First off, this is not meant to talk about any one particular release. My question is: do you think warhammer 40k is getting "too many" releases?

Individually, I like most of what I've seen. I'm just worried that before too long, we'll need a dozen books to play a single game. Already, we can take an Imperial Guard army (codex) using a Baneblade (escalation) and forgeworld models (imperial armour) with inquisition support (digital codex), allied to a Chaos Space Marine army (codex) led by Be'Lakor (digital release). This will only become more and more common as we get more mini-codices, individual special character updates, and supplements.

Obviously, no one is saying that we need to buy every release GW puts out. But as someone who likes to know what's in every army, I'm starting to feel overwhelmed. What are your thoughts?

Yep. GW has figured out that it's better to have lots of releases and sell you a codex in several easy payments of $49.99 than to make a codex that includes your entire army. If this "buy a unit for $4" plan succeeds then you can expect a lot more of the same in the future.

Yup, I agree. Its getting pretty silly nowadays.

Kind of a shame. Companies like Spartan Games are releasing their fleet books for Firestorm Armada for free, where you just have to pay for the rulebook.

It's getting a bit much, 40k is going to rival even the bigist RPGs for books soon it feels like it.
And it will make it harder on new players trying to work out what they need to start.

Disagree it is getting silly - but it is getting more spread out. I imagine at some point in the future they will re-sell a compilation book of each of these small things that are coming out.

Quite honest I love it. We play the game a lot around here and enjoy it all. I love that it is constantly changing.

I will admit I would like to see all the rules that are being released in these small supplements to be centralized at some point - but I can wait for that.

I have no complaints, I love it. I got a sisters codex that rocks, My Imperial Fists are loving life. The inquisitor one I haven't messed with in a game yet, but I love the fluff. Haven't cracked Clan Raukaan in a match yet. Biggest part that won me over was all the fluff. So far GW has hit every one of my armies with a supplement or codex.

Releases keep the game fresh and the meta evolving. The information in each new release is available online within hours of its release. I don't see a problem?

If releases like Be'lakor are going to become common, it will be pretty much impossible to keep up. A product like the old Chapter Appeoved compilations would be nice to help keep things straight, if it comes to that.

 tomjoad wrote:
If releases like Be'lakor are going to become common, it will be pretty much impossible to keep up. A product like the old Chapter Appeoved compilations would be nice to help keep things straight, if it comes to that.

Well these are only for Advent, I assume they'll release some sort of compilation rules pack once crimbo is over.

GW decided that game balance (and not prices) has been standing in the way of sales, so it was abandonned and some armies got flyers, anti-air, allies, plastic super heavies, and other armies haven't. It is now a labyrinth of pay to win releases with a flood of no-effort copy-paste products, that last only a few months until you have to pay for the minor update rules. Some people are happy with it, doesn't work for me though.

I'm just glad our GW manager understands how silly the massed amount of expansions are and lets everyone see his store copy whenever they need to so we can enjoy a relaxing game of cities of death or soon to be the new escalation without having to fork over more money to GW greed unless we are playing at one of our buddys houses and need to look up the rules.

EDIT: really bad spelling

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Releases keep the game fresh and the meta evolving. The information in each new release is available online within hours of its release. I don't see a problem?

Only if the stuff was free then yeah sure whatever.
But having all of these at $4 is just a big no no for me...

In contrast to some, I don't think the sky is falling with these releases. I don't think that there is too much content, though I think that things are a bit sloppy right now. GW is stepping into new territory right now and they're going to make some mistakes before tightening things up. Whether this will come in the form of compilations or some other method, I don't really care to speculate on the specifics.

Economics aside, there is clearly an intent and push to make the game more modular and diverse than it has been in the past. People like options, so GW is giving people more options. We're getting new ways to build armies, new ways to combine armies, new ways to use units, new ways to play the game, and new units themselves.

I don't think that a large volume of books to deal with will be a problem for the average gamer, since everything used is going to be brought to the table by whoever is using these supplements, and you don't need the supplements you don't plan on using. Where the concern seems to lie is with competitive players who want to have as firm a grasp on all options out there and the best way to utilize an increasing number of options. Is this a new problem, though? We've always had a lot of codexes, and either you were already spending a lot of money buying them or you were reading the contents from friends or some other means. If it becomes more of a problem, I expect internet guides and the like to rise in popularity, and I think they'd adequately address the need to know.

Ultimately, I'm positive about these changes. Looking past a few kinks in the system, this expansion of the hobby experience is something I've desired, and that I welcome.

I feel that GWs current release practices are indicating something is going to happen in the future (company sold, game implodes, etc). By the end of next year practically every codex will be updated at this pace - what do they release then? Supplements and special addition books? They are already releasing these in the mix now. The game is spiraling out of control. It is like GW are trying to grab as much cash as possible before the house of cards tumbles down.

Maybe I'm missing something but the long term plan seems unsustainable. Maybe each army will get a codex version 2 in this edition - so 2 years after DA came out they get DA version 2 for 6th edition to bring it up to speed with the latest codex releases and so on - fast cash for GW until players are saturated and don't want to pay any more.

Since I've played in 4th edition, it has been clear that GW does not do things in 40K for the players (that is make a good game where every army is strong - errata the obvioulsy broken/poorly written rules/units).

Flooding the market with fast dex releases (which is a good thing if done right), supplements and expansions, etc, while jacking up the price repeatedly to ridiculous levels (I would never encourage anyone to start this game - I would tell them to run from GW as fast as they could go) does not seem to create a good long term situation for the game/players, IMO.

Waaah, theyre updating my game!

But seriously, all the new content is fantastic.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Releases keep the game fresh and the meta evolving. The information in each new release is available online within hours of its release. I don't see a problem?

Problem is that it is almost becoming so fast that by the time you are done an army it has now been invalidated by something better, forcing you to buy more to stay current.

My only issue is the time-gap between the electronic supplements and the hard copies. I prefer hard copies and I don't like waiting 3-4 months to get what the other guy already has in electronic form.

I personally don't feel like the the number or speed of the releases is too much, it's the fact that it's coming from some many different places. It's hard to keep track of what possible Dataslates, supplements, expansions, etc., are available to a player when that information isn't hosted in one place. If they'd just provide a list of what supplements/data slates work with what armies it would be a lot easier to figure all this out.

While I like new content and the speed of updates, and applaud GW for taking a new direction here, the price is absurd for most of these things, and the random and unannounced nature of these releases makes it very difficult to plan for or keep up with such releases.

I can't imagine what being a TO is going to be like next year when it could be entirely possible that a player may show up with a core rulebook, two codex books, two supplement books, an INQ book, the Escalation book, two different Imperial Armour books, and the Stronghold book to run a legal 1750pt army.

Given the olden days of months with no relevant releases, I've been super stoked to see Games Workshop put their production schedule into something like a regular cycle. If anything, I just wish they would put up some relevant FAQs, rather than slow down their releases.

 Ravenous D wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Releases keep the game fresh and the meta evolving. The information in each new release is available online within hours of its release. I don't see a problem?

Problem is that it is almost becoming so fast that by the time you are done an army it has now been invalidated by something better, forcing you to buy more to stay current.

Could you please provide an example of this?

I'd like to pull a Rip Van Winkle, go to sleep, wake up when the IG Codex comes out and then try to build my army then.

orkybenji wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Releases keep the game fresh and the meta evolving. The information in each new release is available online within hours of its release. I don't see a problem?

Problem is that it is almost becoming so fast that by the time you are done an army it has now been invalidated by something better, forcing you to buy more to stay current.

Could you please provide an example of this?

Codex inquisition invalidating white scars against 90% of people.

My only issue with the releases is that they are not all created equal.
Compare the Iyanden, Black Legion, Farsight Enclave, and Inquistion Dex to each other.

You hardly ever hear about Iyanden being used, since it barely offered anything to eldar players they didn't already have, or was more competitive than what they currently fielded.

Chaos, an army book in dire straits, also didn't bat an eye at the release of black legion. It's garbage, there is nothing in there worth taking and it makes the list worse if anything. The only 'upside' (and dear god, this is not an upside for the game as whole, just a power up for the dex) is that you can now field an additional heldrake.

