Is anyone surprised by this? I'm not. Although frankly I'm pretty pleased we won't have to shell out for endless spells.
Just a little peeved after buying the latest SM codex, which I'll then need to buy the RG supplement for, that I'll need a third supplement too. And a supplement for my GKs. And my CSM. And my Inquisiton/Guard army.
And fething get this, for my TAU. If you play tau, congrats, we get to shell out more money for the psychic awakening. Feth this company.

Also they literally just released warcry and it's already getting a supplement.

I'm pissed off they couldn't have an announcement for 40k without saying they're releasing more Mehreen models first.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Is anyone surprised by this? I'm not. Although frankly I'm pretty pleased we won't have to shell out for endless spells.
Just a little peeved after buying the latest SM codex, which I'll then need to buy the RG supplement for, that I'll need a third supplement too. And a supplement for my GKs. And my CSM. And my Inquisiton/Guard army.
And fething get this, for my TAU. If you play tau, congrats, we get to shell out more money for the psychic awakening. Feth this company.

Idk, everyone thought they'd have to buy vigilus and...nope.

ERJAK wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Is anyone surprised by this? I'm not. Although frankly I'm pretty pleased we won't have to shell out for endless spells.
Just a little peeved after buying the latest SM codex, which I'll then need to buy the RG supplement for, that I'll need a third supplement too. And a supplement for my GKs. And my CSM. And my Inquisiton/Guard army.
And fething get this, for my TAU. If you play tau, congrats, we get to shell out more money for the psychic awakening. Feth this company.

Idk, everyone thought they'd have to buy vigilus and...nope.

This feels a little bigger than vigilus, which was just for marines (now partly invalidated by the new codex) and csm.

I don't think the vigilus supplements brought anything to the game that was a must buy. I got some specialist detachment rules for the eldar but I can take them or leave them and I didn't have to buy the book in order to use these...

More importantly, no endless spells by the looks of it ( I assume maybe new psychic disciplines for some factions?) and new plastic aspects!!

Also, why are you surprised dude? Just don't buy the books...

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Is anyone surprised by this? I'm not. Although frankly I'm pretty pleased we won't have to shell out for endless spells.
Just a little peeved after buying the latest SM codex, which I'll then need to buy the RG supplement for, that I'll need a third supplement too. And a supplement for my GKs. And my CSM. And my Inquisiton/Guard army.
And fething get this, for my TAU. If you play tau, congrats, we get to shell out more money for the psychic awakening. Feth this company.

Also they literally just released warcry and it's already getting a supplement.

It's almost like they have a staff of writers to keep employed.

Constant churn of new models means new books - either replacement codexes or books like this.

 Argive wrote:
I don't think the vigilus supplements brought anything to the game that was a must buy. I got some specialist detachment rules for the eldar but I can take them or leave them and I didn't have to buy the book in order to use these...

More importantly, no endless spells by the looks of it ( I assume maybe new psychic disciplines for some factions?) and new plastic aspects!!

Also, why are you surprised dude? Just don't buy the books...

Books are by far the easiest thing to avoid paying for tbh. Not even through piracy, just through like...army builders and video reviews you can pretty much get everything you need.

Yeah. So, let's remember, GW generally sticks to a pattern that repeats over the course of several years.

In late 7th edition, we got Gathering Storm, Clan Raukaan, Traitor Legions, Traitor's Hate, etc. They were all good for about a year.

Now it's 8th edition. We just got the Vigilus Books, new CSM and SM codexes, now Psychic Awakening.

This is a hint. 9th edition is on the way.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Yeah. So, let's remember, GW generally sticks to a pattern that repeats over the course of several years.

In late 7th edition, we got Gathering Storm, Clan Raukaan, Traitor Legions, Traitor's Hate, etc. They were all good for about a year.

Now it's 8th edition. We just got the Vigilus Books, new CSM and SM codexes, now Psychic Awakening.

This is a hint. 9th edition is on the way.

It's not 9th if the game doesn't change drastically. If Psychic Awakening gives us some more formations and psychic spells then they're really just filling in holes from 7th. Any new BRB would just be combining this stuff together.

There's no incentive to kick the system around with a yearly Chapter Approved.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I'm pissed off they couldn't have an announcement for 40k without saying they're releasing more Mehreen models first.

Yes, yes, we all know that every non-Ork release that comes out, GW comes to your house and slaps you directly in the face and twice when it a marine release. We are all sorry for that.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Is anyone surprised by this? I'm not. Although frankly I'm pretty pleased we won't have to shell out for endless spells.
Just a little peeved after buying the latest SM codex, which I'll then need to buy the RG supplement for, that I'll need a third supplement too. And a supplement for my GKs. And my CSM. And my Inquisiton/Guard army.
And fething get this, for my TAU. If you play tau, congrats, we get to shell out more money for the psychic awakening. Feth this company.

Also they literally just released warcry and it's already getting a supplement.

Not sure what you thought would come out of something they said would impact every army. GW doesn't do free rules.

ERJAK wrote:

Idk, everyone thought they'd have to buy vigilus and...nope.

