3828
Post by: General Hobbs
According to Phil Kelly, there will not be an update bringing wargear into line with the new Codex Space Marines.
So stormshields for wolves, both angels and Templars will be 4+, hth only etc etc.
Good job GW.
7259
Post by: Deathmachine
thats stupid but owell i play ultramarines haha.
123
Post by: Alpharius
It is odd.
I know why they aren't going to do it, but they really should have.
It would have been the work of an afternoon for someone at GW HQ.
Weird...
621
Post by: Lowinor
General Hobbs wrote:So stormshields for wolves, both angels and Templars will be 4+, hth only etc etc.
The Wolves codex says to get the rules from the SM codex, so they'll get most of the new wargear toys. And Storm Shields are cheap for Wolves...
6887
Post by: Greebynog
I think the point is that you can't just upgrade the abilities of something in one codex to be unified with another without changing the point value of said item, it would unbalance things. It might not be palatable, but it isn't possible to affect blanket changes in effects without a blanket change in cost.
459
Post by: Hellfury
Heh. I had hopes for just one moment that GW could have tried to make the game better through consistency.
I should have listened to my inner cynic and just remembered that GW couldn't be bothered to be that on the ball.
Hell. Atleast 3rd ed tried to be consistent.
5th ed is going to be so much fun! Let confusion reign!
"Err wait a sec...I thought that apothecaries did this one thing?"
"Nope. These apothecaries do this thing and those apothecaries do that thing."
"Ok. I shoot my cyclone at you"
"Ok. I shoot my cyclone at you too!"
"Hey! WTF! How the hell did you get two shots?"
"Remember, green marines have this cyclone, blue marines have that cyclone."
"  "
Way to go GW! Keeping 40K awesome since Never!
Greebynog wrote:I think the point is that you can't just upgrade the abilities of something in one codex to be unified with another without changing the point value of said item, it would unbalance things. It might not be palatable, but it isn't possible to affect blanket changes in effects without a blanket change in cost.
I want to agree with this and normally I would. But lets compare the DA to the new SM who we pretty much know whats going to happen with. Both of these codecies are very similar, if not copy pastes of some entries.
Yet, for example, new marines get 2 shot cyclones and DA get 1? Sorry, the logic you give would be sound if it wasn't for instances such as that. DA termies are even more expensive than vanilla termies. DWA rule doesnt merit a 3 point increase. Nor does fearless wich is a drawback, not a buff.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Phil's words were "to give the Ultramarines something special".
Edit: They also showed us the greens/resins for two of the upcoming metal Legion of the Damned models and the finished Storm.
7325
Post by: kinghammer
General Hobbs wrote:
According to Phil Kelly, there will not be an update bringing wargear into line with the new Codex Space Marines.
So stormshields for wolves, both angels and Templars will be 4+, hth only etc etc.
Good job GW.
Really, I think you are way off........There will be FAQ's that will bring them in line when the codex is released.
Cheers
320
Post by: Platuan4th
kinghammer wrote:
Really, I think you are way off........There will be FAQ's that will bring them in line when the codex is released.
Cheers
Nope, both Phil Kelly, Arch-writist, and Jes Goodwin stated it wasn't going to happen.
459
Post by: Hellfury
Platuan4th wrote:Phil's words were "to give the Ultramarines something special".
You mean "special" as in "special" until they redo the other marine codices and give them the same 'special' stuff? Brilliant.
Smurf: "We are blue marines! our LR can hold 6 termies, even though its the exact same thing as everyone elses LR's"
Deathwing: " but...we are deathwing! We specialize in this sort of stuff!"
Smurf: "Suck it, joyboy!  "
Whatever.
2035
Post by: Khornatedemon
good thing i started repainting those BA of mine snot green. Anyone have any flamers to spare?
5394
Post by: reds8n
listen to this
No pictures allowed I'm afraid, but worth a listen.. if only so all the non brits can laugh at the accents.
At the Q & A at the end they mention NO update for dark Angels, Templasre etc with the new rules. The lack of update for BA surprised me a little, with them not actually being aprinted codex and all.
And some still pics, thanks to Mr. Dragonlady linky
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Eh... I may just play Space Marines when I want a marine army and Dark Angels when I want a bike or termie army.
Then, in 3 years, the DA/BA will be updated again to include all the toys. Would be an easy update, like Tau Empire, almost all of the models are already out in plastic for the DA anyway.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
459
Post by: Hellfury
Ozymandias wrote:Then, in 3 years, the DA/BA will be updated again to include all the toys. Would be an easy update...
But thats the point. You KNOW that they will have a huge spasm of creative malaise and just fork the upgraded options to those armies anyways, so why make people wait years to get it when you can simply FAQ it until they do get a new codex?
This has all the ear marks of illogical asshattery, I tell you.
304
Post by: Archaeo
Hellfury wrote: This has all the ear marks of illogical asshattery, I tell you.
There is a 'logical' asshattery? 
I guess this is why not to many people like the Ultramarines? Of course Space Wolves will reap the benefits though right? They need something to help them anyway, and I don't even play them. 
7547
Post by: MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy
So what the hell am I supposed to do with 100 robed marines and 90 Terminators now?
3712
Post by: moosifer
Well good thing my Marines are not painted like blood angels or I would be screwed!
Thanks GW, it was an honor playing a marine army that meant something to the fluff of the universe besides "we are strict codex, we have a notable divergence..."
RIP Fiction, and so help me god if Graham McNeil puts out another Spacesmurf book I will throw a fit.
60
Post by: yakface
Hellfury wrote:Ozymandias wrote:Then, in 3 years, the DA/BA will be updated again to include all the toys. Would be an easy update...
But thats the point. You KNOW that they will have a huge spasm of creative malaise and just fork the upgraded options to those armies anyways, so why make people wait years to get it when you can simply FAQ it until they do get a new codex?
This has all the ear marks of illogical asshattery, I tell you.
Hellfury,
While I fully argee with your previous sentiments that all marine armies should be combined into a single Space Marine book for consistency sake, the reality is that is not the road that has been chosen.
Players (and GW) obviously prefer that marine chapters that are popular enough to be a big enough army get their own codex because, besides the rules, it gives them a chance to flush out that army with full fluff, artwork and minis for that army.
Cramming every marine chapter into a single book would mean that GW would have less reason to promote and sell their marine miniatures which is obviously central to their business.
But once you go down the multiple marine codex path, I have to disagree that it is a no-brainer to publish FAQ updates to keep the different codices in line. Once that choice is made you essentially guarantee that new players who pick up one of the variant army lists must also go online and find the FAQ to figure out why other players with the same army are playing differently from them.
As it stands now, your codex rules are your codex rules. Yeah, Cyclones in one marine army function differently from Cyclones in another marine army, but in this case we are talking about two distinct armies with two distinct codices.
As a veteran who doesn't mind extensive FAQs and prefers fluff continuity, would I prefer to have FAQs making all the similar rules in the marine codices the same? Absolutely. But do I understand why that is also a big can of worms that GW doesn't want to get into? Absolutely.
MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy wrote:So what the hell am I supposed to do with 100 robed marines and 90 Terminators now?
Use the Space Marine codex if you prefer the armies in there? It's not like the rules in the DA codex have changed with the release of the SM codex. Use the DA codex if you want, use the SM codex if you like it better.
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
Well, just think of it this way. On one hand Deathwing terminators scream really loud and push their teleport buttons really hard and this makes them teleport really fast when they Deathwing Assault. On the other hand Ultramarine terminators scream really loud and clench their sphincters really hard and squeeze out an extra missile with each volley from their cyclone missile launchers. These important differences are reflected in the new rules. Enjoy.
752
Post by: Polonius
In third, the various chapters were sub codices, and so relied heavily on the base codex, and were affected by it's update.
In fourth, they become seperate books (except for wolves), and now Dark Angels, ruleswise, are no more linked to a new SM codex than a new Vampire Counts army book. Yes, their stormsheilds are different, but so are their captains. their chaplains are better, etc.
2776
Post by: Reecius
Exactly, the ultramarine termies also have more bald guys, which clearly gives them the edge.
4936
Post by: VermGho5t
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:Well, just think of it this way. On one hand Deathwing terminators scream really loud and push their teleport buttons really hard and this makes them teleport really fast when they Deathwing Assault. On the other hand Ultramarine terminators scream really loud and clench their sphincters really hard and squeeze out an extra missile with each volley from their cyclone missile launchers. These important differences are reflected in the new rules. Enjoy.
QFT.
As the Renegade Really Bad Loyalist Marines stare on emo-like.
3222
Post by: Ranillon
I guess this means that my Deathwing Assault Cannons still use the old style Rending too. 
Actually, the idea that the weapons won't be updated has me mad as  . I can understand not allowing new units, but there is no good justification for having different rules for the same wargear. None.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Other than the justification that Yakface explained up above...
Also, show me in the DA book where the rending rules are explained. Yeah it sucks that regular Space Marines now have a few extra advantages but oh well, they had advantages in the last edition as well.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
60
Post by: yakface
IMHO, there are very, very few areas where Dark Angels are superior rules-wise than Vanilla SMs now (wait. . .what has changed? ), but they are there:
Dark Angels still have Rites of Battle and psychic hoods that affect the entire battlefield. I'm sure there are a few more scattered around too.
