At the beginning of 8th, rules were nice n streamlined. Granted there were some issues but I only needed an index and the rule book.
Now, to use all the rules I need for an army, I need the rule book, the most recent chapter approved, the big FAQ, 2-3x codex (because any imperium the is competitive uses 2-3 factions), FAQs for those armies, and vigilus.
Anyone else feeling fatigue from content bloat like I am? I do thank GW for so much attention, just it is a lot to keep track of.
Yeah, in a way. It feels like they just bloated the game right back to what it was the tail end of 7th edition (maybe worse) in a very short amount of time.
I do wish they'd slow down a little (and they have) if only for their own sake lest they trip over themselves.
That said we're still in a development period for this edition. The Vigilus detachments do a lot to open up the game and everyone needs their treatment in that respect.
I do feel a bit like that. I'm really enjoying the release schedule they have and the engagement with the community but the amount of rules I need to make an army now is ridiculous and they will never combine rulebooks to make things more streamlined. I was out of the game around the time when things went mad in 7th but I remember 6th edition I needed 3 books and cards to play my army. The point of streamlining was to remove that, but here we are again.
eh...a little. It's the constant release of stuff that changes all things in the game, or adds tons of new stuff to existing armies forcing you to change your gameplan.
The whole BRB is essentially useless at this point (makes me thankful I skimped on it and just played with the free packet).
But, at the same time, it REALLY killed my enthusiasm in older editions when my army was crap and I knew it'd stay crap forever, and couldn't hold out hope for Chapter Approveds/FAQs to fix things.
The big issue I have is that the output is going an order of magnitude faster than the revisions, hence blunders like the the new Shadowspear models being priced as if it's pre-CA18. The rules team keep putting out dodgy rules, and the speed at which they're re-balancing just isn't commensurate with the output of new rules. As a result, you have to brace yourself every time they release new models, because if it's a stinker one way or the other it's gonna fester for half a year (at least!).
Pre-empting the "back in my day we only got a codex once every epoch and if we didn't like it the only other game was kick-the-roadkill...." comments, it's 2019 for crying out loud. CA is a book. They take time to print, so OK. But the idea that we have to wait for a pdf BIG FAQ once a year, instead of them just fixing things is silly. Some things will take time, and they should. Other things are bleeding obvious and could be tweaked with an FAQ with a way shorter turnaround. Not sure if it's balanced? Make it a beta rule! Actually take advantage of the fact that the internet exists for once, jeez.
And for the Triarch's sake, put the CA points changes in the Codex FAQs you jerks.
I think if Chapter Approved contained the prior year's worth of add ons it would be fine. Ideally they'd do something digital, but barring that, Chapter Approved can at least limit it to a year's worth of random documents.
Ideally the FAQs should be tagged by faction (or tagged ALL) so I can input my list of factions on the FAQ section of the website, and get given a list of FAQs that I need.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: The big issue I have is that the output is going an order of magnitude faster than the revisions, hence blunders like the the new Shadowspear models being priced as if it's pre-CA18. The rules team keep putting out dodgy rules, and the speed at which they're re-balancing just isn't commensurate with the output of new rules. As a result, you have to brace yourself every time they release new models, because if it's a stinker one way or the other it's gonna fester for half a year (at least!).
Pre-empting the "back in my day we only got a codex once every epoch and if we didn't like it the only other game was kick-the-roadkill...." comments, it's 2019 for crying out loud. CA is a book. They take time to print, so OK. But the idea that we have to wait for a pdf BIG FAQ once a year, instead of them just fixing things is silly. Some things will take time, and they should. Other things are bleeding obvious and could be tweaked with an FAQ with a way shorter turnaround. Not sure if it's balanced? Make it a beta rule! Actually take advantage of the fact that the internet exists for once, jeez.
And for the Triarch's sake, put the CA points changes in the Codex FAQs you jerks.
The present can be better than the past but still not anywhere near what a reasonable person would desire.
In response to your "CA is a book" I would say "ALL the rules are BOOKS and it's 2019".
That seems utterly silly to me. If I were running a game system I wanted to be a living rulebook...man oh man would it be way freaking easier for me to just have everything in an electronic document. Charge for that publication if rules need to be a revenue source (which I get, you need to pay designers and playtesters after all...) but dressing it up as a "premium game play product (tm)" rather than just saying "yeah we get it it's just an encrypted E-book but we need to pay our employees so you need to pay this subscription fee" is dumb.
I do understand that a tabletop wargame by definition will have a lot of people who will say "no I like my books I need something I can hold in my hand" but I think you can either have a living rule system, or a print rule system, and trying to combine the two leads to some serious madness....see BCB's pedantic and obnoxious but very much real list.
Sure, that's the amount of documents needed to play """"""""""""in theory"""""""""""" but the situation in reality, where everyone pretty much plays with a partial ruleset and most players aren't playing the exact same game leads inevitably to lots of conflict and confusion.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah the number of FAQs are a little ridiculous at this point, and poorly organized.
IMO the FAQs (the actual online FAQs that get electronically updated with version numbers) are the ONLY thing that are well or even decently organized.
In response to your "CA is a book" I would say "ALL the rules are BOOKS and it's 2019".
I was going to say that a living rule-set needs to be electronic, but you and I both know how poorly that goes down with some people so I didn't think it was worth the argument lol.
We need a rolling FAQ PDF/Compedium of the rules updates.
One big PDF FAQ that is updated regularly and has all the diiferent fixes in one place would make things sooo much easier and could be so much more reactive to updating game balance.
CA/codex releases for point tweaks/profile changes.
I implore all to ask for this at the next commnity survey.
However I have no answer to WD rules... I think its a sucky idea all around and should be left for CA.
skchsan wrote: I still stand by that index, while somewhat bland, was by far the most balanced version of 40k to date.
"Somewhat"?
Plenty of people argued that the Indexes were a fantastic way to play game when it released. But really, we all know it was there while everyone waited for their codex. They're almost all out (barring Ynarri that were designed for this edition) and it doesn't really seem like the game is better off for it. There's been a trade-off for the faster release of codexes and inclusion of stratagems has certainly lead to a lot of bloat and some powercreep too.
I think the core of a lot of the problems with GW's many games properties these days is the conflict between a Simulation type game and a Competition type game.
Wargames, in the era when GW was founded and the original founders and designers still hail from, were Simulation mediums first and foremost. That's what set them apart from competitive games like Chess, where the objective is to start from a completely balanced position and use the game as a way to engage in a mental competition with your opponent: the rules were designed to mimic the FEEL of some form of entertainment rather than to provide a balanced playing field for the players to start on.
Dungeons and Dragons is a simulation of the plot of a fantasy fiction novel. It's not intended to be a contest between GM and Player, because the GM is essentially given complete authorial power and competition is basically just a byproduct of the game.
Similarly a classical wargame is intended to be a simulation of war. War isn't by nature fair, and you don't always have the side with lower quality troops starting with twice as many guys as the side with the higher quality troops. The purpose of rules and stats was originally designed as a way to simulate different types of units and weapons.
However, as time crept on people realized that simulation games lacked in a lot of areas. It allowed certain people tyrannical control over groups, and it enabled some really irritating behavior free reign. Anyone who's ever been involved in historical wargaming can wax poetic about the obnoxiousness of "That Guy" who disguises their inability to emotionally handle losing in complaints about historical accuracy...if you have a hard time spotting them they usually like to play lots of Roman History games as the Romans, and complaints about them are going to sound really familiar to people who read a lot of a particular bird-themed dakka poster.
In the end (at least by my perspective) the great war between Simulation games and Competitive games was slowly but steadily won not by impassioned complaints about fairness and integrity but by capitalism. MTG showed that a game where massive numbers of people can be made to treat the game like a sport and pretty much everybody plays the same way can be a financial powerhouse. The best groups for Simulation games are small, insular, and carefully policed cliques of like-minded gamers who are careful to avoid letting any one member become "that guy" who tries to always win. In a competitive game, a guy from a totally different country can play with you and theoretically, you'll both be able to have a fun time.
At this point most new miniatures games are designed to be purely competitive, with very few still holding on to the "simulation" style. GW has mostly moved over, but not in its entirety. We still have old relics of the extremely subjective past, like "Stoop down to the point of view of your model, and look to see if they can see their intended target!" That's a rule that would be far too simplistic for a true Competitive game. What's "point of view"? What point do you pick? Any point? What's "See"? Does it matter how I built my model? can I see you if I can just see a tiny bit of your hair or weapon?
In a controlled Simulation gaming group, any questions like that would be met with a hearty chorus of grumbles, but in a competitive game it's WILD to have a rule that's that loosey-goosey as a foundation of your game system. Yet, there we are! And in other areas of the game, you have stuff like the Close Combat system, which is pure simulation - your model might as well be a 2D circle the size of the base with whatever is on top of the base just being a handy thing for you to hold on to while moving the token around.
Ultimately a good compromise leaves everyone annoyed. 40k will never be a competitive wargame system when aspects of the Simulation Game past remain: stuff like endless rule supplements that not everyone is expected to own/know about, subjective rules at the core like true LOS and freeform terrain/mission design. But it will never work as a simulation game when you have a ton of rules that just don't really work the way a unit in a war is supposed to "feel" like models not being able to reach up past their base to attack, or explosions harming models wearing heavy armor more than cheap units wearing light armor.
I preferred the Index rulessets. There were certainly some things were bonkers (and I didn't enjoy paying 17ppm for Dire Avengers), but it felt much less bonkers than now.
I don't agree with a lot of what GW does, but complaining that they have given us too much content than our little brains and arms can deal with it, is the most '1st world problems' thing I could imagine for 40k.
I Love it! FAQs alone brought me back to the game. And if it were up to me, they would release more frequent but smaller FAQs (like they do in PC gaming). Then you could get small nerfs and buffs to a selected few units, and get a better balance without huge changes all at once.
That being said, they could make it easier on the players by releasing a similar, but official GW app like Battlescribe.
I would gladly pay a monthly fee for that.
the_scotsman wrote: I think the core of a lot of the problems with GW's many games properties these days is the conflict between a Simulation type game and a Competition type game.
Wargames, in the era when GW was founded and the original founders and designers still hail from, were Simulation mediums first and foremost. That's what set them apart from competitive games like Chess, where the objective is to start from a completely balanced position and use the game as a way to engage in a mental competition with your opponent: the rules were designed to mimic the FEEL of some form of entertainment rather than to provide a balanced playing field for the players to start on.
Dungeons and Dragons is a simulation of the plot of a fantasy fiction novel. It's not intended to be a contest between GM and Player, because the GM is essentially given complete authorial power and competition is basically just a byproduct of the game.
Similarly a classical wargame is intended to be a simulation of war. War isn't by nature fair, and you don't always have the side with lower quality troops starting with twice as many guys as the side with the higher quality troops. The purpose of rules and stats was originally designed as a way to simulate different types of units and weapons.
However, as time crept on people realized that simulation games lacked in a lot of areas. It allowed certain people tyrannical control over groups, and it enabled some really irritating behavior free reign. Anyone who's ever been involved in historical wargaming can wax poetic about the obnoxiousness of "That Guy" who disguises their inability to emotionally handle losing in complaints about historical accuracy...if you have a hard time spotting them they usually like to play lots of Roman History games as the Romans, and complaints about them are going to sound really familiar to people who read a lot of a particular bird-themed dakka poster.
In the end (at least by my perspective) the great war between Simulation games and Competitive games was slowly but steadily won not by impassioned complaints about fairness and integrity but by capitalism. MTG showed that a game where massive numbers of people can be made to treat the game like a sport and pretty much everybody plays the same way can be a financial powerhouse. The best groups for Simulation games are small, insular, and carefully policed cliques of like-minded gamers who are careful to avoid letting any one member become "that guy" who tries to always win. In a competitive game, a guy from a totally different country can play with you and theoretically, you'll both be able to have a fun time.
At this point most new miniatures games are designed to be purely competitive, with very few still holding on to the "simulation" style. GW has mostly moved over, but not in its entirety. We still have old relics of the extremely subjective past, like "Stoop down to the point of view of your model, and look to see if they can see their intended target!" That's a rule that would be far too simplistic for a true Competitive game. What's "point of view"? What point do you pick? Any point? What's "See"? Does it matter how I built my model? can I see you if I can just see a tiny bit of your hair or weapon?
In a controlled Simulation gaming group, any questions like that would be met with a hearty chorus of grumbles, but in a competitive game it's WILD to have a rule that's that loosey-goosey as a foundation of your game system. Yet, there we are! And in other areas of the game, you have stuff like the Close Combat system, which is pure simulation - your model might as well be a 2D circle the size of the base with whatever is on top of the base just being a handy thing for you to hold on to while moving the token around.
Ultimately a good compromise leaves everyone annoyed. 40k will never be a competitive wargame system when aspects of the Simulation Game past remain: stuff like endless rule supplements that not everyone is expected to own/know about, subjective rules at the core like true LOS and freeform terrain/mission design. But it will never work as a simulation game when you have a ton of rules that just don't really work the way a unit in a war is supposed to "feel" like models not being able to reach up past their base to attack, or explosions harming models wearing heavy armor more than cheap units wearing light armor.
I think it is hard to keep arguing on this thread after your exposition. You explained it perfectly.
Wibe wrote: I Love it! FAQs alone brought me back to the game. And if it were up to me, they would release more frequent but smaller FAQs (like they do in PC gaming). Then you could get small nerfs and buffs to a selected few units, and get a better balance without huge changes all at once.
That being said, they could make it easier on the players by releasing a similar, but official GW app like Battlescribe.
I would gladly pay a monthly fee for that.
Agreed. Why they don't do that is beyond me. An app would be easy money for them.
Wibe wrote: I Love it! FAQs alone brought me back to the game. And if it were up to me, they would release more frequent but smaller FAQs (like they do in PC gaming). Then you could get small nerfs and buffs to a selected few units, and get a better balance without huge changes all at once.
That being said, they could make it easier on the players by releasing a similar, but official GW app like Battlescribe.
