So when Space Marines get the same treatment as Dark Angels, how many Space marine players will jump to Eldar?

No sure. The lack of two heavy weapons in DW is what clinched me playing lysander in the first place. In termie heavy armies, dual assault cannons are an equalizer, not cheese.

I wish more people that didnt play DW or other termie heavy armies realized that.

In power armoured marine armies lots of assault canonns are cheese, but with the amount of attrition that armies like DW face, assault cannons are quite needed to make up the difference to help make the army competitive.

But its not just two assault cannons. Alot of people field cyclones apparently. Now that DW cannot take two heavy weapons, GW has basically forced players such as DW to take assault cannons for AT. They havent reduced assault cannons in DW, they just reduced other options.

Maybe if GW playtested armies thoroughly (or at all), they might realize this.

Its been rumoured for a few months now that marines will get a redo. Thats good (though it is at the expense of other armies that need visiting) but I fear that it is just going to be a reduction in alot of options instead of making it a fresh attempt.

Knowing GW, I am willing to bet I am right.

whoa whoa whoa... Codex Apocalypse?

GW does. Sometimes GW listens to the playtesters other times they don't. But one thing is for sure, both parties try to find a balance.

Posted By Sgt_Scruffy on 01/07/2007 2:01 PM
whoa whoa whoa... Codex Apocalypse?

Rumored to be used for games in the 3,000+ points range and to see the release of the long rumored plastic Baneblade.

Posted By Fabulous on 01/07/2007 2:02 PM

Maybe if GW playtested armies thoroughly (or at all), they might realize this.

GW does. Sometimes GW listens to the playtesters other times they don't. But one thing is for sure, both parties try to find a balance.

GW doesnt use playtesters anymore. IIRC, sisters was the most playtested list with....30 games.

yeah, thats playtesting all right.

Well, i agree that some of the SM choices need to be changed, but dropping the extra assault cannon from the termies is going to fairly much hobble DW and Lysander wings. As hellfury said, they relly on that. It would be better to (if they need to change it at all for those armies) to simply allow only 1 assault cannon, but still allow 2 special weapons. Being able to take HtH weapons is OK, i suppose, although Termies are best at staying mobile and shooting.

And is it only Tactical squads that have to take the pistol and greandes? I really do not want to take that junk for a dev or shooty squad if i do not want to, it would be a huge waste of points. I am fairly nutral about the combat squads, it could be a nice option during the game.

As much as i love them, I agree with the rumors that Drop Pods should be more expensive as they are such an incredibly good transport option for so little points, and that Rhinos should be cheaper. Speeders being toned down with only one assault cannon per squadron is a fair move as well. But i know a lot of people will be seriously pissed about that.

Well, I hope the redux does not give a yo yo effect and cripple my favorite genetic super warriors, or as winterman said, we may see a bunch of SM's jumping ship.

that is a shame Orks got moved back again. it feels like EVERYONE wants to see a new Ork codex, they have such potential to be a great army with all of the character and background that GW 40K Orks have.


Just to add some weight to the Dark Eldar rumor, a firend of mine that works in GW said the same thing, and that there had already been a lot of work done on the models. Supposedly the DE are getting a huge overhaul and their background will really be changed. Take it with a grain of salt, but is sounded pretty legitimate.

The SM list is pretty good as it is. its the assault cannons that need to be fixed. We dont need a whole new codex, we need a simple rules addendum and admitttance of failure by GW to their customers.

Assault cannons need only a myriad of legitame and well thought out fixes that are easy to insitute.

one less shot or add jamming back into it or remove rending completely. its not brain surgery that requires a whole new codex.

Heh! Looks like we're in for a fun couple of years. I'm very excited about Plastic Baneblade (and Stompa?). Chaos and Marines need to be toned down a bit, so that's good. I hope they can force my Ultramarine ass to follow the Codex Astartes restrictions on squad size without crippling my army! Orks and DE need some love, so thats good, too!

- Codex Space Marines Redux ?

second that...what the fuge?

Only because GW insist on NOT changing rules between codex releases, it now means they push out the whole codex again?

And splitting the Chaos codex? LAME! I mean what do we have with this splitting all Marines attitude? Annoying Marine Codecies which leads us to Xeno Codex every other year or so.

And is it true that a Codex is only playtested like 30 games?

Greets
Schepp himself

It is nice to see a listing of what is coming even if the dates move.  I love playing Dark Eldar, and new figures were expected and some overhaul.  I hope the list is a wider variety of good units, not a few great units, and the rest lame ducks that look great.  I love the models for the most part, and if the gang that did the new Eldar are involved as rumored, then it is great news indeed.

I think Orks are due, DE are due, so all is going right for now.  I heard they were having some difficulties with Orks and DE got the big push to late 2007 early 08, so lets hope they both make it sooner rather than later.

GW admitted that the sisters of battle codex was the most playtested codex they ever produced.

It was later said that they playtested that list 30 times.

I am sure that GW will never make the mistake again on publishing how many times a codex is playtested because of that.

That is amazingly low. I think the average board game goes through more rigorous testing than that.

IIRC, the number was 40ish and it was based on a picture of the devs and a whiteboard with details of their Witchhunters testing, not any official declaration by GW. They could have tested more and possible independently as well but its been said that GW tends to ignore their suggestions. But GW themselves have never officially mentions how they playtest codexes, AFAIK.

As I recall, they recently droppoed external testing on codexes for the last few codexes (CoD and Tau being the last) but that is a third hand rumor at best. They may still use them.

Three Chaos codices? Gimme a break.

Posted By malfred on 01/07/2007 3:14 PM

- Codex Space Marines Redux ?

Buh?

That seems... silly. Is it really that bad?

And splitting the Chaos codex? LAME! I mean what do we have with this splitting all Marines attitude? Annoying Marine Codecies which leads us to Xeno Codex every other year or so.

Codex: Craftworld Chaos...

Meh, Chaos is fine, beyond summoning needing to be fixed (but as I've said before, somehow I wonder if the codex will fix summoning and then give us Dreadclaw drop pods with assault ramps) and IW potentially being toned down.  Game balance wise, though, Chaos should probably be the last of the 4e codices out, but the decision is more about sales than balance.

A second loyalist SM codex is just weird, though.  GW Japan already has downloadable codices, when will GW US/UK do the same -- and use the opportunity to maintain balanced lists?

Amen to that lowinor.

It seems such a horrid waste of resources to not properly utilize slave labor.

Ill just wait until the codex is printed the make PDF's so everyone that bought one wont have to buy yet another one because GW is an incompetant money greedy machine that cannot function properly due to mismamnagement from up on high.

Surley, if they wanted to, they could do a Chaos Undivided Codex and the different Undivided Legions and then a Codex for the 4 major powers. Two is enough. We don't need a whole book for Khorne...

BYE

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 01/07/2007 6:37 PM
Surley, if they wanted to, they could do a Chaos Undivided Codex and the different Undivided Legions and then a Codex for the 4 major powers. Two is enough. We don't need a whole book for Khorne...

BYE

Why not....I could see GW dedicating an entire codex to berserkers and bloodletters. It would be the worst codex since dark eldar, but that didnt stop GW from employing Gav Thorpe either.

More marines? A second Space Marine Codex and -Five- forking Chaos codexes?

In the grim darkness of the far future, there are only marines.

Tau, Eldar, Imperial Guard, lend me your ear. Now is the time to put aside our differences and put it to these glory boys. We need to thin these guys out.

Well done, Games Buckshot.

maybe the 5 dexes are one big one for undivided, then mini ones for each god? kinda like how they had the old craftworld eldar book? I kinda like the idea of having a book for each god if it's got a lot of (good) fluff and stuff, and as long as it won't be $100+ to have all 5

Oh wonderful! FOUR Chaos codices!? Does that mean we'll no longer be able to field CSMs w/ 2 or more different gods?

And SM Redux???

This is just getting ridiculous. If I have to keep buying a new separate codex for every faction and then every sub-faction every 2 years, I'll take my business elsewhere.

Five Codexes is two and a half years of studio time. Two and a half years where we are getting the same stuff. If we only get two codexes a year, that's two and a half years where we aren't getting xenos, guard, or Inquisition codexes.

Between Marines with feathers, marines with fangs, marines with open sores, and marines with tentacles, that's five years of marines.

*yawn* Lame.

Agreed. No reason to do 5 codexes. two tops. As has been said earlier, a undivided and one for the four poewers is sufficient.

I also agree about taking my business elsewhere.

Not becuase I am waiting for these armies for me to play with, but for my opponents to play with so i dont have to sit across the table and stare at marines everytime I go to play.

Next edition, they should make marines the LAST codex to be visitied if the marine codex gets done twice in the same edition.

I really, really hate these rumors. Maybe I'm bitter because I'm tired, but it all sounds like crap. I'm going to have to buy 5 codexes to play chaos? That's insane. The current 'dex is fine in that it encompasses all of the variations to a good, playable extent. If this rumor is true there better be extensive LatD type units included. I love my DE, and I don't want GW to touch them. I simply have no faith in them to make them decent. The current rules are very playable, and I kinda doubt the new ones will be.

The only good news I see is that Ordos Xenos might FINALLY come out some time. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

This has killed a lot of my hope about future releases. I dunno. Maybe it's not true.

When they do do the new Chaos undivided it would be nice to see some trator guard in there or something

Funny how I used to hear people complain that Chaos was only in one codex. Now they come out with more, and most likely a lot more options, people female dog bout it just the same. Why don't we just wait and see. I like the proposed Marine Codex Redux changes. I am curious if there will be anything more that they have found over time.

Codex: SM is being redone? WHY? Its a complete 4th Ed codex. Oh you mean you want to FIX the things that are wrong with it? Release good old Chapter Approved articles and patch it then when a new print run comes along, print it with the corrections.

GW, you DO NOT have the luxury of doing important things such as launching new codices TWICE because the first time wasn't the best. Use FAQ's, use CA and fix it up in a new print run and not waste a full launch on it.

I concur with the above. The Age of 3+ Saves is dawning, and it looks to be a ghastly future.

The drop of assualt cannon from 2 bCK TO ONE WONT MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR ME AS i USED TO ONLY USE 1 ANYWAY FROM 3RD EDITION. Oops caps lock was on. No big deal I am used to marine armies losing to tau and eldar so its looks like marines are going back to the crap old days.

There is something wrong, however, when the best performing marine armies don't really contain any marines!

Let's just go back to the army lists in the third edition rulebook.
Best. Games. of. 40k. Ever

I don't believe the "redux" will occur. This is an honest question - has there ever been an instance where GW toned down a codex within the same version? I've seen DE / DA / IG and chaos (IIRC on that one) get redoes in 3rd edition, but they generally improved the lists slightly. I've seent ehm tone down a list between versions (Nid codex comes to mind), but never within the version.

Normally this being a rumor would not have me upset but this is the second time I've overheard this schedule, so I'm fairly suire there's something to it.

Personally, my feeling is that GW is digging their own grave here. The vast majorioty of gamers cannot or will not keep shelling out more and more of their salary every month for "new" product, especially when that "new" product is simply revised. GW is reaching a saturation point and it'll be hit at the lastest by 2008.

I was consideringh starting a new army - CSMs or SMs - but I'm loathe to do so if my current army lists/models will become null and void within the next year. Honestly, I stopped by the Inifiniti site last week, downloaded the Quick Start Rules, and now this is even more of an impetus to spend my money on that game, rather than more 40K.

And, yes, they will do SM Redux - maybe not to tone it down, but to rewrite an imbalanced army and make more money...

What percentage of players are marine players?

Will all these players have to buy a new codex?

Isn't there a thread about GW's profit slide?

Hmmmm....

Codex Marines Redux Rumours: - REMEMBER, YOU READ IT HERE FIRST!

Drop pods have been adjusted to reflect the fact that they give up half victory points when they land. This has been fixed. The new profile is 0 points, AV13 all the way around but does not include weapons however.

In order to "encourage" players to take more regular tactical marines and in larger squads, the following changes will be made to the Bolter entry: Space Marines are the mostly highly trained soldiers in the Imperium and the Bolter is their weapon of the Emperor's holy retribution. To represent their supreme skill at arms, the Marine bolter profile will be changed to the following:

Marine Bolter: Range 24" Rapidfire, S4 AP5, Rending, Counts as a 2nd HTH weapon. True Grit now counts the Bolter as 24" Assault 2 instead.

Assault Cannons have been reduced in price by 5 points across the codex. Multi-meltas and Plasma-Cannons have been raised in price by 15 points in order to balance this change.

Space Marine Librarians are masters of the mystic arts. As such, Librarians gain this additional ability:

Emperor's Prescience: Before the first turn, all Marine units may fire once at an enemy unit within LOS following all normal shooting rules, regardless of whether Night Fight is in effect for this mission.

Space Marine Masters are consumate strategists. As such, reserve rolls gain +1 and may be rerolled. In addition, D6 units may be repositioned up to 6" from their positions after inital deployment. Units may NOT be moved outside thier deployment zones.

We feel that these changes will do much to add to the flavour of the Emperor's Finest and make the army much more fun to play against. - GW Dev Team

(This was a joke)

This has to be one of the most idiotic of all GW moves I've seen. Codex Chaos in FIVE volumes? Uh, no thanks. Pushing Orks back another year? Good going there. Codex Space Marines Redux... uh, what? Why? Most obnoxious of all is the five volume Chaos dex. What the hell? Either do a double thick version with everything, or two volumes, but FIVE? huh? 

I bet they all come with price increases too...

Hurray for fair use!!! Time was I used to have every codex within a week of it coming out. Now I haven't bought a new codex since 4th edition.

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 01/08/2007 7:17 AM
This has to be one of the most idiotic of all GW moves I've seen. Codex Chaos in FIVE volumes?

Realistically, this (if true) is just GW "promoting" Chaos to the current loyalist system.  Space Marines, after all, are in five volumes.

One would hope it would mean more divergent (and, if one was felling particularly optimistic, interesting) Chaos lists.  We shall see, though.  I'm betting on something absurd like Dreadclaws with assault ramps, though.

Wait so Orks got pushed back AGAIN?

MOTHER@#$!@#ING GOD D#@$!@ CO@#$@ SU@#$@*ING AS$$!@LES WITH A BROOM STICK!!!!

Wow... Just, wow. Every time I convince myself to not quit 40k, I see stuff like this. I don't even care about the cost. $20 every few months just doesn't bother me. What bothers me is knowing that I'm going to have less fun playing 40k every year.

Until the non-power armor armies are stronger (eldar, IG, Orks, and Tau), every list will be either Marines geared up to kill Marines, or the occaisional non-marine army geared up to kill Marines. Orks need an update critically. IG are almost as bad, but could be fixed easily with a few point drops on some units (guard squads down to 50pts, ogryn to 20pts a piece, and stormtroopers to 9pts), and possibly making the chimera AV11 on the side. However, I'll need to wait three years to get a new IG codex, that, like the current one, with fix all the problems the army has in 4th edition. A year later, 5th ed will come out and nerf my army again. Hurray!

People have been ragging on GW for years: about prices, about support, tournaments, the Sisters codex, etc. Obviously people keep buying the stuff, perhaps not in the record numbers, but here's my proposal: buy nothing except codex updates for current armies, and any new units that get introduced (like the pirhana, or the brood lord). Do not buy or build new armies, even 2nd hand. buy no accesories, paints, brushes, etc. Don't buy White Dwarf (huge sacrafice there). Play 40k as you normally do, but spend some time and money trying out new games.

One of two things will happen. After a year or two, GW rights itself, we all find that the other games aren't as interesting as we hoped, and hopefully things improve. Alternativly, we all find that Warmachine/Flames of War/Confrontation/etc. are even better than 40k, and GW finds itself actually fighting for market share. Either way, we win as customers.

Right now, the worst thing we can do is to lambast the swill GW puts out for us, and then go out and buy it. It is simply time for us to "put up, or shut up." I, for one, am going to put off the Tau army i was going to build, and instead return to my roots, and paint Reaper minis for fun.

Well *I'll* go back to playing sisters...

If they actually push back the Ork codex again to do the Space Marine codex again....

I don't think I have the words.  Idiotic just doesn't say it.

I'm sick of marine releases.  This is coming from me - I've played marines ever since I started playing 40k when I was about 14 (so 6-7 years ago) when a 10-man Tactical squad box was $20.  GW is making me resent marines, the army that used to be my favorite.

I just don't know what else to say....besides that I really enjoy playing and painting Flames of War. 

You snooze, you lose, Games Workshop.

I simply don't believe they'd release a new SM Codex in 2007. I just don't believe it.

Perhaps a new edition, with some fixes and tweaks... But I just don't believe they'll redo the whole codex, and treat it as a big rollout. I just don't believe it. I know everyone is hard on GW, but I don't think so. Even they wouldn't do that.

If they don't release Codex Orks in 2007... I don't know what to say... Like, I'd threaten to stop playing their games, but that's just childish. I enjoy the time I spend painting miniatures, and I'm not going to cut off my own nose just to spite my face. But, that said, I'd really appreciate it if GW would stop punching me in the damn nose.

I really shouldn't put much stock in these rumors, but it seems like Warseer and Brimstone tend to be pretty accurate, so I count what they say as being, at least, in consideration. The idea that GW would even CONSIDER putting off Orks to 2008 makes me long for them to go out of business, so somebody else can fill the void.

I'm sure it will elicit shrieks of derision from the 2nd Edition Fanbois, but I wish Hasbro would buy GW and do with them like they did with DnD. I don't even care what that means, it could only be an improvement.

If it means better written, more streamlined rules with core information that's freely downloadable, sign me up.

I really have to wonder if the protectionism of GW's codex sales is really worth the large list of almost useless models created by incremental non-updated codex releases.

And it remains to be seen if the "Redux" codex is an actual new codex, or an amended second printing. The latter doesn't really deserve derision -- as long as there's some manner of FAQ available detailing the difference between the printings.

Hasbro/WotC has some great games and some mediocre ones. They did a fabulous job with D&D, a mediocre one with Star Wars and a horrid one with Battletech.

It could be good or bad. That said, with the money they'd spend acquiring GW (if they did), they'd have a major incentive to do things right.

Posted By Asmodai on 01/08/2007 11:54 AM
They did a fabulous job with D&D, a mediocre one with Star Wars and a horrid one with Battletech.

Are you confusing Hasbro/WotC with WizKids?  Are you talking about the clicky Mechwarrior game or the new Battletech: Total Warfare book?

Posted By Hordini on 01/08/2007 11:56 AM

Posted By Asmodai on 01/08/2007 11:54 AM
They did a fabulous job with D&D, a mediocre one with Star Wars and a horrid one with Battletech.

Are you confusing Hasbro/WotC with WizKids?  Are you talking about the clicky Mechwarrior game or the new Battletech: Total Warfare book?

WizKids did Battletech? OK.

Well, I'm sure there are games WotC did a horrid job on.

I realize I'm probably ruining the tone of this thread, but I'm betting that what we'll see in terms of additional Chaos codicies will be Legion-specific (i.e. Codex: World Eaters), not cult-specific (i.e. Codex: Khorne). Using the SM codices as the blueprint, what would make the most sense is for GW to do a generic Chaos codex, similar to what we have now, followed by separate complete codicies for WE, DG, EC and TS. That way undivided armies can still have their bloodletters, berzerkers etc. and even WE, etc. players can field their armies until they get a full codex treatement.

I have no inside info, it's just my speculation. But it's the only thing that really makes sense when you consider all the problems that making players wait 3 years for Codex: Slaanesh would cause. Personally, I think a cleaned-up Chaos codex (with LatD elements inserted) and full codicies for the big 4 legions would be positives, although I'd prefer to see the Orks released first.

Let the ranting resume...

Man, if I played Orks I would probably start commiting acts of terrorism against GW.  GW has the time and resources to go a good job with the Orks it just needs to focus its attention on the releases that will actually do well.  Codex Eldar (with the exception of the poorly worded rules) is a pretty well done codex, and from my subjective viewpoint has intensely boosted interest and sales for that race.  A well done Codex Orks would do the exact same thing.  The problem with releasing a single codex devoted to each loyalist/traitor marine chapter is that it will only generate a minor amount of interest.  Meanwhile Orks, Dark Eldar, I.G., and Inquisitorial armies will see fewer and fewer players.

In order to really improve the game, GW needs to think long term.  What changes will 5th Ed. bring?  How can the current Codex system be altered to provide more balanced and sustainable gameplay that will endure even if they change the core rules substantially.  The problem with Codexii now is that each new release binds GW to the current rules set.  If the imbalances in the game are going to be fixed, they should be fixed by the rulebook.

And another thing...

L.O.T.R. has most definitely negatively impacted the 40k/Fantasy side of the hobby.  Ruin of Arnor? Fall of the Necromancer?  Does anyone care?  I've played demo games of it a few times and found it be a very dull game.  Not only that, but how different can a man of Gondor and a man of Arnor be?  They seem to be wearing different hats but that's about it.  I'd like to see them drop that game and put their heads together to make a solid Ork army list and improve the longevity of 40k.

As I noted in the declining profit thread, GW's dogged determination to stick with the 'codex' format is part of their problem in my opinion. It dosen't support the game as a whole and just makes customers angry as they wait 7+ years for a codex for a race that is supposed to be a central part of the 40K universe.

Revisiting their product delivery format in light of the current industry trends would be a welcome start. A rulebook with the basic troop types and charactres for each army would go a long way in fixing these issues so that everyone started on an even playing field. Subsiquent books should include rules and entries for all of the races so they continually support all of the offerd armies.

My .02

Posted By Samwise158 on 01/08/2007 1:27 PM
L.O.T.R. has most definitely negatively impacted the 40k/Fantasy side of the hobby.  Ruin of Arnor? Fall of the Necromancer?  Does anyone care?  I've played demo games of it a few times and found it be a very dull game.  Not only that, but how different can a man of Gondor and a man of Arnor be?  I'd like to see them drop that game and put their heads together to make a solid Ork army list and improve the longevity of 40k.

Agreed. Every dollar, every hour of labour, every moment just spent sitting and thinking of how to expand the line, that is wasted on LOTR is a dollar, an hour, a moment that could have been going into producing, promoting, and enhancing Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 instead and making them stronger games and brands.

Posted By Lowinor on 01/08/2007 11:43 AM
And it remains to be seen if the "Redux" codex is an actual new codex, or an amended second printing. The latter doesn't really deserve derision -- as long as there's some manner of FAQ available detailing the difference between the printings.

Yup, it could be nothing more than what they've done with the Chaos Codex 4 times so far... just that they've finally learnt that when they revise a codex, it might be worth actually telling people about it...

Posted By Caern on 01/08/2007 1:45 PM

Posted By Samwise158 on 01/08/2007 1:27 PM
L.O.T.R. has most definitely negatively impacted the 40k/Fantasy side of the hobby.  Ruin of Arnor? Fall of the Necromancer?  Does anyone care?  I've played demo games of it a few times and found it be a very dull game.  Not only that, but how different can a man of Gondor and a man of Arnor be?  I'd like to see them drop that game and put their heads together to make a solid Ork army list and improve the longevity of 40k.

Agreed. Every dollar, every hour of labour, every moment just spent sitting and thinking of how to expand the line, that is wasted on LOTR is a dollar, an hour, a moment that could have been going into producing, promoting, and enhancing Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 instead and making them stronger games and brands.

You know, it's a shame, too, because there's actually some cool stuff they could do with LotR. They could do a whole set of Black Numenorians, they could do the fall of Gondolin, there's all sorts of "historical" stuff that's far more interesting than the Trilogy stuff that they're doing, but I guess that's another issue.

Well, yes and no. I agree that a minor update is nice, but the schedule there shows 3 releases for 2007, and three for 2008. I took that to mean that it would be a full re-release of Space Marines, filling one their four month long hooplah cycles.

Also, if it is just an incremental patch, why is it the last thing scheduled for 2008? If they know there're problems with Space Marines (and honestly, I don't think there are, they don't win every tournament), then why have they slated "two years from now" as the time to fix it? Fix it now.

I should be fair and note that they're slating Orks ahead of this Marines Redux... Orks in 2008 would be unforgivable, but Orks in 2008 AFTER Marines Redux would be criminal.

I guess the good news is that they won't ever do a Blood Angels Codex, thus meaning that my totally broken Death Company can continue to assure me a victory any time I want one.



Well, they did Star Wars d20, so it should be about the same job as DnD. That said, I guess I agree, I was totally impressed with DnD 3.0/3.5, it felt like a classy reinvention with all the old standys I had fond memories of. Star Wars worked fine, but I guess it was missing something. Perhaps d20 just does better with a Fantasy setting than Sci-Fi.

In any case, there's two key elements at work with Hasbro and DnD. DnD was a relentlessly and pointlessly arcane system of rules hacks and confusions. Hasbro/WotC came along and really reduced it to the core concepts, added more sophistication to it, but made it simpler. They looked at the system with an eye for engineering, for proper system design. I think 40K is very ripe for that sort of change. On top of that, Hasbro turns out books and supplements like it's nothing. GW can't manage to produce a core rulebook concerning a core army in its system. Hasbro is putting out DnD books about how to run adventures in places that are cold. How to run adventures in places that are hot. Every obscure little detail you can imagine, and all done up with more pages, more art, and higher production values than any GW product. Some complain about that, but I'd rather be drowned in options than parched in the desert of GW's production schedule.

If I have to read one more article by Jervis Johnson about how hard they work and how fabulous their products are, I'm going to relinquish control to the Bloodthirster within, and let him have his way with their entire staff... Look, guys, you're from England... Nobody in western Europe even works a 40 hour week, much less works hard, so stop blowing smoke up my "arse."