However, the cool little changes that SM get in the new book are definitely tastier than anything the DA's have IMHO.
Of course, the only way to play an all termie army that I can see is to play Dark Angels. So there's that going for 'em I guess.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
The reason wargear might have different rules is simply whats used by the non-codex chapters isn't the exact same wargear used by those following more closely. The BA, SW, DA are stuck in their ways... BT are on crusade.
Hapless justification given I do think its silly not to update the rules via an FAQ, it'd sure give White Dwarf something to publish, God knows they need it.
I think that with the size and scope of the new Space Marine codex it shows that GW could probably round up all the others (DA, BA, BT, SW... etc) and do a Non-Codex Space Marine: Codex book pretty well. That would really be the best bet, it would mean less waiting between updates, it would make it easier to keep two books in line rather than five. I think that if you cut out all the redundancies in fluff and "how to" between the four non-codex books, you could get them down to the same size as the new Space Marine Codex. At that point it become a matter of nuance of how the common and army specific options would work together within the structure of the book.
Looking at codex Dark Angels what we have is a book that is only of any benefit if you choose play the elements of the Dark Angels that follow the Index Astares least. I think that really is what the individual non-codex chapters space marine books should be for. If you aren't playing Ravenwing or Deathwing and you aren't using a special character is there really that much of a reason to use that Codex... no.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Platuan4th wrote:Phil's words were "to give the Ultramarines something special".
I take it back. Phil isn't the only person in the Dev Team who knows what he's doing as, clearly, none of them would know a good set of rules even if it came up and bit them in the face.
BYE
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ozymandias wrote:Marines now have a few extra advantages but oh well, they had advantages in the last edition as well.
These aren't 'advantages' Ozzy. These are items that are identicle having different rules in two different places. Can't you see how bad that is from a rules design perspective?
I mean, I really thought GW 'got' this when they went and made the Universal Special Rules section in 4th. Rather than having four sets of True Grit with slightly different wording, they codified a single rule that covered anyone with True Grit. And this applied to lots of other rules.
Now GW is regressing. Special Rules that should be identicle can have differences between books, and now weagear and weapons that is the same can be different between books.
It's a joke, and, more than anything ever before it, it shows how little GW cares about their rules. It's all about pushing the shiny new model kit, and the rules... well they're not even tertiary. They're an inconvinence to them - a necessary evil they have to go through when releasing shiny new model kits.
Now I don't want a Legions Codex, 'cause I'm afraid an Emperor's Children Blast Master will be different to a Noise Marine Blastmaster, or we'll get 5 different versions of the Reaper Autocannon.
BYE
3725
Post by: derek
I'm pissed. I can't say it any other way. It's an asinine decision to not have consistency between pieces of wargear with the same name. Using this example:
Once that choice is made you essentially guarantee that new players who pick up one of the variant army lists must also go online and find the FAQ to figure out why other players with the same army are playing differently from them.
New players are also going to be wondering why their wargear with the same name, same point cost(or more expensive point cost in some places), just isn't as good. Why do my more exepensive terminators not get a 3+ save? Why does my Land Raider hold less? Etc. Aren't all these built off the STC?
Looks like my Ultrawing "counts as" is going back to being codex as I bring the Tac squads back out.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
HBMC: Going back to the days of 3rd ed when you needed a full 3-ring binder to carry all your extra rules and FAQ's is just as bad IMHO. Would I like to have these extras? Hell yes, I fething play Dark Angels, but I also understand the need to make things simple for people entering the hobby and having numerous FAQ's and errata can be overwhelming.
I can wait for a few years till the DA 5th ed book (hopefully they'll do a DA/BA book like 2nd Ed).
Ozymandias, King of Kings
459
Post by: Hellfury
yakface wrote:Of course, the only way to play an all termie army that I can see is to play Dark Angels. So there's that going for 'em I guess.
This is where my personal bias comes into play. Yeah it is a benefit, but then the Vanilla's can get 4x's more cyclone missiles for less than 2x's the price. As a person who plays an all termie army (or mostly termie army depending on my whim) it makes you feel like a peewee in the midst of John Holmes. i.e. cyclones are FINALLY worth taking and everyone else is left with overpriced ML's on a 60-70 pt model. 2 shots isn't great, but it definitely makes paying that amount of points more palatable.
I wouldn't mind it so much if I could replicate deathwing somewhat with the new list, but now that termie command squads are gone, that flavor is definitely missing (Lysanderwing is dead).
I suppose 50 termies in 5 squads was just too much for GW to allow vanillas.
I normally back phil kelly up on his design strategy, but his rationale as to why no retconning will be done is rather disheartening.
Oh well. I guess there is always Apocalypse... Yay. But if I am playing apocalypse, I may as well just use older codices while I am at it. I was hoping GW wouldn't force me to go down that rabbit hole with my termies.
459
Post by: Hellfury
Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: Going back to the days of 3rd ed when you needed a full 3-ring binder to carry all your extra rules and FAQ's is just as bad IMHO. Would I like to have these extras? Hell yes, I fething play Dark Angels, but I also understand the need to make things simple for people entering the hobby and having numerous FAQ's and errata can be overwhelming.
I see the point. Totally understood that before I even made a post in this thread.
The fact remains that when GW throws consistency out the window, they make it just as hard as having numerous FAQs. Like I said, atleast 3rd ed attempted to have consistency. 4th as well. 5th is starting out to seem like a jumbled mess of confusion, with its first codex release.
If you are going to allow codices to be backwards compatible, then actually make them backwards compatible. DA just recently got updated, so expecting any update other than a FAQ before the end of 5th ed or sometime during 6th ed is unrealistic at best. I personally don't want to see that. It appears I am not alone.
6091
Post by: Apone
So they're not updating the other books with an FAQ?
Meaning new players will look at the DA book and look and the SM book and chose to the latter.
And BA/DA/SW players might get so annoyed they buy the new SM book too! Hell why not some cool new scout bikers while they're at it!
Oh wait I think I see the real tip of the scales.
Updating the FAQ annoying for new players, not updating it annoying for existing players.
Generating book sales, good for GW.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: Going back to the days of 3rd ed when you needed a full 3-ring binder to carry all your extra rules and FAQ's is just as bad IMHO.
And hyperbole won't help you here Ozy.
No, what's worse is when two players show up with very similar armies, but one is Dark Angels and one is Whatevermarines, and they both get annoyed because their identicle units are using completely different rulesets, especially when one ruleset is so clearly superior.
This is terrible rules design, shows a complete and utter lack of forethought, and proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that GW simple do not care about their rules.
BYE
443
Post by: skyth
yakface wrote:
IMHO, there are very, very few areas where Dark Angels are superior rules-wise than Vanilla SMs now (wait. . .what has changed? ), but they are there:
Dark Angels still have Rites of Battle and psychic hoods that affect the entire battlefield. I'm sure there are a few more scattered around too.
But then there are the people that will kill your sports score because you're a bad person because obviously the rules are 'intended' to be the same.
3725
Post by: derek
skyth wrote:yakface wrote:
IMHO, there are very, very few areas where Dark Angels are superior rules-wise than Vanilla SMs now (wait. . .what has changed? ), but they are there:
Dark Angels still have Rites of Battle and psychic hoods that affect the entire battlefield. I'm sure there are a few more scattered around too.
But then there are the people that will kill your sports score because you're a bad person because obviously the rules are 'intended' to be the same.
Too true. Sadly, I bet if anything gets an FAQ entry, it will be the things that have been nerfed, like the Psychic Hood.
5333
Post by: BeefyG
LOL at GW.
My friend plays dark angels and has long since given up on their codex and lately has enjoyed playing green marines.
I've got space wolves and because they put less effort into that codex I get all the flow down benefits?
What a lack lustre effort. If GW wanted to make headway into the "hate" they get, they just kicked themselves in the teeth metaphorically.
Its funny to me because once you encourage people to give up on any rules in a game system you literally push them away, towards something better.
Enter the "Disenchanted Dark Angels Generation".
It also begs the question of whether the colours you paint your marines will really hold their value.
Red = Goes faster.
Grey = A Generic option better than green but never as cool as blue.
Green = Boogers.
Blue = Always cool.
3222
Post by: Ranillon
Ozymandias wrote:Other than the justification that Yakface explained up above...
Actually, this doesn't work, IMHO. No point rebalancing is required as long as everyone uses the same rules for the same items. It's when you have different effects and different point totals that problems pop up.
There is also another consideration -- even if somehow the points balance still worked people will still get mad at seeing one force using the same gear getting perceived "better" rules than there own for no other reason than an arbitrary editorial decision. It'll drive people away from playing anything than straight vanilla marines. Why should someone be punished for playing a specialized chapter? You preserve the differences in taste and play by keeping some units unique to vanilla marines. Having the same wargear with different rules is just going to cause arguments and resentment.
Ozymandias wrote:
Yeah it sucks that regular Space Marines now have a few extra advantages but oh well, they had advantages in the last edition as well.
Explain to me why anyone would play other space marine chapters after the arrival of this new codex? Beyond, that is, being stuck with models that can't be otherwise played (such as a Deathwing or Ravenwing army).
