect example), they have to go and add new, previously unavailable options, but in a new kit that doesn't fit with the old kit, so people who are perfectionists (like me - I refuse to mix old and new Terminators), won't dare to mix them.


Let me ask you another question, related to this:

"[i]They won't always be the most efficient choices anymore...[/i]"

I want an honest answer from you Yak - Am I naive and/or asking for too much when I say I want a game where everything is equally useful and effective, where there are no 'tricks' or 'combos' that are always taken because either they're so powerful that you'd be stupid not to or that everything else is junk. Am I being [i]unreasonable[/i] when I say that I want there to be no junk units?

You may notice how the person who wrote that nonsense rules summary chose their words very carefully, pointing out that old 'combos' would be dissapearing. This, to me, seems to imply that anyone attempting to find 'combos' is somehow playing in an underhanded way or, to quote Andy Hoare, an '[i]unscrupulous[/i]' manner? So, again, am I wrong to wish for a game where such combos weren't strictly necessary because anything you fielded would be effective in its own right?

[quote=yakface]The important thing is that there *is* change to give people new ideas and choices and to make for their armies and games and to help generate sales in order to keep the game and business alive.[/quote]

Forcing people to play a different way is the opposite of giving them choice. It makes them choiceless.


Look, as I've said before, I do honestly think that 5th Ed will be a major improvement on the train wreck 4th Ed was, but for almost every step GW takes forward, they almost can't help themselves but make a couple backwards as well. They have an all-to-casual approach to writing and improving these rules, and are more interested in selling the new shiny model kit than they are in making a good game.

BYE]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310368.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310368.page GMT
I want an honest answer from you Yak - Am I naive and/or asking for too much when I say I want a game where everything is equally useful and effective, where there are no 'tricks' or 'combos' that are always taken because either they're so powerful that you'd be stupid not to or that everything else is junk. Am I being [i]unreasonable[/i] when I say that I want there to be no junk units?

You may notice how the person who wrote that nonsense rules summary chose their words very carefully, pointing out that old 'combos' would be dissapearing. This, to me, seems to imply that anyone attempting to find 'combos' is somehow playing in an underhanded way or, to quote Andy Hoare, an '[i]unscrupulous[/i]' manner? So, again, am I wrong to wish for a game where such combos weren't strictly necessary because anything you fielded would be effective in its own right?[/quote]


I do think you're being naive to think that there can be a game this complex that is under any kind of realistic production schedule that can get every single unit and choice equally balanced. It simply isn't feasible as the amount of time and playtesting it would take would not be cost (or time) effective.

The only way such a thing can be done is with rules that are not physically printed, something like an online 'living' rulebook that can be altered as needed to address the game balance issues that invariably come up after a game hits a wide audience. While you, I and many other online savvy people may enjoy a system of rules like that there is a very large contingent of people who absolutely HATE when a game is constantly updated online. I've met many of these people and I do think they have a point (from their point of view).

They like to have confidence playing a game knowing that the rules they own and have practiced with are the rules to the game. They hate having to check online every few weeks to make sure something hasn't changed in the game that their opponent is going to suddenly inform them of during their game.

So yes, I think with a game system published for a mass market with the time and money limitations that presents you are always going to have some imbalanced units and choices.


And I also firmly believe that *change* to the rules are absolutely vital for a miniature game and the company who makes it.

Even if 40K somehow reached a point where its core rules were "perfect" (whatever that means) I still think the game mechanics would require an "update" (change). This is because miniature games that do not change their rules on a regular basis tend to lose the focus of a whole lot of players who thrive on change and new challenges to fuel their interest. There will always be a 'hardcore' following of people who stick with a game even after it is no longer updated, but to really keep the mainstream interest, changing the core rules every now and then is absolutely necessary.

It is also absolutely vital for a company to change the rules this way as it tends to help drive miniature sales towards models that previously may not have been as interesting to players.


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310437.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310437.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310448.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310448.page GMT IG flamer squad at last chuckles...... that baneblade cannons also looking extra tasty now too! I think this may have actually persuaded to get 5th, I wasn't planning on it until now.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310458.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310458.page GMT

Happened in 2nd edition where they put out a 'gets you by' booklet with all armies until their codex came out. Happened in 3rd edition when they put all the armies into the rulebook until the new codices came out.