Farsight Enclave has become a common feature, though not a requirement for the game as a whole. It's nice for Tau to be allied to themselves for additional SC's, suits, and a Riptide, but it's arguably not as effective as allying to Eldar or even Marines.

Now Inquisition is almost mandatory in a competitive list. Roughly 50 pts to laugh at infiltration and scouts, not to mention the divination access and the fact it doesn't count as an actual ally, means that you are only handicapping yourself by not buying this supplement.

I posted them in a timeline (roughly) and you will notice they get more competitive as time goes on, from worthless to mandatory. I believe GW has realized that supplements ONLY sell if they are powerful (not like dexes, where people will buy Chaos or Nids dex regardless just to use their armies), so I would expect their power levels to continue to raise the stakes in this game.

Hi as a total novice, who got in to this by liking to paint cool models, I find making the step in to playing a game very daunting. If it were just a rule book and a codex, but now with all the supliments, hows a quy ever going to find his feet before the earth move again.

 Ravenous D wrote:

orkybenji wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Releases keep the game fresh and the meta evolving. The information in each new release is available online within hours of its release. I don't see a problem?

Problem is that it is almost becoming so fast that by the time you are done an army it has now been invalidated by something better, forcing you to buy more to stay current.

Could you please provide an example of this?

Codex inquisition invalidating white scars against 90% of people.

How so if you don't mind me asking? Because of the divination?

 Ravenous D wrote:

orkybenji wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Releases keep the game fresh and the meta evolving. The information in each new release is available online within hours of its release. I don't see a problem?

Problem is that it is almost becoming so fast that by the time you are done an army it has now been invalidated by something better, forcing you to buy more to stay current.

Could you please provide an example of this?

Codex inquisition invalidating white scars against 90% of people.

And my Striking Scorpions, though I'll willingly agree that compared to the trials of White Scars players, my problem is nothing. Seriously. For about thirty-something points you can completely invalidate an entire approach to list building.

I never called anything really broken in WH40K before (no, I've never complained about RipTides, et al.). But the Inquisition Codex is terrible! And with upcoming D-weapons in regular 40K probably, that's probably going to be the second thing that makes me want to wring GW's collective necks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PandaMango141 wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Codex inquisition invalidating white scars against 90% of people.

How so if you don't mind me asking? Because of the divination?

No. Servo Skulls. They cost a few points each and prevent any infiltration and scout moves within range. You can get three per inquisitor and if you space them across the middle of the table before deployment, you can pretty much render White Scar's entire schtick worthless. Other units from other armies, too.

They're good for deep strikes and other things, too. You're going to see inquisitors everywhere soon. Significant force multiplyer if psychic, the skulls have the aforementioned consequences, and the whole bundle costs a pittance.

to be fair, the whole white scars "scout up, oh look I'm in immediate optimum range for everything turn 1" thing probably deserved a bit of a knockback

I'll just add my main objection (other than the power creep which others have noted). In order to really play WH40K properly, you need to know what your opponent can field, what those things can do, etc. Well that's not too bad when there's a handful of army rule books, and if they come out not one every other week. You can learn over time, you can borrow someone's codex for a couple of nights, you can hang out on a forum for a few days and learn... But when there's a constant stream of bitty rules coming from all directions, how are you supposed to know what you might come up against or what you're facing is really capable of? It all starts to turn into a guessing game and that's anathema to strategy fans.

6th edition 40K is already at a point where it matches what people said about the times of 3rd and 4th edition, with too much material required to field armies, when they had WD articles, Chapter Approved compilations, Codexes and Supplemental material to carry around for the game.

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like new content and the speed of updates, and applaud GW for taking a new direction here, the price is absurd for most of these things, and the random and unannounced nature of these releases makes it very difficult to plan for or keep up with such releases.

I can't imagine what being a TO is going to be like next year when it could be entirely possible that a player may show up with a core rulebook, two codex books, two supplement books, an INQ book, the Escalation book, two different Imperial Armour books, and the Stronghold book to run a legal 1750pt army.

Oh my god, $4 for a supplement will really break the bank.

It's the price of a bloody coffee.

You play Death Korps of Krieg and you're complaining about the cost of stuff GW puts out?

 kronk wrote:
My only issue is the time-gap between the electronic supplements and the hard copies. I prefer hard copies and I don't like waiting 3-4 months to get what the other guy already has in electronic form.

Totally agree, this is my main gripe too. The quarter lag between digital and hardcopy release is irritating. As is the quasi-uncertainty if certain digital releases will go to hardcopy or not.

Here's to hoping they do "Chapter Approved" books like in days past.


I've played modular release games before, so the modular content i actually really like.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like new content and the speed of updates, and applaud GW for taking a new direction here, the price is absurd for most of these things, and the random and unannounced nature of these releases makes it very difficult to plan for or keep up with such releases.

I can't imagine what being a TO is going to be like next year when it could be entirely possible that a player may show up with a core rulebook, two codex books, two supplement books, an INQ book, the Escalation book, two different Imperial Armour books, and the Stronghold book to run a legal 1750pt army.

Oh my god, $4 for a supplement will really break the bank.

It's the price of a bloody coffee.

You play Death Korps of Krieg and you're complaining about the cost of stuff GW puts out?

I think you are missing the idea.

GW will purposely leave units out of future books only to release them DLC style. Essentially raising the cost of a codex by $10 or more. And requiring these items to "know thy enemy" becomes increasingly annoying.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like new content and the speed of updates, and applaud GW for taking a new direction here, the price is absurd for most of these things, and the random and unannounced nature of these releases makes it very difficult to plan for or keep up with such releases.

I can't imagine what being a TO is going to be like next year when it could be entirely possible that a player may show up with a core rulebook, two codex books, two supplement books, an INQ book, the Escalation book, two different Imperial Armour books, and the Stronghold book to run a legal 1750pt army.

Oh my god, $4 for a supplement will really break the bank.

It's the price of a bloody coffee.

You play Death Korps of Krieg and you're complaining about the cost of stuff GW puts out?

$4 for a single model that already existed and they chose to charge separately for instead of update normally (at least from the fantasy end) or $7 for both, is kinda silly. We really don't want to incentivize this sort of thing, where they leave stuff out and charge extra for it later.

On the pricing itself, $33 for the INQ codex is silly when other companies release similar material for free, $50 for a print copy of a supplement is absolutely absurd when you can get books with 10x the material and 5x the pagecount for other game systems is absurd.

One will notice the rules for a DKoK Siege regiment are currently available as a free PDF And the book that contains rules for a DKoK Assault Brigade is $80 but comes with two full army lists for Necrons and the DKoK, along with extra units and for Codex lists for Necrons and Space Marines along with Chapter -specific Minotaurs stuff, quite a bargain compared to GW's digital and print offerings these days. To say nothing of the fact that my DKoK infantry are cheaper than Dire Avengers these days

Long story short, don't encourage GW to find new ways to nickel and dime us.

 Ravenous D wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like new content and the speed of updates, and applaud GW for taking a new direction here, the price is absurd for most of these things, and the random and unannounced nature of these releases makes it very difficult to plan for or keep up with such releases.

I can't imagine what being a TO is going to be like next year when it could be entirely possible that a player may show up with a core rulebook, two codex books, two supplement books, an INQ book, the Escalation book, two different Imperial Armour books, and the Stronghold book to run a legal 1750pt army.

Oh my god, $4 for a supplement will really break the bank.

It's the price of a bloody coffee.

You play Death Korps of Krieg and you're complaining about the cost of stuff GW puts out?

I think you are missing the idea.

GW will purposely leave units out of future books only to release them DLC style. Essentially raising the cost of a codex by $10 or more. And requiring these items to "know thy enemy" becomes increasingly annoying.

Or just charge you per unit without bothering to give you a codex at all
Sorry for giving GW more ideas


Automatically Appended Next Post:
to add horrible ideas, very very horrible ideas.

