Well, I talked to Dave Taylor a bit. He is in charge of the US GTs now, so I had some questions for him.

He said that they are still going to have a team tournament on Friday night before the Las Vegas GT. I believe it will be 2 on 2.

He also said that they (GW) are trying to negotiate a lower rate with a hotel in <st1:city><st1:place>Las Vegas</st1:place></st1:city>.

Jervis Johnson was the guest GW speaker at Adepticon. They have reduced the window of news from the studio from 6 months out, to 3 months. So all he was able to talk about was Dark Angels, Harlequins, and the Warhammer terrain...and that is it, absolutely nothing else. He would not even talk about the Blood Angels which are expecting to get an update in next months White Dwarf. He would not even confirm the next army book/codex. I hope that Adepticon did not pay to fly him out, if they did, it was a total waste of money.

Wow. That does sound like a waste of money...

So nothing for GW. Ho-hum.

Well how about other companies that are doing stuff, like GF9?

I heard there was supposed to be oodles of new stuff to expect from them.

Any news on that front?

The 6 month window was tight enough. This 3 month window is rediculous, epecially when there's nothing on the horizon in the next three months.

I am curious what he had to say about Dark Angels (or whether any rotten tomatos were slung his way).

I guess that explains why it is all quiet of the GW rumor front right now...

So, all he could talk about where the things that we already know about?

Yay?

 

Plus, I'm a big fan of Dave Taylor's work with GW.

 

Now that he's in charge of GTs, I'm concerned for his future with the company!

So what exactly is the point of the 3-month rumor window?  To keep people in a constant state of unexcitement, to keep them from getting pumped up for new releases, so they buy less?

Or is it just so they can shirk responsibility when they push the Ork codex back another year?

The rumors would go a little something like this:

Month 1: Next month we'll be pre-release sign ups!
Month 2-3: Alliance posts preorders on the web.

Fun!

Heh. Not saying the following is true, but if it is, Jervis needs to be punched in the head.

I have my doubts regarding the veracity of this rumour though.

Stolen from warseer:

---

Alright, I was in my local GW tonight for the weekly fantasy night and one of employees waves me over and tells me he's got something for me to look at. What he then proceeded to hand me was a list of everything GW is planning on putting out for the rest of the year. The list was at least 10 pages long with entries for every week/2 weeks, sku numbers, cost, GW number.

I was suprised he was showing it to me but apparently the new policy is to go ahead and share this info with regulars. He let me know that it was all subject to change and that sometimes they push back due dates/change prices(for instance the apocalypse products didn't have prices yet).

The list included everything you'd expect to see such as the foundation paints, re-release of blood angel characters in june/july, the high elves in the fall, orks as the christmas release. Some suprises for me included what looked like either a re-release or resculpt of some IG models(commissar and ogryns(there was even a bone-ead model on the list)), that orks were the christmas release army box, the fact that the shadow king is back for high elves, plastic terminators for Chaos, and a couple of cool sound chaos characters.

I'm really kicking myself right now for not taking notes on when exactly stuff was coming out, but I was really only browsing the list. In a lot of circumstances all that I had to go on was the name, like in the case of the apocolypse stuff it didn't say what was in the box, it just named it. Some of the names were: Necron Phalanx, Emperor's First Tank company, Tau Rapid Deployment Force.

I'll go back and take some very detailed notes in the next few days, I just didn't see any refernce to this information on the rest of the board and wanted to share.

Cya

---

This could be just the average run of the mill GW disinformation plant though, so who knows?

I attended both of Jervis's seminars at Adepticon and both were fairly disappointing. He was on full 3 month 'lockdown' mode at wouldn't commit to revealing absolutely anything, even as a tongue-in-cheek reference.

That said, what he could talk about was his role in games workshop and the overall direction the company is moving with regards to its games.

Jervis is now the product and hobby strategist for GW. While this doesn't mean he runs any of the rules design teams for any of the 3 core games, it does mean he is responsible for making sure the overall design of the games stays on a specific course.

This new focus imposed by Jervis on the teams means that the core rulebook and the codices/army books are now specifically targeted for pickup games of 1,500/2,000 points (for 40K/Warhammer respectively.

That means sub-army lists and any other wacky rules (like Kill Team) will no longer be found in the core rules/codices. Any interesting sub-divisions of the game instead will be brought out as an 'expansion' (such as Cities of Death).

While Jervis naturally wouldn't go into any details about future expansions, this is the catch-all term for any and all ways that GW will present different ways to play the core games. If GW wants to release campaign rules for their games, they'll put it in a campaign expansion book. If they want to release a small battle game (like 'Kill Team') they'll put those rules into an expansion, etc.

Basically they want to make it clear to the consumer that the core rules are written and balanced for a specific style of game, and while expansions can alter this formula it would be clear that you were using the expansion set/rules in that case.

Another fairly big change (IMO) is the decision that all current armies that have a codex/army book will be supported by the company on timely basis indefinitely. That means no current armies will go away (inlcuding Dark Eldar and Chaos Dwarves, according to Jervis) and they will all start recieving much more regular releases (no more 8 year gap between Ork codices in the future).

The downside of this new mantra is that GW will be much more careful about releasing new armies, as when they do so they are committing to supporting those armies indefinitely. That also means that we will no longer see army sub-lists (like Eldar Craftworld lists, etc) as they have become to numerous for GW to continue to support.

So as for the future of Kroot Mercs, LatD, Feral Orks, etc, while Jervis DID NOT say anything specific about these army types, I am pretty darn certain that you won't be seeing any updated rules ever for these armies.

The only real hope for these armies is either: They include some of the units in the updated version of the parent codex (like the possibility of adding some Feral Ork units into the next Ork codex) or GW decides to make these armies into a full codex release that will then be supported indefinitely. You will definitely not see a 'Feral Ork' sub-army list included in the new Ork codex; those days are now gone.

GW is trying to get to a point where all the codices/army books are fairly balanced at their base point levels (1,500 points for 40k, 2,000 points for Warhammer) and part of that process is eliminating some of the fringe choices that allow players to make wacky powerful armies.

The Dark Angel codex was, to paraphrase Jervis, a way to show the games designers the principles he was trying to hold them to. In many ways the Dark Angels codex is the blueprint for the future of 40k.


I also asked him if a trait/doctrine system was still in the games designers 'toolboxes' (specifically in relation to a possible Chaos codex revision). He responded that the goal of a new Chaos codex would be to incorporate everything into a single army list and, if that wasn't possible, other options (such as traits/doctrines) would then be explored. I then asked if seperate codices were a possibility for a Chaos update, and he said that if they did decide to split them into seperate codices the company would be committing to keeping those armies around as a seperate entity indefinitely, meaning it would be a decision they would only do after very, very careful consideration.


Finally, he also commented that the SM codex was considered a failure within the company because as the codex most commonly purchased by new players, it fails to properly introduce them into the hobby (as it doesn't have the weapon diagrams like the new DA codex does). That gives GW a reason to 'fast track' a new version of the codex into production. When and if this new SM codex is released Jervis said that it will likely incorporate many of the new concepts found within the DA codex.

Now, exactly what a 'fast track' is for a codex is anyones guess. . .

I would find this to be wonderful news if a precedent wasnt already set in 4th edition.

Basically, in the middle of an edition, jervis decides that things should be done X way. While I find balancing the codex to be a great attempt (other than the complete and utter removal of options to make a list distinctive from another list from the same codex) it really seems a "too little too late" type of attempt.

Very curious as to where this takes 40K...or GW for that matter.

I will now relinquish the microphone to the other angry beavers who will follow.

Yak - thanks for the update.

So, did I miss something, or was there any good news in there?

(said with tongue partially in cheek)

I think it's good news that they're trying to reel in the scope creep of the codexes, which is something Yak implied but didn't specifically state. My friend, Joe, was also in the Sunday session and indicated the same message about Dark Angels--Jervis wrote it to "set the tone" for future codex releases, and I think the intent there is balance/reduction of scope creep/codex escalation. So I see that as good news, myself.

I know Joe came out of the session feeling like they had a renewed purpose for 40k--like they actually have a goal for how the game should play, be balanced, etc. And I think they're on trying to get back on track for that goal. So I see that as a positive.

Posted By yakface on 04/04/2007 3:24 PM

That means sub-army lists and any other wacky rules (like Kill Team) will no longer be found in the core rules/codices. Any interesting sub-divisions of the game instead will be brought out as an 'expansion' (such as Cities of Death).

Does talk of what's going in to future core rules books mean that fifth edition is under development?

Edit: Or even something like a 4.5e rulebook.

Posted By Hellfury on 04/04/2007 3:34 PM
I would find this to be wonderful news if a precedent wasnt already set in 4th edition.

Basically, in the middle of an edition, jervis decides that things should be done X way. While I find balancing the codex to be a great attempt (other than the complete and utter removal of options to make a list distinctive from another list from the same codex) it really seems a "too little too late" type of attempt.

Very curious as to where this takes 40K...or GW for that matter.

I will now relinquish the microphone to the other angry beavers who will follow.

While I completely agree (I even said as much to Jervis), he had a pretty good point: You've got to start somewhere.

And besides the SM codex, I still contend that the rest of the 4th edition codices are pretty well balanced.

Posted By Lowinor on 04/04/2007 3:55 PM

Posted By yakface on 04/04/2007 3:24 PM

That means sub-army lists and any other wacky rules (like Kill Team) will no longer be found in the core rules/codices. Any interesting sub-divisions of the game instead will be brought out as an 'expansion' (such as Cities of Death).

Does talk of what's going in to future core rules books mean that fifth edition is under development?

I hope so. 4th edition is a wash.

But that wont stop GW from milking that cow until they feel the need to release 5th.

Posted By Hellfury on 04/04/2007 3:58 PM

Posted By Lowinor on 04/04/2007 3:55 PM

Does talk of what's going in to future core rules books mean that fifth edition is under development?

I hope so. 4th edition is a wash.

But that wont stop GW from milking that cow until they feel the need to release 5th.

Well, even without a new main rulebook, it sounds like starting with DA we're in 4.5e anyway.

Really, though, cutting short the product cycle on the SM codex after a relatively short amount of time done for the health of the game is something good.

Seriously -- revamp SM and Chaos, then put out new codices for Orks and DE, and 40k as a spectrum of armies is 100% better off than it is now.

And actual support for Chaos Dwarfs will force me to buy another fantasy army, damnit...

I see it as bad news, GW's stable of armies is now set in stone forever and ever and ever. There seems to be little hope that new armies will appear or that less-interesting ones will be put on the shelf for a while to explore new avenues.

For a long-time player like me more rehashing of 80s concepts does little to keep me inteseted.

Hey it's the snotling pump wagon Mk VII!

Posted By yakface on 04/04/2007 3:57 PM

Posted By Hellfury on 04/04/2007 3:34 PM
I would find this to be wonderful news if a precedent wasnt already set in 4th edition.

Basically, in the middle of an edition, jervis decides that things should be done X way. While I find balancing the codex to be a great attempt (other than the complete and utter removal of options to make a list distinctive from another list from the same codex) it really seems a "too little too late" type of attempt.

Very curious as to where this takes 40K...or GW for that matter.

I will now relinquish the microphone to the other angry beavers who will follow.

While I completely agree (I even said as much to Jervis), he had a pretty good point: You've got to start somewhere.

And besides the SM codex, I still contend that the rest of the 4th edition codices are pretty well balanced.

Well, he may as well just rewrite the 4th edition rulebook while he is at it.

So basically what he is saying is that everything will be balanced to Dark Angels standards. As in the reference point for everything else afterwards to be balanced from.

To look at it another way, the models you own in all probability may no longer be useful/legal/even in the codex.

Yay?

Cutting down the options for wargear taken/squad options is a very bad move. This the exact reason I lost any interest in playing Necrons- it became very very boring quickly. With more options you are constantly tweaking your lists and thinking about how to make it better. Having the consumer thinking about your products when not using your products is extremely beneficial.

I AM glad to hear about the increased dedication to support on the existing lists. Amen to that.

Really? There's some OTT stuff in the SM dex but even if they do release a 'redux', there's still alot of relatively unbalanced stuff remaining in other dexes. I mean, do you truely believe the holofield laden skimmer horde is balanced compared to the Dark Angels? Or Nidzilla? Especially at 1500 points?

I have to agree with Hellfury, it just seems too little too late.

So the Space Marine codex is going to get a facelift rather than a redo? Okay, I can sort of accept that.

But having all the codices mimick the DA codex? GAK! While I find the crippling lack of diversity within the DA codex niminally acceptible for a specialty codex, I can't see it working AT ALL for a mainline codex or army book.

This all gives me deep feelings of forboding regarding the upcoming ork codex....

Yak: thanks for the info.

What I'm having trouble balancing in my feeble, twisted mind is the idea that while a) all lines currently extant will be supported b) those 'fringe' units will be eliminated to streamline and focus the armies. Strikes me as two contradictory ideas, but then again I wasn't there.

As Kid_Kyoto posted in the Discussions board some weeks ago, and as has been echoed here: If the DA codex had been the new Codex SM, I don't think we'd be in this pickle. 'Nids Tau and Black Templars have gotten (mostly) high marks for being fairly balanced, and while Eldar suffered from its usual curse ('this sucked in the last edition? Let's make it the R0XX0r!!'), it still had at least some diversity built-in. The problem is they didn't start there. They started with the current Codex: Space Marines, which continued the powering-up from 3rd edition.

Really, I kinda wish Jervis WOULD just put one damn book out with all the army lists (a la 3rd ed.) and all the rules and call it a freakin' DAY. But that's never going to happen for lots of different (some good, some bad) reasons. But it all makes me miss the certainty of 3rd edition, and that makes me sad.

Well, this just sucks...Basically it means don't start any new armies or buy any new stuff because even if the codex just came out, they might issue a new one and void your army...

Posted By yakface on 04/04/2007 3:24 PM

I also asked him if a trait/doctrine system was still in the games designers 'toolboxes' (specifically in relation to a possible Chaos codex revision). He responded that the goal of a new Chaos codex would be to incorporate everything into a single army list and, if that wasn't possible, other options (such as traits/doctrines) would then be explored.

Yup. Just as we thought. Want to play World Eaters? Take Berzerkers and just pretend it's world Eaters. Just like the Eldar Codex and the 'imaginary Craftworlds' you have to use.

Idiots...

BYE

Posted By syr8766 on 04/04/2007 5:15 PM

Really, I kinda wish Jervis WOULD just put one damn book out with all the army lists (a la 3rd ed.) and all the rules and call it a freakin' DAY. But that's never going to happen for lots of different (some good, some bad) reasons. But it all makes me miss the certainty of 3rd edition, and that makes me sad.

Amen Yair. If what we get from the DA codex is what we need to expect in things to come, how is the DA codex any better than the lists we saw in the third edition rulebook.

Both seem very similar in brevity.

80+ pages dedicated to the DA codex is ridiculous when it could have been made into less than 10. yeah I know, "Fluff, art, modelling, etc, yadda yadda..." but when it really comes down to it, we may as well have all the rules for the combined armies in one place.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 04/04/2007 5:26 PM
Yup. Just as we thought. Want to play World Eaters? Take Berzerkers and just pretend it's world Eaters.

Assuming, of course, that the new codex still has such a thing as berserkers and not just CSM painted red.  And even then, you might have to take Kharn in order to make them Troops choices...

All of this does lend credence to the "Space Marine Redux" rumor floating around.

Perhaps the reason for the three month window is because they don't have six months?

Posted By Jester on 04/04/2007 7:18 PM
Perhaps the reason for the three month window is because they don't have six months?

Now THAT is one helluh sick burn, yo!

EXALT!

[edit]  and sigged!

ooh, pessismist much Jester?

I don't know. I moved away from GW because of a few things... I like to hear that they're goingto try something new but new always seems to be bad when it comes to them...
Well not always, there are Harlequins again (with new models) but they're not exactly new.

And what HF said.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 04/04/2007 6:48 PM

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 04/04/2007 5:26 PM
Yup. Just as we thought. Want to play World Eaters? Take Berzerkers and just pretend it's world Eaters.

Assuming, of course, that the new codex still has such a thing as berserkers and not just CSM painted red.  And even then, you might have to take Kharn in order to make them Troops choices...

To follow the New Jervis Order, you will still have Berserkers as Elites, but if you take Kharn, you will be able to take them as Troops as well. 

Squad sizes will be whatever the Chaos Power's sacred number is for that unit.  6 for Slannesh... and so forth.

It makes me truely sick to my stomach knowing that I just spent all this money on getting the models together for a new Chaos army and now it will be completely wrecked before the paint is dry.  I wish I could drop the lot at my local GW and get even half my money back. 

It's almost as though you guys wish they would nuke the whole edition, start from scratch or mysteriously 'summon up' a version of the game you'll all unilateraly agree on. They haven't mastered temporal string theory. The game can't INSTANTLY be better. No matter what it will take time and practice and all kinds of things. This isn't a thing you can just do in a year, or even five years.

Grow the frak up.

I love the DA dex. As a template for HOW to present a codex in a way that is straightforward and hard to abuse, it is a great book. If every codex in the entire game from this point on is in this vein, the gameplay will get better. Will it make everyone happy? No. Did second edition make everyone happy? Hell no. Did third? It pissed off a whole generation. Did fourth? Well if you lot in this thread are the census, apparently not.

So changes are coming. The PHILOSOPHY behind these changes sounds sincere. Even if it isn't sincere, the template we've all seen looks sound to me as it isn't open to blatant abuse. If, through a process of change that you guys will continue to complain about, all other codexes follow suit I believe the game as a whole will become easier to play and harder to abuse. I would love to see a 40k where you win the game on the table as opposed to during list creation. Have we become so dark that we can't BELIEVE any of this?

I hear a lot of folks lauding other game companies for their design principles. AT43 is going to bankrupt 40k. Infinity won't hurt my chequebook so I'll play that instead and screw that big company because they're all bastards. Every time this kind of discussion comes up it seems we all throw out our ability to be objective.

Of course, this post will change nothing. Some people might agree with me. Some people will probably tell me I'm a sycophant or that I should be disenfranchised and cynical. I'm a realist, I know this full well.

But honestly, this game (and ALL other games) is designed by people like us, for people like us. You couldn't find someone to spend years writing rules that weren't themselves at SOME point interested in this hobby.  I play games that originate from all over the earth. I've played games that no longer exist and own models that haven't been produced in years. I found out about and was fascinated by painting little toy soldiers since I was so young I could barely read. I DO NOT have the time or patience to be bitter about something that is my favorite and most long standing passtime. It really amazes me that anyone could.

So there's my 75 cents on this subject. To tie up this half-assed essay with an ending, I think the point I'm drunkenly careening toward is that if we could all just be less cynical and more constructive then threads like this might be more USEFUL and less COMMON.

How's this, every time we say something negative about ANYTHING, offer a compromise or solution. Offer SOMETHING positive. All this negativity makes me unhappy for the future of the hobby. If when I was eight, I'd read some of the stuff on this forum I'd probably.... well I probably wouldn't have understood it cuz I was so young. And it would probably have made me nervous. And if I walked into a game room or was taught to play in such an environment I probably wouldn't have the same fondness for this passtime that I do.

I remember when I went to the first GT in Canada. I'd only played 40k against a few friends in the past and I was nervous about playing people I didn't know (I was a teenager at the time). I was so happy when I met everyone at the event (run at Vic college here at U of Toronto) because it was like we all already knew each other. We were all stoked to play games of 40k and TALK about 40k with people. It was like some kind of big reunion even though we'd never met before. And for YEARS after that I knew the names and faces of these guys that I'd only see once per year for a weekend.

It seems to me that this kind of cameraderie and esprit de corps has gone out of the hobby.

I really hope this forum represents some kind of mental vent for a lot of folks. I'd hope that we as gamers aren't encouraging a whole new generation of hobbyists to be like this. And man, I'd hate to be a teenager going to his first GT with a bunch of bitter old farts.

-A

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 04/04/2007 5:26 PM

Yup. Just as we thought. Want to play World Eaters? Take Berzerkers and just pretend it's world Eaters. Just like the Eldar Codex and the 'imaginary Craftworlds' you have to use.

Idiots...

BYE

This is exactly what I've been afraid of. I know it's not 100% certain yet, but more and more it looks that this will be the way things are from now. Which is a shame, because if I can't play my Cult Legions then I'm out of 40k. It's sad that the Imperial Legions (well, at least some of them) get their own books, but apparently the far more diverse Traitor Legions must all come from one book... but enough whining.

Maybe the new C:SM Redux will make the new DA Codex null and void, and all SM players will have to play out of the same book? I'd love that.

Am I jaded?

yes.

But that doesnt stop me from talking about a hobby I am obviously passionate about because of the investment in time and money I have made.

The DA dex is good, well except for the layout, but thats personal preference. The problem is consistency.

Please explain to me how making the DA dex, (which again, is good, if it was on par with other dexs) in this way in the middle of an edition is consistent with the rules all other 'dexs prior to it.

if I wanted to spend money and invest time and effort in a product with such problems with consistency, I would have hired somebody from the local shop to write me a dex, as the results would be quite similar.

And yes, if they are going to go through with this, they should scrap the edition. Why? because of consitency. Consistency leads to balance. You cannot have balance without consistency. Sure, the DA dex is balanced, but in comparison to what?

So that leads me to beleive thatt in order for Jervis new Plan to work, there needs to be a fresh beginning. He is planning on the fresh new beginning, but he is going to have to rewrite codicies to achieve that. That leaves people wondering if a codex is made in the future, thatt it might get remade because of somebody (yet again thinking they can do it better, again) coming around and rewriting the codex.

Again, a problem of consistency.

The only consistent thing GW seems to be showing me lately is how fickle and inconsistent they are.

If Jervis' New Plan is the pattern of what is to follow, i welcome it. But I have my doubts that it will be consistent because of how they change their minds at nearly every crossroads. You get sick of people whining, I get sick of investing time and money into something that shows me that they cannot stick to a single plan.
Every game goes through pitfalls, but most games I have played stick to a plan unless it is obviously broken.

The SM codex is not obviously in need of remaking, just because as Jervis said that there isnt any pictures of a bolter in it to show a kids what a bolter looks like. The kid can look in the rule book for that.

You want compromise? Consistency is my compromise. gak or get off the pot, but either way stick with a single plan and dont change course in the middle because Jervis is mentally constipated.

The reason I have Crimson Devil quoted in my sig is so that when people make posts like yours, they have some idea of why there is a larger sense of discontent than ever before.

 " Dakka is a noisy group of disenchanted believers who want some changes made to better the system and are labelled heretics for breaking with the faith. ~Crimson Devil~"

First, many thanks to Yakface for the information. The coming three months may prove to be interesting.