It also shouldn't be so damn hard to do a Codex. I don't know what their staff size is, but I think it's reasonable for a team of, say, 6 people, to produce a GW style Codex in 6 months. It's not like they rigorously check it for loopholes, errors and wording problems. So, get a production staff of 36 people, and you should be able to put a Codex out every month. I get the impression right now, that they've got at least 36 people devoted, full time, to just being impressed with how dashing and dedicated they all are.



I think the wording, while imperfect, is as good as anything they've done. I also think that this Codex will only entrench them further in their irritating practices. I think they intend for each Codex release to be a big event, and to drive sales for that army. Like a dummy, I started an Eldar list when they put the Codex out, too.

If you follow the PP model, you release books that go across the armies and offer up some parallel options for each army. While this is nice for the players, it doesn't get everyone psyched about Khador, for example.



I'm not sure... I think the problem with making that call is that everyone here is a 40K/Fantasy player. I know I had some friends who gave painting a try due to their LotR fanboism. They didn't stick with it, but if they were going to buy GW products, it was going to be LotR. It might be that LotR works, but just not for the same segment as Fantasy/40K. For example, I bet a lot of LotR figs sell to people playing DnD, and who want to be Legolas...

This may require adding to my sig line...

No, but it does seem to put everyone in a group on the same page about what game to play.

if they are dividing the chaos books,thats the last stroke i'll take.

im switching to ork for sure...I mean...wtf is the point of that?It would oblige players to buy 5 frikking codexes.*moment of clarity*OH nice move GW,very smooth.talk about a new way to get our cash out.
I can already see it: Codex Heavy Weapons,Codex Bolter,Codex Las-weapons,Codex Chainsword(full of battle stories,artwork then one page with bold size 32 letters reading->CHAINSWORD.....1Pt.May not be given to anyone not wearing power armor.)

It also is almost as close as you can get to a collectible card game. If I want to get into the game at the moment and have the books with all of the rules for the units I want to field, and for an idea of what they can do without buying the figs, I am outlaying a bunch of moolah.

there is also a lot of power creep. PP reminds me a lot of Collectible card games, but within the miniature hobby. You almost HAVE to buy the newest things to keep competitive. It is a very nice business model, because it keeps everyone excited, but it also is one of the things that turns me off of the game.

Perhaps my previous take was a little harsh.  L.O.T.R. isn't a total waste of time and it certainly appeals to Tolkien enthusiasts.  This website has coverage from an excellent campaign( http://www.nwa.org.au/lotr/reports/reports.html ).  My issue with the game is that they are clearly struggling for new content and their non-book/movie based releases have been pretty unappealing.  L.O.T.R. is a re-enactment sort of game, but I never see people playing it.  I always see Fantasy/40k/Warmachine and sometimes Flames of War being played, but very rarely in my travels across the U.S. and Europe have I seen L.O.T.R. in anything but GW sponsored events.

I think GW should treat it like a Specialist Game and devote more energy to its true core systems.  The farther into the past the movies drift, the less successful any L.O.T.R release will be.  Exploiting events from Middle-Earth history will only appeal to true Tolkienaholics.  Hence Specialist Game.

Toreador-

Your comment about having to buy the newest PP stuff isn't really true. You can still beat the crap out of people with the old stuff. The beauty (to me) of Warmachine is that everything is designed to blow the crap out of everything else, but nothing is built to actually take it. So lots of whooping takes place all around.

But thats just my opinion.

The bottom line on LotR isn't really if we like it or not, it's if it makes money or loses it. Now, based on anecdotal experience, I have to assume it loses money. I don't see it selling as fast as Fantasy/40K, and I don't see it being any cheaper to produce. If LotR is losing money, they need to cut it loose. This is a company that needs to cut costs and flagging product lines. I'd bet that LotR is one such thing.

That said, the LotR license is big boy stuff. I don't know what sort of contract they signed to get the rights, but it couldn't have been cheap, and it couldn't have come without numerous commitments. It may be that they're required to produce a certain number of products per quarter (for all we know). It could be that they've invested so much in the license, they simply don't have the stones to admit it's not panning out and eat the loss.

Or, it could be that it's doing fine and we're all baselessly speculating dummies. I just don't see how that's possible, when I haven't seen a LotR game played in my life, nor have I seen a model sold since the first movie came out.

I've seen plenty of LotR games demoed and played. It just appeals to a different part of the market and directly to J.R.R. Tolkien fans (who, arguably, are much more widespread than tabletop wargaming fans). Irregardless of how it appears now, LotR has made GW boat loads of money. The idiots in charge, however, squandered that by ignoring warning signs of problems in their other two core game systems and have continued to put out lower and lower quality product in both.

How much that reduction in quality is due to LotR, I don't think very much. Sculpting wise, of the five sculpters were two new hires, two contracts the Perry brothers and Gary Morely. Rules development likewise was relatively separate from WHFB & 40k, so all thats left is industrial capacity and seeing how units sold has been dropping like a rock the past few years thanks to ridiculous pricing and lowered quality, there's been plenty of slack there.

The point of all this: Blaming LotR is a red herring. It is not the problem. Management is the problem and so long as management retains it's culture of arrogance and contempt for the customer we are going to continue to see idiotic moves like pushing the Ork codex back so a new SPASE MARIENZZZZZ LOL codex can be released for the drooling munchikins.

Here's something: What will this mean for us players that use Templars or Blood Angels codexes, etc? Will this new codex invalidate the ones we have now, or will it mean that I have to go blow another 20 bucks on a book that might not even affect me? If it does, PDF applications better be the cure, or I will definitely demand that someone pours some grey matter into the GW upper management - although I doubt it will do much.

CK

The thing that annoys me about LotR the most is the price. Its so damned cheap for so many models. I personally don't have anything against the game itself but they are devoting more resources to it that should be porportional to its sales. Or profit or whatever.

I would be interested toGW stock minitures for systems that aren't GW owned. Essentially becoming a stockist.

Oh and as for the release schedule. Why god? Why? Orks should be getting the next release. No excuses.

Is this true? Like I said before, I don't know what the various lines are doing... Do you have some reason to believe that LotR has been profitable for GW? I don't mean at the time of the movies, I mean in terms of net profits as a product line, and in the last year or two. The thing is, the movies have to be the high point for sales of the line. It will never get that good again. If the line isn't profitable now, it needs to be cut.

You can point out the people they used to get the work done on the line, and that's a good starting point, but I am sure the cost of licensing the LotR franchise wasn't cheap. It certainly cost more than a couple more guys to draw up concept art, or think up fluff for an in house offering. My guess is that the LotR experiment has been a loser for them, and probably in a pretty big way.



I'm not sure the factors are that straightforward, or if those are even factors at all. Pricing may certainly be an issue, but how is quality dropping off? The great majority of the models they're selling today are the same models they were selling 2 years ago. The new stuff would really have to suck to bring down the whole product catalog.

I see nothing but an overal improvement in quality. Look at Eldar, for example... Every new release is better than what it replaced, and in many cases they're significantly better.

Any perception of falling quality in GW products has to stem from increasing quality in competitor products. GW's sculpts have only improved. It's just that now there's other options that are as good.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/08/2007 7:52 PM
[Is this true? Like I said before, I don't know what the various lines are doing... Do you have some reason to believe that LotR has been profitable for GW? I don't mean at the time of the movies, I mean in terms of net profits as a product line, and in the last year or two. The thing is, the movies have to be the high point for sales of the line. It will never get that good again. If the line isn't profitable now, it needs to be cut.

You can point out the people they used to get the work done on the line, and that's a good starting point, but I am sure the cost of licensing the LotR franchise wasn't cheap. It certainly cost more than a couple more guys to draw up concept art, or think up fluff for an in house offering. My guess is that the LotR experiment has been a loser for them, and probably in a pretty big way.

The thing is you can't exclude the record breaking profits GW made with LotR while the movies were out. The proof of how much money it made GW is in their financial reports which clearly show a huge surge in revenue for the three years the game (and movies) were released, which also came at a time when WHFB and 40k were doing some of their best sales ever. This gangbusters growth was due in part to GW was usingnew revenue streams by selling LotR in large national retail chains, something they were never ever able to do with their other games until *after* LotR. There is no way the licensing, R&D or production costs all wiped out those massive profits.

Also, keep in mind the target audience isn't typical gamers, it's fans of Tolkien and fans of the movies. This, by it's very nature, will include quite a few  traditional tabletop gamers, but it will also include huge swathes of people that have zero interest in playing any other tabletop game, modelers who enjoy making dioramics and even people who will just stare at the pretty pewter and not even care about putting paint on it.

As I said before, any idea that LotR has been some millers stone around WHFB/40k much less GW as a whole is a red herring. Even though it isn't doing the same business it was two years ago it's doing better than any Specialist Games line and probably better than all of them combined. Repeat after me: LotR was very, very successful for GW and, to an extent, still is.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/08/2007 7:52 PM

seeing how units sold has been dropping like a rock the past few years thanks to ridiculous pricing and lowered quality, there's been plenty of slack there.

I'm not sure the factors are that straightforward, or if those are even factors at all. Pricing may certainly be an issue, but how is quality dropping off? The great majority of the models they're selling today are the same models they were selling 2 years ago. The new stuff would really have to suck to bring down the whole product catalog.

I see nothing but an overal improvement in quality. Look at Eldar, for example... Every new release is better than what it replaced, and in many cases they're significantly better.

Any perception of falling quality in GW products has to stem from increasing quality in competitor products. GW's sculpts have only improved. It's just that now there's other options that are as good.

You're missing my point there, I'm saying that due to the major drop in units sold (as in actual product that has to be manufactured and pushed), GW's rather expansive industrial capacity has much more slack in it than it did several years ago. That is, it has more room for production and it isn't as much of a strain as it used to be five, ten, fifteen years ago to support three core games + everything else.

As to the drop in quality, there absolutely has been a drop there whether or not you want to admit it. Sculpting quality has gone down*, rules quality, while never good, has been absolutely terrible the past few years, and what used to be the gold star in customer service has been thrown almost completely out the window yet we are being charged a premium for it. All of this is being borne out in the market: GW has posted another profit warning and for the third year in a row they are showing a major loss in revenue to the point they might not even post a profit this year (and don't have any one time hits to excuse it).

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 01/08/2007 8:35 PM

As to the drop in quality, there absolutely has been a drop there whether or not you want to admit it. Sculpting quality has gone down*, rules quality, while never good, has been absolutely terrible the past few years, and what used to be the gold star in customer service has been thrown almost completely out the window yet we are being charged a premium for it. All of this is being borne out in the market: GW has posted another profit warning and for the third year in a row they are showing a major loss in revenue to the point they might not even post a profit this year (and don't have any one time hits to excuse it).

The quality of their sculpting and the quality of their rules are two completely subjective values and you absolutely cannot automatically assume that either have had any negative (or positive) effect on their sales.

IMO, the overall sculpting of the Games Workshop line has only steadily increased in quality. While there are still many stinkers released, there have always been some crap models put out by GW. But if you take the entire range from any current GW army and put it up against the previous incarnation of that same army I believe the results are striking: for the most part the older models lose their appeal when faced with the updated line.

Obviously there are some exceptions and this is always based on pesonal perspective, but I know that I feel this way and I'm sure many other players do.

Also when it comes to the rules (and I say this from someone who has studied, dissected and argued about the rules of 40K since Rogue Trader) the 4th edition rules are by far (and waaaay far) and away the tightest set of rules GW has ever produced for 40k.

I know that you don't care for the 4th edition rules, but again for myself (and I'm sure there are quite a few players out there), for all its foibles 4th edition is easily the best playing version of the game yet.

While the fond memories of the Vortex grenades in 2nd edition and Rhino rushes in 3rd edition may seem great when reminisced, the reality is people like to remember the parts they enjoy and forget the parts that sucked.

So while the rest of your analysis on the company's performance may be spot on (although I think you make a whole bunch of presumptions), I personally want to stand up and say that I think GW still makes on average fantastic new miniatures and a fun game to play, and I don't personally believe that either of those two factors have any part in the company's reduced profits as of late.

 

Edit: I also want to throw out on a totally different tangent, that codex apocalypse marks the second GW release in two years that will support many (if not most) of their armies with simulatneous miniature releases (like the Cities of Death release did).

So it appears that GW is either experimenting with this different release schedule or has already decided to do use it on a semi-regular basis (we'll have to wait and see).

2nd Edit: I'm also curious as to how GW has mishandled the Tolkien liscense. I still contend that if the LotR game was published by another company in exactly the same form it is now, there would be a whole lot of people lauding how great it is and why it is a great alternative to Fantasy Battle.

I could be completely wrong, but I honestly feel that is the case. Warhammer players hate LotR because they feel it diverted GW's attention away from their games (hell, I feel that way), but the game itself seems quite good for those who like LotR a lot.

 

 

 

I really don't see the decline in sculpting quality. The Carnifex? The Terminator Chaplain? Sure, there have been plenty of bad sculpts, but there always were bad sculpts. At least we don't have to deal with Nagash any more, for God's sake.

I agree with you, Nyarlathotep (damn, that's not any too easy to type, is it?), regarding LotR. Everything I've heard from credible sources is that LotR is selling decently, just not to Warhammer fans.

I think that the assumption that GW is going to render everyone's Chaos armies unplayable unless they own all five codices is a bit alarmist. Wait and see. Sometimes they do something cool. I really liked what they did with the WHFB Chaos books in 6th edition, annoying as it was before I saw what they'd done.

Posted By insaniak on 01/08/2007 1:53 PM

Posted By Lowinor on 01/08/2007 11:43 AM
And it remains to be seen if the "Redux" codex is an actual new codex, or an amended second printing. The latter doesn't really deserve derision -- as long as there's some manner of FAQ available detailing the difference between the printings.

Yup, it could be nothing more than what they've done with the Chaos Codex 4 times so far... just that they've finally learnt that when they revise a codex, it might be worth actually telling people about it...

Well, in order to understand what they mean, lets take a look at the word "redux" to see if that might shed some light.

Redux. To bring back, to revisit. A postpositive usage.

IMO it seems more than a simple revision.
It seems like they are making a whole new codex by that definition.

Now lets  look at how GW has used that word historically.
Necormunda Redux.
From what I understand (I dont own a copy) is that it is a minor change to the rulebook, with additional units and a few extra rules.

So the confusion hasnt really been solved, because they havent really used the word Redux to its definition in the past.

So hopefully, it really will be just a revision of the codex and not a full rewrite.

With the proposed schedule of the marine codex being the last in 2007, that indicates their major release before years end. That does not bode well for the revision interpretation.

Bottom Line:

Two Marine Codexes in Three Years.

We haven't seen an Orks codex since the 1990s.

Lame.

Are there even Orks left in the universe of 40k? I'm not even sure anymore. I think Orks are just stories Inquistors tell their acolytes to give them nightmares. I mean, Orks are mushrooms? That's just a cruel hazing joke. An acolyte that swallows that is a chump. Maybe if you eat mushrooms you see Orks. That's more likely.

Yes, Orks will appear in 'Codex: Cult of Slaneesh' as part of the chapter on halucinagenics.

YOU HEARD IT HERE FOIST!

I agree with Yak.  IMO, 40K is in a better spot than it's ever been in terms of rules and miniatures.  GW has good products...the company's problems are more complicated.

And I also think Yak hit it on the head regarding LotR.  My experience with it doesn't extend beyond a demo game or two and watching others play.  But from what I've seen, it's a tight, quick, elegant, tactical game with some very nice miniatures.  There are many non-GW gamers who would probably say it's a vastly superior game to 40K or WFB.  I know if I had any extra hobby time (I don't right now) I'd consider putting together an Easterling or Khandish force. 

While it may be cathartic to talk about how stupid GW is, it's silly to think they'd commit significant resources to a product that isn't selling at all.  I suspect there are a lot of sales to collectors that we gamers don't see.

And people really do need to chill out regarding the rumored "splitting" of the Chaos books.  You won't need to buy five books.  Even without inside knowledge, I'd lay money that you'll never need more than one codex.  Making people buy five codicies would be so hugely problematic, it's not even a realistic option.

From a marketing point of view, the release of a new Space Marine Codex - the "redux" version - makes perfect sense.

Space marines are GW's best selling army and their codex was the first 4th edition one; there are plenty of races waiting, yet GW's purpose isn't to address every race and player but to sell as much as possible. They are releasing a new SM codex in 2007-2008 not because it's needed but because they couldn't release it earlier.

Redux implies just minor tweaks: IMHO, they'll update rules (give a 24" range to the Psychic Hood, remove the anti-tank ability of the Rending Autocannon, adjust traits one way or another) just enough to justify a new book - which won't include anymore references to famous chapters, since they'll be all covered in dedicated codecies. A new book that will be an instant best-seller just through game demographics, may I add. Even non-marine players will buy it.

Model-wise, I'm quite sure we'll see the release of plastic kits of some sort at the same time, just enough to create a marketing event. Certainly the long-awaited plastic Drop Pod, and perhaps other goodies.

Sorry for Ork players around.

Inserted for truth. From V4 inception through 2007 that amounts to nine codices. Of the nine there are three Marine codices and one likely chaos MEQ (Undivided). 44% MEQ equals meh?

Posted By yakface on 01/08/2007 11:34 PM

Also when it comes to the rules (and I say this from someone who has studied, dissected and argued about the rules of 40K since Rogue Trader) the 4th edition rules are by far (and waaaay far) and away the tightest set of rules GW has ever produced for 40k.

Yak: 

I have to agree with you that 4th is the tightest ruleset, however, that seems to have been brought about by reducing tactical complexity rather than improvements in actual writing and editing.

2nd -> 3rd
Standardized unit statlines (in the back of the BBB)
Standardized Movement Rates (Boo!)
Removal of modifiers and replacement with AP system
Simplification of Melee (no more 1on1s YAY)
Simplification of Vehicle damage (This was good, since the 2nd edition system was a mess)
Removal of Overwatch (Boo!)
Standardized Dice (all D6s)

3rd -> 4th
-edit- This is a big one, no shoot one thing, assault another! - I can not stress how many units became less useful because of this one small rules change... it really put the hurt on expensive sub-par units like Wraithguard, Firedragons (in the old days you caould pin a unit in melee to keep them from dying as fast), Chaos Terminators, Mega-Armor Orks etc. 

Standardization of special rules in USR (which they promptly forgot when writing new codices)
Increased usage of deepstrike and infiltrate (seemingly without thought to how this would affect codices that they stubbornly refused to errata)
Standardization of terrain and cover saves
Removal of hull-down, and new transport rules.

So... on the surface, they seem to be doing lots of things right... but these changes have the effect of eliminating tactical choices:

1.  Tanks can't anchor flanks in a dug in position anymore since the new hull down makes them very vulnerable.
2.  Stand and shoot armies are favored over transport heavy armies, which are rarely seen due to overly harsh Transport Rules.
3.  Flanking is usually only done using Jump Packers or Bikes due to standardized movement, and size 2 terrain not blocking LOS to vehicles, and as a result, flanking maneuvers are rarely seen.
4.  While a step in the right direction, the unified terrain rules seem to offer too much 4+ cover.
5.  The new missionsets break the game by alowing trick lists to (too often) bypass normal advancement completely:  Daemonbomb, All infiltrate, All deepstrike.
6.  They didn't fix leadership in V4 after wrecking it through codex creep in V3.

While the rules writers have moved forwards with a unified ruleset, they can't even write clear LOS rules... I think you may be giving their writers too much credit.

Oddly enough, I actually agree with Yak and nyarlathotep667. The game is the tightest it has ever been, and I am another player from the early 80's that has played up until today. A tighter game can take away some of a game's charm, but overall it is a much better thing for the gaming community.

I also don't believe LOTR has hurt GW. They seem to have enough resources to cover all bases. Sometimes throwing more cooks at the pot does not make the stew better. It is efficient use of those cooks, which they seem to be doing.

And Keezus, I see flanking all the time. Hell, I am always doing it with my Orks and Eldar,... and sisters and marines. Checkers is a very simple game, and yet it is a game entirely of tactics. I don't think it is any less tactical than it ever was, it is just different tactics than it was in the past. Ever since it's inception I have always compared 40k to WHFB as Checkers is to Chess. WHFB has always made my mind hurt....

Torreador: 

Recuctions in options in favour of smoother gameplay?  Three trends can be seen in the new Eldar dex:

1.  If it can't shoot, or takes up more than 1 spot in the transport, its not worth putting it in a waveserpent.
2.  If it fights in HTH, and isn't inherently fast, or have built-in avoidance, its not taken.
3.  If it is exposed to enemy fire, if it is not tough -or- fast, it is not taken.

Going by these three trends, that Eldar went from many usable choices from early 3rd edition, distilled down to Autarch+Farseer, Harlequins, Spears, DAs in Serpents, Bikes with Spearlocks and Snakes on a Plane.  Sure, some of the other choices are salvageable under the command of a competent general, but they often do the same task as the above, only worse.

As always, YMMV.

As far as GW management is concerned, 40k is obviously bulletproof, Orks don't need fixing, Chaos needs 5 codexes, and there will be magic cylinder discussions when 5th edition comes out.

How, exactly, is this new? Walking into assault isn't a terribly good tactical option, and, realistically, shouldn't be one. (Edit: I mean, without lots and lots of ablative cannon fodder on the way there, which Eldar aren't set up to do)

The biggest problem with 4th ed overall -- as far as I can see -- is the overnerfing of non-skimmer transports reduces the viability of way too many infantry assault units. Eldar isn't even particularly affected by it. Your "distilled" Eldar list still amounts to two different HQ choices, two Elite choices, two Troops choices, a HS and a FA choice, and I'd argue that you're under appreciating banshees and scorpions at least. Compare your "distilled" list to something like the Necron list and it's a varied and interesting list.

The biggest problem with the current Eldar codex is the Falcon overshadows the other HS choices, and the list is somewhat heavy on HS entries -- and I'm sure plenty of people will argue with me on that point especially as there's a multiple-page thread about optimal Warwalker squadrons.

While their sculpting as remained good for the most part, the actual models suffer from inferior materials used in their production. I have yet to see a single spue of the new Eldar that doesn't have serious mold line issues. The marine models I purchased with the release of the last codex have a dull, rounded look to them. The Commander's box spues have a cartoonish look to them when compared to similar items made a few years earlier. Its really put me off building a another army.

Well, I think this is fantastic news!!! Almost too good to be true.

Chaos defines the wh40k world. "29" Space Marine chapters of  1000warriors seem to get their own book. One for each Major Chaos Power and one for undivided is just right, allows to expand and add wealth to the already vast backround material and to release great power specific models and more demons.

Space Marines Redux makes perfect sense! It's the best seller, needs to fit the new Eldar codex shown format and there have been so many new relases that need to make the book as models and will be more that can be better released together with a cool new book. Besides I love marine art and Assault Cannon should be heavy 3.

ORKS take your time and then ambush us with fantastic new plastics, vehicles, drednoughts, bikes, storm boyz the lot. I'm all for a little bit longer wait, since it's really the models more than the rules that define the release schedules.

Ordo Xenos finally arrives to round up the great Inquisitorial Triumvirate and this is the most aniticipated book of all three ordos.

Dark Eldar are a fantastic concept that needs proper models and adds a differently playing and interesting army to the game. I'm so glad to hear rumours that theymight be resurrected.

Torreador/Lowinor:  Ok.  I give!  I give!  Simplified 40k is the bee's knees.  Cheerio and all that chaps! 

Posted By migsula on 01/09/2007 10:38 AM

ORKS take your time and then ambush us with fantastic new plastics, vehicles, drednoughts, bikes, storm boyz the lot. I'm all for a little bit longer wait, since it's really the models more than the rules that define the release schedules.

Well rumours say that Nelson isn't doing them AND they're redoing the plastic boys, so unless it's a recut I'm angry.

In any case I'm not touching them if Nelson didn't do them.

Posted By migsula on 01/09/2007 10:38 AM

Chaos defines the wh40k world. "29" Space Marine chapters of  1000warriors seem to get their own book. One for each Major Chaos Power and one for undivided is just right, allows to expand and add wealth to the already vast backround material and to release great power specific models and more demons.

good chaos gods i didnt think about that part...hmm,that might include actual chaos-warped vehicles and new daemons to be made.I heard a word about some new chaos mecha-monstrosity too...i sure hope its true

Keezus, if you have ever heard me speak in an Eldar thread I rarely take what is normal, and usually take an infantry heavy force. I usually do quite well around here. I have done this for ages. But as you said, mileage varies depending on opponents in your area.

I don't like simplified movement and the lack of modifiers, but I also see how it did streamline the game without taking much away. The way the armour saves are setup also does make marines act like marines. Everyone else hides in cover while marines walk in the open blazing away!

Nelson did not do the new Ork Kommandos, and they are amazing. So if they come out with good ork miniatures, no matter who does them, I am buying them. Almost everyone I talk to hates the gorilla butt ork plastics that Nelson did around here anyway. (me, I don't mind, I like em)

Posted By migsula on 01/09/2007 10:38 AM

ORKS take your time and then ambush us with fantastic new plastics, vehicles, drednoughts, bikes, storm boyz the lot. I'm all for a little bit longer wait, since it's really the models more than the rules that define the release schedules.

The Speed Freak Player in me agrees with you, mainly because I don't want my Speed Freaks Nerfed like my Tyranids were.

However, the Ork Player in me says that a decade is three times more then they needed, and this is just insulting.

If a redux fixes some of the problems in the space marine codex Im ok with it, all of the 4th eds need a little fixing, however i would rather see it done as a revised book, not a full release that delays other releases. I play Tyranids, Tau and Orks so life for me in 40 k has been good. But I would rather see a Ork 4th before the others get redux.