6th edition already has a problem, a lack of compartmentalization between rules like allies, fortifications random objectives/terrain and then you add all this recent crap and it just kinda makes it worse, it adds to that pile of issues and only complicates things. In 5th you could simply say "Do you want to give planetstrike a try? How bout cities of death next time? " you could give either expansion a try, decide if you enjoy it and allow that to frame "what kind of game" you want to play more often than not. There's no doubt 40k is many things to many people, I'm sure we all have our preferences but the occasional firewall between the core game and various directions you can choose to take it would really help a lot, It would at least take a lot of politics out of it. I mean think about it, if you were to ask a few friends if they wanted to play apoc this weekend, that immediately has a certain connotation to it, super heavies, formations ect ect, generally high points on both sides; Basically an abnormally large game of 40k with a bunch of extra rules and stuff. Different from 40k, well, at least it used to be.

I would agree that the game has been complicated unnecessarily by these recently announced books and the revelation that somehow formations are now a part of "regular?" 40k. If they made an expansion similar to planetstrike all about scenarios with a lot of fortifications and gave it a proper name and called it an expansion flat out it would make things easier to stomach. The same for the super heavies, make an expansion, make that clear and boom, play it or don't, simple choice. The formations thing to me is just baffling though, it seems that anyone can just pay 3.99$ and of course the requisite hundreds of dollar on models, and be able to field a riptide and 6 broadsides that get tank hunter and preferred enemy marines for no additional point cost along with.. well.. whatever you want it seems. In fairness nid armies do tend to all have one weakness in common, a dreadful lack of riptides and or broadsides.

I mean, it's the old argument, anyone can refuse a game, and it’s really just one more nail in the coffin for pickup games if anything. I don’t think this stuff will negatively effect games against my regular opponents but the tournament scene is really gonna have to start thinking about doing some pretty obvious regulating.

The sadist part to me is that 40K is quickly loosing its identity. When you had each faction and whole armies inside that faction there was a little bit of personal pride. You could say I play "insert army here" with a little bit of pride. It was what helped define your interests as a player. But that hard edge is gone now. With the ability to mix 3 different factions into a single army, the game as a whole has lost its this vs that hard edge. Its no longer Blood Angles vs Eldar. Its a whole bunch of this and that against even more of these and those. The game has just lost quite a bit of definition in my eyes.

Honestly at this point, playing the game for me is meaningless. I play single factions because I feel that it defines the player. But all I see is allied formations, where fluff is thrown out the window and only stomping power remains. A situation where a single faction really has an uphill battle.

Is it really so challenging to figure out why factions would work together? There's no fluff-killing, just people who can't wrap their imagination around a new concept.

Really. Eldar, Tau, Inquisitors, and DE all can play in one team.

Thats not fluff... Thats... well whatever it is, it isn't fluff.

Also, its never fluff, when the only units being allied are the powerful ones. Funny how allied Space wolves never seem to bring "claws" with them. Its always rune priests and Grey hunters. Always. Kroot and stealth suits never show up in Tau allies either.

Some allies make fluff sense. Most don't and the allied matrix goes against most fluff ever written for the last 20 years. Which just strengthens my original point that GW has lost its definition, it is throwing away everything that made it what it is. When you say you can take anything, then there is nothing you can realistically call your own.

 Talore wrote:
Is it really so challenging to figure out why factions would work together? There's no fluff-killing, just people who can't wrap their imagination around a new concept.

There's working together, and then there's intensely xenophobic genetically engineered super soldier Space Marines being just as amiable to working with Tau as with the Imperial Guard

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Is it really so challenging to figure out why factions would work together? There's no fluff-killing, just people who can't wrap their imagination around a new concept.

There's working together, and then there's intensely xenophobic genetically engineered super soldier Space Marines being just as amiable to working with Tau as with the Imperial Guard

Fire Warrior video game, The Greater Good (IG/Tau,) excommunicated SM joining the cause of The Greater Good, the Damocles assault, etc. Numerous detailed examples of it happening, and many more that can be reasoned out. I stand by what I said earlier. Furthermore, just because the rules don't exclude all illogical combinations doesn't mean that they should then exclude all logical ones because No Fun Allowed.

alexh on Warseer, circa 2012 wrote:Page 40 in C:Space Marines, Ultramarines join forces with Tau to fight Necrons. Also, page 48 mentions that Marneus Calgar has a grudging respect for Tau.

No kroot being included as allies? Kroot are probably the most common troop being included with tau allies. Of course, that is because they are great and cheap, but at least it is fluffy with merc kroot

 Talore wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Is it really so challenging to figure out why factions would work together? There's no fluff-killing, just people who can't wrap their imagination around a new concept.

There's working together, and then there's intensely xenophobic genetically engineered super soldier Space Marines being just as amiable to working with Tau as with the Imperial Guard

Fire Warrior video game, The Greater Good (IG/Tau,) excommunicated SM joining the cause of The Greater Good, the Damocles assault, etc. Numerous detailed examples of it happening, and many more that can be reasoned out. I stand by what I said earlier. Furthermore, just because the rules don't exclude all illogical combinations doesn't mean that they should then exclude all logical ones because No Fun Allowed.

For the second time, I'm not saying such forces couldn't ally to face a particular threat, but making them Battle Brothers as standard makes zero sense, they're still foul Xenos that will inevitably be destroyed. Most of the examples you mentioned would not illustrate "Battle Brothers", perhaps allies of convenience at best, more probably desparate allies. You can probably come up with some example in 10,000 years where any level of ally level holds true at some point, but it's absurd to make that the standard.

Also Firewarrior was an awful game.

Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

For situations brought up by these new releases where you can have 3 or maybe even 4 factions working together, players ought to try just looking at it as an opportunity to explore new fluff or fanon rather than something to complain endlessly about. The game starts and ends with the players, so the players should make the best of these new tools.

Hodgepodge is a silly word. I'd rather say we're having a bandersnatch of releases, or a gobbledygook of releases, or in the immortal words of Bill Cosby, a zip zop zoopity bop of releases.

Anyway I tried new things once and it was just awful.

 Talore wrote:
Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

So in essence you're saying there should be no allies restrictions at all then basically? Everyone should be able to be battle brothers with everyone?

If yes, then we've just got a fundamental disagreement about how the game should interact with the fluff. If no, then there certainly isn't any reason why the Space Marines should be more eager to join with Tau than with, say, the Sisters of Battle. Let's not forget the Tau work ceaselessely to undermine the Eastern Fringe while the SM's took part in a crusade which, if successful, would have led to the complete genocide of the Tau race. Seeing Tau as Battle Brothers with SM forces and other such sillyness is a real killer for the immersion, and lets face it, this game is what it is because of its fluff, not its rules.

Pen & Paper, Books, dice, rulers: Yay

Computers, interactive menus, army calculators: Boo

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

So in essence you're saying there should be no allies restrictions at all then basically? Everyone should be able to be battle brothers with everyone?

If yes, then we've just got a fundamental disagreement about how the game should interact with the fluff. If no, then there certainly isn't any reason why the Space Marines should be more eager to join with Tau than with, say, the Sisters of Battle. Let's not forget the Tau work ceaselessely to undermine the Eastern Fringe while the SM's took part in a crusade which, if successful, would have led to the complete genocide of the Tau race. Seeing Tau as Battle Brothers with SM forces and other such sillyness is a real killer for the immersion, and lets face it, this game is what it is because of its fluff, not its rules.

The game is what it is because it promotes creativity.

If you don't think Space Marines and Tau go together well, don't do it.

If somebody has a cool idea that makes it work, why should there be restrictions to stop them?

That is the fundamental problem with restrictions, It only hinders people who would have an idea and want to go there, but can't because of the restriction. It does absolutely nothing to people who wouldn't use that combination in the first place, because they'd not make use of said combination, whether there is a formal restriction or not.

If the restrictions are gone, everyone wins. Those who don't like the combination, still don't have to use them (nobody is forcing you, after all). Those that do enjoy being creative, now can be.