I don't know, for my Orkz the Vigilus book is basically required to be competitive. Without it you can't use the SSAG which is unarguably the best weapon in our entire arsenal, not to mention that it gives you access to a 2nd shoot again stratagem. Heavily nerfed now that we don't use the Loota bomb anymore but still very important for Orkz to be competitive.

I didn't buy Vigilus. Why will I have to buy this?

SemperMortis wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Idk, everyone thought they'd have to buy vigilus and...nope.

I don't know, for my Orkz the Vigilus book is basically required to be competitive. Without it you can't use the SSAG which is unarguably the best weapon in our entire arsenal, not to mention that it gives you access to a 2nd shoot again stratagem. Heavily nerfed now that we don't use the Loota bomb anymore but still very important for Orkz to be competitive.

You'll probably only need it up to when they release an updated Ork codex, assuming the campaign book doesn't just replace it.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I'm pissed off they couldn't have an announcement for 40k without saying they're releasing more Mehreen models first.

You live in a strange world if you're pissed off given that we're in the middle of a space marine release wave. and that anyone with a lick of common sense knew that we'd be getting a new primaris character for each of the supplements. seriously, this is like getting pissed off about all the Ork hype during the lead up to speed freaks

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I'm pissed off they couldn't have an announcement for 40k without saying they're releasing more Mehreen models first.

You live in a strange world if you're pissed off given that we're in the middle of a space marine release wave. and that anyone with a lick of common sense knew that we'd be getting a new primaris character for each of the supplements. seriously, this is like getting pissed off about all the Ork hype during the lead up to speed freaks

But the salt must flow!

The difference between "Wow, we all have to buy new supplements" and "Wow, we're all getting new content" is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm looking really forward to new xeno content. Hopefully it addresses some of the very legit complaints the loss / lack of DE HQ units and viable TAU alien auxiliaries- though that's hard to do given that it is a psychic themed rules update. Still, these factions benefit from ANY attention. Sisters weren't included in the list, but their dex might include this content depending on the timing of the release. My personal favourite on the list?

=][= Inquisition =][=

PenitentJake wrote:
The difference between "Wow, we all have to buy new supplements" and "Wow, we're all getting new content" is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm looking really forward to new xeno content. Hopefully it addresses some of the very legit complaints the loss / lack of DE HQ units and viable TAU alien auxiliaries- though that's hard to do given that it is a psychic themed rules update. Still, these factions benefit from ANY attention. Sisters weren't included in the list, but their dex might include this content depending on the timing of the release. My personal favourite on the list?

=][= Inquisition =][=

Inquisition has me interested, but I noticed a lack of the cog boys.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I'm pissed off they couldn't have an announcement for 40k without saying they're releasing more Mehreen models first.

You shouldn't take it so personally. It's no surprise at all that Space Marines are getting new models, and will continue to do so at least until all of the new Space Marine supplements are released. It's likely that you're going to see at least one new Primaris Character for each supplement. We've already seen Kor'sarro Khan, the new Iron Hands tech marine, and now Kayvaan Shrike. Expect at least one new Primaris character each for Imperial Fists and Salamanders, and don't be surprised if Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels start to jump on board the Primaris train after that.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Yeah. So, let's remember, GW generally sticks to a pattern that repeats over the course of several years.

In late 7th edition, we got Gathering Storm, Clan Raukaan, Traitor Legions, Traitor's Hate, etc. They were all good for about a year.

Now it's 8th edition. We just got the Vigilus Books, new CSM and SM codexes, now Psychic Awakening.

This is a hint. 9th edition is on the way.

I like how your pattern is one instance. That's not how patterns work silly!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
The difference between "Wow, we all have to buy new supplements" and "Wow, we're all getting new content" is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm looking really forward to new xeno content. Hopefully it addresses some of the very legit complaints the loss / lack of DE HQ units and viable TAU alien auxiliaries- though that's hard to do given that it is a psychic themed rules update. Still, these factions benefit from ANY attention. Sisters weren't included in the list, but their dex might include this content depending on the timing of the release. My personal favourite on the list?

=][= Inquisition =][=

Inquisition has me interested, but I noticed a lack of the cog boys.

No INQ, that's Deathwatch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Idk, everyone thought they'd have to buy vigilus and...nope.

I don't know, for my Orkz the Vigilus book is basically required to be competitive. Without it you can't use the SSAG which is unarguably the best weapon in our entire arsenal, not to mention that it gives you access to a 2nd shoot again stratagem. Heavily nerfed now that we don't use the Loota bomb anymore but still very important for Orkz to be competitive.

True, but you know what those things are and what they do so you don't need to buy the book to use them.

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm looking really forward to new xeno content. Hopefully it addresses some of the very legit complaints the loss / lack of DE HQ units and viable TAU alien auxiliaries- though that's hard to do given that it is a psychic themed rules update.

Psychic Gue'vesa? New Kroot psychers maybe? Who knows, maybe that hole Abaddon tore in the Galaxy's donkey cave has awakened psychic abilities in the fishmen themselves.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I'm pissed off they couldn't have an announcement for 40k without saying they're releasing more Mehreen models first.