Second, in response to the comment "As a template for HOW to present a codex in a way that is straightforward and hard to abuse, [Codex: Dark Angels] is a great book." Yes and no. The presentation is certainly cleaner and limits creative interpretation of how to equip characters. At the same time, that is its fault. For example, characters no longer have access to a list of wargear - I believe that limits the variety of characters I will face. Boring! And Dark Angels troops are now units of five or ten, much like how they're sold in boxes. Not exciting. Combined with the redundant information in the book... Yawn! Now I have to check two places to answer my questions on a single unit. *sigh*

In my eyes, Codex: DA is another step in dumbing-down the game - choice and variety are removed and the units that remain are cookie-cutter and designed to correspond with how the models are sold.

Maybe it's not all doom and gloom. Perhaps it's not the dumbing down of the game, but the dumbing down of Space Marines and turning their ilk into introductory armies. Is this the direction we'll see future Codicies go?

Oh god oh god oh god please jesus let them actually RELEASE an Ork codex this christmas...I've been waiting too *fudge*ing long...
Seriously, if this turns out to be bull...I'm gonna be actually upset. Stupid to be upset about a game, but there it is.
And no more 8 year gaps? Did he actually mention the ork codex specifically? Because I'd love to have heard that. An admission of guilt. I'll forgive them, if they actually do it, but I ain't never gonna forget the long dark teatime of the soul that has been playing orks in 4th edition.

Posted By fleshcross on 04/04/2007 10:58 PM
This is exactly what I've been afraid of. I know it's not 100% certain yet, but more and more it looks that this will be the way things are from now. Which is a shame, because if I can't play my Cult Legions then I'm out of 40k.

I have gone to great lengths to create a modular Chaos army that has the models to do Black Legion, Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Word Bearers, Emperor's Children, Death Guard, Night Lords and Lost & The Damned. I also have a full World Eater army.

To be told 'Yeah, sorry, these don't exist - but you can just take lots of Marked Troops and pretend to be Emperor's Children' and/or 'But you can take this special character and take Noise Marines as troops and pretend to be Emperor's Children' would really really suck - but I truly do believe that's what we'll get.

BYE

Posted By Kid_Kyoto on 04/04/2007 4:12 PM
I see it as bad news, GW's stable of armies is now set in stone forever and ever and ever. There seems to be little hope that new armies will appear or that less-interesting ones will be put on the shelf for a while to explore new avenues.

For a long-time player like me more rehashing of 80s concepts does little to keep me inteseted.

Hey it's the snotling pump wagon Mk VII!

Ditto that.

Positive:

*army lists will be maintained (theoretically)

*focus on balancing lists.

 

Negative:

*No new armies? No new concepts? Inertia equals death.

*I like the concept of traits/doctrines etc. If you take that away, which it sounds like they will be doing, they make this a much less interesting game. Everyone will have the same list.

 

Posted By Hellfury on 04/04/2007 11:06 PM
Am I jaded?

yes.

But that doesnt stop me from talking about a hobby I am obviously passionate about because of the investment in time and money I have made.

The DA dex is good, well except for the layout, but thats personal preference. The problem is consistency.

Please explain to me how making the DA dex, (which again, is good, if it was on par with other dexs) in this way in the middle of an edition is consistent with the rules all other 'dexs prior to it.

if I wanted to spend money and invest time and effort in a product with such problems with consistency, I would have hired somebody from the local shop to write me a dex, as the results would be quite similar.

And yes, if they are going to go through with this, they should scrap the edition. Why? because of consitency. Consistency leads to balance. You cannot have balance without consistency. Sure, the DA dex is balanced, but in comparison to what?

So that leads me to beleive thatt in order for Jervis new Plan to work, there needs to be a fresh beginning. He is planning on the fresh new beginning, but he is going to have to rewrite codicies to achieve that. That leaves people wondering if a codex is made in the future, thatt it might get remade because of somebody (yet again thinking they can do it better, again) coming around and rewriting the codex.

Again, a problem of consistency.

The only consistent thing GW seems to be showing me lately is how fickle and inconsistent they are.

If Jervis' New Plan is the pattern of what is to follow, i welcome it. But I have my doubts that it will be consistent because of how they change their minds at nearly every crossroads. You get sick of people whining, I get sick of investing time and money into something that shows me that they cannot stick to a single plan.
Every game goes through pitfalls, but most games I have played stick to a plan unless it is obviously broken.

The SM codex is not obviously in need of remaking, just because as Jervis said that there isnt any pictures of a bolter in it to show a kids what a bolter looks like. The kid can look in the rule book for that.

You want compromise? Consistency is my compromise. gak or get off the pot, but either way stick with a single plan and dont change course in the middle because Jervis is mentally constipated.

The reason I have Crimson Devil quoted in my sig is so that when people make posts like yours, they have some idea of why there is a larger sense of discontent than ever before.

 " Dakka is a noisy group of disenchanted believers who want some changes made to better the system and are labelled heretics for breaking with the faith. ~Crimson Devil~"

When guys like me come along..... man who is labeling who? I lumped myself in with my post (when I said we?). Wear that badge dude... it's getting less shiny all the time. Seriously.

I just want an ork codex. Is it so much to ask?
Please let it happen. And then a Dark Eldar codex. Or if you want you can do dark eldar first.
I wonder what the reasoning behind the three month window is?
Surely the more advance info on any project, the more feedback and excitement they can foster?

Achilles: I have much of the same opinion. Heck, I've only been playing for 12 years and have loads of models that I can't use anymore (2nd ed ork gunz anyone?).

A lot of the negativity seems to come from what people view as a lack of consititency. Unless (or until) GW releases a new core rulebook and every codex at the same time, this will not exist. Why do you think WHFB is on it's 7th edition? And most people agree that it is the better rule set of the two core games (LOTR I don't have any exp with).

Things change. It's a game. Even mononpoly has a new edition out now. And since 40K is a much more complex game then monopoly I expect it to have problems that you deal with and adjust to. Any two idiots can sit down and play a board game and probably have a good time, but with wargaming you have to work together to accomplish that.

And yes, please for the love of whatever you hold dear, release a new fricking ork dex (and plastic grots!).

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 04/05/2007 2:25 AM

Posted By fleshcross on 04/04/2007 10:58 PM
This is exactly what I've been afraid of. I know it's not 100% certain yet, but more and more it looks that this will be the way things are from now. Which is a shame, because if I can't play my Cult Legions then I'm out of 40k.

I have gone to great lengths to create a modular Chaos army that has the models to do Black Legion, Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Word Bearers, Emperor's Children, Death Guard, Night Lords and Lost & The Damned. I also have a full World Eater army.

To be told 'Yeah, sorry, these don't exist - but you can just take lots of Marked Troops and pretend to be Emperor's Children' and/or 'But you can take this special character and take Noise Marines as troops and pretend to be Emperor's Children' would really really suck - but I truly do believe that's what we'll get.

BYE

Given what we've seen in the Eldar and DA codices, I'm afraid you're going to be quite right on this one...

People get into and stay into this game because of the background and "falling in love" with certain armies or factions.

When they're removed, well, it isn't a good thing...

You've got me all nervous about the future of the Alpha Legion!

Or should I say, "the future of my bluish-green army of Chaos Undivided marines who can infiltrate (maybe!) a few units, just like everyone else"...?

Posted By budro on 04/05/2007 5:22 AM
Why do you think WHFB is on it's 7th edition?

'Cause GW has learnt that people will buy pretty much anything if you put a shiny new lable on it?

BYE

Lots of interesting thoughts. Back during the build-up and post-release of the most recent Chaos Codex (2003), my personal opinion was that you had to sacrifice some modicum of inherent balance to obtain the flexibility and fun of making a crazy list. That was something I liked about the hobby because it opened it up. It also required some small level of restraint on the part of "killer list builders" to not min/max every time they played. The list wasn't a puzzle to always optimize (that had it's place, like every other game type), but to play with. To do crazy stuff.

Thanks to a few years of incessant whining and tourney focuses, it appears that GW has decided to remove the temptations. We will get smoothly (somewhat) balanced codicies, with little of the flavor that existed before. Great for the tourney players I suppose. But it does shrink the game a bit. As with everything else, we'll see how long it lasts.

The three month window - I also think this is a HUGE mistake. I have literally nothing to be excited about. Like many hobbies and activities, anticipation is a full 50% of the fun. The 3 month window completely removes that, and is yet another decision that distances the company from the players. I agree the free-for-all of a few years back wasn't good either, but people should know what the next 40k and Fantasy armies are after a release. We don't need to see every mini or piece of art, but it allows for speculation, discussion, and INTEREST.

One thing I am a HUGE proponent of is removing the 8 year gaps. A little something for EVERY army EVERY year is a very good thing. It keeps people who focus on one or two armies interested. I consider that GW's poorest roadmap policy of third and fourth edition, which they started to remedy with campaign books (or Cities of Death). Frankly, when they released 4th edition 40k or 7th Edition Fantasy, they should have had a triple AAA Hero/HQ sculpt for EVERY army. Not necessarily exactly that, but a quality release for each army. That way, EVERYONE is excited. Models drive the hobby...not rules. So this is a good (objective) change. Among some that I feel are objectively bad (the 3 month window), and some I don't like, but others will.

1-1-1,
Chuck

I am willing to bet that I have at least 100 models that will no longer be useable in the new chaos codex. if they tank the vastness of chaos i am getting out. I started playing chaos during the realms of chaos era and the possiblities were infinite. they have been shrinking ever since. That gets old.

Posted By Lowinor on 04/04/2007 3:55 PM
Does talk of what's going in to future core rules books mean that fifth edition is under development?

Edit: Or even something like a 4.5e rulebook.

Funny, as originally GW insisted on calling 4th edition, 3.5.

I personally see the changes as a good thing.

There have been more positive things said about the Dark Angels codex (on it's own) then negative. I don't think there are any 'no-brainer" choices in that codex and nearly everything is worth taking. The only problem with it is that it doesn't compare to the current SM codex in power.

They don't really need to restart the game to make it balanced. Eldar, Black Templars, Tau, and Tyranids (with the exception of Godzilla) are all pretty balanced codexes with very little bad choices (with the exception of Black Templars that suffers like C:SM in choices, but lacks the power). "Oh Eldar have holo-fields", well you can field 4 Lascannon Devestator Teams in Dark Angels as a viable option. Besides a Falcon is nothing more than an expensive taxi to begin with.

All they really need to do to tone down 40k and make all the codexes pretty balanced is re-release Space Marines, Chaos, and Orks. A goal they can accomplish by the end of the year.

From there they can start going through the older codexes and start optimizing them.

And as a Choas player the only thing I hope they realize is that the summoning rules aren't broken. They are random, unreliable, and if you couldn't move and assault, most Deamons would be worthless.

As someone who hasn't played 40k since RT days, and wouldn't touch it with someone else's, it strikes me that with all their current core games GW would do better to "draw a line" under the rules. Yeah, rehash some of the older armybooks/codices to get them reasonably balanced and then leave it at that with just FAQ/Errata reprint support.

And then move on to something else. GW seem to create as many problems as they solve and pee off as many people as theyenitice into the game with every new edition, so why bother. They should stop trying to reinvent the wheel and leave it at that. Shoot, if they can't fix a game after 4 editions (or 7) then lets face it they are NEVER going to fix the game! The game is unfixable!

By all means update models so the old fashioned sculpts get a makeover every now and again, but do they get any mileage out of these rehashes of the codices compared to the effort involved? Not if you believe the dakkites, that's for certain!

Personally I would have preferred them to diversify in other ways - maybe they should have taken on FoW and SST when they had the chance. LotR certainly worked for them well, so you think they'd understand that diversification would attract new customers. And also that they are never going to satisfy everyone with their existing core games, so shouldn't try to reinvent the blooming things time after time to no discernible effect!

The only argument I have heard from GW against diversification is that they think they would only be rob themselves of custom from their existing games.  But I cry foul on that argument - people are already buying other companies' offerings because they are bored/ticked off with GW's existing ranges, so to recapture their custom GW have to diversify or face losing their custom altogether to other companies' offerings such as AT-43, Infinity, WM or whatever.

Just my take on things as I look on from the sidelines of 40k and pat myself on the back that I haven't got burned over it.  Right now the game looks like it is one heckuva mess and there is no reason whatsoever for a new gamer to get mired in it when there are new alternative and "clean-looking" rules not tangled up in old editions/nerfing/errors to choose from.

Posted By jfrazell on 04/05/2007 4:38 AM

Negative:

*No new armies? No new concepts? Inertia equals death.

*I like the concept of traits/doctrines etc. If you take that away, which it sounds like they will be doing, they make this a much less interesting game. Everyone will have the same list.

I see where you're coming from, but an important thing to remember is that they're also continuing to do expansions like CoD and Apocalypse.  Maybe there won't be as many separate armies to choose from, but the armies you have will have more settings in which they can be used.  That's the other way to avoid inertia.  If all people are interested in is straight-up tourney style games on basic tables, well, I don't know how you're not getting bored with that anyway. 

Not that anyone here is really going to be fair to GW, but players will be screaming bloody murder no matter what they do.  The more traits, sublists, etc. they generate, the greater the chance for imbalances.  And we all know that a lack of balance in GW games is one of the biggest complaints among players.  What these comments by Jervis amount to is an admission that they haven't done a good job balancing armies. 

So now that they're changing course to address this glaring weakness, GW is getting accused of not listening to its customers because they're streamlining lists.  GW definitely created this situation...I'm not saying the organization isn't to blame.  It's just that IMO it's not fair to blame the guy who's getting stuck trying to clean up the mess.  We all know who the truly guilty designers are/were. 

Regarding the Chaos codex, I'm expecting to see at least some LatD units included.  I think it'll still be a pretty diverse list, although it'll be interesting to see if cults make the cut (note that there are rumors floating around regarding the 1KSons, which you wouldn't see if cults are completely out).  I don't think for one minute an additional codex(-ices) dealing with the cults is out of the question.  If cults are gone from this first codex, I think that just leaves the door *wide open* for future releases. 

the probelm is that GW can't expand the range. It will not fit into their little stores. That is part of their current problem. is they have to design games to fit in the stores. they lost 20 percent of the store space to lord of the rings. that basiclly took out the room for epic and other fringe games. We could add another army but what will come out of the store? is a question they have to answer.

Posted By Mahu on 04/05/2007 6:45 AM

There have been more positive things said about the Dark Angels codex (on it's own) then negative.

What rock have you been living under?  Response to the codex has been almost universally negative.

Posted By Achilles on 04/05/2007 5:06 AM

Posted By Hellfury on 04/04/2007 11:06 PM

The reason I have Crimson Devil quoted in my sig is so that when people make posts like yours, they have some idea of why there is a larger sense of discontent than ever before.

 " Dakka is a noisy group of disenchanted believers who want some changes made to better the system and are labelled heretics for breaking with the faith. ~Crimson Devil~"

When guys like me come along..... man who is labeling who? I lumped myself in with my post (when I said we?). Wear that badge dude... it's getting less shiny all the time. Seriously.

Notice how I said when people make posts like yours....big difference there big buddy. Please dont quote me out of context.

Dude, I was really trying to give your post an honest and non negative reply.  There is no lumping you in with a certain lot, but the post you made is the same old "Whining against whining post".

All I am saying is that there is a reason. I gave a reason you gave yours.

Now who is being negative?

Posted By Buoyancy on 04/05/2007 7:37 AM

Posted By Mahu on 04/05/2007 6:45 AM

There have been more positive things said about the Dark Angels codex (on it's own) then negative.

What rock have you been living under?  Response to the codex has been almost universally negative.

That just what jervis wants to beleive, Bouyancy.

He has been quoted on warseer to basically deny the existance of criticism for the DA codex, which is fine.

But ignoring criticism isnt going to be healthy in the long run.

Posted By Buoyancy on 04/05/2007 7:37 AM

Posted By Mahu on 04/05/2007 6:45 AM

There have been more positive things said about the Dark Angels codex (on it's own) then negative.

What rock have you been living under?  Response to the codex has been almost universally negative.

Did you read my post, or did you just pull out a random quote to poop on.

My point was that outside the spectre of the Space Marnie Codex, Dark Angels is a pretty good codex, and most people I have found like it in preciple just not in use. Deathwing isn't viable because of Lysanderwing, Shooty Dark Angels isn't viable because of 6-man Las/Plas of the Space Marine Codex. However, if you match up Dark Angels against Tau, Non-Godzilla Tyranids, Eldar, or Black Templars, it's pretty balanced. The problem is in the Space Marine Codex more than it is in the Dark Angels one.

 

Just because Dakka hates the DA codex doesn't mean it is universally reviled. I have heard a few very vocal dissenters, but other than that I have heard more positive than negative about the codex. I haven't heard one word bad about the dex in my gaming circle at the shop, with most people hoping the Space Marine codex gets the changes.

The Space Marines dex has a lot of problems, that if solved sets a greater tone of balance among the new codexes.

Just because you hate it that much Bouyancy doesn't mean you count as two or three people

I agree with Mahu. The Dark Angels dex is competitive with everything but the old marine dex.

The biggest complaint I heard was the lessensing of the number of assualt cannons you could have.
I though assault cannons were massively broken, but there ya go.

Aye, where I play, they think people on this board are crazy.

In fact, our leading general right now is a DA player with a mixed RW and DW force.

I refuse to believe that Dakka posters are the gold standard for rules balance, and great tactics.

What dakka posters are is a gold standard for cancerous whiners who are hell bent on ruining a hobby.

Lower amounts of assault cannons and non min maxed las/plas squads do not a bad codex make.

Hell, people here still have issues with godzilla nid armies. I have ever seen but one out of the 20 attempts actually win.

Do those nid players ALL suck? Hells no. Godzilla nids with devourer toting carnifexes just suck is all.

Posted By gorgon on 04/05/2007 6:57 AM

I think it'll still be a pretty diverse list, although it'll be interesting to see if cults make the cut (note that there are rumors floating around regarding the 1KSons, which you wouldn't see if cults are completely out).  I don't think for one minute an additional codex(-ices) dealing with the cults is out of the question.  If cults are gone from this first codex, I think that just leaves the door *wide open* for future releases. 

Remove the cults from the current Chaos codex, and add the following rule:

Devotional Cult.  Any Chaos Space Marines army in which every non-vehicle model either bears the mark of a single Chaos god or is a daemonic servant of that god is a cult army.  Cult armies may add 1 to summoning rolls and receive the first Aspiring Champion upgrade in each squad for no point cost so long as the squad has a number of models equal to the god's favored number.

And with a short, simple rule, you're missing... Plague Marines in Rhinos as fast attack, and Emperor's Children vehicle weapon swaps.

Of course, even without some rule, I'm of the opinion that "$god heavy Black Legion" is more competitive than any of the cult lists with Emperor's Children being the only close competition.  I'd be much more afraid if I played Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, or Night Lords (and terrified if I played Word Bearers, as I'm expecting daemon summoning and/or force org chart position to change significantly) as compared to the cults.

With the marine sub-codices detailed at full codex levels, I'd be surprised to see the Chaos legions go away entirely, but meh, the cults at least don't have nearly the same level of distinctiveness from "$god heavy Black Legion" that the named loyalist marine chapters do.

If they took rending off assault cannons I'd have no problem with it, as it stands it's the best gun in the game on the best shots in the game, which is a pile of poo.
As for min maxed las plas, I love facing that.Granted, I *shock* don't play MEQ.
Watching marines blowing themselves up is always worth it. >
I have to agree with Slave in one respect, I think there's a little too much group think about what is and isn't broken on these boards, from some people at least. Whiners bent on destroying the hobby, no, that's wrong. But maybe a little skewed sometimes, yes.

Posted By Slave on 04/05/2007 8:41 AM
What dakka posters are is a gold standard for cancerous whiners who are hell bent on ruining a hobby.

If this is what you truly believe, then we can pretty much discount everything else you say from hereon out.

Hell bent on ruining the hobby? What freaking planet are you from?

BYE

I'd just discount that, some of his other points make plenty of sense.
That's hyperbole.
I think everyone on here wants to improve the hobby, the problem being that no two people agree what that improvement could be!

Posted By Slave on 04/05/2007 8:41 AM
Aye, where I play, they think people on this board are crazy.

In fact, our leading general right now is a DA player with a mixed RW and DW force.

I refuse to believe that Dakka posters are the gold standard for rules balance, and great tactics.

What dakka posters are is a gold standard for cancerous whiners who are hell bent on ruining a hobby.

Lower amounts of assault cannons and non min maxed las/plas squads do not a bad codex make.

Hell, people here still have issues with godzilla nid armies. I have ever seen but one out of the 20 attempts actually win.

Do those nid players ALL suck? Hells no. Godzilla nids with devourer toting carnifexes just suck is all.

I sense a new siggy.

Dakka is more brutal and tournamenty I'll grant you that. However, I'd also warrant its also made up of a higher number of "veteran" players that have been around a bit, who also play or have experience with other systems.

It's very tournamenty.
But that's interesting to me as a club gamer. The cries of "nerf" about assault cannon reduction perhaps should have been "fix!" though
(My sorta sympathies to any who had bought a whole bunch of 'em, but I can't feel too much pity, it's just too damned beardy! And yes, it is GW's fault for letting you, but even then...)

That's kinda sad, really - the cults used to be more diverse.

They'd still need to include those special weapons where appropriate (you can have my blastmaster when you pry it from my cold, dead, sticky fingers), and the Mark rules would have to pick up most of the slack of defining what makes a Cult marine.

There are a lot of results out of Adepticon this past weekend that would seriously weaken this argument....

Posted By Slave on 04/05/2007 8:41 AM

Lower amounts of assault cannons and non min maxed las/plas squads do not a bad codex make.

There's a huge, throbbing, difference between "bad" and "uncompetitive (in the current top-end play environment)".  Most of the complaints from Dakkaites have been that the codex is the latter.  The secondary complaint is that it has less total options than previous lists, which is frequently asserted to be demonstrative of a bad codex.

If you give choice, it is abused in a high end top play environment.
If you take away choice to limit abuse, it's a nerf.
In this case, GW really can't win. They're trying to please all comers, but it's not working properly.
I don't see 40K as a tournement game though, for me tourneys are occasions to meet other gamers and go to the pub. So discount my arguments if you're a ferverent believer that it can and should be.
But I think if you want a balanced tournament environment, you gotta accept a certain level of reduced choice.
(The second part could be because I'm Irish though)

This can be done. ONly certain "balanced" lists can make it to a GT. Other lists are playable, but not at a GT. Whats the problem?

Posted By Janthkin on 04/05/2007 9:07 AM

And with a short, simple rule, you're missing... Plague Marines in Rhinos as fast attack, and Emperor's Children vehicle weapon swaps.

That's kinda sad, really - the cults used to be more diverse.