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I'd just like to say that I have a grin from ear to ear right now, because one of my predictions for the Marine Codex has come true:
Power Fists and Assault Cannons have been grossly 'over balanced'.
Power Fists, as I expected, have gone up to 25 points on Sergeants despite losing an attack in the new edition. Assault Cannons, despite their significant reductions in power, are now 40 points on Land Speeders!!!!
When an item is overpowered, or a no brainer, there are two solutions:
1. Reduce its power.
2. Increase its cost.
GW just has a magical ability to always choose both solutions, apply them at the same time, and then knock off for a 3 hour lunch.
Is there no internal vetting in that team at all?
BYE
5912
Post by: GrandWarmasterPinto
I'm kind of put off about the Librarian starting with two free psychic powers for 100 points. I know the CSM Sorc has an Invulnerable save and better stats. But they have a Hood, two free powers, and the ability to cast two a turn for less points.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:I'm kind of put off about the Librarian starting with two free psychic powers for 100 points. I know the CSM Sorc has an Invulnerable save and better stats. But they have a Hood, two free powers, and the ability to cast two a turn for less points.
There's nothing wrong with that. The problem isn't Space Marine Librarians - the problem is the absolute gak Chaos Sorcerer.
BYE
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
While I fully expected this (as GW really hasn't gone back and updated previous armies units in many years) and told many people to expect as much who were hoping (or almost assured of themselves that there would be an FAQ, as some sort of justification for why DA/BA/CSM/BT's shouldn't be too upset by all the new SM goodies), it is disappointing still that the office intern who did the terrible job on the recent FAQ's couldn't be found to spend half an hour throwing a couple lines into a PDF and uploading it.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Christ, I'll do it for them.
For free.
It's not that hard.
BYE
5912
Post by: GrandWarmasterPinto
H.B.M.C. wrote:GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:I'm kind of put off about the Librarian starting with two free psychic powers for 100 points. I know the CSM Sorc has an Invulnerable save and better stats. But they have a Hood, two free powers, and the ability to cast two a turn for less points.
There's nothing wrong with that. The problem isn't Space Marine Librarians - the problem is the absolute gak Chaos Sorcerer.
BYE
That's a good point you have there.
6609
Post by: Fresh
you have to remember that GW is pretty much 99% for the profit, it is a retail company after all..
Back to the topic - just going to be overall confusing with different chapters..
Cheers,
Gutteridge
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
H.B.M.C. wrote:When an item is overpowered, or a no brainer, there are two solutions:
1. Reduce its power.
2. Increase its cost.
GW just has a magical ability to always choose both solutions, apply them at the same time, and then knock off for a 3 hour lunch.
Is there no internal vetting in that team at all?
There's no indication of any oversight in any of GW's rules work, it looks as if a designer comes up with the stuff, which is then slapped on the page with no review or a second look, unless someone actually writes a confusing and misleading FAQ to it several years later. Gutteridge wrote:you have to remember that GW is pretty much 99% for the profit, it is a retail company after all..
Somehow, other for-profit companies manage not to piss off their fanbase on a regular basis, and releasing good-quality, consistent rules time and time again.
105
Post by: Sarigar
No FAQ.....
Must mean GW is going to come out with Dark Angels, 2nd edition Codex so they will make players buy a whole other book; kind of like the Dark Eldar from 3rd edition or the stealth rule changes in the Chaos Codex.
I was really looking into Deathwing, but no FAQ=no money spent on Terminators.
459
Post by: Hellfury
Sarigar wrote:No FAQ.....
Must mean GW is going to come out with Dark Angels, 2nd edition Codex so they will make players buy a whole other book; kind of like the Dark Eldar from 3rd edition or the stealth rule changes in the Chaos Codex.
I was really looking into Deathwing, but no FAQ=no money spent on Terminators.
Well, in GW's defense, they did offer the DE codex update for free via PDF. it just wasnt as spiffy as having it bound into one book that way.
The stealth chaos changes were ....unfortunate to put it lightly. If ever there was an instance where GW lacked consistency, it was that.
Yeah, I wouldn't invest in terminators at all, even for vanilla marines. DW is laughable.
I wish I could convince locals here to allow me to use the new updated rules, my termie army needs a new home for rules since lysander is now crysander.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Agamemnon2 wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:When an item is overpowered, or a no brainer, there are two solutions:
1. Reduce its power.
2. Increase its cost.
GW just has a magical ability to always choose both solutions, apply them at the same time, and then knock off for a 3 hour lunch.
Is there no internal vetting in that team at all?
There's no indication of any oversight in any of GW's rules work, it looks as if a designer comes up with the stuff, which is then slapped on the page with no review or a second look, unless someone actually writes a confusing and misleading FAQ to it several years later.
Gutteridge wrote:you have to remember that GW is pretty much 99% for the profit, it is a retail company after all..
Somehow, other for-profit companies manage not to piss off their fanbase on a regular basis, and releasing good-quality, consistent rules time and time again.
All part of the problem when all 'playtesting' is done no further than the shadow of the Ivory Tower that the GW game designers work in...
6300
Post by: Korthu
I'd take everything said at Gamesday with a grain of salt. Last year Phil told me about some to the new High elf units before the book was out. He got most of it wrong. In a big way. I don't know if he just didn't know or things changed after he talked to me or what. Most of the staff thought that the other Marine codices will get updated. I'll just wait and see. -K.
5762
Post by: Old Man Ultramarine
Hellfury wrote:Ozymandias wrote:
This has all the ear marks of illogical asshattery, I tell you.
This quote is simply brilliant!
So my DA's, specifically RW and DW apothecaries will not give "feel no pain" to their units? Just ignore the first failed save, instead.
That my friends IS asshattery
459
Post by: Hellfury
Korthu wrote:I'd take everything said at Gamesday with a grain of salt. Last year Phil told me about some to the new High elf units before the book was out. He got most of it wrong. In a big way. I don't know if he just didn't know or things changed after he talked to me or what. Most of the staff thought that the other Marine codices will get updated. I'll just wait and see. -K.
Dosadi @ warseer said he was convinced that GW would FAQ everything to be consistent. I hope it is a mistake, but Kelly was asked a clear question and he did respond with rationale that it was to make smurfs 'special'.
I guess all we have to go off of is what Kelly said, and it doesn't look promising.
Old Man Ultramarine wrote:Hellfury wrote:This has all the ear marks of illogical asshattery, I tell you.
This quote is simply brilliant!
So my DA's, specifically RW and DW apothecaries will not give "feel no pain" to their units? Just ignore the first failed save, instead.
That my friends IS asshattery
Yep and your typhoon launchers will be stupid as well. Yay!
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Spase Marinez are the h0tn3ss. Hurrrr!
G Marine
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
Hellfury wrote:Dosadi @ warseer said he was convinced that GW would FAQ everything to be consistent. I hope it is a mistake, but Kelly was asked a clear question and he did respond with rationale that it was to make smurfs 'special'.
With GW's definition of 'special' being that it will cause no end of confusion.
8066
Post by: Darknite
A couple of thoughts -
1) Legacy codexes retain old style org charts & wargear - infinite range psy hoods, termies with two heavies, las/plas, etc. Backrev'ing Codex SM gear is an advantage when combined with old codex syndrome.
2) I find GW to be amazingly lazy in how they maintain their product. I've been playing Star Wars Miniatures for a while before coming back to 40k and you can say what you will about WOTC but they keep their fingers damn close to the pulse when it comes to FAQ'ing and bringing old rules into line with new releases. It's not perfect but it beats GW with a thunderhammer any day.
DN
763
Post by: ProtoClone
aka_mythos wrote:The reason wargear might have different rules is simply whats used by the non-codex chapters isn't the exact same wargear used by those following more closely. The BA, SW, DA are stuck in their ways... BT are on crusade.
Hapless justification given I do think its silly not to update the rules via an FAQ, it'd sure give White Dwarf something to publish, God knows they need it.
I think that with the size and scope of the new Space Marine codex it shows that GW could probably round up all the others (DA, BA, BT, SW... etc) and do a Non-Codex Space Marine: Codex book pretty well. That would really be the best bet, it would mean less waiting between updates, it would make it easier to keep two books in line rather than five. I think that if you cut out all the redundancies in fluff and "how to" between the four non-codex books, you could get them down to the same size as the new Space Marine Codex. At that point it become a matter of nuance of how the common and army specific options would work together within the structure of the book.
Looking at codex Dark Angels what we have is a book that is only of any benefit if you choose play the elements of the Dark Angels that follow the Index Astares least. I think that really is what the individual non-codex chapters space marine books should be for. If you aren't playing Ravenwing or Deathwing and you aren't using a special character is there really that much of a reason to use that Codex... no.
I started to think that having all other chapters in one book would be ideal as well...but the problem ends up being flavor and balance. Bringing them all into one book that is appealing to players would be rough. You still would get complaints about balance and maybe even some about how one persons fav. chapter is getting a shorter section of fluff as compared to another chapter.
This also doesn't mean it will come out faster. If one chapter is having balance issues while the others are not then that one chapter holds up the entire book.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Darknite wrote:A couple of thoughts -
1) Legacy codexes retain old style org charts & wargear - infinite range psy hoods, termies with two heavies, las/plas, etc. Backrev'ing Codex SM gear is an advantage when combined with old codex syndrome.
