Recently I got to take a look at the new IG codex and I saw it had some amazing exception rules in it unique to the IG codex. Namely orders and combining squads. Hopefully most will know what these are from the various IG threads that have been running wild for months. I realized a pattern seems to be emerging with codex writing in 5th edition, that is each codex is rewriting the core game for 5th edition with codex specific global style rules. I'm not talking about codex specific rules like only Eldar have Brightlances for example but the strategic kind of rules that really modify the basic game. Each new codex seems to really break the structure of the game with some significant special rules,

"Orders" are going to make imperial guard squad actions unique from any other army

...and there are a lot more powerful game altering strategic abilities in the 5th edition codices (in chronological order) things like these:

Daemons have their own entire set up mechanism which changes every mission
"Mob Rule" lets Orks become fearless in a way unique to the army
"Combat squads" let Marine players shrink and grow scoring units and KP
"Chapter Tactics" gives Space Marines all voluntarily fallback, unique to the army
Many Characters change the F.O. structure in significant ways unique to armies
Stubborn seems to have been sprinkled into the new codices at Random
"Combined Squad" is going to let IG grow and shrink KP and scoring units per mission
IG are getting unique weapons that ignore cover saves?
..and of course orders now

Originally I thought some unique powers were going to be pretty good (as in good for the game) but now I am concerned that the 5th edition rules really are not complete in the basic game, as codices keep coming out with significant game altering mechanics unique to armies. I don't lik this for 3 reasons:

(1) It makes outdated codices diadvantaged
(2) It makes the core rules in the basic book meaningless, where in the basic book does it explain:
Chapter Tactics
Combat Squads
Orders etc.
Will even one army survive the codex rewrites that actually uses the morale rules as written in the core book? What is the point of instant death for example, everything one would like to instant death is now immune to it with Eternal Warrior/hive mind it seems...
(3) It makes the game a convoluted mess, where a player has to own and bring every codex with him all the time to have the whole rule set.

The biggest pains in the neck (complexity and unusual situations) in the last set of rules were arguably unique powers, for example: We'll be back, Monolith, Faith Points, Daemon dex etc.

Until all the codices are published, who knows what 5th is really going to be like, and until your new dex comes out armies seem like they will be really disadvantaged. I think the real 5th edition, has yet to surface, 6th is already being written, right now, in each new codex.

What say you?

You make an excellent point. What it all means is that the Chaos Space Marines got boned. They were struck hard with the mighty nerf hammer and got absolutely nothing in return. The only way they can make this right is to put out Legion codexes for the big four. With the ability to summon their own god-appropriate Daemons and use all the cool stuff from the awesome 4th edition codex. Until then, my Chaos Marines are going to be sulking on their space hulk. Waaagh...

Completely agree!

Unless of course you are a player from newer than the last printing of the current chaos dex in which case 6 obliterators, a Landraider full of Khorne berzerkers, 4 units of plague marines and 2 lash princess is normal to you....

Hmm

I wonder what audacity is coming for the next new codex?

warpcrafter wrote:You make an excellent point. What it all means is that the Chaos Space Marines got boned. They were struck hard with the mighty nerf hammer and got absolutely nothing in return. The only way they can make this right is to put out Legion codexes for the big four. With the ability to summon their own god-appropriate Daemons and use all the cool stuff from the awesome 4th edition codex. Until then, my Chaos Marines are going to be sulking on their space hulk. Waaagh...

*cough...Dark angels...cough* is without a doubt the most boned of all armies that received a new codex hands down. They are the more expensive (points wise across the board), less options marines.

@ Augustus

Many of the 5th edition dexes break the basic rules in the core rulebook. Deamons getting eternal warrior wholesale, demonic assault, SM getting chapter tactics along with special characters that make elite units scoring, Orks with their elite troops scoring, snikrot, Guard with orders.

I also agree each older codex is getting more and more obsolete.

I'm not sure if this trend is as new or as is as game-breaking as you think. Orks have been "ignoring basic morale rules" since 3rd Ed. IG are probably more vulnerable to morale than they were before. And nothing in 5th Ed. is as complicated as Faith Points in a Witchunters army which uses a 3rd Ed. codex.

That said, I'd be down for a new edition anytime. I like the core 5th Ed. rules, but I think some small things have really gone haywire in a big way (wound allocation being an obvious example.)

I would also like to see a more nuanced approach to things like vehicle units, but the best fixes for game play would overpower certain units. (The positive benefit of the better rule would be canceled out by the negative of the overpowered Leman Russ squad.) To fix problems like that, we're going to need a willingness by GW to issue errata or else a 2nd -> 3rd Ed. style "reboot." Both would be good for the game, but neither seems likely.

warpcrafter wrote:You make an excellent point. What it all means is that the Chaos Space Marines got boned. They were struck hard with the mighty nerf hammer and got absolutely nothing in return. The only way they can make this right is to put out Legion codexes for the big four. With the ability to summon their own god-appropriate Daemons and use all the cool stuff from the awesome 4th edition codex. Until then, my Chaos Marines are going to be sulking on their space hulk. Waaagh...

I agree with this, I think the chaos marine codex current edition was rushed out just before the apocolypse release and as such didnt get the attention it should have recieved? you point out legion codex's for the big 4, I see it as gw being able to further break up the chaos marine codex's down into smaller codex's with new model releases for each, which will equal gw making more money, rather than the cash they would get for just 1 codex?

Dave47 wrote:That said, I'd be down for a new edition anytime. I like the core 5th Ed. rules, but I think some small things have really gone haywire in a big way (wound allocation being an obvious example.)

I agree with this, take for instance the new marine codex, it says a marine must be trained in all aspects of a chapters way of making war, from assault, to devestator to tactical marine etc, hence when the heavy weapon marine in a squad takes a hit, another marine would pick the weapon up as he is already proficient in its use? yet now we have to allocate wounds to squad members and the heavy or special weapon gets lost a lot quicker, this just doesnt stand for marines either?

my only assumption on gw's part is that they are tryin g to represent the weapon taking a hit, which could happen on a real warzone?

bob

driverbob25 wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:You make an excellent point. What it all means is that the Chaos Space Marines got boned. They were struck hard with the mighty nerf hammer and got absolutely nothing in return. The only way they can make this right is to put out Legion codexes for the big four. With the ability to summon their own god-appropriate Daemons and use all the cool stuff from the awesome 4th edition codex. Until then, my Chaos Marines are going to be sulking on their space hulk. Waaagh...

I agree with this, I think the chaos marine codex current edition was rushed out just before the apocolypse release and as such didnt get the attention it should have recieved? you point out legion codex's for the big 4, I see it as gw being able to further break up the chaos marine codex's down into smaller codex's with new model releases for each, which will equal gw making more money, rather than the cash they would get for just 1 codex?

I would be happy with a single collective codex for the big four, since they wouldn't have to reprint the rules for the Daemons, just make a special rule that the Daemons codex is allowable as allies. They could make special upgrade sprues for chosen and terminators.

Codices break major rules of the game. That's why they're a separate book. That's what they're for. And orks have had mob rule since third, by the by.

And older codices will only become more and more out dated with time...that's just what happens when things get old. Granted, I would like to see a more structured release of codices. Some armies already have 5th books while others are still using 3rd. But I'm having trouble finding your point.

His point seems fairly obvious to me.

The new codexes are each bringing in a lot of non-core special rules which uniquely benefit their own armies and make various core rules meaningless. Also, this powering up means the old codexes are at even more of a disadvantage than they would be from the core rules changes and points changes in 5e dexes.

Just because Orks had Mob Up in 3rd edition doesn't necessarily mean it was a good idea then, or that lots of other special rules are good now.

(Actually I think Mob Up was a pretty good rule, but I agree with Augustus that all rules should be in the core book even if they are only used in a single codex.)

driverbob25 wrote:

Dave47 wrote:That said, I'd be down for a new edition anytime. I like the core 5th Ed. rules, but I think some small things have really gone haywire in a big way (wound allocation being an obvious example.)

I agree with this, take for instance the new marine codex, it says a marine must be trained in all aspects of a chapters way of making war, from assault, to devestator to tactical marine etc, hence when the heavy weapon marine in a squad takes a hit, another marine would pick the weapon up as he is already proficient in its use? yet now we have to allocate wounds to squad members and the heavy or special weapon gets lost a lot quicker, this just doesnt stand for marines either?

my only assumption on gw's part is that they are tryin g to represent the weapon taking a hit, which could happen on a real warzone?

bob

Either the Weapon taking the hit or (in the case of heavies) the armour iswired into the bearers power armour, its also a game balance mechanic to stop characters and specials from getting a protective bubble making them the last to die, and while yes you could pick up a weapon, by doing this in the rules you also have to make seargent McPowerfisty safe, otherwise you need two different wound allocation mechanics. (which would be silly) In fact I'm a really big fan of 5th for wound allocation. my only big gripe is that defensive weapons are strength 4 (I think it should be 5) and that vehicles cannot split fire. Eternal warrior is not as everywhere as we think, its just that everyone uses Lysander, (when was the last time you played marines without him?) but the point of the new system is that they make eaxh codex unique in more than just wargear points and stats so that theres a real difference in Feel to the game, hence increasing the funzies.

I think this was actually the point of 5th et as it happens in all of the true 5th ed codexes (Orks, daemons, marines, gaurd). The other supposed 5th ed codexes (eldar, Dark angels and Chaos marines) were written much earlier iirc meaning that they are based on an idea for 5th wheras the true 5ths are written for 5th with a mostly defined ruleset. If you look at the codex design for the %th ed codexes and the proto 5th ed codexes you can see a shift in thinking between the two groups, as if the fundemental baseline for what GW wanted from 5th changed a lot between the two. Yeah this puts older codexes at a Disadvantage but theres nothing that can be done about it, and besides, if codex orks has taught us anything, good things come to those who wait.

Seems to me this is more a problem of lack of planning and feature creep (either knowingly or unknowingly).

A lot of the rule breakers specific to each codex usually fits in line with that codex's army.

The main difference is, they could have provided foundations for these rules in the main rulebook. the marine combat tactics could easily be a global ability listed in the main rulebook.

Overall, these alone don't make me worry, as it helps differentiate each army. On the other hand, GW does have its own track record of mismanaging later codexes.

padixon wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:You make an excellent point. What it all means is that the Chaos Space Marines got boned. They were struck hard with the mighty nerf hammer and got absolutely nothing in return. The only way they can make this right is to put out Legion codexes for the big four. With the ability to summon their own god-appropriate Daemons and use all the cool stuff from the awesome 4th edition codex. Until then, my Chaos Marines are going to be sulking on their space hulk. Waaagh...

*cough...Dark angels...cough* is without a doubt the most boned of all armies that received a new codex hands down. They are the more expensive (points wise across the board), less options marines.

I think Grey Kngihts might have that shaft a bit harder. At least you guys can carry heavy weapons...

I only hope the Tyranids get something interesting, and not just a reworded hash of old rules.

Chaos got boned pretty hard, yet oddly enough, they took alot of the top spots at Adepticon. Dual Lash is the bee's knees!

Augustus wrote:
Originally I thought some unique powers were going to be pretty good (as in good for the game) but now I am concerned that the 5th edition rules really are not complete in the basic game, as codices keep coming out with significant game altering mechanics unique to armies.

I'm going with bad game design and/or poor designers. The fact that for every new army book that is released, they feel a need to break core rule mechanics means the game is poorly designed.

You can't tell me that they are incapable of sitting down, and brainstorming all kinds of USRs for the main rules (a la warhammer ancients, where all the USRs are in the main rules, and subsequent books use those USRs for 90% of the lists created after), and the using those core USR to create 'uniqueness' in newer armies.

I also don't understand their reluctance to use the same mechanic to do the same thing across books, rather than making some exception or needing to add an additional rule somewhere that appears only in that codex. If you want to have daemons "summoned" call it Deep Strike. Then, instead of writing more "summoning" rules, make another USR called "Fury of the Warp (or something)" which allows units to assault after Deep Strike. Gee, then you could give Fury to a unit in another codex, without copy/pasting and invariably writing different rules.

Frankly, I don't think they have that kind of planning when they go from edition to edition. It all seems to be knee-jerk reaction to the power builds and rules that are most often manipulated in the version prior. i wouldn't be surprised to see wound allocation change yet again, not due to planning, but because they botched it with units like Nob bikers, which had far reaching consequences.

I really enjoyed third edition, with the armies from the back of the rulebook. Better balanced than anything since, tactical, lots of maneuver, with no exceptions to the core rules bringing up wonky situations.

So, like I said, I'm sticking with bad game design.