 Jayden63 wrote:
The sadist part to me is that 40K is quickly loosing its identity. When you had each faction and whole armies inside that faction there was a little bit of personal pride. You could say I play "insert army here" with a little bit of pride. It was what helped define your interests as a player. But that hard edge is gone now. With the ability to mix 3 different factions into a single army, the game as a whole has lost its this vs that hard edge. Its no longer Blood Angles vs Eldar. Its a whole bunch of this and that against even more of these and those. The game has just lost quite a bit of definition in my eyes.

Honestly at this point, playing the game for me is meaningless. I play single factions because I feel that it defines the player. But all I see is allied formations, where fluff is thrown out the window and only stomping power remains. A situation where a single faction really has an uphill battle.

Allies were in 3rd and 4th edition as well.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

So in essence you're saying there should be no allies restrictions at all then basically? Everyone should be able to be battle brothers with everyone?

If yes, then we've just got a fundamental disagreement about how the game should interact with the fluff. If no, then there certainly isn't any reason why the Space Marines should be more eager to join with Tau than with, say, the Sisters of Battle. Let's not forget the Tau work ceaselessely to undermine the Eastern Fringe while the SM's took part in a crusade which, if successful, would have led to the complete genocide of the Tau race. Seeing Tau as Battle Brothers with SM forces and other such sillyness is a real killer for the immersion, and lets face it, this game is what it is because of its fluff, not its rules.

The game is what it is because it promotes creativity.

If you don't think Space Marines and Tau go together well, don't do it.

If somebody has a cool idea that makes it work, why should there be restrictions to stop them?

That is the fundamental problem with restrictions, It only hinders people who would have an idea and want to go there, but can't because of the restriction. It does absolutely nothing to people who wouldn't use that combination in the first place, because they'd not make use of said combination, whether there is a formal restriction or not.

If the restrictions are gone, everyone wins. Those who don't like the combination, still don't have to use them (nobody is forcing you, after all). Those that do enjoy being creative, now can be.

I'm with Vaktathi, here. You talk about creativity above, but in practice what I see is people going: "I want some of that unit" and suddenly it's just a flavourless pile of unlikely allies smooshed together. There could be a backstory that shows how this rare, almost unique circumstance has come about. But in practice it's just another day of Tau, Space Marine, Inquistion working cheerfully together same as every other day. In theory it can be creative. In practice it just means narrative is worn away under a constant tide of routine alliances that ought to be unlikely.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

So in essence you're saying there should be no allies restrictions at all then basically? Everyone should be able to be battle brothers with everyone?

If yes, then we've just got a fundamental disagreement about how the game should interact with the fluff. If no, then there certainly isn't any reason why the Space Marines should be more eager to join with Tau than with, say, the Sisters of Battle. Let's not forget the Tau work ceaselessely to undermine the Eastern Fringe while the SM's took part in a crusade which, if successful, would have led to the complete genocide of the Tau race. Seeing Tau as Battle Brothers with SM forces and other such sillyness is a real killer for the immersion, and lets face it, this game is what it is because of its fluff, not its rules.

The game is what it is because it promotes creativity.

If you don't think Space Marines and Tau go together well, don't do it.

If somebody has a cool idea that makes it work, why should there be restrictions to stop them?

That is the fundamental problem with restrictions, It only hinders people who would have an idea and want to go there, but can't because of the restriction. It does absolutely nothing to people who wouldn't use that combination in the first place, because they'd not make use of said combination, whether there is a formal restriction or not.

If the restrictions are gone, everyone wins. Those who don't like the combination, still don't have to use them (nobody is forcing you, after all). Those that do enjoy being creative, now can be.

As noted above, I've yet to see or hear of such things being done for creative reasons, instead pretty much exclusively just to plug gaps in capabilities or exploit unintended synergies. On top of that, if you're being creative, you're probably using the Warhammer 40,000 universe as a basis for which to be creative, and in this universe there's no reason why these two factions should be so closely aligned on a regular basis as to make them Battle Brothers as other Space Marine chapters or the Imperial Guard are. To me, it does more to ruin the creativity and immersion than to aid it most of the time in these instances. Maybe I'm just a grumpy fun vampire, that's just my take on it.

 Makutsu wrote:
Or just charge you per unit without bothering to give you a codex at all
Sorry for giving GW more ideas

to add horrible ideas, very very horrible ideas.

They already sell a Codex Powerfist and a Codex Fleshborer, so it's not you who gives them ideas
http://www.blacklibrary.com/games-workshop-digital-editions/Munitorum

knas ser wrote:


I'm with Vaktathi, here. You talk about creativity above, but in practice what I see is people going: "I want some of that unit" and suddenly it's just a flavourless pile of unlikely allies smooshed together. There could be a backstory that shows how this rare, almost unique circumstance has come about. But in practice it's just another day of Tau, Space Marine, Inquistion working cheerfully together same as every other day. In theory it can be creative. In practice it just means narrative is worn away under a constant tide of routine alliances that ought to be unlikely.

The narrative has been worn away under no-allies 5th Edition rules as well (and before that). Not to mention that the definition of what is flavourful and what not (I know Vaktathi disagree fiercely on the issue of mono-God vs. multi-God Chaos Armies for example) differs.

Making sure an army stays flavourfull is ultimately the players responsibility. Games Workshop cannot possibly micro-manage the rules to the point where non-flavourful armies no longer exist. So they may as well throw out the crutches and ask players to grow a pair, making the game the game they want to play.

Personally, I don't play against Forge World (most of the time), because I believe their dreary, humour-deprived fluff is fundamentally at odds with the more campy version of 40K I grew up with and made me fall in love with the game in the first place. I know many people see it differently. So the option of Forge World is there for people who like that style of 40K.

If people grow up and become able to manage "their kind" of games, multiple variations and flavours of 40K can co-exist (though perhaps not overlap). If the rules try to nail down one (interpretation of) fluffy, 99% of the other interpretations will be left out.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If somebody has a cool idea that makes it work, why should there be restrictions to stop them?

Because there's more to the game then "invent some fluff and put your toys on the table". Some people actually play the game as a game, and those restrictions you hate are important to making the game balanced and interesting. The fact that GW's staggering incompetence has pretty well destroyed that game doesn't make the decision to trash it even more a good one.

If the restrictions are gone, everyone wins.

Except the people who have to play against the combination. People who focus on the gameplay lose because the idea of each army having its own identity with strengths and weaknesses is damaged, and balance is broken by stuff like mandatory divination inquisitors in every imperial army, Tau allying with Tau to spam more Riptides, etc. Meanwhile people who focus on the fluff have to put up with playing games against "unfluffy" combinations, destroying their ability to enjoy the story behind the game.

 Peregrine wrote:


Except the people who have to play against the combination. People who focus on the gameplay lose because the idea of each army having its own identity with strengths and weaknesses is damaged, and balance is broken by stuff like mandatory divination inquisitors in every imperial army, Tau allying with Tau to spam more Riptides, etc. Meanwhile people who focus on the fluff have to put up with playing games against "unfluffy" combinations, destroying their ability to enjoy the story behind the game.

Not true.

If everyone can use everything, the game is perfectly balanced. As long as restrictions exist, different Codexes may be weaker/stronger than others, and these differences may overshadow player skill (e.g. the better player with the better strategy may still lose to the better Codex, etc..).

If game-play and balance are truly your main interest, you should do away with all FoC/Allies/Other restrictions anyhow.

Personally, I think there are far too many rules and rulebooks running around at the moment. I do miss the old days when it was just the Rule book and your army codex, because then you could focus on your little group of men.

Then they brought in allies, far enough, many people do have at least two wh40k armies, and due to the liberal use of allies, there were only a few armies that refuse to work together. So that way you could use everything you had bought.

Then you had supplements, which are still in their infancy. Whilst some of them seem good, it means that you need to either buy a new supplement codex (for the same price as the actual codex) or buy some kind of tablet before you could use them (vinyl for life bro).