2) I find GW to be amazingly lazy in how they maintain their product. I've been playing Star Wars Miniatures for a while before coming back to 40k and you can say what you will about WOTC but they keep their fingers damn close to the pulse when it comes to FAQ'ing and bringing old rules into line with new releases. It's not perfect but it beats GW with a thunderhammer any day.
DN
I think the only 'old' SM Codex that will still be valid that would allow 2 heavies in a termi squad (under 10) would be the BT Codex. I'm pretty sure the DA and BA books already got rid of this.
Las/ Plas is GONE come the new SM book.
All the other things are easy to bring into line using the FAQ/Patch approach.
I think.
117
Post by: Tribune
H.B.M.C. wrote:Power Fists, as I expected, have gone up to 25 points on Sergeants despite losing an attack in the new edition.
And as I pointed out last time this came up, they did the same with the CSM codex, so you had to know it was coming. In this rare case, you can claim that the loyalists were actually just cut n pastes of their spiky brethren, rather than the other way 'round 
5376
Post by: two_heads_talking
reds8n wrote:listen to this
No pictures allowed I'm afraid, but worth a listen.. if only so all the non brits can laugh at the accents.
At the Q & A at the end they mention NO update for dark Angels, Templasre etc with the new rules. The lack of update for BA surprised me a little, with them not actually being aprinted codex and all.
And some still pics, thanks to Mr. Dragonlady linky
now that looks nice.
117
Post by: Tribune
H.B.M.C. wrote:GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:I'm kind of put off about the Librarian starting with two free psychic powers for 100 points. I know the CSM Sorc has an Invulnerable save and better stats. But they have a Hood, two free powers, and the ability to cast two a turn for less points.
There's nothing wrong with that. The problem isn't Space Marine Librarians - the problem is the absolute **** Chaos Sorcerer.
BYE
Point of order, for the SM librarian to cast two per turn allegedly requires a 50 point upgrade. Leaving aside the questionalbe fluff rationale that these guys are just as able to double cast as the ancient/warp-charged Farseers and Tzeentch sorcs (respectively), this would bring them more in line with the costs to do the same with their aforementioned counterparts.
If the powers are not to hot, then while I think 100 points to start with two powers seems undercosted IMO, it may not be too far out of balance in the context of the SM force list. To be honest the one thing I really, really hate about SM Libs is they now get this, plus a choice of 9 powers, plus the insanely useful Psychic Hood.
(Could I sit any more uncomfortably on this fence?)
752
Post by: Polonius
Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: Going back to the days of 3rd ed when you needed a full 3-ring binder to carry all your extra rules and FAQ's is just as bad IMHO. Would I like to have these extras? Hell yes, I fething play Dark Angels, but I also understand the need to make things simple for people entering the hobby and having numerous FAQ's and errata can be overwhelming.
I can wait for a few years till the DA 5th ed book (hopefully they'll do a DA/BA book like 2nd Ed).
Ozymandias, King of Kings
See, this is just a poor argument. Look, having printed out errata, sections glued into codices, and online FAQs that change frequently are not ideal. Nobody is going to argue that. But it's not the end of the world. You would need a sheet or two of paper, and whatever difficulty it provides for new people playing the army it helps when new people play against the army, and find entirely new wargear! Yes, errata isn't exactly encouraging to new players. OTOH, this is a new generation of gamers, kids understand updates and patches and the fact that the internet can change things. As it stands now, can any of us in good faith say they would point a new player to actually use Codex: Dark Angels for anything other than Death/Ravenwing? I'd rather have a codex that a new player could actually use with patches than one that sits on the shelf.
It's a decision, and it's a difficult one, and they made a choice. Personally, I'd take errata over weirdness, but the weirdness isn't debilitating either. So a DA storm shield is somehow different: I think we'll manage to play the game.
Really, this is just misassigned rage. DA was used to beta test the new marine rules, and now they're stuck with a lemon of a codex. That is the real problem.
5045
Post by: Evil Eli
So Much for the all new Warhammer 40K.
New Edition, Same Ole bs.
I am glad I decided to NOT to get back into 40K.
257
Post by: Harkainos
Reecius wrote:Exactly, the ultramarine termies also have more bald guys, which clearly gives them the edge.
That is precious
459
Post by: Hellfury
Polonius wrote:Really, this is just misassigned rage. DA was used to beta test the new marine rules, and now they're stuck with a lemon of a codex. That is the real problem.
Good Point. But should we just sit idly by allowing that to occur? More importantly, should GW just sit idly by?
GW could change that with a two pages or less of words.
102
Post by: Jayden63
As the only SM army I'd be willing to play are the space puppies, I'm rather glad their codex is pretty thin and constantly tells you to refer to the main marine codex.
I do feel sorry for everyone else though. This is very much a screw the vets in favor of the children mentality that I have learned to loath from GW. They are fully willing to ignore those of us who got them where they are.
752
Post by: Polonius
Hellfury wrote:Polonius wrote:Really, this is just misassigned rage. DA was used to beta test the new marine rules, and now they're stuck with a lemon of a codex. That is the real problem.
Good Point. But should we just sit idly by allowing that to occur? More importantly, should GW just sit idly by?
GW could change that with a two pages or less of words.
Well, GW doesn't do power balances, or much of any rules changes, in between codex revisions. The main infamous counterexample of course was the "misprint" regarding Obliterators toughness in the 3.5 book.
Should you sit idly by? No, you should be figuring out what MEQ codex best provides the rules to play the way you want to play. That's all anybody is doing now. GW will sell a ton of DA codexes to former lysanderwing players in a month or two, I'll bet. BT will spike as people crave heavy weapons in tactical squads (but not in devestator squads). Space Wolves might completely change everything. And, as always, there is Chaos if you can live without ATSKNF and a few other toys.
I dunno, maybe I'm just natrually a cynic, but it seemed to me that the DA book was half assed. Not just in power level, but there was very little that really made it's non-wing units DA (and back then, Krak were useless while all the other rules were nerfs). The one refrain was "wait for 5th and new marines." Well, it's here, DA still are lame, and there literally is nothing anybody can do about it other than not play with those rules.
On a tangent, am I the only person who thinks it funny that people that can transport hundreds of toy soldiers and a dozen tanks somehow find a few pages of errata to be burdensome? And that's not counting the time and effort and money spent buy, building, painting and storing the armies. But grabbing rules updates online, printing them, and slipping them in a binder is simply asking too much!
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
Apone wrote:
And BA/DA/SW players might get so annoyed they buy the new SM book too! Hell why not some cool new scout bikers while they're at it!
Space Wolves MUST purchase the new SM codex to play, since we only have a half of a codex. I like SW but I'm wondering if its worth all of the extra hassle.
763
Post by: ProtoClone
Crimson Devil wrote:Apone wrote:
And BA/DA/SW players might get so annoyed they buy the new SM book too! Hell why not some cool new scout bikers while they're at it!
Space Wolves MUST purchase the new SM codex to play, since we only have a half of a codex. I like SW but I'm wondering if its worth all of the extra hassle.
this gets better and better everytime.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Tribune wrote:And as I pointed out last time this came up, they did the same with the CSM codex, so you had to know it was coming. In this rare case, you can claim that the loyalists were actually just cut n pastes of their spiky brethren, rather than the other way 'round
But power fists hadn't lost an attack then, so the points increase was a simple and effective method of balancing the powerfist.
But GW just couldn't resist the need to overbalance something... or, more likely, the person who wrote the new power fist rule simply didn't know that other 'writers' had increased its points to balance it in newer Codices.
BYE
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
H.B.M.C. wrote:
But GW just couldn't resist the need to overbalance something... or, more likely, the person who wrote the new power fist rule simply didn't know that other 'writers' had increased its points to balance it in newer Codices.
That would likely be Allessio, who also wrote (part of) the CSM codex (and thus knew full well about the overbalancing)
I really wish GW would get rid of him, I haven't liked anything he's written and found many of his podcasts to just showcase his failures as a game designer (and how he lacks an understanding of the purpose of various units and abilities), although I do give him credit for attempting to explain his reasoning behind the changes and willingness to be a little open about it.
206
Post by: Bignutter
I gotta ask- what would you prefer?
Rules as written
or
Have to buy a new codex
since so many people seem to whine about having to buy things or prices going up etc... then deal with the RAW
as for blanket updates- you end up with a messy situation with many different FAQs that don't match up not because of GW inconsistancy but because of people printing off different versions, not having access to them or not knowing that they are avalible
THAT is when confusion reigns supreme- when you play against someone- and they spring an FAQ on you that you don't know, or don't think is valid- and suddenly arguement time
Both keeping it as written and producing blanket changes have their merits- but the keeping it as is would be in my eyes best for most gamers
459
Post by: Hellfury
Polonius wrote:Hellfury wrote:Polonius wrote:Really, this is just misassigned rage. DA was used to beta test the new marine rules, and now they're stuck with a lemon of a codex. That is the real problem.
Good Point. But should we just sit idly by allowing that to occur? More importantly, should GW just sit idly by?
GW could change that with a two pages or less of words.
Well, GW doesn't do power balances, or much of any rules changes, in between codex revisions. The main infamous counterexample of course was the "misprint" regarding Obliterators toughness in the 3.5 book.