But it has always been a very controversial move. Many players hate having their codex invalidated by a simpler 'gets you by' army list. Plus, not having a codex in the shop for an army (because it takes several years for the codices for every army to be published) means that it is harder to sell new players on an army.


It's one of those "you can't please all the people all the time" kind of things.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310462.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310462.page GMT
I am one of those chronic 40k love/hate folks. every 5 years I decide that the things that frustrate me about the game, the hobby, the industry or some combination of the three are too much, quit the hobby and sell all my stuff. I swear upon the grave of my ancestors that I will never play again, and walk off into the sunset.

Then something like apocalypse happens, or plastic baneblades, or 5th edition and I come sniffing back to the dinner table like a starving dog. (Or sheep)

As for the rules changes I have to admit that although there are some things that frustrate me (rending nerf, tanks that are slower than my foot troops,,,) I like the direction the rules are going in.

So back to 40k I come


Baaaa, Baaaaaa, Baaaaaaaaaa !]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310472.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310472.page GMT
I am one of those chronic 40k love/hate folks. every 5 years I decide that the things that frustrate me about the game, the hobby, the industry or some combination of the three are too much, quit the hobby and sell all my stuff. I swear upon the grave of my ancestors that I will never play again, and walk off into the sunset.

Then something like apocalypse happens, or plastic baneblades, or 5th edition and I come sniffing back to the dinner table like a starving dog. (Or sheep)

As for the rules changes I have to admit that although there are some things that frustrate me (rending nerf, tanks that are slower than my foot troops,,,) I like the direction the rules are going in.

So back to 40k I come


Baaaa, Baaaaaa, Baaaaaaaaaa ![/quote]

Heh, at least you admit it . We're human, we seek intellectual arousal and patterns....changing rules gives us both. I wouldn't want a game where the rules were perfect (Whatever that means to each individual?). I want change. Not everyones arousal state is the same though, some prefer new dex/rules every 6 months...some prefer the same over 3 years. *Shrug*, you're just human.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310475.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310475.page GMT

Happened in 2nd edition where they put out a 'gets you by' booklet with all armies until their codex came out. Happened in 3rd edition when they put all the armies into the rulebook until the new codices came out.

But it has always been a very controversial move. Many players hate having their codex invalidated by a simpler 'gets you by' army list. Plus, not having a codex in the shop for an army (because it takes several years for the codices for every army to be published) means that it is harder to sell new players on an army.

It's one of those "you can't please all the people all the time" kind of things.

[/quote]

I wouldn't call "get you by" army lists codexes. I think you'd agree to that as you state "until their codex came out". FWIW, I'd prefer to have a simultaneous army list for all units and drop the Codex format altogether. I think it's better to update units on an ad-hoc basis in a yearly update as units from a variety of armies are released. Sort of like how it was done during the RT era. "Codex creep" would be gone and people could get updated units without a 3-10 year release time.

I do agree that not everybody would be happy, but those lists in the 3rd ed book seemed very balanced to me.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310476.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310476.page GMT [quote=covenant84]Well, I'm happy. this to me is a definate move back towards 2nd, the game I started playing and enjoyed. [/quote]

I agree. With the exception of IC’s being over powered and parrying in HTH, 2nd edition was the pinnacle rule set. Army lists galore in every codex, armor save modifiers, individual damage charts for vehicles and percentage limits on non-troop types (ie no more than15% of army points total could be spend on HQ, character models and their war gear).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310477.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310477.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310534.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310534.page GMT
Don't worry about it. Just disagree with your opponent and he'll have to take it at -1.

BYE]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310560.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310560.page GMT
Except for the vehicle rules. Nothing GW has done in the past 10+ years has been as fun as vehicles were in 2nd Ed.

BYE]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310561.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310561.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310567.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310567.page GMT GW aren't well thought-out.

It seems like designers think "hey, this would be cool", and ram it into the rules.

Tankbustas being unable to assault a unit an inch away because they can see a tank on the other side of the world, for example. Or, the new vehicle squadron immobilized = destroyed rule. Were vehicle squadrons ever overpowered? Why add this, making already marginal choices even worse?

This quote, from the latest WD (342) sums up the inherent problem, in my opinion. "This game requires you to play with a gracious, cooperative spirit. You have to make the game work for you, your opponent and the story you're creating. It is a move from the ultra-competative style that has become more prevalent in 40K over the years."