They'd still need to include those special weapons where appropriate (you can have my blastmaster when you pry it from my cold, dead, sticky fingers), and the Mark rules would have to pick up most of the slack of defining what makes a Cult marine.

Well, yeah -- at least since the current Chaos codex, playing the cult lists is more of a theme decision than anything else, with the main bonuses (free champs and +1 to summoning) there to offset the penalties of not taking unmarked (or differently marked) models.  That's the current cult rules -- a couple of nice but not ungodly bonuses to offset the limitations.

With what's been published lately, I doubt sonic weaponry is going away anytime soon; I expect we'll just get Noise Marines (and potentially Noise Marine Havocs and Noise Marine Bikers) as separate army list entries with their unique weaponry as standard squad options.  I'd be much more concerned about losing the ability of IW to take Basilisks and other stuff like Stealth Adept than really big changes in the cult lists -- I don't anticipate marked troops going away as entities on the tabletops, and the cults as they exist are such minor modifications over Black Legion.

I would be curious to see what the results would show. Anyone have any of the stats by army or anything?

I am very curious about the performance of the army.

Posted By jfrazell on 04/05/2007 9:20 AM
This can be done. ONly certain "balanced" lists can make it to a GT. Other lists are playable, but not at a GT. Whats the problem?

Good point.

I'll tell you what Dakka posters are, they are a cross section of the hobby. And 'they' include you. I always find it amusing when someone makes a statement, that some posters agree with and others disagree with that the disagree crowd is lumped in as "Dakka".

Dakka is everyone who posts here, people who agree with you and people who don't.

I'll tell you what we're not ... we're not bent on ruining the hobby. We (including you) CARE about the hobby or we wouldn't post here.

Someday you'll learn that the way to win an argument is not to accuse those who take a counter point of being evil. But until then, please remember that it is THEORETICALLY possible for someone to disagree with you and NOT be out to destroy the known universe... or even a cool hobby.

Sorry, that has me grinning.
Good post, and I apologise for lumping people in as "Dakka", obviously I'm a contributer. What I should have said is that certain attitudes are more common here than in other places I've browsed.

On the whole, I quite enjoy dakkadakka. Not agreeing with people leads to interesting chats.

Posted By Slave on 04/05/2007 8:41 AM
Aye, where I play, they think people on this board are crazy.

In fact, our leading general right now is a DA player with a mixed RW and DW force.

I refuse to believe that Dakka posters are the gold standard for rules balance, and great tactics.

What dakka posters are is a gold standard for cancerous whiners who are hell bent on ruining a hobby.

Lower amounts of assault cannons and non min maxed las/plas squads do not a bad codex make.

Hell, people here still have issues with godzilla nid armies. I have ever seen but one out of the 20 attempts actually win.

Do those nid players ALL suck? Hells no. Godzilla nids with devourer toting carnifexes just suck is all.

Translation,

I am a 14 year old attention whore! Pay attention to me!  Dakka made fun of my Pan Fo being reviled and made me cry!!!!!

Posted By Dice Monkey on 04/05/2007 10:03 AM

Posted By Slave on 04/05/2007 8:41 AM
Aye, where I play, they think people on this board are crazy.

In fact, our leading general right now is a DA player with a mixed RW and DW force.

I refuse to believe that Dakka posters are the gold standard for rules balance, and great tactics.

What dakka posters are is a gold standard for cancerous whiners who are hell bent on ruining a hobby.

Lower amounts of assault cannons and non min maxed las/plas squads do not a bad codex make.

Hell, people here still have issues with godzilla nid armies. I have ever seen but one out of the 20 attempts actually win.

Do those nid players ALL suck? Hells no. Godzilla nids with devourer toting carnifexes just suck is all.

Translation,

I am a 14 year old attention whore! Pay attention to me!  Dakka made fun of my Pan Fo being reviled and made me cry!!!!!

All your secrets are belong to us when the Pan Fo are reviled!

Posted By Slave on 04/05/2007 8:41 AM
Aye, where I play, they think people on this board are crazy.

In fact, our leading general right now is a DA player with a mixed RW and DW force.

I refuse to believe that Dakka posters are the gold standard for rules balance, and great tactics.

What dakka posters are is a gold standard for cancerous whiners who are hell bent on ruining a hobby.

Lower amounts of assault cannons and non min maxed las/plas squads do not a bad codex make.

Hell, people here still have issues with godzilla nid armies. I have ever seen but one out of the 20 attempts actually win.

Do those nid players ALL suck? Hells no. Godzilla nids with devourer toting carnifexes just suck is all.

This just makes me laugh.  So your top end player uses mixed RW & DW?  And you've only seen 1 out of 20 Godzilla nid army's win a game?

I'm always amazed when I read such obnoxious statements, that fly in the face of all rhyme or reason of anyone who has played this game for about 3 months. 

See what I love about dakka is that silly statements like this get pointed at and mocked, as they should be.   It's like when I go to Warseer and see a poll on whether the Lascannon or Missile Launcher is a better option and see the Missile Launcher winning by a large margin, with pages of posts defending the virtue of such a clearly inferior weapon. 

No, Dakka is a place where such stupidity is kept in check by those members who actually know how to play the games we're discussing.  And yet, amazingly I can come here and STILL see amazing pieces of modeling and painting, discussion of news, and every other aspect of the hobby.   It's the very definition of a place that's healthy for the people in the hobby.

Jervis fiddles while GW burns.

Between the ate up buisness practices, the outragous pricing, and the never stable rules " Improvements" I am now a confirmed skeptic to the GW attept to dig themselves out of thier own grave. Unless they fix their own blatiently stupid issues, this company won't last another year.


My only want is a decent miniatures game that is fun to play, is that so much to ask for? Explain the thought process behind this " Rumor"?

Im not mad....

One thing I want to point out:

Building list which are not the best config of the codex doesn't equal stupidity.

I play Tyranids without any range attacks, sure it's lousy compared to Godzilla, am I stupid because of that? I don't guess so...on the other hand I wouldn't come along and say that I play in an overly competitive environment which is into that tournament play.

The only new rumor that makes me sad is that we won't see any Space Skaven in the future...that would have been fun. But again, I have enough armies to paint.

And honestly, all the crying about Gw killing the Craftworlds with the new codex is a it exaggerated. In reference to the new Chaos codex, I'm almost sure the Legions will be tuned down like in the new Eldar Codex. Let's just hope they don't kill them off altogether, but to grand everyone his personal cheesebaby won't survive another year in business as well.

Greets
Schepp himself

That's true Russ, I am part of the Dakka Community, but my amount of hate spewing is consciderably lower than say. Hellfury?

Go look at a page, pick one, count the number of threads, now see how many are filled with complaining.

Go to the Dark Angles thread, see what percent of that is hate.

That codex is better than fine, and the only problem it has is a lack of 2 assault cannons in a min/maxed squad, plus the 10 man squad and lack of min/maxed las plas squads.

I still agree that Godzilla Nid lists suck Rhino Testes.

In my 19 years of playing GW, this is the most concentrated bunch of whiners I have ever seen.


I need to get back on topic though.


If they make ALL of the codexes the same way they made the DA and eldar books, the game will be fine, but that requires a redo of the SM codex sooner than later.

I agree with an above poster that this is a step back toward second edition.

The squads' options where listed on the same page. Numbers where mostly static and the game was fine.

This game will be fine as soon as they put the move stat back in, give weapons more creative ranges, and not multiples of 6 and make LD worth something, thats the only things 40K is missing now.

*cough* And better rules support. And an new Ork Codex. And...but I digress.

GW has been going in a new direction for a while. Blisters are going away and we're seeing more (prettier) boxes. The last couple codecies have significantly changed format. Rumors windos are shrinking. It's inevitable GW is going to abandon some fanboys along the way (ask anyone who has to rip arms off Dark Angels models to bring their army in line with the new Codex).

All we can do is voice our concerns (whining to some) and hope GW takes our comments into consideration. Or we can move on to other, better systems.

You're not hanging out on Warseer too are you? Seem to be a few complainers going on there as well:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1445420#post1445420

% Hate: I think if you review this very thread, you'll find that its only a few posters that disagree with you, and that quite a few folks LIKE the new DA codex direction.  Of the ones that disagree with your position, there are only perhaps one or two that I would describe as rude (hateful?).    To be honest, the only name calling in this thread is coming from you.  And you are attacking people who haven't even commented on your discussion (i.e. EVERYONE who posts on Dakka).

Godzilla Nid List stinky
Your position on the Nidzilla list being weak is debatable at best.  Just attend a tourney or other competitive event to see for yourself.   The most common army I saw at Adepticon this past weekend (remember 360+ players) was Nidzilla.  It even outnumbered marine drop pods.  You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but others are entitled to theirs without being accused of being hateful. 

DA Codex
For the record, I LIKE the new DA codex and the direction GW is taking with it.  PP and other companies control game balance by limiting unit options.  Variety comes from how you combine your various units, not how you modify a particular unit.  By making these changes it will give GW more control over game balance, and allow them to keep the armies distinct. 

 

Hey voodoo. Opinions are just that. I see a lot more missle launchers in dev squads than las cannons any day. Statistically for the price they are much better than Las cannons in DA dev squads for certain.

and how about other systems, that may not be better.

The general concensus of Dakka is usually a lot different than a lot of the world. It is because of the people that play here and the gaming groups they are in. But I count myself as a part of Dakka, and I disagree and argue with a lot of what is said on here.

I guess I'll pitch my 2 cents in. I spent some time talking to Jervis (and I was the guy who interviewed him in the first place for the AdeptiCon Spotlight.). He's definitely loyal to the company, which isn't a bad thing, but the guy does genuinely care for the hobby.

Now, I'm reading into a lot of things here, but it seems to me that Jervis does recognize a lot of flaws with the system. They've got a lot of contradictory goals, however, which are what causes the issues that we see. Since they've basically disavowed the practice of releasing rules modifications online/WD (with a few exceptions), they're left with trying to fix things as they go. IF they can keep to that committment, than I think in about 2 years there's going to be some great improvements in balance and stuff. After talking with Jervis, I'm convinced that 40K is headed in the right general direction, from both a casual hobbyist viewpoint and a tournament gamer viewpoint. Sure, there's going to be some compromises, but in general, I think that the game is headed in the right direction.

As an aside, I can tell you that I'm glad that some of the Studio guys got a chance to come out and see how an American tournament works. The generally dismissive attitude of the Studio towards tournament play may stem largely from the...um...extremely vigorous...nature of tournament play in the UK. By their standards, us Yanks were a bunch of good-natured, easy-going blokes who never argued about anything. The fact that a "yellow card" system was largely unnecessary seemed to astonish them. Having had a few friends who flew over to compete in the UK GT, and the acceptable level of behavior there...I can understand their surprise.

So I guess what I'm saying is that while the rumors from AdeptiCon were pretty...well...nonexistent. I do like the direction that the game is heading. It just might be a while to get there.

Posted By Slave on 04/05/2007 11:42 AM
That's true Russ, I am part of the Dakka Community, but my amount of hate spewing is consciderably lower than say. Hellfury?

Go look at a page, pick one, count the number of threads, now see how many are filled with complaining.

Go to the Dark Angles thread, see what percent of that is hate.

That codex is better than fine, and the only problem it has is a lack of 2 assault cannons in a min/maxed squad, plus the 10 man squad and lack of min/maxed las plas squads.

I still agree that Godzilla Nid lists suck Rhino Testes.

In my 19 years of playing GW, this is the most concentrated bunch of whiners I have ever seen.

Since I have been specifically targeted for hate spewing, I feel I have due course to direct a comment at you.

You are an obnoxious troll. There. You have your hateful rude comment you were looking for.

As for the remark of Dakka being "the most concentrated bunch of whiners I have ever seen." Thats an obvious attempt at the pot calling the kettle black, mate.

Now stop getting your panties all bunched up in a wad. This is a game about dollies. We discuss a game about dollies on this board. Thats the purpose of such. How seriously you take any comment made by anonymous posters on the 'net is up to you, but it might be good for your blood pressure to lighten up a bit if it upsets you so much.

Posted By Centurian99 on 04/05/2007 1:37 PM


As an aside, I can tell you that I'm glad that some of the Studio guys got a chance to come out and see how an American tournament works. The generally dismissive attitude of the Studio towards tournament play may stem largely from the...um...extremely vigorous...nature of tournament play in the UK. By their standards, us Yanks were a bunch of good-natured, easy-going blokes who never argued about anything. The fact that a "yellow card" system was largely unnecessary seemed to astonish them. Having had a few friends who flew over to compete in the UK GT, and the acceptable level of behavior there...I can understand their surprise.

What do you mean?

Posted By jfrazell on 04/05/2007 1:41 PM

Posted By Centurian99 on 04/05/2007 1:37 PM


As an aside, I can tell you that I'm glad that some of the Studio guys got a chance to come out and see how an American tournament works. The generally dismissive attitude of the Studio towards tournament play may stem largely from the...um...extremely vigorous...nature of tournament play in the UK. By their standards, us Yanks were a bunch of good-natured, easy-going blokes who never argued about anything. The fact that a "yellow card" system was largely unnecessary seemed to astonish them. Having had a few friends who flew over to compete in the UK GT, and the acceptable level of behavior there...I can understand their surprise.

What do you mean?

Apparently, at the UK GT they have to have staff walking around issuing warnings (aka yellow cards) and kicking people out (red cards) for shady behavior, or some such (this is secondhand, from what one of the GW guys told the guy running the Fantasy side of the house, who I talked to while running the BFG tournament on Sunday).  The GW staffer was pretty amazed that we didn't need to have anything like that set up, and really didn't need it.  We've got rules judges and the like walking around, but aside from monitoring slow play, their job is to react, not to interfere. 

Surveillance society

However, show some bare flesh in America, and you get hit by
the No Shirt No Shoes police.

This, tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.



This reinforces it.



And people complain the lists are all the same now.

Of course, there is always the option that you could do us all a favor and get lost. Your obviously not interested in contributing anything, and even if you were, your obviously not bright enough to have anything useful to contribute.

I hear bolter and chainsword needs a 3 page post about why the grenade launcher is the best assault weapon guard have. And you sound like the perfect man for the job.

In my little pond Nidzilla is as close to over the top as you can get. I shelved my 24 wound MC list because people absolutley hate to play against it. I may pull it out for occasional tourney play but never for friendly.

Also, can we start a policy of banning people who have 'played for 19 years' yet can't tell a god awful DA list from a tier 1 tourney list?

What about if they troll relentlessly and won't leave?

"We" have no control over bannings. This is Russ's house.

(which is probably why I've been allowed to post here incessantly)

Posted By malfred on 04/05/2007 2:04 PM
"We" have no control over bannings. This is Russ's house.

(which is probably why I've been allowed to post here incessantly)

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I was having a discussion on the various and sundry codexes presently in print when a good friend of mine (who, coincidentally played in the team tournament at Adepticon this year. His name is Shawn, and the team was playing Minotaur chapter space marines)

The main point of our conversation, as he pointed out to me, was that the codex are presently gaged as follows:

Tier 1: Lists that are damn hard to lose with if you have anything even resembling tactical knowledge. Not unbeatable, but these are safe-bet armies that can do very well and produce very powerful lists. Tier 1 Codexes in order from strongest to weakest in my eyes are:

Codex: Chaos Space Marines (Not legion specific lists, mind you, but the codex as a whole)
Codex: Space Marines (Including named chapters, DIY, and Blood Angels at the moment)
Codex: Eldar
Codex: Tau
Codex: Tyranids

Tier 2: Lists that are very very solid, and can be used to produce effective, game-winning lists, but the ability to produce consistent lists can be tricky at points. Once again, in order from strongest to weakest in my eyes:

Codex: Dark Angels
Codex: Black Templars
Codex: Imperial Guard
Codex: Necrons
Codex: Space Wolfs
Codex: Dark Eldar (this one is tricky, I've seen dark eldar rip armies to shreds, and be wiped off the board back to back, as such I consider it more
of a player driven codex, as it can make some devastating builds that can work consistently, if the general knows his or her
stuff. It may belong in Tier 3, but I'm putting it into tier 2 for the moment)

Tier 3: these lists are, in my opinion, sub par. A person can still win with them, and they are somewhat viable, but in comparison to Tier 1 and 2 codex standards, they do not hold up. These are in order of effectiveness in my eyes, just as the two above lists are.

Codex: Witchhunters (This could also be a tier 2 list as well, but once again, like dark eldar, it really depends on the general playing the list as to
whether it can be brought into it's own and used effectively.)
Codex: Demonhunters
Codex: Orks


That's how it stands in my eyes at the moment. Agree, disagree, I don't particularly care as this is my opinion. Also , let me clarify that I am in no way saying that I don't like any of these armies, or have placed them in the order I have based on personal dislikes or likes. This is based on my ~7 years of playing the game and observing different lists at different times and how effective they were from a typical 'fun' game perspective, as well as a tournament perspective. They all have their strong points and things that make them unique and effective (to varying degrees).

If we could just get all of the codexes into tier 2, I think the game would benefit as a whole.

My thoughts, take from them what you will.

Take it easy everyone.

-Red__Thirst-

Edit: How could I forget bugs??...*sigh*

Russ is my new hero. Russ, man, you are the man. Forever. What kinda guy will take your team's picture at adepticon, run a kick ass website that we all love to hate at times (cache full) but can't live without, brings a huge community of players together that can meet at a huge event, and then....

SMITE THE TROLLS WITH HIS GOLDEN WISDOM!

Slave, please type "www.warseer.com" and "www.bolterandchainsword.com" and click "register", and then join the Dark Angel specific forums so you can masturbate while GW rams Dark Angel and no cult Chaos codicies that splooge plastic bloodthirsters down your throat with the rest of the fan bois.

Russ, you do a hell of a job, and yours is the only show in town. I regret that I never had a chance to go to the Dakka store.

And on a final note, if the Chaos Traitor Legions go away, I think I'll finally have to hang the hat on 40k. I can't play a game without my best friend Khorne looking over my shoulder to cheer me on to blood soaked victory or shameful defeat. Taking the Cults and Traitor Legions out of Chaos would be like telling the Marine players they can't play Blood Angels, Ultras, Dark Angels, or Space Wolves anymore.

Black Templar who?

Red I think you forgot nids. (they would be tier 1 as well)

But yes your assessment is right. (although I'm personally a big fan of both mech sisters and portal DE)

The problem is that that the DA codex doesn't even fit into tier 3. On top of that, all the builds are absurdly similar and have no identity whatsoever. Hell, they name your characters for you!

Posted By IntoTheRain on 04/05/2007 2:26 PM
Red I think you forgot nids. (they would be tier 1 as well)

But yes your assessment is right. (although I'm personally a big fan of both mech sisters and portal DE)

The problem is that that the DA codex doesn't even fit into tier 3. On top of that, all the builds are absurdly similar and have no identity whatsoever. Hell, they name your characters for you!

I agree totally with your first two sentences and partially with your third.

I do think that DA fit into somewhere between tier2-3 in RedThirsts breakdown. It is a marine list after all. Not as powerful as codem SM, but it is still SM all the same.

IF Jervis can balance everything with the DA codex, then ...everything is balanced and everything fits into the tier 2 slot as redthirst suggested. Hopefully that will come to pass. I have my doubts, but I also have my hopes as well.

But you are right about the lack of diversity in the new DA codex, specifically in the format of wargear options. its a wargear option for a reason. its an option. Without that, there are no options to make a list your own specialized force.

The names characters though, I could care less about their names. "Belial" is just a good as "Alfred Hankle-bottoms the third" to me. As Shakespeare said: "Whats in a name"?

Letters n' stuff.

I have always had an aversion to taking special characters anyway. Give me grand master Bob anyday over Azrael the supreme poo bah. I enjoy seeing customized armies personaly and would hate to see them go away were everyone has the same options and thier just named different. Minus the excessive assault cannons the marine dex and chaos are exceptional and allow for so much customization and I believe that's one of the reasons they are so popular. The trait system also prevents boredom. Today I am going with Trust your battle brothers tommorrow I may just take be swift as the wind. Same goes for chaos, one day papa Nurgle tommorrow Khorne on the nob.

Posted By IntoTheRain on 04/05/2007 1:52 PM

That codex is better than fine, and the only problem it has is a lack of 2 assault cannons in a min/maxed squad, plus the 10 man squad and lack of min/maxed las plas squads.

This, tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

I still agree that Godzilla Nid lists suck Rhino Testes.

This reinforces it.

If they make ALL of the codexes the same way they made the DA and eldar books, the game will be fine, but that requires a redo of the SM codex sooner than later.

And people complain the lists are all the same now.

Of course, there is always the option that you could do us all a favor and get lost. Your obviously not interested in contributing anything, and even if you were, your obviously not bright enough to have anything useful to contribute.

I hear bolter and chainsword needs a 3 page post about why the grenade launcher is the best assault weapon guard have. And you sound like the perfect man for the job.

yeah, obviously.   

My point about the named characters was just how far the customization has come, and gone... (their writing your fluff for you now)
Its also really no that important. (although I think most people like writing their own fluff)

But I'm actually more interested in debating the tier that DA are at.

I would say that being marines is actually the worst possible thing they could be. For the sake of arguement, lets say someone actually took DA to a tournament. (hypothetically of course) We can already surmise these things about the list. One, it is badly undergunned. Two, its model count is pathetic. And three, it gives him a psycological advantage as your opponent will not stop laughing. (ok that one was filler, just know hes outnumbered and outgunned)

Now consider how heavily saturated the game is with anti MEQ weapons.

Thats why I would much prefer to take Orks than DA to a tournament, at least that way you know you have a moderate chance by simply anticipating the metagame.

Dark Angels are better than Orks...That's about it. I definitely would put DH and WH above Dark Angels any day.

They definitely don't belong above Wolves and Guard.

This thread actually got me to come out of Lurkdom.

But, IntoTheRain, have you actually played a game with DA?  Do you even know who the DA are?  Of course they have named characters, they are one of the 3 Named Chapters with their own codex.  If you don't want a named character, play a DA Successor and then you get to make up your own name and fluff.  It like saying but I want my Ultramarines to be led by Chapter Master Joe and be pink instead of blue.  That's fine, but they ain't Ultras anymore.

EDIT: Took out some remarks to IntoTheRain, this is my first thread, want to be nice...


Ozymandias, King of Kings

The 3 month rumor cycle is because they don't want scare anyone off from startinga  new army. Would you buy $400+ worth of stuff for an army whose dex is going to change in 5 months? I don't think so.

And I have to agree with many folks who say the DA dex isn't horrible.... No, it isn't competitive versus many other dexes. But is competitiveness the only criteria for how good an entire codex is? I don't think so. Limiting the assault cannon IS a good way of toning down what is one of the best weapons in the game without having to to a single rules redux. It isn't a nerf and is a move toward balance.