But when I was wandering the forums this morning, I came across people using something called Be'lakor. Doing a quick google I found out that this was one of the advent collection and comes in at £2.49 (2 and 1/2 mayo chicken burgers from Mcdonalds for all you non British people out there). But it's ebook only, and I spend so much on WH40K that I can't afford a tablet (that is kind of a lie, but only kind of).

So to play my CSM army, with CD allies and Be'lakor. I need a rulebook, two codices, a supplement (If i want to be Black legion, maybe even another if they actually release a 4 gods of chaos supplement) and a mini e-book. This comes together to be £137.45 before I actually buy a single model.

If I had a full time job rather than being a student, this wouldn't be such a horrible price, it's just that I need 5 different books in order to play one single match.

Or I can just stick to the rulebook and CSM codex, it's my choice to spend more to get more stuff.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Games Workshop cannot possibly micro-manage the rules to the point where non-flavourful armies no longer exist.

Nonsense. GW has plenty of tools. They can remove non-fluffy options from the army list, impose prerequisites to take units (such as taking an appropriate HQ to unlock another unit), impose penalties for taking units (such as having a HQ choice make another unit 0-1 or even entirely unavailable), impose limits on how many of a particular unit you can take to eliminate spamming "rare" units, etc. And outside of those hard limits they can adjust the power level of units/combinations so that the fluffiest combinations are also the most appealing for gameplay reasons, which pushes even players who don't care much about fluff into playing fluffier armies.

The only reason GW doesn't do more to force everyone to use fluffy armies is their unbelievable laziness and incompetence.

Personally, I don't play against Forge World (most of the time), because I believe their dreary, humour-deprived fluff is fundamentally at odds with the more campy version of 40K I grew up with and made me fall in love with the game in the first place. I know many people see it differently. So the option of Forge World is there for people who like that style of 40K.

What does the fluff FW writes have to do with their rules? My IG army's fluff is exactly the same whether I have a LR Vanquisher (codex) or a LR Annihilator (fluff). Say what you want about the fluff/story sections of their books, but at least FW rules generally follow the design concept of the army and feel like a natural part of it. You can't really say the same for GW deciding that Black Templars and Tau are suddenly best friends and allowing you to play them together on the table.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

So in essence you're saying there should be no allies restrictions at all then basically? Everyone should be able to be battle brothers with everyone?

If yes, then we've just got a fundamental disagreement about how the game should interact with the fluff. If no, then there certainly isn't any reason why the Space Marines should be more eager to join with Tau than with, say, the Sisters of Battle. Let's not forget the Tau work ceaselessely to undermine the Eastern Fringe while the SM's took part in a crusade which, if successful, would have led to the complete genocide of the Tau race. Seeing Tau as Battle Brothers with SM forces and other such sillyness is a real killer for the immersion, and lets face it, this game is what it is because of its fluff, not its rules.

The game is what it is because it promotes creativity.

If you don't think Space Marines and Tau go together well, don't do it.

If somebody has a cool idea that makes it work, why should there be restrictions to stop them?

That is the fundamental problem with restrictions, It only hinders people who would have an idea and want to go there, but can't because of the restriction. It does absolutely nothing to people who wouldn't use that combination in the first place, because they'd not make use of said combination, whether there is a formal restriction or not.

If the restrictions are gone, everyone wins. Those who don't like the combination, still don't have to use them (nobody is forcing you, after all). Those that do enjoy being creative, now can be.

As noted above, I've yet to see or hear of such things being done for creative reasons, instead pretty much exclusively just to plug gaps in capabilities or exploit unintended synergies. On top of that, if you're being creative, you're probably using the Warhammer 40,000 universe as a basis for which to be creative, and in this universe there's no reason why these two factions should be so closely aligned on a regular basis as to make them Battle Brothers as other Space Marine chapters or the Imperial Guard are. To me, it does more to ruin the creativity and immersion than to aid it most of the time in these instances. Maybe I'm just a grumpy fun vampire, that's just my take on it.

Yeah. IME, and I think this is the case, those who put their armies together with fluff in mind, almost always choose to go with a single army type or a natural ally like IG+SM. I'm a fluffy player - I like to have my Eldar all be Eldar because I want the fluff feel of Eldar. Adding in Tau would bother me as someone who is fluffy. It's the non-fluffy types who tend to throw in random allies, more than fluffy ones. Which undermines the whole notion that it doesn't undermine fluff but is an opportunity for fluffy creativity.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If everyone can use everything, the game is perfectly balanced.

No it isn't, because you're ignoring the difference between external balance and internal balance.

Reducing everything to "play whatever you want" solves the problem of external balance, by the rather inelegant solution of only having one "side" to play.

Reducing everything to "play whatever you want" does NOT solve the problem of internal balance, since having the entire pool of units available means you never have to play a lower-tier unit. Right now you have enforced diversity because no army has the best possible unit in every FOC slot. If you take DA because you love terminators you have to settle for having only a single Vendetta and make do with the mediocre DA flyers if you want AA. But if you eliminate all of the restrictions you'll just have all the DA players take 3x Vendettas and the DA flyers will never see play outside of "voluntarily cripple your list to teach the newbie how to play" games.

Plus, you're also ignoring the fact that balance is not the only important factor in having an interesting game. A game of "flip the coin" is perfectly balanced, but not at all interesting. To have an interesting wargame you want to have good balance, but you also want to have good diversity in strategies. For example, the fast aggressive army should have a roughly 50/50 chance of beating the static defensive army, but the two armies should have very different strategies. For example, the aggressive army should have to struggle with deciding how many points to devote to holding their "home" objectives while the rest of their army moves up to attack, while the defensive army should have a similar struggle in balancing optimal defense against the need to somehow get upfield and claim an objective or two before the game ends. And since neither army is very good at doing the other army's strategy they have to settle for less-than-ideal units and use skill to make them work. Letting everyone take everything destroys that diversity and you just have both players playing identical armies with the best defensive units holding their objectives and the best aggressive units assaulting the enemy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If somebody has a cool idea that makes it work, why should there be restrictions to stop them?

Because there's more to the game then "invent some fluff and put your toys on the table". Some people actually play the game as a game, and those restrictions you hate are important to making the game balanced and interesting. The fact that GW's staggering incompetence has pretty well destroyed that game doesn't make the decision to trash it even more a good one.

If the restrictions are gone, everyone wins.

Except the people who have to play against the combination. People who focus on the gameplay lose because the idea of each army having its own identity with strengths and weaknesses is damaged, and balance is broken by stuff like mandatory divination inquisitors in every imperial army, Tau allying with Tau to spam more Riptides, etc. Meanwhile people who focus on the fluff have to put up with playing games against "unfluffy" combinations, destroying their ability to enjoy the story behind the game.

this about sums it up.

this and also carebears. i didnt realize all the factions were a bunch of hand holding carebears. i thought it was grimdark where they all hated each other.

as for creativity. no thanks. i dont think anyone is interested in homemade stories about how your necrons and grey knights polish eachother's armor decoration after a tough battle.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Games Workshop cannot possibly micro-manage the rules to the point where non-flavourful armies no longer exist.

Nonsense. GW has plenty of tools. They can remove non-fluffy options from the army list, impose prerequisites to take units (such as taking an appropriate HQ to unlock another unit), impose penalties for taking units (such as having a HQ choice make another unit 0-1 or even entirely unavailable), impose limits on how many of a particular unit you can take to eliminate spamming "rare" units, etc. And outside of those hard limits they can adjust the power level of units/combinations so that the fluffiest combinations are also the most appealing for gameplay reasons, which pushes even players who don't care much about fluff into playing fluffier armies.

Sure they could.

Or you could do it yourself, if you think those limits are fluffy and still leave the game open for people to play without those restrictions, if they don't think they are fluffy or helpful at all, for the game/campaign/story they are playing.

Again, win-win.

Not having those restrictions hard-coded into the game does nothing to prevent you from not exercising an option. You don't NEED to take more than 0-1 of one unit for a given HQ Choice if you don't want to. All those restrictions would do is hinder people who would want to go that way.

i have a feeling this is going to be the guitar hero of Table top games.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Or you could do it yourself, if you think those limits are fluffy and still leave the game open for people to play without those restrictions, if they don't think they are fluffy or helpful at all, for the game/campaign/story they are playing.