You live in a strange world if you're pissed off given that we're in the middle of a space marine release wave. and that anyone with a lick of common sense knew that we'd be getting a new primaris character for each of the supplements. seriously, this is like getting pissed off about all the Ork hype during the lead up to speed freaks

But the salt must flow!

tell me about it, it's childish and petty. a xenos race gets previewed a much needed new sculpt, with the hopeful implications that the entire eldar aspect warrior range will be revamped. and he bitches that a space marine mini we all knew was coming anyway was previewed.

Cry about it.

Yet more rules bloat. GW are really trying to push it to needing 150 rules sources aren't they?

ERJAK wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Idk, everyone thought they'd have to buy vigilus and...nope.

I don't know, for my Orkz the Vigilus book is basically required to be competitive. Without it you can't use the SSAG which is unarguably the best weapon in our entire arsenal, not to mention that it gives you access to a 2nd shoot again stratagem. Heavily nerfed now that we don't use the Loota bomb anymore but still very important for Orkz to be competitive.

True, but you know what those things are and what they do so you don't need to buy the book to use them.

A lot of competitive events say if you don't have the book with you, you can't use the model.

It sounds like it is not one book but the series title. It appears that like the vigilus books they are campaign books that will focus on "two or more" factions. This no need to get unless you want the book for the fluff or the faction rules. Basically a way to update armies without having to do whole new dexes.

 buddha wrote:
It sounds like it is not one book but the series title. It appears that like the vigilus books they are campaign books that will focus on "two or more" factions. This no need to get unless you want the book for the fluff or the faction rules. Basically a way to update armies without having to do whole new dexes.

I much prefer it this way. Rewriting a codex pisses me off, because it invalidates the one I already have. Campaign supplements however, supplement my codex, giving me the choice to partake or ignore as I feel. I always prefer choice over mandate.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yet more rules bloat. GW are really trying to push it to needing 150 rules sources aren't they?

well I suppose GW could just start 9th edition and put out codexes all over again. if I've got to buy 5 books from GW i'd rather it be some optional goodies rather then the same flipping codex 5 times


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 buddha wrote:
It sounds like it is not one book but the series title. It appears that like the vigilus books they are campaign books that will focus on "two or more" factions. This no need to get unless you want the book for the fluff or the faction rules. Basically a way to update armies without having to do whole new dexes.

I much prefer it this way. Rewriting a codex pisses me off, because it invalidates the one I already have. Campaign supplements however, supplement my codex, giving me the choice to partake or ignore as I feel. I always prefer choice over mandate.

exactly I'm in this same boat as well. and as someone who enjoys the fluff I actually enjoy reading it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yet more rules bloat. GW are really trying to push it to needing 150 rules sources aren't they?

Not really. The Marine codex basically negated the need for Vigilus.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yet more rules bloat. GW are really trying to push it to needing 150 rules sources aren't they?

Not really. The Marine codex basically negated the need for Vigilus.

I guess all those Imperial Guard players only need the Space Marine codex now?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yet more rules bloat. GW are really trying to push it to needing 150 rules sources aren't they?

Not really. The Marine codex basically negated the need for Vigilus.

I guess all those Imperial Guard players only need the Space Marine codex now?

I was talking about for Marines. You miss read that post much like you misread the rules: intentionally to generate drama.

The point is that codex updates roll supplements into the codexes (excluding CSM since they were likely done before Vigilus and not released until after for some reason).

 techsoldaten wrote:
Yeah. So, let's remember, GW generally sticks to a pattern that repeats over the course of several years.

In late 7th edition, we got Gathering Storm, Clan Raukaan, Traitor Legions, Traitor's Hate, etc. They were all good for about a year.

Now it's 8th edition. We just got the Vigilus Books, new CSM and SM codexes, now Psychic Awakening.

This is a hint. 9th edition is on the way.

Codex Space Marines was almost blatantly an 8.5 edition book, so this is not wrong.

It is a supplement. You don't need to buy it if you don't want to.

Does this mean maybe warlock conclave might be worth a gak?

Ok, but we know when it drops it'll have things in it that when you ask " How should I set up this unit X ? " Everyone will then say " Well you need to use psychic awakening formation 134 otherwise it sucks "

So yeah, you don't need to use the supplement but everyone will be using them against you. Now, you don't need each book, as each one focuses on a couple factions. Honestly its just more bloat for the bloat throne.

It's not needed, but you'll want them to keep up with everyone else dropping them swank new rules on your head.

I'm not bitter about it, they honestly aren't very surprising at this point but saying it won't end up paying to win by little or large is wrong, it will be. Obviously a better player will have more chances vs a worse one still but it'll make a difference as they wouldn't drop a line of books with weak rules, you're paying for an edge to win.

I just hope my new super keen must have formations, rules and items are worth the cost.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I'm pissed off they couldn't have an announcement for 40k without saying they're releasing more Mehreen models first.

You shouldn't take it so personally. It's no surprise at all that Space Marines are getting new models, and will continue to do so at least until all of the new Space Marine supplements are released. It's likely that you're going to see at least one new Primaris Character for each supplement. We've already seen Kor'sarro Khan, the new Iron Hands tech marine, and now Kayvaan Shrike. Expect at least one new Primaris character each for Imperial Fists and Salamanders, and don't be surprised if Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels start to jump on board the Primaris train after that.