Changing the rules will not alter whether people are competative or not. All it will change is how that competativeness is expressed. Games should be written with the most competative players in mind, as casual players are casual, and will play for fun with whatever rules they're given. It is far far easier to write tight rules with competative players in mind, and allow casual players to go with what works for them, than it is to write loose rules with casual players in mind, and expect competative players to become casual players.

The good game companies out there have already realized this, and do it. It is foolish for GW to believe that they can remove competativeness from a player-versus-player game by producing inherently non-competative rules.

There will be winning strategies in 5th edition, they will simply be different than those in 4th. There will be power-units and power-armies. And, as in 4th edition, the competative players will be accused of being cheesy as they are the ones who will know, and use, tactics like the intermingled squads to gain cover saves. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310584.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310584.page GMT GW ever made.

But on the topic, the sheets looks pretty sweet and easy to follow. The "new" rules looks like a fresh breeze and change is usually a good thing or it would be playing the same over and over all the time. Finally getting some use of the troops, even if i would have prefered only troops could contest too. The only thing that contradicts all of that is the flattening of codexes, with lesser and lesser choices esp. with only a few that are good enough(orcs is the exception so far). That will make the changes in the game minimal..

Ripping apart players armies and making them obsolete is a bad thing too, less variations and a loss of players. They might have needed more tuning and a bit more work but it would have gotten a bigger playerbase and more sales, dont really understand why they did it.

Thing the biggest loss GW ever made was Andy C. JJ just isnt good.. or even decent, wonder how they actually made him head of anything.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310589.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310589.page GMT Armor saves have no bearing on whether you win or lose which is strange as I would think a unit that took 20 wounds and saved all but one would have a greater morale than a unit that took 10 wounds and lost 9. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310611.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310611.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310619.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310619.page GMT
I bought every FoW army in 2 months time because the game was so good.

When 5th edition is done bubbling over in a few months, I'll go and get into AT-43.

Both game systems impress me, they make for fun games and both have a balanced force creation system.

GW's games do not. It's always been a flaw.

The second major flaw is the scenarios are rubbish.

The last is marines, and not IG, are the baseline for the game system.

GW believes quite firmly that you must sell models by making new models superior to other models....and raise the price while doing so.

As a result of this singular policy, GW's business has shrunk remarkably over the past five years.

I have five year old armies for a reason, there's very little incentive for me to buy new models. I can get by with the ones I have, and I have enough wealth available I can literally buy a new army every month if I desired.

I don't. At some point, GW is going to realize that in order to get my business back, they need to make army lists with MORE options available.

Is 5E better than 4E? Yes. In that the game system has borrowed heavily from FoW and AT-43 (and even Warmachine) to try in one fell swoop to smother the opposition AND reinvent their own game...well, in the internet age you can't fool anyone that doesn't want to be fooled.

Do I want to play this game with 10 year olds? No.

Will I be playing this game with 10 year olds, once all of the kiddyhammer concept is introduced? No.

The 3rd edition Codices gave alot of choice, but were in a crummy game system.

Now the choice is gone, and the game system is improved.

Am I buying models? Nope. There's no incentive for me to spend money anymore, new game system or not.

Maybe someday I'll find a codex not written by Phil Kelly, that makes me go "oooh I want that". That hasn't happened in a very long time.

I'm so disgusted by the 'for retards, by retards' new codex schemes that anything Phil Kelly does not write, I don't buy...and I end up looking backwards to Codexes not yet effed up for 'new' armies.

Lots of dollars in my pocket, and nowhere to go.

Sad, really. I've spent more on tournament prizes in the last year than I have on GW product for myself.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310627.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310627.page GMT
"defenders react" refers to the universal counter attack where you move the defenders models into base with their attackers. The days of 2 or 3 man killzones are gone. Usually all members of both squads will fight in each assault.

Meph]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310632.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310632.page GMT
"defenders react" refers to the universal counter attack where you move the defenders models into base with their attackers. The days of 2 or 3 man killzones are gone. Usually all members of both squads will fight in each assault.

Meph[/quote]

Yeah, in our games HTH was one-two phases at most. Pretty bloody with counter-assault/combat resolution.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310635.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310635.page GMT
Not really.