On a side note the Tau and Tyranids only need a few tweaks to be perfect,.

Tyranids need revised Biovor rules (or reduced cost to match the current rules), reduced Lictor point cost, plastic gargoyles, and new cover art (4th blows, 3rd was great), I would also like a free carnifex in every box of Cheerios.

For Tau, fix the pathfinder rules (remove the required transport or give their transport the scout special ability), revisit the Vespid rules and models, and replace some of the god-awful interior art. I would also like Heavy weapon drones for firewarrior squads, and a new HQ, a Fire Warrion HQ command squad who is actually a HQ not a powered armoured killing machine nor a naval contemplating space pope. One more thing, the new etheral models need to give up all the pimp bling and go back to the asthetic monk look. (my 2cents)

I know these aren't being done, but if the Space marine redux ends up just being a book reprint with revisions one can hope that the others follow suit. Just aslong as it dosen't delay more meaningful releases.

Posted By migsula on 01/09/2007 10:38 AM
Space Marines Redux makes perfect sense! It's the best seller, needs to fit the new Eldar codex shown format and there have been so many new relases that need to make the book as models and will be more that can be better released together with a cool new book. Besides I love marine art and Assault Cannon should be heavy 3.

No, it doesnt make perfect sense. Perhaps for the money machine it does, but for the players it most certainly does not. GW serves the gamers, not the gamers pandering to GW.
For them to remake C:SM before others is a blatant insult and slap to the face for people who wait to play their armies in an updated version.

Yes it needs to be tweaked, but at the expense of other armies? I think not. It can wait for an upate after all other armies that desperatly need it get a taste of care from GW.

Fanboyism can only override common sense so far.

Does any of the rumoured army releases affect me? not for armies that i am playing myself, but for armies I am playing against. I hate sitting across the table and waiting to play the game knowing that the next opponent is likely to be a SM player. Not for want of playing a different army, but for want of a new codex that isnt going to nerf a current build from an older codex.

Deathwing players know this sad fact all to well, or they will when the new DA codex is realeased.

By making yet another SM codex in such a short time frame, its putting other people off from building a non Marine list. No one wants to buy models and build an army only to have it nerfed a short time later.

I say, complete the xenos codex's and then give chaos and the marines an updated codex. It was a crying shame they gave attention to tau and tyranids in the order they did simply because they already had very recently printed editions to begin with. But its done and now we can look to the future. And according to GW, the future is bright fwith tons more marines. I think we have already reached maximum capacity of that aaarmy as it is, thanks. And keep in mind I am speaking this as a marine player.

But this is my opinion just as all this is wondeful news being your opinion.

Torreador:  I'm sure you are a decent player.  I'm just to the point where I'm beyond discussing tactical possibilities - since there is a workaround for every situation, especially in a codex as varied as the Eldar one.  - The fact of the matter remains, that most players will rarely use more than half the models in most codices*... and this is where the simplified ruleset falls down IMO.

* - What I mean by "you will rarely use more than half the models in most codices" is:

Example 1:  Witchunters.  Units that will rarely be used include, stormtroopers, repentia, HQ inquisitors, penietent engines etc.  Thats not to say that they aren't good choices, but that they are either not as good as other choices, or that they run contrary to the theme of the list (faith points)

Example 2:  Space Marines.  The most popular army has units which are relatively uncommon:  Landspeeder Typhoon, Veteran Squads, Techmarines, Bike Squadrons, Attack Bikes, Land Raiders ... It is not so much that these units are bad, but that there are better choices within the same slot in the force org chart.

Merely including sub-par units in a list is a pointless exercise.  Every unit should have a purpose, and if it does not fulfil that purpose, or another unit does it better, then that unit should be cut.  If the rules were not so rigidly simplified, there could be wiggle room in the statline to make these units more competitive.  As it stands, a unit like the Typhoon is nowhere in the same league as the Tornado for similar cost, and is terribly overcosted compared to the stock Landspeeder.  Another example is that if Leadership was actually important, then higher Ld Marine Veterans might actually be important, instead of being overpriced tactical marines.  If Repentia were faster, they might actually be used in non Cities of Death games.

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 01/09/2007 11:06 AM

Posted By migsula on 01/09/2007 10:38 AM

ORKS take your time and then ambush us with fantastic new plastics, vehicles, drednoughts, bikes, storm boyz the lot. I'm all for a little bit longer wait, since it's really the models more than the rules that define the release schedules.

Well rumours say that Nelson isn't doing them AND they're redoing the plastic boys, so unless it's a recut I'm angry.

In any case I'm not touching them if Nelson didn't do them.

I don't care if they cloned Auguste Rodin to sculpt them, it has been what 10 years since they came out with a book for the Orks.  The book had better damned well write the list for me and the new minis had better move around and attack my opponents and cook me dinner.

Posted By Toreador on 01/08/2007 3:37 PM
It also is almost as close as you can get to a collectible card game. If I want to get into the game at the moment and have the books with all of the rules for the units I want to field, and for an idea of what they can do without buying the figs, I am outlaying a bunch of moolah.

there is also a lot of power creep. PP reminds me a lot of Collectible card games, but within the miniature hobby. You almost HAVE to buy the newest things to keep competitive. It is a very nice business model, because it keeps everyone excited, but it also is one of the things that turns me off of the game.

Have you played Warmachine?  I wager I can beat you 5 out of 7 with a purely Prime list.  In fact, a purely prime list of any faction (not mercs, they aren't a faction ).  There is no power creep in PP.  Sure--the units get much better with their unit attachments, weapon attachments, etc.--but they also cost more.  So I don't take them, and instead of spending 28 points on a unit attachment, I take Eiryss.  OK.  It'll still work.  And there are still nasty units in Prime.  Heck, some of the nastiest casters are in prime--I gaurantee that Kreoss, Sorscha, Haley, Deneghra, Vlad, and Skarre are probably the best casters in the game.  All of the post-Prime casters are weaker in some fashion, with the notable exception of Darius.

I have played Warmachine, and in the Prime days I was repeatedly slapped around by Khador. Menoth had an uphill battle most of the time.

The Campaign that ran here over the last several months turned into an absolute power game, and as soon as cav came out, it got crazy. It is one of the draws of the game, but also one of the detractions for me. I have gotten in and out of the game twice now, and I might be getting back in by way of Hordes....

There is absolutely power creep in Warmachine. The game is based around the powergame. Each new book adds new units that help out the factions and help out units. Cygnar has become fairly over the top vs some factions compared to what they were in Prime. They have become amazingly shooty!

Keezus, I dare you to make a game with any sort of complication where all units are useful and most all situations. I think the sisters list does need some adjustments, but it was good for a first go. That is the problem with most lists, in the theoretical world sometimes look a lot different than out in play in our world.

My thoughts on Space Marines Redux are this. They have found that they can tweak the codex and balance it out more. In working on the other marine factions they have found issues in games they didn't see before. Again, this is going to take little resource for them to accomplish. They know the changes, they just have to type it all up. They can push this out and might even fit more the idea of the how the other marine books will fit in.

Orks is taking longer because orks needs to take longer. We get "estimates" on when something can come out, this includes all development and model work. Anyone that has ever worked at any company knows that can entirely change due to many factors. So again, like the Tau redo. Few resources and they can get it out the door. It is changes they feel they need to do, or more additions they want to do. It doesn't affect anything else because of this and is a nice filler.

Or, it could be a great conspiracy. Either way, doesn't bother me.

Posted By fleshcross on 01/08/2007 1:56 PM

Posted By Caern on 01/08/2007 1:45 PM

Posted By Samwise158 on 01/08/2007 1:27 PM
L.O.T.R. has most definitely negatively impacted the 40k/Fantasy side of the hobby.  Ruin of Arnor? Fall of the Necromancer?  Does anyone care?  I've played demo games of it a few times and found it be a very dull game.  Not only that, but how different can a man of Gondor and a man of Arnor be?  I'd like to see them drop that game and put their heads together to make a solid Ork army list and improve the longevity of 40k.

Agreed. Every dollar, every hour of labour, every moment just spent sitting and thinking of how to expand the line, that is wasted on LOTR is a dollar, an hour, a moment that could have been going into producing, promoting, and enhancing Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 instead and making them stronger games and brands.

You know, it's a shame, too, because there's actually some cool stuff they could do with LotR. They could do a whole set of Black Numenorians, they could do the fall of Gondolin, there's all sorts of "historical" stuff that's far more interesting than the Trilogy stuff that they're doing, but I guess that's another issue.

IIRC, GW tried and failed to get the rights for The Silmarillion, so we won't ever see an expansion for the fall of Gondolin, the war against morgoth, etc. Hence the continuous spinning out of the trilogy, to the extent of largely inventing new parts of Middle Earth. Enough is enough.

Posted By Toreador on 01/09/2007 2:36 PM


Orks is taking longer because orks needs to take longer.

No, Orks are taking longer because the bean counters know that 12 year olds will not buy Orks like they buy Space Marines. 

As far as the Codex release schedule is concerned, If the goal is to nerf.. I mean balance.. two of the most abusable lists then this might not be such terrible news for MEQ players, but it will piss a lot of people off.  The Marine and Chaos lists are both pretty well done, if they have problems with one or two pieces, they should just do the math and release an update.

The other potentially galling thing about Space Marine Redux would be if they try to force current marine players to buy another 20$ Codex.  If this is an amendment it should be treated as such and published as a PDF file that Marine players can print out and stick in the back of their codex.  A revised book could be released for those who don't yet own the codex, but if it invalidates the old book entirely that would be a real low blow.

SM Redux could be both. When DE got their upgrade (which was admittidly quite minimal) it was published online, in WD, and as a printed codex. Maybe they'll do that again.

But I don't think so. Surely it doesn't take 6 months to do what should be minimal work.

It could easily be an extensive rewrite to bring it into line with the Dark Angels codex (5 or 10-man squads only, etc.). Asking players to buy a book every four years isn't really much of an imposition, in my opinion. Especially if we get jetbikes...

Kinda like everyone prefers metal to plastic? Should we start another vote thread? Or is the consistent disagreement from everyone in this thread enough?

To some extent yak is right, it's a subjective call as to the relative quality of the models coming out of GW. But I'm not as kind as him. You're simply wrong. Some people might think that eating poop is fun. They have a right to their opinion. But their opinion is simply wrong.

As yak says, stack the current lines up to previous lines and compare. Take Eldar, for example. Rangers look better. Scorps and Banshees look better. It all looks better. Name one new Eldar model that's worse than previous models?

Name one model that was worse than what it replaced?

Hell, name one bad model released in the last year, period. I need some context to just how wrong you're prepared to be while everyone is watching.

chaos posessed

hehehe, sorry, I love GW minis, but I had to say it

Posted By Phryxis on 01/09/2007 7:10 PM

As to the drop in quality, there absolutely has been a drop there whether or not you want to admit it.

Kinda like everyone prefers metal to plastic? Should we start another vote thread? Or is the consistent disagreement from everyone in this thread enough?

Except, if you had been paying attention, which in your zeal to troll me you obviously hadn't been,  I have never said everyone (or even a majority) prefers metal to plastic. What I *DID* say was that metal is clearly capable of finer and higher levels of detail than plastic, which it is. It's called undercuts, something that is impossible with injected plastic molding. Just because you can tack some clunky plastic bit in place of something that was previously finely sculpted and snug to the figure does not equate to better detail.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/09/2007 7:10 PM
To some extent yak is right, it's a subjective call as to the relative quality of the models coming out of GW. But I'm not as kind as him. You're simply wrong. Some people might think that eating poop is fun. They have a right to their opinion. But their opinion is simply wrong.

As yak says, stack the current lines up to previous lines and compare. Take Eldar, for example. Rangers look better. Scorps and Banshees look better. It all looks better. Name one new Eldar model that's worse than previous models?

Name one model that was worse than what it replaced?

Hell, name one bad model released in the last year, period. I need some context to just how wrong you're prepared to be while everyone is watching.

Wow, enjoy eating your crow: Chaos Possessed, which are bone jarringly awful.  Crap replacement figures? Uh, try the equally terrible Space Marine Scouts. One of GW's worst plastic sets to ever come out. Twice (ie: Scout Snipers). Thanks to their one-postion only arm poses they are no more posable than the originals and considerably less detailed and much uglier sculpts to boot.

Ah, the Tau Vespids for another. How could I forget those? Then there are the tree-trunk legs planted wide, arms waving in the air like they don't care screaming bald headed chaplains. Or (most) of the upcoming new libraians in the same awful poses. Or the equally blocky upcoming Dark Angels. Spase Marinez!!! Hurr! I think you've been humiliated enough, so I'll stop now. Enjoy!

They should get whoever did those sculpts to do the Orks.  Have an Ork Clan that look like drunken football hooligans.  They would jump right off the shelves.

You said that the trend towards plastic models is proof that GW has "completely lost touch with their customer base." I take that to mean that you think their customers want metal. Is that not what it means?



Ok, chalk one up for you. You can't remember what you've said in the past, but you did name some horrible models that I forgot about. You're right, the new Possessed models totally suck. And they're metal.



You really hate those Scouts, huh? I don't know what to tell you about that. I like them a lot, enjoyed painting them a lot, got tons of compliments on mine...



Uhh, no? They're plastic. I don't care if they were single piece plastic models, they're still more poseable. Yes, they're less poseable than, say, the plastic Marine models. They're still much easier to modify than metal. For example, you can point their heads and twist their waists withouth any additional effort. There's more to a pose than the position of the arms.

I don't see them as being less detailed, either. They're much, much more of a pain to assemble, but they've got gear that you can glue on wherever you want, and since it's glued on undercutting isn't a factor. Undercutting only goes so far, and it doesn't go as far as glued on pieces. The glued on pieces are yet another way to personalize them that isn't possible (or at least practical) with metals.

But, you know what? I'll just pretend your random, knee-jerk opinions are all valid. The entire Eldar line is better than before (I count 10+ new models), even where metal replaces plastic. In fact, the plastic Warwalkers and Wraithlord are more detailed than the metals they replaced. Most of the Space Marine line is better (Terminators, several of the Chaplains, the new Marines sprue is better). The Venerable Dread is pretty terrible, and all metal...

But, in any case, if you were right, more than 50% of the replacements to come out recently would be worse. That's just not the case.

Aw, what's the matter, did having multiple people point out out your random knee-jerk opinions were wrong hurt your feelings that you now have to back peddle, make up excuses and grossly exaggerate (if not outright fabricate) what I've said? Oh, and one of my complaints *is* that the metals are getting substantially worse. Glad to see you agree there too.

Perhaps if you weren't so intent on trolling you would have seen that I have complemented sculpts like the Warwalker (whose rules aren't great, but the model rocks) as well as the upcoming Harlies (oh, wait, those are metal too... hmmm). That said, they're the exception, not the rule. And what does this derail troll have to do with the release schedule anyway? Please crawl back under from whatever rock (bridge?) you climbed out from. Thanks!

I think that one major reason for the time between codex releases is just printing time. They make a lot of codexes, overseas for affordability - China, most like - and it takes about 2 months to get them printed and shipped back to GW, who then has to ship them off from there. Gork knows that when I've looked into overseas printing, that's about how long it takes for 500 to 1000 books, give or take a couple weeks.

They do some proofreading, some tweaks, new art takes time, layout, it all takes time. My sketchbooks are only 64 pages (of which I nly do 32 pages) and that takes a while to put together. Granted, I am doing that in my off time away from work, but book layout and design is a lengthy process.

GW's timeframe has a few things in there that we are not seeing or thinking about, I believe.

Incredibly dissapointed in no orks this year. Just flabbergasted. I'll save a lot f money buying no GW product this year, let me tell you. Back to playing World of Warcraft.

In all fairness, having a separate codex for each Chaos god is no more ridiculous than having a separate codex for BT, DA, BA, and SW.  World Eaters have less in common with Thousand Sons than Dark Angels with Blood Angels.  This would also give them the chance to not only release plastic noise marines, plague marines, and Thousand Sons, but also revisit some of the choices that have fallen by the wayside over the years (Beasts of Nurgle?).

What I'm afraid of is that they might go down the same path as the loyalist codices (basically reprints of Codex: Space Marines with a few different special rules and wargear) - ie, Codex: World Eaters might just be a reprint of the Chaos Space Marine codex + the Book of Khorne.  If there's no new content, just the same old content spread out over 5 books, I'm gonna be sad.  And if they don't include cultists in the Chaos codex I'm gonna be even sadder.  But even then at least they won't be like, "oops, we ran out of time and forgot to make Tzeentch not suck."

Codex: Space Marines Redux could be a good thing if they fix some of the problems with first one.  Maybe fix Raven Guard and White Scars so they actually, oh I don't know, play like how they're supposed to?  Of course the danger is that they'll simplify everything (a la Codex: Eldar) and do away with the whole trait system.  It's going to be sad if they turn every marine army into just Ultramarines with a different color - if everyone is going to play them, they at least should get some variety.

That said, I think this all comes down to GW feeling the heat financially and so they're going back to the space marine well one more time.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/08/2007 2:08 PM
So, get a production staff of 36 people, and you should be able to put a Codex out every month.

I'm sure they could manage that if they wanted to.  But that is not part of their business model.  They only release a codex when there are models to release along with it.  And they release models at a glacial pace because they don't want to saturate the market with choice.  The idea is that the average gamer will spend ~$X in a year, so they only release ~$X worth of minis in a year.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/09/2007 10:57 PM

In all fairness, having a separate codex for each Chaos god is no more ridiculous than having a separate codex for BT, DA, BA, and SW. 

Actually it is a lot more ridiculous. An Undivided army will use aspects of the different Gods, such as cult troops, daemons, etc. Having them in a different book means that some players will need to buy several books, and also there's the fact that they will be seperated by several months. But that's speculation, we really don't know what will be in these books.

Posted By fourganger88 on 01/10/2007 4:34 AM
An Undivided army will use aspects of the different Gods, such as cult troops, daemons, etc. Having them in a different book means that some players will need to buy several books, and also there's the fact that they will be seperated by several months.

That would be the case if the current undivided army list remained unchanged.  They could always "reimagine" the Chaos undivided army so as to not include god-specific cult troops.  Or they could decide to differentiate between cult troops in the vanilla list and cult troops from the dedicated lists.  Why should every Tzeentch-worshipper be a Thousand Son?  And they could always leave the door open for the inclusion of cult troops as allies.  Afterall, imperials have to buy several books in order to use inquisitors in their SM or IG armies.

There's no reason to insist that the undivided army list have access to ALL the god specific gear/units/etc.  They could just include daemon packs in the undivided codex and leave daemonic beasts/cavalry/etc to the specific codices.

That seems a very inefficient way of doing things. Ergo, that's probably what will happen.

The main doubt in my mind about the 5 codex system is that GW can release 5 balanced, unique, and versatile army lists.  I'm sure in 2009, tournaments will be overrun by the unstoppable Nurgle army of doom and no one will play Iron Warriors.  Considering the points about publishing timeframes, I'd trust GW to do a better job making one balanced book that encompassed all the gods rather than have 5 teams working on 5 books.  Not only that, but the Chaos codex is still one of the best codexii around.  GW should get the rest of their ducks (Orks, Necrons, =][=, IG, DE) in a line before they start second guessing their own releases.  This is the sort of news that kills consumer confidence.

See I used to be a die hard SW player but I lost intrest in them partially because GW has a problem that is starting to look like forcing players to play SM based armies which was the reason for me to jump ship about 3 years ago and build an Eldar army. Now that I have a new book for that and an ass load of new plastics and new sculpts I am very glad I did.

One thing that was really starting to get on my nerves was that at my local shops if you didn't play SM or Chaos you were kind of an outsider. In fact I am willing to bet that if I went to my local shop on saturday that I would see tables covered with nothing but SM facing SM. So the thought of yet another relese of the SM book is just foul... get the remaining xenos books out first.

As far as Chaos is concerend I think it needs to be done in seperate books like what they are doing with marines. 5 SM books 5 Chaos books... though I guess we will just have to wait and see how this turns out.

I have been a proponent of the five chaos books for a while now. My reasoning was simple, it puts Chaos on the same level as loyalist space mairnes.

Let's all be honest with our selves. Space Marines are the most popular army out there. Their very nature lends itself to newer players. I know that I didn't start winning as a new player until I started Space Marines.

So my arguement is, if Space Marines have the biggest following, let there be 10 (!) codexes that are Space Marine Related. Diversity in a popular army prohibits any dullness their may be by playing against Space Marines all the time.

The idea of restricting and putting the "codex" into Codex Space Marines is a great idea. The latest version of the Space Marine codex is easily the most competitve codex around right now (with maybe the exception of a few Tyranid builds and Chaos). If you tone them down slightly, it would enchorage more diversity in lists. The Eldar codex is a great example of this idea, there is not one "super competitve" build, yet nobody is arguing that the codex is not competive.

I like the idea of giving each Chaos diety a codex. If effort was put into each dex, the legion specific armie we see now will be more diverse and balanced in their playstyle.

The only complaint I have is the order. Why realease Undivided first. Wouldn't it be easier to release the diety codexs first? That way you still have the old (current) codex for the other armies and you just say that this codex replaces the book in the current dex. That way once you release the Undivided Codex, no cult specific legion players have to wait for their book.

Posted By Samwise158 on 01/10/2007 6:43 AM
The main doubt in my mind about the 5 codex system is that GW can release 5 balanced, unique, and versatile army lists. 

The answer is an unqualified no.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/10/2007 4:58 AM

Posted By fourganger88 on 01/10/2007 4:34 AM
An Undivided army will use aspects of the different Gods, such as cult troops, daemons, etc. Having them in a different book means that some players will need to buy several books, and also there's the fact that they will be seperated by several months.

That would be the case if the current undivided army list remained unchanged.  They could always "reimagine" the Chaos undivided army so as to not include god-specific cult troops.  Or they could decide to differentiate between cult troops in the vanilla list and cult troops from the dedicated lists.  Why should every Tzeentch-worshipper be a Thousand Son?  And they could always leave the door open for the inclusion of cult troops as allies.  Afterall, imperials have to buy several books in order to use inquisitors in their SM or IG armies.

There's no reason to insist that the undivided army list have access to ALL the god specific gear/units/etc.  They could just include daemon packs in the undivided codex and leave daemonic beasts/cavalry/etc to the specific codices.

BUT it hurts people like me who love the imagery of the Word Bearers.  I love the the fact that they straddle the line between all the gods and worship chaos in its entirety.  After all- polytheism is more common then not in a historical sense.  The thing is, if they distance the undivided guys from the individual gods some of the blended themes I like to do (like an army that's mostly skewed to one or two gods but maintains some other influences) become tougher to achieve.  Well, maybe not harder, but not easier! 

The whole point of an undivided codex, in my mind, should be to tie the other four together.  So, logically, it should go last, no? 

If we do see the undivided codex go first I'd say the likelihood of the fabled generic plastic daemons is high.  And I, for one, would rather not see that unless they bring back the other lesser gods like Mahal. 

Posted By Mahu on 01/10/2007 8:35 AM
The only complaint I have is the order. Why realease Undivided first. Wouldn't it be easier to release the diety codexs first? That way you still have the old (current) codex for the other armies and you just say that this codex replaces the book in the current dex. That way once you release the Undivided Codex, no cult specific legion players have to wait for their book.

My guess is that undivided will be the "baseline" codex and the deity codices will be variations on it.  Also remember that all further codices are supposed to be self-contained so the deity codices will NOT have any "refer to Codex: Chaos Space Marines" bits.

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 01/10/2007 11:58 AM
The thing is, if they distance the undivided guys from the individual gods some of the blended themes I like to do (like an army that's mostly skewed to one or two gods but maintains some other influences) become tougher to achieve.  Well, maybe not harder, but not easier!

I doubt they'd prohibit the undivided list from taking deity-specific choices altogether.  I'm sure you'll still be able to include bloodletters, daemonettes, etc.  However, that doesn't mean that the undivided list needs access to every last Khorne unit and piece of Slaaneshi wargear.

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 01/10/2007 11:58 AM
If we do see the undivided codex go first I'd say the likelihood of the fabled generic plastic daemons is high.  And I, for one, would rather not see that unless they bring back the other lesser gods like Mahal. 

That would be horrible IF they were to also discontinue the current excellent metal daemons (daemonettes and horrors are very nice models).  I'd hate to see all the lesser daemons get reduced to add-on sprues for a generic plastic daemon set.

If they do indeed plan on doing 5 Chaos books then it makes sense to release the first of them sooner rather than later so as to spread them out more and not have 2 years of only Chaos releases.  Of course it sucks for Orks and whatnot to get pushed back, but they aren't gonna be releasing 6 Ork klan codices (even though it would be awesome if they did).

Also, if they're going to revise (ie, nerf) the marine codex they really need to promptly re-do Chaos as well, otherwise the whining, wailing, and gnashing of teeth of the little SM munchkins will be deafening.  You already see a good amount of it now with the current dexes - think of how bad it would be if SM got nerfed and Chaos still had its current dex!  "How come Chaos can do that and I can't?  Daemon princes are soooo cheesy!  I want my rending assault cannons and cheap drop pods back!!  Waaaa!!!"

All of this just proves that Kid_Kyoto, way back in 03/04, was right on target. 4th ed. should have come out in the same style as 3rd ed., with all the codicies of 3rd ed. being rendered inoperable and new lists brought forward in the back of 4th ed., to have codicies come out from that point on, balanced specifically for the game. I wish I had seen it his way then, but hindsight is 20/20.

Feh. I should never have gotten rid of my 3rd. ed. rulebook.

Plenty of used copies floating around...

