Link.

Didn't see this posted yet. Sorry if I missed it.

Say hello to "The Most Important Rule"!

Does look they fixed a few of their errors in the previous FAQ.

In the time it took to write that giant half page hunk of gak for that nonanswer, they could have addressed pretty much all of the inconsistencies between the DA & SM codex.

They would have been better off telling DA players to use the new codex.

The first question of the FAQ part pretty much sums it up... hope this isn't how it's gonna go for all of them, because I want special Scout ammo and upped transport capacity in my BA army!

MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy wrote:In the time it took to write that giant half page hunk of gak for that nonanswer, they could have addressed pretty much all of the inconsistencies between the DA & SM codex.

How is that a 'non-answer'? They actually answered the question in the very first sentence:

Strictly, you should always use the rules from your own Codex, and this is the default solution you must use if you and your opponent can’t come up with a better one...

The rest of it can be boiled down into "use a house rule if you and your opponent agree".

For GT/Tournament play you still have to use what is in your codex.

IMHO this is one of the dumbest things every done.

Ambiguity ENRAGES dakkaites.

So having an "option"? This poisons our very souls!!!

Though actually, he doesn't say for GT you have to do "X" He says that tournaments will most LIKELY make you do "X", but that's up to the tournament organizer.

So if you walk into a store, and say no to someone using the CSM items, that person may decide not to play you. Or you may play him, and have no fun.

On the flip side, you might have a blast. But...you know how people are...if they can find a way to have an advantage in their army, they will take it. So it is fair for DA armies to get better wargear for cheaper prices ( Cyclone Missile Launchers for example) ?

Why not just get rid of FO charts for all games? It looks like 40K is just going to a put units down, pay what you want for wargear, do what you want format.

I'm modelling all my Terminators with assault cannons...who are you to say I can't use them? Oh, and I'm putting Fire Prisms in my Marine Army.

Where is the ambiguity???

I can see both sides here, but really, would it have killed GW to actually decide one way or the other?

Makes me glad I'm the final word on stuff like that in my area. Sorry Dark Angle players, but whats in your Codex is what you're using.

Q. There are a number of cases where things with the same name have different rules or characteristics in Codex Space Marines and Codex: Dark Angels, such as the different transport capacity for the Land Raider. There are also a number of new items of equipment in the Space Marines Codex that are not this one. Which version of the rules should I use, the latest version, or the one in Codex: Dark Angels?

A. Strictly, you should always use the rules from your own Codex, and this is the default solution you must use if you and your opponent can’t come up with a better one (you’ll find that this might be the case in tournaments, for example!). However, always keep in mind the foreword we have written to all of the Errata and FAQ documents, as well as ‘The Most Important Rule’ described on page 2 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, which states ‘… it is important to
remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game.

Winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players – not just the victor – have a good time.’ On this basis if an opponent asks you if it’s okay for them to use the latest version of the rules for a piece of equipment, or if they can use a new item from Codex: Space Marines in their own army, then you should say ‘Yes, of course you can!’ Please note that ‘The Most Important Rule’ cuts both ways, and because of this, if you feel that a piece of new equipment
might spoil the game for your opponent by giving your own army an unfair advantage, then you are honour-bound not to use it. As you can see, the nature of the Most Important Rule means that it’s impossible to give a black and white answer to any question that may arise; instead you and your opponent need to discuss things and come up with the answer that makes both of you the happiest, keeping in mind that having a good time is more important than gaining a small in-game advantage. If for any reason you can’t do this, then simply revert to the default of using the rules from your own Codex.

I think I'm honestly rendered speechless for this one. I'm going to translate this into regular english

"We really feel that the game should be played using the latest rules available, but we lack the moral courage to simply say so just in case it might cause one player to be offended at us, so instead we'll provide this open-ended non-answer that essentially throws the responsibility for coming up with a mutually agreeable answer to two parties who will generally have a great interest in either outcome, instead of hiving us, a reasonably neutral third party, come up with a solution."

The ambiguity exists in the option for people to say no. Why do we ALWAYS arge about this. People can ALWAYS say no! I can say no to playing you even if you use a perfectly normal list that is totally legal! So what?

And I don't know what douchenozzle filled store Hobbs goes to, but man would I not want to play there. Apparently people there take every advantage they can in their army. Almost like playing this game means something beyond "I like small metal men".

Centurian99 wrote:

Q. There are a number of cases where things with the same name have different rules or characteristics in Codex Space Marines and Codex: Dark Angels, such as the different transport capacity for the Land Raider. There are also a number of new items of equipment in the Space Marines Codex that are not this one. Which version of the rules should I use, the latest version, or the one in Codex: Dark Angels?

A. Strictly, you should always use the rules from your own Codex, and this is the default solution you must use if you and your opponent can’t come up with a better one (you’ll find that this might be the case in tournaments, for example!). However, always keep in mind the foreword we have written to all of the Errata and FAQ documents, as well as ‘The Most Important Rule’ described on page 2 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, which states ‘… it is important to
remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game.

Winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players – not just the victor – have a good time.’ On this basis if an opponent asks you if it’s okay for them to use the latest version of the rules for a piece of equipment, or if they can use a new item from Codex: Space Marines in their own army, then you should say ‘Yes, of course you can!’ Please note that ‘The Most Important Rule’ cuts both ways, and because of this, if you feel that a piece of new equipment
might spoil the game for your opponent by giving your own army an unfair advantage, then you are honour-bound not to use it. As you can see, the nature of the Most Important Rule means that it’s impossible to give a black and white answer to any question that may arise; instead you and your opponent need to discuss things and come up with the answer that makes both of you the happiest, keeping in mind that having a good time is more important than gaining a small in-game advantage. If for any reason you can’t do this, then simply revert to the default of using the rules from your own Codex.

I think I'm honestly rendered speechless for this one. I'm going to translate this into regular english

"We really feel that the game should be played using the latest rules available, but we lack the moral courage to simply say so just in case it might cause one player to be offended at us, so instead we'll provide this open-ended non-answer that essentially throws the responsibility for coming up with a mutually agreeable answer to two parties who will generally have a great interest in either outcome, instead of hiving us, a reasonably neutral third party, come up with a solution."

Yeah, I pretty much came to the same conclusion.

Lightning claws can be retracted into their casing? Who knew? Snickety-snack!

Winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players – not just the victor – have a good time.’ On this basis if an opponent asks you if it’s okay for them to use the latest version of the rules for a piece of equipment, or if they can use a new item from Codex: Space Marines in their own army, then you should say ‘Yes, of course you can!’ Please note that ‘The Most Important Rule’ cuts both ways, and because of this, if you feel that a piece of new equipment
might spoil the game for your opponent by giving your own army an unfair advantage, then you are honour-bound not to use it. As you can see, the nature of the Most Important Rule means that it’s impossible to give a black and white answer to any question that may arise; instead you and your opponent need to discuss things and come up with the answer that makes both of you the happiest, keeping in mind that having a good time is more important than gaining a small in-game advantage. If for any reason you can’t do this, then simply revert to the default of using the rules from your own Codex.

I love how they go so far as to explain how to have a good time in a FAQ.

You mean games are for fun? Man I sure feel stupid now, shoot.

Having a balanced, well thought out, and complete rule set would probably be the biggest step taken by GW to make sure everyone has a "good time". But alas, instead we get this gobbily gak.

After I read that one I was floored. In all seriousness they could have done a quick and dirty errata and resolved a lot of the issues. I mean seriously this was an official statement that basically says if you aren't having fun with our rules use other ones.

I hope they realize that a vast majority of the community that looks to these FAQs for guidance openly protests this and they change it up.

By the RAW FAQ's (Frequently Asked Questions) need not contain any answers only questions that are frequently asked.

"Suck it up!" - Andy Chambers

George Spiggott wrote:By the RAW FAQ's (Frequently Asked Questions) need not contain any answers only questions that are frequently asked.

"Suck it up!" - Andy Chambers

However they publish an Errata and FAQ. Errata is changes that need to be made to the codex.
Once again they have decided not to really address the issue.
Hey GW we all know the game is for fun and we all know how to use house rules in that setting. What we "the community" need is a concrete answer for Tournament/Pick Up games where people don't know each other. How hard would it be for GW to say that in GW run/sponsored events it should be this way and that for everything else do whatever makes sense for your group. (which is how it is anyway)

On a personal note I really don't care what they do 5th edition is a blast to play but it is a terrible tournament game. I just hate seeing the people who do care about tournaments getting shafted by the current we can't at least do a little work to tighten things up for our customers GW.

GW: "Do what thou wilt. If you can't make a simple decision about something like this, there's really no hope for you."

EDIT: On a personal note, I say let the Dark Angel player in question decide. Their Codex got shafted, power-level-wise. It's not like putting an extra guy or two in a Land Raider or shooting another time with a Cyclone is going to give them an unfair advantage. "Oh Noes!!!1!! The Cyclone shot twice!!" :S Get a sense of perspective here, people. It's not like they're making an all-Loota army legal or anything.

Pariah Press wrote:GW: "Do what thou wilt. If you can't make a simple decision about something like this, there's really no hope for you."

Don't forget the other part of the statement.
GW: ",but don't forget to buy more stuff."

Pariah Press wrote:GW: "Do what thou wilt. If WE can't make a simple decision about something like this, there's really no hope for you."

Fixed your post.

Platuan4th wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:GW: "Do what thou wilt. If WE can't make a simple decision about something like this, there's really no hope for you."

Fixed your post.

LOL.