I buy little new GW stuff so i don't have room to complain... But the issue is not that rules invalidate units or tactics but it means we have wasted a bunch of $. If GW wants to create a better game they need to get their pricing issues in order. I don't care how good a unit is if 10 platics are gonna cost me $40. I DIDN'T start a DH army because I didn't want to pay for Vostroyans (they are so choice). This could be the greatest game in the world.... but it can still price itself out of existence.

Oh, and yes, Dakka folks are some of the biggest whiners and groaners around. We are also some of the bigest supporters of the hobby. We play, we paint and we convert. We make up campaign rules and run events. Sites like Dakka, Portent, Batreps.com (the latter are now gone) and others are what made this hobby so much fun.

ender502

I attended the workshop on Monday morning. It was definitely eye-opening and an interesting look at the future of games workshop and their take on the hobby. There were a few more points that need to be brought up (or re-brought up) from what he discussed. I?m going to try hard to keep from advocating any points and just report what was said.

On the philosophy of FAQs: First, he said the question has to genuinely be ?frequent?. They aren?t going to publish something to correct every oversight or interaction. Second, FAQs will only be used to correct categorical inconsistencies such as, ?the cost of this item is 12 points here, and 15 points in another section.? Third, FAQ will not be used to ?write rules as you wish they had been written.? He gave an example to illustrate this point. He said throughout playtesting, the Master of the Ravenwing fired his bolters and his plasma cannon. It wasn?t until the book was going out the door that someone pointed out to Jervis that the rules clearly state a jetbike can fire ONE weapon. He said something along the lines, of how he wished he caught that, but that?s the way the rule is written and it?s just reason to do better next time.

On outside playtesting: He said it has been falsely reported that GW has ended their outside playtesting program. Previously, there had been a site where playtesters could log in and see the rules under development. Within that context they were able to offer advice to the game designers about balance issues and suggestions. He said they came to the conclusion that this was premature to have outside people influence the design of the rules, that the game designers should do their job and have the rules created before they are seen by anyone else. So there are still outside playtesters, but they are limited to only pointing out typos and direct contradictions in the rules, nothing more.

A phrase Jervis kept using was that players should be ?confident? in the units presented in the book and their available choices. He said he wanted the game to be ?nudged? away from a game about the units you pick (and the options you use) and more a game about how you used your units in play. In a way, it sounded to me like 40k is becoming much more like fantasy where the flexibility of any given unit is restricted, and it?s how you maneuver your units and use them that determine a game.

On upcoming codexes: As has been reported elsewhere, Jervis gave no specifics. In my conference he did say though, ?that you could expect that the codexes that are difficult for a new player to create an army with, and one couldn?t be confident in their choices, may be revised first.? At another point it was either stated or agreed that the Chaos codex can be very confusing for a player to use and met this criteria.

On the question of the space marine codex: He said that at some point in the future, ?We will have to answer a question, and the question is, does the space marine codex represent the ultramarines, or all space marine chapters? I don?t have an answer for you yet, it?s a question we are still working on.?

On codex re-printings: During the QA that evening, in reference to the Necrons, he said they would no longer make rules changes in the codexes between printings. He also admitted they were wrong to have done so previously.

Posted By Ebon on 04/05/2007 4:30 PM
I attended the workshop on Monday morning. It was definitely eye-opening and an interesting look at the future of games workshop and their take on the hobby. There were a few more points that need to be brought up (or re-brought up) from what he discussed. I’m going to try hard to keep from advocating any points and just report what was said.

1) On the philosophy of FAQs: First, he said the question has to genuinely be ‘frequent’. They aren’t going to publish something to correct every oversight or interaction. Second, FAQs will only be used to correct categorical inconsistencies such as, “the cost of this item is 12 points here, and 15 points in another section.” Third, FAQ will not be used to “write rules as you wish they had been written.” He gave an example to illustrate this point. He said throughout playtesting, the Master of the Ravenwing fired his bolters and his plasma cannon. It wasn’t until the book was going out the door that someone pointed out to Jervis that the rules clearly state a jetbike can fire ONE weapon. He said something along the lines, of how he wished he caught that, but that’s the way the rule is written and it’s just reason to do better next time.

1) So basically (and please do correct me if I am off base) that the future FaQ's will be tools to change rules. As in "this cost 12 points instead of 15" or "Even though the rules say that a marine carrying bolters cannot fire a pistol weapon once and assault, they can now".
I dont have a problem with this, just wanted to clarify that FaQ's are now a chance for GW to change rules, and not answer frequently asked questions.

Posted By Ebon on 04/05/2007 4:30 PM

2) On outside playtesting: He said it has been falsely reported that GW has ended their outside playtesting program. Previously, there had been a site where playtesters could log in and see the rules under development. Within that context they were able to offer advice to the game designers about balance issues and suggestions. He said they came to the conclusion that this was premature to have outside people influence the design of the rules, that the game designers should do their job and have the rules created before they are seen by anyone else. So there are still outside playtesters, but they are limited to only pointing out typos and direct contradictions in the rules, nothing more.

2) So outside playtesters are adhoc editors who dont playtest? Huh. I wish I was suprised.

Posted By Ebon on 04/05/2007 4:30 PM

3) A phrase Jervis kept using was that players should be “confident” in the units presented in the book and their available choices. He said he wanted the game to be ‘nudged’ away from a game about the units you pick (and the options you use) and more a game about how you used your units in play. In a way, it sounded to me like 40k is becoming much more like fantasy where the flexibility of any given unit is restricted, and it’s how you maneuver your units and use them that determine a game.

3) Not sure what to think about this yet, but I have a feeling it can be good. Of course its a radical change, so it wont be wholeheartedly accepted universally.

Posted By Ebon on 04/05/2007 4:30 PM

4) On upcoming codexes: As has been reported elsewhere, Jervis gave no specifics. In my conference he did say though, ‘that you could expect that the codexes that are difficult for a new player to create an army with, and one couldn’t be confident in their choices, may be revised first.’ At another point it was either stated or agreed that the Chaos codex can be very confusing for a player to use and met this criteria.

4) To much conflicting rumours for me to even comment on this very much either. His use of jargon to communicate is irritating without being there myself and hearing what context he is putting it in.

Posted By Ebon on 04/05/2007 4:30 PM

5) On the question of the space marine codex: He said that at some point in the future, “We will have to answer a question, and the question is, does the space marine codex represent the ultramarines, or all space marine chapters? I don’t have an answer for you yet, it’s a question we are still working on.”

5) I think this could be good news. Or atleast potentially good news. Because the SM codex should represent all chapters, not just ultras. But then again, with the removal of options to use so that armies no fit into a well defined non creative atmosphere, I am thinking the SM codex will be made into the ultra codex and forgo any variations.

Posted By Ebon on 04/05/2007 4:30 PM

6) On codex re-printings: During the QA that evening, in reference to the Necrons, he said they would no longer make rules changes in the codexes between printings. He also admitted they were wrong to have done so previously.

6) Good. Atleast he has admitted that the inconsistencies of the past were wrong. When you give people something, then take it away, its bound to make people not like the changes. (i.e. Codex DA)
Of course, this wont stop them from continuing to make numerous stealth printings like the chaos dex.


Thanks for the report Ebon.

Posted By Hellfury on 04/05/2007 1:39 PM

This is a game about dollies. We discuss a game about dollies on this board.

Magical space dollies, no less.  Some prefer evil magical space dollies.

No problem sell them to me at 50% value. I will stll be playing.

While I readily admit Slave was trolling, watching Dakkaites make fun of other forums which provide equally valuable services to hobbyists is a bit disconcerting, and frankly pathetic. The modeling forums at B&C are significantly better than those here (and they used to be unbelievable here). Warseer gets rumors DAYS before Dakka, usually. Dakkaites are a variety of personalities, as Russ states, but the balance of a few years ago is somewhat lost. And I see plenty of comments referring to Dakka as a monolithic entity with brilliant "tactical" acumen from those making fun of Slave than Slave himself, so he is not the only one guilty of lumping Dakka into one mindset.

Long story short, Dakka still provides value to the hobbyist, but I certainly see a groupthink flavor to many of the posts. Often, it's an echo chamber in here.

Another note, I can't comment on the validity of the Nidzilla list, but obviously one reason for it's tourney popularity is the number of models to paint So that plays into it as well.

Flame away,
Chuck

1) He said they are NOT going to make rules changes with FAQs, but I think it depends on how you define a rules change. I'm being serious here cause I think you misunderstood what I wrote. To clarify, I'll give examples.

For Jervis, "this cost 12 points here, and 15 here, which is it?" is a clarification, not a rules change. Making the Master of the Ravenwing shoot bolters and the plasma cannon on a jetbike is a rules change, so they won't do it.

We'll have to wait and see how firm he is committed to this principle when it comes to bolt pistols and charging.

2) I agree, what he described IS an end to outside playtesting IMHO, and just the beginning of outside proof reading.

3) This is a big ball of wax I'm still trying to process as well.

4) agreed - but I harbor a big fear for what could come of the DA-iffication of Chaos. I'm not saying that DA is a bad codex, but it is very structured. Chaos is antithetical to that (by definition), so trying to put them into that mold could be painful.

5) agreed - although I don't see it mattering a whole lot. Even if they decide to cover "all space marine chapters" they'l be sure to hit it with the same nerf stick that got Dark Angels. Increased points to Assault cannons/ lascannons, reduced psychic powers, and reduced flexibility in traits.

I agree about the comments about B&C's modelling forum and warseers rumours. Outstanding.

Who cares what forum you post on? I post on all of them, much to the chagrin of some people here who accuse me of hate mongering.
Its the community as a whole, in which all the forums are a part of that makes the hobby great from an internet browsers perspective, not a single forum.

Thanks for the clarification Ebon.

On the point of playtesters becoming proofreaders. I dont think this is a bad thing. But they arent making the lists known widely enough for this to be of use.

For instance, put a codex out, and the forums WILL find any and all errors within a matter of days, if not hours.In a much smaller "need to know basis" you arent getting the same quality of communication of proofreaders finding faults as do internet forums. I am not seeing this to be of much use to GW because of inconsitencies such as the bolt pistol/bolter weilding marine to use one example.
I know they cannot catch everything, but this just shows me how little GW actually playtests themselves, or proffreads their rules for that matter.

I wonder if some of you that speak so harshly have even been playing with the new DA list either. I am not going to say it is going to go head to head with a tricked out Space Marine list. It's hard to compete with the min/max las plas and AC gunline with a lot of armies in a lot of missions.

Though I have been playing repeatedly with the DA against Mounted Eldar with a lot of VP denying tanks. In this regard I am not doing bad, though most of our games are coming out to be draws. I keep rearranging the list and tweaking things, but it is competitive against Eldar. It's usually a good game, and we are both finding that it is really a task to decide what units to take, they all fight for a position in the army. I think that makes a good list.

I also don't think that the other Codexes will follow exactly the same structure as DA. DA is a chapter that is in existence. So the book is structured around what we know. The DA use combat squads, are shooty, use bikes to scout and Deathwing to strike at things. They tend to shoot, and are not as CC oriented. The list reflects that in a lot of ways. I don't think the chaos or space marine lists will be as structured. They will be more like the Eldar dex where you can make what you want. In a way DA is like making a mid war panzer grenadier company. We know what they used, we know exactly how they were. The list is a reflection of that.

I am glad they are doing this mostly because they have to do something. A lot of armies just aren't easy to play against others. Nerf a couple of the major players and everyone gets a little bit of a boost.

What I find funny is the snarky passive agressive "standing off in the distance overlooking everything with a superior perspective" type posts.

To say that each forum represents the same thing to the hobbyist is an outright lie. Here at dakka, we have a certain flavor. If you don't like it, you can go to the places where the flavor is more "lite and fluffy" or "tart and tangy".

Changing how you say the differences in forums doesn't really change what you are really saying, and your comment about watching other people make fun of other forums is rather off base there dienekes96.

Back to the discussion at hand,

If GW is really attempting to make the game easy "for the new player", then what will happen between the old vets interacting with the newbies? Now, as a new player you almost have to get involved in the gaming community to know how the game works. This is good because it not only helps the new player learn how to play, it brings some new blood into the mix of the gaming group.

When all you have to do is figure it out yourself, I wonder how much more of a divide will be created between newbies and vets, almost towards the developement of two rulesets, the "beginners" and "advanced", which alienates both sides from each other.

Posted By Hellfury on 04/05/2007 4:45 PM

Posted By Ebon on 04/05/2007 4:30 PM

6) On codex re-printings: During the QA that evening, in reference to the Necrons, he said they would no longer make rules changes in the codexes between printings. He also admitted they were wrong to have done so previously.

6) Good. Atleast he has admitted that the inconsistencies of the past were wrong. When you give people something, then take it away, its bound to make people not like the changes. (i.e. Codex DA)
Of course, this wont stop them from continuing to make numerous stealth printings like the chaos dex.


Thanks for the report Ebon.

The really funny part of that isn't what he said, but how the question was brought up.  The beer-drinking Cannucks were in the house...

Posted By Centurian99 on 04/05/2007 5:36 PM

Posted By Hellfury on 04/05/2007 4:45 PM

Posted By Ebon on 04/05/2007 4:30 PM

6) On codex re-printings: During the QA that evening, in reference to the Necrons, he said they would no longer make rules changes in the codexes between printings. He also admitted they were wrong to have done so previously.

6) Good. Atleast he has admitted that the inconsistencies of the past were wrong. When you give people something, then take it away, its bound to make people not like the changes. (i.e. Codex DA)
Of course, this wont stop them from continuing to make numerous stealth printings like the chaos dex.


Thanks for the report Ebon.

The really funny part of that isn't what he said, but how the question was brought up.  The beer-drinking Cannucks were in the house...

Heh. Could you expand on that for those of use who werent there?

Seriously, guys, talking about changing the bolt pistol + bolter model not being able to shoot and then assault isn't in the same category as many other rule changes made in FAQs: it's a revision of a poorly worded rule. How many people here actually play by it? If you do, do you play by the rapid fire rule which is a result of the same poor wording -- that carrying a rapid fire weapon lets you shoot any other gun you're carrying at a 12" range?

Posted By Lowinor on 04/05/2007 5:42 PM
Seriously, guys, talking about changing the bolt pistol + bolter model not being able to shoot and then assault isn't in the same category as many other rule changes made in FAQs: it's a revision of a poorly worded rule. How many people here actually play by it? If you do, do you play by the rapid fire rule which is a result of the same poor wording -- that carrying a rapid fire weapon lets you shoot any other gun you're carrying at a 12" range?

Good point, but I used that as just an example. But youre right, there are far more worrisome rules that need clarification.

Posted By Schepp himself on 04/05/2007 11:32 AM

And honestly, all the crying about Gw killing the Craftworlds with the new codex is a it exaggerated. In reference to the new Chaos codex, I'm almost sure the Legions will be tuned down like in the new Eldar Codex.

WTF? Exaggerated?

The Craftworlds don't exist in the new Codex. There are no sub-lists, additional rules, anything. You simply take lots of Jetbikes and imagine than you're playing Siam Hann, or take Eldrad and a lot of Guardians and pretend that you're playing Ulthwe, or take loads of Dire Avengers as troops and aspect warriors as other choices and then stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'La la la I'm playing Biel Tan!'.

There's nothing exaggerated about it Schepp because it's the 100% truth about that Codex:

Craftworlds. Are. Gone.

They're fluff, and nothing else. There are no rules at all for them, only an altered FOC in the general lists that gives you a loose approximation of what a Craftworld list would be if it still existed.

And if the Legions are 'tuned down', as you put it, to be in line with the Eldar Codex, that also means that they won't exist.

BYE

Wow, thats utterly slowed. Explains why there is no new news, but still 3 months is seriously bad.

Posted By Hellfury on 04/05/2007 5:39 PM

Posted By Centurian99 on 04/05/2007 5:36 PM

Posted By Hellfury on 04/05/2007 4:45 PM

Posted By Ebon on 04/05/2007 4:30 PM

6) On codex re-printings: During the QA that evening, in reference to the Necrons, he said they would no longer make rules changes in the codexes between printings. He also admitted they were wrong to have done so previously.

6) Good. Atleast he has admitted that the inconsistencies of the past were wrong. When you give people something, then take it away, its bound to make people not like the changes. (i.e. Codex DA)
Of course, this wont stop them from continuing to make numerous stealth printings like the chaos dex.


Thanks for the report Ebon.

The really funny part of that isn't what he said, but how the question was brought up.  The beer-drinking Cannucks were in the house...

Heh. Could you expand on that for those of use who werent there?

Well, I'm sure I won't get this word for word, but here's the basic gist:

A voice from the back echoes forward during the Q & A: "In the Necron codex you removed a line of text without telling anyone. Why did you do this?”

Jervis: “Well, yes you see, you're right bout that. Those are the kind of things we did in the past, and um, we're trying to avoid that in the future. We don't want t make changes like that going forward.”

Cannuck (loudly from the back again. Remember, this is a full size conference room, he's in the back, and no one had any trouble hearing him): “But you did!”

Jervis: “Well, umm, yes, you are right. Um, we won't be doing this in the future because it causes these problems.”

Cannuck: “BUT YOU DID!”

Jervis: “Yes, um, it was a mistake and we won't do it again.”

Slight applause ensues

Let me understand, the consumers LIKE the trait system and the codex, but the company thinks its a failure, and will change it. Why does this seem like company suicide?

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 04/05/2007 6:42 PM

Posted By Schepp himself on 04/05/2007 11:32 AM

And honestly, all the crying about Gw killing the Craftworlds with the new codex is a it exaggerated. In reference to the new Chaos codex, I'm almost sure the Legions will be tuned down like in the new Eldar Codex.

WTF? Exaggerated?

The Craftworlds don't exist in the new Codex. There are no sub-lists, additional rules, anything. You simply take lots of Jetbikes and imagine than you're playing Siam Hann, or take Eldrad and a lot of Guardians and pretend that you're playing Ulthwe, or take loads of Dire Avengers as troops and aspect warriors as other choices and then stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'La la la I'm playing Biel Tan!'.

There's nothing exaggerated about it Schepp because it's the 100% truth about that Codex:

Craftworlds. Are. Gone.

They're fluff, and nothing else. There are no rules at all for them, only an altered FOC in the general lists that gives you a loose approximation of what a Craftworld list would be if it still existed.

And if the Legions are 'tuned down', as you put it, to be in line with the Eldar Codex, that also means that they won't exist.

BYE

Well, I do expect the undivided Legions to probably go away.  Most of them can be represented through "background and theme, rather than rules".  One light of hope is that jetbikes became troops to enable Saim Hann.  Likewise something will have to change wit the Chaos codex to allow the cults to exist.

Posted By Slave on 04/05/2007 11:42 AM
IIf they make ALL of the codexes the same way they made the DA and eldar books, the game will be fine, but that requires a redo of the SM codex sooner than later.

I agree with an above poster that this is a step back toward second edition.

The squads' options where listed on the same page. Numbers where mostly static and the game was fine.

Okay, I was so offended by this that I couldn't bother to look and see if anyone responded.  While the numbers for items in 2nd ed. were largely static (the 1pt boltgun), the insane amount of variety available to even the most basic unit was WAY worse than it is in even the current SM codex.  I mean, power axes, swords, hand flamer, autopistols...  you get to cutomize two figures in each unit now, besides the sergeant.  2nd ed was all ABOUT choice in your squads.  And customizable armies.  No troops, fast attack, heavy support.  They trusted us not to be jackasses and make our own decisions about what to include in our armies.  Now perhaps I've misunderstood, and if so, nothing but my humblest apologies (thought please do elaborate, because I'm confused and want to know what you meant).  But it sounds like you're comparing 2nd ed. codices with the new dark angels and eldar codices, and that's just way off base.

... I can only say that is it no longer a rumor... the nid zilla list is a nightmare. PERIOD. No one can deal with 24+ wounds at T6... I found out first hand last weekend at adepticon. Two games worth was plenty to for me to believe in the power of the gun weilding bugs.

The only thing worse is still the slaneshy deamonette bombing... those ladies  know how to kill stuff real good! I think that would be worth a watch... toss the Zillas in a 7 game round robin tourney against a siren deamon bomb list, shake season and ready to serve!!!

So why exactly do you have to have a list telling you exactly what you need to buy to be a certain Craftworld anyway? How did we ever make do before?

Odd that the guy I play at the shop fields lots of bikes and skimmers and calls it Saim-Hann....

It's facinating that moderation is considered extremism.

Really... it's almost like doublethink.

And Craftworlds only existed as their own lists for a single codex. And it was a kinda crappy sub dex with little or no background material in it.

I much prefered my 2nd Edition eldar army when Shuricats were AP Stormbolters and Pop Up Attacks were king.

Of course I still think my 20 man cyclone terminator squad of wolfguard armed with assault cannons and led by Ragnar Blackmane on Combat Drugs and wearing terminator armour should still be legal. That would be boss.

/irony off

Posted By dienekes96 on 04/05/2007 5:05 PM
While I readily admit Slave was trolling, watching Dakkaites make fun of other forums which provide equally valuable services to hobbyists is a bit disconcerting, and frankly pathetic. The modeling forums at B&C are significantly better than those here (and they used to be unbelievable here). Warseer gets rumors DAYS before Dakka, usually. Dakkaites are a variety of personalities, as Russ states, but the balance of a few years ago is somewhat lost. And I see plenty of comments referring to Dakka as a monolithic entity with brilliant "tactical" acumen from those making fun of Slave than Slave himself, so he is not the only one guilty of lumping Dakka into one mindset.

Long story short, Dakka still provides value to the hobbyist, but I certainly see a groupthink flavor to many of the posts. Often, it's an echo chamber in here.

Another note, I can't comment on the validity of the Nidzilla list, but obviously one reason for it's tourney popularity is the number of models to paint So that plays into it as well.

Flame away,
Chuck

Don't admit that I was trolling, I was not trolling; I wasn't trying to bait anyone into an argument, I wasn't going off topic,  Iwasn't coming into a thread for the sole purpose of derailing it.

I was getting into the discussion.  People on this board swear on holy ground that the Godzilla nid list is the end all army list for nids.  People call it cheesy and nigh impossible to beat.  I find it boring, and terrible easy to smash.

People here do whine about any and everything GW does, and most of the threads here over the winter especially, where whine threds.

Hellfury does complain a lot, and I am not the first person to say this about him.  This doesn't mean I wouldn't buy him beers if I ever met him, I most certainly would, but I still think he is a tool on these boards.

This whole balance argument was the reason I got involved in this discussion.

Just because Dakka doesn't think the DA list is competitive is reason enough to be called slowed, stupid, moronic or any other colorful language if you disagree with the majority opinion here.

The DA list is pretty damn cool.  That master of the Ravenwing dude is awesome.  Mixed forces have been doing extremely well around where I live.