Should you sit idly by? No, you should be figuring out what MEQ codex best provides the rules to play the way you want to play. That's all anybody is doing now. GW will sell a ton of DA codexes to former lysanderwing players in a month or two, I'll bet. BT will spike as people crave heavy weapons in tactical squads (but not in devestator squads). Space Wolves might completely change everything. And, as always, there is Chaos if you can live without ATSKNF and a few other toys.
I dunno, maybe I'm just natrually a cynic, but it seemed to me that the DA book was half assed. Not just in power level, but there was very little that really made it's non-wing units DA (and back then, Krak were useless while all the other rules were nerfs). The one refrain was "wait for 5th and new marines." Well, it's here, DA still are lame, and there literally is nothing anybody can do about it other than not play with those rules.
On a tangent, am I the only person who thinks it funny that people that can transport hundreds of toy soldiers and a dozen tanks somehow find a few pages of errata to be burdensome? And that's not counting the time and effort and money spent buy, building, painting and storing the armies. But grabbing rules updates online, printing them, and slipping them in a binder is simply asking too much!
All are words of truth. 
I especially like the bit about being burdened by toys, yet it becomes too cumbersome to carry a few printed FAQ pages.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Bignutter wrote:Rules as written
or
Have to buy a new codex
You forgot the third option:
Internal consistency and oversight that avoids idiotic and basic mistakes like the current Ultra vs DA/Chaos debacle.
In other words, it should never reach the stage that it has now because the designers have a clear plan on what they're going to do, rather than acting like a first time driver in a manual transmission car - lurching and bunny hopping in new directions whenever they managed to get the gear lever in the right slot.
And when it comes down to having a new Codex to purchase, or being stuck with a gak one for 6-8 yeas, I think that 'buy a new one' will win a decisive victory at every turn.
BYE
BYE
459
Post by: Hellfury
H.B.M.C. wrote:And when it comes down to having a new Codex to purchase, or being stuck with a poopy one for 6-8 years, I think that 'buy a new one' will win a decisive victory at every turn.
Definitely. I would happily pay for a codex that stood up to snuff.
5912
Post by: GrandWarmasterPinto
I think a big problem was the change from 4th to 5th without everyone having an up to date codex. At least when 4th came out everyone has a 3rd edition book to work with. Now you've got people running around with 3rd edition books still. I think that's completely stupid.
117
Post by: Tribune
H.B.M.C. wrote:Tribune wrote:And as I pointed out last time this came up, they did the same with the CSM codex, so you had to know it was coming. In this rare case, you can claim that the loyalists were actually just cut n pastes of their spiky brethren, rather than the other way 'round
But power fists hadn't lost an attack then, so the points increase was a simple and effective method of balancing the powerfist.
Not a chance, CSM was written with the 5e rules already well underway. The fact is this 'overbalance' has been planned since at least that point. But I know you can't agree with that, as it causes you physical discomfort to give GW any credence at all I remember how much agony you were in, having to actually give them props for doing a great job of re-cutting the CSM sprue.
Should the PFist be 25 points? That's another question entirely...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Tribune wrote:The fact is this 'overbalance' has been planned since at least that point.
I trutly doubt that much planning goes on at that place any more. It's more a bunch of designers really doing whatever they want as long as it sells the shiny new toy they're putting out.
Tribune wrote:But I know you can't agree with that, as it causes you physical discomfort to give GW any credence at all I remember how much agony you were in, having to actually give them props for doing a great job of re-cutting the CSM sprue.
Revisionst history much?
I'm a firm believer in giving credit where credit's due. I will always give credit to the GW model makers as they make some wonderful stuff. I also give credit when GW makes something that is actually quite interesting - like this new Marine Codex, or Cities of Death or Apoc, and, hopefully soon, Planetstrike and 40K Mighty Empires - but I'm not take the "Well suck it up" bs that we get from a few members here whenever a Codex is heavily nerfed because of idiotic later decisions.
Tribune wrote:Should the PFist be 25 points? That's another question entirely...
When it still got +1A for the pistol - absolutley. Now that is has less attacks (and is therefore less powerful), no, it shouldn't go up in price when it gets a reduction in power.
BYE
88
Post by: bejustorbedead
Vaktathi wrote:That would likely be Allessio, who also wrote (part of) the CSM codex (and thus knew full well about the overbalancing)
I really wish GW would get rid of him, I haven't liked anything he's written and found many of his podcasts to just showcase his failures as a game designer (and how he lacks an understanding of the purpose of various units and abilities), although I do give him credit for attempting to explain his reasoning behind the changes and willingness to be a little open about it.
Wait, isn't he the one usually responsible for any strong Fantasy Battle armybook? Does he somehow know what he's doing over there and not in 40k? I don't follow WHFB, so maybe I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall that being the case.
117
Post by: Tribune
H.B.M.C. wrote:Tribune wrote:The fact is this 'overbalance' has been planned since at least that point.
I truly doubt that much planning goes on at that place any more. It's more a bunch of designers really doing whatever they want as long as it sells the shiny new toy they're putting out.
You say this mainly because you revel in projecting the idea of GW's complete incompetence. I always read your posts as they're full of pithy humour, but sometimes your polarised view needs to be tempered. Otherwise I wouldn't have replied.
Fact remains, the fist was made 25 points in CSM and that's consistent in the SM dex too. They planned for it.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Tribune wrote:But I know you can't agree with that, as it causes you physical discomfort to give GW any credence at all I remember how much agony you were in, having to actually give them props for doing a great job of re-cutting the CSM sprue.
Revisionst history much?
I'm a firm believer in giving credit where credit's due. I will always give credit to the GW model makers as they make some wonderful stuff. I also give credit when GW makes something that is actually quite interesting - like this new Marine Codex, or Cities of Death or Apoc, and, hopefully soon, Planetstrike and 40K Mighty Empires - but I'm not take the "Well suck it up" bs that we get from a few members here whenever a Codex is heavily nerfed because of idiotic later decisions.
Show me a post where you give GW unqualified credit. C'mon, it's just not your style
189
Post by: Jester
H.B.M.C. is just like me dear old dad: he loves with his fists.
But all in all he's an alright guy.
8066
Post by: Darknite
You're right about the termies, I've been working on my BT army lately and it stuck in me head.
Alpharius wrote:Darknite wrote:A couple of thoughts -
1) Legacy codexes retain old style org charts & wargear - infinite range psy hoods, termies with two heavies, las/plas, etc. Backrev'ing Codex SM gear is an advantage when combined with old codex syndrome.
2) I find GW to be amazingly lazy in how they maintain their product. I've been playing Star Wars Miniatures for a while before coming back to 40k and you can say what you will about WOTC but they keep their fingers damn close to the pulse when it comes to FAQ'ing and bringing old rules into line with new releases. It's not perfect but it beats GW with a thunderhammer any day.
DN
I think the only 'old' SM Codex that will still be valid that would allow 2 heavies in a termi squad (under 10) would be the BT Codex. I'm pretty sure the DA and BA books already got rid of this.
Las/ Plas is GONE come the new SM book.
All the other things are easy to bring into line using the FAQ/Patch approach.
I think.
763
Post by: ProtoClone
GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:I think a big problem was the change from 4th to 5th without everyone having an up to date codex. At least when 4th came out everyone has a 3rd edition book to work with. Now you've got people running around with 3rd edition books still. I think that's completely stupid.
I think you nailed the real problem GWP. Their codices are all over the board on how current they are and the speed in which they are attempting to correct that doesn't seem to be fast enough for the most part. Some codices that have been updated to 4th are being updated again to 5th while we still have a quite a few lingering in 4th and 3rd. Then to step out and declare this army, SM, to be of the same cloth but cut differently and with the same options but different effects per options, just seems crazy. I don't blame GW for wanting vanilla SM to be, well, more unique in a way. But wow.
123
Post by: Alpharius
bejustorbedead wrote:Vaktathi wrote:That would likely be Allessio, who also wrote (part of) the CSM codex (and thus knew full well about the overbalancing)
I really wish GW would get rid of him, I haven't liked anything he's written and found many of his podcasts to just showcase his failures as a game designer (and how he lacks an understanding of the purpose of various units and abilities), although I do give him credit for attempting to explain his reasoning behind the changes and willingness to be a little open about it.
Wait, isn't he the one usually responsible for any strong Fantasy Battle armybook? Does he somehow know what he's doing over there and not in 40k? I don't follow WHFB, so maybe I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall that being the case.
That's one way of putting it.
He really should have been canned after the Skaven army book though.
That thing is a monstrosity that really lend itself to creating armies that aren't a lot of fun to play against.
5912
Post by: GrandWarmasterPinto
One example of a codex that is sorely out of date are Space Wolves. I mean, they lost two rules I believe in 5th edition. It's almost like the thing is so old it's sloughing off rules like dead skin.
3725
Post by: derek
GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:One example of a codex that is sorely out of date are Space Wolves. I mean, they lost two rules I believe in 5th edition. It's almost like the thing is so old it's sloughing off rules like dead skin.