Cruentus wrote:

Augustus wrote:
Originally I thought some unique powers were going to be pretty good (as in good for the game) but now I am concerned that the 5th edition rules really are not complete in the basic game, as codices keep coming out with significant game altering mechanics unique to armies.

I'm going with bad game design and/or poor designers. The fact that for every new army book that is released, they feel a need to break core rule mechanics means the game is poorly designed.

You can't tell me that they are incapable of sitting down, and brainstorming all kinds of USRs for the main rules (a la warhammer ancients, where all the USRs are in the main rules, and subsequent books use those USRs for 90% of the lists created after), and the using those core USR to create 'uniqueness' in newer armies.

I also don't understand their reluctance to use the same mechanic to do the same thing across books, rather than making some exception or needing to add an additional rule somewhere that appears only in that codex. If you want to have daemons "summoned" call it Deep Strike. Then, instead of writing more "summoning" rules, make another USR called "Fury of the Warp (or something)" which allows units to assault after Deep Strike. Gee, then you could give Fury to a unit in another codex, without copy/pasting and invariably writing different rules.

Frankly, I don't think they have that kind of planning when they go from edition to edition. It all seems to be knee-jerk reaction to the power builds and rules that are most often manipulated in the version prior. i wouldn't be surprised to see wound allocation change yet again, not due to planning, but because they botched it with units like Nob bikers, which had far reaching consequences.

I really enjoyed third edition, with the armies from the back of the rulebook. Better balanced than anything since, tactical, lots of maneuver, with no exceptions to the core rules bringing up wonky situations.

So, like I said, I'm sticking with bad game design.

Yep, that about says it all. Screw the game, it's just the pipe that we shove the plasticrack into!

I disagree completely.

Each codex should be making every attempt to define the race with a unique play style. It that involves giving races abilities that match thier fluff, then so be it.

5th edition played with 5th edition codexes is the best version of 40k by far in terms of theme, list variation, and race specific tactics. Orks play like Orks, Deamons play like Deamons and Marines play like Marines.

The way I view it is the codexes are just as important as the core rulebook in considering the system, and exceptions to rules have been in the game since the beginning.

There is no reason you can't have unique races, with unique abilities, wargear, and troops, and have those things in the core rules.

Imagine a world, if you will, where they actually *know* what all the USRs are. They have them all in the main rulebook. This does two things:

1) Allows GW to playtest all the USRs and rules at the same time; and
2) Allows all the players of the game to know what all the units do, without having to buy every codex.

In the codex, you outline force org, wargear, new weapons, vehicles, etc. and units - these are the things, when tied with the main rulebook, that define an army's uniqueness. Oh, and let's not forget about the fluff and background to add in, since we've saved all those pages by not having to duplicate rules.

Instead, we have a ruleset which requires you (basically) to buy every book out. Otherwise, you have no idea what your enemy is capable of, in terms of special rules. "Wait, you can't do that, the BRB says... "; "Well, actually, all of these units have this special rule in my codex which allows me to ignore the BRB rules of X, Y, Z"

This leads to quirks and problems in the rules you can drive a baneblade through, which GW is loathe to FAQ/Errata to actually change.

Remember when Invulnerable Saves were introduced. Wow, cool. An invulnerable save. Nothing can get through that. Oh, until that weapon that ignores invulnerbale saves is added to a codex. But wait, that doesn't ignore daemonic saves, does it? Yup, they're invulnerable. How about wyche dodge saves? Yup. Invulnerable. Or, should I say "less vulnerable saves".

Instead of having USRs of: Invulnerable Saves, Field Saves, Dodge Saves, and Daemonic Saves in the BRB, then giving those out, and then giving out specific exceptions. So, now the Psycannon comes along, and we give it: Ignore Daemonic Saves. There, nice and simple. No question about cover, dodge, field, or invulnerables. It just ignores the daemonic ones.

See, that wasn't so hard. And clears up a pile of mess that writing rules ignoring special rules creates. Requires more work? Yup. Will they ever to it? Nope. Because they want you to buy more books, buy all of them.

I'm still sticking to poor game design if the best you can come up with is "let's make this rule ignore that basic rule", and even worse is "its always been that way, why change it." We should change it because other systems have shown that you can do it that way. 40k and Fantasy are the only games I know that continue to be afflicted with 'historical shackles disease' where they can't change things because its always been done that way. Sad.

but isn't that how Warmachine works?

Core rules, and then each unit uses some USR, and some unique to the unit that break the core rules and make the factions feel unique? Combos of rulesbending is the core tenet of that game.

And that is tromped out as masterful game design, not poor at all.

Having the Codices break core rules is not bad design.

But in GWs case, they tend to forget the ramifications of other armies' special core rule breakers.

Which can make it bad design in application.

6th ed couldn't come fast enough. I'm just not a fan of 5th ed.

Kilkrazy wrote:His point seems fairly obvious to me.

The new codexes are each bringing in a lot of non-core special rules which uniquely benefit their own armies and make various core rules meaningless. Also, this powering up means the old codexes are at even more of a disadvantage than they would be from the core rules changes and points changes in 5e dexes.

Just because Orks had Mob Up in 3rd edition doesn't necessarily mean it was a good idea then, or that lots of other special rules are good now.

(Actually I think Mob Up was a pretty good rule, but I agree with Augustus that all rules should be in the core book even if they are only used in a single codex.)

Right. Yeah. Ok.

How does this make fifth any different than any other version of 40k?

I mean, you complain that you need a codex to know the guard special rules. I remember back in third when you needed the big rulebook, the space marine codex, and the white dwarf with the chapter approved article on firing points and access hatches just to use a rhino.

And I don't think that it's so much of a "powering up" that we're seeing with new codices, although that does happen. But some changes NEED to be made to adjust to the new edition. Good examples in the Guard codex are the ability of units to meld into larger squads (remember everyone complaining how guard could never win at kill points?) and them being able to transport other units in their dedicated transports besides the unit they were bought for...like almost every other army in the game. Yes, the older codices are being left behind. But if you dumb down the rules of the newer codices so they don't out pace the older ones, what's the point of even printing newer codices?

I think the solution is simple planning. Write all of the codices for a single edition (5th, in this case) at once and playtest them together so the rules all sync with each other. Then, release one about every three to four months after the release of the new edition. (As a player, I would prefer them all to be released together, but as a company I understand this would hurt GW. The slower release raises hype and lets armies be a flavor of the month, increasing sales) Finally, I think codices should be released in order of oldest codex to newest codex. In other words, if your army is using the oldest 3rd ed codex, you get the first 5th ed codex. If your army is using the second oldest codex, you get the second 5th ed codex, etc, etc, etc.

And, finally, once again, if all the core rules were in the rulebook...why even have codices? And, come to think of it some of the more specific rules are so specific that, taken out of context, they would just be stupidly hard to explain.

Cruentus wrote:I really enjoyed third edition, with the armies from the back of the rulebook. Better balanced than anything since, tactical, lots of maneuver, with no exceptions to the core rules bringing up wonky situations.

So, like I said, I'm sticking with bad game design.

Are you...serious?

That was third ed for maybe about six months. Until they realized how unclear and poorly designed it was and the next thing you knew you needed a suit case full of white dwarf chapter approved articles to play it.

I disagree with Augustus' point 3 in the OP, but do agree with most of what has been written by Augustus and Cruentus.

What seems to be happening is a return to 3rd edition where the base rules are okay (even if I don't agree with several of them), but Codexes are used to break core rules. These codexes also escalate in power. IOW, it is a return to the sell more models through Codex escalation design model.

With that model in place, GW will more likely sell more models for the most recent codex, but as we all know, they'll get through about 70% of the Codexes before moving to a new edition. I also bet that the last 2-3 5th Edition codexes will be built with 6th edition in mind.

It is a ferris wheel I got off of a few months after 5th edition came out. I love the models and most of the background, but the unwillingness to provide a consistent rules framework for a whole edition and then shout "you aren't playing the game right" to those who complain about broken lists/codexes finally broke me.

See you in 6th edition.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:I disagree with Augustus' point 3 in the OP, but do agree with most of what has been written by Augustus and Cruentus.

What seems to be happening is a return to 3rd edition where the base rules are okay (even if I don't agree with several of them), but Codexes are used to break core rules. These codexes also escalate in power. IOW, it is a return to the sell more models through Codex escalation design model.

With that model in place, GW will more likely sell more models for the most recent codex, but as we all know, they'll get through about 70% of the Codexes before moving to a new edition. I also bet that the last 2-3 5th Edition codexes will be built with 6th edition in mind.

It is a ferris wheel I got off of a few months after 5th edition came out. I love the models and most of the background, but the unwillingness to provide a consistent rules framework for a whole edition and then shout "you aren't playing the game right" to those who complain about broken lists/codexes finally broke me.

See you in 6th edition.

I see what you're saying.

Codex creep is irritating.

But I wouldn't call it a "return to" anything. We never left. Nothing has really changed with fifth. Aside from the rules, I mean. The business model is the same. The out dated codices and increasing special rules are the same. Granted, just because it's always been that way doesn't mean that it's a good way to be. But my point is it's not a 5th edition problem, it's a GW problem. And it's a problem I was aware of when I picked up every edition of this game that I have played. I'm not saying it isn't a problem just simply that...I'm not surprised.

Now, keep in mind, GW is a company. They're here to make money. What I think a lot of people miss is that...that's not always a bad thing. Their business model revolves around releasing armies individually to increase sales. People get excited, talk about, make army lists, and finally buy the new army. The fact that it has new, army specific rules they have never seen before adds to the excitement. And, as a player, as much as I would like to have all the armies all it once I must admit it is kind of a fun time when a new codex comes out.

So, understanding GW's business model and their need to slowly release armies to increase sales, I'm cool with it. However, you're right, there are a lot of problems that need to be fixed. In my last post to you I outlined what I would like to see done. And I would also like to add that they shouldn't be releasing codices for the next edition until after that edition is out. Granted, that creates a down time in their new releases that is really bad for a company. Stagnation is death. But they could use that time to release things like apocalypse, run world wide campaigns, release games like Necromunda, etc.

Having been through 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and now 5th edition. I get it. I know its a GW problem, and its a planning problem.

Its an issue with having to juggle so many armies, sub armies, etc. that their release schedule makes in impossible to actually finish an edition before the next one comes out. That's a problem because they don't patch the holes - neither the ones caused by the new edition, or the ones the new edition makes in and of itself.

Don't get me wrong. I love 5th edition. I think the game plays better than before, aside from some wonky stuff (Kps, wound allocation), I think they've made leaps and bounds to fix it. THEN we get the codicies which throw everything in the toilet. Let's see, on one hand, Dark Angels, Eldar. On the other Orks, Daemons. In the middle CSM, SM, maybe BA. Its uneven. DA heralded a 'toned-down' approach to codicies. Orks and Daemons didn't (and some would add lash CSM to this). Sure, its one or two builds, or one or two powers, or how the unit interacts with core rules (wound allocation), but it just strikes me as lazy and poorly handled. Did no one in playtesting think to take two lashes? No one? And if someone did, and GW ignored it, then we know where the blame lies.

And 3rd edition, when I played it out of the box, was fine afaik. It wasn't until the TAR, TVR, and other issues eventually came to the surface that the errata and FAQs, and patching started. Also happened to be when the codexes were rolling out too. Coincidence?

And I understand the company line and making money, I do, and that's fine. I'll continue to play it the way I have for years, and make it work.

The point I'm making is they could do a better job of it, and have a direction, and stick with it, rather than acting like an ADD 10 year old. Of course, we all know they're not a rules company, but a miniatures company

Cruentus wrote:The point I'm making is they could do a better job of it, and have a direction, and stick with it, rather than acting like an ADD 10 year old. Of course, we all know they're not a rules company, but a miniatures company

On this point, we are agreed. Very much so. GW rulebooks sometimes remind me of G.I. Joe and Ninja Turtles. Cartoons that existed for the sole reason to sell toys. Now we've grown up, and we need a better excuse to buy toys.

I just disagree agree on how the problem should be fixed. I don't think that having all the armies in one book is the answer, for a number of reasons I've already given. But I think the current model needs a lot of fixing...most of which I've pretty much already out lined.

whocares wrote:I just disagree agree on how the problem should be fixed. I don't think that having all the armies in one book is the answer, for a number of reasons I've already given. But I think the current model needs a lot of fixing...most of which I've pretty much already out lined.

I was never proposing that all the armies be listed in one book. The 3rd edition reference was to having the lists 'rebooted' for the new edition. I don't think that all the armies be in one book, but all the USRs that govern those armies be in that book. We already have one or two pages of USRs in the book. Why not add all the others that currently reside in the codicies, and you know, codify them.