Don't move the goalposts. You said that GW can't possibly do it, not that they shouldn't.

Not having those restrictions hard-coded into the game does nothing to prevent you from not exercising an option. You don't NEED to take more than 0-1 of one unit for a given HQ Choice if you don't want to. All those restrictions would do is hinder people who would want to go that way.

And, again, you're missing the point that people who care about fluff have to play against those armies. Yes, you can voluntarily decline to ally BT and Tau even though it would give you a strategic benefit, but when your opponent shows up with a BT/Tau army because they wanted assault troops to protect their Riptides and don't really care about the fluff they're trampling your enjoyment of that game is going to be severely damaged. And if you constantly refuse to play against people because you don't like their army's fluff you'll find yourself playing by yourself while everyone else has fun.

So yeah, this is clearly a better situation than GW creating rules that represent the fluff instead of destroying it...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Or you could do it yourself, if you think those limits are fluffy and still leave the game open for people to play without those restrictions, if they don't think they are fluffy or helpful at all, for the game/campaign/story they are playing.

Don't move the goalposts. You said that GW can't possibly do it, not that they shouldn't.

I said they can't possibly do it in a way that satisfies everyone. They probably could do it with the restrictions YOU think are fluffy, but that would obviously leave out all the people who'd disagree with you on those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


And, again, you're missing the point that people who care about fluff have to play against those armies. Yes, you can voluntarily decline to ally BT and Tau even though it would give you a strategic benefit, but when your opponent shows up with a BT/Tau army because they wanted assault troops to protect their Riptides and don't really care about the fluff they're trampling your enjoyment of that game is going to be severely damaged. .

If they bring these combinations, it might be a clue that they don't enjoy the restrictions you want Games Workshop to enforce for you. Making these combinations illegal would thus be trampling on their enjoyment of the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Or you could do it yourself, if you think those limits are fluffy and still leave the game open for people to play without those restrictions, if they don't think they are fluffy or helpful at all, for the game/campaign/story they are playing.

Don't move the goalposts. You said that GW can't possibly do it, not that they shouldn't.

Not having those restrictions hard-coded into the game does nothing to prevent you from not exercising an option. You don't NEED to take more than 0-1 of one unit for a given HQ Choice if you don't want to. All those restrictions would do is hinder people who would want to go that way.

And, again, you're missing the point that people who care about fluff have to play against those armies. Yes, you can voluntarily decline to ally BT and Tau even though it would give you a strategic benefit, but when your opponent shows up with a BT/Tau army because they wanted assault troops to protect their Riptides and don't really care about the fluff they're trampling your enjoyment of that game is going to be severely damaged. And if you constantly refuse to play against people because you don't like their army's fluff you'll find yourself playing by yourself while everyone else has fun.

So yeah, this is clearly a better situation than GW creating rules that represent the fluff instead of destroying it...

See this of course already exists to a degree. But what GW seem to be doing recently, is widening that degree rather dramatically. I mean I accept that there's a slight trade-off in sticking with a whole-Eldar army when I could be a little more effective by bringing in some allies. But I'm willing to make that trade-off. I like the feel of an all-Eldar army. But recently it seems that the trade-off is becoming a worse and worse deal. And there comes a point for many where it goes from tolerable to intolerable. The concern is that we're reaching that point for more and more people. I don't want to face Scout-nerfing Divinating Inquisitors every battle, but it seems to be where I'm going. I don't want every battle to include Riptides and I certainly don't want to find that every other battle my Eldar are coming up against Imperial forces with Wraith Knights (which I suspect will be the next formation). That's just smashing the narrative to bits.

And lets face it - narrative is a major part of the draw for WH40K. If we were just after well-balanced and reasonably priced wargaming, none of us would be here!

So far i only read about these releases. Im playing in a friendly game only meta with laid back long time players. Ive yet to play against any digital release other than the Sisters Codex (we have 2 regular sisters players in our group) and i enjoyed it.

I think for a competitive format its stressfull and although i was always interested in playing more in competitive formats all the new rules made it more and more a chore to keep up.

I dont want my new SW codex in piecemeal and i want it to be playable without having to add the new FOTM.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If they bring these combinations, it might be a clue that they don't enjoy the restrictions you want Games Workshop to enforce for you. Making these combinations illegal would thus be trampling on their enjoyment of the game.

Flawed assumptions. It may be (and almost certainly is) that they are motivated primarily by winning / effectiveness, rather than "oh, I just love the feel of RipTides and Space Marines fighting side by side". Ergo, they may be able to satisfy that motivation with any army list so long as the restrictions are universal.

 Zweischneid wrote:
They probably could do it with the restrictions YOU think are fluffy, but that would obviously leave out all the people who'd disagree with you on those.

No, I'm talking about the restrictions GW thinks are fluffy. Figure out what a fluffy army is, make rules that represent that army.

If they bring these combinations, it might be a clue that they don't enjoy the restrictions you want Games Workshop to enforce for you. Making these combinations illegal would thus be trampling on their enjoyment of the game.

I don't think you really understand how people like that work. Making one combination illegal means they just move to the next winning strategy and are just as happy. And basing your game design decisions on fear of making the people using the most overpowered stuff unhappy that their overpowered toys have been taken away is a really bad idea. For the good of the game as a whole you have to accept that a tiny minority will be unhappy that they can't win as easily anymore and make that change.

Wow just wow.....so here is where I fall on the release thing.

I feel like it is GW going... Beginning of 6th Ed ..."This game is not meant for Competitive play."

See tournaments happening....and arguments online etc....


Start releases

"What part of THIS IS NOT FOR COMPETITIVE PLAY did you guys not understand"


As for the fluff ally thing...whether I have an issue with the allies matrix or not I have issue with the argument about restrictions not needing be on the game because....THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ALREADY.

Saying well I can come up with a way for Tau and SM to work together...great I can come up with a ways for DE and Tyranids or CSM and Space Marines to work together...but wait your choice is legal and mine is not....unless I house rule it...and that is the point.

The ally matrix should reflect the fluff better because it is not evenly unrestricted they chose some restrictions to be along fluff...so if you are going to restrict along fluff lines you need to be consistent...which they are not at all.

Furthermore, since a non-competitive environment can include anything players agree to putting restrictions in place to stop horrible power gaming is a good thing....but then GW is again stating...we don't cater to competitive play whether it exists or not...so we have no issue if unfun pickup games happen because guys show up with power gamer lists....because that will never happen because everyone will play like we do here in Nottingham.

I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).

looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.

 gossipmeng wrote:
I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).

looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.

See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.

I feel like people can't be happy.

Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.

Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.

I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).

looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.

See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.

I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like people can't be happy.

Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.

Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.

I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).

looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.

See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.

I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.

You must not have read black legion then

Akiasura wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like people can't be happy.

Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.

Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.

I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).

looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.

See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.

I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.

You must not have read black legion then

I didn't. But I have Raukaan and I have seen all the others. *shrug*

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like people can't be happy.

Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.

Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.

I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).

looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.

See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.

I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.

You must not have read black legion then

I didn't. But I have Raukaan and I have seen all the others. *shrug*

And you can say that iyanden/Raukaan are comparable to C:I? Supplements seem fine and dandy if you are imperial, but everyone else is watching their codex get relatively weaker in comparison.

Akiasura wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like people can't be happy.

Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.

Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.

I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).

looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.

See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.

I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.

You must not have read black legion then

I didn't. But I have Raukaan and I have seen all the others. *shrug*

And you can say that iyanden/Raukaan are comparable to C:I? Supplements seem fine and dandy if you are imperial, but everyone else is watching their codex get relatively weaker in comparison.

Well weakness/strength in the game has little to do with quality, imo. I'm almost positive GW doesn't use the weakness/strength of a codex/rulesset as a QA measurement.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like people can't be happy.

Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.

Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.

I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).

looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.

See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.

I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.