When, exactly, did that happen? Pretty much everyone has said that the quality of the sculpts has improved. What thread are you reading?



Who's trolling, guy? You're the one telling me 'crawl back under my rock.' I'm talking about the actual models, about the advantages and disadvantages. You're just repeating your points and then doing a cut rate flame attack when you can't challenge the substance of my points.

You say the plastic Scouts aren't poseable. I prove you wrong. You ignore it, and resort to cute little insults. Who's the troll?

I've gotten fairly tired of seeing you passing off your opinions and preferences as realities and facts that we all have to agree with. Most people prefer plastic. Most people prefer the new sculpts. Feel free to disagree, but please stop being so ridiculously self-absorbed that you can't even recognize that you're in the minority. GW exists to serve its consumer base, not to pander to one arrogant, self-appointed expert on all things art, sculpted and painted.

If you had a thought in your head worth hearing, you'd probably be able to carry on a discussion without accusing people who disagree of "trolling."

Maybe it's time you considered the fact that your personality is so incredibly grating that by being yourself, you're actually trolling.



I'd hope they're pipelining their work, though. Like, it's not the same exact people on every Codex. You'd think they could be working on one while the previous is in printing, etc. etc.

I'm sure there's a lot of delays. For example, you have to know the basics of the rules in order to sculpt models (i.e. you can't sculpt the Autarchs until you know what weapons Autarchs will have), then you have to have the models sculpted and painted so they can be photoed and put in the book. You can plan somewhat to overlap some of this, but it's hard. So, yeah, I can see why they might have a fairly long cycle for a given codex...

But so what? Have more than one going at a time... Keep the production line full.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/10/2007 6:33 PM
Who's trolling, guy?

 

Uhm, you are?

 

 

 

rabble rabble rabble!

As to Chaos, The Lost and the Damned was the Quintessential Codex. If GW could actually come out with a hefty volume with as much material as it had, and its counterpart Slaves to Darkness, We would be all the more better for it. Orks need to be reevaluated even more then the Space Marines do, and as to the so called " Balance issue", Every time these so called  " Uber" codexes come out, there has been a lack of quality control and product testing that goes with it.

Maybe someone could ask Jervis if he could open up the Battle Bunker, stores, and White Dwarf for some real use, to use as a numbers crunching and games research tools and facilities. Start by showcasing a couple of the companies so called gems and play the hell out of them. Lets run the armies ragged while we compare notes, battle reports, and statistical analysis to come up with a free flowing game to actually have some imput into the Codex production. The product is dying on the vine with the changes for change sake. I can appreciate that Lord of the Rings was a pretty good game, I played it a few times myself, and can even say that the other two flagship games could stand with some of the kind of attention to detail that this game received. I sure the heck don't appreciate though the semi hiatus from some of the companies money makers, such as Blood Bowl, Space Hulk, Necromunda, and the Harlequins, but when push came to shove, these were some hard chargers as far as great playing products. Of course there were a few holes in them, but they were also alot more fun to play fast and loose with alot of variation. Alot more then " Make a Space Marine codex just for three or four variations of the same model,and then lets give them someone to beat on now...". The poor things should know by now that being able to have the options is the key to the sale, not to just put all your eggs in the Space Marine basket.

I'm not going to get involved with you two's squabble, but you both are right about the points on the subject of the game. There have bottom line, been hits and misses, but the overall quality of the sculpts has improved from the days of the Happy Orks, the 10oz dred, and the army of assault cannons, but it has dropped back two steps in terms of keeping the product flexable enough to let the Player use thier imagination and evolve thier own, and be able to play a varied army that can be changed out for playabilites sake and has degraded to the point of the same old same old. I blame the standardization of armies for alot of this mess, but then again, the happy medium has never been found when its a choice between over the top, and outlandishly cheesable armies. Who can forget the armies of Eldar, Space Wolves, Tyranids or Necrons that opened the door to the nerffest that the codexes have become?

I for one recommend that GW just come back with a three ring binder type format. Then our codexes could be evolved as the rules do. I don't really care for the evolution of things that have yet to really convince me that they really needed to be, but at least we all could have a fighting chance to be able to keep a continuous army on the table with out alot of essentially throwing away units, time, and effort on products that are essentially cast off as soon as someone in the development feels that they are owed something just because thier name is in the codex. Not to mention they could save money on sucky book binding as the pages fall out after a couple of good readings.

The real issue is the bottom line though, and the bottom line with GW is that they have a great product, but thier marketing and support blows.  The Codexes and the armies in general would do alot better off the company put together a stock list for the new armies and opened the door to them at Tournaments, at the stores, in the mags, etc. so the general public could get alittle more then the standard White Dwarf " Play them, they ROck!!!, they are the best thing since sliced bread...."

The funniest thing about GW is the fact that they could easily turn thier substandard buisness practices around if they just applied themselves and stopped acting like everyone owes them something.

Great points all on an interesting thread!

I think someobdy deleted my post.

I thought 'Games Potluck' was a good tear.

Shucks

Ah, the Tau Vespids for another. How could I forget those? Then there are the tree-trunk legs planted wide, arms waving in the air like they don't care screaming bald headed chaplains. Or (most) of the upcoming new libraians in the same awful poses. Or the equally blocky upcoming Dark Angels. Spase Marinez!!! Hurr! I think you've been humiliated enough, so I'll stop now. Enjoy!

Thank you kindly for my first ever Dakka sig.

Phyrixis, Nyarlathotep, time out. You've both made valid points, and you've both resorted to personal insults. No more in this thread, and please try to keep it more civil in future threads.

-The Mgmt.

Wait, what?!?! So a series of personal attacks and insults (to which I retorted after nothing was done) count as valid points? No offense intended Mannahnin, but I don't see how not one but three rambling troll posts are "valid points". It's one thing to have a difference of opinion on the quality of GW's various product (which I most definitely have) and entirely another to troll and derail a thread over it.

For example Yak likes the quality of the figures and the rules (in general) while I see a loss of quality in both (also only in general), yet, despite this, we both respect each other's opinion (look at Yak's response to my earlier opinion) and are able to articulate them without resorting to hurling insults and/or putting words into my mouth or going off on some meandering derail that has nothing to do with the original topic.

You both have valid (both subjective and objective) points about the figures. You both hurled insults. There's not a lot of moral high ground here.

But gosh darn it, what tiny little space there is I'm taking and holding like the Fourth Vensuvian Corps on Zagnutia Prime!

As far as I can tell he strongly disagreed with you on page 9, without throwing any insults (though the poop comment was a bit strong, and came close to the line), and you called him a troll for it. Looks like you hurling the first insult, actually.

No more posting from either of you on this thread please. If you want to discuss the issue with me, PM me.

Posted By Ghaz on 01/07/2007 2:06 PM

Posted By Sgt_Scruffy on 01/07/2007 2:01 PM
whoa whoa whoa... Codex Apocalypse?

Rumored to be used for games in the 3,000+ points range and to see the release of the long rumored plastic Baneblade.

Now your talking!

Also, Codex Apocalypse was the rumored name for the Sisters of Battle / Ecclesearchy codex back in the days of "rumors of an anime themed army in a couple of years." 

I also find it interesting that the Space Marines are getting another "redux" next year, according to the OP, as are Necrons.  As an avowed Necron hater, that is the worst news.

Posted By Hellfury on 01/07/2007 4:01 PM
GW admitted that the sisters of battle codex was the most playtested codex they ever produced.

It was later said that they playtested that list 30 times.

I am sure that GW will never make the mistake again on publishing how many times a codex is playtested because of that.

Is that some kinda joke!?  The Codex Witch Hunters was a bitter and near complete disappointment.  With high hopes for some knock-out units, all we got were a few stat tweaks and silly, stupid, useless units.  The only army that got screwed more was Imperial Guard.  So now tht it is worth it to take an LR Exterminator, it is dropped from the list?  Thanks for nothing, GW.  I guess your plan is to suckify all armies except Space Marines so the only armies will be the freaks in tin cans. 

Oh, and the Sisters got their Acts of Faith.  The only thing decent in the whole damn book.

Posted By keezus on 01/08/2007 7:12 AM
Codex Marines Redux Rumours: - REMEMBER, YOU READ IT HERE FIRST!

Drop pods have been adjusted to reflect the fact that they give up half victory points when they land. This has been fixed. The new profile is 0 points, AV13 all the way around but does not include weapons however.

In order to "encourage" players to take more regular tactical marines and in larger squads, the following changes will be made to the Bolter entry: Space Marines are the mostly highly trained soldiers in the Imperium and the Bolter is their weapon of the Emperor's holy retribution. To represent their supreme skill at arms, the Marine bolter profile will be changed to the following:

Marine Bolter: Range 24" Rapidfire, S4 AP5, Rending, Counts as a 2nd HTH weapon. True Grit now counts the Bolter as 24" Assault 2 instead.

Assault Cannons have been reduced in price by 5 points across the codex. Multi-meltas and Plasma-Cannons have been raised in price by 15 points in order to balance this change.

Space Marine Librarians are masters of the mystic arts. As such, Librarians gain this additional ability:

Emperor's Prescience: Before the first turn, all Marine units may fire once at an enemy unit within LOS following all normal shooting rules, regardless of whether Night Fight is in effect for this mission.

Space Marine Masters are consumate strategists. As such, reserve rolls gain +1 and may be rerolled. In addition, D6 units may be repositioned up to 6" from their positions after inital deployment. Units may NOT be moved outside thier deployment zones.

We feel that these changes will do much to add to the flavour of the Emperor's Finest and make the army much more fun to play against. - GW Dev Team

(This was a joke)

That's what you think...

Very true.

I recently opened a box of "Wild riders of saim hann" boxed set of 5 eldar jetbikes. I never opened them because jetbikes, quite frankly, sucked until now.

Much to my suprise, the plastic was so much smoother and better detailed with considerably less flash to clean. The plastic is also considerably more durable. My brand new (12 yr old, never seen the light of day until now) jetbikes right next to the shining spears recently purchased, fresh and unprimed, has such a huge difference in quality, its hard to describe.

Now this can be chalked off to old molds I realize, but the fact remains that quality control has gone down alot.

Nowadays, they just chuck stuff in a box and sell it, only fixing it when someone complains.

If employees that work for a company have that attitude, they get fired. Why should GW feel they can escape this?

The new tech wont save them if they cant make a frame without lots of cracks in the models with subpar plastic (that costs more because of oil prices *snicker* ).

but I hugely digrees from the thread (Codex releases) So I will say that GW needs to make their codex's out of better plastic to stay on topic.

  The only army that got screwed more was Imperial Guard.  So now tht it is worth it to take an LR Exterminator, it is dropped from the list?  Thanks for nothing, GW.  I guess your plan is to suckify all armies except Space Marines so the only armies will be the freaks in tin cans. 

Forgeworld my man Forgeworld.

Forget Codex's its all about Imperial Armour.

Posted By Grot 6 on 01/10/2007 10:39 PM
Not to mention they could save money on sucky book binding as the pages fall out after a couple of good reamings.

I fixed your typo.

This whole SM redux thing is obviously a ploy to sell a bunch of tac squad boxes by making people upgrade all their tac squads from 6 to 10 (the rumor is only full size squads can take heavy weapons).  I guess GW is really feeling the heat and need some quick cash.

If that's the case then I doubt there will be a trait that allows variable squad sizes.  In fact maybe they'll follow the eldar codex and do away with the trait system completely.

If not, I have an idea for a new trait - "Break Like The Wind".  It allows you to add an extra marine to any full size tac squad (so now your marines go to 11).  Sweet.

About Plastics....

When I started my very first army about 6 years ago(Eldar) I don't ever remember having to spend more than a few minutes checking for flash and mold lines. Frankly, I almost never saw any. When I ordered a Tyranid box after the V4 release, I thought I had been ripped off because the plastic components seemed like cheap, poorly casted counterfeits.(Checked with another recent purchaser, same appearance) When I had finally purchased a V4 Carnifex, I had spent at least an hour removing flash and mould lines, with a dremel, and only on the few parts I was using for a gunfex. I was afraid to see it put together, the amount of shaving and carving I had to do.

And that is all I have to say about plastics.

I love having my complaints validated by other's similar experiences!


As to the subject at hand, what baffles me is GW can return to it's phased release schedule instead of doing these massive releases that see some people's armies ignored for years (Orks anybody?). They can still have splash releases and put out more product specific for said army whenever it's codex/army book is released, but also keep other peoples interest up by putting out stuff for other armies. Like CoD did, but year round.

There is also no reason other than greed that both SPASE MaRHINEZZ!!! Hurr! (spikes or no spikes) need five codices apiece either. Both could have a single super doubleplus huge generic main book with all the bells, whistles and fluffy goodness that would allow players to build and run generic versions of any loyalist or chaos SM army. Then, for the loyalists they could put out dexes like the 2nd ed "Angels of Death" (BA + DA in same dex) while for Chaos they could revisit the RT era "Slaves to Darkness" and "Lost and the Damned" books (just focused on the 40k aspect).

Unfortunately, the powers that be seem completely opposed to any changes and want to instead force feed the same boring crap that hasn't been working for the last several years. I can't wait for Kirby to get his just rewards (pink slip ahoy!).

I actually prefer the concept of plastics to metal.  In theory a good kit should give one tons of options with the advantage that plastics are easier to work with (IMHO).  That being said, GW's concept of plastics is circa that which was available in the mid-60s and 70s.  For a true understanding as to what can be done with plastics, one needs to take a look at the stuff currently being done by Dragon/DML (1/35 scale minis for historical models).

AJC

     It isn't that I don't like plastics, but damn, this new material they are using is a headache.  The only cleaning I ever had to do was when I cut my Guardians off of the sprue to clean up where they separated.  I simply have noticed a progression from quality material to an annoying problem. 

  As for releases, well, I am not happy with it.  Waiting YEARS for something new to come out for your force can be excruciating, especially when power armor gets something new every couple of months it seems.  I don't expect GW to adopt the Privateer Press model(which usual satisfies everyone at once, and makes more sense in the context of keeping factions balanced, albiet they only have to support 4 factions per game).  I don't know how to make it better, but to quote the horse from Ren and Stimpy,

"No sir, I don't like it!"

") Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/12/2007 5:15 AM

Posted By Grot 6 on 01/10/2007 10:39 PM
Not to mention they could save money on sucky book binding as the pages fall out after a couple of good reamings.

I fixed your typo.

LOL

Posted By SisterJoey on 01/11/2007 10:37 PM

Is that some kinda joke!?  The Codex Witch Hunters was a bitter and near complete disappointment.  With high hopes for some knock-out units, all we got were a few stat tweaks and silly, stupid, useless units.  The only army that got screwed more was Imperial Guard.  So now tht it is worth it to take an LR Exterminator, it is dropped from the list?  Thanks for nothing, GW.  I guess your plan is to suckify all armies except Space Marines so the only armies will be the freaks in tin cans. 

Oh, and the Sisters got their Acts of Faith.  The only thing decent in the whole damn book.

On the subject of armies 'needing' a Codex rewrite, my opinion is fairly firm that it's a case of a number of 'armies' that have been launched that are actually incomplete as concepts.

Now, this is based on the Third Edition rationale which was (someone tell me if I'm paraphrasing that rulebook's designer notes wrong, I haven't checked lately) to get away from all that overwrought 2nd Edition silliness, the masses of different weapon types, special rules, modifiers and the like. What the Studio wanted to do was produce a game where we rolled buckets of dice, resolved combats and firing quickly and got on & enjoyed ourselves.

The rulebook contained army lists for all the major factions which were spartan but effective. Stripping out modifiers and pots of different weapon types helped us. You had a rules set that stood on the simple stat line and a small range of USR's that gave some level of modification to the troop types.

Obviously we all missed our 'toys' we had got used to in the previous editions and waited eagerly for each codex to flesh out the army and return it to some of it's former glory. But wait! What happened to streamlining, buckets of dice and the like?

Examples:
Dark Eldar Wyches in the Rulebook - all identically armed, Succubus can take limited wargear, up to 2 troopers can take shredders.
Dark Eldar in their first codex: Up to 5 different weapon types in the squad, wherein you could have 5 different attack types going on in a close combat, at different initiative steps.

Hardly streamlined.

Now it's fair to say we might think 'I'm a big boy/girl/space alien and I can handle a bit of complexity in my gaming', but here's the other problem. When one army gets toys, other armies want to have toys. We all know about Codex creep.

But on top of that, getting back to my original point (in a rather long winded fashion), is that there is, therefore, a culture of game design led by the product. "What can we make that's cool, because cool sells?" And as someone rightly points out, new models = new rules.

Now you've left the streamlined simplicity pretty much in your rear view mirror. Rather than having a simple stat line, a few USR's and units that are generally using the same weapon/attack type throughout the squad, it's a mess. New special rules are being added with every release, and the conflicts between them have spawned hordes of FAQ's (mostly unanswered) and heated YMDC debates.

What's even worse is that, by having a design led by products, there are 'armies' which simply aren't a complete concept (y'see, I was getting to it). It's not hard to see that someone said "Ooh, Undead in Space, we should so do them!" - concept miniature comes out, GW is put to work on army-fying a limited concept. Answer to this knotty problem? Special rules!

Sisters of Battle - "Wow, these Jes sculpts are mint, we should so do an army!" Result? GW Design tries to army-fy another limited concept. What shall we do, of course, let's invent another wedge of special rules!

The 'uniqueness' of these kinds of armies, with their character and flair seemingly lent to them by their unusual rules is entirely at odds with the whole idea of what GW wanted to do in 3rd Ed.

Marines and CSM's are a different kind of problem - they are a solid army which got a big boost in 3rd ed, but then they had to diversify the army to 'keep it fresh'. None of this classic rock-scissors-paper stuff for GW, there have to be more and different kinds of troop and special characters, because product leads the design. Of course, we are willing consumers, because we all love 'cool' new mini's particularly for our army, or that army that has always 'intrigued' us.

I'm probably being iconoclastic and anachronistic in my views and I readily agree what I've said here is not necesssarily 'right' or the only 'truth', but I want to play a game where the armies make sense, the game mechanic flows, and it's about applying the correct combination of firepower, assault tactics and mobility to win (or enjoyably lose) games, rather than positioning everything to hope that my melta gun rolls a 6 on it's penetration roll, or my Daemon Prince rolls a 3 on the minor powers list to get Siren.

I'd just rather play a table top wargame than a metagame.

[Faints]

I agree about the plastics quality. I recently stripped my old Falcon and bought a new v4 Wave Serpent. Same molds, etc. but the plastic was much cheaper on the new one! Also, does anyone remember when GW first started doing plastic casting in force and they claimed it would reduce casting costs and consequently prices? And now a 5-man plastic Termie squad costs $50! Lol.

And the 5-Chaos Codex news is NOT good, if it follows the quality of recent codices. CoD was the biggest ripoff I've ever purchased - it was simply a reprint of the (very good) Cityfight, but with 1/3 of the pages. I have a feeling we'll see the current Chaos dex divided into 5 parts and released @ $20 each for 1/5 the content and fluff.

Posted By ancientsociety on 01/12/2007 11:27 AM
Also, does anyone remember when GW first started doing plastic casting in force and they claimed it would reduce casting costs and consequently prices? And now a 5-man plastic Termie squad costs $50! Lol.

Maybe $50 is a price reduction?  From the $500 they would have charged.

Posted By Gundammecha on 01/12/2007 4:01 AM

  The only army that got screwed more was Imperial Guard.  So now tht it is worth it to take an LR Exterminator, it is dropped from the list?  Thanks for nothing, GW.  I guess your plan is to suckify all armies except Space Marines so the only armies will be the freaks in tin cans. 

Forgeworld my man Forgeworld.

Forget Codex's its all about Imperial Armour.

  Money, my man, money.

As in I ain't got none...

And my wife won't even let me spend that.

Sisters of Battle - "Wow, these Jes sculpts are mint, we should so do an army!" Result? GW Design tries to army-fy another limited concept. What shall we do, of course, let's invent another wedge of special rules!

I am not buying this one as the Sisters of Battle were a a legitimate army in 2nd edition. (in as much as they received their own codex right before the demise of 2nd.)  While they were struggling to "complete" their concept, 3 armies came along and pushed the Sisters back.  Dark Eldar were released with the switch to 3rd.  Necrons, the "Undead-in-space" were just an article in White Dwarf, for God's sake, and a crappy, over the top one to boot.  (If you think they suck now, in second they were repulsive.)  Add in the Tau, and you get three armies that appear out of thin air before an established one even is hinted at.

The 'uniqueness' of these kinds of armies, with their character and flair seemingly lent to them by their unusual rules is entirely at odds with the whole idea of what GW wanted to do in 3rd Ed.

Respectfully disagree.  Under that logic, there would be nothing special about different Eldar Aspect Warriors, Tyranid creatures, or virtually any other specialist unit.  Each of those have their "uniqueness" based in special rules.  Special Rules are a way of life in this, or any other miniature game.  If it weren't for special rules, all armies would be all Tactical Marines, all the time.  But even they have special rules...And They Shall Know No Fear.  So all Guardsmen...except that they can call in and use the leadership of their boss.  So all Eldar Guardians...except they have move-and-shoot heavies...

And if you think simplifying a system is a good thing, ask old Epic players their opinion of Epic 40K.  (Not Epic Armageddon)  Hint:  it ain't good.

I appreciate the reply. My comments re. Sisters and Necrons *were* aimed at their inception, dating back to 2nd edition. They were limited concepts from the get go and both 2nd Ed releases were flawed. I don't want to be dismissive of the people who love those armies, I question GW's ability to make them work as a fully conceptualised force. But they are product led, so they did what they could - I just don't think what they've done works.

I hear you on special rules - I don't think I've stated my case as eloquently as I should. Which is criminal seeing how long that post was! I think you are equating unit wargear, eg. Aspect warrior kit like Scorps' mandiblasters, to special rules like Holy Vows and so on. It's not quite the same but i think you could probably make an effective counter argument here!

I agree that some additional rules would be inevitable, but it's a malaise. Weak army concepts propped up by less than sterling add-on rules remains my opinion. I don't think my opinion is unquestionably the right one, I know that it's purely subjective.

As for your ATSKNF example - it's in the original rules as a USR, I have no issue with that. It's the continual addition of special rule after special rule....

I don't agree that without special rules, you would be doomed to an eternity of SM's for all time (yeah, because we're not facing that now, are we?) - Orks are a perfectly characterful army with their statline, troop types, some suitably orky wargear & weapons, without having to weight them down with ridiculous reams of additional rules or special abilities. Who wants to go back to the "Orky Weapons that Blow Up" metagame?

And I played Epic 40k (not E:A) - never had a problem with it.

I went to the 40k GT 2nd heat and Jervis Johnson gave a seminar. He touched on a couple of points that have cropped up here.
GW think the Chaos codex is understandable for veteran gamers that can read it in the context of previous editions of the game, have read lots of background material and Black Library novels, and need the complexity to use their vast collection of 15 year old models. However, they believe it is very difficult for brand new gamers to use. There are far too many rules spread across too many factions and sublists. Although Jervis didn't confirm multiple codexes, it seems a logical conclusion to draw.

All future codexes are going to be in the same format as the Eldar codex. GW want to move away from traits, doctrines and sublists. They want everything rolled into a core list which a player 'can use to build a 1500 point army with confidence.' Jervis indicated that other codexes were designed around a different function; they had to appeal to campaign play, multiple games versus specific armies, random tournament play, themed armies, mega games, etc. Now they just focus on one thing - tournament play - and the rest will be picked up by supplements like Cities of Death, codex Apocalypse, codex Darkside, etc. This could be an explanation for the Space Marine redux. If the Eldar codex is the first of a new breed, then the SM codex has to follow soon after because it is THE core codex for 40k.

All future codexes will be self contained. The Black Templars codex demonstrates this in that you don't need the SM codex to use it. Current codexes that aren't self contained will be revisited sooner rather than later. That could affect the release schedule of future codexes.

I'm sorry, but I call shenanigans on Jervis (and his Johnson). I'm tired of the designers at GW using 'new gamers' as their excuse for changing things around. How are 5 books going to be any less complex than 1, especially in the Codex Eldar format, where you have to flip back and forth constantly?

Even when they released the 3rd ed. 'simple' codices (all rules, no fluff, remember?) that were laid out all nice and straightforward, you had 'newbies' getting confused. Likewise, plenty of kids and n00bs managed to figure out how to play 40k chaos with the current codex, despite the fact that there are 4 versions floating out there.

If they want to change the direction, or release more books to make more money, or whatever, that's fine, that's their business, but stop saying it's because new players are too stupid.

As far as I can tell, all this does is invalidate rules that already came out with the new edition and push up release schedules even further back. What are they going to do when it's time for 5th edition and the Dark Eldar haven't gotten their 4th ed. codex yet? Put them on the island of misfit toys with the squats? Feh.

Chapters of Legend, get ready to bend over!  It's going to make me sad to see White Scars lose their bikes and Salamanders lose their double special weapons.

Posted By syr8766 on 01/12/2007 3:08 PM
What are they going to do when it's time for 5th edition and the Dark Eldar haven't gotten their 4th ed. codex yet? Put them on the island of misfit toys with the squats? Feh.

At the rate they're going, there won't be a 5th edition.  I think they're hoping the SM redux and Chaos codices will sell enough to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.  If you throw enough marines at the problem it'll go away, right?

Posted By lone pilgrim on 01/12/2007 2:56 PM
I went to the 40k GT 2nd heat and Jervis Johnson gave a seminar. He touched on a couple of points that have cropped up here.
GW think the Chaos codex is understandable for veteran gamers that can read it in the context of previous editions of the game, have read lots of background material and Black Library novels, and need the complexity to use their vast collection of 15 year old models. However, they believe it is very difficult for brand new gamers to use. There are far too many rules spread across too many factions and sublists. Although Jervis didn't confirm multiple codexes, it seems a logical conclusion to draw.