Godzilla nids get smashed.  Only seen that garbage list win one time.  Every other time, it gets devastated.  All 4 players who attempt it.

Luckily for us, we have very few marine players.  Our groups are filled with tau, necrons, IG, SoB, WH, DH, Nids, and mostly orks and eldar.

I don't like in the same GW world that Dakkaites seem to.  I don't lose to godzilla nids, and DA players kick a lot of butt around here.

If they make the newest codexes like the DA list, we should all be so lucky, as its chocked full of useful troop choices.

Posted By Ebon on 04/05/2007 6:54 PM

Well, I'm sure I won't get this word for word, but here's the basic gist:

A voice from the back echoes forward during the Q & A: "In the Necron codex you removed a line of text without telling anyone. Why did you do this?”

Jervis: “Well, yes you see, you're right bout that. Those are the kind of things we did in the past, and um, we're trying to avoid that in the future. We don't want t make changes like that going forward.”

Cannuck (loudly from the back again. Remember, this is a full size conference room, he's in the back, and no one had any trouble hearing him): “But you did!”

Jervis: “Well, umm, yes, you are right. Um, we won't be doing this in the future because it causes these problems.”

Cannuck: “BUT YOU DID!”

Jervis: “Yes, um, it was a mistake and we won't do it again.”

Slight applause ensues

That's pretty much it, although the exchange went back and forth a few more times...and they easily matched Jervis's amplified volume.  And we were all a bit short on sleep by that time, so it was hillarious...especially the "deer in the headlights" look on Jervis's face. 

The Cannucks in question were DD1's final opponents, and we were the ones who pointed a fairly significant change out to them...that they couldn't move the monolith, port through, then march forward.  Upon reading through their codexes,  they discovered that one of them had a new printing, and were less than amused...especially since they were expecting to move 40 warriors up and rapid-fire the heck out of our Nids.

Boring yes. Terribly easy to Smash? Either your local nid players are tactical morons, you're playing with next to no terrain, or you're nid players are running assault Godzillas...because nidzilla done properly (i.e. shooty) is well-nigh unstoppable unless a list is designed to take out 'zillas. How exactly did your 4 nids players try to do the Godzilla? I think there's a disconnect here.



Hey, I actually like the new DA codex. But the simple fact is that point for point, a C:SM force is superior to a DA force with the possible exception of the Ravening and Sammael. And it will be until C:SM is revised.

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/05/2007 3:50 PM
This thread actually got me to come out of Lurkdom.

But, IntoTheRain, have you actually played a game with DA?  Do you even know who the DA are?  Of course they have named characters, they are one of the 3 Named Chapters with their own codex.  If you don't want a named character, play a DA Successor and then you get to make up your own name and fluff.  It like saying but I want my Ultramarines to be led by Chapter Master Joe and be pink instead of blue.  That's fine, but they ain't Ultras anymore.

EDIT: Took out some remarks to IntoTheRain, this is my first thread, want to be nice...


Ozymandias, King of Kings

Well then welcome out of the darkness and into posting. 

First, I have no idea what your previous remarks are, but you should know that I probably wouldn't have cared. (I'm assuming you went through the angry impulse post mode into fear of backlash edit mode)

As for your comments, I have no idea what your asking.  DA history spans milennia.  How many different leaders do you think they had during that time?  Upwards of the thousands would be my guess.  So why is it we are forced into a few select characters when designing our armies?  I'm all for special characters, but not as the only option availiable.  Especially since most players like writing a history for their commander, and where hes leading his army too, or even why he chose to take along the units he did. (THIS is fluff, you don't have to write the story of an entire successor chapter to set up a backround for your army/commander)

And yes, I have managed to get a few games in against DA. (Getting someone in my group to play them is a chore however)

Centurion, just smile and nod at him and maybe he will go away.

Posted By Centurian99 on 04/05/2007 8:00 PM

Hey, I actually like the new DA codex. But the simple fact is that point for point, a C:SM force is superior to a DA force with the possible exception of the Ravening and Sammael. And it will be until C:SM is revised.

Yeah, thats for sure.  DA list is weaker than the C:SM list.  Because of this, if they wanna redo the chaos one, plus release an ork one, if they don't redo the C;SM list pronto, they will surely get just what they want, massive amounts of kids playing marines, and nothing else.

Posted By Slave on 04/05/2007 7:39 PM

Hellfury does complain a lot, and I am not the first person to say this about him.  This doesn't mean I wouldn't buy him beers if I ever met him, I most certainly would, but I still think he is a tool on these boards.

I am not certain why I am being singled out for your derision, but all things considered equal, you seem to be getting much worse remarks to your posts than I ever have.

Anyways, internet forums breed contempt through familiarity, so I can almost understand why you might direct comments in the way you do. But in my defense, I am not abrasive for the sake of being abrasive, I care about my passions, and voice my critique when it is deserved. Sadly, GW has proven it deserves it. Even good 'ol Kirby has admitted that GW has somehow forgotten the skills to run the business (paraphrasing).
Likewise though, just because something is said on a board, does not mean it has to roll over into real life. Beers ahoy! Too bad I dont drink that much anymore...

But I will concede to your point, and will also agree. I do in fact complain about the working of GW more frequently than I should or would like to admit. I wont apologize for it, but I will agree.

I have been thinking abit about this whole Plan that Jervis has in store. If he is infact being earnest, then I welcome the changes with wide open arms.

I really hope GW as a whole follows through with this. Because if they dont, I can say without a doubt that it will be the last time GW abuses loyalty amongst this veteran customer. So GW starts from a clean slate with me.

By the way David Dresch, I really like the work you did with your emperors children. Great work with that purple...
If you could post as eloquently as you paint, then you'd be in business.

I think we can find a way to change the argument away from "Balance vs. Diversity". The way I'd recommend it is to have our lists be balanced for tournament play, and revive the fan-driven community for building new and unique units. If I want to make Tau on jetbikes, the rules shouldn't have to give me that officially, but if I can come up with a fair and balanced version that people don't mind people playing against, then there's no reason I can't have my diversity in friendlies and still have a balanced army for tournaments. Isn't that basically the entire premise Forgeworld runs on?

The problem at the moment in my opinion is that the cost of the minis is so high that it discourages experimentation and freer modelling. Spending $50US for 5 guys is bad enough, but to spend at least that much on a converted squad which your opponent may veto off the table? That's just not going to happen for most of us. If GW gives us a stable, balanced ruleset along with lower prices for figures, then we might start seeing the friendly-match community resurge and reclaim some of the creativity in this hobby that really, should be our territory to begin with.

So, just out of idlest curiousity, would people be interested in a codex that divided large option filled lists and more structured tournament legal lists?  Assuming both had been playtested, I would have no problem - not being a tournament player - with having my army list lack tournament viablity in exchange for some of the awesome fluff using wackiness I currently apply to army construction.

Also, I think it's really interesting how the wargaming community, a niche market by all accounts, is differentiating so dramatically now as the market grows.  Differences in opinion on prepainted versus hobby miniatures, the price/value debates, skirmish versus battle scale, scifi versus fantasy, brand loyalty....  It's really quite amazing considering that only a few years ago our option didn't extend much beyond Warhammer or Warhammer 40,000.

Not to belittle the other long-time miniature wargames, but certainly GW did not have the same competition in the market in the 90s that it does now.  The company that closely examines how to best staisfy the most gamers is going to make a killing, because - at this point - the wargames miniatures market available must be nearing several billion dollars.  Think, worldwide, how much money must be spent on miniatures per year.  This total market is very diverse right now, but the right business decisions can consolidate a large chunk in the hands of one manufacturer.

I have a question: If the codices are supposed to be balanced, why did they make DA much less powerful? Whether it is a well-written codex, it's clear that pretty much any army build you can make with CA, you can make with C:SM, for substantially fewer points. Admittedly, certain builds of C:SM are more powerful than average (i.e., unbalanced), but many of those that aren't particularly powerful still got nerfed for CA. Yes, if C:SM Redux ends up at CA level, they'll be balanced. But then neither one of them will be balanced against, say, 'Nids, Chaos, Eldar, or Tau. Or, for that matter, Guard, 'Crons, or SoB. Not to mention, their time between revisions is on the order of a few to several years. This is going to take bloody forever to fix. Sure, if they get the revision time down to, say, two years, it could work, but I shudder to think of what that will do to the already desultory playtesting. Moreover, four of the five generally considered tournament beating codices are the most recent! So presumably at least Eldar, 'Nids, and Tau are not anywhere near getting revised...again. If they are, I expect that the Ork players are going to march on GW HQ and sack it.

Any power level for any given codex can be balanced. That is to say, the power of a codex is irrelevant to balance. All that matters is the relative power level. So, given this, would it not have been easier to put the DA in line with the other codices, instead of nearer the bottom? Of course, it would have been much better to not have created this problem in the first place by not making the last, oh, four codices so relatively powerful.

And what the heck is wrong with doctrines and traits? Sure, the doctrine system gives you enough rope to hang you and the local high school marching band with, but that's pretty much a problem of most of the doctrines being actively bad, not of the system itself. Warrior Weapons didn't have to be crap. I mean, yeah, making Guard into CC death might be beyond the scope of the codex, but where exactly do all these brilliant H2H SMurfs come from?

I guess the real problem is that there is a perceived opposition between "fluff" and "effectiveness". As if the armies in the fluff don't try to win. Moreover, the fluff and the rules are written by the same darn people! If they want us to take 10-man squads, why not make them mechanically superior? If Carapace-Armored and Cyber-Enhanced Guard are supposed to be so elite, why do they suck so hard? Why do Stormtroopers cost like Battle Sisters, since the latter are so much better and you can take them in your mostly empty troop slots to boot?

Posted By carmachu on 04/05/2007 7:05 PM

Finally, he also commented that the SM codex was considered a failure within the company because as the codex most commonly purchased by new players, it fails to properly introduce them into the hobby (as it doesn't have the weapon diagrams like the new DA codex does). That gives GW a reason to 'fast track' a new version of the codex into production. When and if this new SM codex is released Jervis said that it will likely incorporate many of the new concepts found within the DA codex.

Let me understand, the consumers LIKE the trait system and the codex, but the company thinks its a failure, and will change it. Why does this seem like company suicide?

Quoted for truthiness. The only problem with the marines codex (other than the plethora of A cannons and cheap drop pods) are that there aren’t ENOUGH Traits. There’s no reason to dumb down the marine codex.

Posted By Mitsugi242 on 04/06/2007 3:18 AM
I have a question: If the codices are supposed to be balanced, why did they make DA much less powerful? Whether it is a well-written codex, it's clear that pretty much any army build you can make with CA, you can make with C:SM, for substantially fewer points.

Posted By Toreador on 04/05/2007 7:32 PM
So why exactly do you have to have a list telling you exactly what you need to buy to be a certain Craftworld anyway? How did we ever make do before?

Odd that the guy I play at the shop fields lots of bikes and skimmers and calls it Saim-Hann....

consider the reaction tothe DA codex, no wonder they dont want fans knowing whats next.....

The problem with losing sub lists is that there is no longer any reason to actually play that style anymore. The sub lists gave advantages for playing lists a certain way, since they no longer get an advantage for playing fluffy there is no point in playing a fluffy list. Altioc is a good example. It rewarded you for fighting the way the craftworld does, which the current dex doesn't do.

Its also been stated that reducing to 3 months means players who are buying new armies won't hold off. For example, I'm a new player or someone suddenly interested in a chaos list, four months before a new codex dex comes out. If there's a 6 month window then there is a good chance they won't buy the soon to be old dex and army (and we would likely counsel that). If the window is 3 months then no one knows the new dex is coming out and off to the store he goes.

Posted By IntoTheRain on 04/06/2007 6:28 AM
The problem with losing sub lists is that there is no longer any reason to actually play that style anymore. The sub lists gave advantages for playing lists a certain way, since they no longer get an advantage for playing fluffy there is no point in playing a fluffy list. Altioc is a good example. It rewarded you for fighting the way the craftworld does, which the current dex doesn't do.

Not to mention some of these are entirely different lists that are not replicable. LATD and kroot mercs come screaming to mind.

That one, jfrazell, is a bloody good point.

Your comment now makes me wonder if the release of new Blood Angels rules in the Canadian White Dwarf will be to test the waters for the next Codex: BA release. Or to weed out unbalanced rules and abilities.

There are now cross rumors that the BA release is just the re-release of some of their characters, not a minidex.  Until someone pops up with a "I done seen it" then I'd take anything BA related with a grain of salt.

Thank you for the kind words WhiteDragon, but most of what I do really is just 'keep the lights on'.  It's the people who take the time to post here that make Dakka what it is.

Which is why I get frustrated when someone tries to paint our large, diverse community with a broad brush.  This very thread has many posts that both like and don't like the DA codex, like and don't like GW's direction, etc.

I think what confuses folks is that often they spend time on smaller boards with many like-minded individuals, so when they occasionally step out into a larger world they are stunned that there are people that actually disagree with them. 

Your comment does inspire me with a new tagline for Dakka.

Dakka: We don't let our trolls frenzy....much.

(a little Hordes humor for ya there)

[We now return you to your regularly schedule topic, already in progress]

Posted By scipio.au on 04/06/2007 6:33 AM
That one, jfrazell, is a bloody good point.

You get it now Scipio?

The Lost & the Damned army I have took me a long time to put together (and I mean that in a literal sense). It is also the army I've had the most fun with, and, to me, is what the GW hobby is about.

They release this great new army that has a powerful list and a great background to it. Not only that, but it allows me to use my existing Guard and Chaos armies together, and, best of all, has a new unit that I went out and bought the parts for 90 of them (mutants), which I then got to put together in whatever ways I could imagine. I have over 90 mutants and they are all unique models. Despite the fact that they're make up of Orks, Crapachans, Zombies and Marauders, I've never had more fun putting together GW models. I even used the time to build some of them for a Necromunda Scavvie gang I wanted.

And it's all because of this cool, broad, flexible, flavourful and powerful sub-list.

For that to be shoehorned into 'Take special character X and you can take Elites Choice Y as Troops' just sickens me.

BYE

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 04/06/2007 7:30 AM


For that to be shoehorned into 'Take special character X and you can take Elites Choice Y as Troops' just sickens me.

Except, at least for the cult armies, that's all they are now anyway.  The simple rule I posted above duplicates exactly both the Thousand Sons and Word Eaters army lists, and is only missing one rule for Deathguard and Emperor's Children.

LatD, however, is an entirely separate list, and I hope it makes the list of "officially supported" as well...

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 04/06/2007 7:30 AM

Posted By scipio.au on 04/06/2007 6:33 AM
That one, jfrazell, is a bloody good point.

The Lost & the Damned army I have took me a long time to put together (and I mean that in a literal sense). It is also the army I've had the most fun with, and, to me, is what the GW hobby is about.

They release this great new army that has a powerful list and a great background to it. Not only that, but it allows me to use my existing Guard and Chaos armies together, and, best of all, has a new unit that I went out and bought the parts for 90 of them (mutants), which I then got to put together in whatever ways I could imagine. I have over 90 mutants and they are all unique models. Despite the fact that they're make up of Orks, Crapachans, Zombies and Marauders, I've never had more fun putting together GW models. I even used the time to build some of them for a Necromunda Scavvie gang I wanted.

And it's all because of this cool, broad, flexible, flavourful and powerful sub-list.

For that to be shoehorned into 'Take special character X and you can take Elites Choice Y as Troops' just sickens me.

BYE

Its the LATD that kept me interested in 40K until recently. It took me two years to get my own LATD list together (ever try to cut the heads off 20 bloodletters...tip....don't!!!). Never taken it to a tournament (I don't want to get punded multiple times in a row).  I don't mind if these lists are not GT permitted. But new ideas, new lists, new variants need to come out. Else why would an existing player buy new minis? Once I have an initial list why would I buy anothermini for it unless there is something special. Without new CA lists or options (Ahriman's Chosen for 1K Sons for example) why would I even think GW realizes there is a 1K list out there?

Would anyone who plays orks think GW noticed them for years? If it were not for the sub lists they would have had no attention for nearly a decade.  Ferals, clan rules, speed freaks, these are what kept Ork players going. Look at the DE, their attention has been minimal, and it is reflected in their sales. Do I really think GW is going to suddenly start focusing on DE? (no).  If I am an eldar player does this now mean that I'm forgotten by GW until the next edition?

Is GW becoming a fire and forget shop? 

 

 

 

 

John Frazell

You're right on, brother.  It's all about the Benjamins and the bottom line.  I wouldn't be suprised to see a SM redux codex before the likes of the Orks or even a DE codex.  The new SM would be a gaurenteed best-seller; and since they're going to this new DA-esque fromat, it would probably make sense to bring up the 'core' army codecies (I won't venture to say what those are, hopefully one of them is Orks) to that standard before updating the 'exotic' codicies.

Keep in mind kiddos, GW is in the selling miniatures market.  All the rules and stuff is secondary.  That is why you're seeing the 'dumbing-down' of the rules and codecies, to get little Johnny and his parents' disposable income in the front door of the Hobby Centers.

Nice russ, nice.

As far as Warmachine/Hordes is concerned, every character is a special character anyway! They are the only choices you get! Although I don't think we need to get rid of the regular characters that you can tool up with wargear and weapons that you want, I don't mind special characters being in the main lists.

It would also be nice if special characters were....special! They run the gamut to being awesome, and useless, and even the same points as a normal model armed the same!

Posted By jfrazell on 04/06/2007 6:30 AM

Its also been stated that reducing to 3 months means players who are buying new armies won't hold off. For example, I'm a new player or someone suddenly interested in a chaos list, four months before a new codex dex comes out. If there's a 6 month window then there is a good chance they won't buy the soon to be old dex and army (and we would likely counsel that). If the window is 3 months then no one knows the new dex is coming out and off to the store he goes.

Posted By IntoTheRain on 04/06/2007 6:28 AM
The problem with losing sub lists is that there is no longer any reason to actually play that style anymore. The sub lists gave advantages for playing lists a certain way, since they no longer get an advantage for playing fluffy there is no point in playing a fluffy list. Altioc is a good example. It rewarded you for fighting the way the craftworld does, which the current dex doesn't do.

Not to mention some of these are entirely different lists that are not replicable. LATD and kroot mercs come screaming to mind.

They are simply doing to 40k what they did to Fantasy.  You collected and converted a $900 Daemonic Legion army, well too bad you can't use it in any tourneys and we shall obliterate it from the public conscience like Lucas has done the Star Wars Christmas Special. 

Posted By IntoTheRain on 04/05/2007 9:13 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/05/2007 3:50 PM
This thread actually got me to come out of Lurkdom.

But, IntoTheRain, have you actually played a game with DA?  Do you even know who the DA are?  Of course they have named characters, they are one of the 3 Named Chapters with their own codex.  If you don't want a named character, play a DA Successor and then you get to make up your own name and fluff.  It like saying but I want my Ultramarines to be led by Chapter Master Joe and be pink instead of blue.  That's fine, but they ain't Ultras anymore.

EDIT: Took out some remarks to IntoTheRain, this is my first thread, want to be nice...


Ozymandias, King of Kings

Well then welcome out of the darkness and into posting. 

First, I have no idea what your previous remarks are, but you should know that I probably wouldn't have cared. (I'm assuming you went through the angry impulse post mode into fear of backlash edit mode)

As for your comments, I have no idea what your asking.  DA history spans milennia.  How many different leaders do you think they had during that time?  Upwards of the thousands would be my guess.  So why is it we are forced into a few select characters when designing our armies?  I'm all for special characters, but not as the only option availiable.  Especially since most players like writing a history for their commander, and where hes leading his army too, or even why he chose to take along the units he did. (THIS is fluff, you don't have to write the story of an entire successor chapter to set up a backround for your army/commander)

And yes, I have managed to get a few games in against DA. (Getting someone in my group to play them is a chore however)

Yes, their history spans millenia, but this is WH40k, meaning 41st millenium.  If you want to use one of Azrael's predecessors, then do so.  Model your own version and call it what you like.  There is no restriction there.  They are calling the Chapter Master Azrael, because that is who the current CM is.  If you don't want GW writing your fluff, then don't play a named Chapter.

I play DA and though I've only been able to get in two games so far I can see their strengths and weaknesses.  I slaughtered a Gaurd player and then lost badly to Nidzilla list (I had anticipated a Nid horde army and was a little surprised by what I saw).  I am still refining my tactics and trying to get away from playing the same style I did before.  It will take some time, but I am confident that I'll be able to come up with tactics that enable me to win.  Will I always be able to beat Drop Pod Marines or Nidzilla lists?  Probably not, but I don't judge the strength of my army by how well it performs agains the clearly broken lists that tend to dominate the tournament scene.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but GW has always been a fire and forget shop. Fire the army out and once the models are released, never hear from them again on that army for the most part.

 

Thats one thing PP will always have in its favor. EVERY army  gets something. You might not like this round, but you will get something.

Plus PP has a magazine that does what White Dwarf used to do.

No Quarters magazine is colorful, has great fiction, has previews, and lots of rules to try out.

I also like how the models themselves have rules on thier cards. You don't even need to wait for GW's snail pace to release codexes at the 2 a year pace.

A new model comes out, you get rules for it.

That alone makes PP a winner in my book.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 04/06/2007 7:30 AM

Posted By scipio.au on 04/06/2007 6:33 AM
That one, jfrazell, is a bloody good point.

You get it now Scipio?

The Lost & the Damned army I have took me a long time to put together (and I mean that in a literal sense). It is also the army I've had the most fun with, and, to me, is what the GW hobby is about.

They release this great new army that has a powerful list and a great background to it. Not only that, but it allows me to use my existing Guard and Chaos armies together, and, best of all, has a new unit that I went out and bought the parts for 90 of them (mutants), which I then got to put together in whatever ways I could imagine. I have over 90 mutants and they are all unique models. Despite the fact that they're make up of Orks, Crapachans, Zombies and Marauders, I've never had more fun putting together GW models. I even used the time to build some of them for a Necromunda Scavvie gang I wanted.

And it's all because of this cool, broad, flexible, flavourful and powerful sub-list.

For that to be shoehorned into 'Take special character X and you can take Elites Choice Y as Troops' just sickens me.

BYE

But see, JJ is saying that this is precisely what they want to avoid.  Any released army will be fully supported by regular releases (I'm guessing similar to how PP does it).  That way, your new army won't ever be discontinued.  You should be happy that they are taking this approach.

Hopefully, LatD will be in the new C:CSM, but even if they are not, I'm sure you could figure out how to use the IG codex to make a viable army.