I would gladly pay a monthly fee for that.
Agreed. Why they don't do that is beyond me. An app would be easy money for them.
Because the human brain instinctively ascribes value to a physical object, and in the back of every Simulation gamer's mind is the memory of buying a book for a wargame system, putting it on their shelf next to all the other books, and having it be enshrined there for all time allowing them an impartial system by which their model soldiers can fight a simulated war.
Their model trains are motorized to go around a model track, because that's what real trains do.
Their model soldiers have rules to simulate a war, because that's what real soldiers do.
the_scotsman wrote: I think the core of a lot of the problems with GW's many games properties these days is the conflict between a Simulation type game and a Competition type game.
Wargames, in the era when GW was founded and the original founders and designers still hail from, were Simulation mediums first and foremost. That's what set them apart from competitive games like Chess, where the objective is to start from a completely balanced position and use the game as a way to engage in a mental competition with your opponent: the rules were designed to mimic the FEEL of some form of entertainment rather than to provide a balanced playing field for the players to start on.
Dungeons and Dragons is a simulation of the plot of a fantasy fiction novel. It's not intended to be a contest between GM and Player, because the GM is essentially given complete authorial power and competition is basically just a byproduct of the game.
Similarly a classical wargame is intended to be a simulation of war. War isn't by nature fair, and you don't always have the side with lower quality troops starting with twice as many guys as the side with the higher quality troops. The purpose of rules and stats was originally designed as a way to simulate different types of units and weapons.
However, as time crept on people realized that simulation games lacked in a lot of areas. It allowed certain people tyrannical control over groups, and it enabled some really irritating behavior free reign. Anyone who's ever been involved in historical wargaming can wax poetic about the obnoxiousness of "That Guy" who disguises their inability to emotionally handle losing in complaints about historical accuracy...if you have a hard time spotting them they usually like to play lots of Roman History games as the Romans, and complaints about them are going to sound really familiar to people who read a lot of a particular bird-themed dakka poster.
In the end (at least by my perspective) the great war between Simulation games and Competitive games was slowly but steadily won not by impassioned complaints about fairness and integrity but by capitalism. MTG showed that a game where massive numbers of people can be made to treat the game like a sport and pretty much everybody plays the same way can be a financial powerhouse. The best groups for Simulation games are small, insular, and carefully policed cliques of like-minded gamers who are careful to avoid letting any one member become "that guy" who tries to always win. In a competitive game, a guy from a totally different country can play with you and theoretically, you'll both be able to have a fun time.
At this point most new miniatures games are designed to be purely competitive, with very few still holding on to the "simulation" style. GW has mostly moved over, but not in its entirety. We still have old relics of the extremely subjective past, like "Stoop down to the point of view of your model, and look to see if they can see their intended target!" That's a rule that would be far too simplistic for a true Competitive game. What's "point of view"? What point do you pick? Any point? What's "See"? Does it matter how I built my model? can I see you if I can just see a tiny bit of your hair or weapon?
In a controlled Simulation gaming group, any questions like that would be met with a hearty chorus of grumbles, but in a competitive game it's WILD to have a rule that's that loosey-goosey as a foundation of your game system. Yet, there we are! And in other areas of the game, you have stuff like the Close Combat system, which is pure simulation - your model might as well be a 2D circle the size of the base with whatever is on top of the base just being a handy thing for you to hold on to while moving the token around.
Ultimately a good compromise leaves everyone annoyed. 40k will never be a competitive wargame system when aspects of the Simulation Game past remain: stuff like endless rule supplements that not everyone is expected to own/know about, subjective rules at the core like true LOS and freeform terrain/mission design. But it will never work as a simulation game when you have a ton of rules that just don't really work the way a unit in a war is supposed to "feel" like models not being able to reach up past their base to attack, or explosions harming models wearing heavy armor more than cheap units wearing light armor.
That is a great summary on why narrative and competitive approaches are very much mutually exclusive and trying to cater to both crowds at once always has to be a "rotten compromise".
But I would also like to point out, that in regards to content output there is yet another split in playerbase that rarely gets discussed. That is the split between "at-home" players and "public" players. The "at-home" group heavily relies on new, encompassing content to keep replyability high and stay entertained by a game that requires so heavy time and money investment. At the same time "public" players require a ruleset that is contained enough to work as a common language, with tournament focused subgroup of "public players" also requiring that the entirety of rules is as static as possible with only balance tweaks as regular as possible. GW actually tries to manage this split by separating their "narrative" and "matched" sections, but you can also see this with Kill Team having basic and Arena versions.
And expecting from GW that they'll drop a significant portion of their existing/potential playerbase to make it more convenient for the other is naive - GW's ultimate goal are financial results, not making a game that is perfect for any particular style of use.
Wibe wrote: I Love it! FAQs alone brought me back to the game. And if it were up to me, they would release more frequent but smaller FAQs (like they do in PC gaming). Then you could get small nerfs and buffs to a selected few units, and get a better balance without huge changes all at once.
That being said, they could make it easier on the players by releasing a similar, but official GW app like Battlescribe.
I would gladly pay a monthly fee for that.
Agreed. Why they don't do that is beyond me. An app would be easy money for them.
Because the human brain instinctively ascribes value to a physical object, and in the back of every Simulation gamer's mind is the memory of buying a book for a wargame system, putting it on their shelf next to all the other books, and having it be enshrined there for all time allowing them an impartial system by which their model soldiers can fight a simulated war.
Their model trains are motorized to go around a model track, because that's what real trains do.
Their model soldiers have rules to simulate a war, because that's what real soldiers do.
There is a niche for GW to fill here - unique, propriatary e-book reader with built in e-dice rolling widget and rules subscription plan It doesn't need to come in a shape of a servoscull, but their april fools joke isn't entirely out of reason
Oh, for sure. The split between narrative/matched/open is intended to allow some split between the two groups to exist.
The problem is that the Narrative (or in your example, at-home) player is the one who benefits the most from a steady stream of supplemental content, new Simulation style missions and rules and extra bonus goodies in White Dwarf/campaign books.
But the Matched (public) player still has to deal with some of that difficult to obtain content is legal for their play mode, so they have to learn and somehow obtain all of it to keep playing in an "anything goes" arena.
A harder distinction between narrative and matched content would solve this problem, but forcing the matched gamer to buy the books is a way to keep them from "freeloading" off of GW's continuous rules content.
If only the "home" crowd was required to buy campaign books, white dwarf magazines and other supplemental material, and the "public" crowd was given the material relevant to them for free, then there would not be enough income to support continuous rules development (at least, in theory).
The potential solution would be a total divide between matched and narrative, with all official matched play missions, rules, and stats available on a subscription app that "public" players would pay a fee for continuous access to.
Anything published outside the app would be narrative/open only, and not allowed at organized events.
That's how I would solve this particular problem personally, and I am guessing where we will end up when this is all over.
the_scotsman wrote: Oh, for sure. The split between narrative/matched/open is intended to allow some split between the two groups to exist.
The problem is that the Narrative (or in your example, at-home) player is the one who benefits the most from a steady stream of supplemental content, new Simulation style missions and rules and extra bonus goodies in White Dwarf/campaign books.
But the Matched (public) player still has to deal with some of that difficult to obtain content is legal for their play mode, so they have to learn and somehow obtain all of it to keep playing in an "anything goes" arena.
A harder distinction between narrative and matched content would solve this problem, but forcing the matched gamer to buy the books is a way to keep them from "freeloading" off of GW's continuous rules content.
If only the "home" crowd was required to buy campaign books, white dwarf magazines and other supplemental material, and the "public" crowd was given the material relevant to them for free, then there would not be enough income to support continuous rules development (at least, in theory).
The potential solution would be a total divide between matched and narrative, with all official matched play missions, rules, and stats available on a subscription app that "public" players would pay a fee for continuous access to.
Anything published outside the app would be narrative/open only, and not allowed at organized events.
That's how I would solve this particular problem personally, and I am guessing where we will end up when this is all over.
I agree, many of the most cumbersome aspects of modern content output are there because there exist a large enough group of players that are "one foot here, one foot there" kind of "universal user", which is a legacy issue realy, that simply cannot be dropped outright, you have to soften the split up so everybody gets accustomed to the change. What we see in Kill Team, that is a "transitional design" elements to it are in fact primers to what will come next. The incoming Apocalypse is clearly another step towards separating interests into manageable subgroups of players that still utilize the same plastic products (which is the bulk of cost/profit for GW) but we will eventually have separate games for different player groups. But I seriously doubt that the whining will end there, as there will always be players that will try to force round peg into a square hole and will remain very vocal about it.
I'd say yes? But, admittedly it rarely impacts me. I don't chase the meta, and I own two armies that I stick to...so I can ignore the overwhelming majority of content. As for trying to keep up with what exists and what does what....yes, way too much and too poorly organized. I will say it is probably an absolute fething nightmare for a new starting player if he's trying to do matched play.
Not at all, I wish GW would throw some ‘content’ in the direction of my Grey Knights. Maybe some fixes.. new codex... mention in vigilus at all.... anything really.
I preferred Indexes in the very early days of Codexes, but as they've become widely available I think they've become an improvement. There are too many overly specific strategems, but they feel like what psychic powers have always tried to accomplish without all the fluff baggage that comes with the psychic phase.
chnmmr wrote: Not at all, I wish GW would throw some ‘content’ in the direction of my Grey Knights. Maybe some fixes.. new codex... mention in vigilus at all.... anything really.
This sums it up more or less. There are plenty of areas that need work or attention, which have been waiting for a while. I think Games Workshop really does need to re-do a lot of the earlier codexes. There's a lot of weird issues with the earlier releases, such as the weaker stratagems, the inconsistent application of factions rules (or chapter tactics if you prefer) and a lot of errata that has been applied to these older books. Not to mention that they also have some of the more egregious examples of poor internal balance.
Smotejob wrote: At the beginning of 8th, rules were nice n streamlined. Granted there were some issues but I only needed an index and the rule book.
Now, to use all the rules I need for an army, I need the rule book, the most recent chapter approved, the big FAQ, 2-3x codex (because any imperium the is competitive uses 2-3 factions), FAQs for those armies, and vigilus.
Anyone else feeling fatigue from content bloat like I am? I do thank GW for so much attention, just it is a lot to keep track of.
Yeah, we need one source for rules. Its all well and good releasing new rules, data sheets and points constantly but GW need to constantly release new 'rule books' we all have to buy the chapter approves etc. so why not cut the bull and just constantly buy new rule books that have every change including the old rules that are still valid. I'm sick and tired of having to look at 4 different sources for rules, it makes games longer than they have to be and its a nightmare to organise.
As much as I don't like digital E books at this point it might be the only way to consolidate the rules madness that 40k has sunken back into. To have the full rules for just my main army Vanilla Space Marines I need a codex, CA 2018, several different FAQ, various WDs, and a growing number of campaign supplements. That's not even touching the Soup trend that GW is doubling down on.
What the OP describes is exactly why I haven't bought any GW products this year and have considered never going back. I'm tired of how GW handles their games, and so far i'm finding the grass is indeed greener with bolt action and maybe even SW legion.
I tend to think its just GW being bad at how they do things.
For narrative my group do not go with anything GW has released in a long while, and for competitive they are a bit of a joke. Its a nostalgia game for so much of why i think i am even still with it.
I think its also that they bring some things out at a break neck pace. and other things will take years for them to even acknowledge existence off.
I also feel they do not have enough of a idea of there own games to really be putting out good quality. They change things around, bits and pieces all over the place.
And there supplements are mostly bad but still cost more than any other company.
I suggest not feeling obliged to have all of that stuff just to win. At what point is the "fun" of winning outweighed by the "cost" of doing what you feel must be done to achieve that win. In other words, forget trying to buy all the things you feel you need to be competitive, and just buy the things you really want to. If however, your need to remain competitive means that you won't have any fun otherwise, then that fatigue is the cost you will have to pay, because even if the issues with FAQs and soup are resolved, I'm afraid Chapter Approved and campaign books are going nowhere.
I don't really feel a need to win and I rarely do in fact win, but I still need a minimum of the Rulebook, Codex: Chaos Space Marines, Codex: Chaos Daemons, Index: Chaos, Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, Codex: Astra Militarum and Chapter Approved to write/play a 2K fluff list. Six of those seven books have associated FAQs. So from that POV, while I'm not 'fatigued' by content, the situation is very far from ideal.
However, having so many rules at my disposal is utterly wonderful.
Not so much content fatigue but as a returning player with multiple armies, who hasn't really played properly since 5th or 6th, I find it difficult to understand where all the rules are, what books I actually need, what card decks I need and so on and so forth. It's not very concise and that is despite all the talk of 8th being the most stripped down rules-wise; it may well be but the knock-on consequence is just pushing rules out to multiple satellite books rather than one core rulebook.
filbert wrote: Not so much content fatigue but as a returning player with multiple armies, who hasn't really played properly since 5th or 6th, I find it difficult to understand where all the rules are, what books I actually need, what card decks I need and so on and so forth. It's not very concise and that is despite all the talk of 8th being the most stripped down rules-wise; it may well be but the knock-on consequence is just pushing rules out to multiple satellite books rather than one core rulebook.
Yeah. The core rules are great, but the complexity seems to have just been pushed elsewhere. Although, I would argue that they're so much complex, as they are everywhere. It's not even the abundance of publications that's the problem for me. As I've said, for my purposes, Chapter Approved and campaign supplements are optional, and I only need one codex for my one army, but the FAQs and errata are an atrocious mess. Why can't the next big FAQ just contain all errata and FAQs to date? It's the same amount of data, but having it in a single download would go a long way towards making it more manageable.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: The big issue I have is that the output is going an order of magnitude faster than the revisions, hence blunders like the the new Shadowspear models being priced as if it's pre-CA18. The rules team keep putting out dodgy rules, and the speed at which they're re-balancing just isn't commensurate with the output of new rules. As a result, you have to brace yourself every time they release new models, because if it's a stinker one way or the other it's gonna fester for half a year (at least!).