I find this interesting and sad at the same time.  One of the great pulls (at least for me) is the vast, well established background of the 40K universe.  It would be a shame if GW simplified one of the core concepts of this universe, simply because it would be too "complex" for new gamers to grasp.  What is wrong with having certain armies harder to master?  Just because something is a little harder to grasp, doesn't mean it is bad or needs to be changed.

I think another possible conclusion to draw is that GW wants to develop a codex that will "encourage" those same veterans to go out and buy the new minis that would be released with the codex while encouraging younger/newer players to pick up said minis as they'll easily adapt their tactics to the new army.  An excellent short-term marketing plan. :S

AJC

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/12/2007 5:25 PM

If you throw enough marines at the problem it'll go away, right?

I find this comment particularly entertaining, the allegory is potent.

The world of man in the grim darkness of the far future is plagued by choking beurocratic sprawl.  There is no finesse left in it, the Imperium wields a heavy mallet and often too late.

It truly is the policy of Terra to throw marines at a problem until it goes away.  And it seems to be a policy Games Buckshot has adopted, a company that seems to be choking on its own bean counters and beurocrats just as its ficticious counterpart does.

The Chaos codex is crammed with rules and not enough background material. Five codexes would simplify things because each codex would be self contained - it wouldn't be a case of flicking from one book to another. Each book could have a lot more background which would put the army list in context. This would help newer players get a handle on things. Just think about how much background material that isn't in the current Chaos codex - the Slaves to Darkness and Lost and the Damned books, the 13th Black Crusade campaign, the Horus Heresy books, the Index Astartes articles, the Liber Chaotica, the Sabbat Crusade, etc, etc. Of course, the models will drive the release of each codex and what is in each codex, but I won't be complaining if we have legion specific terminators, plastic daemons, proper cultist army lists, etc. Games Workshop also believe that the new format used in the Eldar codex is better and tighter than the old format, so it makes sense that the Chaos codex is one of the earliest to be adapted.

This more 'disciplined' attitude is filtering through to all parts of the company. New rules have been pulled from White Dwarf, sub-lists are being disappeared, the main army lists are being designed for competitive play with other game styles being represented in supplements. In many ways, it is what a lot of veterans have been calling for for many years.

You can also see the GW's philosophy on newer players in the changes to White Dwarf. Jervis used the example of Robin Dews, ex WD editor, who subscribes to a sailing magazine. Every year without fail they publish an article on how to prepare a new boat, because every year there is an influx of people new to sailing, and this is exactly the sort of article they want and need. GW feels it hasn't published enough articles like this recently and has therefore been neglecting its new readers. WD will be aimed at these readers. Veterans may be served by something like a resurrected Citadel Journal or by Forgeworld, where they can dig a little deeper into 40k.

Please bear in mind that this is how Jervis put things across in the seminar with a little bit of extrapolation by me. I personally believe that the new direction on the codexes is a good thing but I remain to be convinced on how well they will accomplish their aims. I am less enamoured on the future of WD but I can understand the idea behind it. It's easy to forget as a veteran that other types of gamers have different needs.

Well, they HAVE been counting on those new readers being LOTR people....

Please, god, if everything goes to the Eldar codex format, add a one-line summary of wargear and options in the entry with the points, or put points in the entry with the rules. Having to flip back and forth to see how useful things are compared to the point value is bloody annoying.

I hope they don't use that non-format that the recent Eldar Codex had. I looked at about 4 pages of it and couldn't stand it anymore. Awful. My original 3rd edition Eldar Codex when I first started playing was much better formatted.

Abadabadoobaddon, you are so sigged

I'm sick and tired of hearing about things done to help "new gamers", always at the expense of current gamers. GW needs to grasp the idea of customer loyalty. If people can see it's simply a matter of getting the fish in the boat and forgetting about it, that does them no favours. The veterans are already interested in the product, so give them something they want to buy rather than releasing some strop you know they won't like, aimed at hypothetical customers that require more dollars to be spent on advertising.

That's the overall standing on the issue, now let's break it down: I love my sublists. They add character to a force, they allow you to have your own niche 'version' of SM or CSM or Eldar. I could see dropping some of the smaller White Dwarf Marine chapters, but dropping the Craftworlds was too far and if GW is going to reduce the Undivided Legions (there are only 9 of them dammit, make the effort) to nothing but a few lines of fluff then I am going to be extremely pissed off.

Even if they throw me the bone of four Cult Legions, that won't matter, because I play WORD BEARERS and I've spent a long time building my army. The current format is good, it works, and it should be maintained. If it is not, mark my words, I'll have one last glorious year using my themed, unique (because yes, a few special rules adds validation and purpose to a specific subforce rather than just having a paintjob and a page of handwritten fluff nobody reads) Word Bearers host before GW drops this bomb of a Chaos Codex and I head off to FoW, where they give gamers what I (and I don't believe I am alone) want; characterful subforces recognised and validated in the rules. Hell, I just heard they are releasing rules for fielding a Jewish unit in the British army, now that's the kind of consideration I can admire.

I hope I'm wrong and I can remain a GW customer. The Jewish sublist example is an extreme, I'm not asking for a return to the "Chapter of the Month" days. But I am respecfully telling you that perhaps not even half Chaos players play one of the Cults, and very few play Black Legion. That is a lot of people playing Undivided Legions you are harming if you remove support for their sublist. I don't think I'm asking for a lot, I don't need a Codex: Word Bearers, just a page or two of fluff in an "Undivided Legions" book and a few (no reams required) dedicated rules to give the force some character. What do you say?

Hmm,. Balfazar you generalize too much. Remember that mileage may vary. Around here I see mostly cult lists, and there are quite a few Black Legion lists. Heck, at least 2 are friends I know in the area! There there are the Nurgle and Slanneshi cult lists with a few Khorne thrown in. And as always the few Iron Warriors lists.

Long time Eldar player, and it didn't bother me at all that the book went back to one list. Why should it be more than one? Then all people complain about anyway it your "tricks".
It has the ability to be anything now. I much prefer that. Chaos from the early days really should have had more books,and I hope this is the opportunity for them to expand the lists to more options. Such as renegade guard and such. We will just have to wait and see. If you want to go WW2, go play WW2. To me it isn't even in the same realm. Each game stands on it's own legs. Play what you want, but WW2 will never be the same to me as WH40K.

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I thought that from a business perspective, holding onto customers was the halmark of good business.

40K and most of the GW games aren't the type of games that appeal to most people.  Most of my friends are amazed that I would want to play a complicated board game that lasts for four hours.  Not to mention the hours and hours spent painting.  I do it because I love the hobby.  Appealing to new gamers is best done by making veteran gamers enthusiastic enough to spread interest in the game, not by dumbing down or simplifying the rules.  Their products appeal to a certain demographic. 

GW is on the right track by making their lists with tournament play as the central focus.  I think having additional lists (like the old Craftworld Eldar book, or the 3rd Ed Black Templars) can lead to some seriously broken combos.  The lists should be  competitive with each other and be self contained.  The Chaos Codex thing would only suck, if they referenced each other and the Undivided player needed to buy all five codexii to get wargear rules.

But all of this is no justification for why the Orks are getting shafted.

I agree generally, but I don't think GW views these things as mutually exclusive. I'm not sure I do either.

I look at the 3.x versions of DnD as a great example of this. Not only is the new version simpler and easier to understand than 2nd Edition, but it's also much more flexible and capable. How totally convoluted (for no good reason) was THAC0? Negative numbers are better? Huh? And now, look how easy it is to multi-class, and yet, it's not at all broken, either. Some might disagree, but in my book that's a model and a proof that you can make things both simpler and more sophisticated at the same time.

Not that I blame folks for saying "they're dumbing it down." When it comes to GW, they seem to be in a bit of a rut, not ready to improve or innovate their offerings the way WotC did with DnD. They demonstrate very little vision or ability when it comes to truly improving their rules... So I understand why people do the math and conclude that they can only shift the variables around, but in the end it adds up to "mediocre ruleset."

On the other hand, there was so very much wrong with 2nd Edition DnD, so many ways to fix and improve it. I'm not sure 40K/Fantasy are that bad off. But I'm also not sure I was aware of how messed up 2nd Edition was until they fixed it. When 3rd Edition came out, I found myself saying "hey, yeah, why did Thief abilities need to be a percentile die, when most other stuff is a d20? And why did Strength need to go off on a little tangent when it hits 18?"

I dunno. I think GW might be putting too much stock in the abilities of 'fun, nice guys that love the hobby,' when it comes to their rules. I think they need some real system architects, people who really understand probabilities and game theory inside and out, and can write them a system that really steps things up. They seem terrified of invalidating all their current Codices and products, so they might consider a parallel rules system, maybe one of slightly smaller model count, one that still uses the same models, but totally reinvents the rules. If people like it, the market will show it.

Posted By Samwise158 on 01/15/2007 11:26 PM
I think having additional lists (like the old Craftworld Eldar book, or the 3rd Ed Black Templars) can lead to some seriously broken combos.

Come again? And regular lists don't have these same broken combos? Sub-lists add variety. Now everyone has the same Eldar Codex, rather than a vanilla list and a bunch of specific lists. Yes, certain aspects of some lists were broken (Alaitoc anyone?), but the concept is sound. I don't want to have to buy a whole extra Codex to play a World Eater force, nor do I want to be told "Oh, there is no World Eater list now. Just take Berzerkers as troops and say it's a WE list" like the new Eldar Codex does.

The current way the Chaos Codex works fine. Yes, some things are more powerful than they should be, and some things suck terribly - but I don't want to either get rid of sub-lists, or force them into complete extra books that waste production time on things that need new books (Orks!!!).

BYE

Posted By lone pilgrim on 01/12/2007 2:56 PM
I went to the 40k GT 2nd heat and Jervis Johnson gave a seminar. He touched on a couple of points that have cropped up here.
GW think the Chaos codex is understandable for veteran gamers that can read it in the context of previous editions of the game, have read lots of background material and Black Library novels, and need the complexity to use their vast collection of 15 year old models. However, they believe it is very difficult for brand new gamers to use. There are far too many rules spread across too many factions and sublists. Although Jervis didn't confirm multiple codexes, it seems a logical conclusion to draw.

All future codexes are going to be in the same format as the Eldar codex. GW want to move away from traits, doctrines and sublists. They want everything rolled into a core list which a player 'can use to build a 1500 point army with confidence.' Jervis indicated that other codexes were designed around a different function; they had to appeal to campaign play, multiple games versus specific armies, random tournament play, themed armies, mega games, etc. Now they just focus on one thing - tournament play - and the rest will be picked up by supplements like Cities of Death, codex Apocalypse, codex Darkside, etc. This could be an explanation for the Space Marine redux. If the Eldar codex is the first of a new breed, then the SM codex has to follow soon after because it is THE core codex for 40k.

All future codexes will be self contained. The Black Templars codex demonstrates this in that you don't need the SM codex to use it. Current codexes that aren't self contained will be revisited sooner rather than later. That could affect the release schedule of future codexes.

LOL!!!!1!!1!11!Eleventyone!11!1!11

So, they are contradicting themselves and have conflicting agendas?. Kirby finally admits that the company has been ignoring the vets (duh!) and now Johnson wants to further idiofy (new word folks) 40K. Talk about communication breakdown. Its not a good sign when a company cant communicate with itself.

I am sorry, but flipping back and forth all over a codex does not a winning salable codex make. If I didnt need it, I most certainly would not have bough it, and I buy every codex that comes out regardless if I play the list or not.

I have a copy of the new dark angel codex (in PDF) and guess what? The layout is just as crappy as the eldar dex! YAY!

I will admit that the chaos codex is a nightmare at first glance. I had to sit down with that thing for the better part of two days trying to make heads or tails of alot of it. But it doesnt need to be made like the eldar codex. They are going from one extreme to the next. I agree with HBMC above me. The example of the world eaters list is exactly what they would do if they followed eldars example. And to be perfectly honest, thats the biggest load of crap.

Man, I have been pissed at them in the past, but never to the point where they would suprise me with even further lows in making sure they dont get money. I wonder if GW has found some strange loophole law like Uwe Boll did for making crap movies and become rich. Thats the only thing I can think of as a rationale for how GW thinks.

For chrissakes. Make good rules already and stop stringing everyone along like youre suddenly going to wake up and be a business worth patronizing. If this is the indicator that youre waking up, just go ahead and push the snooze button. Go back to sleep.

And Codex Darkside?

Ya know? If it wasnt 5 years too late (this was rumoured to be the next expansion after codex CityFight), I would be excited about that news. I really just dont care now... Imagine that? Bonafide news and I could really give a flying rats ass about it. Looks like the reflection has come full circle. GW cares not for the gamers, the gamers dont care when the company finally makes an effort. Whooduh thunk?

And their going to supplement the lists? After all this "No more supplemental list" bull crap? LOL I guess making white dwarf the roughest form of toilet paper imaginable wasnt working. Now they want to make supplemental lists.

Oooh..... its going to be a VERY painful year for GW. Even a monkey could see that if he was tied up in a burlap sack and thrown to the bottom of the Thames. Its crap like this that makes me sick to even look at my miniatures or really even play any games. Perhaps the predictions for the gaming industry this year werent so far off....

(really, I do apologize for the rant everyone, but that seriously struck a chord in me)

My best advice I could ever give GW is to just dump 4th edition and make a new start with 5th to be done with it. Failing that, stop trying to think and just sit there and look pretty! (dont insult us by making rules, just make models)

Ahh well, even though I am inflamed I have to keep everything in perspective. GW is as GW does.




www.somethingpositive.net/sp07142003.shtml

Posted By Samwise158 on 01/15/2007 11:26 PM
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I thought that from a business perspective, holding onto customers was the halmark of good business.

Posted By Balfazar on 01/15/2007 7:14 PM
I'm sick and tired of hearing about things done to help "new gamers", always at the expense of current gamers. GW needs to grasp the idea of customer loyalty.

Modern business practice has long since abandoned the idea of customer loyalty. It's as if the corporations all suddenly woke up one morning and realised that customers were shopping around and thus simutaneously opted to only reward new customers.

Cable/digital/satellite TV providers are a perfect example of this. Loyal customers who have been with the company for decades pay X amount. However, they'd be better off switching to another company to pay Y amount as a new customer and then, six months later, switching back and paying Y amount again as a new customer. And so on...

Companies love that customers are generally lazy and/or apathetic.

 

At least, that's my experience on this side of the pond. I don't know what it's like back in the UK.

Because when a person shells out money for a list they provide, and then invalidates it, it shows exactly what they think of the customer. And they dont think much...

And its not just eldar codex. Storm of chaos comes to mind....

Right. But lets stick with that theme for a minute shall we?

3.0 was GREAT. It truely made a better game......but then came 3.5 rather too quickly. More of a money maker rather than an improvement over all. Some of those changes could have waited till 4th. So they invalidated a bunch of books in a rather quick fashion....and now we hear rumblings of 4th coming. A revolt might be in order, because the grumblings I hear sounds like people ont want to jump too quickly...

And thats also why I didn't renew my WD subscription for the first time in years. There's absolutely nothing of meat in it now.
Its seriously shooting yourself in the foot. If I were an ork, DE, or guard player, exactly what reason is there for me to buy anything new, or otherwise keep my interest?

Posted By carmachu on 01/16/2007 4:23 AM

I look at the 3.x versions of DnD as a great example of this. Not only is the new version simpler and easier to understand than 2nd Edition, but it's also much more flexible and capable. How totally convoluted (for no good reason) was THAC0? Negative numbers are better? Huh? And now, look how easy it is to multi-class, and yet, it's not at all broken, either. Some might disagree, but in my book that's a model and a proof that you can make things both simpler and more sophisticated at the same time.

Right. But lets stick with that theme for a minute shall we?

3.0 was GREAT. It truely made a better game......but then came 3.5 rather too quickly. More of a money maker rather than an improvement over all. Some of those changes could have waited till 4th. So they invalidated a bunch of books in a rather quick fashion....and now we hear rumblings of 4th coming. A revolt might be in order, because the grumblings I hear sounds like people ont want to jump too quickly...

Honestly, this happens any time there is a new edition of any game - WFB, 40K, D&D, Vampire, etc. Besides, v3.5 came out about 4 or 5 years after v3.0. At that time quite a few flaws in the system had become apparent, so they took the time to update the books to reflect the commonly used solutions - and made all the changes available free on the web. I only wish GW would adopt this approach.

I personally like how v3.5 clarified and improved upon the rules. If 4th edition is a better game too, then I'll pick it up. The differences between 3, 3.5 and 4th edition seem to be small enough that material can be updated with a minimum of effort (usually just renaming a few skills).

I liked the clear up to A, but as monte cook pointed out, most of those changes could have waited till 4th. Now that we've had 3.5, 4th is looming. Rather quickly and its not making everyone happy since basically we bough 3.0, then had to buy 3.5- with open game liscense, most people are going to be reluctant to jump to 4th, considering most havent gotten full use of 3.5 yet.

Its a balancing act. While I dont begrudge a company making money, new editions cranked out too quickly looks like a ponsy scheme- its why I stopped playing magic the gathering. Too much, too fast, not enough time to digest. GW has gotten the same way at times, or rather its seeming like it now. WotC seems to be indicating that way too. If 4th comes before 2009, they might see a revolt from the players.

THat is the point, as you noticed: the changes are minor enough that they REALLY didnt need a new edition. 7th ed fantasy seems that same way. Wasnt it someone who said that the changes from 6th to 7th could have been put on ona single sheet of paper?

I havent bothered pickingup th enew rule book. Doesnt seem necessary.

I hated DnD 3.0. It turned an RPG into a tabletop miniature game, suddenly people were more focused on the chess like relationship of minis on the board, and suddenly it was no longer just pure imagination. I still don't like it to this day. Too much emphasis on rules and less emphasis on imagination.

The Eldar sublists were used by me to get a specific list that I couldn't get with the normal codex. I played mostly aspect warriors, or sometimes liked to field a lot of wraithbone constructs. The new eldar book allows me to do both in one army list. I can't say I am playing an Alaitoc or Iyanden list anymore, but I don't need to. I still get the same effect from the same list. All they did was allow more options from one list, and made it rather balanced as far as I can see at the moment. Not a bad thing in my opinion, and if they keep doing this, it will be great and there is no real need for a sublist when you can make a variety of lists with one. The problem is that people "believe" there are fewer options or less character, when in fact there isn't.

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 10:22 AM

The Eldar sublists were used by me to get a specific list that I couldn't get with the normal codex. I played mostly aspect warriors, or sometimes liked to field a lot of wraithbone constructs. The new eldar book allows me to do both in one army list. I can't say I am playing an Alaitoc or Iyanden list anymore, but I don't need to. I still get the same effect from the same list. All they did was allow more options from one list, and made it rather balanced as far as I can see at the moment. Not a bad thing in my opinion, and if they keep doing this, it will be great and there is no real need for a sublist when you can make a variety of lists with one. The problem is that people "believe" there are fewer options or less character, when in fact there isn't.

You're really harping on difference of opinion.  I don't think disenchanted eldar players are harping on lack of diversity, but the absence of notable improvement to certain units which have already languished for an entire edition - We'll look at a few examples:

Wraithguard have no clear purpose.  They have a powerful gun, but few shots.  They can be transported, but in small numbers.  They can be taken as troops on foot, but are slow with short range.  They are fairly resilient against small arms, but die horribly to the anti-MEQ proliferation of special/heavy weapons due to a lack of invulnerable save.

The Fireprism is a direct-fire skimming vehicle with AV12.  While it is much improved over its 3rd edition version, and can be a strong VP denier due to its high survivability, -EVERY- result on the glance table stops it from participating in the battle.  For straight VP denial, there are other easily hidden models who do not tie up valuable HS slots.

Swooping Hawks - A unit which is equipped with two diametrically opposed roles:  Mowing down light infantry at range and killing vehicles in HTH.  The real truth is that they are too expensive to be a good throwaway cruise-missile type unit, and their guns are too weak to act effectively as a harassment unit.  Skyleap, while looking cool on paper, merely dilutes them further by reducing the number of shots you get (since you skyleap before shooting).

This effect isn't limited to the Eldar Codex either.  Gun-drone squadrons, Lictors, Marine Veterans, Landspeeder Typhoons and Techmarines were largely worthless in 3rd edition, and continue to be largely worthless in 4th because they are either too weak, or too expensive, or are inefficient at filling their assigned roles. 

The Krootox on the other hand was an example of how to turn a terrible unit into a usable one... the other stuff seems to be mostly spraying perfume on poop and hoping that players wouldn't notice.

Of course, all this is a matter of opinion.  One might think that Gun Drones are the bee's knees and that GW is churning out a perfectly servicable product with a good corporate plan...  However, I can say from experience, some players aren't willing to wait another 10 years for their Iyanden army to become playable again.

I actually haven't heard those issues, and in fact have seen quite a few wraithguard on the tabletop as a fire soak unit.

And in fact the things I do hear from people is they hate the loss of the Eldar codex that helped define or push them into certain roles or give them certain advantages that they now have lost in the new dex. I don't hear them complain much about the units within the new Eldar dex as much as each seems to have their place. The whole Fire Prizm issue is more an issue that the Falcon is so much better, than the Prizm not being good enough.

The real question is what is to fast for a new edition. do you base it upon the 5% or less that continue to play the game after a 18 months or the 95% who stay in the hobby less than 18 months. The marketers know that most of the money comes from sale of new product to the under 18 monthers. Face facts guys, if you are on boards like this you aren't the target audience, and your feelings matter little to the marketers.

Most of GWs money comes from selling figures that they know will never be cut from the sprew or see a lick of paint. We want content, but shiny catalogues with oooh and ahhh images sell more to the short timers than useful rules and background story.

The place where GW and other companys are currentl falling short is in attracting new customers. This shows in the sales conditions accross the hobby as a whole. They seem to have forgotten that if you realy on advertising by word of mouth, you need to make sure your current customers have nice things to say about you.

*holds up GW financial reports for the last couple years*

I think they just might be wrong.......You can keep saying "we're not the target audience" but judging by units sold, their idea isnt panning out. At all. YOu might want to face that fact: if you drive away loyal customers of 5-10 years.....you BETTER be able to recruit a hell of alot more to replace them.

And their not. Its pretty clear in black and white.





Says you. GW might be falling down on that front, but many others are not. PP's a year ago saw FOUR times as many sales as the year before, they only expected twice.

Fact is, if you treat people right AND have a good product, they'll stick around.

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 11:36 AM
I actually haven't heard those issues, and in fact have seen quite a few wraithguard on the tabletop as a fire soak unit.

Well... as with any unit, utility depends on the environment. 

The way I see it (and would play against it).  10 dudes plus their minders is around 400 points projecting a serious threat to vehicles (i.e. most likely kill or maim said vehicle) within 18" and a moderate threat to infantry within 18" (i.e. good for around 5-6 MEQ).  (I've intentionally discounted the 5 man teams since they can't reliably harm infantry at all due to too few shots and too few attacks in HTH).

Outside of 18", there's pretty much no reason to shoot them, especially if there's better targets for your heavy and middle strength weapons.  At mid-range 24-18, plasma will significantly thin the squad.  I'm not sure that only being a "bullet catching tarpit" is such a great thing. 

Finally, the 18" sweet spot is also charge range for most models.  As such, improperly moving that unwieldy unit means that your bullet-catchers may be tarpitted in HTH (should their opponent wish to halt their shooting).

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 11:36 AM

And in fact the things I do hear from people is they hate the loss of the Eldar codex that helped define or push them into certain roles or give them certain advantages that they now have lost in the new dex. I don't hear them complain much about the units within the new Eldar dex as much as each seems to have their place. The whole Fire Prizm issue is more an issue that the Falcon is so much better, than the Prizm not being good enough.

 At any rate, anger at change is something that players deal with.  Good players adjust to the changes and adapt.  However, just because good players -can- adapt doesn't mean that these players should lie down and accept that:

1.  GW did not rebalance the system on the launch of 4th edition and will not address certain codecies indefinitely.  Finally, when they do, they may arbitrarily discontinue certain army lists as they see fit (broken or not) - On topic - There has been discussion that this may happen to some Chaos lists.

2.  GW will continue to write poorly edited rules and publish barely playtested armylists at a glacial pace, while flooding the market with 5x more power armor codices than are actually necessary.

3.  GW will continue to raise prices for the above ruleset to go with their fantastic(ly expensive) new sculpts.  (Damn you new Eldar and Fantasy models!)

I think it has nothing to do with being able to adapt tactically, and rather, the limits of tolerating GW's poor support of the customer base which helped them get where they are.  Contrast the excitement surrounding 40k at the 3rd ed launch with the 4th ed.  I think many players have gone from disatisfied to completely fed up.  In the case of the later, even releases like WHFB 7th Ed and Eldar is not enough to bring them back.

At any rate, your view on the matter is so complely opposite to mine, I think this will be my last post on the matter in this thread.

Meh, I can't agree...

I can certainly see how a more free form game got more concrete. When I used to run 2nd Ed DnD, we always had some sort of big sheet of paper to draw a map, and to mark where the players were going. There was some concept of scale, but I'd mostly just get the player's intended goal (run over here and attack) and then say if they could or not (you can only get to here). In 3.#, there's a grid, you can move a specific distance, attacks of opportunity are important, etc. It's more rigid in that respect, but it's ultimately doing a better job at what I had been doing all along. In fact, in 3rd I created a whiteboard with the 1" grid on it, and I'd draw the scene out on that, but now it could be to accurate scale, and the players could know where they could go without asking.