It's a basically a joke at this point, during every non-marine release they've also teased marine models.
See: "Orktober" and Knights

warpedpig wrote:
Does this mean maybe warlock conclave might be worth a gak?

Dude… Don't get my hopes up!
The conclave was arguably fine at 30ppm...

I dunno, I find more value in a $50 hardback book (like both Vigilus) than a single $50 kit these days, but that's just me.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I'm pissed off they couldn't have an announcement for 40k without saying they're releasing more Mehreen models first.

You shouldn't take it so personally. It's no surprise at all that Space Marines are getting new models, and will continue to do so at least until all of the new Space Marine supplements are released. It's likely that you're going to see at least one new Primaris Character for each supplement. We've already seen Kor'sarro Khan, the new Iron Hands tech marine, and now Kayvaan Shrike. Expect at least one new Primaris character each for Imperial Fists and Salamanders, and don't be surprised if Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels start to jump on board the Primaris train after that.

It's a basically a joke at this point, during every non-marine release they've also teased marine models.
See: "Orktober" and Knights

Yeah, but if it's a joke, laugh at it. Don't get pissed off just because Games-Workshop produce and promote those lines that have the greatest return on their investment. Or are you pissed off because Space Marine's are so popular with the consumers in the first place? Either way, getting pissed off solves neither issue and the only thing that'll suffer is your own mental health. Just try to enjoy the stuff that was revealed that you are interested in.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I'm pissed off they couldn't have an announcement for 40k without saying they're releasing more Mehreen models first.

You shouldn't take it so personally. It's no surprise at all that Space Marines are getting new models, and will continue to do so at least until all of the new Space Marine supplements are released. It's likely that you're going to see at least one new Primaris Character for each supplement. We've already seen Kor'sarro Khan, the new Iron Hands tech marine, and now Kayvaan Shrike. Expect at least one new Primaris character each for Imperial Fists and Salamanders, and don't be surprised if Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels start to jump on board the Primaris train after that.

It's a basically a joke at this point, during every non-marine release they've also teased marine models.
See: "Orktober" and Knights

except that those teases you focus on weren't teases for Orktober and Knights. they where teases from various events on upcoming products down the line.

Yay, more supplements. Not.
The bloat continues.....

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yet more rules bloat. GW are really trying to push it to needing 150 rules sources aren't they?

Just for you I hope we need double this amount

warpedpig wrote:
Does this mean maybe warlock conclave might be worth a gak?

That's a good one! Do you do graduations and birthdays?

PenitentJake wrote:
The difference between "Wow, we all have to buy new supplements" and "Wow, we're all getting new content" is in the eye of the beholder.

But we already have so much content. This is just bloat, that we'll have to buy, because it'll be powerful rules wise.

If it's like Vigilus where there's a few campaign books covering lots of armies, maybe I won't really mind. But if it's another 15-20 quid to run every army you have competitively, that'll be much more in the have to buy rather than new content camp for me.

I don't understand the hate on new supplements, yearly updates etc. Playing 3rd-7th I am pretty sure everyone was wishing that GW would actually update armies in a timely manner and provide new rules, abilities etc. to armies that had been ignored for years. There were times when I was using a 4th edition book in 5th and even 6th edition with no review of points, abilities, or anything. I would gladly pay more money and have to bring more books, rules or whatever then go back to when a codex would come out (CSM 4th or 6th) and suck, then never get any updates for years, while codex creep makes all but the most net list options completely useless in even casual games. No thank you to that, bring on the supplements.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 buddha wrote:
It sounds like it is not one book but the series title. It appears that like the vigilus books they are campaign books that will focus on "two or more" factions. This no need to get unless you want the book for the fluff or the faction rules. Basically a way to update armies without having to do whole new dexes.

I much prefer it this way. Rewriting a codex pisses me off, because it invalidates the one I already have. Campaign supplements however, supplement my codex, giving me the choice to partake or ignore as I feel. I always prefer choice over mandate.

yeah, but if they are only going to do supplements, then it doesn't really help armies with bad core rules. An sm codex on its own is sitll very nice. With a supplement it gets better, but because there is units worth upgrading with the supplement rules. if you get 2-3 units, but there is nothing to really apply it to, or worse the unit that got "buffs" won't be taken anyway, then you're spending money on something that doesn't really work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xeen wrote:
I don't understand the hate on new supplements, yearly updates etc. Playing 3rd-7th I am pretty sure everyone was wishing that GW would actually update armies in a timely manner and provide new rules, abilities etc. to armies that had been ignored for years. There were times when I was using a 4th edition book in 5th and even 6th edition with no review of points, abilities, or anything. I would gladly pay more money and have to bring more books, rules or whatever then go back to when a codex would come out (CSM 4th or 6th) and suck, then never get any updates for years, while codex creep makes all but the most net list options completely useless in even casual games. No thank you to that, bring on the supplements.

Am not sure if it works like this for everyone, but I can give my own view on it. Each year you have to buy CA, it does nothing for me army. The way it was bad, it stays bad, but I still have to order the book to play at the store. GK didn't get any supplements yet, and were skipped in Vigilus I&II, but if the books had rules that were crap and update nothing, but I would have to buy them, because they have an update statline and costs for units, I would not be happy.