Pre-empting the "back in my day we only got a codex once every epoch and if we didn't like it the only other game was kick-the-roadkill...." comments, it's 2019 for crying out loud. CA is a book. They take time to print, so OK. But the idea that we have to wait for a pdf BIG FAQ once a year, instead of them just fixing things is silly. Some things will take time, and they should. Other things are bleeding obvious and could be tweaked with an FAQ with a way shorter turnaround. Not sure if it's balanced? Make it a beta rule! Actually take advantage of the fact that the internet exists for once, jeez.
And for the Triarch's sake, put the CA points changes in the Codex FAQs you jerks.
The reason for this is marketing pure and simple. Release a ruleset/box/codex/etc. put some janky overpowered rules with it. It becomes the must have thing to dominate/power game/win at the table and so you create demand and drive sales as everyone rushes out to buy. Most recently this would be Orks, Skaven , and FEC. Then FAQ to restore balance for the loyalists that don't buy the new hip thing. As the hype fades and balance (to a point) returns... Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
1) On Simulation vs. Competitive: This is a weird spot because Warhammer has always been a byproduct of the first, and it's only thanks to the mindset that everything needs to be treated as a hyper-competitive thing (essentially the tabletop version of an e-sport) has necessitated that it move to Competitive focus, yet they did it half-assed. Personally, I think it should have stayed Simulation, but it's a problem with the general "pick up game" mentality where people want to be able to turn up anywhere and ask for a game of 40k (think on vacation in a different country and roll into a Warhammer store) and have there be set guidelines to play to minimize setup effort. The fact this method has become the default is in some ways a good thing (it increases the pool of potential players) and a bad thing (it discourages playing the game as it was envisioned and just focusing on the meta aspects of the game).
This, in turn, has pushed the idea to have recognized "world championships" and rankings in the vein of MtG which is what gave rise to the ITC and FLG's authority in the tournament scene, as GW wanted to go the other direction and faced backlash by the people who want to use these rankings to feel superior to their peers. Now we have this nebulous place where GW is trying to balance the game, which is good, but they are chasing their tail by always being months behind.
2) On the Index: I would agree with the sentiment that Index 40k was relatively balanced. There were still some issues (those Dark Eldar flocks spring to mind) but overall the game at launch, pre-Codex, was way better than the game now IMHO. Way less bloated, way less ridiculous combos and abuses caused by their desire to give every army unique stratagems as part of the balance while never seeming to factor in all the permutations. They seem to be echoing how WOTC began to mess up D&D 3.5: Every new book added different Prestige Classes, but they were always balanced around the base classes, never the entire gamut of books, which led to taking various combos across 6 books to break the game. Coupled with the fact that, similar to GW, the designers played in a particular way that did not focus on min/maxing and optimization, and you had the designers putting out fun and interesting options which were summarily either dismissed as garbage by the players (similar to how when you look optimally 90%+ of a Codex is discarded) or only looked at for what could be cherry-picked to maximize the build du jour (similar to how Soup lets you cherry-pick the best units across factions to negate any weakness). There are a lot of parallels there to my eye.
8th Edition failed the simulation test the second a grot stopped a baneblade cold in its tracks, that and one realizes they can assault a bastion with a valkyrie. 8th has always been bad, it just got worse is all.
As far as content fatigue, hoping the bloat will hide the rot is a time honored tradition at gw
Back in my day we had to wait 5- 7 years between codexes and we liked it *grumble*
But yes, keeping up with content and even models is a nightmare. I paint maybe 1 or 2 armies a year and I just can't keep up. I'm not even chasing the meta.
I just hate the rules bloat. I hate them placing rules for models I already bought and had to be rules for in a more annoying to get medium for me. I don't get white dwarf and now all my assassins are just shelved till they put out their rules in an easy to acquire format, just to name one issue.
The second is just the bloat which they said they were moving away from and are now going right back into. I'm already hearing and seeing how some things are " Only workable " because of these detachments from campaign books. That was an issue in 7th and I was happy to see it gone and here it comes again. As well even if you have things in digital it still requires a lot of back and forth to check all the different sources for all these rules.Such as, index, codex, white dwarf, campaign book, FAQs, chapter approved just to play Guard with an assassin, it's silly. Oh and lets not forget characters released with their own bespoke rules in special order models, like Marbo can't forget that so another piece of rules to keep in mind and look up.
I wish they'd just make a public statement saying they are just as bloated as they ever were and going to be more so in the future. I do wonder at this rate how long it'll be before they break it all to pieces and need to wipe it and start again with the same empty promises of less bloat before you end up removing your belt like its thanksgiving all over again.
Not to be negative fully, I like they are doing FAQs and such, point adjustments I just wish they would handle it all a bit better. Now we need to even be aware of buying version 1 or 2 of a codex ? GW please, if I was a new player I'd be beyond lost with all this.
Edit: I forgot, Forgeworld index as well just to use my vendettas I'd made to use my GW models that had been in the guard book proper since 5th edition and removed this edition.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Back in my day we had to wait 5- 7 years between codexes and we liked it *grumble*
But yes, keeping up with content and even models is a nightmare. I paint maybe 1 or 2 armies a year and I just can't keep up. I'm not even chasing the meta.
I do make large armies though...
Codex in the past must have really been writen with much better rule sets then now, because I can't imagine someone playing something like GK for 7 years with hope that maybe the codex gets better, only to get a copy past codex later on, and live with the prospect of another 5-7 years waiting.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Back in my day we had to wait 5- 7 years between codexes and we liked it *grumble*
But yes, keeping up with content and even models is a nightmare. I paint maybe 1 or 2 armies a year and I just can't keep up. I'm not even chasing the meta.
I do make large armies though...
Codex in the past must have really been writen with much better rule sets then now, because I can't imagine someone playing something like GK for 7 years with hope that maybe the codex gets better, only to get a copy past codex later on, and live with the prospect of another 5-7 years waiting.
It is just the way it was, you danced with who brought ya. People played with a codex that was aged, or old or just plain bad for quite awhile. Like I did with my late 4th edition Dark Angel codex, it was bland and bad and limited and just awful. However was stuck with that book for quite a long time and the book before that was also very meh from way back in 3rd edition. At that time they were my only army so it was quite a journey.
I am, i wish there was a simple page explaining the the most important things that explain every thing in simple broad terms, then gets more detailed after that. But i'm some what illiterate so its probably just me.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Back in my day we had to wait 5- 7 years between codexes and we liked it *grumble*
But yes, keeping up with content and even models is a nightmare. I paint maybe 1 or 2 armies a year and I just can't keep up. I'm not even chasing the meta.
I do make large armies though...
Codex in the past must have really been writen with much better rule sets then now, because I can't imagine someone playing something like GK for 7 years with hope that maybe the codex gets better, only to get a copy past codex later on, and live with the prospect of another 5-7 years waiting.
You just kind of stuck with it and hoped a new edition (more likely than a new codex) would make you less crap. DE had a codex in 3rd, but not in 3.5 or 4th and got one again in 5th (10 years later!). Nothing in 6th, but they then got another in 7th (4 year wait this time, we were spoiled!) and then got one in 8th (3 year wait if you count the index, 4 for the codex). They haven't had any model releases at all in the last 8 years and don't expect any any time soon. A couple of the units are strong enough to make it in the tournament meta at the moment though and about half to 2/3 of the codex is 'fine', so that's nice.
There's an element of content fatigue for me, for sure. It was bad enough when new Codices were being released monthly and keeping up with new rules was almost a full-time job, but it's now much worse thanks to GW going back to the ridiculous bloat of 7th edition with campaign books and weird formation rules spread over multiple publications. I'm not buying WD just for the Assassin rules. GW need to make stuff like that available to all at some point, preferably relatively soon after the rules are published.
Very soon we'll be back to the horror show that was the end of 7th where you need half a dozen rules sources to play your one-Codex army and need to constantly be on the lookout for new material, which GW is usually pretty bad at explaining. The new Chaos Codex was a great example of how bad they are at this. From their announcement prior to the Codex release, I had assumed you just needed to get the new Codex to get all the rules. Turns out a huge chunk of the rules for Chaos are actually in Vigilus.
It's bad enough now but give it a year, with multiple campaign books, more WD articles and more updated Codices and it's going to be almost impossible to figure out where your rules are located.
Argive wrote: Oh yeah too much content for peoples armies.. must be a real bummer!
im sitting here with a bunch of failcast 15 year old sculpts :p.
Exactly this lol. We're spoiled for content. I just feel bad for people playing the niche armies that missed the boat. Unbelievable that people complain about having more, optional, additions, added to their army.
Slipspace wrote: The new Chaos Codex was a great example of how bad they are at this. From their announcement prior to the Codex release, I had assumed you just needed to get the new Codex to get all the rules. Turns out a huge chunk of the rules for Chaos are actually in Vigilus.
Of the recent blunders, I thought that the CSM Codex 2.0 omitting the new Daemonkin rules but still keeping print errors (65pt Oblits!) was pretty heinous. You can't even use the new rules unless you buy the new models, which come in the same box as the Daemonkin codex!
Brutus_Apex wrote: Back in my day we had to wait 5- 7 years between codexes and we liked it *grumble*
But yes, keeping up with content and even models is a nightmare. I paint maybe 1 or 2 armies a year and I just can't keep up. I'm not even chasing the meta.
I do make large armies though...
Codex in the past must have really been writen with much better rule sets then now, because I can't imagine someone playing something like GK for 7 years with hope that maybe the codex gets better, only to get a copy past codex later on, and live with the prospect of another 5-7 years waiting.
hahahahahahahahahaha
nope.
Competitive metas were 1-2 armies for entire editions pretty much. Sometimes I try to imagine the brain anyeurism that the spoiled-ass 8th edition crowd would get if we had something like the Codex Space Marines to Codex Space Wolves comparison in modern 40k, where Space Wolves were literally just space marines for the exact same cost with a host of extra free gak lumped onto them for "flavor".
Argive wrote: Oh yeah too much content for peoples armies.. must be a real bummer!
im sitting here with a bunch of failcast 15 year old sculpts :p.
Exactly this lol. We're spoiled for content. I just feel bad for people playing the niche armies that missed the boat. Unbelievable that people complain about having more, optional, additions, added to their army.
Don't feel too sorry for us. We'll get a new model in another 2 years on regular pace (no updates to old models of course), but one new unit would be sweet and I think we will see one around 2021 (the last one was in 2011, before that 2001)! I hope it's a HQ being able to legally take 2 battalions with no special characters would be awesome!
Brutus_Apex wrote: Back in my day we had to wait 5- 7 years between codexes and we liked it *grumble*
But yes, keeping up with content and even models is a nightmare. I paint maybe 1 or 2 armies a year and I just can't keep up. I'm not even chasing the meta.
I do make large armies though...
Codex in the past must have really been writen with much better rule sets then now, because I can't imagine someone playing something like GK for 7 years with hope that maybe the codex gets better, only to get a copy past codex later on, and live with the prospect of another 5-7 years waiting.
hahahahahahahahahaha
nope.
Competitive metas were 1-2 armies for entire editions pretty much. Sometimes I try to imagine the brain anyeurism that the spoiled-ass 8th edition crowd would get if we had something like the Codex Space Marines to Codex Space Wolves comparison in modern 40k, where Space Wolves were literally just space marines for the exact same cost with a host of extra free gak lumped onto them for "flavor".
In a way, I do kinda miss those days. You knew what you were getting into with an army and "new" armies were safer for longer.
Yeah, it sucked to go against that 1-2 armies that were on top the whole edition, but you KNEW what those armies were.
Now there is just so much stuff that comes out every month that it is not only hard to "chase the meta" but hard to know if you have a competitive list that will be competitive next week, or know if the army you are facing is going to give you a headache or not.
Now that 90% the Codices are out, I kinda hope all we have to expect for new releases are one-off WD updates, Version2 Codices with minimal changes and CA points changes.
Let the "meta" settle for a year or so.
My problem is I seek after Sun Tzu's philosophy to know thy enemy and know myself (shortened if course). Even in 7th I could keep up with most of the armies. However, Now I can only keep up with my armies and the lists I see on Thursday nights at my flgs. I used to be able to know/study/understand every other army, but with so much content I am no longer able to keep up with the complexities of other armies.. and it is affecting my ability to bring my best game (not my best army, but knowing how to use my army against my opponent).
There rules bloat has taken a degree of fun away in that manner.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Back in my day we had to wait 5- 7 years between codexes and we liked it *grumble*
But yes, keeping up with content and even models is a nightmare. I paint maybe 1 or 2 armies a year and I just can't keep up. I'm not even chasing the meta.
I do make large armies though...
Codex in the past must have really been writen with much better rule sets then now, because I can't imagine someone playing something like GK for 7 years with hope that maybe the codex gets better, only to get a copy past codex later on, and live with the prospect of another 5-7 years waiting.
hahahahahahahahahaha
nope.
Competitive metas were 1-2 armies for entire editions pretty much. Sometimes I try to imagine the brain anyeurism that the spoiled-ass 8th edition crowd would get if we had something like the Codex Space Marines to Codex Space Wolves comparison in modern 40k, where Space Wolves were literally just space marines for the exact same cost with a host of extra free gak lumped onto them for "flavor".
Exactly this. Karol your negative feedback towards their efforts doesn't encourage them to improve it, it discourages it. There's a constructive way to say "hey you missed the mark on this specific point", without just being a spoiled brat about it.
Karol wrote: Codex in the past must have really been writen with much better rule sets then now, because I can't imagine someone playing something like GK for 7 years with hope that maybe the codex gets better, only to get a copy past codex later on, and live with the prospect of another 5-7 years waiting.
It was pretty bad. Took them 3 1/2 years to do something about the shambles of a 5e codex the GK had, 5 years to fix chaos 3.5...