This is all they needed to update:

Power of the Machine Spirit
Storm Shields
Transport capacity on LRs
Transport Capacity on Drop Pods
Cyclone Missile Launcher
Typhoon Missile Launcher

And instantaneously I would be happy. Come on GW is it THAT hard to upgrade SIX whole rules?

I'm seriously considering house ruling this for Local Tournaments. :/

strange_eric wrote:This is all they needed to update:

Power of the Machine Spirit
Storm Shields
Transport capacity on LRs
Transport Capacity on Drop Pods
Cyclone Missile Launcher
Typhoon Missile Launcher

And instantaneously I would be happy. Come on GW is it THAT hard to upgrade SIX whole rules?

I'm seriously considering house ruling this for Local Tournaments. :/

E, you know it is, this is GW we're talking about.

By the by, how's the new location for Galactic? I haven't been 'cause I was shipped to Cali.

Do it if you want to. Who's gonna stop you?

so if you are going to allow transport capacity for other marines. does that include demon hunters and chaos?

I'm going get GW's back here a little.

First, they did answer the question: each codex is separate and unique, and do not rely on each other. They could have been a bit clearer.

Second, GW basically as much as admitted that they screwed up with DA, and are giving people a certain credibility if they want to upgrade their wargear a bit in casual play. History tells us they wont' simply say "yeah, we duffed that one", but it tells players to use the rules that allow them to have fun, with a default rule if they can't agree. I don't see how this is awful.

Third, we all know GW wasn't going to change the DA book. It wouldn't be errata, it would be a material change to the rules, and one that they've moved away from for 5 years now. It might be silly, but at least it's consistent.

It also opens the doors for all kinds of future problems. IG and Space Marines both have shotguns, for example. Stormtroopers have different options and abilities in the various codexes. Once they start connecting wargear rules to the new codex, they'll have to redo any time any concept shared between two codexes is upgraded. There's no reason they can't, but their current policy is to write a codex, release it, and walk away.

This isn't a case of GW failing. It's a case of GW continuing it's policies, and it's not an altogether indefensible one. The problem isn't that SM get better stormshields or Landraiders than DA, it's that DA suck! If DA were a top teir codex and SM were mediocre, nobody would be complaining. Griping isn't a problem, but let's focus it on the real problem (that the DA codex was halfbaked and lousy) and not a superficial one (that there are items with the same name and different rules).

Pariah Press wrote: Do it if you want to. Who's gonna stop you?

According to GW's FAQ, anyone!

They just have to do as Nancy would have them, and Just Say No...

skkipper wrote:so if you are going to allow transport capacity for other marines. does that include demon hunters and chaos?

Well Clearly no, as I don't play those armies....

My god we have to make a decision for ourselves? Agree something in a civilised manner!

I think if you can't make decisions with other people about how you play the game when the most important rule is to have fun, then i think it says something for peoples ability to function in a community!

Polonius wrote:This isn't a case of GW failing. It's a case of GW continuing it's policies

If the policy is a failure, then it is GW failing.

Reaver83 wrote:My god we have to make a decision for ourselves? Agree something in a civilised manner!

I think if you can't make decisions with other people about how you play the game when the most important rule is to have fun, then i think it says something for peoples ability to function in a community!

Gahhh what are all the rules lawyers, who have spent years learning to bend words and meaning in order to get their way, going to do now? The can't agree with themselves, let alone anyone else.

skyth wrote:

Polonius wrote:This isn't a case of GW failing. It's a case of GW continuing it's policies

If the policy is a failure, then it is GW failing.

Ok, let me restate: this isn't a new failure, this is just a continuance of a previous policy, that many people consider a failure. For the record, I agree that the "no rules outside of codexes" policy is bizarre, but it's at least marginally defensible. Given the relaxing of the Counts As rule, it's less and less an issue for this sort of thing.

As I've stated in other threads: GW doesn't care about who plays their games, only who buys their models. Accept that and move on. They're basically begging the community to take over tournament regulation as it is.

Ignoring the stupidity of the 'different gear because your marines are painted a different colour' issue, I do notice that they've reversed the decision on putting a single combat squad in a drop pod (which previously contradicted the codex).

Although they forgot to fix the one addressing the rhino's fire arcs...

Reaver83 wrote:My god we have to make a decision for ourselves? Agree something in a civilised manner!

I think if you can't make decisions with other people about how you play the game when the most important rule is to have fun, then i think it says something for peoples ability to function in a community!

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

The DA FAQ is a massive punt on their part, as if they simply came out and said: "you know, those DA, if your opponent agrees, shave a couple points off every model, it's all in good fun!"

Codexes (presumably) have their options costed at a certain level to balance their power as the Codex is written (again, presumably). I don't have the DA codex, but we all have access to the BA Codex, so can we apply the same logic to them? Do their apothecary equivalents get to use the new Narthecum rules? Can all of their squads that have access to Storm Shields (cheap storm shields at that) get the 3+ inv? Personally I think it has to be a "yes" to all those things, if only to avoid the insanity of having ridiculousness like a squad of BA assault termies and SM ATs having completely divergent combat prowess. But applying all those difference rules makes the BA codex substantially better then it was when it was written; it's not being a jerk for an opponent to realize that letting the BA player use the Codex SM rules means the BA player can field 3 assault squads with FNP, opr that the assault termies that were crap when his codex was first written are now very nice, and cheaper then yours (by the cost of one Death Company).

So what is the DA/BA player to do? How do you build an army when you cannot know what rules you army has to follow?

That's why this is a punt. The whole point of having a widely known/played game is, at least on some level, portability.

Buzzsaw wrote:So what is the DA/BA player to do? How do you build an army when you cannot know what rules you army has to follow?

Why don't they know which rules to follow? The FAQ quite clearly says that they should use the rules in their own codex.

The rest is simply pointing out that if you don't like the RAW, talk to your opponent and create house rules.

I'm not seeing a problem there.

insaniak wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:So what is the DA/BA player to do? How do you build an army when you cannot know what rules you army has to follow?

Why don't they know which rules to follow? The FAQ quite clearly says that they should use the rules in their own codex.

The rest is simply pointing out that if you don't like the RAW, talk to your opponent and create house rules.

I'm not seeing a problem there.

Other then the problem that using the rules "strictly" leads to ridiculous situations? Beyond that, your comment points out the very problem I emphasis: lack of portability. The FAQ lays out what should be done (i.e., what you strictly should do) and in the next sentence, recognizing that their prior point will lead to ludicrous situations, recommends that you house rule it.

Their solution is fine for a game that plays with proxies or paper chits; for a game where you not only have to buy your game pieces but are expected to model them with the wargear they have, it makes playing anywhere without prior notice of their excepted rules a craps shoot.

I'm shocked that there was no mention of Apocalypse in the FAQ. As we all know, and question that's too gribbly or deep should receive the "You can in Apocalypse!" response.

Am I the only one that finds it a bit hypocritical to say that players are honor-bound to do certain things, while simultaneously asserting that the design team is not honor-bound to make a consistent rules-set?

Doctor Thunder wrote:Am I the only one that finds it a bit hypocritical to say that players are honor-bound to do certain things, while simultaneously asserting that the design team is not honor-bound to make a consistent rules-set?

Nope.

Power of the Machine Spirit
Storm Shields
Transport capacity on LRs
Transport Capacity on Drop Pods
Cyclone Missile Launcher
Typhoon Missile Launcher

You seem to have forgetten a couple. New stats for Chaplains and Librarians, new scout stats, 24 inch hoods and need to be included as well. For the record, I have no problem with updating the DA codex so long as you take the bad as well.

steinerp wrote:

You seem to have forgetten a couple. New stats for Chaplains and Librarians, new scout stats, 24 inch hoods and need to be included as well. For the record, I have no problem with updating the DA codex so long as you take the bad as well.

That seems to be the fact that people keep forgetting: the DA codex was designed to be complete. It was designed weak sauce, but complete. Believe it or not, there are advantages it enjoys over basic marines (tacs can take a special weapon under 10 men, better chaplains/libbys, Deathwing as troops, etc.

This isn't about errata, or consistency: it's about power balance. And that's just not something GW likes to correct midstream any more.

strange_eric wrote:This is all they needed to update:

Power of the Machine Spirit
Storm Shields
Transport capacity on LRs
Transport Capacity on Drop Pods
Cyclone Missile Launcher
Typhoon Missile Launcher

And instantaneously I would be happy. Come on GW is it THAT hard to upgrade SIX whole rules?

I'm seriously considering house ruling this for Local Tournaments. :/

also,

Apothecaries
Librarians
Chaplains
scouts ammo
command squads

Would been a hell of alot easier to make Master of Ravenwing and Deathwing part of new SM codex.

Just stunned by this FAQ

Alpharius wrote:I can see both sides here, but really, would it have killed GW to actually decide one way or the other?

Yes, yes it would

"FAQs
Q. There are a number of cases where things
with the same name have different rules or
characteristics in Codex Space Marines and
Codex: Dark Angels, such as the different
transport capacity for the Land Raider. There are
also a number of new items of equipment in the
Space Marines Codex that are not this one.
Which version of the rules should I use, the latest
version, or the one in Codex: Dark Angels?
A. Strictly, you should always use the rules from
your own Codex, and this is the default solution
you must use if you and your opponent can’t
come up with a better one (you’ll find that this
might be the case in tournaments, for example!).
However, always keep in mind the foreword we
have written to all of the Errata and FAQ
documents, as well as ‘The Most Important Rule’
described on page 2 of the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook, which states ‘… it is important to
remember that the rules are just a framework to
create an enjoyable game.
Winning at any cost is less important than making
sure both players – not just the victor – have a
good time.’ On this basis if an opponent asks you
if it’s okay for them to use the latest version of
the rules for a piece of equipment, or if they can
use a new item from Codex: Space Marines in
their own army, then you should say ‘Yes, of
course you can!’ Please note that ‘The Most
Important Rule’ cuts both ways, and because of
this, if you feel that a piece of new equipment
might spoil the game for your opponent by giving
your own army an unfair advantage, then you are
honour-bound not to use it.
As you can see, the nature of the Most Important
Rule means that it’s impossible to give a black
and white answer to any question that may arise;
instead you and your opponent need to discuss
things and come up with the answer that makes"

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

Pussyfooting and not addressing this is asinine!