So, I don't think that places less emphasis on imagination. You're probably just jaded, as all RPG players become. You learn the system and want to game it, rather than get immersed like you did the first times you played. But, if the DM is good, if he handles the rules, translates them into real world verbiage for the players, and keeps them focused on the story, it's really a better system, since it makes things less arbitrary, and allows for realistic outcomes that are also consistent.

The simplification of the system, the "d20 does it all" approach also makes things quicker, and lets you focus on the story. I was always struggling to find a good way to simulate basic actions in 2nd. In 3rd, it's almost always a clearcut d20 roll that resolves things in a satisfying way.

We should bear all the in mind when it comes to 40K, too. The more jaded you become with the game, the harder it will be to impress and satisfy you. The better/worse the community you play in, the less you'll enjoy yourself, and thus the less you'll applaud the game itself. If you had a great DM, I think you'd think 3.# was great too. If you have a great place to play 40K/Fantasy, I think you'll consider the game, or the current version, to be great as well.



More important still is what is the point of a new edition? I'm not sure I can see why DnD would need a new edition. I have a lot of faith in the guys doing the design for DnD, so if they think so, go for it, but I don't see the benefits. 40K/Fantasy, on the other hand, seem to need some sort of help.

Posted By lone pilgrim on 01/12/2007 2:56 PM
All future codexes are going to be in the same format as the Eldar codex. GW want to move away from traits, doctrines and sublists.

You have got to be kidding me.

It seems GW wants to move into administration as quickly as possible. Yay for corporate apathy!

Posted By ph34r on 01/16/2007 4:32 PM

Posted By lone pilgrim on 01/12/2007 2:56 PM
All future codexes are going to be in the same format as the Eldar codex. GW want to move away from traits, doctrines and sublists.

You have got to be kidding me.

Yea, to be honest, if GW neutered Chaos like they did with Eldar, I'd simply quit. I'm not saying they're going to, infact rumors of 5 Chaos Codicies seem to contradict that idea quite a bit. If I can't play my IW and my cult armies, there's really no reason for me to play Chaos. I don't want to play a vanilla Chaos list, at all, period, and to be forced to would make me sell all of my models and focus entirely on Confrontation (well, maybe Infinity if that pans out to be a decent game).

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 10:22 AM
All they did was allow more options from one list, and made it rather balanced as far as I can see at the moment. Not a bad thing in my opinion, and if they keep doing this, it will be great and there is no real need for a sublist when you can make a variety of lists with one. The problem is that people "believe" there are fewer options or less character, when in fact there isn't.

Except you can't make Black Guardians.  Or a Court of the Young King.  Or a Spear of Khaine.  Or a Seer Council (it's not a Seer Council if there's only 1 Farseer!).  Had they included all of those then I would agree with you.  Losing options is NOT fun.

Likewise it was not fun when Raven Guard/White Scars lost their jump pack command squads/veteran bike squads and unrestricted access to Drop Pods/Rhinos.  And it's gonna be even less fun when they release the SM Codex Redux and retcon all of them into different-colored Ultramarines.

I'm gonna be totally pissed if the 4 Chaos Codices are Codex: Chaos Undivided, Codex: Khorne, Codex: Slaanesh, Codex: Nurgle, and Codex: Iron Warriors.

Perturabo would be an awesome Chaos god.

Talking to the wrong one here. Black Guardians are just that, black guardians to me. I never liked guardians in the first place. If you like the theme, don't worry about the drop in skill... Court of the Young King was an overpriced exarch slaughterhouse, Seer Council wildly imbalanced. Can't say I ever saw a Spear of Khaine....

I don't really see those options as a loss. I saw black guardians and Seer Councils, which to me seemed imbalanced. But that is my opinion.

With the new Eldar dex I see a lot more options, a lot more ways to play Eldar. But, we have had that discussion over and over....

Discussion?  Please.  You're just repeating the same goddamn thing over and over again irrespective of what the other posters are contributing.

1.  I never used said insert unit so I don't miss them - or insert unit is cheesy, so its good that its gone.
2.  I often see insert unit in my gaming group so they are not useless, or have not been nerfed.

Leading to the conclusion:

3.  Player who complain are a bunch of stinky-pants since there are lots of options in the new Eldar codex.  GW is going the right way in codex writing.

That's not discussion.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/16/2007 7:28 PM

Likewise it was not fun when Raven Guard/White Scars lost their jump pack command squads/veteran bike squads and unrestricted access to Drop Pods/Rhinos.  And it's gonna be even less fun when they release the SM Codex Redux and retcon all of them into different-colored Ultramarines.

I agree 100% here.  My Salamanders were not only gutted, they were ignored, had their special rules given away to everyone else, and still haven't received as much as a shoulderpad's worth of attention.  I'd settle for Juan Diaz redoing his Chaplain Xavier, well I'd almost settle for that.  I'd still want a metal shoulderpad!

There seems to be two elements when it comes to Codex Eldar...

Are they nerfed? -and- Is the new layout a good basis for future Codices.

Regarding the former, I don't consider screams of "nerf" to mean much of anything. The way people turn the internet into a river of whine, all that's left is to average it all out. I see some people saying they're nerfed, some saying they're fine. To me that indicates good balance. People like Flavius say they're winning a ton with Eldar. Others insist they've been screwed. They look like a fine list to me, enough power, lots of options, all pretty well balanced.

But... That's not related to item two, the layout. I personally don't like it very much. As people have said, it's a pain to flip back and forth to see if a power/item is worth the cost, or if a model has Fleet of Foot, or what his basic wargear is. I'm not sure why this layout decision had to be made as it was, but it seems wrong to me, and I see a strong echo of that in these forums.

All things considered, if I had to choose a well organized Codex or a fun, balanced list, I'd take the latter. Poor organization is a hassle I can learn to live with. A poorly designed list will always be a poorly designed list. Of course, I shouldn't have to make that choice. The books should be well organized and have good rules content as well.

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 01/17/2007 9:28 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/16/2007 7:28 PM

Likewise it was not fun when Raven Guard/White Scars lost their jump pack command squads/veteran bike squads and unrestricted access to Drop Pods/Rhinos.  And it's gonna be even less fun when they release the SM Codex Redux and retcon all of them into different-colored Ultramarines.

I agree 100% here.  My Salamanders were not only gutted, they were ignored, had their special rules given away to everyone else, and still haven't received as much as a shoulderpad's worth of attention.  I'd settle for Juan Diaz redoing his Chaplain Xavier, well I'd almost settle for that.  I'd still want a metal shoulderpad!

And I want an Ork codex that actually has some form of Clans.  I want specific characters for each Clan.  I want Goffs that look like Goffs, Skarboyz that look like Skarboyz, Snakebitez that look like Snakebitez.  I want Ork warbikes and vehicles that come with better looking Orks instead of Gorkamorka orks.  I want plastic Grots, a Shokk Attak Gun, and Jump packs that explode on impact.

But I'm not going to get it any time soon.  And with all due respect to everyone else that complains that their niche Space Marine Army just isn't special any more because some other Chapter has their special rules... then I say "Quit your     " 

You can at least paint up an army, model yourself a shoulder pad (use magnets!) and easily convert them when your niche chapter codex comes out.  Neither Orks nor Dark Eldar can do that.  You can use special Space Marine rules. Orks and DE don't even have a recent codex.

And anyone who raises the same complaints about Eldar can just remove "Space Marine" and put "Eldar" into my little rant.

My point being... maybe instead of complaining about all the little things you want, that your army should have, maybe you should be happy that your army (or a similar army) has a useable codex and new models, while many other armies do not.

-Jmz

wow
I must be the only one, but
I Love the layout of the new Eldar codex! and I do hope they switch all the new codexes to that format.
Characters right in the army list.
wargear descriptions right in the unit entry, I thought it was great.

Some Eldar units definitely got nerfed, mostly those that had it coming.  I don't have much sympathy for the player who no longer has a way to use his 35 man seer council.  The designers screwed up by not putting a cap on that originally.  That was the problem with the variant lists.  There were some options that were insanely good and others that were pure crap.  5 man black guardian squads with starcannons and BS4 War Walkers with six starcannon shots made taking anything else foolish.  Another example was the Saim Hann ability to take Vypers as troops = 9 individual Vypers with Star Cannons.   Now the good units are a bit more diversified and Saim Hann players actually need and have a reason to use jetbikes.  The people who got nerfed by the Eldar codex were those that built their armies around one trick ponies.  Ulthwe players got it pretty bad, mostly because 10 B3 guardians with a two shot starcannon aren't very scary.  I feel bad about that somewhat, but overall the codex was an improvement IMHO.  I'd much rather have one Codex that is balanced and a little bland than 4 Codexii that encourage players to play one identical uniformly killy min/maxed army. 

Posted By keezus on 01/17/2007 6:10 AM

1.  I never used said insert unit so I don't miss them - or insert unit is cheesy, so its good that its gone.
2.  I often see insert unit in my gaming group so they are not useless, or have not been nerfed.

Leading to the conclusion:

3.  Player who complain are a bunch of stinky-pants since there are lots of options in the new Eldar codex.  GW is going the right way in codex writing.

Hahaha! This kind of non-critical thought is so true! It's not just one poster here, a lot of other people are guilty of this as well, particularly on other boards where heavy GW kool-aid drinking group think has taken a firm hold (B&C anyone?). These are the same people that will tell you the new Eldar codex has even more options than the previous versions despite being patently false.

It's this line of lowered expectation thinking that GW has latched onto and year after year gives us less options, are more restrictive, continue to ignore long languishing units that have long been overpriced, underpowered, or both etc... The upcoming DA dex sounds like it is rife with this drek where GW is pandering to mewling idiots: "Oh noes! Assault Cannons ar SOOO cheezy!!! WHAAAAAAAH!!! Why can't mai SPaSe Mahrienze do that?!?!"

"Oh noes! Assault Cannons ar SOOO cheezy!!! WHAAAAAAAH!!! Why can't mai SPaSe Mahrienze do that?!?!"

Sigged!

CK

The problem with the sub lists is that some of them became the main list. At the 40k GT heat 2 I saw as many Iron Warrior lists as other Chaos lists, and everyone knows about the Ulthwe lists before the new Eldar codex. GW don't want this to happen again. GW probably think they can cut out around 30 army lists by dumping the peripheral lists, while keeping a tighter control over the rest. The supplements will not be used to introduce new units, sub-lists or game rules. They will be like the cityfight codex where you have strategy counters, campaign rules, etc.

I remember that Jervis was very enthusiastic over the Eldar codex format, and said that it was the result of much discussion and thought, so I'm pretty sure it is the way it's going to be.

Lone Pilgrim:

This might come across as overly sour, but all that means is that if you are part of the T4 power-armor crowd with "Marine" in your codex name somewhere, you get 5 codecies.  Everyone else gets all their stuff shoe-horned into one.

That doesn't say much for dropping support of the sub-lists.  Rather, they are restricting support of sublists to the two armies they think will drive their sales.

This is akin to South American farmers clear-cutting (or burning) forest so that you can grow coffee or some-other percieved cash cow.  While it might work in the short-run, it just isn't sustainable... and I think the short run has expired for GW.

As long as marines sell, GW will support them first and foremost. So blame the consumers for being far more interested in buying marines over the years.

Care to make your case?

As far as I can remember, no units were removed from the Codex, and Harlequins and Autarchs were added. Also, I think people tend to mean "more useable options." Eldar had a reputation as a list that could do well, but had a lot of useless units that weren't a part of a winning army. From what I've seen (and heard) there's much more balance between the units.

With the addition of Craftworld Eldar, I can certainly see your point. But that's two books, and I can't say that I see the departure of Craftworld Eldar as a bad thing (Alaitoc Rangers being reason enough).

Posted By deitpike on 01/17/2007 10:47 AM
wow
I must be the only one, but
I Love the layout of the new Eldar codex! and I do hope they switch all the new codexes to that format.
Characters right in the army list.
wargear descriptions right in the unit entry, I thought it was great.

youre right, it is great.

two seperate entries for no reason is not.

Right...

What I'd like to see from them is two seperate entires, but one fluff, one rules. Hell, I'd like to see two seperate sections of the codex altogether, one for fluff, one for rules. As it stands, they've got two seperate entires, one for fluff and rules, one for points. No. Not good.

Fluff section... Rules section... Please.

In the fluff section they can talk about how Singing Spears are wonderful ancestral weapons that yodel for the blood of their foes, or whatever else. In the rules section, just say what it does and what it costs. No adjectives at all. Just "two handed power weapon, can be thrown in shooting phase, etc. etc. +3 points." Standardize the languge, and the way things are said.

It's not hard. Go back and look at all the rules, figure out what constructs exist, and create a single official description. Always use that. No fluff wrapper on it.

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 10:36 PM
Black Guardians are just that, black guardians to me. I never liked guardians in the first place. If you like the theme, don't worry about the drop in skill... Court of the Young King was an overpriced exarch slaughterhouse, Seer Council wildly imbalanced. Can't say I ever saw a Spear of Khaine....

That's completely besides the point.  There are better ways of rebalancing a unit than COMPLETELY ELIMINATING IT.

Posted By Jmznudd on 01/17/2007 10:25 AM

And I want an Ork codex that actually has some form of Clans.  I want specific characters for each Clan.  I want Goffs that look like Goffs, Skarboyz that look like Skarboyz, Snakebitez that look like Snakebitez.  I want Ork warbikes and vehicles that come with better looking Orks instead of Gorkamorka orks.  I want plastic Grots, a Shokk Attak Gun, and Jump packs that explode on impact.

Whoever said Orks shouldn't get those things?  I'd love for Orks to get rules for the different clans.  And I'd love for Eldar to get rules for the main craftworlds and for marines to get rules for Chapters of Legend.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 2:17 PM
As it stands, they've got two seperate entires, one for fluff and rules, one for points. No. Not good.

But that gives them flexibility to have wargear cost different pts depending on who takes it.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/17/2007 2:40 PM

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 10:36 PM
Black Guardians are just that, black guardians to me. I never liked guardians in the first place. If you like the theme, don't worry about the drop in skill... Court of the Young King was an overpriced exarch slaughterhouse, Seer Council wildly imbalanced. Can't say I ever saw a Spear of Khaine....

That's completely besides the point.  There are better ways of rebalancing a unit than COMPLETELY ELIMINATING IT.

Agreed. It smacks of laziness on the part of the design team.

"Oh well, we cant be bothered to try to balance that out, so we will just have to drop it. Yeah, we know you spent money and time making those units, but...*Lilly tomlin voice of the phone operator*  We're GW and we do what we want. *snort*"

Sorry, but whether you feel the unit was worth keeping or not is irrelevant, toreador. There are plenty more people who have made such units that feel quite different.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 1:19 PM
Care to make your case?

With the addition of Craftworld Eldar, I can certainly see your point. But that's two books, and I can't say that I see the departure of Craftworld Eldar as a bad thing (Alaitoc Rangers being reason enough).

I'll let Abby make the case for me:

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/16/2007 7:28 PM

Except you can't make Black Guardians.  Or a Court of the Young King.  Or a Spear of Khaine.  Or a Seer Council (it's not a Seer Council if there's only 1 Farseer!).  Had they included all of those then I would agree with you.  Losing options is NOT fun.

Likewise it was not fun when Raven Guard/White Scars lost their jump pack command squads/veteran bike squads and unrestricted access to Drop Pods/Rhinos.  And it's gonna be even less fun when they release the SM Codex Redux and retcon all of them into different-colored Ultramarines.

That said, I didn't specifically mention Craftworld Eldar, though I did imply them in my post. The loss of these units is yet another backhanded way of GW redacting units they pushed, then made illegal so people would have to buy more miniatures. If they were abusive (and I agree, v3 Alaitoc Rangers were annoying), fix the rules. Deleteing them isn't fixing them. 40 person Seer Council too much? Limit it to three, four or even five seers.

The point of all this isn't so much as what units were lost, but that it's a slap in the face for anyone that has spent a hundred dollars or more purchasing figures for a unit then taken just as much time cliping, building, converting and painting said figures (particularly if they do so to a high standard) and then after getting a few games in, are now told that unit is illegal. Couple this constant invalidating of unit options, whole units (or even armies....) and then add WYSIWYG and you have vast swathes of peoples collections being made worthless.

Think Shrike's lightning claw honor guard, I bet GW retcons them out and everyone that was enthusiastic enough to build 10 man LC jump pack honor guard squads are going to be out a lot of money, time and effort. It's just asinine for GW to suggest that they can't write some sort of toned down replacement rule that would allow those options to be used. Chapter Approved was wonderful for this, too bad they put the kibosh on it.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/17/2007 2:40 PM

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 10:36 PM
Black Guardians are just that, black guardians to me. I never liked guardians in the first place. If you like the theme, don't worry about the drop in skill... Court of the Young King was an overpriced exarch slaughterhouse, Seer Council wildly imbalanced. Can't say I ever saw a Spear of Khaine....

That's completely besides the point.  There are better ways of rebalancing a unit than COMPLETELY ELIMINATING IT.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Folks, we have a winner! Since Chambers & Haines "left" this seems to be the default "fix" by the tattered (and neutered?) remains of the design team. "Oh, it is so hard to figure out how to make this woefuly abusive unit balanced, lets just eliminate it, nobody likes it anyway, right guys?"

Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 2:17 PM

Fluff section... Rules section... Please.

In the fluff section they can talk about how Singing Spears are wonderful ancestral weapons that yodel for the blood of their foes, or whatever else. In the rules section, just say what it does and what it costs. No adjectives at all. Just "two handed power weapon, can be thrown in shooting phase, etc. etc. +3 points." Standardize the languge, and the way things are said.

It's not hard. Go back and look at all the rules, figure out what constructs exist, and create a single official description. Always use that. No fluff wrapper on it.

What's funny, is they could do this and have plenty of room for optional sublists in the back of the dex (like they did with a bunch of the v6 WHFB army books). An army list, devoid of all the fluff mumbo jumbo bs should take no more than 10 pages. In a 70 page book, that's a *lot* of room for fluff, cheat sheets (weapon lists, summaries, etc.. ) modeling, and sublists. With the eldar 'dex, I just get this overwhelming feeling they were padding space because they're all burnt out or something.

I can understand your point about models being illegal, and the player's time and effort being wasted. It doesn't seem as prevalent as you're suggesting though. Black Guardians can just be normal Guardians. The Court of the Young King can split up and join aspect squads. Etc.

The only one that really can't be re-used is the massive Seer Council, and you're suggesting it be reduced in size anyway. There's probably no way around that.

Ultimately it's hard for me to see how this isn't a case of them "fixing" the rules for the broken units. You can't take free, but better, Guardians any more. You can't take a ridiculous broken HQ. You can't kill your opponent before the game, and automatically pin his whole list, just cause... It seems to me like fixes, not like they banned all Striking Scorpions or something.

On top of that, I've seen very positive response to the idea that all future Codices will be meant for tournament play. Say what you will about GW's rules authoring capabilities, but the more variant lists, offshoot lists, campaign lists they make, the more chances for Alaitoc Rangers and Seer Councils. The more models you offer, the more combinations it creates, and the more possibilities for some unforseen super-combo. Yes, on some level that's a condemnation of their rules writing, but it's also a recognition that trying to keep all the units balanced, imagining EVERY tricky combination is hard. No matter who you are, it's hard.

Ultimately GW has to be realistic, too. They wrote Craftworld Eldar, they thought it was a good, fun book, it turned out to be a horrible abomination. Should they, in good conscience, try it again? Shouldn't we commend them for recognizing their error and not risking a repeat?

I mean, take a look at Craftworld Eldar... It's got the Disruption Table and it's got the Seer Council. One thin little book has two of the most broken lists in the past two Editions. Good riddance. For guys that love to take a dump on every Marine player who takes more than two Assault Cannons, you sure do have a lot of sympathy for the guys who abused the hell out of the Seer Council and Disruption Table.

Posted By Jmznudd on 01/17/2007 10:25 AM

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 01/17/2007 9:28 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/16/2007 7:28 PM

Likewise it was not fun when Raven Guard/White Scars lost their jump pack command squads/veteran bike squads and unrestricted access to Drop Pods/Rhinos.  And it's gonna be even less fun when they release the SM Codex Redux and retcon all of them into different-colored Ultramarines.

I agree 100% here.  My Salamanders were not only gutted, they were ignored, had their special rules given away to everyone else, and still haven't received as much as a shoulderpad's worth of attention.  I'd settle for Juan Diaz redoing his Chaplain Xavier, well I'd almost settle for that.  I'd still want a metal shoulderpad!

And I want an Ork codex that actually has some form of Clans.  I want specific characters for each Clan.  I want Goffs that look like Goffs, Skarboyz that look like Skarboyz, Snakebitez that look like Snakebitez.  I want Ork warbikes and vehicles that come with better looking Orks instead of Gorkamorka orks.  I want plastic Grots, a Shokk Attak Gun, and Jump packs that explode on impact.

But I'm not going to get it any time soon.  And with all due respect to everyone else that complains that their niche Space Marine Army just isn't special any more because some other Chapter has their special rules... then I say "Quit your     " 

You can at least paint up an army, model yourself a shoulder pad (use magnets!) and easily convert them when your niche chapter codex comes out.  Neither Orks nor Dark Eldar can do that.  You can use special Space Marine rules. Orks and DE don't even have a recent codex.

And anyone who raises the same complaints about Eldar can just remove "Space Marine" and put "Eldar" into my little rant.

My point being... maybe instead of complaining about all the little things you want, that your army should have, maybe you should be happy that your army (or a similar army) has a useable codex and new models, while many other armies do not.

-Jmz

Hahahha- well I'm the President of the Brian Nelson is a sculpting god club.  Guess what my favourite army is?  Just ;cause I like my sallies doesnt' mean I like them more then my Ork/Orcs!

They're cool because they're green!

Another problem is that with the lack of editing that the GW books go through, we likely to get the same problem with the DA Codex as the Eldar Codex, that being page references to other rules that don't actually take you to the rule they're referencing.

We shouldn't have to flip back and forth between two parts of a Codex to build a single unit.

In all the 2nd Ed Codices, you had the fluff section, which had detailed entries for each unit, their stats, and any special rules. No points of squad sizes or weapon options or anything. Then you had the list, which had the unit, all their options and points costs, squad sizes, weapon options, everything that wasn't fluff. Special Rules might be referenced.

The new Eldar Codex is like that, but splits up each unit entry over two pages at opposite ends of the book. I don't know why they thought that was a good method.

BYE

Keezus, you also read that it was my opinion. I don't see it as a great loss as a good part of those lists caused a lot of imbalances in the game. Not just cheesy, but downright broken. I tended to shy away from the lists for just that reason.

I also see that in the new Eldar codex you can pretty much make any of the lists that were in the Craftworld codex barring a few things here and there. They also added a bit more variety in changing around the list and point costs. To me there are many new options and ways to play one codex as opposed to the old codex with Codex Craftworld.
It was a wash to me. It tends that one persons idea of usefulness of a unit verses another's idea is always different. Environment and competition are two big factors.

So exactly how is the new Eldar dex less options nyarlathotep667? In making more units useful, wouldn't that by default make the list have more options? The fact that it can pretty much cover everything that was in the old dex AND in the craftworld dex in one list make it have more options? And don't tell me in all your great wisdom that the Court of the Young King was a great buy, or actually useful. Ok, so Iyanden list we lost nothing and actually gained Spirit Seers in the main list. Wild Riders can't be made as is, but now jetbikes are a lot cheaper to field and core, along with the Autarch, a new unit which can fill the role of the chief. Alaitoc can be fielded, but without the cheesy rules everyone hated. Path-Finders now added to the basic list. An eldar list can now be fielded with aspects as the entire force. The Court just isn't efficient, but may be a loss to some people. Most aspects in the new list are much better though. Ulthwe loses Black Guardians. Ok, paint your guardians Black. I never could see the balance in that list. Better guardians for no points AND the seer council. You can still have 2 Farseers in a squad of 3-10 Warlocks. You just can't have the massive 5 Farseers with the unlimited warlock pack. So we can make most of what was in the codex list, and combined with the fact that most units in the book are better at what they do now than in the old book makes it look to me like they have more options. Throw in the Autarch and the Harlequins along with Phoenix Lords being part of HQ, and I just don't see your point. But, it might just be that I am blinded by my worship of GW or something...

It looks to me like they took everything they had, then balanced it out and put it in one book. But again, just my opinion.

And it doesn't take much to notice that all you two do is female dog about almost everything GW does. Doesn't matter if it is good or bad. You have the same knee jerk reactions as the other half of us that like a lot of GW product.

And I am sorry, but if you think that assault cannons or the amount of them that can be fielded in the basic marine dex is balanced, then I do know you are definitely in another world than I am.

And I do agree H.B.M.C. The layout seems fine for WHFB, but it doesn't seem to translate as well for 40k. But who uses a book to make lists now anyway?

Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 7:07 PM

On top of that, I've seen very positive response to the idea that all future Codices will be meant for tournament play. Say what you will about GW's rules authoring capabilities, but the more variant lists, offshoot lists, campaign lists they make, the more chances for Alaitoc Rangers and Seer Councils. The more models you offer, the more combinations it creates, and the more possibilities for some unforseen super-combo. Yes, on some level that's a condemnation of their rules writing, but it's also a recognition that trying to keep all the units balanced, imagining EVERY tricky combination is hard. No matter who you are, it's hard.