But in all seriousness the daemonhunters update cycle was 8 years (not the longest - Crons 9 1/2 years, DE 12 years). It wasn't just a matter of waiting out a weak codex, long update times meant the game would undergoing significant balance and rules changes that were rarely retroactive. GK were paying 20pts over the odds for heavy weapons, rocking 4++(melee only) storm shields, chimeras with one firepoint, and landraiders without machine spirits to name a few as 5e rolled on - makes you appreciate the extra content a little more when you played through that.
Argive wrote: Oh yeah too much content for peoples armies.. must be a real bummer!
im sitting here with a bunch of failcast 15 year old sculpts :p.
Exactly this lol. We're spoiled for content. I just feel bad for people playing the niche armies that missed the boat. Unbelievable that people complain about having more, optional, additions, added to their army.
Don't feel too sorry for us. We'll get a new model in another 2 years on regular pace (no updates to old models of course), but one new unit would be sweet and I think we will see one around 2021 (the last one was in 2011, before that 2001)! I hope it's a HQ being able to legally take 2 battalions with no special characters would be awesome!
Could be worse: some (many?) armies have *lost* more units than they've gained in the last 5 years.
Argive wrote: Oh yeah too much content for peoples armies.. must be a real bummer!
im sitting here with a bunch of failcast 15 year old sculpts :p.
Exactly this lol. We're spoiled for content. I just feel bad for people playing the niche armies that missed the boat. Unbelievable that people complain about having more, optional, additions, added to their army.
Don't feel too sorry for us. We'll get a new model in another 2 years on regular pace (no updates to old models of course), but one new unit would be sweet and I think we will see one around 2021 (the last one was in 2011, before that 2001)! I hope it's a HQ being able to legally take 2 battalions with no special characters would be awesome!
Could be worse: some (many?) armies have *lost* more units than they've gained in the last 5 years.
Yeah, like the army he's referring to unless I'm wrong.
In the last decade, DE have gained one (1) multipart plastic kit with 5 guys for 40$ that is totally monopose (the arms are molded so that you can only glue them on one way and the whole body and direction the head is facing is fully dicatated to you) and 3 plastic character clampacks, which helpfully GW has made the only legal weapons loadout for our HQs.
Since the relaunch in fifth every codex has had dark eldar lose options and units. we even haven't had rules for the freakin' marneus calgar of our faction who all the fluff was about and continues to be about and they don't have a fething model or rules for him. We have 3 named characters, 1 of which hasn't done anything in the lore since his model came out in 3rd ed. All the named characters who actually appear in the fluff no longer exist in the model range lol.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Back in my day we had to wait 5- 7 years between codexes and we liked it *grumble*
But yes, keeping up with content and even models is a nightmare. I paint maybe 1 or 2 armies a year and I just can't keep up. I'm not even chasing the meta.
I do make large armies though...
Codex in the past must have really been writen with much better rule sets then now, because I can't imagine someone playing something like GK for 7 years with hope that maybe the codex gets better, only to get a copy past codex later on, and live with the prospect of another 5-7 years waiting.
hahahahahahahahahaha
nope.
Competitive metas were 1-2 armies for entire editions pretty much. Sometimes I try to imagine the brain anyeurism that the spoiled-ass 8th edition crowd would get if we had something like the Codex Space Marines to Codex Space Wolves comparison in modern 40k, where Space Wolves were literally just space marines for the exact same cost with a host of extra free gak lumped onto them for "flavor".
Exactly this. Karol never stops whining about balance in an edition where balance has never been tighter. Your negative feedback towards their efforts doesn't encourage them to improve it, it discourages it. There's a constructive way to say "hey you missed the mark on this specific point", without just being a spoiled brat about it.
8th is probably the "most balanced" edition yet.
We all know GK suck currently, its lame, I wish it wasnt so. But bitching about it does exactly 0% to help the predicament. It also doesnt help that you(Karol) play in one of the worst metas ever(by your own admission).
Bharring wrote: DE were the first army that popped into mind. But many other armies - Nids, CWE, Corsairs, Necrons, etc - aren't too far off.
I was referring to DE. I play bis CWE and Corsairs too, but Corsairs don't count and Nids/CWE have much more love than DE (though nids are still on the low end).
Bharring wrote: DE were the first army that popped into mind. But many other armies - Nids, CWE, Corsairs, Necrons, etc - aren't too far off.
I was referring to DE. I play bis CWE and Corsairs too, but Corsairs don't count and Nids/CWE have much more love than DE (though nids are still on the low end).
Totally agree. DE have it much worse than Nids/CWE.
Slipspace wrote:Turns out a huge chunk of the rules for Chaos are actually in Vigilus.
I'm curious. What is it in Vigilus that you guys wouldn't consider part of an optional expansion? I'm not defending it or anything. I'm actually asking, because I haven't read it.
Smotejob wrote:My problem is I seek after Sun Tzu's philosophy to know thy enemy and know myself (shortened if course). Even in 7th I could keep up with most of the armies. However, Now I can only keep up with my armies and the lists I see on Thursday nights at my flgs. I used to be able to know/study/understand every other army, but with so much content I am no longer able to keep up with the complexities of other armies.. and it is affecting my ability to bring my best game (not my best army, but knowing how to use my army against my opponent).
There rules bloat has taken a degree of fun away in that manner.
When you put it this way, it sounds awesome! Having too much stuff to master sounds to me like there will always be new avenues of the game to explore.
To me Vigilus highlights a problem that goes back to 7th edition. I either have the complete rules for my army or I don't. I primarily play space marines and to me there is no such thing as optional expansions. Any supplement or WD release is mandatory or I'm playing my faction with out the complete omnibus of options. I wish GW would do more to consolidate it's rules releases.
The problem is they seemed unwilling to have books go obsolete.
CSM 2nd edition gives me hope.
I have a Codex.
I have a FAQ (latest).
I must also have the two Chapter Approved.
Then any fiddly pieces of rules that come out with new models until something is written (we must have these or get no new models otherwise).
Nevermind the BRB and it's FAQ.
Chapter Approved should contain completely all rules updates outlined in the prior CA book(s) and the FAQ that came before..
The FAQ should cover everything CA does not have (so no waiting for rules between CA releases)..
Then you can reboot everything by making a new edition of the "bloated" codex and repeat the cycle.
I see this as being the only "reasonable" method where if you have say 2 armies being played together you would have 2 Codex books, ONE Chapter Approved, and a couple of FAQ's if done right should not be bigger than a page.
I do not agree that content fatigue is setting in just yet, if they start publishing Codex "supplements" or special "Formation Rules" with a GW special purchase, then we may be back to the bad old days.
Talizvar wrote: The problem is they seemed unwilling to have books go obsolete.
CSM 2nd edition gives me hope.
I have a Codex.
I have a FAQ (latest).
I must also have the two Chapter Approved.
Then any fiddly pieces of rules that come out with new models until something is written (we must have these or get no new models otherwise).
Nevermind the BRB and it's FAQ.
Chapter Approved should contain completely all rules updates outlined in the prior CA book(s) and the FAQ that came before..
The FAQ should cover everything CA does not have (so no waiting for rules between CA releases)..
Then you can reboot everything by making a new edition of the "bloated" codex and repeat the cycle.
I see this as being the only "reasonable" method where if you have say 2 armies being played together you would have 2 Codex books, ONE Chapter Approved, and a couple of FAQ's if done right should not be bigger than a page.
I do not agree that content fatigue is setting in just yet, if they start publishing Codex "supplements" or special "Formation Rules" with a GW special purchase, then we may be back to the bad old days.
I dunno even the 2nd edition of codex choas space marines suffers from the "fear of obselescance" issue.if they where willing to allow books to be obselete codex CSM could have for example made new and better legion trait rules etc to fix a few of the "overly weak ones"
Theoretically, I think the maximum is:
Astartes detachment with models from each codex with the astartes keyword: BA, SW, DA, SM, GK, DW, Vanguard pamphlet. 6 books, one packet
Something Else Imperial. 1 book
Something Else Imperial. 1 book
Forge World models for each of those armies: 2 more books
CA2018
BRB Vigilus
Assassins WD Index SM, and Index, Imperial 2
That's 15 books, 2 pamphlets, and it's an extreme case.
The maximum number of books at play between two players would probably then be your opponent being:
CWE DE Harlequins
Index Xenos
Index Imperial Armor Xenos
WD Ynnari
JohnnyHell wrote: He keeps peddling that line line it’s truth, I wouldn’t worry. Not everyone wants to play every army at once, so it’s a total non-issue.
I don't think there's even 93 books though, total.
JohnnyHell wrote: He keeps peddling that line line it’s truth, I wouldn’t worry. Not everyone wants to play every army at once, so it’s a total non-issue.
Your peddling an equal falsehood though. Yes he's being a bit hyperbolic but the underlying point is no wrong.
To have the complete rules just for one army I play Space marines I need the following
Codex Space Marine
Index Space Marine
Forge World index
Various FAQs CA White Dwarfs
The vanguard mini codex
Thats three books and almost half a dozen side documents and that's just to play one army.
Nope. I'm only really concerned with knowing the armies/models I'm currently playing (SM, SW, & Demons {Khorne only}).
And to a lesser extent those that I play against most often.
JohnnyHell wrote: He keeps peddling that line line it’s truth, I wouldn’t worry. Not everyone wants to play every army at once, so it’s a total non-issue.
Your peddling an equal falsehood though. Yes he's being a bit hyperbolic but the underlying point is no wrong.
To have the complete rules just for one army I play Space marines I need the following
Codex Space Marine
Index Space Marine
Forge World index
Various FAQs CA White Dwarfs
The vanguard mini codex
Thats three books and almost half a dozen side documents and that's just to play one army.
Is 6 books really so bad, though?
The minimum is 3: BRB, CA, and your Codex. To have all the potential rules for a single faction, you need a Codex, an Index, an IA Index, and potentially a Vigilus. That's still not a lot or unreasonable amount of books.
15 might be an egregious number of rules, but that's a number come upon by deliberately trying to include as many units from different books as legally possible.
I consider it a lot of books especially after GW originally seemed to recognize the content creep that was 7th and at the start of 8th had cut back. It's now slipping back the other way again.
When I started in 5th you needed the BRB a codex and a FAQ and that gave you everything. Now you need a lot more than that and if you play soup then I hope you brought a backpack or duffel bag.
keep in mind people talk about a ton of books but that's in part largely because of soup.
if you don't choose to soup the most number of books a C:SM player needs is basicly the codex, vigilus defiant, the phmplet and a forge world book assuming you want your FW stuff. Yes if you want to run some complicated soup you need more books but hey, the decision to run the soup is yours.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I consider it a lot of books especially after GW originally seemed to recognize the content creep that was 7th and at the start of 8th had cut back. It's now slipping back the other way again.
When I started in 5th you needed the BRB a codex and a FAQ and that gave you everything. Now you need a lot more than that and if you play soup then I hope you brought a backpack or duffel bag.
I like how you included the IA index for the current edition needs but have decided to emit things like the Badab War books for 5th.
I'll concede the above point about forge world back in 5th. Slipped my mind because when I started in 5th FW wasn't a thing in my local area and was treated as shadowy boogieman that wasn't real 40k.
I still think my over all point stands. I really would like GW to consolidate rules into less sources. I still really don't get why CA is separate from the FAQs
HoundsofDemos wrote: I'll concede the above point about forge world back in 5th. Slipped my mind because when I started in 5th FW wasn't a thing in my local area and was treated as shadowy boogieman that wasn't real 40k.
I still think my over all point stands. I really would like GW to consolidate rules into less sources. I still really don't get why CA is separate from the FAQs
Because they can't make a CA 2-3 times a year, and we would like more frequent updates than once a year.
In addition, CA isn't just minute errata like the FAQ, it's got some major stuff in it [like my Codex], mission packets, and other things.
I really like the way they're doing things now. I was suspicious of the Vigilus books, and still am, but the rest of it is really nice I think.
HoundsofDemos wrote:To me Vigilus highlights a problem that goes back to 7th edition. I either have the complete rules for my army or I don't. I primarily play space marines and to me there is no such thing as optional expansions. Any supplement or WD release is mandatory or I'm playing my faction with out the complete omnibus of options. I wish GW would do more to consolidate it's rules releases.
I get what you mean. I feel the same way about video game DLC. Oh sure, the Taken King was optional, but it was the first time the game was actually good. On the other hand, I don't see how Games Workshop could make it easier to have all your relevant rules short of just not releasing expansions.
---
Talizvar wrote:I must also have the two Chapter Approved.
Really?
Talizvar wrote:Chapter Approved should contain completely all rules updates outlined in the prior CA book(s) and the FAQ that came before..
I thought this was already the case. Is it not? You mean to tell me that the only way to have all up to date points changes is to have every Chapter Approved to date? That's really stupid, especially considering that the 2017 edition is no longer available.
Talizvar wrote:Chapter Approved should contain completely all rules updates outlined in the prior CA book(s) and the FAQ that came before..
I thought this was already the case. Is it not? You mean to tell me that the only way to have all up to date points changes is to have every Chapter Approved to date? That's really stupid, especially considering that the 2017 edition is no longer available.
They do re-print all the points costs from before.
I don't know what people are talking about with not needing a ton of stuff for your army anymore. I need no less than 4, or 6 books to play my mono guard army. Plus FAQs.
The Guard codex, index with the guard ( for my rough riders, yes I have them, no I won't just not use my enjoyed models ) Imperial armor to be able to use vendettas ( Which as well I have and were in the book up to this one ) , Chapter approved. Now if I want to run assassins I need to find the WD or I can't play my models at all, which is great fun and vigilus for if I want formations, and they will just keep making these formation books because let us be honest they will keep pumping these books out and they will always feel mandatory as the only way to keep up with those who will buy them, if you're in that kinda play group.
That is an awful lot of books, even to reference in an electronic medium which they said they were not going to do but here it is. As well, that is all conservatively keeping in mind what all I'd need in a normal game. How is that not much ?
JohnnyHell wrote: He keeps peddling that line line it’s truth, I wouldn’t worry. Not everyone wants to play every army at once, so it’s a total non-issue.