That way they're all on the table from the get-go, can be considered in the game design proper, rather than being added willy-nilly from left field when codex X hits the shelves. It would cut down dramatically on rules conflicts, and would also allow similar powers to work similarly across books.

Actually, I'd just be happy if they actually got all the codexes out for the current edition of the game, before 6th edition.

Cruentus wrote:

whocares wrote:I just disagree agree on how the problem should be fixed. I don't think that having all the armies in one book is the answer, for a number of reasons I've already given. But I think the current model needs a lot of fixing...most of which I've pretty much already out lined.

I was never proposing that all the armies be listed in one book. The 3rd edition reference was to having the lists 'rebooted' for the new edition. I don't think that all the armies be in one book, but all the USRs that govern those armies be in that book. We already have one or two pages of USRs in the book. Why not add all the others that currently reside in the codicies, and you know, codify them.

That way they're all on the table from the get-go, can be considered in the game design proper, rather than being added willy-nilly from left field when codex X hits the shelves. It would cut down dramatically on rules conflicts, and would also allow similar powers to work similarly across books.

Actually, I'd just be happy if they actually got all the codexes out for the current edition of the game, before 6th edition.

You could cut down on rules conflict just as easily by writing all the codices at once and playtesting them all together, special rules and all. In fact, I think it's the only real effective way to balance the game properly.

If you write all the USRs at once, and then design the codices the way GW does now, what do you think would happen when they realized that they forgot some special rule for an army, or they realized some codex they printed was over powered? Even if it was over powered using USRs from the rulebook. They would go right back to putting individual rules in codices resulting in the first 5 codices all using the same USRs and the next five all increasingly having their own individual special rules to counter the first 5. Think about what you know about GW and tell me I'm wrong.

I think the best way to avoid this, as I said, is to playtest the thing as a whole. Rulebook, codices, and all and then just stagger their release dates. Not their design dates.

I also don't think it really benefits the players that much. Sure, I guess it would make certain armies less "surprising." (demon summoning and drop pod assault come to mind) But once it's happened once, you remember. And I don't think reading your opponent's codex before the game would be any more cumbersome than reading that one rule in the back of the book that only one army in the game uses so you completely forgot about. Because you know people won't remember those any better than they remember individual codex rules.

I don't know. I liked the trend GW was using for the DA, Chaos and Blood Angels books. I liked having the Codexes simplified or more accurately, streamlined. I didn't see the reason behind all the "my options are gone" hysteria when Chaos came out. One could always do counts-as for a lot of things.

I don't want every Codex to break some rule. When that happens it is inevitable for one to get Codex rules vs Codex rules conflicts. For crying out loud, it isn't like every other game system I've played hasn't codified special rules/exceptions in a consistent fashion.

OTOH, many of the non-core games have been fairly balanced and played well. Maybe that's why they were dropped so quickly.

Edit: ever > every

While my response is slightly off topic it does fit into the 6th ed discussion.

I'm expecting a much better set of rules for 40K when 6th edition arrives. After reading WotR and playing a bunch of games; GW has lost every excuse for not making a better version of 40K. WotR proves that GW can write good rules.

BDJV wrote:While my response is slightly off topic it does fit into the 6th ed discussion.

I'm expecting a much better set of rules for 40K when 6th edition arrives. After reading WotR and playing a bunch of games; GW has lost every excuse for not making a better version of 40K. WotR proves that GW can write good rules.

Yup. When they're given a blank slate, and aren't slavishly holding onto their legacy rules, like they are with 40k and fantasy.

Look at their specialist games as well. Mordheim, Gothic, Necromunda. They're all great games, with a minimum of rules problems, and they were built as Whocares was saying - all the factions at the same time, tested, and released (ok, he was suggesting they be staggered). When GW started adding bands to Mordheim, for example, they couldn't keep it balanced.

When they do them (rules and armies) at the same time, they tend to be better balanced.

HI all.
The problem with the current 40k rules , is that the core rules only covers about 40% of the game play.So the remaining game play has to be covered with lots of 'patches', (USRs, codex special rules for ,racial, character, weapon and equipment.)

IF a NEW rule set was written to cover the current game play,(maybe expand it?).
It would be possible to get a MUCH more straight forward and intuitive rule set, where EVERYTHING is covered in the core rules .

Having lots of exeptions and additions (special rules) is NOT good game design.(It may be a good marketing ploy perhaps?)

Current 40k is more like version 3.7, NOT 5.

Actual 40k 4th ed, by Andy Chambers, was published by Mongoose Publishing, under the guise of S.S.T!

I cannot fathom GW logic.They chase after tweenies that buy a load of stuff and leave after 2 years.
So why are they hung up on keeping the unsuitable and outdated Warhammer game mechanics and legacy issues ?

I think the best option would be a complete re-write.
But unfortunatley GW relise as long as they make the new minis look and sound 'kewl' ,the rules can be utter 'Chrome Covered Crud.' Some people will still buy Citadel Minatures anf GW kits.

TTFN
Lanrak

I agree with Cruentes. They should make 6th edition a sci-fi variant of War of the Ring. With 15MM miniatures. They should also make a detailed skirmish version of the rules for use with the existing miniatures.

warpcrafter wrote:They should also make a detailed skirmish version of the rules for use with the existing miniatures.

This is an awesome idea.

I mean, sure, they have Necromunda which is awesome. But that game's release was years ago and it's still based on the second edition system. Most newer players don't even know about it. And, on top of that, my one problem with the game was that it was basically just humans. It would be awesome if they made a newer version of the game that was more like Mordheim in that it included "warbands" from every army in 40k.

I would so play the hell out of that.

whocares wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:They should also make a detailed skirmish version of the rules for use with the existing miniatures.

This is an awesome idea.

...

I would so play the hell out of that.

Me too!

You ever wonder if Inquisitor was 40k scale, and there were A LOT more army lists and characters, then perhaps people would have, you know, actually played it?

I would've played the hell out of it!

warpcrafter wrote:I agree with Cruentes. They should make 6th edition a sci-fi variant of War of the Ring. With 15MM miniatures. They should also make a detailed skirmish version of the rules for use with the existing miniatures.

Mmmm 15mm GW miniatures.
I'd build every single army.
Only in my dreams.

GW will never do a well supported skirmish version. Their whole schtick is to make people buy large armies for the smallest of games of 40k.

Zip Napalm wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:I agree with Cruentes. They should make 6th edition a sci-fi variant of War of the Ring. With 15MM miniatures. They should also make a detailed skirmish version of the rules for use with the existing miniatures.

Mmmm 15mm GW miniatures.
I'd build every single army.
Only in my dreams.

Wouldn't that be great indeed? Probably never, but...

With the success of Flames of War, who can say?

Mahu wrote:I disagree completely.

Each codex should be making every attempt to define the race with a unique play style. It that involves giving races abilities that match thier fluff, then so be it.

5th edition played with 5th edition codexes is the best version of 40k by far in terms of theme, list variation, and race specific tactics. Orks play like Orks, Deamons play like Deamons and Marines play like Marines.

The way I view it is the codexes are just as important as the core rulebook in considering the system, and exceptions to rules have been in the game since the beginning.

You can make individual factions using a variety of properly thought out USRs contained in the main rulebook. It's basic system design to minimise the number of exceptions and special cases in auxiliary manuals.

The reason why GW do it the way they do is because they haven't developed the game rules properly from codex to edition to codex.

For instance, it's fairly obvious that Tau Markerlights need a make-over, but GW needed to think about that 18 months ago while developing the 5e book, which obviously they didn't.

This pattern of development is part of what causes power creep, because a codex being written now for releas in 2010 reacts to 5e core rules and the extra rules in the recent (Ork, SM, etc) 5e codexes.

I think you underestimate the Psycannon. They are even putting it on Land Raiders, these days.

I actually disagree with Augustus (for once), despite the awesome of this Exodites. I think the army rules remain quite seperate from the main rule book. The Universal Special Rules as well as the three phase game, infantry statlines, vehicles, Independent Characters, etc, etc remain solid core rules. Rules such as Feel No Pain, Rending, Fearless, Scout increasingly standardize the game with every codex and edition. Gone are the days when Hit and Run did three different things depending on which codex you were reading.

Tacobake wrote:I think you underestimate the Psycannon. They are even putting it on Land Raiders, these days.

I actually disagree with Augustus (for once), despite the awesome of this Exodites. I think the army rules remain quite seperate from the main rule book. The Universal Special Rules as well as the three phase game, infantry statlines, vehicles, Independent Characters, etc, etc remain solid core rules. Rules such as Feel No Pain, Rending, Fearless, Scout increasingly standardize the game with every codex and edition. Gone are the days when Hit and Run did three different things depending on which codex you were reading.

Actually, according to GW's own FAQ's and erratas, codexes take precedence. So, we still have the situation where "hit and run" in the BRB is different than "hit and run" for Seraphim in the witch hunters codex. I'm sure there are other examples as well, that's the only one I could think of off hand. Oh, and you mean how everyone except IG can share dedicated transports, because their codex specifically says they can't share?

Issues like that still exist and will always exist because of the game design structure they currently use. And don't get me started on wargear and weapons between codexes

Mahu wrote:I disagree completely.

Each codex should be making every attempt to define the race with a unique play style. It that involves giving races abilities that match thier fluff, then so be it.

5th edition played with 5th edition codexes is the best version of 40k by far in terms of theme, list variation, and race specific tactics. Orks play like Orks, Deamons play like Deamons and Marines play like Marines.

The way I view it is the codexes are just as important as the core rulebook in considering the system, and exceptions to rules have been in the game since the beginning.

Perfect.

Cruentus wrote:

Tacobake wrote:I think you underestimate the Psycannon. They are even putting it on Land Raiders, these days.

I actually disagree with Augustus (for once), despite the awesome of this Exodites. I think the army rules remain quite seperate from the main rule book. The Universal Special Rules as well as the three phase game, infantry statlines, vehicles, Independent Characters, etc, etc remain solid core rules. Rules such as Feel No Pain, Rending, Fearless, Scout increasingly standardize the game with every codex and edition. Gone are the days when Hit and Run did three different things depending on which codex you were reading.

Actually, according to GW's own FAQ's and erratas, codexes take precedence. So, we still have the situation where "hit and run" in the BRB is different than "hit and run" for Seraphim in the witch hunters codex. I'm sure there are other examples as well, that's the only one I could think of off hand. Oh, and you mean how everyone except IG can share dedicated transports, because their codex specifically says they can't share?

Issues like that still exist and will always exist because of the game design structure they currently use. And don't get me started on wargear and weapons between codexes

IG aren't the only ones who cant share dedicated transports, templars and (i think) tau are in the same boat, anyway I Like the idea of writing all thecodexes at the same time as the rulebook but the universal codex (3rd ed) is not the way to go, it was soooo unimaginative and boring, If theywere to do something like that again i'd want every army to be of the diversity and customizability as they currently are, which could trebel the size of the book IMO.

Cruentus wrote:...And don't get me started on wargear and weapons between codexes

Exactly right, and...

What about RHINOS? How many codices have them?

They are all the same tank literally, but there are how many variants because of codex sillyness?

Smoke launchers, overcharged engines, firing points, self immobile repair or not, that kind of stuff is a great example of the convoluted mess I was talking about.

Augustus wrote:
Exactly right, and...

What about RHINOS? How many codices have them?

They are all the same tank literally, but there are how many variants because of codex sillyness?

Smoke launchers, overcharged engines, firing points, self immobile repair or not, that kind of stuff is a great example of the convoluted mess I was talking about.

That could really come down to which Rhino model the army uses, in a world as big as 40k I'd assume there are many different variants in the fluff. Also it could be put down to how different crews are trained in the use of the Rhino.

Yep, fething mess created by a company for which Rules and Balanced Gameplay are secondary.

40K will NEVER be fixed, too many hanging on legacy issues.....

Still fun to play however and so what if its busted.

Then again, I NEVER play tournaments.....

Good point but I always thought the whole idea of a codex was to give armies special rules. So you have your "standard" ruleset, and then each army has their own strenghts and weaknesses and special things they can do. If other armies could issue orders, what would be special about guard? or what if everyone army have drop pods and break into combat squads?

hmmmm...... good old 4th ed where all the rules made sences.

Necros wrote:Good point but I always thought the whole idea of a codex was to give armies special rules. So you have your "standard" ruleset, and then each army has their own strenghts and weaknesses and special things they can do. If other armies could issue orders, what would be special about guard? or what if everyone army have drop pods and break into combat squads?

But see, I don't understand this extremist logic. No one is saying that everyone gets to have every rule in the BRB. If "combat squads" is a USR. When the marine book is out, their squads are given that USR as an army rule. If GW then decides that the hyper-trained =I= Stormtroopers (and only them), should also be able to combat squad, then that squad entry can be given the USR. Without creating some backward description of how it works that makes it different than marines (or anyone else).