I just can't believe a multi-million dollar company can not come up with a R&D dept. to develop rules for their hugely popular miniatures.

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:

I just can't believe a multi-million dollar company can not come up with a R&D dept. to develop rules for their hugely popular miniatures.

Especially when they know there are people like yakface who would gladly do it for free if they only asked him to.

All they'd have to do is copy and paste what he sent them onto their website.

Is JohnHwangDD on sick leave today?

Is H.B.M.C.?

Alpharius wrote:Is JohnHwangDD on sick leave today?

Is H.B.M.C.?

They are probably both too stunned by this latest that they can not comment at this time.

Either that or maybe they think this arguament is entirely academic and therefore don't need to say anything at all.

And HMBC doesn't even USE GW's rules. He uses his own.

Who's in charge of this thing? Jervis, right? A guy who doesn't even think that people should use army lists outside of tournaments. He's looking at the game from a completely different place than most of us are.

Polonius wrote:If DA were a top teir codex and SM were mediocre, nobody would be complaining.

I don't know... this is DakkaDakka. A place were people use the expression "moral courage" to describe making choices about rules for toy soldiers. I have a feeling people here will complain about anything, in any situation, for as long as the hobby exists.

JOHIRA wrote:

Polonius wrote:If DA were a top teir codex and SM were mediocre, nobody would be complaining.

I don't know... this is DakkaDakka. A place were people use the expression "moral courage" to describe making choices about rules for toy soldiers. I have a feeling people here will complain about anything, in any situation, for as long as the hobby exists.

Well, let's get off the whole "internet complaining is wrong" high horse. I find kvetching to be about as productive as the next person, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any usefulness. Finding out that you're not the only person to find something BS can be comforting. And finding reasons to complain about GW aren't hard...

I was just pointing out that there is a tenor to this complaint that I think is ignoring the main issue, or even issues. It's becoming increasingly clear that not only aren't tournament rules a priority, but that I don't think there is a single strong advocate for competitive play on the 40k side (unless alessio is doing more 40k work now that he's done with the 5th ed rulebook), meaning that competitive/tournament play has gone from a low priority to no longer even on the radar screen.

We're consumers in an economic crisis, in a marketplace with other companies that not only cater to, but actively woo competitive gamers. One of the ways they do this is through regular updates and patches. GW, ironically now that the internet is so readily accessible, have stopped doing that, leaving (admittedly better) codexes to sit out for years and years without any updates. We have a huge investment in time, money, and simply emotion into our armies, and while stuff like this isn't a surprise, it's still annoying to be reminded how little our demographic means to GW.

Polonius wrote:
We're consumers in an economic crisis, in a marketplace with other companies that not only cater to, but actively woo competitive gamers. One of the ways they do this is through regular updates and patches. GW, ironically now that the internet is so readily accessible, have stopped doing that, leaving (admittedly better) codexes to sit out for years and years without any updates. We have a huge investment in time, money, and simply emotion into our armies, and while stuff like this isn't a surprise, it's still annoying to be reminded how little our demographic means to GW.

I think lack of tournament support has been pretty evident for at least 2-3 years now. Remember how many official GTs there used to be?

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

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

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

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

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

JOHIRA wrote:

Polonius wrote:If DA were a top teir codex and SM were mediocre, nobody would be complaining.

I don't know... this is DakkaDakka. A place were people use the expression "moral courage" to describe making choices about rules for toy soldiers. I have a feeling people here will complain about anything, in any situation, for as long as the hobby exists.

Hey, I was always taught that the largest component of moral courage was having the ability to admit that you're wrong.

I cannot speak for HBMC,
but I too am amazed he hasn't piped up yet...
HELLO!!!!!

Anyways,
This FAQ and Errata fixed a few minor things that needed to be fixing (the typo's and clarifying the wargear).

In terms of the new Space Marine book, I did very little. We write our own rules set (almost complete, just fixing some of the codecies) because of this exact issue.

Wargear that has different rules in different books. etc etc.

As for Yak writing rules,
heaps of respect for Yak, but they really do need a rule set that puts their bottom line first. If the rules were perfect, there would be no need for more rules, more books, more reasons for new models etc.

So that just would never work, they are a company still that makes more money sadly off half good rules than that they would make off good rules

To be honest,
as a DA player, I am pretty much just going to be using the Marines book for for DA's anyway, they are marines (Just the chapter is a sucessor chapter of the Dark Angels) if I am playing in a tornie.

Polonius wrote:Well, let's get off the whole "internet complaining is wrong" high horse. I find kvetching to be about as productive as the next person, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any usefulness. Finding out that you're not the only person to find something BS can be comforting. And finding reasons to complain about GW aren't hard...

Calm down, calm down. I was just making a joke about how overly-serious everyone seems to be taking this. I mean, we've got people casting aspersions about the personal character of GW's writers because of a FAQ about rules for toy soldiers. Doesn't that seem silly? We all have known for weeks if not months that this is how GW was going to go with all the marine variants, so why the outrage over a FAQ that confirms what we already knew?

I think you're exactly right that the problem is the disappointing quality of the Dark Angels codex. So why not make your own? Isn't that what HBMC does? I disagree with a lot of his opinions and the severity thereof, but I really respect him for doing what he can to improve his hobby.

Rather than look at this as a snub for the tournament crowd, why not turn it around? "The GW hobby" (if you'll pardon the ridiculous term) has always been about fan communities, doing things for themselves. We assemble our own models, we paint our own models, we make rules for our own models and sometimes even our own armies, and it's always been seen as a good thing. So look at this FAQ as simply acknowledgment that GW is approaching competitive play in the same way. I seem to remember people complaining about the way GW runs tournaments for as long as GW has run tournaments, so this is really just them openly telling tournament organizers to take more freedom in what they do.

The whining here is truly unbecoming, but the solution is very simple:

If you want to play as Dark Angels, then suck it up and play Dark Angels.

If you want to play as not-Dark Angels, then pick a different paint scheme and use the SM Codex.

But don't whine about it.

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

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

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

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

That's weak sauce.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yeah,
i don't agree John,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PanIc...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

It's the same situation:

No. It's not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

That's why they're getting paid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

It's the same situation:

No. It's not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pariah Press wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's what they said.

So why is this even an issue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAniC


Edit: Spelling etc..

JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

That's weak sauce.

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

Yesterday at local shop 3 people said "no, you can't use new codex". I asked why. The general response was you can't use 2 codeci, nobody else can. I said there was a time when mini army books (i.e. 3rd ed. Wolves, Bloods, DA's) often referred to SM codex.

I'll repeat question today when I go to different store in different town.

Yakface,

to hopefully come to some sort of resolution on this matter, I propose the following

that you and whoever helps you come up with a single reference sheet for space marine rules and wargear, with your self generated FAQ.

if modifying the wargear becomes an issue, have a list of adjusted points costs for each army. I know that would be difficult, but once done would solve this mess

for example, adjust the cost of black templar storm shields to bring them in line with the costs in C:SM so it is just reasonable when they take them. that kind of stuff.

I'm sure GW would have a fit since it relies on their IP, but since they post the rest of your stuff maybe they'd be willing to upload it.

even if the "sub chapters" don't get the new toys, there is no reason why their storm shields, assault cannons, etc shouldnt all work the same.

i can agree with them not getting deathwind launchers on their drop pods if I had to, but I think all codex chapters should have the ability to reference codex space marines for all wargear issues. written in such a way that the costs for YOUR CHAPTER are listed in your book, but the description is written in the main codex

NaZ

cant have a single referancre sheet. Too many problems will crop up. Like BT having SS weilding assault marines for nothing or 4 cyclone shots coming out of their termies.

thats why I put in the caveat of adjusting the points costs for the actual wargear

then again, this is just proposing a work around for the situation

once again, gw has written a codex with no regard to the existing players, or the existing codexes. no attempt will likely be made to recitfy the situation, forcing a number of players to accept that they are playing with a sub-par codex, or just converting over and tossing their fluff out the window

NaZ

@naz: or players can just play their own book and just deal with the fact that not everything is the same or needs to be the same. If you want to play an army in dresses, play an army in dresses.

Post deleted by the Modquisition as inappropriate and unnecessarily flamey.

Why do people have to take this so personally and in a hostile manner-

"once again, gw has written a codex with no regard to the existing players, or the existing codexes. no attempt will likely be made to recitfy the situation, forcing a number of players to accept that they are playing with a sub-par codex, or just converting over and tossing their fluff out the window "


How has this been done with no regard to the existing players? Its like saying you feel left out because another army has something yours doesn't?
I've already made the point about just using stuff from any army book in a game- whats wrong with that then under the idea of getting whatever is new or different from another army?

As for just updating the units- that also doesn't work due to the internal balance within a list- things are costed with regard to their army as a whole and in relation to the rules set they have been written in. This does mean that some of the 5th ed. codicies will appear to have advantages that 4th ed. ones don't- thats because they've been written with 5th ed in mind....
So it wouldn't make sense to start messing with points cost in say the DA book for things, and their stats without looking at the role and stats of everything... changing cyclone missiles would mean looking at deathwing, the deathwing assault rules and so forth.... and suddenly you have a pile of changes to make that render the actual codex itself as a moot point.