Ultimately GW has to be realistic, too. They wrote Craftworld Eldar, they thought it was a good, fun book, it turned out to be a horrible abomination. Should they, in good conscience, try it again? Shouldn't we commend them for recognizing their error and not risking a repeat?

Future codices meant for tournament play. Its a great idea, it really is, because to have a set of codices for tourney play implies that the rules are sound enough to stand against the most minimal scrutiny, and more.

That simply isnt the case. They fully stated that this game is meant for a "beer and pretzels" atmosphere, not tourney play.

How do they expect to make tournament grade codices when the rules they base them upon is ambiguous to outright flawed?

I agree variant lists make tournament play harder to keep track of. But, once again, they are trying to fix something rather than make it right in the first place. They should have learned that from third ed. You cant fix the base of a pillar that is broken, you have to completly remake it.

What is my point?

Make a new edition. "4th" (or revamped 3rd ed, whatever the hell GW wants to call it) is the best yet, but (speaking as a MTG player) is by no means tournament capable. Even Yakface who lauds 4th ed as the best yet (which it is) has a FAQ longer than GW cares to recognize. GW is going from stating their game is meant for light hearted play  "beer and pretzels"  to proclaiming that it is "Tournament ready" just makes no sense and everyone will suffer for it. Zero to stupid in less than 60 seconds.

Do it right or dont do it at all. $hit or get off the damned pot!

That entails making a new edition ASAP.

  Honestly, I don't know why anyone is surprised that the Eldar lost units between editions.  Look how many they lost between 2 and 3.  I don't own the codices, but I seem to recall Pirates, Exodites, Harlequins, Space Marine allies, Imperial Guard allies, Squat allies. 

  I play Spase Marinez (hurr).  I am not annoyed in the slightest that I can no longer officially field my Thudd Gun or Commissar Yarrick with my Ultramarines.  In the extremely unlikely event that I go to an official tournament, they can "count as" something, or I'll leave 'em at home. 

  Something written by Gav Thorpe (I know, I know) a year or two back said that the design team basically thought that the sublists were a Bad Idea because the constantly increasing number of army types made playtesting the various matchups a logarithmically increasing task.  Okay, I don't think he used that exact phrase.  Where am I going with this?  Oh, who cares, onward to better points:

  It might have been nice to have the "Court of the Young King" and the "Spear of Khaine" (what is that, anyway?) as "special character/units" a la the Ultramarines Honour Guard and Tyrannic War Vets, and Shrike's Wing.  Oh well.  Maybe next time. 

  My impression is that the new Eldar Codex was an improvement in that it made more units viable on the playing field.  Ever since the first Eldar craftworld list was released for Rogue Trader, the Eldar haven't exactly lacked for unit types.  However,  many of the units were completely useless.  While the new codex may have slightly reduced the total number of unit types available, it increased the number of viable units (while nerfing the most abusive/annoying choices).  I think that we will see much more variety on the battlefield when it comes to Eldar armies now than we did before. 

  On D&D...  I work in a bookstore, and we get people who are AD&D 1st edition fanatics, 2nd edition fanatics, and people who buy those interminable sourcebooks for 3.5 (what is it, two per month?).  I myself stopped with 3rd edition.  I couldn't really see any difference in 3.5 sufficient to warrant spending any money on it, and it makes it easy to resist buying the aforementioned interminable sourcebooks. 

  Damn, this post is just random scattershot musings, but that's what happens when you're responding to like six pages of posts: I think that the assault cannon should be nerfed.  It's not that I think that it's some horrendous, game-imbalancing thing.  It's that it is always to obvious choice.  It's both the best anti-infantry weapon for Marines, and the best anti-(light to medium)armour weapon for Marines.  Why take anything else? 


  I wouldn't be surprised if they got rid of Shrike's Wing, come to think of it.  There were a bunch of special characters in the "Realm of Chaos" boxed set (for...  5th edition WHFB?) that weren't brought into the next edition because they never made models for them. 

  And before anyone calls me an unthinking GW fanboy or some such nonsense, I quit buying GW for a decade over Epic 40,000.  You guys have it so easy now!    Wahhh!  You can't use your Spear of Khaine (whatever that is!) anymore!  Well, I can't used my Squats anymore!  Any of them! 

Posted By lone pilgrim on 01/17/2007 12:42 PM
The problem with the sub lists is that some of them became the main list. At the 40k GT heat 2 I saw as many Iron Warrior lists as other Chaos lists, and everyone knows about the Ulthwe lists before the new Eldar codex. GW don't want this to happen again. GW probably think they can cut out around 30 army lists by dumping the peripheral lists, while keeping a tighter control over the rest. The supplements will not be used to introduce new units, sub-lists or game rules. They will be like the cityfight codex where you have strategy counters, campaign rules, etc.

I remember that Jervis was very enthusiastic over the Eldar codex format, and said that it was the result of much discussion and thought, so I'm pretty sure it is the way it's going to be.

And that has immediately removed strong revenue generators from me. No WDs, no Chapter Approved books, no mini-codices sparking a new list.  After all, from the looks of it the new lists coming from the main codex are 50% marines. Thats an oustounding meh from me.

Posted By Hellfury on 01/18/2007 12:56 AM

Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 7:07 PM

On top of that, I've seen very positive response to the idea that all future Codices will be meant for tournament play. Say what you will about GW's rules authoring capabilities, but the more variant lists, offshoot lists, campaign lists they make, the more chances for Alaitoc Rangers and Seer Councils. The more models you offer, the more combinations it creates, and the more possibilities for some unforseen super-combo. Yes, on some level that's a condemnation of their rules writing, but it's also a recognition that trying to keep all the units balanced, imagining EVERY tricky combination is hard. No matter who you are, it's hard.

Ultimately GW has to be realistic, too. They wrote Craftworld Eldar, they thought it was a good, fun book, it turned out to be a horrible abomination. Should they, in good conscience, try it again? Shouldn't we commend them for recognizing their error and not risking a repeat?

Future codices meant for tournament play. Its a great idea, it really is, because to have a set of codices for tourney play implies that the rules are sound enough to stand against the most minimal scrutiny, and more.

That simply isnt the case. They fully stated that this game is meant for a "beer and pretzels" atmosphere, not tourney play.

How do they expect to make tournament grade codices when the rules they base them upon is ambiguous to outright flawed?

I agree variant lists make tournament play harder to keep track of. But, once again, they are trying to fix something rather than make it right in the first place. They should have learned that from third ed. You cant fix the base of a pillar that is broken, you have to completly remake it.

What is my point?

Make a new edition. "4th" (or revamped 3rd ed, whatever the hell GW wants to call it) is the best yet, but (speaking as a MTG player) is by no means tournament capable. Even Yakface who lauds 4th ed as the best yet (which it is) has a FAQ longer than GW cares to recognize. GW is going from stating their game is meant for light hearted play  "beer and pretzels"  to proclaiming that it is "Tournament ready" just makes no sense and everyone will suffer for it. Zero to stupid in less than 60 seconds.

Do it right or dont do it at all. $hit or get off the damned pot!

That entails making a new edition ASAP.

Now lets be fair here.  For tournament play they at least put out their own FAQ's and rulings that are specific to their tournaments.  Sure some people may not like the way they went with rules for the UK GT's, and I'm sure there will be *female dog*ing about the US GT Rules FAQ when it comes out, but they're cleaning it up and they'll have Judges to rule things for bad situations IF they come up (which is not that often from what I've been able to tell).

Adepticon, the Necro, etc all have their own FAQ's on how to resolve issues with the rules to take it from the "Beer & Pretzels" setup to a tournament setup.  Playing this game at a tournament isn't the most complicated thing in the world, sure you can have some hiccups but most of the time it seems to get along just fine.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 7:07 PM

Say what you will about GW's rules authoring capabilities, but the more variant lists, offshoot lists, campaign lists they make, the more chances for Alaitoc Rangers and Seer Councils. The more models you offer, the more combinations it creates, and the more possibilities for some unforseen super-combo. Yes, on some level that's a condemnation of their rules writing, but it's also a recognition that trying to keep all the units balanced, imagining EVERY tricky combination is hard. No matter who you are, it's hard.   

What Phryxis said.

Posted By Hellfury on 01/18/2007 12:56 AM

GW is going from stating their game is meant for light hearted play  "beer and pretzels"  to proclaiming that it is "Tournament ready" just makes no sense and everyone will suffer for it. Zero to stupid in less than 60 seconds.

I think you are correct.

But let me ask a heretical question - has 40k ever been 'tournament ready' at any point throughout it's editions? I've seen 'em all and remember that Army Lists have always been full of problems, and that was outside of the tournament context.

Asking a more abstract question, what is it that other games systems do 'right' to make them work well in tournament play? Or is it the case that there are complaints about every game? Benchmarking agaionst your peers is a good way to see how to do something better - who can GW learn from in this area?
 

50% of new lists? Look again. If you say MEQ, then it's 71% (and that's not including Codex: Xenos Hunters, which will in all likelihood have some MEQ elements in it).

And there's nothing but MEQs in 2007. Un-freakin-believable.

But it gets even worse when you look at the big picture .

Until now, we had a 7/2/6 (or 47%/13%/40% if you prefer) split on Codici. Slightly weighted in favour of MEQs and very unpopular.

Now, however, the balance has shifted. It's now going to be 11/3/6 (or 55%/15%/30%). So more MEQ and less variety. Yawn.

All those Chaos/Marine Codici and yet they couldn't include Craftworlds in the Eldar Codex because that would be 'too complicated'? Someone should tell GW that there's a big difference between complicated and complex.

And doing away with the Doctrine/Trait system? As far as my experience goes, those were (aside from a few hitches) one of the most popular innovations GW has come up with in the last decade.

Thank the heavens I'm working on my last 40k army. (Well, we'll see.) Failing that, thank every god out there that we have Warmachine and Flames of War.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 2:17 PM

two seperate entries for no reason is not.

Right...

What I'd like to see from them is two seperate entires, but one fluff, one rules. Hell, I'd like to see two seperate sections of the codex altogether, one for fluff, one for rules. As it stands, they've got two seperate entires, one for fluff and rules, one for points. No. Not good.

Fluff section... Rules section... Please.

In the fluff section they can talk about how Singing Spears are wonderful ancestral weapons that yodel for the blood of their foes, or whatever else. In the rules section, just say what it does and what it costs. No adjectives at all. Just "two handed power weapon, can be thrown in shooting phase, etc. etc. +3 points." Standardize the languge, and the way things are said.

It's not hard. Go back and look at all the rules, figure out what constructs exist, and create a single official description. Always use that. No fluff wrapper on it.

Excellent and exactly on point. Its clear, little thumbthrough, and helps with FAQ/legal issues immensely.

Forgot to add this point to the discussion on codex lay out.

To my mind, the thumbing back and forth aspect of codices is problematic - annoying but not unworkable.

However, the base layout of the space marines dex, while effective & minimalistic, is complicated by having addendum rules in the forms of traits, and the Chaos dex of course, is worse again. It says 'take this simple list then apply all these additional rules to it' - presenting that with simple clarity is GW's issue.

OK, so that's been said.

What I would see as the way forward would be to have context sensitive information available for your base army list - when referencing the list, a way to see the modifiers or rules for that unit, be it for traits, doctrines, marks of chaos whatever. Of course, you won't get that in print format.

The solution I would advocate is to accept that print is a flawed mechanism and offer an electronic medium - army builder has been the Rolls Royce option for a few years now, and can cope with this sort of thing. I click on unit options and can have context sensitive information whenever I need it.

Of course, GW can't & won't step away from print - a lot of people still won't have easy access to PC's or Macs etc, plus GW wants people to browse a little in store, to allow them to see a unit description, get excited and buy a unit or two while they're there.

So, buy out or license Army Builder to become GW's e-codex solution. Each printed codex would contain a one use only code that is redeemable against the Army Builder GW product for that codex only. The buyer still pays for the printed version, GW still ssees their revenue stream, the trait/doctrine/mark user gets a slick & tailored army builder product that gives them the rules and list validation they need, in the format they want. Plus they can read the fluff in the printed dex.

Of course, that wold make too much sense.
Did I mention I rate Army Builder?

So, buy out or license Army Builder to become GW's e-codex solution. Each printed codex would contain a one use only code that is redeemable against the Army Builder GW product for that codex only. The buyer still pays for the printed version, GW still ssees their revenue stream, the trait/doctrine/mark user gets a slick & tailored army builder product that gives them the rules and list validation they need, in the format they want. Plus they can read the fluff in the printed dex.

Don't they already do that? http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=Individual&code=60040199004&orignav=9

Posted By SisterJoey on 01/18/2007 6:31 AM

Don't they already do that?

No, because that product is a limited thing of ugliness. AB is far better, and hence why I didn't even bother to mention GW's offering as an option.

Also note that GW gleefully charge you extra for that existing product. I am proposing codex purchase entitles you to the online equivalent at no further charge.

Posted By Tribune on 01/18/2007 6:41 AM

Posted By SisterJoey on 01/18/2007 6:31 AM

Don't they already do that?

No, because that product is a limited thing of ugliness. AB is far better, and hence why I didn't even bother to mention GW's offering as an option.

Also note that GW gleefully charge you extra for that existing product. I am proposing codex purchase entitles you to the online equivalent at no further charge.

Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean that it isn't out there for those who want it.  As for buying or licensing AB, why would Wolflair even bother?  GW in not the only game that uses it.  GW files aren't the only ones I have on my AB. 

As for getting online content at no charge, dream on.  GW will gleefully charge extra for that "free" content, and we all know it.  And Wolflair is not entirely innocent.  They require a yearly subscription if you want to continue to get updates for AB 3.  You need to update for each new army, as well as download the latest "bug fixes" that crop up.

I offered a solution, and the GW product did not fit that solution. I also said 'what are the chances?', so I think I got you covered on the low probability it would ever happen.

Your points on Wolflair charging are valid though, and that's what happens when I reference a company based on my experience of their older product, which I paid my one time license fee for and got to use indefinitely.

Let's take the specific type of e-codex solution out fo the discussion, to make it less contentious. Let's call it an online e-codex product and discuss the overall ideas, not get hung up on the detail. It's all a hypothetcial, but then this a discussion forum - the home of hype, rants and "what if's"

So, back on the topic, what if the printed codex buyer gets the e-codex at a small 'upgrade' charge?

Hi guys.
I've been reading this thread with interest.

The new schedule appalls me.
The two biggest problems in 40K at the moment that I see are the over-proliferation of space marines, chaos or otherwise and the lack of attention payed to just about every other faction.
I had quit 40K for a year and a bit, but recently got back into it to play with a friend.
Frustrated with the lack of attention to the Ork codex in particular (I'm a very long term Ork player, although I think Dark Eldar should be re-done first) I decided to be pro-active and re-write the damn thing myself for use in my games at home.

I hate seeing variant chapters come out, because I thought that was what the damn traits system was for . I'm so sick of bloody seeing them. I am furious that Tau, Templars and now Dark Angels got re-done before Orks. (Eldar I can live with)

...
There are no words to describe my frustration.
Plastic fecking devastators?
WTF?
How about models for the Ork special characters, for pain bosses, for skarboys, for flash gitz, for the various ways the vechicles are armed? Hell, how about a vehicle that isn't over a decade old? Models for lootas, models for battlewagons (I mean, they can do a venerable dread, but not the mainline Ork tank?). A kit for looted vechicles.
AAAAAARGH!
Of course space marines are popular!They are the only race mentioned on the rulebook cover, they've come with every boxed set, they are the "winners" in every diagram. They get more pages of advertisement than any other faction in the rulebook. they have a variant for every taste. If Orks were given that much attention everyone would play them too, and it'd be just as bad for the game.

Seriously makes me think that the company will change hands and the old gaurd can't be arsed putting any effort into new work before that happens.

Good Stuff Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 7:07 PM

Ultimately it's hard for me to see how this isn't a case of them "fixing" the rules for the broken units. You can't take free, but better, Guardians any more. You can't take a ridiculous broken HQ. You can't kill your opponent before the game, and automatically pin his whole list, just cause... It seems to me like fixes, not like they banned all Striking Scorpions or something.

What I was getting at is they could have easily toned down some of the abusive stuff and/or put them in as a "back of the book" list ala many v6 WHFB army books where they would still be available as "optional" (and possibly not tourney legal) but still easily available options for local club beer & pretzels play. Instead, they were eliminated completely, something which just smacks of laziness and continues to reinforce an image of a design team with a terrible work ethic.

As Mauleed would say, they do just enough to get by. Unfortunately for GW, just enough isn't cutting it. Players are sick and tired of being sick and tired of seeing yet another Spase Mahrienz release (I am, and I'm, or was, a marine player) while Orks get pushed back, again, while other armies with codices released within the past four years get their second one. They are tired of seeing some unit they spent loads of money and time putting together eliminated for no good reason.

It's not like rules for these figures/units/armies can't be put out as optional, look at WHFB's Ravening hordes. Chaos Dwarves, who don't even have any current release figures (outside of the Hellcannon), still have an army list available vis a vis the Ravening Hordes (though I'm not sure where they stand in v7). It's like that very beaten dead horse, the Squats, why was it so hard to put out just some Ravening Hordes style list, absent of any fluff and just the bare necessities to play it? It's not like GW couldn't have said that they had zero plans to revisit the army and that once the existing product was out of stock, that was it. Rules =/= miniature support.

Posted By SisterJoey on 01/18/2007 6:59 AM
And Wolflair is not entirely innocent.  They require a yearly subscription if you want to continue to get updates for AB 3.  You need to update for each new army, as well as download the latest "bug fixes" that crop up.

Bzzzt! Wrong, you need the yearly subscription only if you want the auto updates. Without it you can still manually update AB as they come available by downloading them at the appropriate websites. Some lists aren't even put up for for auto-updates and have to be downloaded and manually installed (which is all point and click anyway).

That said, I don't think GW would ever put up an eCodex that wasn't already published elsewhere and wasn't put out on a locked .pdf (ie: what they already do now).

All this talk does remind me how much awesomeness Chambers & Haines brought to 40k and how the beancounters have turned it into an unplayable mess that makes nobody happy.

No they haven't.



Its really about attitude. Privateer Press, Mongoose, Battle Front, etc are selling games. GW sells toys, the rules are just a means to an end.

Posted By Crimson Devil on 01/18/2007 11:08 AM
Its really about attitude. Privateer Press, Mongoose, Battle Front, etc are selling games. GW sells toys, the rules are just a means to an end.

Yup.

Remember that they are a miniatures company first, and writing rules are far down their priority list.

So they write rules to sell figures, not for competitive play.

And to demonstrate, “The Circle of Nerf”. What is good in one addition, will be bad in the next. What is bad in this edition, will be good in the next. That way, when everyone has a lot of x units that are good, they nerf it, and make unit y good so everyone has to buy it. For example: In 2nd edition Assault cannons and Librarians were great, in 3rd edition they were awful, and in 4th they are all over the place. In 3^rd edition everyone used a lot of rhinos. What ever happened to them?

 

 

GWs mantra is “Greed before Need”. Space Marines account for a huge amount of their revenue. So you will see Space Marines first, last, and always. That is why they are moving up the Chaos Codex. Chaos is one of their biggest sellers (2^nd best seller in 40k, best seller in Fantasy).

 

GW does not care about the Orks, because they are not a good seller. That is why you have Tau and a host of other codexs before you see the ork come out, even though they are badly in need of a re-write. And it is not as if they can publish the rules for them, but they will not bother unless they have figures to sell you.

 

Remember in fantasy Wood Elves and Chaos Dwarfs were waiting forever to get their army books. Then, out of the blue, comes the Ogre Kingdoms before they are done with the armies that they already have. Why? Because a new army will sell better than a re-release of an existing one. With a new army you have to buy an entire new army, instead of adding to the figures that you already own. I would not be surprised if they create a whole new race before the Orks get their codex.  

Well, sure... One issue is whether they're living up to their promise to be tourny ready. You say no, and I probably agree... But whether or not you think they're actually doing it, you like the idea, as do many others. The point I was making isn't that they ARE pulling it off, but rather that if they want to pull it off, then reducing the numbers of variant lists, sub-Codices, etc. is a way to reduce the volume of rules they have to review for balance.

I agree with you that they should make more sweeping changes, or at least not rule them out, but I don't think it matters if it's iterative changes from where they are, or a total rewrite. Frustrated programmers tend to want a full rewrite, and it's not always a bad idea, but it's also not the only way, nor is it the most common.



In theory a nice idea, in practice, very bad. There's simply no way the electronic system will be bug free. When bugs do arise, or even when the programmers simply come up with a different RAW meaning than others, which do you trust? It'd create as many problems as it'd save. Army builder also doesn't handle in game questions, just list building.

That said, the idea is actually very good when it comes to an electronic form of documentation. Being able to mouse over a weapon's name and get a statline and special rules for it would be great, and it also wouldn't run into any problems, since it's not interpreting anything, it's just doing the "page flipping" for you.



There's some merit to this, though it is a bit of a compromise (and a compromise is an abscence of leadership), it might work nicely. Have each Codex contain fluff, core rules, then optional rules. The optional rules wouldn't be as rigorously playtested, and wouldn't be tourny legal.

The problem is that it only works for some people. For me, the Black Guardians are still around, now they're just Guardians. Alaitoc Pathfinders are still around, they're just not totally broken. That's me. Somebody else (you apparently) would be happy as long as you can still use the units in friendly games. But somebody else might be angry that they can't use their list in tournys. Other people might be angry and confused by which rules to use when. People might get mad at GW for letting "cheese" rules in at all, optional or not.



I don't really attribute it to laziness, but I also don't really care. I want the best product possible. If I'm not getting it, I don't care if it's cause they're lazy, stupid, were attacked by hyenas, etc. I want the best product. When GW ceases to give me what I want, and there's a better option elsewhere, that's that. If they can turn out the best of the best while putting in half days and working four days a week, fine.

Personally I think they work very hard. I just don't think their mindset and skillset is right for the job. I think a guy like Jervis Johnson is very passionate, very enthusiastic about the game and the business. I just don't think he's got the skillset to do what's being asked of him.

Posted By Blackmoor on 01/18/2007 11:38 AM

  I would not be surprised if they create a whole new race before the Orks get their codex.  

I wouldn't be surprised to have them announce Tyranids ate all the Orks. :S

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 01/18/2007 5:24 AM

Now lets be fair here.  For tournament play they at least put out their own FAQ's and rulings that are specific to their tournaments.  Sure some people may not like the way they went with rules for the UK GT's, and I'm sure there will be *female dog*ing about the US GT Rules FAQ when it comes out, but they're cleaning it up and they'll have Judges to rule things for bad situations IF they come up (which is not that often from what I've been able to tell).

Adepticon, the Necro, etc all have their own FAQ's on how to resolve issues with the rules to take it from the "Beer & Pretzels" setup to a tournament setup.  Playing this game at a tournament isn't the most complicated thing in the world, sure you can have some hiccups but most of the time it seems to get along just fine.

The issue is consistency. GW should not rely on several seperate entities to make FAQ's for their broken product. Sure, I can download Adepticons FAQ, play many test games to get the feel for how it plays, then go to adepticon knowing full well where any issues lie (atleast one resolved in the FAQ).

But I shouldnt have to. Especially since I paid $50 for a broken rulebook. Broken as in its beer and pretzels not tournament ready. GW is breaking their own rule book by stating one thing, then stating it is another. Simply doesnt work that way.

And everytime they print a new codex, the diligent souls who made their FAQs for the tourney crowd are going to have to sift through the mess and do it all over again.

Relying on other places for FAQ's is hopeful at best. Misguided at worst.

Rules are just that, things EVERYONE has to abide by, no matter locale. There would be far less "houserules" instituted if the rules were not only clearer but also made more sense.

All that said, I do enjoy 4th ed because I play games that arent harshly competitive. I love me some good games of kill team and combat patrol set in cities of death. great stuff.

But I would also love to be able to rely on the rules to provide me a solid basis for rules in competitive play. That isnt the case right now, no matter what outside source tries to correct the problem.

Posted By Tribune on 01/18/2007 5:25 AM

Posted By Hellfury on 01/18/2007 12:56 AM

GW is going from stating their game is meant for light hearted play  "beer and pretzels"  to proclaiming that it is "Tournament ready" just makes no sense and everyone will suffer for it. Zero to stupid in less than 60 seconds.

I think you are correct.

But let me ask a heretical question - has 40k ever been 'tournament ready' at any point throughout it's editions? I've seen 'em all and remember that Army Lists have always been full of problems, and that was outside of the tournament context.

Asking a more abstract question, what is it that other games systems do 'right' to make them work well in tournament play? Or is it the case that there are complaints about every game? Benchmarking agaionst your peers is a good way to see how to do something better - who can GW learn from in this area?
 

No, its never been tournament ready, looking back on it. In the more naive days I thought it was, but as soon as I got into that strata, it was clearly apparent that is was not quite ready for prime time. CODEXs themselves have always had problems, that sucks. Th rules did too, which suck even more. I dont mind it so much when there is a badly thought out phrase in a codex, but when it comes to rules, I expect them to be tight. That really isnt much to ask. They are rules after all.

As to what the competition is doing right? Thats both easy and difficult to answer at the same time.

I have just gotten into warmachine, so I cant give you analysis based on them. But based on other games that are deemed tournament playable by their producers (MTG, Pirates of the spanish main, etc.) I can tell you that they listen to the more hardcore gamers that play their games and have a reputation for knowing what the hell they talk about.. They listened to feedback, they playtested what the proven gamers asked for, and in most instances instituted those changes.