The differences in the army books (which I'm still advocating), would be in troops types - gee, IG grunts versus Necron Warriors - they seem different. Weapons they use, wargear, vehicles, etc. Rules that should be (or could be) similar across books should be USRs. I.e. Deep Strike, Poison, FNP, the jump back out of combat one (mind-lock atm), ATSKNF, etc. If you want to give an army deep strike, don't have three versions of it, two which contradict how it works in the BRB. Have one Deep Strike USR. Then have another USR, available for other units if necessary, that allows you to do something different, i.e. assault off Deep Strike. Don't write another Deep Strike rule and call it something else.

Could the list of USRs be long? Possibly. But it also wouldn't prevent differences in army builds, army lists, units themselves. It also makes it easier to "balance" long-term. If you know everyone (termies, daemons, PAGK, etc.) are all Deep Striking, you know what it does. If you add assault to the Daemons. You know its a little better.

Hi all.
Just to comment on what has just been said about the rule book and the codex books.

In other NON GW games I play , the rule book covers ALL element /unit interaction in the game.(All the rules for everything in the game.)

The equivilents of codex/army books just contain force composition choices,and background.(With modeling painting guides in some cases.)

Having rules that superceed-contradict core rules added peicemeal to a game system sporadicaly in isolated context ,(special rules in codex-army books)Is the worst possibly way to add to game play, in reguard to game balance and player comprehension .

But may be the most obvious way to make new armies seem more 'special' desirable?

One rule book I own has 45 army lists and over 600 unit stats included!
The rules cover ALL WWII theaters/ major land engagments including supporting air/artillery operations , airborne and beach asaults,and combat engineering , (bridging mine fields,) etc..
All within a 100 page book.WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL RULES AT ALL!!

40k can not manage the rules on 'how to move units' without using 5 Universal Special Rules and seperate table for vehicle movement!

TTFN
lanrak.

Augustus wrote:I realized a pattern seems to be emerging with codex writing in 5th edition, that is each codex is rewriting the core game for 5th edition with codex specific global style rules. I'm not talking about codex specific rules like only Eldar have Brightlances for example but the strategic kind of rules that really modify the basic game. Each new codex seems to really break the structure of the game with some significant special rules,

I don't lik this for 3 reasons:

(1) It makes outdated codices diadvantaged
(2) It makes the core rules in the basic book meaningless,

Will even one army survive the codex rewrites that actually uses the morale rules as written in the core book? What is the point of instant death for example, everything one would like to instant death is now immune to it with Eternal Warrior/hive mind it seems...

(3) It makes the game a convoluted mess, where a player has to own and bring every codex with him all the time to have the whole rule set.

Welcome to WFB6+-style 40k!

The phenomenon that you are describing has been the norm in WFB since mid-6th Edition. It is GW's way of differentiating armies from each other and showing how each of them is special / different / unique. You're only behind the curve because you don't play or follow WFB.

1. outdated like, say, Dogs of War? Yes. I'm still hoping for an Army Book before WFB8 rolls around...

2. the core rules will still apply to a few armies, just as in WFB, but a lot of the stuff will be obsoleted by special rules and abilities. In WFB, less than 1/3 of the armies take unmodified morale (psychology / break) tests as a matter of course; these are generally deemed to be "uncompetitive" armies. In WFB, the two armies that completely ignore psychology and break tests (Daemons & Vampires) are considered to be Tier 0, with a commanding advantage over other armies.

3. GW is not unaware that this encourages additional Army Book sales to those who don't even play the various armies, but need to be informed as to what their opponent might bring.

Again, look at WFB for the future of 40k. If you don't like it, get out now.

warpcrafter wrote:They should also make a detailed skirmish version of the rules for use with the existing miniatures.

Space Hulk, coming soon to a hobby store near you.

Q4, 2009

40K already is a detailed skirmish rules with bits taken out to make the armies larger. It was developed as a skirmish set originally.

I am with Mahu on this issue. And therefore I oppose Augustus opinion. But only kinda half. You know, when I read the introduction with all that "and now they add all these army specific rules to make it different", I was all like "yes, yes, great, eh?". And then came the conclusion.
And that I do disagree with.
5th edition basic rules are much better than everything before. The "real" 5th edition codices, already named as "Daemons, Orks, SM and Guard" are all great. Chaos does have one playable army, but it simply is due to a broken design idea. The other four codices are great because they influence and balance each other. And I am looking forward to seeing more of this being done.

Because of that, I agree with one of Augustus criticisms: Old codices get outdated a lot. And that one is the real problem. GW got their act together and currently release great stuff. The new game is not 3.7 but a really good new version. Sadly it still needs to be carried by some uninspired 3rd and 4th edition codices. And, since it is en vogue to be sceptical, this will break their back (or at least make it, again, a so-so release instead of the cool thing it could be), because, as usual, they won't finish their line-up so, for once, we can play a _complete_ game of 5th edition.

Augustus wrote:You ever wonder if Inquisitor was 40k scale, and there were A LOT more army lists and characters, then perhaps people would have, you know, actually played it?

What? You know, I bought Inquisitor because I thought it ought to be the best thing ever invented. I was both a roleplayer and a wargamer. The only thing that I found new, creative and astonishing about Inquisitor was that I had never knew whether to cry about the roleplaying or the wargaming part first. I mean, even completely stat-free story-telling systems use some kind of balancing!

tierlieb wrote:5th edition basic rules are much better than everything before. The "real" 5th edition codices, already named as "Daemons, Orks, SM and Guard" are all great. Chaos does have one playable army, but it simply is due to a broken design idea. The other four codices are great because they influence and balance each other.

Fair enough! I think the Space Marine power that forces rerolls to invulnerable saves for example was a direct answer to the Daemon codex to support your concept of the codices balancing eachother.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Welcome to WFB6+-style 40k!...Again, look at WFB for the future of 40k. If you don't like it, get out now.

I don't want to quit, I love the models and stories.

But you have me there, I don't follow WHFB, I quit playing it for reasons like this, the same reason I don't play war machine:

"So I chose a decent amy, set up well, used some clever maneuver and now... I loose?.. Why again?"

"Well, because my army/character specific unique hidden combo special rule reverses the tactical situation."

No thanks...

*EDIT quote blocks

Play DBM, All rules, armies, EVERYTHING in a single 50 something page book from 5000bc to 1487ad!

But hang on, thats designed as a quick dirty fun tournament game for adults....

40K is for shillling figures and books!

With all this talk of 6th edition,surely not enough time has elapsed to
justify it? The rules as they are,are clear and not written by a madman!
There doesn't seem to be a major rules rewrite needed so why would GW
feel the need to do so soon a 6th edition rulebook?It's not as if it's
going to be chock full of new rules,plus the price will probably be
£40!
What they should do (they won't ,I know)is forget a rules reprint and
concentrate on bringing all the codexes up to date.White Dwarf should
at least be publishing updates on armies,as the timelines for codexes
are too slow.The talk of the 'Big four' of Chaos marines getting codexes
may be wide of the mark.More likely they will share a single codex.
But please GW,no new rulebook just yet!!!!!

Augustus wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Welcome to WFB6+-style 40k!...Again, look at WFB for the future of 40k. If you don't like it, get out now.

I don't want to quit, I love the models and stories.

But you have me there, I don't follow WHFB, I quit playing it for reasons like this, the same reason I don't play war machine:

"So I chose a decent amy, set up well, used some clever maneuver and now... I loose?.. Why again?"

"Well, because my army/character specific unique hidden combo special rule reverses the tactical situation."

No thanks...

So I'm guessing you don't play CCGs like Magic?

I don't play WM/H because I already have plenty of Magic and 40k, so a CCG-like minis game is redundant for me.

WFB is very low on my interest scale, as my primary army has been sidelined for more than an edition, but I've at least played along when major WFB happenings are going on. But balance in WFB is a real mess compared to 40k. The scope of Special Rules is so much larger and pervasive, that the game feel is totally alien.

JohnHwangDD wrote:So I'm guessing you don't play CCGs like Magic?

You're guessing right, buy, sort, shuffle see what happens, not much sport there. I am filled with petty for the people stuck in the eternal cycle of outdated cards as well, I hear it not even a year anymore before they are illegal. t least the GW minis can get re used when the new rules come out (mostly).

JohnHwangDD wrote:WFB is very low on my interest scale, as my primary army has been sidelined for more than an edition, but I've at least played along when major WFB happenings are going on. But balance in WFB is a real mess compared to 40k. The scope of Special Rules is so much larger and pervasive, that the game feel is totally alien.

Yea I had a Dark Elf army for a couple years, almost every game I played was really polarized, as in win big or loose big, and none of it was clever maneuver or set up either:

Bretonians run my whole army over in 2 turns, lost every melee, didn't even move forward (never did beat that army)...
Orks and Goblins whole army routes from Black Dragon terror (never lost to Orks, not much skill in flying my Terror causer up the side and watching units flee)...
Bolt throwers destroy an entire Dwarf army (they can't even reach me moving the foot speed)...
Unbreakable chaos Daemons destroy my entire army, like an invicible, no morale, flying daemons outflank everything (never did beat them)

..and to make matters worse I got more zero comp scores (mostly for the Black Dragon) than I ever have in 40k, and only when I won...

Maybe I shouldn't have played in tournaments? Well ok so I sold the army and quit.

Anyway, back OT, if thats the direction 40k is going too, I am going to be very sad! Maybe I will have to learn to love Flames of War more...

Ahh well, who knows what the next codex will be?

Is this getting a bit like the "I hate windows but still have to use it because every one else does" debate? How about "open source" rules written by the players themselves (as oposed to the company that makes and sells the models, therefore profitting from the complexity, confusion and endless reinvention) as a kind of wikipedia? Ahh the idealism of the internet...

I miss the old blood angels, maybe I will miss IG doctrines, but the fact remains I am chomping at the bit for my new IG codex and valkyrie.

Ahh yes, the curse of fandom...

Once we are far enough long, well, does anyone ever quit?

I will always build the models at least.

General Mayhem wrote:How about "open source" rules

OK, who is going to manage the project, and how are you going to get people to agree on particular rules?

For example, the Guard players are going demand Overwatch and Charge Reactions, while the Nid players are going to demand extra-fast Running...

Mahu wrote:I disagree completely.

Each codex should be making every attempt to define the race with a unique play style. It that involves giving races abilities that match thier fluff, then so be it.

5th edition played with 5th edition codexes is the best version of 40k by far in terms of theme, list variation, and race specific tactics. Orks play like Orks, Deamons play like Deamons and Marines play like Marines.

The way I view it is the codexes are just as important as the core rulebook in considering the system, and exceptions to rules have been in the game since the beginning.

Agreed. Having every army play the same will make for a very boring game. The codices are meant to "break" the rules in special ways unique to each army.

Also, in response to a comment about Eternal Warrior: very few SM units have said ability. Nothing is more irritating than a force weapon or something eating your HQ, and not being able to do it in return.

USRs don't make all the armies the same. They make some subset of rules for a unit the same.

USR's are a good thing. Sadly, the way GW has done it has made them seem like a bad thing, because they do not update the Old Codex's at the same time, which has lead to the "My Smoke Launchers are Better than your smoke Launchers" shenanigans that make up 5th ed 40k. Once GW their their thumbs out and update all the legacy codex's to 5th edition, THEN they can work on updating the 5th Rulebook, because lets face it, Quite a bit of the rulebook is clunky because it has to accommodate for the old codex's.

Cruentus wrote:

Necros wrote:Good point but I always thought the whole idea of a codex was to give armies special rules. So you have your "standard" ruleset, and then each army has their own strenghts and weaknesses and special things they can do. If other armies could issue orders, what would be special about guard? or what if everyone army have drop pods and break into combat squads?

But see, I don't understand this extremist logic. No one is saying that everyone gets to have every rule in the BRB. If "combat squads" is a USR. When the marine book is out, their squads are given that USR as an army rule. If GW then decides that the hyper-trained =I= Stormtroopers (and only them), should also be able to combat squad, then that squad entry can be given the USR. Without creating some backward description of how it works that makes it different than marines (or anyone else).

The differences in the army books (which I'm still advocating), would be in troops types - gee, IG grunts versus Necron Warriors - they seem different. Weapons they use, wargear, vehicles, etc. Rules that should be (or could be) similar across books should be USRs. I.e. Deep Strike, Poison, FNP, the jump back out of combat one (mind-lock atm), ATSKNF, etc. If you want to give an army deep strike, don't have three versions of it, two which contradict how it works in the BRB. Have one Deep Strike USR. Then have another USR, available for other units if necessary, that allows you to do something different, i.e. assault off Deep Strike. Don't write another Deep Strike rule and call it something else.