I'm totally with Yak on this- there is no way to make EVERYONE happy- I'm happy with how things are- I know alot of people are happy with things the way they work out- espcially the group i game with- yeah some people may not be happy and that is unfortunate- but they shouldn't take it as a personal slight because it sure isn't!


Finally I challenge anyone to have a better solution then which will make EVERYONE happy.....
I'll tell you right now extensive codex wide stat and point changeing FAQS distributed around wouldn't work due to little johnny forgetting his when he comes to play and resulting in staff and opponents losing hair from having to tear it out whenever he plays...

Bignutter wrote:
Why do people have to take this so personally and in a hostile manner-

Because of the huge expense of collecting an army. The more invested you are in something, the harder you take it when it is hurt.

How has this been done with no regard to the existing players?

Consider a 1500 point game. Space Marines versus Dark Angels. They take similar units. And, yet, the Space Marine player is able to field one full tactical squad more than the Dark Angel player. With no corresponding drawback - in fact, they get additional advantages over and above the extra squad.

Now, if you've invested $1000 in your Dark Angel army, and you find yourself no longer able to play the game on equal footing with another army, wouldn't you feel screwed?

I mean, if this just a game that we played with cardboard cut-out men on plastic stands, and an army cost about $10, I doubt anyone would mind the changes to the codex. You'd print out a new set of men, put them on your stands, and play on. But, it isn't. It's a game where you're spending probably anywhere between $1-4 per point that you're fielding, and investing countless hours in painting these toy soldiers. They tell you in the main rulebook that units are assigned point values so that you can play games on equal footing with your opponent. And then they release this new codex that means you cannot do that. That means that simply because of the codex you chose (only a year ago) you're down a full squad, and some pretty impressive rules, before the first die is cast.

Maybe they can't make everyone happy all the time, but they should have been able to see that this is just wrong.

Bignutter wrote:Finally I challenge anyone to have a better solution then which will make EVERYONE happy.....

Thats pretty easy actually. They already have set a precedent for this in fact.

GW could do what they did at the beginning of 4th edition, and do a FAQ for each existing army to bring them up to speed for the newest edition.

Its a temporary fix, but is is far batter than what we have now. Anyone who wouldn't be happy with that is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary as all the armies would theoretically be inline with the newest edition. Which is a lot better than the wishful thinking that GW is imparting to us through impotent psychic 'Jervis waves' about how we are so wrong in how we play the game, and how its our fault. Projection for the win.

Strike that, the people who enjoy schadenfreude wouldn't be happy because their army wouldn't have the automatic advantage over other armies who have yet to be updated. But those types of jerks can lie still while I lovingly drag my scrotum across their faces and defecate in their mouths.

I don't recall hearing people whine and sob when they found out that the servitors used by the Imperial Guard were better than those used by the retinues of inquisitors.

Anyway, you can't win them all, it's just a game (right?) and I for one am glad that GW isn't letting the fans run the show.

well the 5th ed. FAQ wouldn't solve the problems here due to them being about new SM vs DA


As for SM being so much better they basically get an extra squad- DA get their own bonuses- heck thats already been covered- better termies (deathwing assault + cc based unit + still able to take fire support + scoring if beial taken) better scouts,

They are at the end of the day a different army and act as such... If you are just taking similar units then why are you taking DA if the SM codex is so much better? Surely using the differences that are in the DA codex to make a different and unique (compared to SM) list would make more sense?

Has anyone actually sat down and made a fully comparable army then- where this magical extra tactical squad appears then?

JohnHwangDD wrote:@naz: or players can just play their own book and just deal with the fact that not everything is the same or needs to be the same. If you want to play an army in dresses, play an army in dresses.

quoted for ignorance

Let us do a quick comparison......

Dark Angel drop pod with stormbolter 50 points
Ballistic Skill 2
capacity 10 models in power armor
capacity 5 models in terminator armor
capacity 1 dreadnought

OR

Space Marine drop pod with stormbolter 35 points
Ballsitic Skill 4
capacity 12 models in power armor
capacity 1 dreadnought
capacity 1 thunderfire cannon
Special Rules or Upgrades
drop pod assault
upgrade stormbolter to deathwind launcher +20 points
add locator beacon +10 points

.......Now tell me the justification in this.

Babbling about who's wearing dresses offers little to conversation.

Yes, I play Deathwing/Ravenwing. I also play Ultramarines.

At end of day Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Black Templars are still Space Marines. All, but Templars are first founding chapters, according to fluff. "WTF" happened to their technology?

Just looking at new codex has me ready to call my Ravenwing bikers Black Scars led by Khan via better leader and better wargear options.

Well the solution is one tha GW has not wanted to do with their core systems for one reason or another.

A Living Rulebook that is updated quarterly.

And yes a Core Living Rulebook and published printed codex/army book releases can co-exist if done properly and still generate whatever it is they generate for GW.

If all the codexes, reference the living rulebook for core rules, basic wargear, etc .. updating 8 plus codexes would be simple... one change to the living rulebook.

This would allow for actually more fluff and background material in individual codex releases. Printed codexes would still be needed for codex special rules that would fall outside the core rules.

Updated Quarterly, would mean that players would only have to become familar with a new copy of the living rulebook once a quarter. Changes would need to be outlined and clearly identifed from one verison to another.

On a whole I think it would be better. Sure other problems would develop. At least one that we would not be facing the potential of folks to field 2 LR in the same army with different rules, bring terminators to the field with diffferent storm shield rules, or have two hooded librarians one with a 24" range and one that claims the entire table.

Back to AdeptiCon planning .. and reality.

This is silly.

They released a new "BASE" codex for the most poplar (by sales) army in the game. The other chapters (DA, BA, SW) have been based off the BASE codex since 3rd edition. They have done FAQ's for all the armies in the past to keep them up to date and bring them in line with the base codex.

It would not be a difficult thing to say that Wargear follows the "base" codex - as do the base vehicles - both for rules and points.

Sheesh....otherwise you've have a dramatically underpowered army - that is basically the same as other Marines. WHY WOULD THAT EXIST? No good reasons.

GW screwed the pooch on this one - plain and simple. They need to quickly rectify and release FAQ for the armies listed above - to bring them in line with the new "BASE" codex. I don't know why they don't do that - it's maybe a weeks work in total - Worst CASE! The players of these fairly popular armies deserve to have the rules necessary to play them competitively. Why would this even be a point of discussion?

GW - redo the D@mned FAQ....

Buzzsaw wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:

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

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

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

The simple way to hamper the people who would do this is to put a line in the FAQ saying that yes you can do things like this but remember when we get to updateing your codex we will be removing these options so build it if you must but it will not gain you any friends and it will not be legal for ever.

Also anything stated about balance issues in relation to the Blood Angels is a cop out. It is a simple matter to just update the PDF with new data.

edited by Modquisition to remove reference to flaming material.

Redbeard wrote:Consider a 1500 point game. Space Marines versus Dark Angels. They take similar units.

And, yet, the Space Marine player is able to field one full tactical squad more than the Dark Angel player.

Now, if you've invested $1000 in your Dark Angel army, and you find yourself no longer able to play the game on equal footing with another army, wouldn't you feel screwed?

If I were a Dark Angel player, I'd be no more screwed now than I was when both armies were playing 4th Edition Codices. DA have always been the least powerful SM book, and that isn't changing anytime soon. The DA went up with their last Codex, and so did the SM, so the ranking remains unchanged.

Lists, please. I don't think that the difference is that great, assuming that each player fields a GW-recommended Fluffy demi-Company (3 full Tac, 1 full Assault, 1 full Dev) built from 2 SM Battleboxes and a Devastator box at the outset. But the points differential really covers a full-kit SM Tac Squad (~250 pts), I'll be surprised.

Also, WRT that $1000 army, I don't know what you're doing, but even at retail prices to cover conversion & bitz, that's going to weigh in *well* under $1000. Heck, short of a max Conscript army (you know, for the 4-pt models), you can even go Imperial Guard with "Collector's" metal minis and still come out under $500.

But as far as how I'd feel, I'd be fine. If I went down the DA road, then them's the breaks. I have 4 very large 1st tier (by Fluff importance) armies for 40k, and lots of options, so if one army is bad, another must be good. It's not like I've had armies sit on the shelves, only played once or twice for years at a stretch. Heck, I've got unbuilt stuff that's seen more shelf life than anything else...

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@naz: or players can just play their own book and just deal with the fact that not everything is the same or needs to be the same. If you want to play an army in dresses, play an army in dresses.

quoted for ignorance

Let us do a quick comparison......

Dark Angel drop pod with stormbolter 50 points
capacity 5 models in terminator armor

Space Marine drop pod with stormbolter 35 points
drop pod assault

.......Now tell me the justification in this.

Babbling about who's wearing dresses offers little to conversation.

Nomoreso than the entire conversation's babbling among people have no pull with GW design staff...

But WRT the "justification", it's pretty simple: the DA Pod pays for synergy with Deathwing and Ravenwing. DA Pods can carry Terminators, and peg off lots of fast models to get where they need to be. DA doctrine says to use Pods as pure transport, and not muck about pretending that they're combat units. SM doctrine is very different.

Bignutter wrote:
Has anyone actually sat down and made a fully comparable army then- where this magical extra tactical squad appears then?

At 1500 it's not a Tac Squad but it is a 5 man scout squad, or MM/HF Land Speeder. The following was a DA list someone posted on another forum I frequent.