Your peddling an equal falsehood though. Yes he's being a bit hyperbolic but the underlying point is no wrong.
To have the complete rules just for one army I play Space marines I need the following
Codex Space Marine
Index Space Marine
Forge World index
Various FAQs CA White Dwarfs
The vanguard mini codex
Thats three books and almost half a dozen side documents and that's just to play one army.
Is that 93 books needed to play? No. It isn’t. So I’m not peddling anything, thanks. Utter hyperbole on BCB’s part. I didn’t say you only needed one book to play, but claiming you “need” 93 is plain wrong.
Saying you need 93, is hyperbole truth. However, saying I actually had to get a back pack just to carry all the books I would need or books and tablet, is absolutely true. That was when I knew there was a problem for me I could no longer fit my books with the army in question and needed another way to carry them and even then it may eventually feel like I'm back in high school with all the campaign books that have like 20 pages of formations/rules.
I wouldn't mind so much if they sold the rules alone in paper back, and sell the narrative and rules together in another book. Would cut down on cost and size for those who don't want/need all the fluff, maybe time gate just the rules like a month down the line so you have something smaller to carry.
I would say it would be a great idea if they do these version 2 books to put not only the points and FAQ changes but also add in the formations, new rules, etc. Even if they charge more for the version 2 then. People would appreciate it just for the case of having it all in one place. I mean I know they won't because they love talking out of both sides of their mouth. Say how bad bloat is then bloat you all to hell when they could in fact condense things.
The idea of New GW, which started with hope is quickly becoming a meme, you might as well say . " War, War never changes, and neither does GW. "
We do seem to be moving towards a situation similar to 7th edition, with new rules spread out across multiple publications and I don't think that's a good thing. GW have even said there'll be more Vigilus-style books in the future, so if you play an army that's included in both you'll need even more books to get access to everything for your army. Personally I'm ignoring the Vigilus books for my army because I don't want to go down that rabbit hole again.
I think GW need to find a much, much better way to make rules available. I think publishing stuff in WD is about the dumbest way to do things if they're not going to make that content available later in some way. I suspect we're not far away form the Index books becoming obsolete and GW might declare them non-official once the Sisters are out and everyone has a Codex. That would suck because some very valid options are only available via Index but it would help clear up some of the clutter.
Slipspace wrote: We do seem to be moving towards a situation similar to 7th edition, with new rules spread out across multiple publications and I don't think that's a good thing. GW have even said there'll be more Vigilus-style books in the future, so if you play an army that's included in both you'll need even more books to get access to everything for your army. Personally I'm ignoring the Vigilus books for my army because I don't want to go down that rabbit hole again.
I think GW need to find a much, much better way to make rules available. I think publishing stuff in WD is about the dumbest way to do things if they're not going to make that content available later in some way. I suspect we're not far away form the Index books becoming obsolete and GW might declare them non-official once the Sisters are out and everyone has a Codex. That would suck because some very valid options are only available via Index but it would help clear up some of the clutter.
Why? It makes bank for them to split up the rules in very differing Books.
I mean in essence they sell you now een what ammounts to balance patches, that is EA BULLGAK level.
Money wise, we all get it. They want to rock you for each dime. However they had stated what a bad idea the 7th ed way of doing it was and now are full power to engines going down the same path. We all know it is just to make bank but they could make bank anyways and didn't need to claim it wouldn't be this way if it quite honestly will just be this way. We'd have to be the dumbest people on the earth to forget what they said not that long ago. Though I'm sure if you brought up the bloat to them they'd give you some GW double speak to try and make it seem like it doesn't exist but it's only promised to get worse and worse.
There's not a single model in this game that you need a Vigilus book to play. These are additional rules and additional ways to play your models, it's a bit of added army customization and it's excellent. No, they aren't able to magically rewrite extra pages into your old codex that you bought, and with all the new content they deliver they shouldn't have to, I am the first to say GW is overpriced but it also needn't be free, the Vigilus books would have taken serious manhours of writing and development. This is one of the dumbest possible things hobbiests I've seen complained about honestly, and that's quite incredible considering how this community generally reacts to, well, everything.
Ok, but at the same time they were writing the new chaos codex. If they knew they wanted to fix csm in vigilus, then why didn't they put all the updates in the vigilus book. Right now if you want to use both the new oblits rules and the new csm for CP farming you have to buy both, and a chaos player probably already owns the old csm codex, the old index, and the CAs. That is what 4-5 books needed to play, and that is no souping. If they want to run a magnus/mortarion or some demons, it takes extra books.
Slipspace wrote: We do seem to be moving towards a situation similar to 7th edition, with new rules spread out across multiple publications and I don't think that's a good thing. GW have even said there'll be more Vigilus-style books in the future, so if you play an army that's included in both you'll need even more books to get access to everything for your army. Personally I'm ignoring the Vigilus books for my army because I don't want to go down that rabbit hole again.
I think GW need to find a much, much better way to make rules available. I think publishing stuff in WD is about the dumbest way to do things if they're not going to make that content available later in some way. I suspect we're not far away form the Index books becoming obsolete and GW might declare them non-official once the Sisters are out and everyone has a Codex. That would suck because some very valid options are only available via Index but it would help clear up some of the clutter.
Why? It makes bank for them to split up the rules in very differing Books.
I mean in essence they sell you now een what ammounts to balance patches, that is EA BULLGAK level.
yes because selling you new rules supplements for your table top games is something that only recently happened because of EA! games never ever ever released options and additional rules! nope never!
ohh wait, AD&D 2nd edition had something like a hundred books released for it. and that was before DLC was ever dreamed up.
supplement books for gaming has been part of gaming since the 80s at the LEAST. this isn't some new evil plot GW has dreamed up.
But what GW sells are not supplements. It is content that should be in one book. When they make the csm book, and csm in it are bad, and then at the same time they make a second csm book which gives csm good rules, then they aren't supplementing anything, they are just cuting up army books in to multiple pices, so people have to buy more books and more models to have a working army.
I don't know much about AD&D, but I bet the core stuff worked and the extra stuff added new stuff that wasn't in the core book. Vigilus doesn't added anything new to csm, other then giving CSM the rules they should have in the first place.
And this is just mono faction stuff. What about those armies for which to play you need to play another army alongside of them, because GW decided to give them bad rules. Like Harlequins for exmaple?
AngryAngel80 wrote:I don't know what people are talking about with not needing a ton of stuff for your army anymore. I need no less than 4, or 6 books to play my mono guard army. Plus FAQs.
The Guard codex, index with the guard ( for my rough riders, yes I have them, no I won't just not use my enjoyed models ) Imperial armor to be able to use vendettas ( Which as well I have and were in the book up to this one ) , Chapter approved. Now if I want to run assassins I need to find the WD or I can't play my models at all, which is great fun and vigilus for if I want formations, and they will just keep making these formation books because let us be honest they will keep pumping these books out and they will always feel mandatory as the only way to keep up with those who will buy them, if you're in that kinda play group.
That is an awful lot of books, even to reference in an electronic medium which they said they were not going to do but here it is. As well, that is all conservatively keeping in mind what all I'd need in a normal game. How is that not much ?
To be fair though, Chapter Approved is something most of us asked for in order to receive yearly points updates. It's one more book than before, but the alternative was waiting four or five years for your next codex update. White Dwarf rules have always been a pain in the arse, but I can see why they do it to keep White Dwarf relevant, and even if they didn't, Assassin's are not part of the Guard, so you were always going to need a separate publication to field them. I hear what you're saying about rough riders and vendetta's though. I don't see any justification for taking those away from a book they were already a part of. That just stinks. At most, a setup like yours should cost you no more than one book for Guard, one book for Assassin's, and Chapter Approved if you want the updates.
Karol wrote: Ok, but at the same time they were writing the new chaos codex. If they knew they wanted to fix csm in vigilus, then why didn't they put all the updates in the vigilus book. Right now if you want to use both the new oblits rules and the new csm for CP farming you have to buy both, and a chaos player probably already owns the old csm codex, the old index, and the CAs. That is what 4-5 books needed to play, and that is no souping. If they want to run a magnus/mortarion or some demons, it takes extra books.
Once again, you didn't read the post, you just rattled off a pre-canned response. Actually read my post and the answer is already there.
Slipspace wrote: We do seem to be moving towards a situation similar to 7th edition, with new rules spread out across multiple publications and I don't think that's a good thing. GW have even said there'll be more Vigilus-style books in the future, so if you play an army that's included in both you'll need even more books to get access to everything for your army. Personally I'm ignoring the Vigilus books for my army because I don't want to go down that rabbit hole again.
I think GW need to find a much, much better way to make rules available. I think publishing stuff in WD is about the dumbest way to do things if they're not going to make that content available later in some way. I suspect we're not far away form the Index books becoming obsolete and GW might declare them non-official once the Sisters are out and everyone has a Codex. That would suck because some very valid options are only available via Index but it would help clear up some of the clutter.
Why? It makes bank for them to split up the rules in very differing Books.
I mean in essence they sell you now een what ammounts to balance patches, that is EA BULLGAK level.
yes because selling you new rules supplements for your table top games is something that only recently happened because of EA! games never ever ever released options and additional rules! nope never!
ohh wait, AD&D 2nd edition had something like a hundred books released for it. and that was before DLC was ever dreamed up.
supplement books for gaming has been part of gaming since the 80s at the LEAST. this isn't some new evil plot GW has dreamed up.
Ca is not a suplement book, ca is a fething balance Patch.
I am not willing to pay for a balance Patch, the additional rules i concede but pts changes ? Nope.
You don't buy CA because of points costs alone. If you aren't interested in the points costs, don't buy it. And even if you are, wait a week and get them from Battlescribe.
I feel like point changes and corrections should be available free of charge and if, it is possible, pushed as free updates to all electronic versions of the rules.
Slipspace wrote: We do seem to be moving towards a situation similar to 7th edition, with new rules spread out across multiple publications and I don't think that's a good thing. GW have even said there'll be more Vigilus-style books in the future, so if you play an army that's included in both you'll need even more books to get access to everything for your army. Personally I'm ignoring the Vigilus books for my army because I don't want to go down that rabbit hole again.
I think GW need to find a much, much better way to make rules available. I think publishing stuff in WD is about the dumbest way to do things if they're not going to make that content available later in some way. I suspect we're not far away form the Index books becoming obsolete and GW might declare them non-official once the Sisters are out and everyone has a Codex. That would suck because some very valid options are only available via Index but it would help clear up some of the clutter.
Why? It makes bank for them to split up the rules in very differing Books.
I mean in essence they sell you now een what ammounts to balance patches, that is EA BULLGAK level.
yes because selling you new rules supplements for your table top games is something that only recently happened because of EA! games never ever ever released options and additional rules! nope never!
ohh wait, AD&D 2nd edition had something like a hundred books released for it. and that was before DLC was ever dreamed up.
supplement books for gaming has been part of gaming since the 80s at the LEAST. this isn't some new evil plot GW has dreamed up.
Ca is not a suplement book, ca is a fething balance Patch.
I am not willing to pay for a balance Patch, the additional rules i concede but pts changes ? Nope.
I feel like GW doesn't understand that part of their competition includes online games which can update their ruleset every week or two, entirely for free. In comparison, charging £20 for a balance update that can be six months (or more) out of date by the time it's released seems pretty weak.
They need to embrace the digital side of things more. Let there be a single source for all the rules you need and it would tremendously cut down on content bloat.
We don't need to buy new content that we do not want. I can happily run Dark Angels with the single book. I bring the Vigilus book to show the special Stratagems to opponents out of courtesy, but buying the book and using the Ravenwing Attack Squadron was completely my choice. I was happy they had some content in there that interested me. Didn't buy the next Vigilus book. Still play the game each week.
If I am bringing an extra book to game night to allow me to use a fussy model or formation not in my base Codex then that is the cost of doing business. I was bummed the Librarian on a Bike was dropped and is only in the Index. If anything, I worry about them streamlining content!
JohnnyHell wrote: He keeps peddling that line line it’s truth, I wouldn’t worry. Not everyone wants to play every army at once, so it’s a total non-issue.
Your peddling an equal falsehood though. Yes he's being a bit hyperbolic but the underlying point is no wrong.
To have the complete rules just for one army I play Space marines I need the following
Codex Space Marine
Index Space Marine
Forge World index
Various FAQs CA White Dwarfs
The vanguard mini codex
Thats three books and almost half a dozen side documents and that's just to play one army.
I mean...no. When someone says something "a bit hyperbolic" like "you need to have 93 documents to play this game" and the actual number of documents is, at worst, 7 (assuming your army includes one of each of those elements you just listed) then it's not "equally false" to say the person exaggerating the numbers by a factor of rougly 10 is engaging in some higgldy-piggldy.
Karol wrote: Ok, but at the same time they were writing the new chaos codex. If they knew they wanted to fix csm in vigilus, then why didn't they put all the updates in the vigilus book. Right now if you want to use both the new oblits rules and the new csm for CP farming you have to buy both, and a chaos player probably already owns the old csm codex, the old index, and the CAs. That is what 4-5 books needed to play, and that is no souping. If they want to run a magnus/mortarion or some demons, it takes extra books.
Once again, you didn't read the post, you just rattled off a pre-canned response. Actually read my post and the answer is already there.
Am not sure what a precanned response is. All I know is that made two books back to back. In one the core unit, that is in the name of the faction, the unit is bad. In the other it is fixed. One would have to want to play csm without any csm to not need the second book.
I mean is there an explanation why they split the csm from the codex and vigilus book in to two separate parts? If a company makes a car that breaks down, they don't go on and say that people should just buy a different car from them. They had to replace the one which is broken, or give money back. GW gave csm bad rules in the index, in the codex and in the 2.0 codex. They should have fixed what they did bad in the 2.0 book, specialy as there is no 3 years between the 2.0 csm codex and vigilus 2. If there was, one could say that GW just couldn't make a good new csm codex, so they gave the csm player an option to be a patch till the new codex comes. When both books come in a matter of 2 weeks between each other, it seems like they just cut content in half, so people buy 2 books. Now you say am wrong and that the anwser is in your post I reacted to, but I don't see where. All you claim is that GW is doesn't have to deliver new content, for old books, because they give new stuff. But A the stuff isn't new they are just remaking stuff which they made bad in the first place.