Space Wolves and Dark Eldar are the two armies that I think are most in need of new a codex as both are still from third edition. I don't remember if Dark Eldar got it's update in fourth, but I know that it wasn't a significant change to the codex. The other codices that have been floated around as in need of an update would be Necrons and Guard, which I believe have both been confirmed to be 2009 releases(though I may be wrong on Necrons). Honestly, I'm holding out hope for Wolves to be next, I'd like to at least see one non Smurf army get the new gear, if nothing else than to give hope that the rest will eventually.
763
Post by: ProtoClone
derek wrote:GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:One example of a codex that is sorely out of date are Space Wolves. I mean, they lost two rules I believe in 5th edition. It's almost like the thing is so old it's sloughing off rules like dead skin.
Space Wolves and Dark Eldar are the two armies that I think are most in need of new a codex as both are still from third edition. I don't remember if Dark Eldar got it's update in fourth, but I know that it wasn't a significant change to the codex. The other codices that have been floated around as in need of an update would be Necrons and Guard, which I believe have both been confirmed to be 2009 releases(though I may be wrong on Necrons). Honestly, I'm holding out hope for Wolves to be next, I'd like to at least see one non Smurf army get the new gear, if nothing else than to give hope that the rest will eventually.
DE never got a 4th ed codex. Both need the 5th ed update badly...but according to rumor on B&C SW forum, SW are not coming out in 2008.
This is the post. Take it with as many grains of salt as you would like.
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=144299
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Well they wouldn't. Marines are October, which leaves 2 more months in the release schedule - enough time for one more Fantasy and one more *sigh* LOTR release.
BYE
102
Post by: Jayden63
I have hopes for Wolves in the near future. But it really going to be a wait and see issue... then groan when something gets messed up.
3725
Post by: derek
ProtoClone wrote:derek wrote:GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:One example of a codex that is sorely out of date are Space Wolves. I mean, they lost two rules I believe in 5th edition. It's almost like the thing is so old it's sloughing off rules like dead skin.
Space Wolves and Dark Eldar are the two armies that I think are most in need of new a codex as both are still from third edition. I don't remember if Dark Eldar got it's update in fourth, but I know that it wasn't a significant change to the codex. The other codices that have been floated around as in need of an update would be Necrons and Guard, which I believe have both been confirmed to be 2009 releases(though I may be wrong on Necrons). Honestly, I'm holding out hope for Wolves to be next, I'd like to at least see one non Smurf army get the new gear, if nothing else than to give hope that the rest will eventually.
DE never got a 4th ed codex. Both need the 5th ed update badly...but according to rumor on B&C SW forum, SW are not coming out in 2008.
This is the post. Take it with as many grains of salt as you would like.
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=144299
I know they never got a new codex, but they did get an update to their existing one. Regardless, they need a new one.
Space Wolves at least have an out as far as updated wargear goes:
Page 14 C: SW wrote:Important: Space Wolves may NOT pick wargear from the Armoury in Codex: Space Marines and must take all of their equipment from the list below. A number of entries are basically the same as their counterpart in the standard Space Marine Armoury and, in this case, we've noted this by writing the entry in italics below. There is a brief description of how these items work on the summary page later in this Codex but you should refer to the Wargear section in Codex: Space Marines for a full description.
8288
Post by: Rated G
What's wrong with having 2 or 3 marine armies released in a row? It's the money earned from those sales that propel GW forward and allow them to even work on other armies, especially insignificant (at least as far as profit goes) armies like Dark Eldar. At least this way, the marines are out of the way and we can finally get to the good stuff. Except for Space Wolves, they are made of good stuff.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Because people like to complain about constant Marine releases.
Space Wolves are the most far removed from any of the other types of Marines (only Black Templars differ almost as much as they do), so really a re-release of Wolves isn't the same as a re-release of Blood Angels or Dark Angels or even Chaos, as those three are pretty similar to regular Marines (regular Marines are just better, and have Land Raiders that hold more people and Cyclones that shoot more often for... some... reason).
Wolves right after Marines would be fine as they're very different to one another, but people would complain. Personally I think it should be Marines, Dark Eldar, then Wolves - the reason being that it clears out two of the last 3rd Ed Codices (except for Guard, technically) - and allows them to move onto more interesting things, like Guard and Necrons.
Then they can redo Blood Angels properly, then Inquisition as a whole, then go about fixing the idiotic mistakes of the past (Dark Angels & Chaos). Finally we'll get back around to Black Templars to blandify that, then Tau and then finally 'Nids and we can all look forward to a nerfing of all the 'Nid stuff that rocks, and major boosts to the stuff no one takes - just like the current 'Nid 'Dex!!!
BYE
8533
Post by: RFM275
All I want is consistency. I really dont think it is that difficult. If you are going to use a codex as a test run and then you improve on it for the next codex go back and fix the old one. For DA the storm shields are already 10 pts. The only things that would be affected would be Terminators, Belial and Veteran Squads. And I sincerely doubt that C:SM Land Raiders are going to be more points to account for improved POTMS and transport capacity.
5272
Post by: Fallen668
I must admit I am kind of suprised that this is being blown out of preportion like this. We already have precedence that GW will not giv consistance to its' codex through the FAQ. All I need to point you to it Deamonhunters and Assault Cannons. They will not upgrade them to the current incarnation and are stuck using the stats listed in the book. That should be proof enough right there that they wont change anything on the new book.
Also... don't forget that the DH and WH books are also 3rd and do not have an update slated any time soon.
3725
Post by: derek
Fallen668 wrote:
Also... don't forget that the DH and WH books are also 3rd and do not have an update slated any time soon.
Actually they're both 4th ed.
7547
Post by: MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy
Almost positive DH is 3rd ed. Hence the Heavy 3 Assault Cannons.
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
It's all about point costs, and the old SW codex that really only ties in with the 3rd ed Space Marine book is an example of that upsetting the scene.
DA probably won't get the FAQ, but I don't care.
I'm selling my SW, and my vaguely Dark Angel Green marines will sit pretty.
3858
Post by: Jezrael
derek wrote:Fallen668 wrote:
Also... don't forget that the DH and WH books are also 3rd and do not have an update slated any time soon.
Actually they're both 4th ed.
Uh.... No. Just to help some of the people "new" to the game.
4rth ed was; Space Marines, Tyranids, Tau Empire, Black Templar, Eldar, Dark Angels, Chaos, Orks and Daemons.
3725
Post by: derek
Jezrael wrote:derek wrote:Fallen668 wrote:
Also... don't forget that the DH and WH books are also 3rd and do not have an update slated any time soon.
Actually they're both 4th ed.
Uh.... No. Just to help some of the people "new" to the game.
4rth ed was; Space Marines, Tyranids, Tau Empire, Black Templar, Eldar, Dark Angels, Chaos, Orks and Daemons.
I'm pretty sure they were written for 4th, and if nothing else were released at the time of the new assault rules/new vehicle rules, etc. being considered the standard for tournament play. It's like calling the Chaos Codex with Legion rules a 3rd Edition Codex.
459
Post by: Hellfury
Sisters (WH) were the last book of 3rd ed and can be easily postulated that it was written with 4th ed in mind. For a long time it was GW's most balanced codex.
DH on the other hand was far before the 4th ed release to be considered a 4th ed codex.
Deamons, while made during 4th ed, is likewise in the sisters shoes. It is quite apparent just by wording that daemons is the actual first release of 5th ed.
so 4th ed actually was:
Witch hunters, space marines, Tyranids, Tau Empire, Black Templar, Eldar, Dark Angels, Chaos, Orks (sort of)
(It is highly debatable where Orks should lie in all of this, as wording can be related to 5th ed, but they obviously changed 5th ed enough to say hat orks weren't really in fact written for 5th ed, atleast not fully)
5th ed is:
Orks (sort of), Daemons, Space marines, X codex.
2726
Post by: J'santai Khan
What ever happened to the 'good 'ol days' of Chapter Approved?!? One book comes out with rule updates/clarificatoins, new army lists, etc and everyone gets it. BAM!! It's right here in black and white, for all to see.
Personally, I am sick of having to jump online to see what the newest FAQ's are before EVERY event/tourney, just to make sure I, at least, am playing it correctly.
As far as different rules for different armies, they all have advantages/disadvantages to them. Some people will read the DA codex and be atounded at some of the DA only stuff, while others will only see the down side. It's true with every codex.
7366
Post by: quietus86
I hope day will make true on thare word for doing evry codex in 5 edition I hurd that dark eldar wil be be for space mariens if evry thing go's wel boute codexis are finist there was only a problem whit tha new miniatures and the dark eldar is older than de space wolf.
( I don't realy care I only play imperium army's )
5912
Post by: GrandWarmasterPinto
Yeah the Dark Eldar are gonna need something. I mean the first time around they had to have a whole new section and special characters added in after the fact for vehicle upgrades and more characters.
3858
Post by: Jezrael
Hellfury wrote:Sisters (WH) were the last book of 3rd ed and can be easily postulated that it was written with 4th ed in mind. For a long time it was GW's most balanced codex.
DH on the other hand was far before the 4th ed release to be considered a 4th ed codex.