From other people that play here, I know that some people at my store don't like the fact that GW does stuff like bring out a chaos codex, but then put all the good rules in a supplement. The SM codex is good alone, vigilus gives SM superior rules, to a point where it is hard to compare chaos codex stuff with vigilus armies, but you need to buy two. And both books came more or less at the same time. So maybe that is why some people dilsike it. Though this is just my store. Everyone here keeps telling me it is different from how other people play, so maybe people in other places have different reasons too.

My problem with Psychic Awakening is that it sounds like it's going to be many books based around war zones.

I hate war zones. That and all the salt when they tie up plot lines and people complain about 40K being a setting.

I hope it is not going to end up with some armies getting rules like buffs for the whole army, while others get rules that work only for specific enemy, when you fight on specific planet.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
My problem with Psychic Awakening is that it sounds like it's going to be many books based around war zones.

I hate war zones. That and all the salt when they tie up plot lines and people complain about 40K being a setting.

While I do think that things were way WAY better as a setting I don't think anyone can argue that it's really a setting anymore. Now the best we can hope for is that the new lore we get is sensible, makes sense and isn't just churned out by someone who doesn't care or try. But sadly that's not a guarantee.

Tell me most of the people griping aren't just going to wait a week and then preview all the new formations and bits on Battlescribe.

We knew GW was going to keep selling books and we knew those books would contain rules. Its not new. If they are anything like the VIgilus books, someone in your play group will buy it, you'll write down what you need to know from them or battlescribe and life will continue.

Fluff nuts like me will always buy the books, but I doubt I've opened either vigilus books three weeks after I made the purchase.

Great, with psychic awakening every faction will get new rules, so i guess tsons will get to spam 60MW per turn.

A something doesn't have to be rules. It could be a new model, or even some sort of lore story.

Karol wrote:
A something doesn't have to be rules. It could be a new model, or even some sort of lore story.

You keep going off on tangents. Just stick to their statement - Every army will get rules. Some will get models. Some, if not all, rules will be in warzones. That's all we know.

They could release another 15 books covering every intricate aspect of Orkish warfare across all possible warzones and I'd buy them all happily.

You either want more content for your faction or you don't. You don't "need" anything except the rulebook and respective codex to play. No one forced anyone to buy the v2 SM codex but I bet it flew off the shelves. No doubt these books will too. I think they're a great idea and one of the best things that GW have announced so far.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yet more rules bloat. GW are really trying to push it to needing 150 rules sources aren't they?

Not really. The Marine codex basically negated the need for Vigilus.

I guess all those Imperial Guard players only need the Space Marine codex now?

I was talking about for Marines. You miss read that post much like you misread the rules: intentionally to generate drama.

The point is that codex updates roll supplements into the codexes (excluding CSM since they were likely done before Vigilus and not released until after for some reason).

You know... except when they purposefully strip content OUT of the Codex so that they can generate multiple day one DLCs, err.. Supplements. If GW was a video game manufacturer, the customer base would be universally losing their minds over this Marines Codex being split into ~9 books nonsense.

As to the original point, you don't have to buy anything if you don't want to... BUT, if you want to use the new models that will inevitably be released alongside these campaign books, you'll need to pony up for said books. I think GW has worked out how to charge ~$30-50 USD for really fancy datasheets every time they release a new model from now on.

Removed

GW please come out with a subscription based rule service because my god would that be great quality of life change and service.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
They could release another 15 books covering every intricate aspect of Orkish warfare across all possible warzones and I'd buy them all happily.

You either want more content for your faction or you don't. You don't "need" anything except the rulebook and respective codex to play. No one forced anyone to buy the v2 SM codex but I bet it flew off the shelves. No doubt these books will too. I think they're a great idea and one of the best things that GW have announced so far.

That only works if your faction also get's something.
And also does not include updated datasheets.
But alas gw can't do wrong.

Not Online!!! wrote:
But alas gw can't do wrong.

Wait till you see my post about Warhammer "Legends".....

Of course they can do wrong, they often do. For me though, this aint it. I want to consume content for my faction, the more content the better. I have the disposable income. Give it me GW!

that said ti doesn't follow that 1k sons will get some new super psyker In fact if I was told "make a new 1k sons unit" I'd consider making a unique deamon engine to try and fill that area out. 1K sons needs some unique heavy supprot

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I hate war zones. That and all the salt when they tie up plot lines and people complain about 40K being a setting.

Oh I'm salty as all hell about 40k having an advancing plotline, but unlike supplements there isn't as much to bitch about. They've changed the setting full of mystery and room to manuvre into yet another copy of the mcu, but there's bugger that can be done about it. At least it's potentially possible for them to switch back to releasing fewer supplements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
No one forced anyone to buy the v2 SM codex but I bet it flew off the shelves.

Hate to break it to you but the new codex has invalidated the old codex. If you want to play at any event, not just a GW one, you have to use the new codex, the old one does not have the same rules, statlines, abilities or points. Not to mention the rules are way better for marines, so you'd be an idiot not to buy it if you want to be competitive and live in an area where people don't mind running old rules for private games. Which I fear will be the same for psychic awakening (not the invalidation but the power of the rules).