Your claim that it takes a lot of man hours to write new stuff. Well aren't the people paid to do that stuff? If GW can't write rules on time, or write them right, then why don't they hire more people. Everyone says how much GW makes money nowadays, how about they invest some of it in to designers. also most of the rules that csm got in vigilus exist in some way in other armies, or it is just making other chaos rules better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: We don't need to buy new content that we do not want. I can happily run Dark Angels with the single book. I bring the Vigilus book to show the special Stratagems to opponents out of courtesy, but buying the book and using the Ravenwing Attack Squadron was completely my choice. I was happy they had some content in there that interested me. Didn't buy the next Vigilus book. Still play the game each week.
If I am bringing an extra book to game night to allow me to use a fussy model or formation not in my base Codex then that is the cost of doing business. I was bummed the Librarian on a Bike was dropped and is only in the Index. If anything, I worry about them streamlining content!
Well that is all well and nice that people let you play like that. But very often people just won't let you play with models, if you don't have the proper rules for it. And in most cases then not they will want the printed version, because they aren't interested in checking if you didn't play around with the digital version.
Karol wrote: Ok, but at the same time they were writing the new chaos codex. If they knew they wanted to fix csm in vigilus, then why didn't they put all the updates in the vigilus book. Right now if you want to use both the new oblits rules and the new csm for CP farming you have to buy both, and a chaos player probably already owns the old csm codex, the old index, and the CAs. That is what 4-5 books needed to play, and that is no souping. If they want to run a magnus/mortarion or some demons, it takes extra books.
Once again, you didn't read the post, you just rattled off a pre-canned response. Actually read my post and the answer is already there.
Am not sure what a precanned response is. All I know is that made two books back to back. In one the core unit, that is in the name of the faction, the unit is bad. In the other it is fixed. One would have to want to play csm without any csm to not need the second book.
I mean is there an explanation why they split the csm from the codex and vigilus book in to two separate parts? If a company makes a car that breaks down, they don't go on and say that people should just buy a different car from them. They had to replace the one which is broken, or give money back. GW gave csm bad rules in the index, in the codex and in the 2.0 codex. They should have fixed what they did bad in the 2.0 book, specialy as there is no 3 years between the 2.0 csm codex and vigilus 2. If there was, one could say that GW just couldn't make a good new csm codex, so they gave the csm player an option to be a patch till the new codex comes. When both books come in a matter of 2 weeks between each other, it seems like they just cut content in half, so people buy 2 books. Now you say am wrong and that the anwser is in your post I reacted to, but I don't see where. All you claim is that GW is doesn't have to deliver new content, for old books, because they give new stuff. But A the stuff isn't new they are just remaking stuff which they made bad in the first place.
Your claim that it takes a lot of man hours to write new stuff. Well aren't the people paid to do that stuff? If GW can't write rules on time, or write them right, then why don't they hire more people. Everyone says how much GW makes money nowadays, how about they invest some of it in to designers. also most of the rules that csm got in vigilus exist in some way in other armies, or it is just making other chaos rules better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: We don't need to buy new content that we do not want. I can happily run Dark Angels with the single book. I bring the Vigilus book to show the special Stratagems to opponents out of courtesy, but buying the book and using the Ravenwing Attack Squadron was completely my choice. I was happy they had some content in there that interested me. Didn't buy the next Vigilus book. Still play the game each week.
If I am bringing an extra book to game night to allow me to use a fussy model or formation not in my base Codex then that is the cost of doing business. I was bummed the Librarian on a Bike was dropped and is only in the Index. If anything, I worry about them streamlining content!
Well that is all well and nice that people let you play like that. But very often people just won't let you play with models, if you don't have the proper rules for it. And in most cases then not they will want the printed version, because they aren't interested in checking if you didn't play around with the digital version.
You mean like how if you bought the digital edition of the CSM codex (1.0) you got the digital edition of the new codex (2.0) for free?
GW isn't going to mail you a replacement book, no, but if you are trying to find fault with the CSM 2.0 codex you should keep in mind that a significant chunk of the playerbase did actually get those rule updates for free - which, incidentally, also included the rules update from chapter approved as well.
Karol wrote: Ok, but at the same time they were writing the new chaos codex. If they knew they wanted to fix csm in vigilus, then why didn't they put all the updates in the vigilus book. Right now if you want to use both the new oblits rules and the new csm for CP farming you have to buy both, and a chaos player probably already owns the old csm codex, the old index, and the CAs. That is what 4-5 books needed to play, and that is no souping. If they want to run a magnus/mortarion or some demons, it takes extra books.
Once again, you didn't read the post, you just rattled off a pre-canned response. Actually read my post and the answer is already there.
Am not sure what a precanned response is. All I know is that made two books back to back. In one the core unit, that is in the name of the faction, the unit is bad. In the other it is fixed. One would have to want to play csm without any csm to not need the second book.
I mean is there an explanation why they split the csm from the codex and vigilus book in to two separate parts? If a company makes a car that breaks down, they don't go on and say that people should just buy a different car from them. They had to replace the one which is broken, or give money back. GW gave csm bad rules in the index, in the codex and in the 2.0 codex. They should have fixed what they did bad in the 2.0 book, specialy as there is no 3 years between the 2.0 csm codex and vigilus 2. If there was, one could say that GW just couldn't make a good new csm codex, so they gave the csm player an option to be a patch till the new codex comes. When both books come in a matter of 2 weeks between each other, it seems like they just cut content in half, so people buy 2 books. Now you say am wrong and that the anwser is in your post I reacted to, but I don't see where. All you claim is that GW is doesn't have to deliver new content, for old books, because they give new stuff. But A the stuff isn't new they are just remaking stuff which they made bad in the first place.
Your claim that it takes a lot of man hours to write new stuff. Well aren't the people paid to do that stuff? If GW can't write rules on time, or write them right, then why don't they hire more people. Everyone says how much GW makes money nowadays, how about they invest some of it in to designers. also most of the rules that csm got in vigilus exist in some way in other armies, or it is just making other chaos rules better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: We don't need to buy new content that we do not want. I can happily run Dark Angels with the single book. I bring the Vigilus book to show the special Stratagems to opponents out of courtesy, but buying the book and using the Ravenwing Attack Squadron was completely my choice. I was happy they had some content in there that interested me. Didn't buy the next Vigilus book. Still play the game each week.
If I am bringing an extra book to game night to allow me to use a fussy model or formation not in my base Codex then that is the cost of doing business. I was bummed the Librarian on a Bike was dropped and is only in the Index. If anything, I worry about them streamlining content!
Well that is all well and nice that people let you play like that. But very often people just won't let you play with models, if you don't have the proper rules for it. And in most cases then not they will want the printed version, because they aren't interested in checking if you didn't play around with the digital version.
Karol,
My post says I bring the books for my models. My point I still that I can happily play with my base Codex and the use of additional content is my choice. Any additional books are because I have chosen to add something like a special formation or an Index unit.
I have never seen anyone question the authenticity of a book or accuse someone of playing around with a digital version.
I do feel it's well past the time they should switch to digital. And they need to do updates more than twice per year. And errata should be errata, not FAQ is only for rules and CA is only for points. Errata should be errata, and CA should consolidate that errata into one book with reprinted datasheets/rules/etc.
They could go the route as X-wing of controlling / posting the points values for free and all other information needs a book.
They could go a step further and you have a subscription that you pay for for each Codex you want and then the "errata" is automatically updated in the main documents as was mentioned.
All the other rules out there tend to be specific to a campaign setting which I have mixed feelings about including in a main Codex... it is content specifically designed as "flavor" for a given environment of play.
Talizvar wrote:Chapter Approved should contain completely all rules updates outlined in the prior CA book(s) and the FAQ that came before..
I thought this was already the case. Is it not? You mean to tell me that the only way to have all up to date points changes is to have every Chapter Approved to date? That's really stupid, especially considering that the 2017 edition is no longer available.
They do re-print all the points costs from before.
Yes, I do agree they did carry-over the points but there are fundamental rule changes made not completely covered by the CA latest book.
I will have to go home and pick out some specifics, I was making a searchable Excel list and noticed a few things a couple months back.
I think its a bit harder to keep up this edition from a rules aspect. in 5th and 6th I knew all of the codexes , rules, interactions for units etc. in 7th the formations started to make that more difficult but was mostly managable. in this "simpler edition" with different strategems, formations, vigilus detachment bonuses, chapter/army keywords etc it is much more difficult to keep up with everything. I like the variety in narrative games, but tournament play is more difficult to keep up with everything all the armies can do.
it is a mixed bag though it all makes the games more varied and interesting for sure.
The new models pumping out more frequently is also a mixed bag. lots of cool models, but if you like doing higher very detailed paintjobs its hard to keep up. I have several boxes for upcoming rojects and at this point have stopped buying things i want to paitn until i can clear some of the backlog. as an example i have the ambots that will become a warboss in mega armor and a big mek in megaarmor. but I am not even through painting all of the buggies yet and also have some wake the dead models to finish just to name a few.
I continually perplexed by people who say that Games Workshop should make rules free. Why on Earth would they give away something that people are already willing to pay for? Don't get me wrong; I wish they would give the rules away for free, but to suggest that they should, neglects to consider the entire purpose of Games Workshop in the first place.
SHUPPET wrote: There's not a single model in this game that you need a Vigilus book to play. These are additional rules and additional ways to play your models, it's a bit of added army customization and it's excellent. No, they aren't able to magically rewrite extra pages into your old codex that you bought, and with all the new content they deliver they shouldn't have to, I am the first to say GW is overpriced but it also needn't be free, the Vigilus books would have taken serious manhours of writing and development. This is one of the dumbest possible things hobbiests I've seen complained about honestly, and that's quite incredible considering how this community generally reacts to, well, everything.
Depending on how competitive the place you play some of these updates may become near mandatory if you want to play on equal footing. Same as they did in 7th, it was hardly a choice, unless the choice was win or lose at the list phase. So sure it's optional, but many don't feel that way if your force is just straight better with it, then it becomes more a forced option and less a real choice. Kind of how eating is a choice, or upgrading to a new edition of the game is a choice. They are but are they really ?
I did in fact never say the rules should be free. I just said why not when they do a secondary print run, place extra rules in the new codex and charge for it. At least then it's stream lining the books and not adding another on top of another. As the second vigilus book is while not mandatory it has things for using the models you have that could have very well been in the CSM 2.0 book. As long as they will keep supporting print media they should at least keep in mind clutter and space can be a thing so why spread out books when you can combine them if you aren't missing out on how much they are selling them for.
Like for instance, having the second vigilus book being a needed buy if you have the first CSM book and want the campaign stuff and story, but have a more expensive CSM 2.0 book with the rules for army set up from vigilus and all that in the CSM 2.0. A reason to buy both, but actually helps stream line it if that is your wish. Not free but an actual choice. I get that the digital copy has it better in this regard but you'd still need vigiuls even with the updated CSM 2.0 book.
Even if you take away vigilus and call such books an actual choice, when they will I am sure keep feeling less like a choice and more like a must have. That is still 1 book away from the, even if I'm utterly generous, 4 books to carry, that by any measure is pointless bloat. Not many are expecting free but I do try and expect them to make life easier for their customer and not a pain in the rear.
Ginjitzu wrote: I continually perplexed by people who say that Games Workshop should make rules free. Why on Earth would they give away something that people are already willing to pay for? Don't get me wrong; I wish they would give the rules away for free, but to suggest that they should, neglects to consider the entire purpose of Games Workshop in the first place.
My suggestion to them was to make rules a subscription service. The way they structure their business, it essentially already is, but you have to buy all these fething books and lug them around with you. So, obviously, the market is there to pay for rules and support the salaries of a rules team (and maybe they could hire a few humans instead of the current staff of chimps) but you could just migrate to a system that could be easily and quickly updated when mistakes and misprints are uncovered, actively fine-tuned on a weekly basis, and with regular new content additions to justify something like a 15-20$ a month price tag. Just make up a proprietary app, pop it on the apple and play store, and upload all current rules content.
Ginjitzu wrote: I continually perplexed by people who say that Games Workshop should make rules free. Why on Earth would they give away something that people are already willing to pay for? Don't get me wrong; I wish they would give the rules away for free, but to suggest that they should, neglects to consider the entire purpose of Games Workshop in the first place.
My suggestion to them was to make rules a subscription service. The way they structure their business, it essentially already is, but you have to buy all these fething books and lug them around with you. So, obviously, the market is there to pay for rules and support the salaries of a rules team (and maybe they could hire a few humans instead of the current staff of chimps) but you could just migrate to a system that could be easily and quickly updated when mistakes and misprints are uncovered, actively fine-tuned on a weekly basis, and with regular new content additions to justify something like a 15-20$ a month price tag. Just make up a proprietary app, pop it on the apple and play store, and upload all current rules content.
it would be DOA at 15-20 a month that is more than a netflix subscription. even most MMOs run in the 48-15 a month range. I think GW should go the route of warmahordes/macine and have an app with basic units to armies listed but you pay to unlock all the content of the army. that way people get a small preview of the army adn can choose to buy the digital rules for said army. That way they can also after seeing other armies get excited and buy models or rules for them. I want to say it was like $10-15 per faction. If they wanted subscription though I would say $5 monthly would be about right, that way it is about the equivilant of buying almost 2 codexes per year. make an addon for a few bucks that includes the data card and an in app list buildeing tool/game tracking. call it liek the basic ap and the general's edition or something. from a company perspective the possibility of $5 per month per player would excite the hell out of GW's investors and might give them the motivation to dedicate more people to the idea that the rules for units are very important maybe even more important than just new nice looking kits
5$ per month is a lot of money though, that is not counting the phone or tablet you would need to run it on. Plus knowing GW exchange rates it would be closer to 7-8$ plus tax.