And as far as the cults go, they have never been necessary.  Taking lots of berzerkers, painting them red, and calling them World Eaters is exactly how World Eaters are!  And if it is you need to take a Berzerker Lord to take Berzerkers, who cares?  Same as if I wanted to play Raven Gaurd in 3rd ed I would take lots of Assault Marines and paint them black.  Or White Scars I would take lots of bikes, etc.  They don't need mini-lists within a codex.  In that regard,the Eldar codex has been a success.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Slave, you may have many years of experience playing 40k but it is clear from your posts that you and your group are not playing 40k at a GT level of competitiveness. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

If your local Godzilla players not have a lot of success, then they clearly don't know how to play the list or had an incorrect build.

A shooty nid army with two shooty tyrants, five shooty fexs, and 3 zonethorpes is one the best 40k armies out there right now. Nothing in the DA codex can consistently match a Godzilla army, virtually no take all comers SM lists can match it, only SM armies built specifically to take on that many T6 creatures can consistently take them. But these lists are often unbalanced and not able to deal with other types of armies.

The reason some of the more experienced players may be attacking you is that your view on Nids completely contradicts what is happen at major tournaments. I suggest you participate at a GT level tournament and see just how effective a Godzilla army can be.

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 9:39 AM

But see, JJ is saying that this is precisely what they want to avoid.  Any released army will be fully supported by regular releases (I'm guessing similar to how PP does it).  That way, your new army won't ever be discontinued.  You should be happy that they are taking this approach.

Hopefully, LatD will be in the new C:CSM, but even if they are not, I'm sure you could figure out how to use the IG codex to make a viable army.

And as far as the cults go, they have never been necessary.  Taking lots of berzerkers, painting them red, and calling them World Eaters is exactly how World Eaters are!  And if it is you need to take a Berzerker Lord to take Berzerkers, who cares?  Same as if I wanted to play Raven Gaurd in 3rd ed I would take lots of Assault Marines and paint them black.  Or White Scars I would take lots of bikes, etc.  They don't need mini-lists within a codex.  In that regard,the Eldar codex has been a success.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

He said fully supported, which means ???  he also said if they glitch a codex well they're not going to change it in the FAQ because they should have caught it. WTF?  That doesn't sound like support to me. That sounds like SOP.

Concerning Cults never being necessary. Templers, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels are hardly necessary either. Lets go back to early 2nd ed for them as well. Just use the stock codex and paint them a different color. I don't understand what the problem is...

After all as a non-MEQ player all you marines look the same to me.

 

Edit: I'm up in the air on this. I will dread the loss of non-standard lists, traits, and doctrines. This is counterbalanced by my view that the eldar codex is much more balanced and is a hopeful sign for the future.

Posted By Scottywan82 on 04/05/2007 7:10 PM

Posted By Slave on 04/05/2007 11:42 AM
IIf they make ALL of the codexes the same way they made the DA and eldar books, the game will be fine, but that requires a redo of the SM codex sooner than later.

I agree with an above poster that this is a step back toward second edition.

The squads' options where listed on the same page. Numbers where mostly static and the game was fine.

Okay, I was so offended by this that I couldn't bother to look and see if anyone responded.  While the numbers for items in 2nd ed. were largely static (the 1pt boltgun), the insane amount of variety available to even the most basic unit was WAY worse than it is in even the current SM codex.  I mean, power axes, swords, hand flamer, autopistols...  you get to cutomize two figures in each unit now, besides the sergeant.  2nd ed was all ABOUT choice in your squads.  And customizable armies.  No troops, fast attack, heavy support.  They trusted us not to be jackasses and make our own decisions about what to include in our armies.  Now perhaps I've misunderstood, and if so, nothing but my humblest apologies (thought please do elaborate, because I'm confused and want to know what you meant).  But it sounds like you're comparing 2nd ed. codices with the new dark angels and eldar codices, and that's just way off base.

I was wondering when someone else was going to make that connection.

Posted By jfrazell on 04/06/2007 10:08 AM

He said fully supported, which means ???  he also said if they glitch a codex well they're not going to change it in the FAQ because they should have caught it. WTF?  That doesn't sound like support to me. That sounds like SOP.

Concerning Cults never being necessary. Templers, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels are hardly necessary either. Lets go back to early 2nd ed for them as well. Just use the stock codex and paint them a different color. I don't understand what the problem is...

After all as a non-MEQ player all you marines look the same to me.

 

Edit: I'm up in the air on this. I will dread the loss of non-standard lists, traits, and doctrines. This is counterbalanced by my view that the eldar codex is much more balanced and is a hopeful sign for the future.

Well it means the opposite of "not supported" which is what we've got now for a lot of armies.  We don't have any specifics yet as its only been a week since Adepticon and this new direction is just that, new.

You are right that BT, BA, SW, and DA could be done with the normal C:SM book, but they have traditionally all had their own (except for BT, but they are pretty divergent) since 2nd ed.  Chaos has never had multiple books and Craftworld eldar had a mini-dex that everyone pretty much agrees was not very balanced.

I think that the approach with C:SM (if they chose to make it for all chapters, not just codex chapters) is going to be that taking an advantage will have an attached disadvantage that will make no traits no-brainers and no traits useless.  Hands up anyone who doesn't take "We Stand Alone" as their minor divergence.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 10:33 AM

Posted By jfrazell on 04/06/2007 10:08 AM

He said fully supported, which means ???  he also said if they glitch a codex well they're not going to change it in the FAQ because they should have caught it. WTF?  That doesn't sound like support to me. That sounds like SOP.

Concerning Cults never being necessary. Templers, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels are hardly necessary either. Lets go back to early 2nd ed for them as well. Just use the stock codex and paint them a different color. I don't understand what the problem is...

After all as a non-MEQ player all you marines look the same to me.

 

Edit: I'm up in the air on this. I will dread the loss of non-standard lists, traits, and doctrines. This is counterbalanced by my view that the eldar codex is much more balanced and is a hopeful sign for the future.

Well it means the opposite of "not supported" which is what we've got now for a lot of armies.  We don't have any specifics yet as its only been a week since Adepticon and this new direction is just that, new.

You are right that BT, BA, SW, and DA could be done with the normal C:SM book, but they have traditionally all had their own (except for BT, but they are pretty divergent) since 2nd ed.  Chaos has never had multiple books and Craftworld eldar had a mini-dex that everyone pretty much agrees was not very balanced.

I think that the approach with C:SM (if they chose to make it for all chapters, not just codex chapters) is going to be that taking an advantage will have an attached disadvantage that will make no traits no-brainers and no traits useless.  Hands up anyone who doesn't take "We Stand Alone" as their minor divergence.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Later second ed. Originally it was the INSERT COLOR HERE marines. I'm not saying the cults each need separate codexes - thats whats maddening to me about the endless series of marine codexes and why I liked the Trait System.  But they do need separation. To say they're not the same is disingenuous.

Further, we do have specifics by his own statement. They no longer playtest the armies and they will not update the FAQ to create their own errors, but will wait when there 's a profitable opportunity several years down the road. I don't see an eldar FAQ yet, do you?

But they can do separation within a codex much like how the DW and RW can be separated within the DA codex. You can say, if you take a Berzerker character, you can take berzerkers as troops. You can create a World Eaters army that way, or you could create a Renegade Marine Army full of crazy berzerkers that way. It would work out fine.

He didn't say they don't playtest, just that they don't outside playtest. I have no idea what you mean about the FAQ's.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

-Yes they no longer playtest.  Internal playtesting? Er…ok how many designers do they have again?

 

-Read the comment on the FAQ.  If they goof up and put in codex Emperor’s Mailmen that they can drop pod and assault, well they are not going to issue an FAQ to correct that. Instead they’ll wait to the next time they revisit the army-that’s several years later.  In other words they are continuing their 4^th ed practice. Yep, fully supported they are.

Posted By Ebon on 04/05/2007 5:07 PM
1) He said they are NOT going to make rules changes with FAQs, but I think it depends on how you define a rules change. I'm being serious here cause I think you misunderstood what I wrote. To clarify, I'll give examples.

For Jervis, "this cost 12 points here, and 15 here, which is it?" is a clarification, not a rules change. Making the Master of the Ravenwing shoot bolters and the plasma cannon on a jetbike is a rules change, so they won't do it.

We'll have to wait and see how firm he is committed to this principle when it comes to bolt pistols and charging.

Re-read the above post from Ebon.  I agree with Ebon that clarifications of rules are ok to do w/ FAQ's.  I consider making rules that are confusing (like shooting bolt pistols and charging or assaulting from Drop Pods) are not changes, just clarifications of the rules.

And as far as playtesting, we really don't know how much they do internally.  Saying its zero is pure conjecture.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

It can't be a whole heck of a lot though. How many people are on the design team? How many projects are they working on at any one time?

Posted By jfrazell on 04/06/2007 10:38 AM

Later second ed. Originally it was the INSERT COLOR HERE marines.

I'm just being a ninny, but the first codex released in 2nd edition was Space wolves, followed by Eldar and then who knows....Marines got treatment right off the bat...

Basically they said that Witch Hunters was there most tested codex ever.

On a later date they said they played 30 games with the codex.

That's one of the big myths. There was a picture of the Dev room with a white board with 30 games on it. They never directly said how many games had actually been played.

And even if it were true, 30>0

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 8:58 AM
  Will I always be able to beat Drop Pod Marines or Nidzilla lists?  Probably not, but I don't judge the strength of my army by how well it performs agains the clearly broken lists that tend to dominate the tournament scene.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

The actual 'broken' lists are the ones that can't contest against those lists.  For instance, anything from the Dark Angels codex...

A quick question, do pathfinders/scouts with sniper rifles/vindicare assasins/lootas with sniper rifles/nurgles rot/'urty syringe/plague swords not utterly bollock 'zilla nid lists?

No, because the big guys still get their armor saves. Also, those guns are suboptimal at best against other armies, so you never see them in take all comers lists (with the occasional exception of Eldar Pathfinders and RARELY SM Scouts).

Going back to rumours. I have been asking around.

High Elves in June, with first official announcements next month. Salute 2007 will be a good opportunity for me to ask more.

Posted By skyth on 04/06/2007 4:34 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 8:58 AM
  Will I always be able to beat Drop Pod Marines or Nidzilla lists?  Probably not, but I don't judge the strength of my army by how well it performs agains the clearly broken lists that tend to dominate the tournament scene.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

The actual 'broken' lists are the ones that can't contest against those lists.  For instance, anything from the Dark Angels codex...

So you are saying that every codex should aspire to have the one "invincible" list rather than make a codex where every unit has its use?  Ok...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Having a use, and having a good use are two entirely different things....

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 5:16 PM

Posted By skyth on 04/06/2007 4:34 PMThe actual 'broken' lists are the ones that can't contest against those lists.  For instance, anything from the Dark Angels codex...

So you are saying that every codex should aspire to have the one "invincible" list rather than make a codex where every unit has its use?  Ok...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

No.  Everyone agrees that a codex where everything has a use is much better.  But it needs to contain builds capable of competing on relatively even ground with the big tourney armies.

Clearly balance is the goal.  But where Jervis is setting the bar and where it SHOULD be set are not necessarily the same place.  The Eldar codex is brand new.  The Tyranid and Tau codices are also pretty darn recent.  ALL of these have very strong configurations running in tournanaments now.  Is it a better idea to make new codices balanced with them, or make new codices weaker, and not have a general balance until these armies themselves are revisited? 

I think the answer, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, is obvious.  But somehow it's not obvious to Jervis.

So... then... what's the answer? Write it out in full and maybe he'll read this and see the light!

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/06/2007 5:34 PM

No.  Everyone agrees that a codex where everything has a use is much better.  But it needs to contain builds capable of competing on relatively even ground with the big tourney armies.

Clearly balance is the goal.  But where Jervis is setting the bar and where it SHOULD be set are not necessarily the same place.  The Eldar codex is brand new.  The Tyranid and Tau codices are also pretty darn recent.  ALL of these have very strong configurations running in tournanaments now.  Is it a better idea to make new codices balanced with them, or make new codices weaker, and not have a general balance until these armies themselves are revisited? 

I think the answer, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, is obvious.  But somehow it's not obvious to Jervis.

Is there really a good solution here short of a 5e rulebook with army lists for all armies in the back?

Posted By Lowinor on 04/06/2007 6:34 PM

Is there really a good solution here short of a 5e rulebook with army lists for all armies in the back?

This may very well be giving GW more credit than they deserve, but thats probably not far off the bat.

I can see planning for the next edition already.

Jervis has all but said that 4th edition is not a balanced game. I can very well see him making codicies that will continue to piss people off, then make a 5th ed ruleset where it atleast makes somwhat more sense.
Rememeber how they made the 4th ed rules allow 3rd ed codicies? I can easily see that happening for 5th ed as well. Perhaps more armies might be able to be developed if rules for an army are already balanced to 5th ed standards. Perhaps armies that get the DA Treatment" in 4th might not need to be revisted in 5th ed.

But like I said, I could very well be giving them far more credit than they deserve. But I do sincerly hope that I am not too far off base.

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 5:16 PM

Posted By skyth on 04/06/2007 4:34 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 8:58 AM
  Will I always be able to beat Drop Pod Marines or Nidzilla lists?  Probably not, but I don't judge the strength of my army by how well it performs agains the clearly broken lists that tend to dominate the tournament scene.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

The actual 'broken' lists are the ones that can't contest against those lists.  For instance, anything from the Dark Angels codex...

So you are saying that every codex should aspire to have the one "invincible" list rather than make a codex where every unit has its use?  Ok...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

What I'm saying is that every codex should be able to create a list or two with the same highest power level as the other current codecies.  The ideal codex would have internal balance so that all units in it are equally useful, but the most important balance is between codecies rather than balance internal to codecies.

The power lists for every codex should be relatively equal (With perhaps a bit of rock-paper-scissors action between them, but not overpoweringly so.).  A codex that cannot produce one is inherently broken, not the power lists from other codexes. 

Meh, I think DA in the mech configuration can compete with Zilla lists. It is still a crapshoot as it depends on scenario and deployment, but I sitll carry about as many heavy weapons in that config as I did with Space Marines. Just fewer tornadoes.

Nidzilla is a powerful build, but not unbeatable. In prep for the TT, we played Krone's team (Xenophilia, I think) that finished 7th. We also played them a nidzilla list in the TT (complete with those FW sacs that are 35 pts each). We were about even on wins/losses and had a lot of draws with drop-poding Space Wolves (Team CAGO). Gunfexes don't like units with 4 power fist attacks - they kill one Grey Hunter and take 2 wounds in return.

When exactly did the Nidzilla list become a powerful build? I remember everyone talking about how crappy it was when Tyranids were released 2 years ago and last year I still remember people talking about how crappy it was. Admittedly I stopped playing 40k back in May and just recently picked it up again, but I've been trolling Dakka during that time and, well, I'm surprised that suddenly everyone's talking about how powerful it is. Maybe it's because I play Mech Tau or that I kept reading reports about Mech Eldar kicking Nidzilla's ass all the time?

HAH, I hear from our local Tau & Nidzilla player about how Tau can't beat Godzilla, which I thought was somewhat odd.

Nidzilla is a rediculously good army, it's one of the things I plan against in my metagame for building lists.

I think it is one of those lists that can destroy those that are unprepared for it. Most armies aren't really set up to dish out that much firepower, and it is a lot of wounds to cause. I don't think it is an always win list, but a very competitive list.

Well that's not new. The current Dark Elf army book was composed over the course of a single weekend and it was never tested at all. The guy who sculpted most of the new models was fired later and the army book was so bad that a thousand players had to whine for four years straight to get some of the most blatant faults fixed.

I'm not going to comment on the crap by Slave about DA owning Godzilla because he's either incredibly stupid or intentionally trying to annoy the heck out of everyone. Dakka gets those kind of guys every once in a while and one of them is even responsible for stealing my account name.

What I want to say is that I think 40K is a poor game overall. I've said it many times but the game needs movement values, armor save modifiers, to hit modifiers, a better weapon system, a new close combat phase and a whole lot of other things. Basically the entire edition is a complete failure as most of the problems of 3rd edition stayed in the game and the few that were removed were simply replaced by new ones. However since no new 40K edition is in the horizon all you guys can hope for is that none of the new army books has game-breakingly cheesy units or other combinations available for players. If the future army books stay balanced you will only suffer from a period of a couple years when the old cheese reigns over the new armies but in the end all will be fine.

However I consider it much more likely that 40K will stay the dumb game for dumb guys who keep saying things like "armor save modifiers would make combat too complicated" or "different movement values would result in games lasting too long" or "I always thought the armoury page was really confusing." These people seem to completely ignore the fact that Warhammer Fantasy is a GW game too and a good one at that. Warhammer Fantasy is played competitively at tournaments all over the world while effectively employing all of the aforementioned elements. The game is far from being too complicated. 40K gamers commonly consider the choice of equipping their Carnifex with dual twink Devourers or giving their Terminators dual Assault Cannons 'good strategy' while FB players link the word strategy to various deployments, attack or defence patterns and maneouvres. If GW can produce games for all the different types of gamers I think it's a job well done. I can't be absolutely sure but I'm still fairly certain that GW has no intention of ever making 40K anything else than their kids' game and I think a few people on this board should accept this and move on.

I'm not saying you shouldn't still make pointless threads about how to kill Eldar Falcons...I'm saying that maybe the requests for future development should be aimed more to the actual target because it's 40K we're talking about here. Don't ask for a competitive wargame with balance. Ask for an easy to read codex with big full colour pictures and pre-painted miniatures. Don't ask for non-ambigous rules and online erratas and FAQs regarding rare game situations. Ask for faster games and pre-built army lists. Ask for Space Marines.

"a thousand players had to whine for four years straight to get some of the most blatant faults fixed."

If a thousand players whine on the internet, does GW hear a sound?

You know that the answer to that is, "not bloody likely."

Posted By Therion- on 04/07/2007 6:29 PM


I'm not going to comment on the crap by Slave about DA owning Godzilla because he's either incredibly stupid or intentionally trying to annoy the heck out of everyone. Dakka gets those kind of guys every once in a while and one of them is even responsible for stealing my account name.

Or maybe you can kiss my @$$.

There are two posters above you that hold the same opinion on the effcetiveness of the godzilla nids:  They are not all that.

But since I disagree with the majority of posters here, I am stupid, dumb, a troll, 14 years old, a noob, etc.

If you think I am intentionally trying to annoy you, you can bite me also.

Everything I said, with the exception of:  What dakka posters are is a gold standard for cancerous whiners who are hell bent on ruining a hobby. is relevant to this thread.

The rumour was that the DA codex was the gold standard of what Jervis wanted the writers to make new codexes.  It was stated that the DA codex was too weak.  It was brought up that it couldn't beat a Godzilla nids build.  If you read the whole thread, you would see that all of this was stated.

My point was in the context of this thread, it was not trolling.  Since I disagree with the majority of dakka, I am an idiot, tacticless, 14 years old, an idiot, a troll, a moron, and now stupid.  That leads to my highlighted post above.

I don't think that list is all that, I think it sucks,  and obviously, nid players near me suck, since the godzilla nid lists keep getting the crap kicked out of them.

Our players must suck, since the DA player is winning our campaign.

This is the kind of crap spwed from dakka posters, yet I am the troll.  I disagree with the power of a  list, and I get flamed.

This just makes me laugh.  So your top end player uses mixed RW & DW?  And you've only seen 1 out of 20 Godzilla nid army's win a game?

I'm always amazed when I read such obnoxious statements, that fly in the face of all rhyme or reason of anyone who has played this game for about 3 months.

Its obnoxious because I stated a fact.  Our top player being a DA player, and the zilla nid plists getting destroyed "fly in the face of all rhyme or reason of anyone who has played this game for about 3 months.

Godzilla Nid List stinky
Your position on the Nidzilla list being weak is debatable at best.  Just attend a tourney or other competitive event to see for yourself.   The most common army I saw at Adepticon this past weekend (remember 360+ players) was Nidzilla.  It even outnumbered marine drop pods.  You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but others are entitled to theirs without being accused of being hateful.

Are players around me, just not as competetive and tactical as Dakka posters, or the guy who owns the place.

That codex is better than fine, and the only problem it has is a lack of 2 assault cannons in a min/maxed squad, plus the 10 man squad and lack of min/maxed las plas squads.

This, tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

I still agree that Godzilla Nid lists suck Rhino Testes.

This reinforces it.

Reinforces it, I think a list sucks, and I have no idea what I am talking about.

Of course, there is always the option that you could do us all a favor and get lost. Your obviously not interested in contributing anything, and even if you were, your obviously not bright enough to have anything useful to contribute.

Right, because my comments where not in context of this discussion right?  My whole point was NOT in context of this thread.  Bingo, thats right, I am not bright.

Also, can we start a policy of banning people who have 'played for 19 years' yet can't tell a god awful DA list from a tier 1 tourney list?

What about if they troll relentlessly and won't leave?

Right, I can't tell a list is god awful, because maybe it being god awful is not the dakka opnion?  So I am trolling, because I disagree with dakka?

Boring yes. Terribly easy to Smash? Either your local nid players are tactical morons, you're playing with next to no terrain, or you're nid players are running assault Godzillas...because nidzilla done properly (i.e. shooty) is well-nigh unstoppable unless a list is designed to take out 'zillas. How exactly did your 4 nids players try to do the Godzilla? I think there's a disconnect here.

Yes, they are tactical morons, but dakka posters are tactical geniuses?

See, all the above posts where not flaming me for calling dakka a bunch of whiners, they where flaming a player who doesn't agree with dakka posters opinions on an army list.  I can take that I was being an A hole for flaming dakka posters, by calling them whiners, but the facts are that my differening opinion is what was jumped on.  And once this is posted,  I will be called a bunch more names, and belittled in the next few posts, and someone will ask Russ to ban me, but I am correct.  I was not trolling, and my postes where in the codex of this thread (except pointning out that hellfury mostly just complains when he posts, and if I can discuss something in context of a thread, and be useless, he is definately useless.).

Lets see hellfury's first posts in this thread:

Wow. That does sound like a waste of money...

So nothing for GW. Ho-hum.

Well how about other companies that are doing stuff, like GF9?

I heard there was supposed to be oodles of new stuff to expect from them.

Any news on that front?

complaining

Heh. Not saying the following is true, but if it is, Jervis needs to be punched in the head.

I have my doubts regarding the veracity of this rumour though.

what does tihs have to do with anything, puch a dev?  because you don't like what he is doing?

I hope so. 4th edition is a wash.

But that wont stop GW from milking that cow until they feel the need to release 5th.

Complaining


Thats just in this thread.  I am pointing out a fact, he complains a whole lot, and doesn't actually contribute much else, yet I am the troll.  The troll who disagrees with the almighty and holy godzilla nids, and disagrees with dakka.




Thats the sad part.  Disagree with dakka, and you are an idiot, and I am the one trolling?

Look Phyrixis,

Someone can make a longer post then you!

Slave, you win the Phyrixis award for "Lengthiest Post of the Week!"