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
They could release another 15 books covering every intricate aspect of Orkish warfare across all possible warzones and I'd buy them all happily.

You either want more content for your faction or you don't. You don't "need" anything except the rulebook and respective codex to play. No one forced anyone to buy the v2 SM codex but I bet it flew off the shelves. No doubt these books will too. I think they're a great idea and one of the best things that GW have announced so far.

Well, really, you don't need more than the free primer and the indexes.
The game still works!

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Hate to break it to you but the new codex has invalidated the old codex. If you want to play at any event, not just a GW one, you have to use the new codex, the old one does not have the same rules, statlines, abilities or points. Not to mention the rules are way better for marines, so you'd be an idiot not to buy it if you want to be competitive and live in an area where people don't mind running old rules for private games. Which I fear will be the same for psychic awakening (not the invalidation but the power of the rules).

I understand what you're saying with regards the new SM codex invalidating the old for competitive play but I think it's so incredibly trivial to get all of the new rules without splashing cash that it's not a real concern.

If I collected SM, I'd buy the book, but it's up to the individual player of course.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Hate to break it to you but the new codex has invalidated the old codex. If you want to play at any event, not just a GW one, you have to use the new codex, the old one does not have the same rules, statlines, abilities or points. Not to mention the rules are way better for marines, so you'd be an idiot not to buy it if you want to be competitive and live in an area where people don't mind running old rules for private games. Which I fear will be the same for psychic awakening (not the invalidation but the power of the rules).

I understand what you're saying with regards the new SM codex invalidating the old for competitive play but I think it's so incredibly trivial to get all of the new rules without splashing cash that it's not a real concern.

If I collected SM, I'd buy the book, but it's up to the individual player of course.

It's not just for competitive, if you want to play anywhere except your garage (or your friend's) you need the new book. At which point you can play whatever you want anyway. And it feels a little dirty to me getting everything through battlescribe. Which I recognise is entirely personal preference.

I wish I could buy just the rules pages and leave the fluff for black library, my bag is getting heavy. Also still salty about "you can get the new codex or vigilus ablaze" for CSM, hah! you mean I can get both.

Campaign books are only required if you want the extra rules or lore. Vigilus didn't update core points costs or drastically change unit rules.

Heck, Vanguard came out in a box set and had a pamphlet for the new rules. Vigilus gave us a couple of units and detachment rules but that's it really outside of the setting for campaign games.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Campaign books are only required if you want the extra rules or lore. Vigilus didn't update core points costs or drastically change unit rules.

Heck, Vanguard came out in a box set and had a pamphlet for the new rules. Vigilus gave us a couple of units and detachment rules but that's it really outside of the setting for campaign games.

Well, the second Vigilus book did, unfortunately. The renegade stuff in that should have been in CSM 2019. It was a pretty big blunder.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Campaign books are only required if you want the extra rules or lore.

IOW, if you want to compete with armies that do get the buffs.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Campaign books are only required if you want the extra rules or lore.

IOW, if you want to compete with armies that do get the buffs.

Aka "want the rules". Competetive play requires chasing the meta at all points.

Long shot, wild theory: "Psychic Awakening" refers to the Emperor's resurrection.

He's not getting off the throne, but he's now able to project his might through his minons and lackeys. In practical terms, this means new psychic powers.

His resurrection has consequences for every other faction. Chaos is able to breach the veil between the Immaterium and realspace more effectively. The Eldar are torn about whether or not to treat him as a new God. The Orks get all anxious and this builds their own psychic might.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Aka "want the rules". Competetive play requires chasing the meta at all points.

And given that most people play competitively enough for the rules to matter it's kind of dishonest to pretend that the supplements are optional.

It is very simple, if you want it, you buy it, if you don't want it, you don't. This thread is bloody stupid.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Campaign books are only required if you want the extra rules or lore.

IOW, if you want to compete with armies that do get the buffs.

Aka "want the rules". Competetive play requires chasing the meta at all points.

Have there been any formations that have had an out-sized impact on the game? The most I've seen are the casual one-sie/two-sie models getting a set of buffs. Namely discordants and the occasional manticore.

I haven't seen any of these cracking the top tables. And the ones that do were typically alongside a Castellan or a blob of Discordants.

Victrix Guard
Siegebreaker
CF Liberators
Sword Bretheren
Stalker Pack
Cybernetica
Broodsurge
Windrider Host
Wraith Host
Emperor's Blade
Emperor's Conclave
Emperor's Fist
Tempestus Drop
Stompa Mob (duh)
Kult of Speed
Dread Waagh
Blitz Brigade
Bringers of Despair
Devastation Battery
Cult of the Damned
Daemonkin Ritualists
Host Raptorial
Fallen Angels
Legion of Skulls

 Crimson wrote:
It is very simple, if you want it, you buy it, if you don't want it, you don't. This thread is bloody stupid.

If you like negative opinions of GW's business practices then click on threads about them, if you don't like them then you don't. This comment is bloody stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Have there been any formations that have had an out-sized impact on the game?