You must not have read black legion then

I didn't. But I have Raukaan and I have seen all the others. *shrug*

And you can say that iyanden/Raukaan are comparable to C:I? Supplements seem fine and dandy if you are imperial, but everyone else is watching their codex get relatively weaker in comparison.

Well weakness/strength in the game has little to do with quality, imo. I'm almost positive GW doesn't use the weakness/strength of a codex/rulesset as a QA measurement.

I suppose that's why I see it differently. Been playing for long enough that, unless they change established fluff, everything seems somewhat rehashed. I judge the quality of a supplement on what it does for the parent army, and from that standpoint, it's been very heavily slanted towards imperials.

Akiasura wrote:

I suppose that's why I see it differently. Been playing for long enough that, unless they change established fluff, everything seems somewhat rehashed. I judge the quality of a supplement on what it does for the parent army, and from that standpoint, it's been very heavily slanted towards imperials.

I've been playing for a while too, and everything does seem rehashed. And I agree with you there, the supplement power levels have been all over the place. When people say "quality" I usually think of like, formatting, coloration, grammar mistakes, etc. For me, something is low quality if it is bound badly, has coffee stains on some pages, and every other word is misspelled (ok, yes, a bit of hyperbole ).

As for power level, you're right - if you include power level as a determinator of price, then some of the supplements' prices come out of left field.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

So in essence you're saying there should be no allies restrictions at all then basically? Everyone should be able to be battle brothers with everyone?

If yes, then we've just got a fundamental disagreement about how the game should interact with the fluff. If no, then there certainly isn't any reason why the Space Marines should be more eager to join with Tau than with, say, the Sisters of Battle. Let's not forget the Tau work ceaselessely to undermine the Eastern Fringe while the SM's took part in a crusade which, if successful, would have led to the complete genocide of the Tau race. Seeing Tau as Battle Brothers with SM forces and other such sillyness is a real killer for the immersion, and lets face it, this game is what it is because of its fluff, not its rules.

The game is what it is because it promotes creativity.

There is creativity and there is a mangled monstrosity of stupidity and trying to force it down other peoples throats because you think what you came up with is special.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Games Workshop cannot possibly micro-manage the rules to the point where non-flavourful armies no longer exist.

Nonsense. GW has plenty of tools. They can remove non-fluffy options from the army list, impose prerequisites to take units (such as taking an appropriate HQ to unlock another unit), impose penalties for taking units (such as having a HQ choice make another unit 0-1 or even entirely unavailable), impose limits on how many of a particular unit you can take to eliminate spamming "rare" units, etc. And outside of those hard limits they can adjust the power level of units/combinations so that the fluffiest combinations are also the most appealing for gameplay reasons, which pushes even players who don't care much about fluff into playing fluffier armies.

The only reason GW doesn't do more to force everyone to use fluffy armies is their unbelievable laziness and incompetence.

That sounds a lot like that balance thing Peregrine, I will have none of it.

 Vaktathi wrote:
to be fair, the whole white scars "scout up, oh look I'm in immediate optimum range for everything turn 1" thing probably deserved a bit of a knockback

Compared to what? Compared to Taudar? I think not.

I'm all for 40k light (33% less fat)

1 freakin army (no allies, no inq, no formations)
choose warlord trait
no fortifications
no random objectives


One army vs another, no bs

It's a good jumping off point at least. It doesn't limit the directions you can collectively take the game in, but things remain relatively sane and a bit easier to process given the breakneck speed of releases.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm all for 40k light (33% less fat)

1 freakin army (no allies, no inq, no formations)
choose warlord trait
no fortifications
no random objectives


One army vs another, no bs

It's a good jumping off point at least. It doesn't limit the directions you can collectively take the game in, but things remain relatively sane and a bit easier to process given the breakneck speed of releases.

Oh c'mon, you can't really mean that? That's not cinematic enough! GW needs to make rules so not only can anyone use any unit from any army, but allow people to use their creativity and put any model in ANY SQUAD! How cool would that be? Now those broadsides can stand side by side with long fangs and centurions in the SAME SQUAD!!! That land raider crusader can bring some really creative combos like that berzerker/wych cult/hammenator/nobs hybrid!!

Limitations suck, after all.

Can't wait for the next series of supplements, starting with Codex: Infiltration (but only on Tuesdays)!!!

Siphen wrote:
Already, we can take an Imperial Guard army (codex) using a Baneblade (escalation) and forgeworld models (imperial armour) with inquisition support (digital codex), allied to a Chaos Space Marine army (codex) led by Be'Lakor (digital release). This will only become more and more common as we get more mini-codices, individual special character updates, and supplements.

 Peregrine wrote:
If this "buy a unit for $4" plan succeeds then you can expect a lot more of the same in the future.

"What is this?" I say to myself, "This is the first I've heard of things like this . . . I should do some digging to find out more."

and so I did.

*blinks*

. . . I had no idea.

Good Lord, has GW recruited it's marketing department from an MMO? Are we now playing a mico-transaction, table-top game? (With Macro-transaction to spice it up of-course). Of course, there is no subscription (unless you count WD :p) so micro-transactions are the obvious choice. But, well, I would not have predicted this 12 months ago. I don't really know what to think. It will be interesting to see if this pans out, and what it might give rise to.

My reaction to these releases is the same as literally everyone elses, disgust.

It's really disruptive to the game when I have to learn the rules for someone like Bel'akor mid-game in a tournament but at the same time I can't afford to spend 5$ on a single characters rules assuming they come out with a few of these characters. It also supports piracy which I'll admit to using, buying the books I end up loving.

I own BA, 5th and 6th Tau, GK and the old SM book. Hopefully new Eldar too come this xmas.

Overall though I think adding new options to the game is good and especially if they change up some of the underplayed models with recent rules changes (I'm disappointed in Black Legion supplement because it didn't do this)

Really we have to wait and see how tournaments get impacted to REALLY tell how the new rules impact stuff.

Formations don't bother me too much as a player in my local won't come to a 40k night with 3 different races and put on a straight face at the same time.

Not worried about the superheavies thing as it just won't get implemented into tournaments or even regular nights.

Patiently waiting for a cool GK update, some uniqueness to the codex would be appreciated after Inquisition.

I think the main problem is that decisions are made by managers who have no idea what gaming is about. They have no concept of game balance and what makes gaming fun. That's why they think they can get away with "buying miniatures is the hobby" and "who pays most this month wins". Such an unforgiving attitude is common among managers, but far from what children or other customers want and need. Second time you got bullied by a flood of expensive superheavies, you won't play that opponent again or even quit the game. IMHO this is the basis of alienation between GW and customers.

 Pendix wrote:
Good Lord, has GW recruited it's marketing department from an MMO? Are we now playing a mico-transaction, table-top game? (With Macro-transaction to spice it up of-course). Of course, there is no subscription (unless you count WD :p) so micro-transactions are the obvious choice. But, well, I would not have predicted this 12 months ago. I don't really know what to think. It will be interesting to see if this pans out, and what it might give rise to.

I think you might not be far wrong there, regarding MMO influence. I can well see someone giving a presentation to the board on "What we can learn from MMOs",. Downloadable content, pay to get an advantage.

I mean you always could get an advantage to some extent if you had more money, because it gave you more choice. But there are degrees of things that are tolerable and degrees that are not.

I've yet to read everything people are talking about, but the Inquisitors is sufficient to displease me already.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like people can't be happy.

Last couple of years, I saw people bemoaning the lack of expanded material, wishing Chapter Approved would come back, for example.

Lately I've seen people bemoaning the prevalence of expanded material, wishing that Supplements would go away, for example.

I, for one, welcome our new supplemental overlords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
I'd rather have more releases than less (even if many are obvious half asses money grabs).

looking back 2 years ago..... we waited months between army book/codex releases with nothing eventful in between.

See, I'd rather have less, but quality releases within a reasonable time frame. Well, that and reasonable prices compared to what many other companies are putting out.

I wouldn't say they're low quality; I actually like the releases. The price thing, I can agree with - they're ridiculously expensive. But I see nothing wrong with the quality, personally.