Could the list of USRs be long? Possibly. But it also wouldn't prevent differences in army builds, army lists, units themselves. It also makes it easier to "balance" long-term. If you know everyone (termies, daemons, PAGK, etc.) are all Deep Striking, you know what it does. If you add assault to the Daemons. You know its a little better.

I just re-read this, and agree with it completely.

Gwar! wrote:Once GW their their thumbs out and update all the legacy codex's to 5th edition, THEN they can work on updating the 5th Rulebook, because lets face it, Quite a bit of the rulebook is clunky because it has to accommodate for the old codex's.

I don't think GW should have the Rulebook held hostage by a handful of obsolete Codices. The Codices can be FAQd or updated or Squatted, because these affect relatively few people, whereas the Rulebook affects everyone.

And that's the very point - GW doesn't accomodate the older Codices, which is why they don't work as well under the current Rulebook. But the newer Codices (which cover most of the player base) are generally fine. Yes, Lash is a problem, but that doesn't invalidate the Rulebook, nor the Codex.

If GW doesn't accommodate the old codexes, why are they still allowed to overrule the main rulebook? That's a large part of the problem. In that scenario the USRs are meaningless, because they aren't *universal*.

The Codex should say "unit A has USRs 1,2,3, see the main rulebook for info". Then codexes become mostly an exercise in tweaking points, adding new background and pics of shiny models.

Sadly, they don't do this now, they just keep piling the cruft on with their exceptions.

Perhaps we use "accomodate" differently?

I'm using it to mean that GW isn't crafting specific things to handle rules oddities in older Codices.

Apart from one major thing, that of the "If you have Scout your Dedicated Transport gets scout" that was crafted EXCLUSIVELY for pathfinders.

I don't play Tau, so I woudln't know.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:If GW doesn't accommodate the old codexes, why are they still allowed to overrule the main rulebook? That's a large part of the problem. In that scenario the USRs are meaningless, because they aren't *universal*.

The Codex should say "unit A has USRs 1,2,3, see the main rulebook for info". Then codexes become mostly an exercise in tweaking points, adding new background and pics of shiny models.

Sadly, they don't do this now, they just keep piling the cruft on with their exceptions.

Precisely.

EDIT:

This is why I said 6th edition is already being crafted. Essentially they are laying the groundwork for these new USRs, like poison weapons as a good example, and combat squads and orders and interecept reserves and demonic assault....

All that stuff should be in the BGB is my gripe at it's core!

HI all.
Whats wrong with the common practice of putting ALL the rules in the 'RULE BOOK'.
Make sure the rules cover ALL the factions/options in the game play effectivley.

Then the army composition lists (codex books,) dont have confusing poorly applied -defined additional rules and exceptions that confuse every one.(Including the game developers.)

Why use superflous 'special rules' , when more straight forward rules set,would enhance the game play experiance?
(And BTW, USRs are just rules that were originaly left out by mistake!)

Unless Special Rules influence minature sales in a positive way?They just increase the difficulty of game play unecisarily.

Ok, firstly, why should I be FORCED to buy the rules for armies I do not want (being a Space Wolf Player I have had to do this for 10 years now), not to mention doing so will drive the cost of the book skyward, and means each race gets less background material and less work put into it.

Oh yeah, it's a fantastic idea </Sarcasm>

Gwar! wrote:Ok, firstly, why should I be FORCED to buy the rules for armies I do not want...

Why would you not expecta complete version of the game when you buy the core book?

Perhaps you are engineering some animosity here? Or maybe I missed your sarcastic intent?

No, I am 100% Sincere.
40k is not a Game like Magic where the exceptions to the main rules can be placed on the items in question. The whole way 40k Works is that you have a core set of rules that a modified differently by each army. That is what makes each army unique.

When I buy the main rulebook, I don't want it clogged up with half baked army lists with no fluff. Not to mention, I am never EVER gonna play Tau EVER. Nor do I have any desire to ever play Necrons. Why should I have to pay for their "codex's" when I buy the Core Ruleset? Why should I have to lug about the extra information I will never ever want or need. I would much rather carry my Mini-Rulebook and a Single Codex to a tournament/game rather than a 900 page lummox which I wont use half of, because in the current system, I can always look at my opponents codex if I need to.

But then again, if you WANT to pay £50+ for a book with half written army lists and no decent background, go back and play 3rd edition, they did it then, and as you can see, there is a very good reason why they didn't do it again.

@Gwar:

Actually, some of us liked the 3E gaming with basic lists...

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Gwar:

Actually, some of us liked the 3E gaming with basic lists...

I assume you LARP Dark Eldar yes?

In case that was too subtle:
BDSM JOKE!

LARP? Dark Eldar? Nuuuuu....

(run away screaming)

Gwar! wrote:No, I am 100% Sincere....When I buy the main rulebook, I don't want it clogged up with half baked army lists with no fluff. Not to mention, I am never EVER gonna play Tau EVER.

Sincere about not wanting a complete rule book with USRs for all the codexes? I can't fathom that, I dare say it is narrow minded.

Why should I have to pay for their "codex's" when I buy the Core Ruleset? Why should I have to lug about the extra information I will never ever want or need.

...because you might play against it someday? So you can go to an event or play with someone else and not be surprised. Maybe some other people might want a complete rule set? You don't really think that a shorter rulebook is actually cheaper? Thats ridiculous.

Gwar! wrote:40k is not a Game like Magic where the exceptions to the main rules can be placed on the items in question. The whole way 40k Works is that you have a core set of rules that a modified differently by each army. That is what makes each army unique.

Actually it might be a lot more like magic when each new codex (like a new expansion) can redefine the game with unique exceptions rules, like orders and officer of the fleet. The moving target of 5th edition is irritating, or perhaps you think the Demon Army vs 2 fleet officer controversy is a good situation?

Nor do I have any desire to ever play Demons, but know your enemy.

Augustus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, I am 100% Sincere....When I buy the main rulebook, I don't want it clogged up with half baked army lists with no fluff. Not to mention, I am never EVER gonna play Tau EVER.

Sincere about not wanting a complete rule book with USRs for all the codexes? I can't fathom that, I dare say it is narrow minded.

Perhaps you need to go back to grade shool to learn to read. I never said I didnt want a book with all the USR's in it. I said I want it with the core rules, and then codex's that use said USR's along with special rules that make them unique. The only reason we have a sitiuation as we do now of rules with the same name and different effects is because GW take too long in updating their legacy codex's. And as much as GW don't give a toss about the gamers now, they are not so stupid as to turn every army in the game into a homogenised mess that has one or two differences each.

Augustus wrote:

Should I have to pay for their "codex's" when I buy the Core Ruleset? Why should I have to lug about the extra information I will never ever want or need.

...because you might play against it someday? So you can go to an event or play with someone else and not be surprised. Maybe some other people might want a complete rule set? You don't really think that a shorter rulebook is actually cheaper? Thats ridiculous.

Well, of course it is. That's why the AoBR Rulebook is so much cheaper than the Hardback one. But tell me, you honestly think GW are gonna go "Hmm, Lets remove all the codex's that we charge €25 for and put them into the Rulebook, and then charge the same price for the rulebook." No, they will up the cost of the rulebook because you are buying all the codex's with the rulebook. Not to mention that if GW are going to keep the armies unique rather then "Use XYZ Stats with ABC USR's NEXT!" it is going to have to be the size of the current rulebook plus all the codex's that are out now combined. That's close to 1,000 pages if you include the fluff material (Which the Large Rulebook still has after all). You think GW will sell that for £50 or however much the damn thing is these days?

Augustus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:40k is not a Game like Magic where the exceptions to the main rules can be placed on the items in question. The whole way 40k Works is that you have a core set of rules that a modified differently by each army. That is what makes each army unique.

Actually it might be a lot more like magic when each new codex (like a new expansion) can redefine the game with unique exceptions rules, like orders and officer of the fleet. The moving target of 5th edition is irritating, or perhaps you think the Demon Army vs 2 fleet officer controversy is a good situation?

Nor do I have any desire to ever play Demons, but know your enemy.

Gwar!, I don't see how putting all the USRs in the rule book equals putting in every Codex in the rule book.

I think you're saying that the Codexes should have exceptions or modifications to the USRs, which is what many of use are decidedly against.

I also don't understand how a large rulebook with USRs would be anywhere near 1,000 pages. Hyperbole aside, one could just as easily move most of the background material to the Codexes where it belongs. I can see 2 or 3 dozen USRs if GW wanted to include most existing USRs and add some such as "this USR allows the unit to assault after deepstrike" or something similar.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:I think you're saying that the Codexes should have exceptions or modifications to the USRs, which is what many of use are decidedly against.

What? No! I am not against that at all! I like USR's, they make the game run a lot faster. However, USR's are NOT a substitute for individual special rules that give an army its character.

The only problem we have with USR's atm is that there are far too many Individual Special Rules that share a name with a USR, because of GW's lazy Updating Strategy.

Gwar! wrote:

Dal'yth Dude wrote:I think you're saying that the Codexes should have exceptions or modifications to the USRs, which is what many of use are decidedly against.

What? No! I am not against that at all! I like USR's, they make the game run a lot faster. However, USR's are NOT a substitute for individual special rules that give an army its character.

The only problem we have with USR's atm is that there are far too many Individual Special Rules that share a name with a USR, because of GW's lazy Updating Strategy.

So where exactly do you draw the line at USRs vs "substitute for individual special rules that give an army its character"?

Well, what do you? Should Combat tactics become a USR? Should Litanies of Battle become a USR? Should Lumbering Behemoth become a USR? Should Bladestorm become a USR? Should all Psychic powers become a single Standidised list for all races?

Individual special rules are what make each army its own army. Once GW fixes the legacy codex's and removed the nonsense of conflicting wargears and weapons (already they have taken a step towards that by standardising items common to each army such as Smoke Launchers, Power Fists and a lot of other things) the system will work just fine.

Gwar! wrote:Well, what do you?

Should Combat tactics become a USR?

Should Litanies of Battle become a USR?

Should Lumbering Behemoth become a USR?

Should Bladestorm become a USR?

Should all Psychic powers become a single Standidised list for all races?

Well, if you look at what the Dev team did for WFB, it's clear that they're getting better (not perfect, of course) at defining army charater and leveraging USRs intelligently.

Combat Tactics? Apparently, this is unique to SM, so probably not.

Litanies are arguable, but again, SM-only, rather than MEQ-wide

Lumbering Behemoth is IG-only, and a single unit entry so, nope.

Bladestorm? See Lumbering Behemoth. Eldar only, for a single unit entry, means no.

Psychic Powers are something that GW did a good job on, actually. In WFB, most Mages shared the same list of spells. It wasn't until 7th that GW got serious about un-sharing spells and giving each race its own unqiue list of spells. It's a good change, in the same way that each WFB army now has its own Ogre-class units.

I'd say make combat tactics, ATSKNF USRs if for no other reason than there are multiple space marine codexes. The Eldar examples (or any other 1 unit only rules) are fine to leave as Codex only.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:I'd say make combat tactics, ATSKNF USRs if for no other reason than there are multiple space marine codexes. The Eldar examples (or any other 1 unit only rules) are fine to leave as Codex only.

Well the problem with that situation is that they already tried that (Putting ATSKNF as a USR in 4th), and decided to go against it when they changed to 5th.

Just proves the point, doesn't it?

Gwar! wrote:Perhaps you need to go back to grade shool to learn to read.

Gwar! wrote:...I am glad to see you have shown yourself to be an utter hypocrite.

Gwar! wrote:..Dual Officers of the Fleet does nothing but HELP daemons

Gwar! wrote:...Perhaps a little of "Practice what you Preach" is in order before you start passing judgement on others is in order, wouldn't you agree?

I regret trying to have a discussion with you in it.

I originally thought you might be able to make a decent case. Thanks for showing your true colors. You are obviously trolling. Welcome to the ignore list.

Augustus wrote:I originally thought you might be able to make a decent case. Thanks for showing your true colors. You are obviously trolling. Welcome to the ignore list.

So you cannot handle criticism, and you ignore me? Wow, mature aren't we. I am not trolling, because all of what I said is valid and true, You didn't read my Arguments, and you are a hypocrite because you claim to "know your Enemy" when you have not the first clue about how Daemons work.

Gwar! wrote:

Augustus wrote:I originally thought you might be able to make a decent case. Thanks for showing your true colors. You are obviously trolling. Welcome to the ignore list.