Posted By whitedragon on 04/07/2007 10:10 PM
Look Phyrixis,

Someone can make a longer post then you!

Slave, you win the Phyrixis award for "Lengthiest Post of the Week!"

Thanks   That was long eh?  Yikes.  Thats what I get for posting in between hot wing bites.

Mmm. Hot wings. You're making me hungry now.

I wouldn't worry too much about getting flamed on Dakka. You're onto Step 2 now.

Step 1: Shunning/Ignoring
Step 2: Flaming
Step 3: Acceptance

@Slave, I played in the Adepticon 40K Championships and I finished 3rd. I went 3-0 and I defeated a Zilla Nid army in the 3rd round. Had my opponents' Nid list not been so damn tough, I would have been able to get all 3 objectives and win the event.

Wanna guess what army I played in the event? It wasn't DA Codex marines, nor any marines for that matter. It was Godzilla Nidz!

I played Godzilla Nidz in the Gladiator and in the 40K championships and I went 3-1 and 3-0 respectively. My list was almost exactly the same for both events (minus the 150 point difference in list size). I did not use any Forgeworld units and I never fealt overmatched with my shooty-nidz list. What I am telling you is that Godzilla Nidz is rock solid and does not have any bad matchups.

Darrian

(He's not really interested, Darrian. But congrats! Competition in the Championships was looking fierce; I was out in the Fantasy tent, playing Gothic, and loving it.)

The only "bad" matchup for Nidzilla...is another Tyranid list, for exactly the reason Darrian noted - you'll end up damaging each other enough to impact your overall chances. Round 2 of the team tourney, our stealer-heavy force ran into Nidzilla, and we ended up with a very unlikely draw. And yeah - you don't need forgeworld to make it nasty; you're better off spending the points on more core stuff.

Tourneys as big as Adepticon, placing near the top is quite an accomplishment; with that many people sheer chance (particularly in pairings) is more likely to decide the order from 1-5 than anything else.

@ Slave:

 

It is interesting to hear your relative experiences against the Godzilla nid lists. If your DA player is good this could certainly skew the results a bit as good players can be hard to beat no matter what they are playing. I certainly won't call you names or flame you for your opinion.

 

I was also at Adepticon and we spent the last 6 months working on our team trying to make a balanced list that could handle everyone as well as godzilla nids....the fact that we have to single out a single list build and plan for it should attest to their power. Our team tied for 6th out of 90 teams which is pretty good for our first try.

 

Also, before totaly becoming convinced that Godzilla nids suck try playing someone like CaptK (Erich) from the CB team. I play with him on a regular basis...

Lazarus.

Posted By Lazarus on 04/08/2007 5:34 AM

@ Slave:

 

It is interesting to hear your relative experiences against the Godzilla nid lists. If your DA player is good this could certainly skew the results a bit as good players can be hard to beat no matter what they are playing. I certainly won't call you names or flame you for your opinion.

 

I was also at Adepticon and we spent the last 6 months working on our team trying to make a balanced list that could handle everyone as well as godzilla nids....the fact that we have to single out a single list build and plan for it should attest to their power. Our team tied for 6th out of 90 teams which is pretty good for our first try.

 

Also, before totaly becoming convinced that Godzilla nids suck try playing someone like CaptK (Erich) from the CB team. I play with him on a regular basis...

Lazarus.

He's right, I don't care about your mileage vs the godzilla nids.  They are your expieriences, and they are neither right nor wrong.  You love the list, or think it does great, then I am neither happy nor sad for you.

You have all the right in the world to think that list is great, or weak.  Your opinion on the list matters to you, and no matter what I think about it, or anyone else, no one should ever be flamed for thinking differently about an army list.

I am a Nid player, and a chaos player.  This is due to na incident in 1987, I was going into a hobby shop to buy a model rocket kit for a school science project when I saw some black armoured dude on a large box that looked like giant robots with human heads.  I couldn't afford the box, my friends and I combined could't afford it, so instead the man behind the counter ponted us toward a rack that had just a few things in each pack.

Geo picked something called squats, he licked the fact that they had Mohawks.

Matt picked up something called a guardian, because he was told they where space elves (heavy into D&D at the time).

I was stuck getting the weird looking dude called Slanneshi Marines.  On the way out, something else caught my eye, it was called a genestealer.  I was mad that thiers had 5 in the pack, and mine was only 4(heavy weapons back then where 4 to a pack, but had 6 heavy weapons), and my gene stealers where only 4 (2 pure strains, 2 hybrids), but mine where discounted, so I was cool.

Years later, the genestealer chaos cult came out in white dwarf, and slaves to darkness made it to america, 19 years later, nerdy and chaos/tyranids.

So before anyone calls me cheesy for playeing the top armies, I have played Tyrainds and chaos since Chaos was IN the tyranid army as a group of 5 mind slaves for 140 points.

Back to my point.

When playing chaos, I beat godzilla nids, when playing my medium sized nids list, I beat godzilla nids.

I dunno.  I think the list is lame, and I won with it.  I have 3 of the old czrnifexes from 2nd edition, both are converted to be shooty, I have a 3rd edition carnifex thats shooty, and a 4th that is assault.

3 biovores.

I won.  I played zilla nids a few times, it was victory pionts, and no sweat. 

No matter what I think though, why do I have to be called names because I disagree with dakka on this?  That list, to me, sucks goat unit. 

Slave, it's like you're walking into a computer game retailer's convention and saying "I don't know what you guys are talking about with this World of Warcraft crap. This game sucks and doesn't sell at my shop. Clearly you guys don't know what you're talking about."

Would you be surprised if the game shop owners thought you were on crack or asked you why you were trying to sell them a load of horsepucky?

Godzilla nids are rock hard. Adepticon had (on average) nastier, stronger lists than I saw at either GT I've been to (Boston and Baltimore), and Godzilla was everywhere and was doing extremely well. That's solid performance data. It's objective reality, not just subjective opinion. We're talking about an event featuring three of the largest 40k tournaments in the world, players from all over the country (and a few from outside), and the two strongest general builds are Godzilla nids and three Falcon Eldar. Exactly the stuff that Dakka recognizes as nasty and comes up in tactical and army lists discussions constantly.

Stonefox had an excellent point that initially people were skeptical about its viability. But the list has proven itself a serious contender.

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/08/2007 6:52 AM
Slave, it's like you're walking into a computer game retailer's convention and saying "I don't know what you guys are talking about with this World of Warcraft crap. This game sucks and doesn't sell at my shop. Clearly you guys don't know what you're talking about."

Would you be surprised if the game shop owners thought you were on crack or asked you why you were trying to sell them a load of horsepucky?

Godzilla nids are rock hard. Adepticon had (on average) nastier, stronger lists than I saw at either GT I've been to (Boston and Baltimore), and Godzilla was everywhere and was doing extremely well. That's solid performance data. It's objective reality, not just subjective opinion. We're talking about an event featuring three of the largest 40k tournaments in the world, players from all over the country (and a few from outside), and the two strongest general builds are Godzilla nids and three Falcon Eldar. Exactly the stuff that Dakka recognizes as nasty and comes up in tactical and army lists discussions constantly.

Stonefox had an excellent point that initially people were skeptical about its viability. But the list has proven itself a serious contender.

Difference being, I never said dakka posters CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT when it comes to the Nid list.  I never said ANYTHING about ANYONE'S opinion on ANY army list.  I never spoke on the list selling.  I never mentioned any other living being when I said the list sucks.  I simply said it sucks, and if the DA list is gonna be the standard for the future codex, we will be in great shape.  So, no, you are wrong, and your anecdote is way off base, and doesn't apply to  what I did or said.

I never said people didn't succeed with it, nor did I mention anything derogatory about anyone in here who likes the list, I said it sucks, because I think it does, and it does horrible that I have seen.  We have players who have been to RTT and to a few GTs, we have ahigh sucess rate in tourneys nationally.  I don't, because I could never afford to travel to one, but players I play with have, and the list doesn't do as well as dakkaites have seen it.

I think it sucks, and once again, no one should ever be flamed for disagreeing with dakka.

On an off topic note:  The Warcraft thing should never be used for any comparisons, as there are many reason one could disagree with  that one being any good.  I hate it, thats because I hate raids, instanced raids, the battleground system, pastel colors, silly voices (WHASS UP!), big over sized wrists, homogonised classes, goofy dances, goofy dances, goofy dances and goofy dances.

Posted By Slave on 04/08/2007 7:20 AM
I think it sucks, and once again, no one should ever be flamed for disagreeing with dakka.

On an off topic note:  The Warcraft thing should never be used for any comparisons, as there are many reason one could disagree with  that one being any good.  I hate it, thats because I hate raids, instanced raids, the battleground system, pastel colors, silly voices (WHASS UP!), big over sized wrists, homogonised classes, goofy dances, goofy dances, goofy dances and goofy dances.

Please see my sig. 

And your OT note misses the point of Ragnar's comment: that WOW is popular as all get-out. 

Before people keep going on about how Zilla nids has no bad matchups, I would like to remind then that DE basically rape them.

Usually by turn 2.

Slave, why are you still here?

You lost all credibility with your comments on Zilla Nids and DA

You lost any semblence of respect you might have gotten when you publicly attacked EVERYONE on dakka.

There has to be some board that you can whoo with your '19 years of experience'

Posted by: Slave

He's right, I don't care about your mileage vs the godzilla nids.  They are your expieriences, and they are neither right nor wrong.  You love the list, or think it does great, then I am neither happy nor sad for you.

I don't love the list at all. I personally wouldn't play it for fear of having my comp scores handed to me in my hat. The list does wonders in the hands of a skilled player.

You have all the right in the world to think that list is great, or weak.  Your opinion on the list matters to you, and no matter what I think about it, or anyone else, no one should ever be flamed for thinking differently about an army list.

Agreed. No reason to flame over stuff like that. I will however attempt to enguage in discussion on the subject.

I am a Nid player, and a chaos player.  This is due to na incident in 1987, I was going into a hobby shop to buy a model rocket kit for a school science project when I saw some black armoured dude on a large box that looked like giant robots with human heads.  I couldn't afford the box, my friends and I combined could't afford it, so instead the man behind the counter ponted us toward a rack that had just a few things in each pack.

Geo picked something called squats, he licked the fact that they had Mohawks.

Matt picked up something called a guardian, because he was told they where space elves (heavy into D&D at the time).

I was stuck getting the weird looking dude called Slanneshi Marines.  On the way out, something else caught my eye, it was called a genestealer.  I was mad that thiers had 5 in the pack, and mine was only 4(heavy weapons back then where 4 to a pack, but had 6 heavy weapons), and my gene stealers where only 4 (2 pure strains, 2 hybrids), but mine where discounted, so I was cool.

Years later, the genestealer chaos cult came out in white dwarf, and slaves to darkness made it to america, 19 years later, nerdy and chaos/tyranids.

So before anyone calls me cheesy for playeing the top armies, I have played Tyrainds and chaos since Chaos was IN the tyranid army as a group of 5 mind slaves for 140 points.

What does this have to do with Godzilla nids? Is it more of a street cred type thing? I aslo played squats & genestealer cult but that doesn't make my opinion any greater....

When playing chaos, I beat godzilla nids, when playing my medium sized nids list, I beat godzilla nids.

You success rate against this particular army is good. However, it is a very small sampling of the whole. Before coming to my current club everyone used to pound eldar there....until I showed up. (lol)

I dunno.  I think the list is lame, and I won with it.  I have 3 of the old czrnifexes from 2nd edition, both are converted to be shooty, I have a 3rd edition carnifex thats shooty, and a 4th that is assault.

If you can win with every army you are either a very good player or the other players are simply not up to your level of play. Either works fine. It still does not change the power potential that a given list has.

Lazarus.

Posted By IntoTheRain on 04/08/2007 7:32 AM
There has to be some board that you can whoo with your '19 years of experience'

Warseer?

*slinks away*

BYE

Posted By Slave on 04/08/2007 7:20 AM

Difference being, I never said dakka posters CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT when it comes to the Nid list.  I never said ANYTHING about ANYONE'S opinion on ANY army list.  I never spoke on the list selling.  I never mentioned any other living being when I said the list sucks.  I simply said it sucks, and if the DA list is gonna be the standard for the future codex, we will be in great shape.  So, no, you are wrong, and your anecdote is way off base, and doesn't apply to  what I did or said.

I'm afraid you are failing to apply critical reasoning.  You walked into a forum primarily concerned with competitive play, and claimed that Godzilla nids "suck" and new codex Dark Angels are powerful.

You knew when you did it that these are opinions blatantly contradictory to those held by the majority of posters on this forum, so either you're trolling, you're trying to enlighten us as to data we're missing, or you're just not thinking clearly and unable to predict the obvious response.

In the experience of most of us here, and from what we have observed at GTs and other major competitive events, Godzilla nids include some of the strongest lists in the game.  In the world of computer gaming, World of Warcraft is ridiculously popular and profitable.  When I touch fire, it is hot, and I can burn myself.

If you walk into a group of competitive 40k players and say Godzilla sucks and never wins, or a group of computer game retailers and say WoW is a terrible product and doesn't make any money for stores, or a cave full of GW Stone Trolls and say "No really, fire is good for you!", you should not be surprised if the response you get is less than positive.

^^Best post ever.

Edit: Referring to Mannahnin's post.

I think he meant to say DA sucks.

- Greenie

flame bait...heheehe
I don't believe any of the product mentioned was actually out yet in 87...

So, back to the original post, when looking at this "New Track" for codicies, I am a bit conflicted.

If it results in less versatile stuff in the future, that is definitely bad, but I'd personally wait until the first general codex comes out. Looking at one specific, limited scope, single chapter codex may not end up quite the same as the Ork's when they arrive. So I'll reserve judgement on that for now.

As to the balance issue with DA, well, that also needs further data. If they are going to be the new baseline to judge all future releases on, regarding combat balancing, then it may be a couple years until we see the fruits of this effort. But, if that is the case, then we have a couple screwy years of sub-competitive books to look foreward to.

However, the one definite ray of hope for me in all this is that Jervis seems to have made a public admission that things are rather broken in the entire line of 40k right now, and is attempting to rectify it. The first step is admitting you have a problem, I just hope his fixes aren't worse than what we started with.

Oh, and the 3-month rumor window.... Yeah, it sucks, but as long as the actual releases come along at the same rate it's a manageable thing. But also, it may just be that he can't say anything more than 3 months in advance personally, but rumors may still get leaked.... and just won't have the "Official" backing to them. Kinda like the rumors of the Ork Christmas, which is still 8 months out.

Oh god, that post made me realized something

If DA is the direction there taking the game..

And Orks are coming out for Christmas..

"Oh god, that post made me realized something

If DA is the direction there taking the game..

And Orks are coming out for Christmas.."

I'm afraid you're quite correct. 4th ed Orks will all wear dresses and come in combat squads of fives.

My random thoughts from this thread.

I'm currently working on glueing my DA army together.  I think the new 'dex is great except for two minor quibbles.  1:Scouts as Elites instead of Troops and 2:No 10-man Termie squads.  I don't see how people can look at this list and say everyone's list will be the same.  One of the things I love about it is that I can do massive Termie army one game,turn around and do a force of almost nothing but Landspeeders and Bikes the next,then mix them together,or do fairly generic list with none of them.  The list is extremely well balanced,on paper.  When you see the same army over and over again is when you throw in too many options and someone makes something broken like 'Nidzilla out of the new 'Nid 'dex,drop pod SM's,or the 9 Obliterator/3 Defiler/Traiter Basilisk Iron Warriors when the last Chaos 'dex dropped.  Then,you get everybody out there mimicking these broken armies.   For on-field strategy and aesthetics,you want diverse looking armies on the field with a little of this and a little of that.  You don't get that when people are using massive amounts of options to build "do-all" uber-characters and units.  What you get is 200+ point Demon Princes that can walk through at least 1/3 of most people's armies backed up by three Defilers raining Battle Cannon shots down on the poor sob.  Where's the strategy in that? 

I think a lot of this "hate" on the DA 'dex and the direction the 'dexes are going in is from what seems like "tourney" players.   I can respect their perspective,however,in most any hobby/sport/whatever,tournament players are a very vocal minority.  In a typical such industry,usually only 1-5% of the participants are participating in tourneys on any regular basis.  I'm not a tourney 40k player,but I have been a tourney player in other games and recreational sports.  As a tourney game player,you literally try and break the game.  You try to come up with the cheesiest,most min/maxed,munchkined-out creation you can and see how it stacks up against everybody else's.  That's a big part of the fun of it.  Less options=less chance to break the game,killing that aspect of the fun for the tourney players.  I don't expect them to like that,but they are in the minority.  1-5% of GW's audience wants options,while 95% wants game balance.  Casual players don't want to be setting up their armies with the knowledge that they've lost,even before the game begins,because of their opponent's army list.  To keep sacrificing game balance for options doesn't make sense.   GW can still run tourney's with a balanced game.  It's just that now competitors are going to have to win the game on the field instead of on their copy of Army Builder.

As far as the "demise" of the Craftworlds go,it goes with the theme of what Jervis is trying to accomplish.  In the White Dwarf in which he talks about the design of the DA 'dex,he talks about how he wasn't going to write rules for rules sake anymore.  He says items like Purity Seals should be on the models to add flavor to them,not because of some obscure rules bonus.  The same applies to the Craftworlds.  You should play,Ulthwe,for example,because you like their fluff and you want to play with a bunch of Guardians,not because some book gives them BS 4.  You should play Iodin(sp?) because you like their fluff and you want to field a bunch of Wraithlords and Wraithguard.  Why does GW have to write rules to entice players to field and play their armies "the right way?"

For Chaos,I'd like to see a Chaos Undivided 'dex with rules for the other Undivided Legions,like Iron Warriors,Alpha Legion,Word Bearers,etc,much like the current SM 'dex.  Then seperate Codexes for World Eaters,Thousand Sons,Emperor's Children,and Death Guard.  Chaos IS suppossed to be main enemy to the Imperium.  They should get equal time and support in the line,not all just get lumped into one book.

 

 

Posted By Mandrake on 04/08/2007 3:58 PM
"Oh god, that post made me realized something

If DA is the direction there taking the game..

And Orks are coming out for Christmas.."

I'm afraid you're quite correct. 4th ed Orks will all wear dresses and come in combat squads of fives.

Agreed. HAWT!

I'm wondering.
If 'zilla 'nids lists are... you know what I'm not going to go there. Just remember kids it's that easy to start a flame war.
Oh and BTW I haven't read the DA codex but I think it's great!

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/08/2007 8:12 AM

Posted By Slave on 04/08/2007 7:20 AM

Difference being, I never said dakka posters CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT when it comes to the Nid list.  I never said ANYTHING about ANYONE'S opinion on ANY army list.  I never spoke on the list selling.  I never mentioned any other living being when I said the list sucks.  I simply said it sucks, and if the DA list is gonna be the standard for the future codex, we will be in great shape.  So, no, you are wrong, and your anecdote is way off base, and doesn't apply to  what I did or said.

I'm afraid you are failing to apply critical reasoning.  You walked into a forum primarily concerned with competitive play, and claimed that Godzilla nids "suck" and new codex Dark Angels are powerful.

You knew when you did it that these are opinions blatantly contradictory to those held by the majority of posters on this forum, so either you're trolling, you're trying to enlighten us as to data we're missing, or you're just not thinking clearly and unable to predict the obvious response.

In the experience of most of us here, and from what we have observed at GTs and other major competitive events, Godzilla nids include some of the strongest lists in the game.  In the world of computer gaming, World of Warcraft is ridiculously popular and profitable.  When I touch fire, it is hot, and I can burn myself.

If you walk into a group of competitive 40k players and say Godzilla sucks and never wins, or a group of computer game retailers and say WoW is a terrible product and doesn't make any money for stores, or a cave full of GW Stone Trolls and say "No really, fire is good for you!", you should not be surprised if the response you get is less than positive.

Go back through the thread, highlight where I said the DA list was powerful, and copy it to this thread.  Go ahead.

Since when is having a contradictory opinion trolling?  Goes back to my point about being attacked for not agreeing with dakka.  No matter what the majority of the posters think, I am entitled to my opinion, with out being accused of trolling. 

No where did I debate the strengths of a particular list, I simply stated that one in particular sucked, and that I personally had never seen it do well.

In the experience of most of posters here, you may have seen it do well, thats good for you, but I never have.

I should be bal;e to walk into any place I want and hold the opnion that Godzilla nids suck, and be left alone for thinking so.

Where did this warcraft crap come from?  Another poster used it as an example, not me.  I never spoke on its selling rate either, anyone with a PC who cares to look can find out it has sold 6 million copies, why in the hell are you contributing this post to me.

Does Dakka just make people see things they want to see to prove a point?

Disregard, mispost

This is trolling. Not disagreement per se, but the constant cries of victimization.


Edit: I discovered I have more to say.



Similarly, if you wish to engage in an actual internet discussion, it is customary (and often helpful) to support your points with more than the circular argument that such-and-such sucks.

Are you entitled to your opinion?  Certainly.  So are the rest of the people behind the screennames.  To misquote, opinions are like armpits; everyone has them, and they usually stink.

But if you choose to put your opinion on the floor of public debate, you are offering others the chance to disagree with your opinion.  Post after post appeared in the thread, disagreeing with you; many of those offer reasons as to why they disagree.  You don't try to rebut their arguments, or engage in any sort of debate.  Instead, you play the victim card.  And that, good sir, is trolling at its finest - create an argument, and then shift the topic of discussion away from your argument, to provoke further posts.

As to the Tyranids themselves: you offer anecdotal, unsupported evidence for your opinion.  Other posters have offered other anecdotal evidence. 

However, they also point out that, in general, it can be difficult for what is generally viewed as a "balanced" army to both be able to handle other tournament forces, AND face down 32+ T6 wounds, backed by a very significant volume of fire.

As to the Dark Angels: you, and others, are content with the codex.  Many others want to be content, but are disappointed with the limitations the codex offers, as compared to Codex: Space Marines.  It is difficult, in my opinion, to construct a reasonable argument whereby CA is anything but weaker than C:SM, given the rigid squad requirements and limitations on Assault Cannons...but you are welcome to try, if that is your position. 

The ball is in your court: do you continue to play the internet victim, subjugated by this vile collective you label "dakka" (and never mind the myriads of individuals, whose opinions you devalue by lumping them under a single, overbroad label), or do you engage in a reasoned debate?

Posted By Whatever on 04/08/2007 5:50 PM

My random thoughts from this thread.