Deamons, while made during 4th ed, is likewise in the sisters shoes. It is quite apparent just by wording that daemons is the actual first release of 5th ed.
so 4th ed actually was:
Witch hunters, space marines, Tyranids, Tau Empire, Black Templar, Eldar, Dark Angels, Chaos, Orks (sort of)
(It is highly debatable where Orks should lie in all of this, as wording can be related to 5th ed, but they obviously changed 5th ed enough to say hat orks weren't really in fact written for 5th ed, atleast not fully)
5th ed is:
Orks (sort of), Daemons, Space marines, X codex.
I know the arguments for the codexes written for new rules. As you know those discussions lead people to speculate all the way back to the DA book being 5th. I was only stating the official releases in the edition timeframe.
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
J'santai Khan wrote:What ever happened to the 'good 'ol days' of Chapter Approved?!? One book comes out with rule updates/clarificatoins, new army lists, etc and everyone gets it. BAM!! It's right here in black and white, for all to see.
There's one major flaw in your argument - not everyone would get it. And in fact, it kinda sucks for those folks who're scraping their army by in any case, because they couldn't really afford yet another book like that. At least by putting them online, just about anyone can access them (and yeah, I know not everyone has the internet, but most folks can at least go to a library that has it).
8288
Post by: Rated G
Death By Monkeys wrote:J'santai Khan wrote:What ever happened to the 'good 'ol days' of Chapter Approved?!? One book comes out with rule updates/clarificatoins, new army lists, etc and everyone gets it. BAM!! It's right here in black and white, for all to see.
There's one major flaw in your argument - not everyone would get it. And in fact, it kinda sucks for those folks who're scraping their army by in any case, because they couldn't really afford yet another book like that. At least by putting them online, just about anyone can access them (and yeah, I know not everyone has the internet, but most folks can at least go to a library that has it).
Or, the obvious could happen and your local store could stay up to date with the new info and keep it in a binder for everyone to come in and pay ten cents for a copy of the relevant information. This way, those who have internet get the errata online and those who don't have internet get it at the store. I can't think of anyone else who doesn't fit into one of those groups, but really it doesn't matter. At some point, you just have to leave somebody out so that 99% of your customer base can be satisfied.
330
Post by: Mahu
What they should really do is pull Black Templars and Dark Angels from the shelves. They more then made their money anyways.
Then they should release them as PDF only "get you buy" codexes as well as updating Blood Angels.
Then when the profits take a dip. Update the lists again and do another codex release.
Simple.
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
Mahu wrote:What they should really do is pull Black Templars and Dark Angels from the shelves. They more then made their money anyways.
Then they should release them as PDF only "get you buy" codexes as well as updating Blood Angels.
Then when the profits take a dip. Update the lists again and do another codex release.
I don't know about that for the BT - they've got some pretty significant divergences and seem to be the most solid in dealing with changes to 5E and the new SM Codex. As long as DA have gotten the shaft with their last codex they might as well get a PDF get you by list - it'll be better than what they've got now.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
There is a strong rumor starting to circulate that the reason BA and DA will not get the upgrades is that GW plans to re-release their codices within the next six months.
G
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
I somehow doubt GW would be on-the-ball enough to be able to make the necessary changes to the BA and DA for that kind of turnaround. Not to mention the MEq burnout that we're already starting to hear complaints about.
330
Post by: Mahu
How can there be MEQ burn-out when the new dex isn't even released yet.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Green Blow Fly wrote:There is a strong rumor starting to circulate that the reason BA and DA will not get the upgrades is that GW plans to re-release their codices within the next six months.
G
And if you trace that rumor back to the source, it is probably a bunch of disgruntled BA and DA players, upset (rightfully so!) that GW is apparently NOT going to FAQ/patch the changes from the upcoming SM Codex for their armies...
7366
Post by: quietus86
I hurd that BA and DA are geting new codexis hurd that the blood angels are geting a codex vertion not a print out ( don't now how mutch is true about blood angels geting a codex )
2700
Post by: dietrich
Four pages, and no Hurr!!!!! ? (ok, I didn't read all four that closely, but I'm not seeing any hurrs!)
Argument for update: It's the same equipment
Argument against: GW playtests everything and the existing lists are balanced 'as is' and revising the wargear items would upset the balance.
Well, the argument against doesn't work completely, GW doesn't playtest stuff that well. I can see where there are some quirky exceptions that would upset things (BT Assault marines with storm shields come to mind).
BT and DA get Termie command squads, so you can fit an IC and a squad into a drop pod. SM get 12 man pods but no command squad, so you have to attach the IC to the squad, which means you need the bigger pod.
It'd be great if GW refitted BT, DA, BA, and SW. I can maybe see DA and BA getting refits since they're the most 'codex astares' of the four. BT are pretty divergent and, as hideous as they are now, I'd just as soon see them wait and redo the dex.
Now, if GW wants to just drop the four divergents and just make DA and BA special characters to stick in the next SM codex and then do a second Codex: Divergent Marines that would let you build BT and SW, I'd be okay with that. That'd be 60% less loyalist marines! But, it won't happen.
The problem isnt' that the rules aren't the same, the problem is they do too many MEQs because they're so popular. So, all you BT, DA, and BA players need to sell your armies and play something else. But, leave my SW alone!
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
Mahu wrote:How can there be MEQ burn-out when the new dex isn't even released yet.
It's the internet. It's as good as released. Seriously, though, I agree with you, although there's a bunch of discussion on pages 2 and 3 of this thread about folks getting riled up about too many MEq armies being released one after another.
3725
Post by: derek
dietrich wrote:
BT and DA get Termie command squads, so you can fit an IC and a squad into a drop pod. SM get 12 man pods but no command squad, so you have to attach the IC to the squad, which means you need the bigger pod.
BT may(I don't have my codex handy to check them), but DA don't that I can find. I see normal command squads, but not terminator. Even Belial's Squad would not be able to fit with him in a normal Land raider, or Drop Pod(though Deathwing Terminators don't have Drop Pods as a listed option anyway).
7547
Post by: MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy
Yep. DA Terminator Command Squads are squads of 5 (no more, no less) and their Terminators don't have access to (50 pt) drop pods.
5468
Post by: temprus
Alpharius wrote:Green Blow Fly wrote:There is a strong rumor starting to circulate that the reason BA and DA will not get the upgrades is that GW plans to re-release their codices within the next six months.
G
And if you trace that rumor back to the source, it is probably a bunch of disgruntled BA and DA players, upset (rightfully so!) that GW is apparently NOT going to FAQ/patch the changes from the upcoming SM Codex for their armies...
Actually, it was Dosadi at Warseer. He has stated that the news he received "was that there would absolutely be FAQs for the other marine lists." Regarding Phil denying the FAQS, he ended the post with: "If this is Phil Kelly is saying then I can only assume one thing; the DA and BT books will be discontinued within the next six months and revised lists along the lines of the BA will be done to fix these inconsistencies. Anything less is asking for trouble." Since that post, I keep seeing people say that the codexes WILL be re-released with in six months.
123
Post by: Alpharius
temprus wrote:"If this is Phil Kelly is saying then I can only assume one thing; the DA and BT books will be discontinued within the next six months and revised lists along the lines of the BA will be done to fix these inconsistencies. Anything less is asking for trouble."
THAT is a pretty slender reed to lean upon!
320
Post by: Platuan4th
temprus wrote:
Actually, it was Dosadi at Warseer. He has stated that the news he received "was that there would absolutely be FAQs for the other marine lists." Regarding Phil denying the FAQS, he ended the post with: "If this is Phil Kelly is saying then I can only assume one thing; the DA and BT books will be discontinued within the next six months and revised lists along the lines of the BA will be done to fix these inconsistencies. Anything less is asking for trouble." Since that post, I keep seeing people say that the codexes WILL be re-released with in six months.
So basically, Dosadi is being as wish-listy as everyone else despite the Arch-writist's actual statements?
2700
Post by: dietrich
MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy wrote:Yep. DA Terminator Command Squads are squads of 5 (no more, no less) and their Terminators don't have access to (50 pt) drop pods.
My bad! What I get for talking about a codex that I don't own. OK, DA are even more gimped than I thought.
Hurr!
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
GW rewrote the 3rd edition DA codex so there is a strong precedence. Don't ask "Why?". Ask "How?".
G
5468
Post by: temprus
Platuan4th wrote:So basically, Dosadi is being as wish-listy as everyone else despite the Arch-writist's actual statements?
First, Dosadi is rarely wrong about rumors he decides to share, which this could be one of those times or GW changed their mind since his source told him that.
Second, and more importantly, The "Arch-writist" was corrected at least once during one of the presentations for saying the wrong thing about a product he was describing (the Deff-Koptas). Phil has also been wrong before when denying (and when confirming) rumors or product questions at GW events before. GW has been known to lie to customers about a product coming out even after it has been announced and placed on their website. Two examples are 5th Edition, which some GW reps still denied it was coming out in 2008 as of May, and the contents of AoBR.
Alpharius, I just stated that is where the rumor started, people taking Dosadi's comment out of context and making it fact.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
temprus wrote:Platuan4th wrote:So basically, Dosadi is being as wish-listy as everyone else despite the Arch-writist's actual statements?
First, Dosadi is rarely wrong about rumors he decides to share, which this could be one of those times or GW changed their mind since his source told him that.