So you cannot handle criticism, and you ignore me? Wow, mature aren't we. I am not trolling, because all of what I said is valid and true, You didn't read my Arguments, and you are a hypocrite because you claim to "know your Enemy" when you have not the first clue about how Daemons work.

Actually I agree with Augustus. Et tu Brute?

Gwar! and Augustus,

You have both contributed (in one way or another) towards raising the aggression level towards each other when it wasn't necessary in the least.


At this point please refrain from responding to each other any further in this thread (GWAR, you may want to consider 'ignoring' Augustus if you find that his responses rile you up so quickly).


And Gwar,

I do want to address your Daemons vs. the Officer of the Fleet contention.

Since Daemons get 1/2 of their army on turn 1, any ability that restricts the other half of their army from arriving from reserves really cripples Daemons as it allows any force to deal with only 1/2 of the Daemon army.

Having played Daemons a few times I can safely say that anytime you don't get the rest of your Reserves until later in the game is absolutely crippling, so I absolutely agree with Agustus that x2 Officers of the Fleet would be a pretty hard hurdle for any Daemon army to overcome.

It isn't impossible, but it certainly is a powerful weapon the Guard have against Daemons.

I would contend that it helps Daemons because, providing you don't mess up the placement of your first wave, having the second wave come on T4 or 5 is a Boon, especially in Objectives games.

Officer of the Fleet will be used I am sure, but once all these IG players running dual officers realise that they keep losing/drawing objective games because they don't have enough time to shoot the Troops taking them (whether they are pods or daemons) I feel it will self correct.

Of Course this is all hinging on the fact that they stack, which they may or may not (rule is highly ambiguous to put it mildly) so we wont know for sure until GW put forth an FAQ.

And apologies for appearing aggressive, I don't intend to be overly so, I just refuse to sugar coat my responses .

driverbob25 wrote:

I agree with this, take for instance the new marine codex, it says a marine must be trained in all aspects of a chapters way of making war, from assault, to devestator to tactical marine etc, hence when the heavy weapon marine in a squad takes a hit, another marine would pick the weapon up as he is already proficient in its use? yet now we have to allocate wounds to squad members and the heavy or special weapon gets lost a lot quicker, this just doesnt stand for marines either?

my only assumption on gw's part is that they are tryin g to represent the weapon taking a hit, which could happen on a real warzone?

bob

driverbob25 wrote:

I agree with this, I think the chaos marine codex current edition was rushed out just before the apocolypse release and as such didnt get the attention it should have recieved? you point out legion codex's for the big 4, I see it as gw being able to further break up the chaos marine codex's down into smaller codex's with new model releases for each, which will equal gw making more money, rather than the cash they would get for just 1 codex?

Periods. More than just little dots.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:I don't know. I liked the trend GW was using for the DA, Chaos and Blood Angels books. I liked having the Codexes simplified or more accurately, streamlined. I didn't see the reason behind all the "my options are gone" hysteria when Chaos came out. One could always do counts-as for a lot of things.

Edit: ever > every

You obviously did not play Chaos or flip through the two books in comparison. Not only did they take away 5 Troops choices worth of god-specific daemons (who were solid troops) and 4 HQ choices worth of greater daemons (who struck fear into the hearts of the enemies), but they took away the things that made our legions unique (5 pages or so worth of rules) and the things that made cult armies playable (each god had 2-3 pages of special rules and the like that gave a cult army some advantages and disadvantages.

Not to mention Chosen, who were an excellent idea for a multipurpose unit becoming just CSM with more special weapons and infiltrate (hilariously enough, when writing the good codex, the designers mentioned how ridiculous Chosen/CSM vets just having infiltrate was. Ha!) and yet again we had crappy possessed with random abilities. Joy.

My point being that this codex was an absolutely massive step back, from veteran skills to daemonic gifts. The old codex was probably overpowered. I did very well with it, and sometimes felt that the options were inexpensive for what they did. So they hit us hard with the nerf stick. Now, codex creep means that we're boned. They basically took us back to being in line with the rest of the old codexes, then decided to make each new one successively better. UGH. They could easily make the new codexes different without making each one successively better and thus creating an "arms race" that makes old codexes useless
.
And that, boys and girls, is why all the 12 year olds play 2x lash prince and plague marines armies and the old legion fanatics (read: me) miss our old options.

$50 new rulebook aside, I cannot wait for 6th edition.

Mad Rabbit wrote:$50 new rulebook aside, I cannot wait for 6th edition.

Yes, because the edition change is the reason newer codex's are more powerful...

What?

How will a 6th edition rulebook make ANY difference to your "Nerfed" Chaos Codex?

i apologize if this was mentioned, this thread is LOOOONNNGGG.

But as the OP made mention to, needing to own every army's codex in order to know when you are being cheated is a pain in the a$$. I suppose that unfortunate necessity always existed but with the seeming increase in army specific rules, ignorance regarding your opposition's codex is a bit more daunting now than it used to be.

Mad Rabbit: I played Chaos in 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition, so I can say I played Chaos. I still prefer the trend of removing options that were either not taken, were overpowered, or otherwise an excuse for more rules. Even with the lash prince/oblit/PM army, at least they aren't in the same league as Tau and Necrons at the moment.

GW has gone back to Codex escalation as a sales model. That doesn't make me happy, but I believe streamlining the rules, making USRs mean *universal* special rules, and moving away from kill points would make the game appealing to me again.

Overall i like 5th:

I like reserves/flanking.

The run mechanic adds some nice maneuvering potential and makes games less predictable.

I like the "steal the initiative" mechanic for a little helping of the unexpected once in a while.

However I think the changes to area terrain like woods, etc. not blocking LOS are unfortunate as this pretty much works against any potential added tactical maneuvering that flank and running brings. I can live with it, but I don't like it.

The scenario section is bland, unimaginative and anemic. Of course we know that this is so we will all line up to buy the scenario generator supplement book(yes you know it's coming) and things like Planet Strike when they release it...

Kill points? Really? That is the best they could come up with?

Overall I like 5th too, well, 5th with a codex written for 5th....

This past week we tried out another set of armies and games with the new IG dex. I noticed a certain pattern in the new codices when we played these games which contrasted sharply with Eldar (1 4th ed dex). The point is:

5th edition codices are reversing/compensating for some of the trouble spots in 5th, specificly morale and CC, KP and scoring units. (In the IG dex, stubborn, Squad Up and Orders for Ex. VERY different from ther V4 dex.)

Playing with a non 5th ed codex leaves a lot of armies playing the base 5th rules as written, when 5th ed codexes are drasticly changing how that works.

That's the 6th edition already point I meant in the OP. 6th = 5th+codex rewrites.

EDIT: To ad to the point: lets pretend the new IG codex fought the old one, as if they were independant condices. Wouldn't the advantage obviously lie with the new dex? By association, all the outdated dexes are in this same situation.

Augustus wrote:lets pretend the new IG codex fought the old one, as if they were independant condices.

That's a good question, and depends a lot on whether Allies are allowed, and whether we're playing Objectives or KPs.

If it's KPs, the new IG will easily win, as they can Squadron Tanks and blob Infantry to risk fewer KPs.

If it's Objectives, the old IG start with the advantage due to smaller squad sizes with massed Drop Troops and Infiltrators available. At this point, IG Advisors and DH Allies are the things that will matter.

As an Apoc player who never has to worry about KPs, the old IG list is clearly superior to the new one.

Fair enough, I'm just saying the game feels completely different when played with 5th ed written codices.

A friend of mine is desperately clinging to some of his older armies and having a tough time in 5th. Namely Dark Eldar and Eldar. He has a tough time beating any of the armies from the newer codices.

It's heartbreaking because he has some really beautiful armies too!

The new codices couldn't come fast enough IMO!

Yeah, 5th kinda hosed the Eldars.

Not as bad as the Necrons, but still...

I think Augustus makes a good point about the Codex rewrites + 5th edition rule book = 6th edition. Problem for me is I'm not interested in playing any of those Codexes. If I was, I'd have picked one of them up by now.

And if I have to have a Codex written for 5th to enjoy the game, then that means a lot of armies just won't get played. So it'll be years before I play 40K regularly like I did in 3rd and 4th edition. If GW changed their release process, that'd change, but I just don't see it.

It really has gotten to the point that the rules deficiencies have overcome my love of the background and miniatures.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:It really has gotten to the point that the rules deficiencies have overcome my love of the background and miniatures.

Then you didn't really give a toss about the Minis and Background imo.

Augustus wrote:Fair enough, I'm just saying the game feels completely different when played with 5th ed written codices.

A friend of mine is desperately clinging to some of his older armies and having a tough time in 5th. Namely Dark Eldar and Eldar. He has a tough time beating any of the armies from the newer codices.

It's heartbreaking because he has some really beautiful armies too!

The new codices couldn't come fast enough IMO!

I see what you're getting at but I don't agree when saying that codex exceptions to core rules means that they're creating a "6th edition" via the new codices. I think the IG and the other 5th edition codices embrace the 5th edition core mechanics but also give you some options of some ways to build your armies that counter negative effects on your units or allow you to perform specialized tactics that other armies can't necessarily perform.

The 'Stubborn' USR is in the main rulebook, its just that before 5th edition it wasn't a very useful rule and therefore wasn't used by codex writers very often. Now it is useful, so it is being used. But with Guard, although you are able to sprinkle Stubborn units around the army, in general the new codex has stripped away many of the morale protections that the IG had before.

While you do have the 'get back in the fight' order, you have only a limited number of orders you can make a turn and the range on these orders tends to be less than what the old 'Iron Discipline' rule was. So yes, you automatically have Ld8 Seargents and yes you can build some Stubborn pockets into your army if you want but in general the IG army more than ever relies on the presence of its officers to maintain its morale. Once they're gone your army is going to really start to crumble from any morale checks. While this was also true in 4th edition, this certainly wasn't how the IG played in 5th edition. . .the Ld boost provided by officers just didn't cut it against CC morale modifiers.

So while I do agree that playing with 5th edition codices does feel very different than playing with some 4th edition codices rather than saying they're moving towards a 6th edition I would say that the actual 5th edition codices fully embrace the new rules by allowing you to minimize or negate some of the negative effects of the rules on your army at a cost (more points, or not allowing you to use other options in the army, etc).


As for your friend desperately clinging to his old armies, see my comments below:

Dal'yth Dude wrote:I think Augustus makes a good point about the Codex rewrites + 5th edition rule book = 6th edition. Problem for me is I'm not interested in playing any of those Codexes. If I was, I'd have picked one of them up by now.

And if I have to have a Codex written for 5th to enjoy the game, then that means a lot of armies just won't get played. So it'll be years before I play 40K regularly like I did in 3rd and 4th edition. If GW changed their release process, that'd change, but I just don't see it.

It really has gotten to the point that the rules deficiencies have overcome my love of the background and miniatures.

There is one simple fact when it comes to wargaming: If a company stops tinkering with their game and essentially says "the game is done, that's it" then people consider the game 'dead' for some crazy reason and many, many people will instantly stop playing it.

That means, the nature of any long-standing wargame is that it MUST CHANGE in order to keep most of its players interested in the game and continually buying new things. It is just a simple fact that has to be accepted for a company to continue to stay in business AND for a single game to be continued to be played.

In order to keep this freshness and tactical change coming they have to update their core rules from time to time. When it comes to all their factions they have two main ways to proceed (there are other alternatives, but I don't know how financially viable they would be):

1) Change the rules while allowing the older codices to be produced (40K 4th & 5th edition).
2) Wipe out all the existing codices and print a get-you-by list for everything (40K 3rd edition).


While I think a whole lot veteran players (like myself) are really into the 2nd idea so that game balance is the most important factor, the reality is that it is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't scenario. When GW wiped out all the 2nd edition codices for the 3rd edition release there was a TON of people (especially casual gamers) who gnashed their teeth and HATED the fact that the codex they had bought for their army was no longer of any use.

Beyond that, codices are a marketing tool for the company to help sell their armies. When someone walks into a store, the sales guy can say: "come take a look at this codex to see how cool this army is". Having your game exist in stores without a good way to sell your armies is not a good gameplan for any company and because of that I think it is unlikely that GW will ever do such a thing again.

The other side consequence of what they did with 3rd edition is that they had to madly rush to get all their codices back in print. This severely compromised the quality of said codices. Go back and look at the third edition codices and notice just how threadbare they are. Again, this is a terrible position for GW to put themselves in because having a crappy codex is not a good way to introduce people to an army. If I'm really interested in playing Dark Angels, I want to be able to buy a book that tells me everything I really need to know about Dark Angels, not some flimsy little book that only contains a the briefest smidge of fluff on the army.