The LAZY days are over.

Now you need to use tactics to overcome the limits imposed by the game system.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310637.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310637.page GMT
I guess you could call it that. These are the ones that were sent out to the hobby centers so they're open source material. They were also posted to the Kommandos Forum with permission to share them out.

[quote=MadEdric]Anyone notice for assault that you compare "wounds inflicted" and not casualties to determine who wins?
Armor saves have no bearing on whether you win or lose which is strange as I would think a unit that took 20 wounds and saved all but one would have a greater morale than a unit that took 10 wounds and lost 9. [/quote]

That's wounds inflicted and not saved, as in after taking saves as directed in step 2........... ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310647.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310647.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310652.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310652.page GMT [/quote]

Ah, but this is not a case of a problem in the rules or army.

This is about a player wanting to have an uber-killy HtH unit and make them do things they weren't designed to do.
They're hard-core, tank hunting, armor killers. As far as they're concerned, the grots can have the flesh-bags. they want "Da Big uns." It's just a matter of fluff being interpreted (rightfully) into rule-format.

Eric
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310653.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310653.page GMT
Awesome, i always hated that the defenders would have to wait until the end of the assault phase to move in unengaged models. At least that's how it was back in 3rd, when I was more active in the game. Maybe that was changed in 4th.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310669.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310669.page GMT Ah, but this is not a case of a problem in the rules or army.
[/quote]

No, it's a problem in design philosophy. You're right - it's crystal clear in the rules. But, have you seen a single competative player advocate taking tankbustas? I haven't. I understand they're trying to impose fluff via rules, but that doesn't encourage people to take them and use them according to the fluff, it encourages people not to take them. I have two boxes of them, they're wonderful models, but I haven't painted a single one yet because I really don't see myself ever taking them.

It's indicative of just about everything they seem to be doing lately. It's a "wouldn't it be cool if tankbustas had to go after tanks" - without giving any real thought to the real-world ramifications that the rule has (no one plays tankbustas).

And it's not just tankbustas. There are stupid rules thrown in all over the place. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that rolling for Possessed's abilities after they're deployed makes them immensely unreliable for their point-cost. Result: cool new models that no one plays with. Same exact flaw - a cool flavourful rule that wasn't thought through and makes the unit pointless.

I'm willing to give 5th ed a chance. I'm going to wait and see how the new games actually play. But, when I ran my orks at adepticon, no one was able to handle 180 boyz with a 5+ cover save. I don't know what's going to stop them when I don't have to buy a forcefield, improve my coversave to a 4+, and can run across the field instead of walking. Something just seems broken here.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310683.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310683.page GMT

Happened in 2nd edition where they put out a 'gets you by' booklet with all armies until their codex came out. Happened in 3rd edition when they put all the armies into the rulebook until the new codices came out.[/quote]

Untrue. They never came out with a Squats codex in 2nd edition even though they did have things like wargear cards and psy power cards for them in the dark melenium box. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310689.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310689.page GMT Le Grognard]Vehicle rules in 2nd were insane! Would love to see those back again. And Overwatch.[/quote]

Oh my goodness, no. Overwatch was the worst thing to hit 40k ever. I think that a comeback of that would proably get me to quit playing.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310690.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310690.page GMT GW would send PDFs to local stores for printout.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310698.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310698.page GMT GW believes quite firmly that you must sell models by making new models superior to other models....and raise the price while doing so.[/quote]
Hmm, Chaos Spawn? Possessed? What exactly recently has been put out that is so overpowered?

And 2nd was fun in ways, but would never fly now. I hated the vehicle rules (loved the RT way), and overwatch slowed the game to such a crawl. Small games took entire days to play sometimes. It was very very ponderous, and for no real good reason.

The new edition looks a lot better, and overall, really seems to make it a better game... so far. Only time will tell.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310707.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310707.page GMT
That was painful to have to endure, and often resulted in very boring matches.

I do miss the Psychic Phase from 2nd though.

3rd killed it, 4th brought it back to an OK level, but I fear 5th will be killing it again.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310737.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310737.page GMT Ah, but this is not a case of a problem in the rules or army.
[/quote]

No, it's a problem in design philosophy. You're right - it's crystal clear in the rules. But, have you seen a single competative player advocate taking tankbustas? I haven't. I understand they're trying to impose fluff via rules, but that doesn't encourage people to take them and use them according to the fluff, it encourages people not to take them. I have two boxes of them, they're wonderful models, but I haven't painted a single one yet because I really don't see myself ever taking them.