Supplements would be fine if they were of decent quality, didnt cost an arm and leg and werent released in such an early state they could have been in the primary codex from the get go and the fluff as low carb even Kate Moss went home hungry.

Noone would have a problem of the supplements if the quality reasonably reflected the cost of them and added more to the game than a simple faq update could accomplish.

 Kroothawk wrote:
I think the main problem is that decisions are made by managers who have no idea what gaming is about. They have no concept of game balance and what makes gaming fun. That's why they think they can get away with "buying miniatures is the hobby" and "who pays most this month wins". Such an unforgiving attitude is common among managers, but far from what children or other customers want and need. Second time you got bullied by a flood of expensive superheavies, you won't play that opponent again or even quit the game. IMHO this is the basis of alienation between GW and customers.

I'm no commie but it seems capitalism tends to ruin things. I never cared for apoc because of the pay to win nature of it all, there's no escaping that in so much that models will always cost money but it bleeding down into 40k is really dissapointing.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
I think the main problem is that decisions are made by managers who have no idea what gaming is about. They have no concept of game balance and what makes gaming fun. That's why they think they can get away with "buying miniatures is the hobby" and "who pays most this month wins". Such an unforgiving attitude is common among managers, but far from what children or other customers want and need. Second time you got bullied by a flood of expensive superheavies, you won't play that opponent again or even quit the game. IMHO this is the basis of alienation between GW and customers.

I'm no commie but it seems capitalism tends to ruin things. I never cared for apoc because of the pay to win nature of it all, there's no escaping that in so much that models will always cost money but it bleeding down into 40k is really dissapointing.

It's not so much capitalism, as short-termism. Used to work okay before the market became a frenzy of piranhas desperate for an increase in earnings every quarter. By okay, I mean, not perfect, but as well or better than anything else.

I think the question shouldn't be if GW is going to fast or too slow. The question that needs to be asked is

"What will make you happy?"

Obviously when GW had slow releases, a lot of people complained. Now GW is having fast releases a lot of people are complaining.

So for GW case, it's damned if they do, damned if they don't.

So it doesn't matter what GW does, a lot of people will complain.

GW can give out all the rules and Codexes for free, on PDF, and book format, and people will still complain.

So it comes down, to what will make you happy.

Davor wrote:
Obviously when GW had slow releases, a lot of people complained. Now GW is having fast releases a lot of people are complaining.

So for GW case, it's damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Nope. I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but this argument is nonsense. When GW had slow releases what we wanted was a good codex update cycle that fixed the problem of having armies from 1-2 editions ago getting crushed by current-edition armies that benefit from years of power creep. Instead what we got is a flood of mediocre (at best) releases that seem to consist of every random idea a GW employee ever had, thrown together in 15 minutes and given a $50 price tag. The pace of quality releases hasn't increased much, we just have a lot more garbage now.

Davor wrote:
I think the question shouldn't be if GW is going to fast or too slow. The question that needs to be asked is

"What will make you happy?"

Obviously when GW had slow releases, a lot of people complained. Now GW is having fast releases a lot of people are complaining.

So for GW case, it's damned if they do, damned if they don't.

So it doesn't matter what GW does, a lot of people will complain.

GW can give out all the rules and Codexes for free, on PDF, and book format, and people will still complain.

So it comes down, to what will make you happy.

I don't think anyone's primary complaint is speed. It's certainly a factor.

Speed of release is a tiny factor. Quality a bigger factor, but there are plenty of issues with current 40k.

Davor wrote:
I think the question shouldn't be if GW is going to fast or too slow. The question that needs to be asked is

"What will make you happy?"

Obviously when GW had slow releases, a lot of people complained. Now GW is having fast releases a lot of people are complaining.

So for GW case, it's damned if they do, damned if they don't.

So it doesn't matter what GW does, a lot of people will complain.

GW can give out all the rules and Codexes for free, on PDF, and book format, and people will still complain.

So it comes down, to what will make you happy.

I don't think it's the speed, rather the complete disorganization. We have little to no advance notice of releases, the releases themselves are not particularly organized in any specific manner, many of these releases do very different things than anything we've seen before and make rather haphazard changes to longstanding fundamental game mechanics (such as the FoC), and now we've got three different sales channels for rules, GW paper codex books, Forgeworld, and Black Library.

Its the fact that they are taking game balance and throwing it out the window and letting you take 4 different armies in one game.

Allies already make armies look dumb and mish mashed. Having 3 from the inquisitorial book release made it that much more stupid. Now they cram in formations and all sense of order is out the window. GW keep going on about narrative, well they keep taking massive steaming dumps all over that.

What would make me happy?

1 book every 3 months with all the supplements as free fething downloads since you already bought the overpriced book. Mark things as optional and with opponents permission. No random releases, no mirco DLC gak.

I dont think so. IT has only been the last 3 or so months this happened. Once they get past christmas I have a feeling that we will get back to the preceding months of release styles. Being a codex/army book a month

I think 40K has reached a curious state where the game is actually internally diluted. As said before, nothing has an identity anymore. Used to be different factions were unique because of their strengths and weaknesses. You played a Blood Angels army because you liked how Blood Angels played.

Now an army looks like a clicky-base game, with everything from everywhere to try to balance out an force to have no weaknesses at all.

Da fuq, 40k is completely customizable. Play pure Codex BA if you want to. Find players who like to play fluffy lists. Play a tournament list against players who like playing tournaments.

 Peregrine wrote:

Davor wrote:
Obviously when GW had slow releases, a lot of people complained. Now GW is having fast releases a lot of people are complaining.

So for GW case, it's damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Nope. I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but this argument is nonsense. When GW had slow releases what we wanted was a good codex update cycle that fixed the problem of having armies from 1-2 editions ago getting crushed by current-edition armies that benefit from years of power creep. Instead what we got is a flood of mediocre (at best) releases that seem to consist of every random idea a GW employee ever had, thrown together in 15 minutes and given a $50 price tag. The pace of quality releases hasn't increased much, we just have a lot more garbage now.

Well said!

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I think 40K has reached a curious state where the game is actually internally diluted. As said before, nothing has an identity anymore. Used to be different factions were unique because of their strengths and weaknesses. You played a Blood Angels army because you liked how Blood Angels played.

Now an army looks like a clicky-base game, with everything from everywhere to try to balance out an force to have no weaknesses at all.

Because its "wacky and fun"

Think they would have learned a goddamn lesson from dreadfleet *grumble grumble*

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Da fuq, 40k is completely customizable. Play pure Codex BA if you want to. Find players who like to play fluffy lists. Play a tournament list against players who like playing tournaments.

Thanks for giving the same response that has been given in every edition of 40k that has ever existed (in regards to people who like friendly lists vs tournament lists).. Allies do inherently dilute the unique feel of each army, that is inescapable. Whether or not an army is fluffy or of tournament quality has NOTHING to do with allies, more so what options are available. Pure Eldar crushes everyone, is that fluffy or a tournament army? By your narrow definition that is a pure codex army so perhaps its fluffy.

Or you mean because it's good it's a tournament list, which negates the point about bashing those who think allies are a bad idea for the game.

I totally understand the philosophy behind using whatever current combo is best in order to win. I did that too for a long time, however I don't have to agree that it's good for the game to promote allying to such an insane degree. There is a difference between competition and quality GAME DESIGN. Human beings can be competitive on just about anything, it doesn't matter what it is, what the rules are, or anything. Competition does NOT rely on anything other than the ability for the participants to compete fairly (IE the rules are applied equally), the rules themselves do not matter other than the equality of enforcement. Best example of pointless competition that millions take seriously? Fantasy sports..

This seems extremely daunting for a new player. I know I wouldn't start this game now.

I hope fantasy doesn't go down this path. Odds aren't good though.

I don't like the way things are going purely for aesthetic reasons.

Who wants to play United Colors of Benetton vs United Colors of Benetton? Ugly to look at on the board, and transforms the fluff of the game into nothing more than recommended back-stories.

I wouldnt mind so much if they released decent stuff for the armies that need it (like BA) rather than releasing OP units for armies that are already top dex's!