But coming back to the older armies being unplayable compared to the 5th edition codices. I think when you compare the top-tier hardest lists from these two types of codices together you are totally right. . .although with that said nearly every army does have some sort of back door build that is certainly still playable if you want to go down that route (3 Monolith Necrons CAN work with the right player in tournaments, for example).

However, if you're the kind of player who only likes to play the really hard lists and dominate in tournaments then you better damn well have accepted the fact that you're playing a game that is constantly in flux and that in order to remain completely competitive from time-to-time you're going to have to put one army on the backburner for a few years and play with something else.

If you're not that kind of player (arguably known as the 'silent majority') then the way they're doing the 5th edition changes works just fine because (for example) a casual Necron list does play fine against a casual Imperial Guard army. And I think that's the point. By keeping the existing codices around the majority of the casual games played can continue with maximum enjoyment.

Yakface: Can you give me an example of a game that was on top and stopped changing their rules that resulted in a 'dead game' that lost their market share? I don't believe that to be the case.

Changing rules isn't the only means of keeping a game fresh, nor keeping a particular company on top. For GW, I think a case can be made (as exemplified by GW's own actions), that it is the miniatures that sell the game. A steady stream of miniatures is one way to keep the game fresh. Other ways include releasing more background/fiction, creating factions that are easily slotted into existing rules, and new games using existing or new model lines that leverage existing IP.

Your response is well articulated, but I'm just not convinced constant rules changes are what keep people playing nor that a consistent rules set would make people stop playing.

As for the 3rd edition Codexes, GW could just as easily made them full of background (they certainly had plenty of that from the previous two editions) and introduced the few different units after play testing. In the example of Dark Angels you used, that would be the special characters, the Deathwing squads and Ravenwing. Two or three months of playtesting (perhaps at the same time as another marine codex such as Blood Angels or Space Wolves) should have sufficed to put out a Codex that would have met your requirements.

Codex escalation is not new to me. I'm no longer the kind of player that enjoys it. What keeps me from playing more casual games is the seemingly arbitrary rules changes that seem to not be though out at all. Change for change's sake just isn't a great model for a game that requires so much time and thought.

Again, thanks for the well reasoned response.

Edit: BTW, I to would be nice to have an edition have all of its armies done before changing editions. For example, the trial vehicle and assault rules in 3rd edition, the change in Codex builds for the last 3 codexes in 4th edition are examples of changing things mid-edition.

Second edit: homonyms fixed

Hmm... new edition of rules every 4 years. 2 codex revisits per year (maybe 3). 8 imperial and 7 non-imperial codex... Minimum 5 years to cyle through all but guaranteed the SM codex will get rebuilt first with new version release... At best, GW will cover 12 codexes in the lifetime of an edition of the core rules. At worst, they get through half of them in the life of that core. Major change to core + 50% of codexes behind the times = unbalanced codexes guaranteed.


I am an old 40k player and with some means so tabling an army for 2+ years is not a big deal. I will pull out another of my armies and thoroughly enjoy playing it.

My concern is with the young player with some limit on their cash. They come in all bright eyed and excited to learn a new game. They take their lumps as they learn tactics and accumulate more options for their army of choice. Then one day the light goes on... their favorite army is a 3rd tier in the current environment. Having sunk $$$ in this army with little chance of success, they show up less often and finally you don't see them at all.

Changes do push sales but if you sell to guys like me and turn off 3 out of 4 young players... (5 to 8 year rotation for "fixing" your one codex does not cut it in a 12 to 17 year olds' eyes.) How much will you be selling in 5 years? 10 years?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Once GW their their thumbs out and update all the legacy codex's to 5th edition, THEN they can work on updating the 5th Rulebook, because lets face it, Quite a bit of the rulebook is clunky because it has to accommodate for the old codex's.

I don't think GW should have the Rulebook held hostage by a handful of obsolete Codices. The Codices can be FAQd or updated or Squatted, because these affect relatively few people, whereas the Rulebook affects everyone.

And that's the very point - GW doesn't accomodate the older Codices, which is why they don't work as well under the current Rulebook. But the newer Codices (which cover most of the player base) are generally fine. Yes, Lash is a problem, but that doesn't invalidate the Rulebook, nor the Codex.

I agree. To say that 5th e isn't well made because the newer rules don't mesh with older codexes is not a reason not to like 5th. Are there some rules I don't care for? yes. but overall 5th is the best edition so far along the lines of fluid gameplay and plain ole fun. you can't expect GW to accomodate old codexes that, like johnhwangdd said, not many players really use.

Regarding universal rules and racial special rules. Instead of putting them all in the back of the rulebook, why not just ask the person youre playing about their armies special rules. What is he gonna say, no? I tell my opponents about mob rule and waaagh and whatnot before we make our armies so everythings clear, and people I play grant me the same courtesy with their rules. Seems to me people are overblowing the whole thing, to get rid of special racial rules would make for an incredibly vanilla game.

DAaddict wrote:Changes do push sales but if you sell to guys like me and turn off 3 out of 4 young players... (5 to 8 year rotation for "fixing" your one codex does not cut it in a 12 to 17 year olds' eyes.) How much will you be selling in 5 years? 10 years?

That's an easy one, the teenagers will be in their 20s then, and (at the risk of sounding overly cynical) they will sell to new teenagers...

EDIT: @ Yakface

I completely agree with your points on obsolecence by design. Having been in the hobby for years I have seen this pattern. I sold almost all of my armies at the onset of 5th edition and nearly started from scratch. My friend who is clinging to his older armies (the Eldar and Dark Eldar player) is not a younger player, and he has a tough time painitng, skill wise and vision wise. We actually painted the (great looking) armies together and he refuses to let them go, like I liquidated mine because of it.

Not everyone is ready, or financialy or artisticly capable of dropping and restarting everything like this though.

That said, I think there might be a silver lining, and that is, when the 5th ed codex gets re written for Eldar (any 4th ed. army) they could go from being outdated to being "UBER" in one swoop. Which is why I think the new dexes couldn't come soon enough!

This isn't new to 40k even, (remember the archaic Ork dex before the current dex?) and my heart goes out to anyone sitting on a 4e dex, because they love the army and are having a tough time in 5e! Hold on to those minis, it might be a while but one day, the dex will come out again and then you'll be ready!

yakface wrote:I would say that the actual 5th edition codices fully embrace the new rules

There is one simple fact when it comes to wargaming: If a company stops tinkering with their game and essentially says "the game is done, that's it" then people consider the game 'dead' for some crazy reason and many, many people will instantly stop playing it.

If you're not that kind of player (arguably known as the 'silent majority') then the way they're doing the 5th edition changes works just fine because (for example) a casual Necron list does play fine against a casual Imperial Guard army. And I think that's the point. By keeping the existing codices around the majority of the casual games played can continue with maximum enjoyment.

Excellent points, and generally agreed.

The 5E Codices are generally good a doing what GW wants them to do. The problem is that isn't necessarily what many players want them to do, due to the flexibility and lack of focus in previous editions. And this is primarily concentrated in the oldest armies from 2E.

"Evolve or die" is a fact of gaming. Nothing shiny = death. I, for one, don't want to go back.

I think the "casual" vs "competitive" thing is important, because GW really is writing for the casual crowd more than ever, and leaving the competitive gamers to fend for themselves, as they generally will do.
____

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Can you give me an example of a game that was on top and stopped changing their rules that resulted in a 'dead game' that lost their market share?

I'm just not convinced constant rules changes are what keep people playing nor that a consistent rules set would make people stop playing.

Edit: BTW, I to would be nice to have an edition have all of its armies done before changing editions.

For example, the trial vehicle and assault rules in 3rd edition, the change in Codex builds for the last 3 codexes in 4th edition are examples of changing things mid-edition.

Confrontation seems to have largely died during their changeover from 1E to 2E. Though qualifying with "on top" really narrows things, though I guess we could look at Avalon Hill / Steve Jackson Games. Those guys were huge in the 80s and early 90s, but hardly a whisper today.

If rules were allowed to stagnate as you suggest, we'd be trying (and failing) to play games of 2E with 2x or 3x the minis that the rules would support. It would be horrible, despite having nice, new 5E minis.

Having "all" armies done each edition only works if you have a few, basic armies. For example, if 40k kept to the original RT lineup of SM, Guard, Orks, Eldar, Nids, & Chaos then it's a sustainable thing. But 40k has a lot more than that.

Having to carry lots of rule changes or "optional" rules is a pain and generates some confusion as to which rules are in force. Having a new single rulebook every 4 years is easier.
____

DAaddict wrote:Hmm... new edition of rules every 4 years. 2 codex revisits per year (maybe 3). 8 imperial and 7 non-imperial codex... Minimum 5 years to cyle through all but guaranteed the SM codex will get rebuilt first with new version release... At best, GW will cover 12 codexes in the lifetime of an edition of the core rules. At worst, they get through half of them in the life of that core. Major change to core + 50% of codexes behind the times = unbalanced codexes guaranteed.

My concern is with the young player with some limit on their cash.

That's about right: 4 year cycle for each edition, 10-12 Codices (4-6 tier 1, 4-6 tier 2) per edition, 4-6 Codices not updated each edition. But while up to 50% of the Codices will be old, that will affect much less than 50% of the players. Beacuse the player:Codex balance isn't uniform, and many players have multiple armies, I would guess that upwards of 80%, perhaps 90% of the players will be up-to-date during this timeframe.

Young players only play for a few years before getting out. GW gets the cash, and the young player simply doesn't stick around long enough for Codex age to be a problem. If he stays for a while, most likely, he starts a second army. And even if he doesn't, most likely, he picked Marines, which always gets a new Codex. Or another major list like Eldar / Orks / Chaos / Guard / Nids, which also get regular updates, so again, not a big deal.
____

Augustus wrote:That said, I think there might be a silver lining, and that is, when the 5th ed codex gets re written for Eldar (any 4th ed. army) they could go from being outdated to being "UBER" in one swoop.

my heart goes out to anyone sitting on a 4e dex, because they love the army and are having a tough time in 5e! Hold on to those minis, it might be a while but one day, the dex will come out again and then you'll be ready!

As an Eldar player, I'm counting on it!

Me too (counting on Eldar), I'm actually having fun structuring IG armies to meet the power builds of the day.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Yakface: Can you give me an example of a game that was on top and stopped changing their rules that resulted in a 'dead game' that lost their market share? I don't believe that to be the case.

Changing rules isn't the only means of keeping a game fresh, nor keeping a particular company on top. For GW, I think a case can be made (as exemplified by GW's own actions), that it is the miniatures that sell the game. A steady stream of miniatures is one way to keep the game fresh.

I can't think of any hobby game that is no longer supported that continues to be played by a large audience.

Examples I can think of would be pretty much any game that GW stopped supporting. . .everything in their specialist range, for example. As soon as they stopped making 'new stuff' for these games on a regular basis a large chunk of the players stopped playing the games. You hear it all the time in game stores and see it on the internet, a game is considered "dead" if the company no longer makes new expansions/product for it as though the idea of playing a game that you (apparently) loved in its current form is some horrible fate! Sure there are always a few die-hards who keep playing the game but for the most part once those rules expansions stop coming for a game the mass audience always dries up.

Now, I know you're saying that GW could theoretically keep supporting a game just by releasing new miniatures for it while keeping the exact same rules for the game. Has that ever been tried before to your knowledge (by any company)?

I can't realistically imagine that would work. Sure we've all bought new models because we love them but how excited would you really be about re-sculpts if there wasn't something new or interesting about the army to try out at the same time?

I know for my part, I almost never replace old models and I never get rid of armies. I just keep 'em packed away and when a new codex comes out I buy the models I want to play the army the way I want to play it for that edition. If there were no changes in the rules I would probably never buy any new models for 40K again and I don't think I'm alone on that one.

Other ways include releasing more background/fiction, creating factions that are easily slotted into existing rules, and new games using existing or new model lines that leverage existing IP.

Personally I don't think releasing new background or fiction alone would spurs enough new miniature sales. Does it spur some sales? Sure, but I'd wager not enough to keep a giant company like GW in business.

Your other two suggestions are good ideas but I don't think either of them is ultimately viable for the following reasons:

1) Adding new factions that use the same models only works to a certain point before you have a glut of factions for the game. At that point not only is the game amazingly intimidating to new players but at a certain point even vets will start to see that adding slightly different factions is just a boring marketing ploy to get you to buy different miniatures. Maybe you feel differently, but I really don't want 6 different Eldar factions, 12 Marine factions, 4 IG factions, etc.