The LRBT formation and its relic are effectively mandatory if you're taking LRBTs.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Aka "want the rules". Competetive play requires chasing the meta at all points.

And given that most people play competitively enough for the rules to matter it's kind of dishonest to pretend that the supplements are optional.

Statistically competetive play is still in the minority.

Should we have a better way for the rules only players? Probably. But let's not inflate the issue beyond a smaller number of players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is very simple, if you want it, you buy it, if you don't want it, you don't. This thread is bloody stupid.

If you like negative opinions of GW's business practices then click on threads about them, if you don't like them then you don't. This comment is bloody stupid.

Nah, this is still stupid. The title was clickbait nonsense worthy of Spikey Bits.

 Peregrine wrote:


The LRBT formation and its relic are effectively mandatory if you're taking LRBTs.

But few people are persuaded into an army based around LRBTs even though it exists.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yet more rules bloat. GW are really trying to push it to needing 150 rules sources aren't they?

BINGO. Do I win a prize?

 Mmmpi wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yet more rules bloat. GW are really trying to push it to needing 150 rules sources aren't they?

BINGO. Do I win a prize?

A sad sense of looming dread when you realize this nonsense never ends.

The salt must flow.

There seem to be some major false narratives surrounding this discussion between what is needed, and what is optional. Now I don't know about which style of play is "statistically" more prevalent, but allow me to offer my own anecdote. I currently own two, eighth edition books: the 40k rulebook and Codex: Dark Angels. I have never once been denied a game or been beholden to some rule I didn't possess, just because I don't own a copy of Vigilus or Chapter Approved, whether it be in Open, Narrative or Matched Play. Now while there are a couple of Chapter Approved rules that have become house suggestions for my local store, these are all explained freely by the people who know them to those who don't, because that's how house suggestions work here. Also, I call them suggestions, because if my mate and I want to rock over to a table and completely ignore them, no one's going around policing the tables for "non-conformance." So, again, absolutely zero requirement for anyone to own a book they don't want.

I'd also like to add something very interesting I just learned about an upcoming tournament in my area: if you're a Space Marine player who doesn't yet own the new codex, you're more than welcome to continue relying entirely on the old one, points costs and all. The same goes for Codex: Chaos Space Marines and the Indices. The only caveat is that you can't mix and match between both the old and the new. You use the one you have, and that's it. So you see, all of these issues about being forced to buy stuff you don't want are all rendered moot, when we as a community just act like grown-ups and come up with reasonable solutions to let us play with our toys, and before someone chimes in with the nugget that my area is somehow the outlier and no one else shares this experience: why? Why is my area the outlier? If you're part of a scene that's forcing people to invest in stuff they don't want just so they can play the game, and you're not actively doing anything to change that scene beyond moaning on the internet, then you're not just part of the problem; you are the problem.

Now look, don't get me wrong. I'm not entirely defending Games-Workshop's publication practices: I think the price they charge for bound paper is outrageous, and don't even get me started on the cost of digital books, but this narrative that they're forcing you to buy stuff, otherwise you can't play the game is outright false.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Aka "want the rules". Competetive play requires chasing the meta at all points.

And given that most people play competitively enough for the rules to matter it's kind of dishonest to pretend that the supplements are optional.

This just isn't true. GW has stated on numerous occasions that significantly more people just buy the models to collect and paint than they do to play with.

As others have said... You don't NEED to do anything. I don't NEED to buy a new phone every year, and I don't begrudge a company releasing a new updated one every year. Why wouldn't they? Once again, the crying moaners of Dakka are out in force. If you don't like it, stop playing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Aka "want the rules". Competetive play requires chasing the meta at all points.

And given that most people play competitively enough for the rules to matter it's kind of dishonest to pretend that the supplements are optional.

It's not dishonest at all. You only 'need' a campaign supplement if you are choosing to use the rules in that supplement. Whether you're playing competitively or not, that's entirely your choice. You're not forced to use any given set of rules just because it exists.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Aka "want the rules". Competetive play requires chasing the meta at all points.

And given that most people play competitively enough for the rules to matter it's kind of dishonest to pretend that the supplements are optional.

It's not dishonest at all. You only 'need' a campaign supplement if you are choosing to use the rules in that supplement. Whether you're playing competitively or not, that's entirely your choice. You're not forced to use any given set of rules just because it exists.

All rules are optional. They aren't if you like winning.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All rules are optional. They aren't if you like winning.

Which is entirely no one's problem but one's own. And if one finds oneself complaining to strangers on the internet that they cannot win the dice game with their toys, then one should expect to be ridiculed and compared to a petulant child.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All rules are optional. They aren't if you like winning.

Says the person who misinterprets rules to stir the pot.

If you are so hellbent on needimg to win a game with plastic space people that it defines your very idea of "fun", then maybe you need to rethink why you play this game. Because dropping fat stacks of cash all the time just to chase the meta is not exactly healthy.

Nope, wanting to win doesn't require you to play using a campaign book. Choosing to not use a given supplement doesn't have to just mean that you ignore it while your opponent chooses to use it... that would be absurd.


This really isn't a difficult concept. Way back in 2nd edition, players quite often discussed whether or not to use psykers in their games. Tournaments quite often didn't allow special characters or allies... a trend that continued for several editions.