It's indicative of just about everything they seem to be doing lately. It's a "wouldn't it be cool if tankbustas had to go after tanks" - without giving any real thought to the real-world ramifications that the rule has (no one plays tankbustas).

And it's not just tankbustas. There are stupid rules thrown in all over the place. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that rolling for Possessed's abilities after they're deployed makes them immensely unreliable for their point-cost. Result: cool new models that no one plays with. Same exact flaw - a cool flavourful rule that wasn't thought through and makes the unit pointless.
<SNIP>
[/quote]

Well, not I don't necessarily disagree with anything you're saying.
I'm going to speak generally, because I have, neither, the Ork codex nor the 5th edition rules with me or memorized .

Essentially speaking:
Tank busters have to charge the tank, whether or not they will be successful. Right?
Tank busters CAN or CAN NOT but transports?
If they CAN buy one, then just put them in one and make it move far enough that they can't assault from it.

If they can NOT, then buy one for a different unit (in 5th), then load them up into it in turn on and do the same.

Disembark them the turn you want to charge with them.

Why wouldn't that work?

As for possessed... You're wrong. they are perfect as is.
It's "Chaos Space Marines," not "Predictable Space Marines."
What's more chaotic than not knowing what the heck will happen with them until the game starts?
Another "fluff turned rule" for you.
[/playful sarcasm]

Eric]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310751.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310751.page GMT As for possessed... You're wrong. they are perfect as is.
It's "Chaos Space Marines," not "Predictable Space Marines."
What's more chaotic than not knowing what the heck will happen with them until the game starts?
Another "fluff turned rule" for you.
[/playful sarcasm]

Eric[/quote]

Man - Chaotic would be, like, d3 Attacks each, or something. d6 Maybe.

This is just ridiculous. Roll 2d6 and take your favourite would be way better. God forbid letting US choose what we want them to do, and paying an appropriate amount of points.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310770.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310770.page GMT
All. Not "One ordnance OR all others". Hmmm...does this mean that a stationary LRBT can fire its ordnance AND its hull lascannon AND its sponsons? And that a defiler can rock the Battle Cannon on the move, as well as the reaper and heavy flamer?

Oooo....

Presumably this is just a shorthand for the summary sheet, and the rules text will actually explain that ALL actually means "All unless your fire ordnance, natch". But if not...

Ooooo....

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310801.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310801.page GMT
I don't. At some point, GW is going to realize that in order to get my business back, they need to make army lists with MORE options available.

The 3rd edition Codices gave alot of choice, but were in a crummy game system.

Now the choice is gone, and the game system is improved.
[/quote]

Seconded. Bring back the options!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310805.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310805.page GMT Essentially speaking:
Tank busters have to charge the tank, whether or not they will be successful. Right?
Tank busters CAN or CAN NOT but transports?
If they CAN buy one, then just put them in one and make it move far enough that they can't assault from it.

If they can NOT, then buy one for a different unit (in 5th), then load them up into it in turn on and do the same.

Disembark them the turn you want to charge with them.

Why wouldn't that work?
[/quote]

1) They cannot buy transports
2) You're missing the point. They are an expensive (by ork standards) unit that has very little tactical flexibility, and can be led around by the nose by an experienced opponent up until the point the opponent decides to take them out, which is really very easy as they die just as fast as a 6-point boy. Hence, no one takes them. Yes, you can do convoluted things involving swapping transports, and create a theoretical situation in which they would be useful. And yet, still, no one takes them in any sort of competative army. The rules team did not consider the real-world effect of giving them a fluffy rule (that being that no one would play them).

[quote]
As for possessed... You're wrong. they are perfect as is.
It's "Chaos Space Marines," not "Predictable Space Marines."
What's more chaotic than not knowing what the heck will happen with them until the game starts?
Another "fluff turned rule" for you.
[/quote]

You're confusing 'chaos' - the opposite of order, with Chaos - the term used to represent the whims of the Warp Gods, who are apparently anything but chaotic, and pursue their own goals. It's just that their goals aren't known to humans. And, again, you missed the point. You are again correct, that taken literally, they are chaotic and not predictable. And yet, here we are, as a group of gamers as a whole, not using them. Why? Because we gamers realize for a unit that costs as much as they do, having a random effect generated after deployment isn't effective. If they were less expensive, sure. If their random effect could at least be known before you placed them on the table, sure. But it's just another example of the GW developers operating without a clue.