Karol wrote: 5$ per month is a lot of money though, that is not counting the phone or tablet you would need to run it on. Plus knowing GW exchange rates it would be closer to 7-8$ plus tax.
I think it is more in line than $15-20 and I can't speak for everybody but $15-20 monthly i would need to justify to the spouse (even though compared to our incme it is practically nothing) it would still represent $180-240 per year. $5 is $60 per year and my wife is not going to care at all at that point. its basically the cost of an energy drink and a candybar per month.
as for cost difference for regions the cool thing there is with a VPN you could just log on to your device and have it appear to be in the UK, pay the price off a google play balance and then afte downloading change location back to your home. as for having a phoen or tablet its 2019 people who have the money to play 40k have smartphones. there may be a few outliners who do not but as a vast majority i would confidently estimate in the 99+% of 40k players owning a smartphone or tablet,.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: You don't buy CA because of points costs alone. If you aren't interested in the points costs, don't buy it. And even if you are, wait a week and get them from Battlescribe.
I do wish people would stop advocating piracy on here.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: You don't buy CA because of points costs alone. If you aren't interested in the points costs, don't buy it. And even if you are, wait a week and get them from Battlescribe.
I do wish people would stop advocating piracy on here.
Let alone potentially inaccurate piracy.
Piracy is a Service problem.
Gabe Newell.
But you are right Battlescribe is more often then not off somewhat iffy quality.
My concern is with the new chaos keywords being so difficult to work with unless you play the army, that a lot of misplaying will happen at tournaments. It's very frustrating not to know your opponents rules, and typically getting an e-copy of the codex is enough.
But now, you need a bunch of different publications and you need to dig deeper to vet out if your opponent is even playing legally.
For instance, are they casting Warp Time on a <HERETIC ASTARTES> Khorne Daemon prince, or a Daemon Prince with the <KHORNE> faction? It matters. And this is a low hanging fruit easy to understand example.
Ginjitzu wrote: I continually perplexed by people who say that Games Workshop should make rules free. Why on Earth would they give away something that people are already willing to pay for? Don't get me wrong; I wish they would give the rules away for free, but to suggest that they should, neglects to consider the entire purpose of Games Workshop in the first place.
My suggestion to them was to make rules a subscription service. The way they structure their business, it essentially already is, but you have to buy all these fething books and lug them around with you. So, obviously, the market is there to pay for rules and support the salaries of a rules team (and maybe they could hire a few humans instead of the current staff of chimps) but you could just migrate to a system that could be easily and quickly updated when mistakes and misprints are uncovered, actively fine-tuned on a weekly basis, and with regular new content additions to justify something like a 15-20$ a month price tag. Just make up a proprietary app, pop it on the apple and play store, and upload all current rules content.
it would be DOA at 15-20 a month that is more than a netflix subscription. even most MMOs run in the 48-15 a month range. I think GW should go the route of warmahordes/macine and have an app with basic units to armies listed but you pay to unlock all the content of the army. that way people get a small preview of the army adn can choose to buy the digital rules for said army. That way they can also after seeing other armies get excited and buy models or rules for them. I want to say it was like $10-15 per faction. If they wanted subscription though I would say $5 monthly would be about right, that way it is about the equivilant of buying almost 2 codexes per year. make an addon for a few bucks that includes the data card and an in app list buildeing tool/game tracking. call it liek the basic ap and the general's edition or something. from a company perspective the possibility of $5 per month per player would excite the hell out of GW's investors and might give them the motivation to dedicate more people to the idea that the rules for units are very important maybe even more important than just new nice looking kits
Not a bad idea at all. Fits with the modern trend of services as subscriptions, and would be a lot more economically realistic for Games Workshop than just, "they should give the rules for free." Might also be a bit more environmental to finally get rid of all of that paper, not that I don't love leafing through paper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: I do wish people would stop advocating piracy on here.
Why? Battlescribe fills a void left by Games Workshop's greedy pricing. That void could easily be replaced by Games Workshop themselves if they were willing.
Dysartes wrote: I do wish people would stop advocating piracy on here.
Why? Battlescribe fills a void left by Games Workshop's greedy pricing. That void could easily be replaced by Games Workshop themselves if they were willing.
Why? Shockingly enough, because piracy is wrong.
If you don't wish to pay for the material - be it points changes or whatever - you do not have the right to have access to that material. Either pony up or don't use it.
This sort of entitled attitude is why tournaments should be making it a requirement that you bring a first-party source for all material you need to run your army - ideally a physical copy.
Advocating using Battlescribe instead of buying the latest CA is no different than advocating buying a recast instead of an original model.
Dysartes wrote: Advocating using Battlescribe instead of buying the latest CA is no different than advocating buying a recast instead of an original model.
Its not really though is it? If GW had an issue with list builders like Battlescribe they would have sent the C&D letters long ago, presumably Battalescribe and similar do not contain all of the info needed to play and certainly don't contain all of the fluff etc.
Considering now that the ally genie is well and truly with us, you'll be complaining for awhile then. I doubt it's going anywhere now. Allies, Super heavies, countless splat books and rules bloat till you need a library to make a list, I fear this is the future. Where we are going, you won't need eyes to see. You will however need all the money to stay up to date week to week. As well as internal computer memory inside your brain to keep track of all the rules and where to find them.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Considering now that the ally genie is well and truly with us, you'll be complaining for awhile then. I doubt it's going anywhere now. Allies, Super heavies, countless splat books and rules bloat till you need a library to make a list, I fear this is the future. Where we are going, you won't need eyes to see. You will however need all the money to stay up to date week to week. As well as internal computer memory inside your brain to keep track of all the rules and where to find them.
I mean, most of it is handled by Battlescribe. Which is in itself a massive failing on GW's part!
I'd trust a list made in Battlescribe over an opponent trying to figure out themselves what is going on from all the FAQs and such 99% of the time.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Considering now that the ally genie is well and truly with us, you'll be complaining for awhile then. I doubt it's going anywhere now. Allies, Super heavies, countless splat books and rules bloat till you need a library to make a list, I fear this is the future. Where we are going, you won't need eyes to see. You will however need all the money to stay up to date week to week. As well as internal computer memory inside your brain to keep track of all the rules and where to find them.
I mean, most of it is handled by Battlescribe. Which is in itself a massive failing on GW's part!
I'd trust a list made in Battlescribe over an opponent trying to figure out themselves what is going on from all the FAQs and such 99% of the time.
PPPFFT, you mean Battlescribe how can't even get the weapons profiles right?
Ginjitzu wrote: I continually perplexed by people who say that Games Workshop should make rules free. Why on Earth would they give away something that people are already willing to pay for? Don't get me wrong; I wish they would give the rules away for free, but to suggest that they should, neglects to consider the entire purpose of Games Workshop in the first place.
My suggestion to them was to make rules a subscription service. The way they structure their business, it essentially already is, but you have to buy all these fething books and lug them around with you. So, obviously, the market is there to pay for rules and support the salaries of a rules team (and maybe they could hire a few humans instead of the current staff of chimps) but you could just migrate to a system that could be easily and quickly updated when mistakes and misprints are uncovered, actively fine-tuned on a weekly basis, and with regular new content additions to justify something like a 15-20$ a month price tag. Just make up a proprietary app, pop it on the apple and play store, and upload all current rules content.
it would be DOA at 15-20 a month that is more than a netflix subscription. even most MMOs run in the 48-15 a month range. I think GW should go the route of warmahordes/macine and have an app with basic units to armies listed but you pay to unlock all the content of the army. that way people get a small preview of the army adn can choose to buy the digital rules for said army. That way they can also after seeing other armies get excited and buy models or rules for them. I want to say it was like $10-15 per faction. If they wanted subscription though I would say $5 monthly would be about right, that way it is about the equivilant of buying almost 2 codexes per year. make an addon for a few bucks that includes the data card and an in app list buildeing tool/game tracking. call it liek the basic ap and the general's edition or something. from a company perspective the possibility of $5 per month per player would excite the hell out of GW's investors and might give them the motivation to dedicate more people to the idea that the rules for units are very important maybe even more important than just new nice looking kits
Not a bad idea at all. Fits with the modern trend of services as subscriptions, and would be a lot more economically realistic for Games Workshop than just, "they should give the rules for free." Might also be a bit more environmental to finally get rid of all of that paper, not that I don't love leafing through paper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: I do wish people would stop advocating piracy on here.
Why? Battlescribe fills a void left by Games Workshop's greedy pricing. That void could easily be replaced by Games Workshop themselves if they were willing.
Ginjitzu wrote: I continually perplexed by people who say that Games Workshop should make rules free. Why on Earth would they give away something that people are already willing to pay for? Don't get me wrong; I wish they would give the rules away for free, but to suggest that they should, neglects to consider the entire purpose of Games Workshop in the first place.
My suggestion to them was to make rules a subscription service. The way they structure their business, it essentially already is, but you have to buy all these fething books and lug them around with you. So, obviously, the market is there to pay for rules and support the salaries of a rules team (and maybe they could hire a few humans instead of the current staff of chimps) but you could just migrate to a system that could be easily and quickly updated when mistakes and misprints are uncovered, actively fine-tuned on a weekly basis, and with regular new content additions to justify something like a 15-20$ a month price tag. Just make up a proprietary app, pop it on the apple and play store, and upload all current rules content.
it would be DOA at 15-20 a month that is more than a netflix subscription. even most MMOs run in the 48-15 a month range. I think GW should go the route of warmahordes/macine and have an app with basic units to armies listed but you pay to unlock all the content of the army. that way people get a small preview of the army adn can choose to buy the digital rules for said army. That way they can also after seeing other armies get excited and buy models or rules for them. I want to say it was like $10-15 per faction. If they wanted subscription though I would say $5 monthly would be about right, that way it is about the equivilant of buying almost 2 codexes per year. make an addon for a few bucks that includes the data card and an in app list buildeing tool/game tracking. call it liek the basic ap and the general's edition or something. from a company perspective the possibility of $5 per month per player would excite the hell out of GW's investors and might give them the motivation to dedicate more people to the idea that the rules for units are very important maybe even more important than just new nice looking kits
Not a bad idea at all. Fits with the modern trend of services as subscriptions, and would be a lot more economically realistic for Games Workshop than just, "they should give the rules for free." Might also be a bit more environmental to finally get rid of all of that paper, not that I don't love leafing through paper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: I do wish people would stop advocating piracy on here.
Why? Battlescribe fills a void left by Games Workshop's greedy pricing. That void could easily be replaced by Games Workshop themselves if they were willing.
*~You wouldn't download a rhino~*
I'm not advocating using Battlescribe without owning the books, just to be clear.
I have to admit I've never understood the complaint about Battlescribe's inaccuracy. I have occasionally created an army in Battlescribe and then subsequently combed over stats and points in comparison to my books and I don't think I've found any errors so far. Must be army dependent.
Eldarsif wrote: I have to admit I've never understood the complaint about Battlescribe's inaccuracy. I have occasionally created an army in Battlescribe and then subsequently combed over stats and points in comparison to my books and I don't think I've found any errors so far. Must be army dependent.
Based on specific examples I've encountered from people here too, often Battlescribe actually turns out to be correct and the user who thought it was wrong had actually made a mistake!
Battlescribe has been consistently more accurate in the past than I have and still reminds me of relevant faqs. Consequently, I now rely wholeheartedly and unashamedly on it for list building. It's a great service.
Eldarsif wrote: I have to admit I've never understood the complaint about Battlescribe's inaccuracy. I have occasionally created an army in Battlescribe and then subsequently combed over stats and points in comparison to my books and I don't think I've found any errors so far. Must be army dependent.
Based on specific examples I've encountered from people here too, often Battlescribe actually turns out to be correct and the user who thought it was wrong had actually made a mistake!
It is the exact same argument as "Wikipedia isn't a reliable source because ANYONE can edit it." Despite the fact that wiki has a faster turnaround for error correction and less frequent errors than "reliable" sources like Encyclopedia Britannica etc. In theory TFG could make edits to his Battlescribe data, but that is no different from someone not bringing a list/codex and lying for advantage.
Eldarsif wrote: I have to admit I've never understood the complaint about Battlescribe's inaccuracy. I have occasionally created an army in Battlescribe and then subsequently combed over stats and points in comparison to my books and I don't think I've found any errors so far. Must be army dependent.
Based on specific examples I've encountered from people here too, often Battlescribe actually turns out to be correct and the user who thought it was wrong had actually made a mistake!
It is the exact same argument as "Wikipedia isn't a reliable source because ANYONE can edit it." Despite the fact that wiki has a faster turnaround for error correction and less frequent errors than "reliable" sources like Encyclopedia Britannica etc. In theory TFG could make edits to his Battlescribe data, but that is no different from someone not bringing a list/codex and lying for advantage.
Absolutely.
The big caveat of course is in the immediate week or two after a big release. The volume of data makes a few issues inevitable. But we can all help speed this along by flagging issue, rather than just complaining here.
Ginjitzu wrote: I continually perplexed by people who say that Games Workshop should make rules free. Why on Earth would they give away something that people are already willing to pay for? Don't get me wrong; I wish they would give the rules away for free, but to suggest that they should, neglects to consider the entire purpose of Games Workshop in the first place.