Company Master w/Power Weapon and Plasma Pistol
Company Vets with 4 Storm Bolters, 1 Combi Plasma and Power Fist
Tac Squad with ML, Flamer, Meltabomb in Drop Pod
Tac Squad with ML, Flamer, Powerfist, Meltabomb in Drop Pod
Tac Squad with Meltagun, Multimelta, Meltabomb in Drop Pod
Tac Squad with Plasma Gun, Plasma Cannon, Meltabomb in Drop Pod
Dreadnought with Multimelta, Venerable in Drop Pod

It's 1500 Points exactly. Making the same list from the new codex(Sternguard stepping in for Company Vets), the total is 1425.

derek wrote:It's 1500 Points exactly. Making the same list from the new codex(Sternguard stepping in for Company Vets), the total is 1425.

Cripes! That would almost let the Loyalists buy six WS 3 BS 3 Scouts!

MinMax wrote:

derek wrote:It's 1500 Points exactly. Making the same list from the new codex(Sternguard stepping in for Company Vets), the total is 1425.

Cripes! That would almost let the Loyalists buy six WS 3 BS 3 Scouts!

You didn't read the very first line of my response did you?

Well the difference between a rhino based SM tac squad with a special and heavy weapon is a MASSIVE 10pts less than a DA squad with the same special and heavy in the same rhino....
gamebreaking


Oh and mind you the DA can take special weapons in 5 man squads- thus making a small mech. razorback mounted army viable.


Finally the SM codex is no longer the "base" codex for the DA- as there has been a change and they now have a standalone codex- with all of their rules, background and armylist seperate from the regular marine book- so a change to one doesn't mean there HAS to be a change to the other-
to take the opposing view- I want to be able to take special weapons in 5 man squads, better stats on my scouts, chaplins and librarian, the ability to mix cc and reg. terminators and the ability to DS half my terminators on top of my lovely scouted locater beacons on turn one....
oh and have a guy flying a jetbike with a plasma cannon

wait- i can't do that with normal marines? Why not?

I guess I don't get why all the tears are coming from the DA players now when us basic Marine players were told to put up or shut up when the Dark Angel and Blood Angel armies hit. I didn't see many Angel players rushing forward to give me free S4 shotguns or 35 point Rhinos.

Enjoy your BS4 Scouts and three part Bike/Attack Bike/Speeder combo squads while you can. Last I saw, that nasty Feel No Pain assault squad the Blood Angels could put together was still pretty darn neat.

Three different army lists, three different army rules. Get over it.

cervidal wrote:I guess I don't get why all the tears are coming from the DA players now when us basic Marine players were told to put up or shut up when the Dark Angel and Blood Angel armies hit. I didn't see many Angel players rushing forward to give me free S4 shotguns or 35 point Rhinos.

Because we knew at the time that a redo of the SMC was right around the corner and the changes to the DA, BA lists showed a change in design philosophy with Jervis taking over. Sure it sucked but the thought was once the update SMC came out it would all be a wash. What we didn't realize was that once the SMC was the base codex for all Space Marine Chapters .. and that moving forward they broke with that design .. to each marine codex being on their own.

Given that .. new issues and problems .. you have several codexs now that are out of line creating confusion with no hope that they will be re-done in the near future. The fact that a new player who happens to like DA, picks up the codex, builds his army, and plays a few games .. Will quickly find out that his rules are significantly different for the same models as the core SMC is a problem.

It is certainly a damned if you do or damned if you don't sort of problem. Either the codex he buys has the wrong rules .. making it some what difficult for a new player. Or if the rules are correct ... that new player will need to become familar with all the differences in his codex compared to other marine armies. Guess when those changes are going to be figured out?... during a game...with an opponent! Which of course is going to spread good will and be fun. What your storm shields are 4+ all the time? Your Land Raider carries how many? Course that is if he notices during the game instead of later .. and then develops the opinion that his opponent was just a plain cheating bastard spreading the news and rep to his friends until he figures out that .. Oops .. he was wrong.

What surprises me is that form a design stand point .. given the whole .. Jervis son getting into the game comments .. this idea of making it easier and taking a new look at what it takes to get into this game from a new player stand point... this sort of confusion seems contradictory to that stated purpose.

Course besides a Living Rulebook .. the only other real solution was to blow it up .. black book the basic lists again, take the opportunity to re-design the whole system from the ground up again and use some modern game and design mechanics. Course that created a huge issue last time .. so much so that in my area we still have a group that "only" plays 2nd edition 40K and well I doubt that GW ever wants to take that sort of heat again.

You know, I don't think that GW gives a fat rats butt about taking any kind of heat from us. Look at us. Look at Dakka. Dakka has many facets, but the one thing that it seems to pride itself on is the "tell it like it is" attitude. No, take all the Dakkaites who play to win. Regarles of why they do. Maybe it's because they are sad and pathetic, and need a win at something in their lives. Maybe it's because they are type A+ personalities, and feel they must win at everything. Maybe it's because they have a very competitive "playground" of friend sthat they play with.

GW does not care about you. That's the message I am getting. You could die in a fire tomorrow, with all your family and friends, and GW would never care, even if they knew. Jervis would just sit back and count his stock options. It's not because they are a "souless company, dedicated only to the idolotry of bottom-line worship". It's because you represent such a small margin of their sales (which is why a company exists in the first place), that your ash-conversion would never harm their stocks. They don't care what we want. That's why Forgeworld has been run the way it has for so long. Models that can't be used in the game, legally. Models that exists solely because they look cool and are part of the fluff. Heck, Jervis said so. The Mouth of Sauron has spoken up. We have wanted this to be a games company for so long, and it never has been. It's not about the game. It's about a concept alien to most of us. It's selling minis. And evidently that needs to be re-iterated, again. Because all the nerd-rage is assuming that "GW did this to them". The truth of the matter is that GW has NEVER done anything for you. They do it for them. And they do it for the people who buy tons of their product, and don't care about the rules much more than a fart in the air conditioning. Because that's where the margin is. And I think that pisses people off in their core because this is an escapist outlet for some many, with GW pissing reality all over the escapism.

And yes, I include myself in the abve conflagration. Because I am in it for the game. I hate painting. I like chess with depth. I have so many things I would want this game to be. But I acknowledge the reality of the situation. That the game is just that, a game.

Then I grab a beer and the wifes butt, and send the boys to bed.

Consistency among codexes is key. A new player will immediately be turned off to the game if they realize "the green robed marines" they liked so much are worst off then every other marine army he faces.

I fully disagree that the solution to this is so complicated. Let's fully examine this situation:

There are currently 9 codexes that share wargear with each other; Space Marines, Black Templars, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines, Deamon Hunters, Witch Hunters, Space Wolves. So let's see where they are at:

Imperial Guard - They are a completely different race, and any changes that the new CSM codex has would be minimal at best, and can be easily explained away that they don't have the "best equipment".

Chaos Space Marines - They don't and shouldn't have access to the wargear and equipment changed most by CSM. The only thing that is different is their Land Raider, and that doesn't even have the same options as the CSM version. A small transport compacity discrepancy isn't the best outcome, but can be lived with. Their list works totally different to CSM anyways.

Deamon Hunters - The only discrepancies are Storm Shields, Assault Cannons, and Land Raiders. That is a pretty short list and can easily be FAQed, but those discrepancies are limited, and players can live with them.

Witch Hunters - They have very little that is impacted by thr new CSM change.

So I have already eliminated 4 from the list, because how little the new CSM codex effects them. The only thing we really need to worry about are those loyalist lists that are direct derivatives from the main CSM list.

Dark Angels - They are the big red hearing in the room. You have a list almost exactly like the CSM list in every way but they pay more points for everything and have weaker equipment. The best way to deal with this? Pull Codex Dark Angels from the shelf. They already made about as much money as they could from that. Release an FAQ that either is a reprint of the army list but adjusted with the new wargear and costs or release the Special Characters rules and have them somehow mesh with the new army list.

Blood Angels - As they don't technically have a codex right now. Updating them is easy. Do like I said with the Dark Angels. Either update their list or put a list up similar to the old third edition codexes as a get you by option.

Black Templars - They are at least different enough to warrant their codex being different. Their list doesn't suffer at all from 5th edition and the only thing to worry about is the conflicting wargear. Sure it can be FAQed, but doesn't really need to be. Again, the simplest solution would be to discontinue the book and make their list an online only option.

Space Wolves - They don't care. Their list uses the CSM rules anyways and they are getting an update sooner then later.

So to recap, the easiest solution is to pull the Black Templars and Dark Angels codexes of the shelves. Realease the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Black Templars lists in PDF format online. Therefore, new players only have one Space Marine codex to worry about and Veterans still have access to thier unique lists. Then when profit warrents it, pull the online lists and realease an updated codex with a few changes and more models. The players are happy, and GW still has the capability to keep a realease schedule constantly going to satisfy their profits. Win - Win

Mahu wrote:Consistency among codexes is key. A new player will immediately be turned off to the game if they realize "the green robed marines" they liked so much are worst off then every other marine army he faces.

I fully disagree that the solution to this is so complicated. Let's fully examine this situation:

There are currently 9 codexes that share wargear with each other; Space Marines, Black Templars, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines, Deamon Hunters, Witch Hunters, Space Wolves. So let's see where they are at:

Imperial Guard - They are a completely different race, and any changes that the new CSM codex has would be minimal at best, and can be easily explained away that they don't have the "best equipment".

Chaos Space Marines - They don't and shouldn't have access to the wargear and equipment changed most by CSM. The only thing that is different is their Land Raider, and that doesn't even have the same options as the CSM version. A small transport compacity discrepancy isn't the best outcome, but can be lived with. Their list works totally different to CSM anyways.