I'm currently working on glueing my DA army together.  I think the new 'dex is great except for two minor quibbles.  1:Scouts as Elites instead of Troops and 2:No 10-man Termie squads.  I don't see how people can look at this list and say everyone's list will be the same.  One of the things I love about it is that I can do massive Termie army one game,turn around and do a force of almost nothing but Landspeeders and Bikes the next,then mix them together,or do fairly generic list with none of them.  The list is extremely well balanced,on paper.  When you see the same army over and over again is when you throw in too many options and someone makes something broken like 'Nidzilla out of the new 'Nid 'dex,drop pod SM's,or the 9 Obliterator/3 Defiler/Traiter Basilisk Iron Warriors when the last Chaos 'dex dropped.  Then,you get everybody out there mimicking these broken armies.   For on-field strategy and aesthetics,you want diverse looking armies on the field with a little of this and a little of that.  You don't get that when people are using massive amounts of options to build "do-all" uber-characters and units.  What you get is 200+ point Demon Princes that can walk through at least 1/3 of most people's armies backed up by three Defilers raining Battle Cannon shots down on the poor sob.  Where's the strategy in that? 

I think a lot of this "hate" on the DA 'dex and the direction the 'dexes are going in is from what seems like "tourney" players.   I can respect their perspective,however,in most any hobby/sport/whatever,tournament players are a very vocal minority.  In a typical such industry,usually only 1-5% of the participants are participating in tourneys on any regular basis.  I'm not a tourney 40k player,but I have been a tourney player in other games and recreational sports.  As a tourney game player,you literally try and break the game.  You try to come up with the cheesiest,most min/maxed,munchkined-out creation you can and see how it stacks up against everybody else's.  That's a big part of the fun of it.  Less options=less chance to break the game,killing that aspect of the fun for the tourney players.  I don't expect them to like that,but they are in the minority.  1-5% of GW's audience wants options,while 95% wants game balance.  Casual players don't want to be setting up their armies with the knowledge that they've lost,even before the game begins,because of their opponent's army list.  To keep sacrificing game balance for options doesn't make sense.   GW can still run tourney's with a balanced game.  It's just that now competitors are going to have to win the game on the field instead of on their copy of Army Builder.

As far as the "demise" of the Craftworlds go,it goes with the theme of what Jervis is trying to accomplish.  In the White Dwarf in which he talks about the design of the DA 'dex,he talks about how he wasn't going to write rules for rules sake anymore.  He says items like Purity Seals should be on the models to add flavor to them,not because of some obscure rules bonus.  The same applies to the Craftworlds.  You should play,Ulthwe,for example,because you like their fluff and you want to play with a bunch of Guardians,not because some book gives them BS 4.  You should play Iodin(sp?) because you like their fluff and you want to field a bunch of Wraithlords and Wraithguard.  Why does GW have to write rules to entice players to field and play their armies "the right way?"

For Chaos,I'd like to see a Chaos Undivided 'dex with rules for the other Undivided Legions,like Iron Warriors,Alpha Legion,Word Bearers,etc,much like the current SM 'dex.  Then seperate Codexes for World Eaters,Thousand Sons,Emperor's Children,and Death Guard.  Chaos IS suppossed to be main enemy to the Imperium.  They should get equal time and support in the line,not all just get lumped into one book.

 

 

**Applaudes**

Well said sir.  Whatever's post = best first post ever IMO.

I could not agree more with you and the sentiments you express.  If people would learn to win the game through tactical prowess and not through list design, I feel like the game as a whole will improve and you'll start seeing a more diverse tournament attendance, as people will play armies that actually interest them from a fluff perspective, and not because "their rules are better, and allow X, Y, and Z to all be included at the same time making it the uber list."

Regarding your thoughts on Craftword Eldar: *Applaudes again*  Play a Craftworld that interests you and has a back-story that appeals to you.  I played Ulthwe' because I dug the whole "dark scion of the Eldar" vibe that they had.  The one Craftworld that appeared both merciful, and yet sinister at the same time.  Never mind that the Guardians were BS 4, or the other rules that they had.  I didn't know a damn thing about Eldar when I bought the codex and started reading it.  I saw the different paint-jobs displayed and immediately really liked the black, off-white, and red scheme.  It was simple, and very appealing to the eye at the same time.  Then I picked up the Craftworld Eldar supplement codex and lo-and-behold, the Craftworld I had been painting had a name, and special rules!  Sweet! 

Anyway, as I said, Bravo on what I view to be an excellent first post. 

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

If they are going to make lists more limited for the sake of balance (I'm not gonna say what I think about that), I really hope they make a more tactically interesting ruleset while they're at it. It's not like 40k is a bad system, but the characterization if 40k as Fantasy minus most of: psychology, magic, troop maneuvering, and so, on is pretty accurate. I don't want to play WHFB with bolters, but it tends to be that for most armies, your tactics are pretty fixed when you get to a table. Sure, the list of targets you go after first and Nasty Things you avoid changes, but that's not much. To be fair, there is a world of difference between a hard list played well and one played badly, but for a given hard list, if you're playing it well, you could be swapped for another good player at your army type and someone watching the models only would have a hard time noticing. It's not because all good 'Nidzilla players are really part of a hivemind. It's that there's not a lot of room to fiddle around with tactics at the table.

I'm somewhat afraid that each army is going to get standardized and not only will every SAFH foot Guard army play the same game after game, but all Guard players will have SAFH infantry hordes. That is to say, armies that look the same tend to play the same. I don't want them to make many more armies look the same without fixing that.

As a real world contrast, if you take, say, an infantry company with what its service considers appropriate support, modern armies across the world are gonna look very similar. You give them each an identical hill with an identical foe on it that they need to deal with, you could probably see at least a dozen good solutions to the same tactical problem. In 40k, if your army looks like X, it generally plays like Y. And while there are many ways to put together an army, that's acceptable. Not great, but eh. But if all armies start looking like X because they cut the options vastly and they still all play the same, that's not acceptable.

Posted By Janthkin on 04/08/2007 11:12 PM

Goes back to my point about being attacked for not agreeing with dakka.

This is trolling. Not disagreement per se, but the constant cries of victimization.


Edit: I discovered I have more to say.

No where did I debate the strengths of a particular list, I simply stated that one in particular sucked, and that I personally had never seen it do well.

In the experience of most of posters here, you may have seen it do well, thats good for you, but I never have.

I should be bal;e to walk into any place I want and hold the opnion that Godzilla nids suck, and be left alone for thinking so.

Similarly, if you wish to engage in an actual internet discussion, it is customary (and often helpful) to support your points with more than the circular argument that such-and-such sucks.

Are you entitled to your opinion?  Certainly.  So are the rest of the people behind the screennames.  To misquote, opinions are like armpits; everyone has them, and they usually stink.

But if you choose to put your opinion on the floor of public debate, you are offering others the chance to disagree with your opinion.  Post after post appeared in the thread, disagreeing with you; many of those offer reasons as to why they disagree.  You don't try to rebut their arguments, or engage in any sort of debate.  Instead, you play the victim card.  And that, good sir, is trolling at its finest - create an argument, and then shift the topic of discussion away from your argument, to provoke further posts.

As to the Tyranids themselves: you offer anecdotal, unsupported evidence for your opinion.  Other posters have offered other anecdotal evidence. 

However, they also point out that, in general, it can be difficult for what is generally viewed as a "balanced" army to both be able to handle other tournament forces, AND face down 32+ T6 wounds, backed by a very significant volume of fire.

As to the Dark Angels: you, and others, are content with the codex.  Many others want to be content, but are disappointed with the limitations the codex offers, as compared to Codex: Space Marines.  It is difficult, in my opinion, to construct a reasonable argument whereby CA is anything but weaker than C:SM, given the rigid squad requirements and limitations on Assault Cannons...but you are welcome to try, if that is your position. 

The ball is in your court: do you continue to play the internet victim, subjugated by this vile collective you label "dakka" (and never mind the myriads of individuals, whose opinions you devalue by lumping them under a single, overbroad label), or do you engage in a reasoned debate?

Dang. Someone just played the lawyer card.

Posted By Whatever on 04/08/2007 5:50 PM

I think a lot of this "hate" on the DA 'dex and the direction the 'dexes are going in is from what seems like "tourney" players.   I can respect their perspective,however,in most any hobby/sport/whatever,tournament players are a very vocal minority.  In a typical such industry,usually only 1-5% of the participants are participating in tourneys on any regular basis.  I'm not a tourney 40k player,but I have been a tourney player in other games and recreational sports.  As a tourney game player,you literally try and break the game.  You try to come up with the cheesiest,most min/maxed,munchkined-out creation you can and see how it stacks up against everybody else's.  That's a big part of the fun of it.  Less options=less chance to break the game,killing that aspect of the fun for the tourney players.   

 

 

This is a false argument.  There are some tournaments in which the entire point is to field the nastiest thing you can possibly think of, or to field something else only if you want to see how well you can do using it against such nasty lists.  In the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> these are usually called Gladiators.  Across the pond they call it the UKGT.

 

This DOES NOT mean that that’s the only way to play in tournaments. 

 

Codex:  DA has fewer options, and more expensive, less flexible unit choices.  You don’t have to be a min-maxer to be bitten by and suffer from this.  If your average player makes a DA army and plays it instead of a regular C:SM army, it will tend to be weaker.  The DA player, all other factors being equal, will have less chance of winning a game.  How is that fun?  How is that good design? 

 

I don’t mind the idea of resetting the playing field back to a level below that of the current Space Marine Codex or Chaos, but since the last three, practically brand-new codices, all have very powerful builds which can easily compete with most SM and CSM lists, how soon do you expect this balance to be achieved?  Eldar, Tau Empire, and Tyranids all have very powerful builds.  Are we going to have to wait five or six years until all the codices going back to the one which just came out a few months ago are revised?

 

That just seems dumb to me.  If you build each codex to be competitive with but not dominant over the one before it, balance would be achieved a lot faster.

 

Posted By Whatever on 04/08/2007 5:50 PM

Casual players don't want to be setting up their armies with the knowledge that they've lost,even before the game begins,because of their opponent's army list.  To keep sacrificing game balance for options doesn't make sense.   GW can still run tourney's with a balanced game.  It's just that now competitors are going to have to win the game on the field instead of on their copy of Army Builder.

BTW, this is a completely unrelated and largely unsupportable argument.  Good players are good players, regardless of the strength of the list or lack thereof.  Bad players lose a lot at the UK GT using the nastiest lists they can copy off the internet.  The best players use strong lists and are skilled players.  I’d like to see a new player with Dark Angels NOT be handicapped and have a lower ceiling just because of the codex he picked when he started playing.

Posted By Slave on 04/08/2007 8:44 PM

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/08/2007 8:12 AM

Posted By Slave on 04/08/2007 7:20 AM

Difference being, I never said dakka posters CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT when it comes to the Nid list.  I never said ANYTHING about ANYONE'S opinion on ANY army list.  I never spoke on the list selling.  I never mentioned any other living being when I said the list sucks.  I simply said it sucks, and if the DA list is gonna be the standard for the future codex, we will be in great shape.  So, no, you are wrong, and your anecdote is way off base, and doesn't apply to  what I did or said.

You knew when you did it that these are opinions blatantly contradictory to those held by the majority of posters on this forum, so either you're trolling, you're trying to enlighten us as to data we're missing, or you're just not thinking clearly and unable to predict the obvious response.

Since when is having a contradictory opinion trolling?  Goes back to my point about being attacked for not agreeing with dakka.  No matter what the majority of the posters think, I am entitled to my opinion, with out being accused of trolling. 

I should be bal;e to walk into any place I want and hold the opnion that Godzilla nids suck, and be left alone for thinking so. 

As you can see right above if you actually read my post, I advanced three possible explanations for why you would post the opinion.  Either you're trolling, or you think we're mistaken and want to correct the error, or somehow you lack the ability to do cause & effect reasoning.

I'd like to believe it's the middle option.  But you're not providing any reasoned analysis of WHY the Nids aren't effective in your opinion.  Maybe there is some unusual metagame in your enviroment, with lots of Escalation.  Maybe the Nid players where you are use unusual builds, with minimal shooting, trying to get big, slow HtH things across the table and consequently losing left and right.

But you're not actually discussing it.  You're not offering any data about WHY you think the Nids suck, or what they're doing wrong in your area, nor are you asking what they're doing that's so nasty everywhere else.  You're just throwing out an inflammatory and unsupported opinion.  That's trolling, buddy.  Starting an argument for the sake of starting an argument, without any effort to engage in debate and the exchange of real ideas.

Posted By Slave on 04/08/2007 8:44 PM

Where did this warcraft crap come from?  Another poster used it as an example, not me.  I never spoke on its selling rate either, anyone with a PC who cares to look can find out it has sold 6 million copies, why in the hell are you contributing this post to me.

 

I used it as an example, or simile.  Please make an effort.  WoW is, by any objective standpoint and with minimal observation, a fantastically popular and successful game.  It IS possible that there is some town or city on Earth where they play computer games but no one likes WoW.  A person living in this city might form the opinion that WoW "sucks" and is a complete failure as a product, because his local store never sells any copies.  But that does not make said opinion factual, and if said person went into an internet discussion forum and stated that opinion in an arrogant or confrontational fashion, we would expect him to be corrected in short order.

 

List design is a much a part of the game as deployment, moving, shooting, or assaulting. What you bring to the table is just as important as how you use it.

Posted By Furious on 04/09/2007 7:02 AM

If people would learn to win the game through tactical prowess and not through list design, I feel like the game as a whole will improve and you'll start seeing a more diverse tournament attendance, as people will play armies that actually interest them from a fluff perspective, and not because "their rules are better, and allow X, Y, and Z to all be included at the same time making it the uber list."

List design is a much a part of the game as deployment, moving, shooting, or assaulting. What you bring to the table is just as important as how you use it.

Oh of course.  I realize that list design is part and parcel to the game as a whole.  Trust me, I play Eldar, I'm keenly aware of the potential list design elements.

To make my point though, here's a thought

How many viable heavy support choices do Eldar have?  Well it depends on what you want your list to do.  Dark Reapers, Fire Prisms, Falcons,  Support weapon batteries, etc. etc.  All have their place and preform different functions, but all of them are also viable choices in the list. 

How many elite and fast attack choices are there in the eldar codex?  Hell, how many different HQ choices are there?

My point is building a list is a lot more fun when there are many viable elements in each of the army's component sections (elite, HQ, troops, etc) rather than really only having one thing worth taking to the exclusion of anything else: I.E. Obliterators in an Iron Warriors army. 

Now I know someone's going to bring up the fact that DA only have one troops choice, but they're unique in that you can buy one ten man tactical squad and have two totally different scoring units in it.. 

Anyway, that's what I meant in any event.

Take it easy everyone.

-RT-

Let me present a slightly different viewpoint from the polarized groups in this discussion.

First, I applaud anyone in Games Workshop for taking ownership of what they do, and thus also fail to do,  because for the most part no one there does. They tout what a great game it is, and either tell us that there are no faults or mistakes that need a fix, or grudgingly make stop-gap reactions instead of concise, easily understandable corrections. Taken as an army building tool, I believe that the DA codex, with its unification of choices within a unit's block is great. If this is the shape of things to come, I believe that it will allow many more people to clearly understand how to build their army, and make the hobby that much more accessible to new people. Streamlining makes sense, reduces questions and misunderstanding. Applied across 40K as a whole, along with balance, this should correct a lot of problems, and actually streamline both your home game and tournament play, promoting much more good cheer, happiness and satisfaction. Whereas right now, rules discrepancies or misunderstood rules or abilities in someone else’s army usually causes ill will, bad feelings and unsportsmanlike conduct and scoring. Bleh.

Now then though, the DA codex makes my skin creep and I dread to see the Chaos Codex. I have no feelings on the terminators being restricted to 1 assault cannon, nor the point increase in the Tornado. I do think it heavy handed to have both applied to one army, but ok, these are not in themselves game winners nor crushing. Characters missing individual items in there selectable wargear, ok, it cuts down on personal character for those people who selected those items before the codex came out. Combat squads are great, cut out the min/max. Vet Sgt's in every squad, restrictive, but ok, cool, got it, most people are playing with them minus their min/max. The fact that we are going to jack all points cost back to 3rd edition character points cost - REALLY? Space Wolves and Chaos in 3rd Ed set the bar for the hidden powerfist(PF) and made Vet Sgts/Asp Champs worth taking. Codex DA makes it ridiculous to take a PF, and certainly not a plasma pistol(PP). Especially in Assault Squads, where the regular joe could have a cheap PP even in 3rd Ed. Now my choice is to take way way overpriced PP or nothing. Thanks. And oh, I can trade out 10 jump packs for a rhino at half their cost, or a drop pod at 2/3. Gee Thanks for the choices. Craptacular. And wow, we'll give you a moderately priced Plasma Cannon(PC) because we made some stuff up last edition, but because everyone plays plasma guns(PG), we're going to crank that up to ridiculously priced, but we'll make the flamer a point cheaper, because people only really play those for aesthetic reasons, or if swarm armies are big in their area.

To sum up, I like to layout and simplicity of the DA codex for the game's sake. Did they dumb it down? Perhaps. Is it too restrictive? No, not really, as this is for ONE chapter, not to be the bar when set against Codex SM. Is it a blueprint for the future Codex SM? Yeah, some things are. But not all of them, as they can't shoehorn everything in for the broad spectrum the Codex SM covers. I don't like the fine print in Codex DA, where they sought to "begin balancing" 40K. I fear for specific things in Chaos, like squad size, multiple special weapons, veteran skills- specifically infiltrate and furious charge(as "too many people play these" , marks becoming too many points for a standard troop in this new age of 'character cost pricing', etc. I don't fear for Iron Warriors being toned down, they need it. I fear for the loss of non-aligned chapters, Word Bearers, Alpha Legion, etc. They'll become the craptastic equivalents of the Raven Guard and Crimson Fists in codex SM. Yay. Mark em off as why bother. But, we'll have to wait and see.

My two cents.

 

With all due respect Mann (uh-oh), why is this thread continuing? It's completely off-topic, and the parts that AREN'T a public flame war are focused entirely on the strength of various builds for tournaments. Tertiarilly this is related to what Yakface said PAGES ago, but that this point, it's just more fuel to stoke certain fires.

The mods of this forum have shut down discussions for far less; let's just snuff it now before it brings out yet more assclownery.

Translation: In before lock.

But you're not actually discussing it.  You're not offering any data about WHY you think the Nids suck, or what they're doing wrong in your area, nor are you asking what they're doing that's so nasty everywhere else.  You're just throwing out an inflammatory and unsupported opinion.  That's trolling, buddy.  Starting an argument for the sake of starting an argument, without any effort to engage in debate and the exchange of real ideas.

Dude, I never said nids suck, I play nids, I said that the Zilla nids suck.  I never said I wanted to discuss this OPINION with anyone, nor was I interested in hearing your opinion, as I don't care if you like the damn list or not.  Get that?  I don't care.  It's okay if you like it or love it, great for you, or not, so what. Its not an inflammatory opinion, unless you want it to be.  Its also not starting an argument, as I never cared to discuss that list with anyone here.  It's not that I don't think people here are intelligent, or good players, it's just that I didn't care if you like what I like, its your right to like it, mine to not like it.

Therefore, It was not trolling, and it never was. 

The original point was lost a long time ago, with all the dakkaites flamming me for hating a stupid army list. 

My point as and still is that if the future codexes are like the DA codex, like the original point of the thread was saying, then we will be fine.

More useful units, less abusive units, less min/maxing, we will be okay.  If you agree with that, cool, if not, so what?

The godzilla nids is psuedo min/maxed list, and I have seen the DA codex do extremely well against it.

This was my expierence, added to the fact that I think the Godzilla list sucks.  The fact that I have seen the list do well against several supposed over power lists, colored my expierence, and I drew my opinion from it.  The way I feel has no effect on you. 

See there, I wasn't flaming anyone, wasn't trying to bait people.  I simply stated a few things that people chose to ignore, and I disagreed with a dakka law apparently, as I hate an army list, and that is apparently starting an argument and trolling.


Let me make sure I got the dakka laws down before this thread is locked:

Do not share expierinces that contradict Dakkaites expieriences (this is flaming), as demonstrated several times in this thread.
Do not say the Godzilla Nids suck as this , and I quote you: You're just throwing out an inflammatory and unsupported opinion.  That's trolling, buddy.  Starting an argument for the sake of starting an argument, without any effort to engage in debate and the exchange of real ideas.
If I post, assume its to exchange REAL ideas and exchage in debate, because just saying that I think a list sucks is just: You're just throwing out an inflammatory and unsupported opinion(because one MUST support his OPINION here, he is not entitled to just feel a certain way), and one again That's trolling, buddy.

Are there anymore laws I need to follow in the future?  Anymore army lists I should be liking, so I don't get accused of: You're just throwing out an inflammatory and unsupported opinion, and That's trolling, buddy.

So, in short, you wanted to throw your opinion out on a public discussion board, but you don't want to talk about the basis for it, and you're offended both when people disagree with you, and when people want to discuss your opinion in more depth.

Okay. Troll.

Posted By Whatever on 04/08/2007 5:50 PM

My random thoughts from this thread.

I'm currently working on glueing my DA army together.  I think the new 'dex is great except for two minor quibbles.  1:Scouts as Elites instead of Troops and 2:No 10-man Termie squads.  I don't see how people can look at this list and say everyone's list will be the same.  One of the things I love about it is that I can do massive Termie army one game,turn around and do a force of almost nothing but Landspeeders and Bikes the next,then mix them together,or do fairly generic list with none of them. 

The key here is that the army lacks a flexible build that is suitable for -take all comers - tournament play by providing either a steady ROI on points spent per unit or good durability (VP denial). 

I haven't played with the new dex, but I was watching a casual game where they were being used and asking questions about the dex.  The answers I recieved convinced me that while new possibilities were opened up, simultaneously, limits were placed, immediately reducing the ROI (points) of these choices:

Example 1.

Combat squads and rebate on transports.  This seemed awesome, until I found out that his vet sgts were mandatory.  Then I asked why he didn't pile 'em into a razorback and give the vet sgt a combi-weapon.  The DA player said that that is no longer an option!   He tells me Jervis, in his infinite wisdom said you can put all your combi-weapon guys in one squad and make 'em veterans...!  So while you have a lot of scoring units, these scoring units are comparitively underpowered compared to opposing units due to small unit size, and high unit cost...  (No signums or auspexes either, apparently)

Example 2.

Ravenwing bikes.  There's no reason that the RW bikes should be priced the way they are (in a vaccum).  Unless you use them to teleport Terminators, they give the appearance of being horribly overpriced.  Essentially, you have a stock marine bike, with a mandatory veteran sgt, teleport homers and scout.  We had a small discussion on how scout seemed to be overpriced, especially in light of the cost of infiltrate... but I digress.

There's probably more, but that's all I can think of - and the combat squads thing, to me, is a big deal.

This thread is getting a bit circular, so I'm closing it. If there are elements here you'd like to continue to discuss, please start a new thread with a focused topic.

Thanks!