MTG made sure thier product was so tight that they instututed lawyers to write their rules. They did this long before any hasbro buyout, because they knew in order for the game to last, they had to make sure that not only the mechanics were sound, but thattt all loopholes were covered. The only problems in that game now are when the designers write a bad card. "Skull clamp" is a very good example of that. But that has nothing to do with broken rules, the rules for that game are quite sound. They dont have to go back and fix rules, just "erase" bad cards.

Granted, wargames have far more variables than a 60 card deck. So it is admittedly more difficult to make sure severe instances are covered.

To me though, it seems GW just played games ignoring the fact of niggly instances and simply rolled a D6 for the result of snafu. Thats fine for beer and pretzels, but that crap doesnt cut it when youre in a tournament where you paid airline travel, hotel expenses, tournament entry fees for.

Therefor, the game cannot be considered for actual tournament play in a truly competitive capacity.

GW simply will not listen though. People with far more acumen for rules have said from the get go that if they wish their rules to be used in a competitive setting, they they would have to look at how other games are being successful in that market.

They may listen in the future, but I have no faith in that. not after 10+ years of them telling us that we are too stupid to know what we are talking about, by the actions they give and the rules they print.

No, instead they pander to idiots who cant be botherd to buy anything more than a battleforce and they cry cheese over starcannons and assault cannons. Sure they need to be fixed. Starcannons need more gaurdians to field them. Assault cannons need to have AP 1. But instead of looking at the root of the problem, they just take the road they frequently travel and then "nerf" it. How many starcannons do you see nowadays?
Thats not fixing it, thats killing it.
Scatter lasers are the obvious default choice, and there is sure to be plenty more newbs to cry about thos as well in the coming years.

I'm not so sure... The CCG is a much more controlled environment, but it's also very combination driven. Not only do you have to make sure that no two cards can feed off each other and produce endless mana, or damage, or whatever, but you also have to make sure that no combination of cards does that. Basically each card is like a unit choice in a GW game. Imagine fielding an army with 60 different units, drawn from a Codex with a thousand units in it? To check every possible combination and permutation for abuses is daunting. I think it's far harder than what GW is trying to do.

But, as you point out, WotC brought in lawyers to help review their rules. I'm not sure lawyers are who I'd choose, but apparently they did the job, and it should give some clue to GW what they need to do. Experts are needed to help them examine their rules as system, to give them mathematical tools to compare lists, etc. etc.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/18/2007 3:19 PM

Granted, wargames have far more variables than a 60 card deck. So it is admittedly more difficult to make sure severe instances are covered.

I'm not so sure... The CCG is a much more controlled environment, but it's also very combination driven. Not only do you have to make sure that no two cards can feed off each other and produce endless mana, or damage, or whatever, but you also have to make sure that no combination of cards does that. Basically each card is like a unit choice in a GW game. Imagine fielding an army with 60 different units, drawn from a Codex with a thousand units in it? To check every possible combination and permutation for abuses is daunting. I think it's far harder than what GW is trying to do.

But, as you point out, WotC brought in lawyers to help review their rules. I'm not sure lawyers are who I'd choose, but apparently they did the job, and it should give some clue to GW what they need to do. Experts are needed to help them examine their rules as system, to give them mathematical tools to compare lists, etc. etc.

That is true to a point. MTG has over 10000 cards in the whole database. That is a lot of testing. But you just dont test all those cards at once. Every new expansion, you test how the expansion works with the older cards. Thats alot easier to see interactions of 360 cards with different formats of play. Whats in the new exapnasion with whats type 2 and whats type 1.

GW on the otherhand, does have to go through alot of variables, because its quite obvious that even they know how flawed their rules are. If they werent so flawed from the get go, the rules for codices would be nearly as bad as they are now.

It doenst take rocket scientists to playtest games, but it takes a hell of a lot more than GW has right now to do the job adequetly.

LOL, reading all this has reminded me of the first UK GW in-shop tournaments they tried to run nationally, some years back.

You'll be surprised to hear that the only army you could pick to be in 40k was loyalist marines. 1000 points, and it may even have been from a very limited list. Thing is, did that mean it was balanced? What price would you be willing to pay for balance?

PS. FWIW, I like the idea of clearly delineating the hard & fast tourney lists from casual optional extras. That's what Forgeworld rules basically do already, as far as I know. If the fact was that traits were not allowedin tourneys, but you could legally play them against friends or in a pick up game, then how horrible would that be*?

* Excluding the howls from those who have put together such an army with the strict intent of only ever playing in a tournament setting...

I was thinking about it again, and here's another angle: If you're playing friendly games, then just use Craftworld Eldar (or whatever). Does GW really need to tell you what's ok in your private games? Can GW ever really tell you that you CAN'T use your models any more? Are they out repossessing any Farseers people own beyond the first four?

No...

So, yeah, they did away with Craftworld Eldar. That doesn't mean you can't still use it if you want to.

It wouldn't work. Far too many people in this hobby believe "not official" equals cheating. Its sad really.

Depends on the opponent. If it is a pick up game, they will more than likely shun the idea of not playing against the most current list.

If it is against somebody you normally play against, then you probably wont have a problem.

I still play my Elysians to this day, just not in the updated version, but the old CA version.

The saddest thing is dependant on opponents, which is why they may insist on the most current release. I am sure they would love to play a list from by gone days, but dont for fear that somebody may deny them that privilege as well.

I am not sure if I made much sense trying to explain it though.

Posted By Toreador on 01/18/2007 12:35 AM
I also see that in the new Eldar codex you can pretty much make any of the lists that were in the Craftworld codex barring a few things here and there.

That's the point.  Yes, Harlequins are nice.  Yes, the Autarch is nice.  Yes, it's nice that they made jetbikes and shining spears better.  Yes, overall the new codex is better than the old one.  But there's no reason why they couldn't have done all of that and still included Seer Councils, Courts of the Young King, Black Guardians, etc etc.

Posted By Toreador on 01/18/2007 12:35 AM
And don't tell me in all your great wisdom that the Court of the Young King was a great buy, or actually useful.

Well, instead of eliminating it they could have, oh I don't know... MADE IT ACTUALLY USEFUL.  I guess I was just under the impression that rebalancing units was the kind of thing you get the opportunity to do when you redo a codex.  So why didn't they just drop jetbikes and shining spears too?  Afterall, don't tell me in all your great wisdom that jetbikes were a great buy, or actually useful.

Posted By Toreador on 01/18/2007 12:35 AM
Ulthwe loses Black Guardians. Ok, paint your guardians Black. I never could see the balance in that list. Better guardians for no points AND the seer council.

Good point.  It's not like they could have given guardians the option to upgrade to BS4 for a pts cost.  That would just be absurd!

Posted By Phryxis on 01/18/2007 12:29 PM
Personally I think they work very hard. I just don't think their mindset and skillset is right for the job. I think a guy like Jervis Johnson is very passionate, very enthusiastic about the game and the business. I just don't think he's got the skillset to do what's being asked of him.

I get the feeling they could do a better job, but their hands are tied by directives issued from on high due to marketing considerations.  I've read that Andy Chambers wanted to completely overhaul the core rules for 4th ed, but management rejected them and limited him to making minor tweaks to 3rd ed rules so that they would be backward compatible with all the 3rd ed codices.

Posted By Tribune on 01/18/2007 4:12 PM
LOL, reading all this has reminded me of the first UK GW in-shop tournaments they tried to run nationally, some years back.

You'll be surprised to hear that the only army you could pick to be in 40k was loyalist marines. 1000 points, and it may even have been from a very limited list.

So it was sort of like how it is now, but with slightly fewer not-marines?

Ever think that maybe the way the new exarch power rules work that it would be hard to balance the Court of the Young King, or too many rules would be made for just one sublist? Or that if you allowed BS4 Guardians that everyone would field them? Maybe that the Farseer council turned out to be just too much. Maybe what they included in the Eldar Codex IS the balanced version of what they wanted. Who knows really.

In some great way tournaments are what killed the earlier version of 40k. It was more for "fun" and a lot of times wasn't exactly balanced. It was more scenario based and even called for a GM for some of it.

And having sublists that aren't truly official does no good. Most Warhammer players wouldn't play anyone with one of the back of book lists as they were considered mostly unbalanced.

Just as well play DBM if we water the ruleset down too much. It loses a lot of flavor at some point. I do agree that the current rules is not the best it could be, it is just the best set up to this point.

And jetbikes and shining spears are now useful. They folded everything that was common to every craftworld into one (more) balanced list and gave us more options instead of concentrating on a few unique units common to single craftworlds.

And Wolflair is not entirely innocent.  They require a yearly subscription if you want to continue to get updates for AB 3.  You need to update for each new army, as well as download the latest "bug fixes" that crop up.

Posted By SisterJoey on 01/18/2007 6:59 AM
Bzzzt! Wrong, you need the yearly subscription only if you want the auto updates. Without it you can still manually update AB as they come available by downloading them at the appropriate websites. Some lists aren't even put up for for auto-updates and have to be downloaded and manually installed (which is all point and click anyway).

That said, I don't think GW would ever put up an eCodex that wasn't already published elsewhere and wasn't put out on a locked .pdf (ie: what they already do now).

All this talk does remind me how much awesomeness Chambers & Haines brought to 40k and how the beancounters have turned it into an unplayable mess that makes nobody happy.

I stand corrected.

Abba>  Dude.  Just give up.  The Eldar are all strawberry cakes, honey and roses in the land where Toreador lives, and we're all evil trolls because Gee Dubs can do no wrong.

While I'm a troll, I'd like to be that plastic one from the Battle for Skull Pass.  He has loads of personality and I really dig that sculpt.

dude!

Stone trolls have way more personality!

Love those lil blue guys.

sometimes I wish GW would release a basic get you by list for every army at the start of every edition and the update them all gradually rather than one at a time.

I do much prefer honey and roses. I have lived too long to get overly pissed about a game.

That's one example where marketing may have done the right thing. Sure, there are complaints about the 4th ed. rules and "backward-compatibility," but can you imagine the howls if GW had scrapped all the codices AGAIN? Orks may not have been scheduled for their codex until 2012. Overall, it was probably the right decision for the majority of their customers...who aren't Dakkaites.

See, this is the problem. We get caught in a conversation about nerfing this unit because it's too powerful or getting rid of this unit because it's 'too hard to make it work', or powering up a unit because it was underpowered in the previous edition. By having that conversation, we've already bought into their thinking, which is ipso facto erroneous.

The thinking should be the following:
1. Each codex's rules should be consistent with the USR/40k4 rulebook and other codicies.
2. Each unit within the codex should be balanced and viable, including in tournament/league play as well as 'pick-up/beer&pretzels' games.
3. The codex itself is easy to read and internally consistent.
4. Previous units, including special units or units from sub-lists, should be represented in some way, while keeping with the aforementioned rules.

Items 1 and 3 are not hard; they just require someone to do some serious editing, perhaps a team of technical writers.

I would argue that Item 2 is also not difficult, every single unit should be useful as more than just a pretty paperweight. The function of said units should be clear, and there shouldn't be 'better alternatives' in the codex (i.e. each unit has a specific role that is useful). Likewise, Item 4 is not difficult. Take the Eldar Codex: they included Pathfinders and WG as troops (albeit in changed format) from the sublists, why not include a special upgrade for guardian to make black guardian (perhaps only when you're using Eldrad, much in the same way Farsight or Lysander work)? Why not create a seer council with a limit of 2-3 other farseers,again, if only for Eldrad?

These are all things are doable, except that GW has convinced (some of us) that these things are 'too hard', that the only way to update a codex is to flip the whole thing upside-down and render thousands of points of lovingly painted armies irrelevant. I'm sorry, but that's shenanigans. Period. It is not too much to ask of a company whose purpose is creating miniatures games and figures to plan the new rules out and all the codices/sublists out in advance, coordinate them, and make every unit viable and balanced (internally and with each other). If this company, supposedly a giant of the industry, can't do simple things like that, then why shouldn't they expect their market share (and profits) to collapse and to have angry customers?

4. Is not ever truly a requirement. I haven't played many games systems where this was ever a standard. Things change. Not that I have bought into it, but I see that working on a few unique units that aren't necessarily used by every eldar craftworld isn't a priority. They wanted to make a generic Eldar book that would cover as much of the Eldar race as possible. Why connect things to Eldrad? He's dead. And it isn't like they made any miniatures obsolete. They just cut down on a few options they saw as needless or that didn't fit neatly into the book. Why MUST those units be included? Heck, I want my core dragon rider units that elves used to have in WHFB!

1 and 3 should be standard. With GW products it is lucky when it happens.

2 is why games are ever changing. Every game.

I think that's probably true. The only way I can see a full rewrite working, is if it's done parallel to the current game. The only way I can see that happening is if it's a different sort of game, one that doesn't dilute their brands. It certainly would be possible to release a "40K Advanced" ruleset to play alongside "40K Basic," but I don't think that's something GW would try to play with.

The problem, though, is that there appears to be no major rethink going on with the Codices to support an iterative revision process. Looking at the Eldar Codex (the most recent release), the changes are primarily layout and stylistic. It's no closer to supporting a full rewrite than the 3rd Edition Codices were, and thus we're no closer to a full rewrite than we were during 3rd Ed.

All that said, I'm not sure there's really even that much wrong with the core concepts of 40K. Move, shoot, assault. Sorta clunky, but fine, really. The major problems are in ambiguous rules, poor wording, fluff blending with rules, etc. etc. It would take a full rewrite, a review of every single word in the rules, but I think they could produce a much better product without invalidating the Codices. Of course, at that point they'd need to revise all the Codices as well, because there's just as much ambiguity and poor wording there (if not more).

Of course, all of this could be addressed by a timely and responsive FAQ process.

Posted By Toreador on 01/19/2007 9:05 AM
4. Is not ever truly a requirement...   ...They just cut down on a few options they saw as needless or that didn't fit neatly into the book. Why MUST those units be included? Heck, I want my core dragon rider units that elves used to have in WHFB!

This should be a requirement because of a few reasons.

1.  Consistency is kind of important in any game.  Players expect a Sherman tank to be worse than a Tiger in a one on one tank battle.  Just because the Shermans are loosing in this kind of engagement doesn't mean that the designers will "rebalance" the statistics to give the Alies a better chance.  Just because the setting is fictional doesn't make this kind of consistency irrelevant.

A 40k example would be Salamander's Space Marines:  Most special rules lost with no equivalent in the new Marine dex.  I guess they're just Green Ultramarines now.

2.  Respecting their customer's investment.  Seer's councils aside, here's a few examples of where enterprising gamers were completely screwed by GW's rules re-writes.

- 2nd edition - Squats - Eaten by Tyranids.  Count as IG or Orks.  WTF.
- 2nd edition - Eldar.  All lasgun / laspistol wielding models made obsolete.  (This was all the plastic Guardians, and about 1/3 of the metal ones)
- 2nd edition - Genestealer Cult - Discontinued.
- 3rd edition mutable genus.  Think about how many players with lovingly converted (and very expensive) flying gaunt hordes.  Old One Eye and the Red Terror are gone.  4th edition completely cut off support for these options.
- Legion of the Damned.  I could be wrong, but I don't think these dudes have rules support anymore.  Too bad if you have an army of these metal marines.
- Schaefer's Last Chancers.  These can't be used anymore as there is no corresponding rules for a suicide squad in the Guard codex, and their modeled options are kind of iffy.  (Pitty, as they are great models).
- 3rd edition White Dwarf - Chapter Approved - Both cultists and Sisters of Battle Zealots required a lot of investment in time and money to use.  Both are now largely eliminated.

- While I'm not familiar with Fantasy, a lot of the changes seem to occur in the Beastiary, which doesn't help as they're expensive.  The Steam Tank has been streamlined again so the old variants are no-longer usable.  And remember way back when you could put Bloodletters on Juggernauts?  Another very expensive converted model made obsolete.  Your dragon rider example is perfect.  How much would said unit cost to build money wise, time wise for converting and painting...

At any rate, I should be beat soundly with the idiot stick just for posting this reply... so I'll shut up now.

You GW hating poopy pants! No fair!

issue 292....zealots made a return. Didnt have to change a thing model wise.

Otherwise your correct.

Well, you did leave out the Zoats (both fantasy and 40k) that I have large amounts of, along with the orginal Slann and the small Fimir force. Genestealer Hybrids are yet another, along with eldar ghost warriors.

Historicals are a bit different as you have a set boundry. I have been through different incarnations of historical games where they tweak the stats of tanks to make them more historical, or give the matchups the historical "effect" with differing results. Some historical rulesets have even invalidated whole armies lists until the lists were updated. It happens everywhere.

Then you have the mounds of Warzone and Vor stuff I have,.. of companies long since gone. Things change. It's just a fact of life. Doesn't mean it always makes me happy. Not many games or companies have made it as long as GW has.

Torreador> You sir, have a tolerance worthy of Buddah. The rest of us are, sadly, only human.

Posted By Toreador on 01/19/2007 9:05 AM
4. Is not ever truly a requirement. I haven't played many games systems where this was ever a standard. Things change. Not that I have bought into it, but I see that working on a few unique units that aren't necessarily used by every eldar craftworld isn't a priority. They wanted to make a generic Eldar book that would cover as much of the Eldar race as possible. Why connect things to Eldrad? He's dead. And it isn't like they made any miniatures obsolete. They just cut down on a few options they saw as needless or that didn't fit neatly into the book. Why MUST those units be included? Heck, I want my core dragon rider units that elves used to have in WHFB!

1 and 3 should be standard. With GW products it is lucky when it happens.

2 is why games are ever changing. Every game.

I will have to respectfully disagree. I believe 4 is important. Now, I'm not saying that they have to be there in the same format (which is why I gave my illustration, more on that later) or that they have to have the exact same rules; I just think it's important for players to know that their army won't be rendered irrelevant seemingly on a whim. Look at everyone who made daemon armies for WHFB for the campaign last summer, only to be told that said armies won't be recognized as tourney-legal, within a year of that campaign.

Squats and Zoats are interesting examples, as are Jokero and Slann: these were armies that, as the design team moved forward, couldn't figure out a good way to do them. Fine. That doesn't mean they should just kill them off. Reintroduce them in some way, even if only in the form of an article in WD on how to use 'mercenaries' or something. (just so you don't get confused, the preceding was an illustration, and not a long-held fervent belief on my part of how to play the game, or some kind of gospel). There is precedent for this, in the form of the Citadel Journal Harlequins list, as well as the Arbites option in C:WH.

Regarding my illustrations: that's all they were. Just some examples of how everyone could think differently about the whole notion of updating the rules/lists. Tying things to Eldrad was just an example of how they could have preserved the feel of Ulthwe, using the precedent of both the Farsight special rules (more battlesuits, no ethereal, FCW get USR, etc.) and Lysander special rules (oh, and he's dead too).

Deadness/fluff is irrelevant: are you going to look at the person across from you with the Eldrad-based army, in ANY gaming setting (friendly, tournament, league) and tell him/her he can't field that army because the character (who's rules are provided in the codex, who is NOT A SPECIAL CHARACTER and does not require opponent's permission to field) is dead?

However, your point helps prove my point: if they want to move the fluff along, then have the units fit the fluff. If that means that a certain character is dead, then don't provide rules for him (exceptions could be for special one-off scenarios for those who want to play 'historical' games, etc.).

Finally, with regards to #2, obviously balancing a list/game takes fine tuning: Warmachine, which has very few useless units, and has little in the way of 'codex creep', just went through this with Prime: Remix, fixing some issues from the early days. Having said that, there is a difference between fine-tuning and bait-and-switch. Fine-tuning is not what's happening with 40k. Instead, we have a game of 'tit-for-tat'. Oh, transports are powerful in 3rd? Let's nerf 'em. That's not fixing the balance problem; that's rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic.

At the end of the day, all I'm trying to argue is that GW has within its power the ability to fix all of these problems, and there are plenty of precedents in its history and rules showing them how. The fact that they don't, the fact that their 'fixes' are inexcusably inconsistent, and the fact that, rather than starting over to look at the game holistically they prefer their old tricks of codex creep and tit-for-tat nerf/power-up, shows me no way forward, and we only enable the designers when we allow them to dictate the discourse for us.   

Old One Eye and the Red Terror 

Presumably Keezus would like every option from every codex from every edition in the current version of the game. Hurrah for Harlequin robots and land raiders! Jet cycles and beastmen with jump packs for the Guard! Graviton guns on my Marines!

The thing is that 40k started out as a very different animal from the one it is now. Initially it was a roleplaying skirmish game and the wacky lists and model choices refelected that. The focus is better now and specific weapon types have been developed for each race. Why go back and give them the original choices (boltguns on tyranids)?

Also, lets not forget that GW makes mistakes all the time and some army and model concepts are just lame. Better to kill them off rather than keep including them, allow people to keep buying them, just compounding things, and make it even worse later on down the line.

Personally, reliance on printed media will always make life hard. Being unable to undo or change anything puts l lot of pressure on a company to get it right first time. That said, in GW's case, they don't seem to want to playtest the products properly to offset the problems of static print.

My personal dream scenario:

GW partners with a medium-sized electronics company to release a cut down, but fairly cheap (possible subsidised) electronic ink-based reader for around £75, including a free copy of the main rules. Codexes and Army books can be bought for £6ish and are loaded onto the reader. Incremental updates allow for balancing and rules clarity changes to be delivered via automatic update whenever the user connects their reader to a computer. Security on this is water-tight, else copies will become extremely easy to make. A record of changes is made availible, and very clear. White Dwarf remains print-based.

Now, be removing static rules, small changes can be made regularly. Also, Chapter Approved updates are made easier to spread around, and also can be updated based on user feedback. Because it is now so much easier to spread rules out, they could increase the breadth of rules released, with rules clearly marked as experimental or tournament-ready. Perhaps experimental rules may eventually be upgraded to tourney readyness by using the playing and paying public as their testers. Updates are free, large updates such as total re-writes are not, but perhaps reduced in price if you possessed the previous version of the codex. Sub-lists could be charged for say £2 each.

Now, sublists. If say, someone in GW made a sub-list for Genestealer Cults, and releases it via the reader. A fair few players respond promisingly, the list is made more balanced, and GW releases metal conversion bits for the Cadian Imperial guard sprue to make brood brother. These sell either well, or not very. If they don't sell to well, nothing happens. If they do, GW roles out a few more products, and spend more attention to the rules, upgrading them to full tournament standard. By being able to gauge response to releases, and by releasing products in one range fairly slowly, but multiple ranges at once (as opposed to the one range big blob release schedule at the moment) they can scale back or increase focus on lines.

Now, this may require a change in the way they design and release models. The current system is quite slow, from design to sculpting to release. Ideally for this system to work, they will have to increase the speed at which models are created, perhaps utilising their snazzy computer and laser based system they spent so much money on. Overall, there may be a slight decrease in the quality of art direction, but if it means an increase in the breadth of models (as opposed to recycled marine models every other release) then that keeps me happy.


Anyway, enough fantisising. The odds of GW ever changing from their current inflexible model to anything like this is practically nil. I personally see GW similar to Microsoft. Gargantuan, Slow to react, and thinks it rules the world and everyone has to work the way it wants them to work. And my approach might be similar to Google. Small, flexible and fast to react. Well, recent history will tell you how well that went for Google.

I don't want to even get into an arguement about Warmachine, because warmachine by it's very nature IS codex creep. And I have some Menoth jacks I will sell you if you can use them, because they ARE worthless

I am in agreement in part with you syr8766. I agree with all your points on the forces that were entirely gotten rid of, or suddenly you can't use those minis you bought.

I am in disagreement about what the Eldar codex did. It redressed and balanced things in my opinion without truly making anything unusable. They aren't just usable in a list as they were.

It would be nice if they just put out "optional" lists in the White Dwarf.

But then we all know what happens then. People still complain. Is this "official"? Is it not? Can I use it in tourney play?

Every time they have done "fun" rules in the past they were bitten by it. We are just a big disgruntled mass on the interweb.

I think it's important to notice that there are two issues being conflated as one "fixing" issue.

One is balance, the other is ambiguity and contradictory rules.

I think the former is much more subjective, is a moving target, and is not something GW should be overly concerned with. Somebody is always going to insist that the Eldar are nerfed, even as some other guy insists they're totally cheesy broken. You can't please everyone. Plus, even if you do make things nicely balanced, the community can unbalance them. If everyone in a given area is playing Marines, Starcannons are undercosted. If everyone in another area is playing horde armies, Starcannons are overcosted. As far as balance goes, I think the lists are, overall, pretty good. Probably as good as can be expected. There are a lot of armies that can win big tournaments. Yes, Orks need some help. Yes, Blood Angels are a bit broken. It's nothing too severe, and isn't a core problem. Balance should be a goal, broken units and combinations should be weeded out, but you're always going to hear *female dog*ing about this, and I think it's by far the strongest area of the 40K rules currently.

What IS a core problem is ambiguous and contradictory rules. There's no subjectivity here. If two reasonable people can't agree on what a rule says, it's objectively a badly written rule. This is where I'd like to see GW focus their attention. Clean up the rules, make them consistent, understandable and unambiguous.

Posted By lone pilgrim on 01/19/2007 11:15 AM

Presumably Keezus would like every option from every codex from every edition in the current version of the game. Hurrah for Harlequin robots and land raiders! Jet cycles and beastmen with jump packs for the Guard! Graviton guns on my Marines!

Dude.  I won't rest until I can field my:  Ork Slaan Daemon Prince Farseer Ancestor Lord wearing Terminator Exo-Armor, a Conversion Field a Rosarius, a Banshee Mask, trademark item, melta bombs, wielding a matched pair of ivory handled twin-linked thunderhawks and a wearing master-crafted Carnifex across his back.

One thing that hasn't been brought up in the discussion yet is the fact that GW promised that your armies would still be able to be used in 4th edition.