Deamon Hunters - The only discrepancies are Storm Shields, Assault Cannons, and Land Raiders. That is a pretty short list and can easily be FAQed, but those discrepancies are limited, and players can live with them.

Witch Hunters - They have very little that is impacted by thr new CSM change.

So I have already eliminated 4 from the list, because how little the new CSM codex effects them. The only thing we really need to worry about are those loyalist lists that are direct derivatives from the main CSM list.

Dark Angels - They are the big red hearing in the room. You have a list almost exactly like the CSM list in every way but they pay more points for everything and have weaker equipment. The best way to deal with this? Pull Codex Dark Angels from the shelf. They already made about as much money as they could from that. Release an FAQ that either is a reprint of the army list but adjusted with the new wargear and costs or release the Special Characters rules and have them somehow mesh with the new army list.

Blood Angels - As they don't technically have a codex right now. Updating them is easy. Do like I said with the Dark Angels. Either update their list or put a list up similar to the old third edition codexes as a get you by option.

Black Templars - They are at least different enough to warrant their codex being different. Their list doesn't suffer at all from 5th edition and the only thing to worry about is the conflicting wargear. Sure it can be FAQed, but doesn't really need to be. Again, the simplest solution would be to discontinue the book and make their list an online only option.

Space Wolves - They don't care. Their list uses the CSM rules anyways and they are getting an update sooner then later.

So to recap, the easiest solution is to pull the Black Templars and Dark Angels codexes of the shelves. Realease the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Black Templars lists in PDF format online. Therefore, new players only have one Space Marine codex to worry about and Veterans still have access to thier unique lists. Then when profit warrents it, pull the online lists and realease an updated codex with a few changes and more models. The players are happy, and GW still has the capability to keep a realease schedule constantly going to satisfy their profits. Win - Win

I have to disagree on witchhunters and daemonhunters, for one reason: assault ramps. Everything else is a relatively minor change (with the exception of the 3+ save storm shields, which would be nice on a Grey Knight terminator squad) but the GK and =][= land raiders are radically different beasts, for a few reasons.

#1 - Assault ramps. 4th Ed rules gave Land Raiders assault ramps.
#2 - Machine Spirit. Chapter Approved rules gave Land Raiders a machine spirit.

Those are huge. We're not talking options here. We're talking basic core unit rules that the SM get.

Redbeard wrote:

Bignutter wrote:
Why do people have to take this so personally and in a hostile manner-

Because of the huge expense of collecting an army. The more invested you are in something, the harder you take it when it is hurt.

How has this been done with no regard to the existing players?

Consider a 1500 point game. Space Marines versus Dark Angels. They take similar units. And, yet, the Space Marine player is able to field one full tactical squad more than the Dark Angel player. With no corresponding drawback - in fact, they get additional advantages over and above the extra squad.

Now, if you've invested $1000 in your Dark Angel army, and you find yourself no longer able to play the game on equal footing with another army, wouldn't you feel screwed?

I mean, if this just a game that we played with cardboard cut-out men on plastic stands, and an army cost about $10, I doubt anyone would mind the changes to the codex. You'd print out a new set of men, put them on your stands, and play on. But, it isn't. It's a game where you're spending probably anywhere between $1-4 per point that you're fielding, and investing countless hours in painting these toy soldiers. They tell you in the main rulebook that units are assigned point values so that you can play games on equal footing with your opponent. And then they release this new codex that means you cannot do that. That means that simply because of the codex you chose (only a year ago) you're down a full squad, and some pretty impressive rules, before the first die is cast.

Maybe they can't make everyone happy all the time, but they should have been able to see that this is just wrong.

This is exactly the situation i'm in.

Blood angels stuff is PEWTER. and gets pricey in a hurry! now I look at the new codex and am forced to choose between fluff or playability.

so lets do a quick rundown. this is going to be a long post, but I take offense at being flamed when the flamer doesn't understand the whole story.

so here's a rough army list
lemartes
jump chappy
8 DC
8 VAS
10 tac -rhino
10 tac -rhino
10 RAS
10 RAS
2 baal preds

I have other stuff, but you get the idea

well my chaplains are better, atleast until they get faq.
I have dreadnoughts that can be taken as ironclads if I really wanted -fair enough
but.. my list has 40 jump marines in it. if I had to switch those to fast attack I'd be left with 1/2 as many and only 2 troops choices. not acceptable at 1850 or so points.
so I can either buy and paint up 20 more tac marines and 2 rhinos, or 20 scouts. either way that is $100
my baal preds would be useless, I'd have to purchase new turrets if I wanted to play in tournament

I could go on, but you get the idea. I would have to buy over $100 in models and invest more time just to keep the army current

why would I bother? because blood angels on average are 25% more expensive than regular marines now

10 man tac squad, plasmagun, lascannon, fist, rhino
blood angels cost: 280
regular marines: 230

10 man assault squad, power fist (blood angels get no special wpns)
cost: 265
10 man assault squad, power fist, 2x flamers
cost: 235

drop pods for my army 50 points -no deathwind launcher or locator beacon
space marines: 35 points

and on and on and on.

the arguement that the cost of a death company is built in to the cost of the squads used to be true. now the points spread between codexes is greater than the cost of buying the death company outright. for a tactical squad, i'm effectively paying 50!!! points for the death company model.

so I can either accept a drastically lower model count, or shell out a bunch of money to switch over to regular marines.

yes this makes me a little cranky

NaZ

Centurian99 wrote:

Mahu wrote:Consistency among codexes is key. A new player will immediately be turned off to the game if they realize "the green robed marines" they liked so much are worst off then every other marine army he faces.

I fully disagree that the solution to this is so complicated. Let's fully examine this situation:

There are currently 9 codexes that share wargear with each other; Space Marines, Black Templars, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines, Deamon Hunters, Witch Hunters, Space Wolves. So let's see where they are at:

Imperial Guard - They are a completely different race, and any changes that the new CSM codex has would be minimal at best, and can be easily explained away that they don't have the "best equipment".

Chaos Space Marines - They don't and shouldn't have access to the wargear and equipment changed most by CSM. The only thing that is different is their Land Raider, and that doesn't even have the same options as the CSM version. A small transport compacity discrepancy isn't the best outcome, but can be lived with. Their list works totally different to CSM anyways.

Deamon Hunters - The only discrepancies are Storm Shields, Assault Cannons, and Land Raiders. That is a pretty short list and can easily be FAQed, but those discrepancies are limited, and players can live with them.

Witch Hunters - They have very little that is impacted by thr new CSM change.

So I have already eliminated 4 from the list, because how little the new CSM codex effects them. The only thing we really need to worry about are those loyalist lists that are direct derivatives from the main CSM list.

Dark Angels - They are the big red hearing in the room. You have a list almost exactly like the CSM list in every way but they pay more points for everything and have weaker equipment. The best way to deal with this? Pull Codex Dark Angels from the shelf. They already made about as much money as they could from that. Release an FAQ that either is a reprint of the army list but adjusted with the new wargear and costs or release the Special Characters rules and have them somehow mesh with the new army list.

Blood Angels - As they don't technically have a codex right now. Updating them is easy. Do like I said with the Dark Angels. Either update their list or put a list up similar to the old third edition codexes as a get you by option.

Black Templars - They are at least different enough to warrant their codex being different. Their list doesn't suffer at all from 5th edition and the only thing to worry about is the conflicting wargear. Sure it can be FAQed, but doesn't really need to be. Again, the simplest solution would be to discontinue the book and make their list an online only option.

Space Wolves - They don't care. Their list uses the CSM rules anyways and they are getting an update sooner then later.

So to recap, the easiest solution is to pull the Black Templars and Dark Angels codexes of the shelves. Realease the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Black Templars lists in PDF format online. Therefore, new players only have one Space Marine codex to worry about and Veterans still have access to thier unique lists. Then when profit warrents it, pull the online lists and realease an updated codex with a few changes and more models. The players are happy, and GW still has the capability to keep a realease schedule constantly going to satisfy their profits. Win - Win

I have to disagree on witchhunters and daemonhunters, for one reason: assault ramps. Everything else is a relatively minor change (with the exception of the 3+ save storm shields, which would be nice on a Grey Knight terminator squad) but the GK and =][= land raiders are radically different beasts, for a few reasons.

#1 - Assault ramps. 4th Ed rules gave Land Raiders assault ramps.
#2 - Machine Spirit. Chapter Approved rules gave Land Raiders a machine spirit.

Those are huge. We're not talking options here. We're talking basic core unit rules that the SM get.

I thought Assault Ramps where in the core rules.

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

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

Its our pacifier for having to shell out 48 pts per terminator, 30 pts per bike, 30 pts per jump pack, 18 pts per tactical, and 18 pts per devistator

Since I use a Death/Raven list, my simple fix to this is to new codex compleatly, but just entering Sammel and Biel into the new 'dex with all the same rules. Just get a thumbs up from my opponent and im happy.

I don't begrudge GW for not wanting to FAQ the heck out of the DA book to bring it in line.

What GW should have done was to avoid any other SM releases until the new SM codex was done. But of course, the business demanded that they just HAD to have more SMs.

Like always, it just brings us back to:

1) 40K is hurt by its SM-centric nature, and
2) the rules don't really matter to GW, as long as the miniatures flow...

Mahu wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

Mahu wrote:Consistency among codexes is key. A new player will immediately be turned off to the game if they realize "the green robed marines" they liked so much are worst off then every other marine army he faces.

I fully disagree that the solution to this is so complicated. Let's fully examine this situation:

There are currently 9 codexes that share wargear with each other; Space Marines, Black Templars, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines, Deamon Hunters, Witch Hunters, Space Wolves. So let's see where they are at:

Imperial Guard - They are a completely different race, and any changes that the new CSM codex has would be minimal at best, and can be easily explained away that they don't have the "best equipment".