2) Creating new games using existing models lines is an interesting one but again you run the risk of people thinking your original (main) game is 'dead' and choose to stop playing it (it will be interesting to see what happens with the LOTR strategy battle game now that WotR is out, although I never really saw the Strategy Battle Game played in stores anyway!). Also, there is only so much space in stores and on shelves to release new games. In a way, the 'expansions' GW puts out currently is kind of like this idea except that they all use the core rules of 40K to start with.

But if you are never updating your core game anymore that means you're going to have to keep coming out with new games using the existing models. This might work okay for a while but how long before you have like twenty games that are all roughly similar to the average consumer? You walk into a game store and the clerk explains that you have twenty different games to choose from that all use the same minis? How would you know what to pick up and how would you know what people are playing in the back room? I think the whole idea essentially collapses under its own weight over time.


GW has managed to stay relevant IMO because they keep a FEW games constantly running. Yes the rules constantly change over time but this gives people who like the games something new to constantly strive for and master. It gives people new reasons to buy new models for their existing armies and it makes sure that even if someone drops out of the hobby for a while there is still something vaguely recognizable for them to return to 10-20 years down the road (but with new challenges to then master and newer cooler models to buy).

Obviously the negative to this model is that people who really like to have a power army but don't want to spend the money to update their army every few years are really left out in the cold (as you clearly have been). But I firmly believe this is a necessary evil for the good of the hobby in general.

Augustus wrote:
Not everyone is ready, or financialy or artisticly capable of dropping and restarting everything like this though.

Absolutely, as I said above, this is definitely an issue but one I feel is necessary to the hobby as a whole.

And as I mentioned a few posts ago, I do think that if you like to play casually against casual friends you can, for the most part, keep your army as-is over edition changes and still have a fighting chance to win games with your existing models.

It really only is a problem if you've got those hyper-competitive friends who like to play with the hot new tough tourney lists and you're the guy who bought one of those tough lists at the time thinking you'd be able to dominate forever. But I really put that on the friends in that case. Those guys knew you have to constantly tweak and swap armies to stay at the top but they didn't tell their friend when they convinced him to start playing.

yakface wrote:

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Yakface: Can you give me an example of a game that was on top and stopped changing their rules that resulted in a 'dead game' that lost their market share? I don't believe that to be the case.

Changing rules isn't the only means of keeping a game fresh, nor keeping a particular company on top. For GW, I think a case can be made (as exemplified by GW's own actions), that it is the miniatures that sell the game. A steady stream of miniatures is one way to keep the game fresh.

I can't think of any hobby game that is no longer supported that continues to be played by a large audience.

But that's not what Dal'yth said Yak. He said stopped changing rules, not lost support. There's a difference. BattleTech has only done minor updates to their rules over the past 25 years, and their fanbase has been increasing. It is a supported game, but it is not a game with constantly changing rules based on some inane pendulum method.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
I can't think of any hobby game that is no longer supported that continues to be played by a large audience.

But that's not what Dal'yth said Yak. He said stopped changing rules, not lost support. There's a difference. BattleTech has only done minor updates to their rules over the past 25 years, and their fanbase has been increasing. It is a supported game, but it is not a game with constantly changing rules based on some inane pendulum method.

yakface wrote:From my experiences the amount of people who I ever see playing Battletech has always been very low. And from my understanding of BattleTech history wasn't there some point when the company was doing very well and where they were releasing expansions all the time and then the company went under? At that point didn't a large chunk of the fan-base stop playing (or am I mis-remembering)?

I'd argue that their player-base is no smaller nor larger than most of the 'successful' games. I don't know a soul who plays historical games, nor D&D for that matter, and they've been going strong for a long, long time.

But, and this is without attempting to derail the thread, let me give you the brief brief short version on BTech:

1. BTech is launched as 'BattleDroids'.
2. George Lucas gets his panties in a twist and orders them to change the name.
3. Year later BattleTech comes out.
4. BTech establishes itself as an iconic game, party because of the images and Mecha taken from various Japanese sources, and also through things like computer games (one of the first PC games on CD I ever got was MechWarrior 2 - and who doesn't know what an Atlas or a Timber Wolf is?).
5. (This is the strange one) The heads of FASA, at the time, come to the conclusion that there's no future in their line of business, and decide to shut the company down. People often mistake this for FASA going out of business. Well... they did go out of business but they chose to. As I said, it's a strange one.
6. This sends Ral Partha out of business as they had gone from a model making company to a symbiotic company that needed FASA to stay afloat. So there was one company that died out of this, but it wasn't FASA.
7. Jordan Wiseman, one of the original creators of BTech, buys the rights and starts Wizkids. He makes BTech into a collectable miniature game in line with his MageKnight line.
8. This is where you see the reduction in players. BTech hadn't change anything in all those years - the rules had been tweaked and whatnot, but there hadn't been any wholesale paradigm shifts ala 40K 2nd Ed to 3rd Ed.
9. BattleTech, as we know it, becomes Classic BattleTech, bought by a German company called FanPro. A lot of old FASA people work there and continue to put new products out.
10. Wizkids is bought by Topps somewhere during this.
11. Classic BattleTech gets transferred to Catalyst Game Labs, they release many new products, starting with Total Warfare, the first major upgrade/revision to the BTech rules. Now that was a FanPro product, but it got its big boost when Catalyst came on board. Still, the rules are the same. At that point it becomes a case of 'BTech isn't dead - it's just been very quiet until now'.
12. There is a product explosion, with new sourcebooks and rulebooks/expansions coming out several times a year (books 10 times the size of any GW product, with about 100 times the polish, but coming out at the same rate as GW). This includes the Origin-winning Intro Boxed set.
13. Wizkids goes out of business. Topps scuttles the company.
14. BTech, now in its 25th year (this year), changes from Classic BattleTech back to just BattleTech again.

There were certainly lows during the 25 years it’s been around, but the strange part is there was never a point where the game stopped or ended and had to be picked up again. The Wizkids/Dark Age crap alienated a lot of fans - myself included - but BTech had always survived on the loyalty of its players and word of mouth - they couldn't open their own chain stores and I doubt they would do anyway. BTech never actually died due to a company going out of business, it just jumped between a couple of different companies with a slower release sched than others would have liked. It has since taken that production into overdrive the past few years thanks to Catalyst's involvement and (it seems) Topps' happiness to let them do what they want. The only thing that could/might kill BTech is now what happens with Topps. If they sell the rights to someone else, then it's anyone's guess as to what happens next. As it stands, when Topps put them up for sale, the interest in the BTech and Shadowrun properties was so high that Topps decided to withdraw them from sale and hold onto them, re-licensing it to Catalyst rather than just selling it outright.

And that's the short short version.

(1) It makes outdated codices diadvantaged
(2) It makes the core rules in the basic book meaningless, where in the basic book does it explain:
Chapter Tactics
Combat Squads
Orders etc.
Will even one army survive the codex rewrites that actually uses the morale rules as written in the core book? What is the point of instant death for example, everything one would like to instant death is now immune to it with Eternal Warrior/hive mind it seems...
(3) It makes the game a convoluted mess, where a player has to own and bring every codex with him all the time to have the whole rule set.

The biggest pains in the neck (complexity and unusual situations) in the last set of rules were arguably unique powers, for example: We'll be back, Monolith, Faith Points, Daemon dex etc.

Until all the codices are published, who knows what 5th is really going to be like, and until your new dex comes out armies seem like they will be really disadvantaged. I think the real 5th edition, has yet to surface, 6th is already being written, right now, in each new codex.

What say you?

I don't believe that the latest codexs are changing the rules edition, the core rules remain the same, which are 5th edition. Though so far I have been impressed with all the latest codex releases I've purchased, except Chaos Marines. They seem wishy washy and still follow the ridgit codex formats of 4th edition. When I say this I mean they don't have any fancy rules or unique army abilites like chapter tactics or orders. Chaos just have normal hq's and normal other units with normal upgrades.

Though to answer the points:

1. I agree. Older codexs like Necrons and Tyranids which I used to play and have dropped both armies suffer against the latest breed of codexs and new rule set. Some can still hold there own better than others, but like the updated codexs they don't have anything unique to the army, just here's your army list etc.

2. I can't see how unique army abilities need to be in the main rule book like and they shall know no fear used to be in 4th. The core rules are the core rules for the game, no point in listing army rules as some people might not be interested in them and plus they are rules for that army, not for the game itself. However flip side to the coin is people are both aware how certain rules work i.e We'll be back and Synapse creature.

3. Why does the player need to own every codex, as mentioned those rules are unique to that army. There is little benefit to having all rules if your not going to use them or play with them all the time. Currently I've played Dark Eldar once, there is no point for me to know there rules as I don't play them nor play against them. I think with army rules it is the players responsbility to explain the rule or let the other player read the codex. TBH the latest army special rules are quite simple as they really are using part of the core rules i.e ork mob rule = fearless, orders allows say 2D6 to run or twin linked. These are simple core rules what the average player should know. Its quite easy to say this order (for imperial guard) allows me twin linked against tanks and monstrous creatures. I don't think everyone needs to be aware of that when can be easily explained.

I agree that the older codexs had more complicated rules and systems such as WBB and faith points as mentioned, the new codexs have more of these army special rules but they are a lot easier to follow.

5th edition will start coming more into its own when the main races codexs are updated. We 5th edition being more streamlined and IMO easier to play than 4th the new codexs go hand in hand with it and make a much better and interesting game. Though, until we get a few more of these updates codexs the games is one sided for the newer codexs and the army special rules work better.

Gwar! wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:$50 new rulebook aside, I cannot wait for 6th edition.

Yes, because the edition change is the reason newer codex's are more powerful...

What?

How will a 6th edition rulebook make ANY difference to your "Nerfed" Chaos Codex?

Maybe it was somehow unclear, but I want a new edition. Not just a new rulebook, but everything that comes with a new edition i.e. new codexes. THAT would fix my "Nerfed" Chaos Codex. The problem I was mentioning is the fact that we'd all have to pay more for slightly different rules. Again.

The new generation of codexes are the imbalanced part. What's another name of "generation" for a set of rules? Edition. Thanks.

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:$50 new rulebook aside, I cannot wait for 6th edition.

Yes, because the edition change is the reason newer codex's are more powerful...

What?

How will a 6th edition rulebook make ANY difference to your "Nerfed" Chaos Codex?

Maybe it was somehow unclear, but I want a new edition. Not just a new rulebook, but everything that comes with a new edition i.e. new codexes. THAT would fix my "Nerfed" Chaos Codex. The problem I was mentioning is the fact that we'd all have to pay more for slightly different rules. Again.

The new generation of codexes are the imbalanced part. What's another name of "generation" for a set of rules? Edition. Thanks.

Ah, I see. Well, to be honest, with some codex's pushing 10+ Years, I highly Doubt GW will release a new 6th edition until they update all the Legacy Codex's. Of course thats me being optimistic (i.e. Wishlisting )

That's why I can see the possibility of a bunch of lists in the back of the book for a little while. It's not a pleasant option, but honestly it's ridiculous that Dark Eldar are still playing with a 3rd edition book and Space Marines get redone first (or close to it) every edition.

Besides, how many pages of background do I really need? I can find all the painting information I need online, and the fluff sections are beginning to look familiar from edition to edition. It's not a huge problem to shell out $20ish so that I can play my army, but if I could pay for just the rules I'd be happier.

Disclaimer: The above is fantasy land. I know that it will never occur as long as profit matters. It's just my reaction to a set of constantly updated rules that seems tangled to me.

Yak, I agree with most of what you and others have said regarding rules updates keeping interest (and also necessary to sell product to keep GW running given the nature of their game systems). However, for me, it is not that GW puts out new rules it is the way they are released. For example, if you play an army that is 3rd or 4th edition codex, you might be at a disadvantage fighting newer codices. When you finally (hopefully) get a new 5th edition codex (perhaps after many years) so that your army is better (hopefully) able to play against the other 5th edition codices it is painful to then have a new edition of the main rulebook come out 6months to a year after your codex and screw up the new codex. Going by the posts saying that a new main rulebook comes out about every 4-5 years, with the rate codices are updated some will not get updated and others will have short lived 'happy days' before once again being outdated. GW should either put more effort into updating all the codices faster after a new main rulebooks to allow players to have more years of happy gaming. Another way is for GW to use White Dwarf and/or its website to provide minor quick fixes/updates for a codex that has become outdated. This would not cover all changes so a new codex will still be desired, but it will provide players with some fixes to keep their codex/favourite army more playable until the new codex is released (maybe years away). For example, the tyranid codex could have a few simple fixes to bring it more in line with other 5th ed codices such as knocking a few points off hormagaunts and allowing them to go to second stories or buildings, dropping the cost of raveners and lictors, etc. The major work would be done in the next codex perhaps with new models/units. this would keep players playing these armies and want to use/buy other models since they would still be worthwhile.