Second, and more importantly, The "Arch-writist" was corrected at least once during one of the presentations for saying the wrong thing about a product he was describing (the Deff-Koptas). Phil has also been wrong before when denying (and when confirming) rumors or product questions at GW events before. GW has been known to lie to customers about a product coming out even after it has been announced and placed on their website. Two examples are 5th Edition, which some GW reps still denied it was coming out in 2008 as of May, and the contents of AoBR.
Alpharius, I just stated that is where the rumor started, people taking Dosadi's comment out of context and making it fact.
Sorry, didn't mean to offend Dosadi(as I don't know the man), just the second qoute seems more wish-listy than in-the-know rumour. As for the Deff-koptas(at least the second seminar around) Phil was mentioning ideas from around the studio, not the actual AoBR models, at least that's what I gathered with the mention of other designers and sketches. Could he have slipped and been talking about later release models? Perhaps, but it seemed he was more talking about what they wanted to do with the ones in the box.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
WTF is wish listy? G
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
I just realized these are very speculative rumors.
Long liver the Emp... he is like the pimp. G
7046
Post by: rowanalpha
Unfortunately, it really isn't feasible to FAQ DA/BA/BT.
Look at it this way: In third edition, DA etc were suppliments to the Space Marine codex, rather than stand alones, so an update to the base codex immediatly trickled down. Now, however, each has a stand alone book, which means every entry in the entire book would have to be errated. Essentailly, there would be an entire book of nothing but Errata, rather than the page or two needed when they were suppliments.
I'm not saying that the current situation is ideal: the best solution would be for GW to rewrite the army lists for DA/BT with the new army list structures and release a 2.0 codex (they should be all for it, more money in their pocket). They wouldn't have to reinvent the rules or fluff, just plug the army list, costs and options with each army's rules.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
DA and BA are close enough to the standard marine codex and to each other; I'm not surprised by the prospect of a return to an Angels of Death style codex especially if its also in the new thicker format. DA already have all their models and BA wouldn't need too much.
BT and Space Wolves are both different enough that they really need their own books. BT will probably be the last SM redone.
5912
Post by: GrandWarmasterPinto
They might be able to even get away with a triple codex release. Just put out one new model for each book and send them out. It'd probably be great for sales.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
rowanalpha wrote:Unfortunately, it really isn't feasible to FAQ DA/BA/BT.
It's a single page FAQ per list at most. It's really not that hard.
BYE
686
Post by: aka_mythos
They've been saying they'd give more FAQ support and even have a dedicated staffer assigned to it. So I seriously think they could do something if they wanted to.
6297
Post by: tokugawa
BT does not really NEED a new codex or FAQ now.
What would they gain through it?Grenades for free,and what?
Most of the new features and new models in the 5th SM codex(Honorguard,Vanguard,Sternguard,new scouts rules,techmarine as HQ,combat tactics and the Special characters...), would(and should,through fluff) have not any relation with templars.
The only exception is LRR,if BT could not got it.It is hard to accept that GW does not want to sell their new LR kits to Templar players,who was the most enthusiastic fans of LR...
1110
Post by: Hexx
Actually BT players would (well the 2 I know were giggling about it) get cheap (3pt?) stormshileds for the assault squads.
Still not sure what the problem is, as others have said- if you want the new toys play "green painted/red painted marines"
If you want the older toys (Deathwing assault etc) use that Codex.
Don't see how 2 players are going to get confused with different rules for the same gear- pretty sure they'll each be reading from their own codex so it shouldn't be a problem.
Overall it'd have been nice to have everything match up, but it's hardly making the Angels, Templars or Wolves unplayable.
6292
Post by: Valhallan42nd
Wouldn't that be nice, a Codex: Divergent Chapters.
I'm sure we'll see that at the same time as a Legions codex.
6297
Post by: tokugawa
Valhallan42nd wrote:Wouldn't that be nice, a Codex: Divergent Chapters.
I'm sure we'll see that at the same time as a Legions codex.
I don't think that would be nice.Maybe it is the worst suggestion I could hear through my ears since I knew warhammer.
Who would feel comfortable,when his army have to see their Codex eliminated,or annexed?
4713
Post by: efarrer
Hexx wrote:
Don't see how 2 players are going to get confused with different rules for the same gear- pretty sure they'll each be reading from their own codex so it shouldn't be a problem.
Overall it'd have been nice to have everything match up, but it's hardly making the Angels, Templars or Wolves unplayable.
It's not the unplayability that is the problem. Do you know why Universal Special Rules were introduced in 4th? It works against both Wysiwig and common sense to have multiple versions of the rules coexisting. The designers could have choosen a couple of steps (renaming the peice of gear existed as an option. I strongly remeber trying to figure out what my opponents version of true grit was, and this is the same stupidity.
3828
Post by: General Hobbs
MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy wrote:Yep. DA Terminator Command Squads are squads of 5 (no more, no less) and their Terminators don't have access to (50 pt) drop pods.
After the new CSM comes out, only BT and SW Terminators can ride in Drop Pods.
6292
Post by: Valhallan42nd
tokugawa wrote:Valhallan42nd wrote:Wouldn't that be nice, a Codex: Divergent Chapters.
I'm sure we'll see that at the same time as a Legions codex.
I don't think that would be nice.Maybe it is the worst suggestion I could hear through my ears since I knew warhammer.
Who would feel comfortable,when his army have to see their Codex eliminated,or annexed?
It worked in 2nd Edition; the Angels of Death Codex had both Blood Angels/Dark Angels in it... It would Mesh nicely with a 4 colors Chaos Legion codex. I can see paying $25 for a 155 page book, about 38 pages per chapter ( SW, BT, BA, DA).
459
Post by: Hellfury
Valhallan42nd wrote:It worked in 2nd Edition; the Angels of Death Codex had both Blood Angels/Dark Angels in it... It would Mesh nicely with a 4 colors Chaos Legion codex. I can see paying $25 for a 155 page book, about 38 pages per chapter (SW, BT, BA, DA).
I hope they do that, as it is one step closer to just putting them all in one codex.
7366
Post by: quietus86
wode love a realy big codex whit evry marien army in it but it wood be lijke 200pages
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Nothing is wrong with more pages. Think back to the days of Realms of Chaos.
G
1110
Post by: Hexx
efarrer wrote:Hexx wrote:
Don't see how 2 players are going to get confused with different rules for the same gear- pretty sure they'll each be reading from their own codex so it shouldn't be a problem.
Overall it'd have been nice to have everything match up, but it's hardly making the Angels, Templars or Wolves unplayable.
It's not the unplayability that is the problem. Do you know why Universal Special Rules were introduced in 4th? It works against both Wysiwig and common sense to have multiple versions of the rules coexisting. The designers could have choosen a couple of steps (renaming the peice of gear existed as an option. I strongly remeber trying to figure out what my opponents version of true grit was, and this is the same stupidity.
Yes... but what's new?
For years the only DH armies that I've fought who have rending asscans are the one's who don't annoy me.
When I play against a marine army with terminators they might be fearless, they might not. Same model, same " WYSIWYG"
It'd be nice if it all worked the same, (and i have no idea why they changed the stormshiled) but how do you price it if used
-by BT assault squads
-by whoever can use it in a regular marince dex
-by fearless terminators who can mix heavy weapons in the squads
Same with all the other gear.
If you're happy with your BA/Da/ BT play them. If you'd rather have the new toys use the new codex.
4713
Post by: efarrer
Hexx wrote:
Yes... but what's new?
For years the only DH armies that I've fought who have rending asscans are the one's who don't annoy me.
When I play against a marine army with terminators they might be fearless, they might not. Same model, same "WYSIWYG"
It'd be nice if it all worked the same, (and i have no idea why they changed the stormshiled) but how do you price it if used
-by BT assault squads
-by whoever can use it in a regular marince dex
-by fearless terminators who can mix heavy weapons in the squads
Same with all the other gear.
If you're happy with your BA/Da/BT play them. If you'd rather have the new toys use the new codex.
I have no problem keeping track of rules for my army. What I have trouble with is when, and I have seen it, people who use the best rules for the moment. During the heat of games it can be possible for an opponent to not notice this, in particular when the opponent is not as familar with the lesser known unit. I can't understand at all why GW would wish to return to this.
As to the rest, you point it out the same way GW does other points values. You place a dart board on the wall and through darts until you hit a number you can live with.
I couldn't care less about which army I play, as I have almost all of them. I just really don't like seeing a convienent location for cheating, as existed back in the day.
3725
Post by: derek
I am going to be surprised if a storm shield goes up in points by more than 5. Even if it does it is still something that is easy to FAQ in for other chapters.
"The Storm Shield entry now reads: Confers a 3+ invulnerable save. Storm Shield cost is increased by X."
How hard would that be? Just replace X with cost increase to them in the new Codex and call it good.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
derek wrote:How hard would that be?
World shatteringly hard, apparently.
It seems that GW is of the opinion - and, astoundingly, so are some of the posters here - that it is far more complicated to carry a 1-page FAQ for your Codex than it is for people to show up with the same models that have different rules.
How they see the latter as beign 'easier to understand' is beyond me... simply behind me.
BYE
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Green Blow Fly wrote:GW rewrote the 3rd edition DA codex ... Don't ask "Why?". Ask "How?".
I thought the motto of the Dark Angels was ' Don't ask, don't tell'??
 @ me.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
BYE
|
|