Chaos Space Marines - They don't and shouldn't have access to the wargear and equipment changed most by CSM. The only thing that is different is their Land Raider, and that doesn't even have the same options as the CSM version. A small transport compacity discrepancy isn't the best outcome, but can be lived with. Their list works totally different to CSM anyways.

Deamon Hunters - The only discrepancies are Storm Shields, Assault Cannons, and Land Raiders. That is a pretty short list and can easily be FAQed, but those discrepancies are limited, and players can live with them.

Witch Hunters - They have very little that is impacted by thr new CSM change.

So I have already eliminated 4 from the list, because how little the new CSM codex effects them. The only thing we really need to worry about are those loyalist lists that are direct derivatives from the main CSM list.

Dark Angels - They are the big red hearing in the room. You have a list almost exactly like the CSM list in every way but they pay more points for everything and have weaker equipment. The best way to deal with this? Pull Codex Dark Angels from the shelf. They already made about as much money as they could from that. Release an FAQ that either is a reprint of the army list but adjusted with the new wargear and costs or release the Special Characters rules and have them somehow mesh with the new army list.

Blood Angels - As they don't technically have a codex right now. Updating them is easy. Do like I said with the Dark Angels. Either update their list or put a list up similar to the old third edition codexes as a get you by option.

Black Templars - They are at least different enough to warrant their codex being different. Their list doesn't suffer at all from 5th edition and the only thing to worry about is the conflicting wargear. Sure it can be FAQed, but doesn't really need to be. Again, the simplest solution would be to discontinue the book and make their list an online only option.

Space Wolves - They don't care. Their list uses the CSM rules anyways and they are getting an update sooner then later.

So to recap, the easiest solution is to pull the Black Templars and Dark Angels codexes of the shelves. Realease the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Black Templars lists in PDF format online. Therefore, new players only have one Space Marine codex to worry about and Veterans still have access to thier unique lists. Then when profit warrents it, pull the online lists and realease an updated codex with a few changes and more models. The players are happy, and GW still has the capability to keep a realease schedule constantly going to satisfy their profits. Win - Win

I have to disagree on witchhunters and daemonhunters, for one reason: assault ramps. Everything else is a relatively minor change (with the exception of the 3+ save storm shields, which would be nice on a Grey Knight terminator squad) but the GK and =][= land raiders are radically different beasts, for a few reasons.

#1 - Assault ramps. 4th Ed rules gave Land Raiders assault ramps.
#2 - Machine Spirit. Chapter Approved rules gave Land Raiders a machine spirit.

Those are huge. We're not talking options here. We're talking basic core unit rules that the SM get.

I thought Assault Ramps where in the core rules.

Apparently the core rules don't trump your codex rules according to GW.

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:Yesterday at local shop 3 people said "no, you can't use new codex". I asked why. The general response was you can't use 2 codeci, nobody else can. I said there was a time when mini army books (i.e. 3rd ed. Wolves, Bloods, DA's) often referred to SM codex.

Or, currently, Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters both use two Codeci...

derek wrote:

Apparently the core rules don't trump your codex rules according to GW.

You make this sound like a bad thing. If Codex rules didn't trump the core rules than their wouldn't be much point in the them.

Tazok wrote:

derek wrote:

Apparently the core rules don't trump your codex rules according to GW.

You make this sound like a bad thing. If Codex rules didn't trump the core rules than their wouldn't be much point in the them.

It's not a bad thing, necessarily. But a use the newest rules exception would nice. That way an older codex, who has had a rule, or piece of equipment updated in the latest edition rules would not have to wait for that same update to show up when they redo their book (as 4th ed taught us that not every book gets updated each edition). I'm only talking about updates in the core rules here, not a new codex that has the same things as an older one.

Easiest thing to do?

Stop thinking a Space Marine is a Space Marine is a Space Marine.

If you're a Dark Angels player, think of yourself as a Dark Angels player. If you play Black Templar, your sole concern should be what is in the Black Templar book.

As far as I can see from all of this, the only non-Space Marine player that should be this obsessed with what is in Codex:Space Marines is the Space Wolf player because his codex blatantly refers to C:SM on multiple occasions. Same goes for Witch Hunters/Demonhunters.

If your codex doesn't interact with C:SM, let it go.

derek wrote:

Bignutter wrote:
Has anyone actually sat down and made a fully comparable army then- where this magical extra tactical squad appears then?

At 1500 it's not a Tac Squad but it is a 5 man scout squad, or MM/HF Land Speeder.

Making the same list from the new codex(Sternguard stepping in for Company Vets), the total is 1425.

Oh, noes! That's enough for a naked Rhino and Razorback!

Bignutter wrote:Well the difference between a rhino based SM tac squad with a special and heavy weapon is a MASSIVE 10pts less than a DA squad with the same special and heavy in the same rhino....

Oh and mind you the DA can take special weapons in 5 man squads- thus making a small mech. razorback mounted army viable.

Yup.

cervidal wrote:Three different army lists, three different army rules. Get over it.

QFT.

muwhe wrote:you have several codexs now that are out of line creating confusion with no hope that they will be re-done in the near future. The fact that a new player who happens to like DA, picks up the codex, builds his army, and plays a few games .. Will quickly find out that his rules are significantly different for the same models as the core SMC is a problem.

Huh? There's no confusion - you play the army list printed in your book. The one player has a *Dark Angels* Drop Pod, the other player has a *Space Marines* Drop Pod. Different Codices, different rules.

grizgrin wrote:GW does not care about you. ... It's because you represent such a small margin of their sales (which is why a company exists in the first place), that your ash-conversion would never harm their stocks. They don't care what we want. That's why Forgeworld has been run the way it has for so long. Models that can't be used in the game, legally. Models that exists solely because they look cool and are part of the fluff.

But clearly the presence of the occasional "GW Hobby" Tournament totally changes things to mean that GW is all about powergaming!

Mahu wrote:Consistency among codexes is key. A new player will immediately be turned off to the game if they realize "the green robed marines" they liked so much are worst off then every other marine army he faces.

I fully disagree that the solution to this is so complicated. Let's fully examine this situation:

There are currently 9 codexes that share wargear with each other; Space Marines, Black Templars, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines, Deamon Hunters, Witch Hunters, Space Wolves.

So to recap, the easiest solution is to pull the Black Templars and Dark Angels codexes of the shelves. Realease the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Black Templars lists in PDF format online. Therefore, new players only have one Space Marine codex to worry about and Veterans still have access to thier unique lists. Then when profit warrents it, pull the online lists and realease an updated codex with a few changes and more models. The players are happy, and GW still has the capability to keep a realease schedule constantly going to satisfy their profits. Win - Win

There are 9 Codices, so there can be 9 variations, if desired. But what's changing? Common-core Lascannons? No. It's the stuff around the edges. So what if they're different.

Hahaha... You're crazy. Pull codices off the shelves?

At that rate, GW might as well just cancel those armies...

Hmm... wait...

No, the DA and BT have bitz sprues that need to be sold.

Yeah, it's not possible.

NaZ wrote:Blood angels stuff is PEWTER. and gets pricey in a hurry! now I look at the new codex and am forced to choose between fluff or playability.

so lets do a quick rundown. this is going to be a long post, but I take offense at being flamed when the flamer doesn't understand the whole story.

so here's a rough army list
lemartes
jump chappy
8 DC
8 VAS
10 tac -rhino
10 tac -rhino
10 RAS
10 RAS
2 baal preds

my list has 40 jump marines in it. if I had to switch those to fast attack I'd be left with 1/2 as many and only 2 troops choices. not acceptable at 1850 or so points.
so I can either buy and paint up 20 more tac marines and 2 rhinos, or 20 scouts. either way that is $100
my baal preds would be useless, I'd have to purchase new turrets if I wanted to play in tournament

I could go on, but you get the idea. I would have to buy over $100 in models and invest more time just to keep the army current

why would I bother? because blood angels on average are 25% more expensive than regular marines now

10 man tac squad, plasmagun, lascannon, fist, rhino
blood angels cost: 280
regular marines: 230

10 man assault squad, power fist (blood angels get no special wpns)
cost: 265
10 man assault squad, power fist, 2x flamers
cost: 235

drop pods for my army 50 points -no deathwind launcher or locator beacon
space marines: 35 points

the arguement that the cost of a death company is built in to the cost of the squads used to be true. now the points spread between codexes is greater than the cost of buying the death company outright. for a tactical squad, i'm effectively paying 50!!! points for the death company model.

so I can either accept a drastically lower model count, or shell out a bunch of money to switch over to regular marines.

yes this makes me a little cranky

NaZ

You know, as a fellow BA player, it is very hard for me to muster any sympathy for you. I'll have you know that, most likely, my SM will continue to play as BA because BA are a better list for what I want to field. Are you aware that the BA can have 2 pistols in their Troops Assault squads, even at 5 men? That's pretty cool.

First, SM are almost entirely plastic - what pewter are you talking about? The Baal weapons? OK, I'll give you that. The rest is regular SM, painted red.

Your list is OK, although I won't be fielding any Preds.

If you want to play jump-heavy Marines, then you play BA. But you built a power army with those Baal Preds, so the nerfing of the Assault Cannon is deserved.

Quite frankly, the only idea I get is that you want GW to guarantee that you will always have a top-tier army without having to buy any more models. Fugeddabboudit.

And so what if you're paying 50 pts for DC. On net, after accounting for the included DC, you're looking at a max of 10 points being the difference, same as Dark Angels.