But what should you expect. Here's another quote from this month's White Dwarf - this time from the Lead Developer of 5th ed, Alessio Cavatore. "Now, I don't mind admitting that combat resolution in 40K, especially in the last edition, used to flummox me - there was a bit too much maths for this simple writer to attempt in the heat of combat."

When the lead developer for a game based on math says that it's too complex to work out outnumbering 2:1, or 3:1 - well... there you go.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310816.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/310816.page GMT
I just noticed the same thing, Ordnance is not mentioned as an exception in the shooting chart.

Can anybody who has seen the new book yet clarify this? If a LRBT (standing still of course) can fire its Battlecannon AND Lascannon, then I'm saving up for a guard army.....

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311057.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311057.page GMT GW developers operating without a clue.

But what should you expect. Here's another quote from this month's White Dwarf - this time from the Lead Developer of 5th ed, Alessio Cavatore. "Now, I don't mind admitting that combat resolution in 40K, especially in the last edition, used to flummox me - there was a bit too much maths for this simple writer to attempt in the heat of combat."

When the lead developer for a game based on math says that it's too complex to work out outnumbering 2:1, or 3:1 - well... there you go.[/quote]

Wow.

Just, wow.

Can't wait to read the "Designer's Notes" this month.

I can only imagine what pearls of wisdom also lie within the Standard Bearer too.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311060.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311060.page GMT

I personally think that the new reference sheets are far more stream lined and will make for faster games, which for me has always been one big down side of the game. I dont enjoy having to allocate 3 hours for a 1500 point game because once hand to hand starts it never ends. This faster resolution of combat to me seems like a boon.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311084.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311084.page GMT

I personally think that the new reference sheets are far more stream lined and will make for faster games, which for me has always been one big down side of the game. I dont enjoy having to allocate 3 hours for a 1500 point game because once hand to hand starts it never ends. This faster resolution of combat to me seems like a boon.[/quote]

You think 3 hours for a 1500 point game is too long?

I don't think I've had much trouble getting an 1850 point game in under 3 hours.

Also, be careful what you wish for... AT-43 games are real quick too...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311166.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311166.page GMT
Not what the full rules say, sadly. To fire Ordnance, a vehicle may not fire anything else in V5.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311200.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311200.page GMT GW developers operating without a clue.

But what should you expect. Here's another quote from this month's White Dwarf - this time from the Lead Developer of 5th ed, Alessio Cavatore. "Now, I don't mind admitting that combat resolution in 40K, especially in the last edition, used to flummox me - there was a bit too much maths for this simple writer to attempt in the heat of combat."

When the lead developer for a game based on math says that it's too complex to work out outnumbering 2:1, or 3:1 - well... there you go.[/quote]

Wow.

Just, wow.

Can't wait to read the "Designer's Notes" this month.

I can only imagine what pearls of wisdom also lie within the Standard Bearer too.[/quote]

Hey, for some of us, long division is no picnic!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311215.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311215.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311255.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311255.page GMT GW but there is no way that anyone working there is THAT much of a twit. This is clearly someone trying to spin the dumbing down of the game to their target audience's level as affecting even adults. The only people who might actually have difficulty with the limited math involved in this game are the youngsters playing the game. You remember them; the one's with parents buying the army du jour because they're feeling guilty about not having enough time for their kids. At least that seems to be GW's thinking.

I agree that there needs to be change to stave off boredom but the flavor of change lately has been as GW calls it "simplification" or as normal people call it "removing choice". I actually think I'm going to like more than I dislike about the new rules but what I dislike will be on the order of wading in sewage. (There is no middle ground on the things that it looks like they've flocked up.) What I really detest is what they've been doing to the codices and for the life of me I'll never understand their reasoning behind the codex decisions. We've all known for a very long time that all of GW's decisions for far too long have been driven by their bean-counters at the expense of nearly all other input. That's what makes the codex decisions so completely baffling to me. Choice drives sales. Having options between armies gives us choice as to which army to buy and having choices within an army gives us choices as to what to buy within that army. Having units that are all useful in an army and options like SM traits that allow a player to come up with non-standard choices spurs sales. Having units that are ineffective though rules, points, or are just plain too expensive for their utility puts a damper on sales of those units.