My suggestion to them was to make rules a subscription service. The way they structure their business, it essentially already is, but you have to buy all these fething books and lug them around with you. So, obviously, the market is there to pay for rules and support the salaries of a rules team (and maybe they could hire a few humans instead of the current staff of chimps) but you could just migrate to a system that could be easily and quickly updated when mistakes and misprints are uncovered, actively fine-tuned on a weekly basis, and with regular new content additions to justify something like a 15-20$ a month price tag. Just make up a proprietary app, pop it on the apple and play store, and upload all current rules content.
it would be DOA at 15-20 a month that is more than a netflix subscription. even most MMOs run in the 48-15 a month range. I think GW should go the route of warmahordes/macine and have an app with basic units to armies listed but you pay to unlock all the content of the army. that way people get a small preview of the army adn can choose to buy the digital rules for said army. That way they can also after seeing other armies get excited and buy models or rules for them. I want to say it was like $10-15 per faction. If they wanted subscription though I would say $5 monthly would be about right, that way it is about the equivilant of buying almost 2 codexes per year. make an addon for a few bucks that includes the data card and an in app list buildeing tool/game tracking. call it liek the basic ap and the general's edition or something. from a company perspective the possibility of $5 per month per player would excite the hell out of GW's investors and might give them the motivation to dedicate more people to the idea that the rules for units are very important maybe even more important than just new nice looking kits
Not a bad idea at all. Fits with the modern trend of services as subscriptions, and would be a lot more economically realistic for Games Workshop than just, "they should give the rules for free." Might also be a bit more environmental to finally get rid of all of that paper, not that I don't love leafing through paper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: I do wish people would stop advocating piracy on here.
Why? Battlescribe fills a void left by Games Workshop's greedy pricing. That void could easily be replaced by Games Workshop themselves if they were willing.
*~You wouldn't download a rhino~*
I'm not advocating using Battlescribe without owning the books, just to be clear.
Yeah lets be realistic, I own CA2018, use it as a reference for urban combat, eternal war missions, and pretty much never look at the points page because it's far, far more convenient to build a list on Battlescribe and far less likely I screw up than opening up two books, writing down a number, cross-referencing the almost totally unformatted list in CA2018 to try and make sure that number is correct, and then doing that for 100 different units/wargear options I want to add up.
This kind of just smacks of those "you've got to own a gun to protect yourself" folks who just ignore that the potential for you or a loved one to accidentally injure yourself or an innocent person with it far outweighs your odds of needing it because the world's most incompetent burglar decided to kick your door down at midnight instead of just waiting for you to leave for work in the morning.
Battlescribe might have mistakes. YOU however, also might make mistakes, and you don't have an online community very interested in accuracy double checking your every move.
Opening an 'issue' is just saying 'I found a problem'. It's better than ignoring a problem, so please do?
Even better than opening an 'issue' is forking, fixing, then doing a pull request. If you really want to "do it right", open an issue describing what you're fixing, and reference it.
But opening an 'issue' and not supplying the fix yourself, then complaining that people shouldn't use BattleScribe because it's wrong, then spending even more time to do things differently instead of fixing BattleScribe, doesn't help anyone.
I've not bought a single book in 8th and rely on other sources. The only times I have gotten rules wrong was due to poor memory or a mistake on my part in not reading/understanding a rule properly rather than the sources being wrong. I 100% pirate rules and do it because I am cheap and don't want to spend the money on a product that I do not see the value in. I don't want to carry around books and keep tracking of all the FAQs, Erratas and updates is a nightmare that thanks to services like battlescribe I don't need to contend with.
Now if GW came out with a subscription service that just had ALL the rules and their associated updates as well as an actually good army builder all in one place I would 100% give them my money.
A few gripes:
1. Content is released on a monthly basis (give or take), but errata is release bi-annually with a 6 month lag. That's horrendously out of kilter and only going to get worse as the errata lags further and further behind the rules.
2. If GW thinks they're gonna get me to pay for errata (Chapter Approved) then they're insane.
3. If people want to start whining about Battlescribe and/or PDFs, then they can carry around all the books I "need" (Core Rules + Errata, Codex + Errata, Chapter Approved + Errata, BIG FAQ).
Dysartes wrote: If you don't wish to pay for the material - be it points changes or whatever - you do not have the right to have access to that material. Either pony up or don't use it.
This sort of entitled attitude is why tournaments should be making it a requirement that you bring a first-party source for all material you need to run your army - ideally a physical copy.
Advocating using Battlescribe instead of buying the latest CA is no different than advocating buying a recast instead of an original model.
I own the BRB, the latest CA and my Codex, but I still use BattleScribe because it allows me to share my list and means I don't have to cross-reference all the points changes. It doesn't replace any of the books because it only contains the datasheets and points. I'd happily use an official app (if it existed) even if it didn't have datasheets, just the ability to let you build a battle-forged list and handle all the loadouts and points. I appreciate that GW wants to sell those too so maybe that's too much to ask for, but in my case at least, I'm not gaining any information I haven't already paid for.
Dysartes wrote: If you don't wish to pay for the material - be it points changes or whatever - you do not have the right to have access to that material. Either pony up or don't use it.
This sort of entitled attitude is why tournaments should be making it a requirement that you bring a first-party source for all material you need to run your army - ideally a physical copy.
Advocating using Battlescribe instead of buying the latest CA is no different than advocating buying a recast instead of an original model.
I own the BRB, the latest CA and my Codex, but I still use BattleScribe because it allows me to share my list and means I don't have to cross-reference all the points changes. It doesn't replace any of the books because it only contains the datasheets and points. I'd happily use an official app (if it existed) even if it didn't have datasheets, just the ability to let you build a battle-forged list and handle all the loadouts and points. I appreciate that GW wants to sell those too so maybe that's too much to ask for, but in my case at least, I'm not gaining any information I haven't already paid for.
Likewise. Its just like the music and movie/film industries. PIracy actually increases sales. Game of Thrones would not be nearly as big as it is today if it wasn't for torrents making it available to everyone. Mp3 players wouldn't have dominated the under 16 market nearly as hard as they did without music piracy. All GW has to do is find a way to profit off that market, which would be to do exactly what battlescribe does (gathers and updates all data for list building), but at a price people are willing to pay.
If GW had any sense at all they would offer a D&D Beyond type service, but obviously tailored to matched play 40k. They'd make a financial killing too, if done right.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I've not bought a single book in 8th and rely on other sources. The only times I have gotten rules wrong was due to poor memory or a mistake on my part in not reading/understanding a rule properly rather than the sources being wrong. I 100% pirate rules and do it because I am cheap and don't want to spend the money on a product that I do not see the value in. I don't want to carry around books and keep tracking of all the FAQs, Erratas and updates is a nightmare that thanks to services like battlescribe I don't need to contend with.
Now if GW came out with a subscription service that just had ALL the rules and their associated updates as well as an actually good army builder all in one place I would 100% give them my money.
I don't belive that. you've not spent a cent on 40k this edition, and instead used "other sources" you'd continue using those "other sources" no matter what GW put out.
If GW releases a battlescribe equivalent it will be ridden with microtransactions and user unfriendly interfaces designed to sell you models. Look at warscroll builder.
I need to be able to quickly build my lists, and build opposition lists to theory craft. The design of the game means you cant lock this stuff behind a paywall.
I still buy the content bc I like the lore and the art and want to support my faction. But it's unrealistic to expect me to buy every single enemy codex to have a clue about what is going on in my games.
Dysartes wrote: I do wish people would stop advocating piracy on here.
Why? Battlescribe fills a void left by Games Workshop's greedy pricing. That void could easily be replaced by Games Workshop themselves if they were willing.
Dysartes wrote:Shockingly enough, because piracy is wrong.
I disagree. Illegal? In most places, yes, piracy is illegal, but I try never to conflate legality with morality.
Dysartes wrote:If you don't wish to pay for the material - be it points changes or whatever - you do not have the right to have access to that material. Either pony up or don't use it.
I don't claim to have such a right, only the ability. I should also point out that my problem isn't in paying. My problem is in paying what I feel are grossly exaggerated costs for the quality and usefulness of the product.
Dysartes wrote:This sort of entitled attitude is why tournaments should be making it a requirement that you bring a first-party source for all material you need to run your army - ideally a physical copy.
I actually agree that tournaments that use the official 40k rules should insist on competitors bringing the correct publications. Again, not for any moral concern, but you should always have an official copy of the rules you intend to use in order to settle disputes. I'm not sure why you'd prefer a physical copy over a digital one though. Games Workshop provide both, and neither format has more authority over the other as far as I know.
Dysartes wrote:Advocating using Battlescribe instead of buying the latest CA is no different than advocating buying a recast instead of an original model.
I can see that. After all, they both involve using a work in such a way as that the original designer receives no compensation. I still have no issue with either though as I find the prices Games Workshop choose to charge as unnecessarily high, greedy and prohibitive to many people's access to the hobby in a way that needn't be. That said, as well as using Battlescribe, I actually do own print copies of all of the publications I use, because can afford them and I enjoy the tactile experience, but I have every sympathy for people who can't afford to do so, and no sympathy whatsoever for Games Workshop, just as I had no sympathy for the music industry when they claimed that mp3 sharing would bring about the death of music, because I knew as we all do now, that they were completely full of "Nurgle's blessing."
---
Eldarsif wrote:I have to admit I've never understood the complaint about Battlescribe's inaccuracy. I have occasionally created an army in Battlescribe and then subsequently combed over stats and points in comparison to my books and I don't think I've found any errors so far. Must be army dependent.
I've found a couple and reported them. It's never taken more than a day for the guys to fix.
I was looking at the idea of "subscription" and where we are at for electronic versions of "the game".
Note this is in Canadian funds at this time for electronic books:
Big Rule Book: $51.99
Chapter Approved: $39.99
Codex $32.99 ($857.74 for all 26 factions)
White Dwarf 12 months: $110.00 ($9.17 per month).
So if I was to assume Chapter Approved was redundant, I would figure a "basic" package would require the BRB, 2 Codex and 1 WD issue the last 3 items to be chosen at time of purchase or after, for one year at time of selection:
$127.14
These would be all electronic documents which will be updated as needed one to two months after new rules are release in WD (that would be the evil... er, "right" thing to do). May have to push for a minimum 2 month subscription.
I dunno, we can usually justify for around that price those large starter boxes, would be hard to argue if you go "month by month" for a low, low cost of $10.59 per month, no worse than a WD subscription.
Getting a codex can be as easy as the price of a cup of coffee of $2.75 a month.
<edit> The good thing is if they are "live" documents people who do not pay for them (pirate) would need to refresh their copies quite often, it would be more bother than being official.
Have any of you used the Age of Sigmar app for rules? That's what your 'One Source Digital GW Subscription' would be like. Lugging around 7 physical books is less of a chore.
Lansirill wrote: Have any of you used the Age of Sigmar app for rules? That's what your 'One Source Digital GW Subscription' would be like. Lugging around 7 physical books is less of a chore.
I used to subscribe to this and didn't think it was too bad. The reason I stopped though, my god they took forever to do updates! I waited for weeks after Soul Wars for the thing to update. Finally caved after something like 3 weeks and then cancelled my subscription.
The army builder in the AOS app isn't bad. The issue is having to buy the books in the app to be able to use certain things.
Seriously they need to just look at War Room for Warmahordes and do that. That is still the best army building app I've ever seen or used. Pay a flat fee (GW would probably be a subscription) and you get full access to books/lists for as long as you pay the sub.
GW finally had rules bloat in a good spot when they released 8th, but they just couldn't help themselves. They did the same thing with Kill Team. At first you just needed 1 small rulebook to play. Then they released Commanders, Arena, and now Elites. You now need $200 worth of books to have all the rules for what's supposed to be a small skirmish game.
Toofast wrote: GW finally had rules bloat in a good spot when they released 8th, but they just couldn't help themselves. They did the same thing with Kill Team. At first you just needed 1 small rulebook to play. Then they released Commanders, Arena, and now Elites. You now need $200 worth of books to have all the rules for what's supposed to be a small skirmish game.
....Arena isn't a kill team book, is it? it's a separate standalone board game I thought?
Toofast wrote: GW finally had rules bloat in a good spot when they released 8th, but they just couldn't help themselves. They did the same thing with Kill Team. At first you just needed 1 small rulebook to play. Then they released Commanders, Arena, and now Elites. You now need $200 worth of books to have all the rules for what's supposed to be a small skirmish game.
....Arena isn't a kill team book, is it? it's a separate standalone board game I thought?
You need the core Kill Team rule book with everything released so far. However, Commanders and Arena have no interaction with each other. Too Fast is incorrect in the idea you need anything more than the core Kill Team rule book for rules. That is all I have I, and I have been playing Kill Team just fine. It is better to think of Commanders/Arena less like a necessity like codex with the BRB, but more like the Vigilus books where you might want them depending on what your group does.
As far as I have seen both locally and on the internet, Commanders has been largely ignored as a Kill Team add-on. I think Commanders was released in the wrong order and was/is too expensive buy in either through the Kill Team Commanders faction boxes or just buying the single HQ model separately. Most Kill Team players I have met/played do so because they can afford 40k at this level and spending $20-$35+ US for a single model just didn't happen. Ultimately, just not enough bang for their buck to even bother with.
As for Arena, that does see some play locally. I am not very interested in it since I am not one for tournaments, and if I wanted to play tight quarters 40k, I have a copy of Space Hulk already. I also thought that $90 was just too expensive for what was included. Arena doesn't require special units like Commanders, and I believe that a single box of had enough more or less for two players (if not I have some spare 40k crates and barrels and could probably figure something out for the doors. So if I did encounter someone that wanted to play Arena, I don't necessarily need to buy it.
It will be interesting how Elites work. I heard that the book will require Commanders, and if so, I don't quite know what I am going to do about it. Like I said, I don't have any interest in Commanders so I don't really want to pick it up even for use in Elites. I suppose at least one person locally will get it day one, and I can ask them exactly how entwined the rules are. If Elites absolutely needs Commanders, I will probably pass unless GW publishes an all-in-one book with everything. If Commanders is part of a few Elites missions but largely not required, I will probably pick up Elites. Either way, I suspect that vanilla Kill Team will always be available for play in my area as long as there are Kill Team players around.
I think people should stop trying to imply that Commanders, Arena and/or Elites are required for Kill Team. They are about a required as Kill Team: Rogue Trader. They add a little more to the game, but missions within their pages are limited and seem to only allow the core rules and that particular rules set to be used.
It doesn't need to come in a shape of a servoscull, but their april fools joke isn't entirely out of reason 