You can adapt by buying more, or quit.

Welcome to the GW Hobby.

yeah,

John the thing that doesn't make sense is that they changed core equipment entries but decided to make the changes apply only to the new codex.

I don't think anyone has a comprehensive answer as to why there is variations in these standard equipment entires

LR, Drop pod, Cyclone missile launcher...etc...

when I say i'm using a LR a opponent shouldn't have to think which list I'm using...

I think they've dropped the ball, and have yet to pick it up... but this is something they can fix, picking up a ball is easy.

PaNic...

"Company Vets with 4 Storm Bolters, 1 Combi Plasma and Power Fist"

Should prolly mention that that list is illegal seeing as Comp Vets can only take three total Storm Bolters/Combi Weapons/Powerfists.

Ratbarf wrote:"Company Vets with 4 Storm Bolters, 1 Combi Plasma and Power Fist"

Should prolly mention that that list is illegal seeing as Comp Vets can only take three total Storm Bolters/Combi Weapons/Powerfists.

The latest FAQ(the one talked about in this very thread) changed the bullet point to ANY MODEL.

Panic wrote:John the thing that doesn't make sense is that they changed core equipment entries but decided to make the changes apply only to the new codex.

I don't think anyone has a comprehensive answer as to why there is variations in these standard equipment entires

LR, Drop pod, Cyclone missile launcher...etc...

when I say i'm using a LR a opponent shouldn't have to think which list I'm using...

I just don't see these changes as such a big deal:
- SM LR vs DA / BT LR? OK.
- SM DP vs DA DP? OK.
- SM CML vs DA CML? OK. etc.
The changes aren't that huge, and not all armies are going to take them. They aren't core.

Now if C: SM had defined SM CCWs to be Rending, and SM Lascannons to be AP1, then yeah, I'd have an issue. But Drop Pod? Who cares?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Panic wrote:John the thing that doesn't make sense is that they changed core equipment entries but decided to make the changes apply only to the new codex.

I don't think anyone has a comprehensive answer as to why there is variations in these standard equipment entires

LR, Drop pod, Cyclone missile launcher...etc...

when I say i'm using a LR a opponent shouldn't have to think which list I'm using...

I just don't see these changes as such a big deal:
- SM LR vs DA / BT LR? OK.
- SM DP vs DA DP? OK.
- SM CML vs DA CML? OK. etc.
The changes aren't that huge, and not all armies are going to take them. They aren't core.

Now if C: SM had defined SM CCWs to be Rending, and SM Lascannons to be AP1, then yeah, I'd have an issue. But Drop Pod? Who cares?

Drop pod? Who cares? Wake up, GW just released the drop pod model. Drop pods will be played.

The difference between LR's....C:SM allows 12 capacity, which means 5 terminators may ride AND an IC may join squad AND fit in "new rules" LR.

DA, SW, BT, BA players are not asking for earth shattering technology here. Just same stat-line wargear with same point costs.

Case you haven't noticed....New SM codex has DA Castellan whirlwind rounds, DH GK relic blades, DA str 4 shotties, Baal pred style razorbacks. Just to name a few.

HAHAHA

The new rulebook Faq allows Ravenwing to turboboost on our scout movement.

Our Faq sucks, then they toss us a bone.

"Kick me in the balls, then hand me a lollipop."

Deadshane1 wrote:HAHAHA

The new rulebook Faq allows Ravenwing to turboboost on our scout movement.

Our Faq sucks, then they toss us a bone.

"Kick me in the balls, then hand me a lollipop."

FTW

@Old Man:

Except, I'd rather have higher point costs on things that I never field in exchange for better upgrade density on the things that I do.

For example, if getting a cheaper / larger Land Raider meant I couldn't have 5-man Assault Marines with dual Plasma Pistols as Scoring Troops, then I don't want the Land Raider.

If getting a cheaper / larger Drop Pod meant that I couldn't have 5-man Combat Squads with a Special Weapon in a Razorback, the I don't want the Drop Pod.

If getting twin (nerfed) Assault Cannons on my Razorback meant that I couldn't field Assault Veterans or Honor Guard as Elite, then I don't want the Razorback option.

And so on.

So out of your list, the only thing that interests me at all is the Assault Cannon Razorback. The rest might as well not exist.

You know at the end of the day after reading all these possible replies and what not I will have to return to the basic problem here:


the Dark Angels Codex is crap.


I don't think anything short of a COMPLETE overhaul on it will see it dug out from a fluff-nutter crap army to competitive.

I was going to comment on this, but considering that John will just accuse anyone who disagrees with him of wanting to be a min/maxer to hates KP, there's really no point.

So I'll let it lie.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Panic wrote:John the thing that doesn't make sense is that they changed core equipment entries but decided to make the changes apply only to the new codex.

I don't think anyone has a comprehensive answer as to why there is variations in these standard equipment entires

LR, Drop pod, Cyclone missile launcher...etc...

when I say i'm using a LR a opponent shouldn't have to think which list I'm using...

I just don't see these changes as such a big deal:
- SM LR vs DA / BT LR? OK.
- SM DP vs DA DP? OK.
- SM CML vs DA CML? OK. etc.
The changes aren't that huge, ... ... Who cares?

Yeah,
Because you don't think the changes are not a big deal is hardly a comprehessive defence to changing (what I/others believe are core) entries.
They shouldn't have made changes to exisiting standard codex enties without having a plan for the existing codexs.

And I have yet to hear anyone give good reason for GW doing this, that can't be countered by why not make a new Codex entry.

PaniC...

Edit:
What i mean by a new codex enties is call the New LR entry a LR mk3 that way old school lists are using a mk2 LR and has a justified smaller capacity.
They could even suggest a way of modeling the difference when building your LR such as having the Sponson guns at the front/Back as the differance?

etc...

But to for them to ignore 8 codexs while designing the 9th is pure and utter gak...

H.B.M.C. wrote:I was going to comment on this, but considering that John will just accuse anyone who disagrees with him of wanting to be a min/maxer to hates KP, there's really no point.

So I'll let it lie.

BYE

You changed your avatar...that's...a big change...

Deadshane1 wrote:HAHAHA

The new rulebook Faq allows Ravenwing to turboboost on our scout movement.

Our Faq sucks, then they toss us a bone.

"Kick me in the balls, then hand me a lollipop."

So are you keeping your codex?

Apologist Brigade- blah

Nay-Sayer Horde- blah

Apathy Squad = me

So, I should leave my 3000+ points of DA in their cases and keep playing WM/Hordes until GW sorts itself out.

Got it. Somebody let me know when we hit 10th edition.

I love it when a plan comes together.

@blue loki: Actually, no. You should start another army. I suggest Orks.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@blue loki: Actually, no. You should start another army. I suggest Orks.

Or just use the DW/RW portions, if any.

Moral of the story. If playing GW's 40K game, never ever buy anything besides ultramarines. Just to be safe.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The whining here is truly unbecoming, but the solution is very simple:

If you want to play as Dark Angels, then suck it up and play Dark Angels.

If you want to play as not-Dark Angels, then pick a different paint scheme and use the SM Codex.

But don't whine about it.

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

This is true. One can always play Green marines with Ultramarine rules and get the advantages of the ultra dex. It does solve the issue.

Deadshane1 wrote:HAHAHA

The new rulebook Faq allows Ravenwing to turboboost on our scout movement.

Our Faq sucks, then they toss us a bone.

"Kick me in the balls, then hand me a lollipop."

GW called, they want their lolli back as it was taken under false pretenses:

"Scouts: Note that no model may make a Turbo Boost move whilst using the Scouts Special Rule." -C: DA, Page 27

On the plus side, as derek mentioned, the Vet squad can now have all Storm Bolters or all Flamers or all Plasma Guns or some other fun combos.

Lol kick us in the nuts then wave a lolipop in front of us more like.

Ratbarf wrote:Lol kick us in the nuts then wave a lolipop in front of us more like.

wear a codpiece and kick them back!

temprus wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:HAHAHA

The new rulebook Faq allows Ravenwing to turboboost on our scout movement.

Our Faq sucks, then they toss us a bone.

"Kick me in the balls, then hand me a lollipop."

GW called, they want their lolli back as it was taken under false pretenses:

"Scouts: Note that no model may make a Turbo Boost move whilst using the Scouts Special Rule." -C: DA, Page 27

On the plus side, as derek mentioned, the Vet squad can now have all Storm Bolters or all Flamers or all Plasma Guns or some other fun combos.

yeah,
that's just too funny...

Panic...

You know, I picked up the new Codex Space Marines while I was in Greece on my honeymoon (my new wife loved that...), and frankly, I am back to using the DA book. Maybe, maybe I'll play with the C:SM in local tournaments, but I've been having some success lately with my Dark Angels and the new book isn't that great to make me want to switch anymore.

I know, I must be crazy to use such a gimped book, but whatever, it'll make me a better player having to use a weaker army.

Or maybe I'll just play an all DW mounted in 3 Land Raiders. 2 characters, 15 models, and 3 tanks FTW!!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Oh that's fantastic Ozy! You've discovered something amazing.

Much like Codex: Daemons becomes CC, Codex: Space Marines becomes C:SM.

So now we have Codex: Hahah Daemons and Codex: Rolleyes.

Excellent work Ozy! Well done.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oh that's fantastic Ozy! You've discovered something amazing.

Much like Codex: Daemons becomes CC, Codex: Space Marines becomes C:SM.

So now we have Codex: Hahah Daemons and Codex: Rolleyes.

Excellent work Ozy! Well done.

BYE

Same goes for C:SpaceWolves

Oh and Cark Angles has become more fitting