The fate of the traits system is my pet peeve. Taking away traits reduces sales on miniatures associated with those traits. Was the traits system flawed? Of course it was. It was an elegant idea that was an abortion in its execution due to GW's lack of playtesting (alleged but obvious) and horrible imbalance between advantages and disadvantages. Over at B&C we spent a lot of time fixing the problem for them and proved that it can be (and should have been) done. Their decision, if rumors are to be believed, was to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The Chaos codex is a good list but doesn't represent the average Chaos army. While some of the Cult armies were overpowered, the solution should have been to fix the problems not $hitcan them. My biggest beef on this issue is the LatD list. From the fluff this list allows you to build 90% of Chaos armies. It also spurs sales on miniatures that are used by two other codices (CSM and IG); one would think this is a no-brainer for the bean counters. It also tapped into the a market for additional sales of SM minis as this is the only list that allowed players to produce a legal Imperial list combing a subset of the SM and IG codices if one limited their choices to clearly non-Chaos selections. I'm at a complete loss as to why the bean-counters allowed this list to fade away.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311279.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311279.page GMT GW have to keep changing the rules because otherwise 40K would become static and, well, "done" and once all the customers had bought it they would not sell any more. Then they would have to make a new game.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311284.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311284.page GMT
Second, actually I doubt it's kids that would have trouble with the math. Memory is pretty quick in 10 year olds, and I've yet to meet a 10 year old that can't handle some basic subtraction. If anything, it's grown men that have lives and jobs and families that might forget a modifier here or there. I still don't buy it, but I really don't think the "GW only wants kids to play 40k" thing is the answer here, if for no other reason then GW isn't dumbing down 40k. 5th edition isn't really more complicated or less complicated then 4th or 3rd. It's lateral changes. Combat is simpler, but armor pen is more complex. All is change, as heraclitus would say.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311291.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311291.page GMT I guess you could call it that. These are the ones that were sent out to the hobby centers so they're open source material. They were also posted to the Kommandos Forum with permission to share them out. [/quote]

I'm a Kommando, where are these files on the Kommando's forum. PM please.

Ozymandias, King of Kings]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311294.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311294.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311314.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311314.page GMT I agree that they're trouble, as-is, but I think they'll get better in 5th, when they can commandeer a transport.

[quote=Redbeard]You're confusing 'chaos' - the opposite of order, with Chaos - the term used to represent the whims of the Warp Gods, who are apparently anything but chaotic, and pursue their own goals. It's just that their goals aren't known to humans. And, again, you missed the point. You are again correct, that taken literally, they are chaotic and not predictable. And yet, here we are, as a group of gamers as a whole, not using them. Why? Because we gamers realize for a unit that costs as much as they do, having a random effect generated after deployment isn't effective. If they were less expensive, sure. If their random effect could at least be known before you placed them on the table, sure. But it's just another example of the GW developers operating without a clue.[/quote]

Actually, I had no confusion, at all.
I think you missed my point.
The "[/playful carcasm]" was meant to show that, indeed, I agreed with you.


[quote=Redbeard]But what should you expect. Here's another quote from this month's White Dwarf - this time from the Lead Developer of 5th ed, Alessio Cavatore. "Now, I don't mind admitting that combat resolution in 40K, especially in the last edition, used to flummox me - there was a bit too much maths for this simple writer to attempt in the heat of combat."


When the lead developer for a game based on math says that it's too complex to work out outnumbering 2:1, or 3:1 - well... there you go.[/quote]

That's...
just...
sad.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311323.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311323.page GMT MCs and how many wounds each counted as, it wasn't seamless. I did three wounds, you did two is seamlees.

I dont' go out of my way to defend GW, but I think his comment probably related to a playtest version, and he simply did not choose his words carefully. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311348.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311348.page GMT MCs and how many wounds each counted as, it wasn't seamless. I did three wounds, you did two is seamlees.

I dont' go out of my way to defend GW, but I think his comment probably related to a playtest version, and he simply did not choose his words carefully. [/quote]

The old version was trivial, in comparison with WHFB's combat resolution. Strangely enough, a large number of people seem to get through that game okay.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311390.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311390.page GMT MCs and how many wounds each counted as, it wasn't seamless. I did three wounds, you did two is seamlees.

I dont' go out of my way to defend GW, but I think his comment probably related to a playtest version, and he simply did not choose his words carefully. [/quote]

The old version was trivial, in comparison with WHFB's combat resolution. Strangely enough, a large number of people seem to get through that game okay.[/quote]

They sure do. Of course, the combet res mechanic in WFB is it's core component, and the crux of most games. Assault is important to 40k, but it's just one of several aspects that are important.

Look, I'm not saying it wasn't a dumb quote. I was challenging the idea that GW is continually and relentlessly dumbing down 40k because either 1) the designers are idots or 2) they want to market exclusively to 10 year olds.

I think it was a designe decision that they made, one that I'm not sure I agree with, but it was made. I think it's more evidence that GW wants 40k to play smoother. Look at the new codices, look at the combat res: its' about smooth, and yes, simple. Don't tell me you haven't had a 40k game turn into "count the wounds"? I don't mind it, but apparently the designers did. I'm saying I think that was their point. And to re-iterate my point that GW employees have an incredible knack for sounding clueless and ridiculous even when they're really not.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311400.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311400.page GMT GW is continually and relentlessly dumbing down 40k because either 1) the designers are idots or 2) they want to market exclusively to 10 year olds. [/quote]

But even if you were to successfully refute this point, GW will invariably change something that cause people to trot out the golden standbys. Better yet, they'll combine the two and unfairly lay all the blame upon Jervis' son. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311423.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311423.page GMT [/quote]

Fixed your typo.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311467.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311467.page GMT [/quote]

Fixed your typo.[/quote]

Fixed your "fix"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311469.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311469.page GMT GW is continually and relentlessly dumbing down 40k because either 1) the designers are idots or 2) they want to market exclusively to 10 year olds. [/quote]

But even if you were to successfully refute this point, GW will invariably change something that cause people to trot out the golden standbys. Better yet, they'll combine the two and unfairly lay all the blame upon Jervis' son. [/quote]

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v694/AgeOfEgos/GWRAGE3.gif[/img]]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311474.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311474.page GMT GW is continually and relentlessly dumbing down 40k because either 1) the designers are idots or 2) they want to market exclusively to 10 year olds. [/quote]

But even if you were to successfully refute this point, GW will invariably change something that cause people to trot out the golden standbys. Better yet, they'll combine the two and unfairly lay all the blame upon Jervis' son. [/quote]

As much as I appreciate the support, I'll pass. I don't give GW a free pass any more than I give the posters here a free pass, but I know I'm not always right and I try to post that way. I'm just not sure relentlessly painting people that disagree with you as fools or bullies (not just here but in many, many other threads) really gives you any ethical or moral crediblility. Whiel I agree that the harping on the poor kid is both petty and oafish, it's clearly symbolic of larger disgruntlement. To point out that many who disagree with GW and/or you like to mock little kids in an attempt to discredit them is disingenous.

I jumped in originally because Allessio's quote was easily misunderstood. It was a dumb thing to say, and given the climate of the hobby, it's not suprising that a lot of folks read it as an attempt to dumb down the rules even more. Even if there was malice in it (which I doubt), there's no reason to be malicious in response.

And yes, I'm sure you will say that you were kidding or joking or that it wasn't malicious. If it geniunely wasn't meant that way, well, then you really need to work on getting your intent across much as GW does. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311507.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311507.page GMT GW that he jumps the gun and puts words in their mouths. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311783.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311783.page GMT GW that he jumps the gun and puts words in their mouths. [/quote]

Ahh! A typo aching to be fixed!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311788.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311788.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311800.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311800.page GMT WD, on a piece of thicker paper/card. At least, they are in the UK edition....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311845.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311845.page GMT WD, on a piece of thicker paper/card. At least, they are in the UK edition....[/quote]
I got the Quick Ref card with my US copy today.

Edit: The Emperor does not look quite as healthy in the colored variation of the classic 3e rulebook picture. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311891.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311891.page GMT WD just to get a copy of this on the good card.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311920.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212979/311920.page GMT