In 3rd edition, players discussed whether or not to use the Cityfight rules, or the Jungle rules from Codex: Catachans. Later, we were agreeing whether or not to use the trial vehicle or assault rules. In 4th edition, it was Cities of Death, or which mission set to use.

Somehow, some people seem to have forgotten that a game is a contract between two players. You can play competitively, and still not want to play using the rules from a specific campaign.

 insaniak wrote:
Nope, wanting to win doesn't require you to play using a campaign book. Choosing to not use a given supplement doesn't have to just mean that you ignore it while your opponent chooses to use it... that would be absurd.


This really isn't a difficult concept. Way back in 2nd edition, players quite often discussed whether or not to use psykers in their games. Tournaments quite often didn't allow special characters or allies... a trend that continued for several editions.

In 3rd edition, players discussed whether or not to use the Cityfight rules, or the Jungle rules from Codex: Catachans. Later, we were agreeing whether or not to use the trial vehicle or assault rules. In 4th edition, it was Cities of Death, or which mission set to use.

Somehow, some people seem to have forgotten that a game is a contract between two players. You can play competitively, and still not want to play using the rules from a specific campaign.

Most of us didn't forget, it's just a vocal minority stirring the pot because if they don't get their daily dose of screaming into the void of the internet they can't feel fulfilled in their life.

Yes, it's hyperbole, but it's no less hyperbolic than every single one of these Spikey Bits style clickbait trash threads that spread misinformation and salt in the name of internet drama

xenoterracide wrote:
I wish I could buy just the rules pages and leave the fluff for black library, my bag is getting heavy. Also still salty about "you can get the new codex or vigilus ablaze" for CSM, hah! you mean I can get both.

Buy the PDF's and just print out the specific pages you need.

 Mmmpi wrote:

xenoterracide wrote:
I wish I could buy just the rules pages and leave the fluff for black library, my bag is getting heavy. Also still salty about "you can get the new codex or vigilus ablaze" for CSM, hah! you mean I can get both.

Buy the PDF's and just print out the specific pages you need.

Keeping PDFs on your phone as back up is pretty lightweight too.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

xenoterracide wrote:
I wish I could buy just the rules pages and leave the fluff for black library, my bag is getting heavy. Also still salty about "you can get the new codex or vigilus ablaze" for CSM, hah! you mean I can get both.

Buy the PDF's and just print out the specific pages you need.

Keeping PDFs on your phone as back up is pretty lightweight too.

Yup. I suggested print outs though because I've been in too many games where my opponent's phone just 'happened' to die.

Like if you like to collect rulebooks (lore/narrative reasons) and or have multiple armies this is a pain if every faction has their own Narrative Book. It's also kind of lame that Viglius got thrown under the bus so quickly. Whos to say that Psychic Awakening won't be instantly out of date when it hits the shelves. Saying you should pay for the aweful Battlescribe is stupid. Also the Awakening makes every new SM codex out of date when they are hardly even released.

8th edition spend £1k on your army and £1k on your books to play your army edition.

They've changed the setting full of mystery and room to manuvre into yet another copy of the mcu

yes because the MCU is the only thing ever that has a interconnected plot ohh wait thats not true at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ThatMG wrote:
Like if you like to collect rulebooks (lore/narrative reasons) and or have multiple armies this is a pain if every faction has their own Narrative Book. It's also kind of lame that Viglius got thrown under the bus so quickly. Whos to say that Psychic Awakening won't be instantly out of date when it hits the shelves. Saying you should pay for the aweful Battlescribe is stupid. Also the Awakening makes every new SM codex out of date when they are hardly even released.

8th edition spend £1k on your army and £1k on your books to play your army edition.

vigilius was only really made out of date for Marines and tyo be honest the Marines vigilus stuff was kinda annoying. no one else had all but one of their specialist detachments limited by subfaction.

ThatMG wrote:
Also the Awakening makes every new SM codex out of date when they are hardly even released.

So... you've seen the book?

Because that seems like a fairly odd claim to make about a campaign book that we haven't even seen the contents of yet.

BrianDavion wrote:
that said ti doesn't follow that 1k sons will get some new super psyker In fact if I was told "make a new 1k sons unit" I'd consider making a unique deamon engine to try and fill that area out. 1K sons needs some unique heavy supprot

Oh yes, a new psychic support engine. Every psyker within 6" gets +4 to its roll, and range of every psychic power is extended by 12". If you get to 15+ smite will be 2D6, and 3D6 for magnus

ThatMG wrote:
8th edition spend £1k on your army and £1k on your books to play your army edition.

Like anyone complaining abput how much this hobby vosts actually spends money on this hobby.

Seriously though, I love this idea that in 2019 you can't just get lore from the internet or ignore any rules that you don't need to specifically play your own army and just read about what other armies can do online.

But sure, keep playing victim because the company that makes this game keeps updating the game because keeping the game updated keeps their bottom line looking good.

SemperMortis wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Idk, everyone thought they'd have to buy vigilus and...nope.

I don't know, for my Orkz the Vigilus book is basically required to be competitive. Without it you can't use the SSAG which is unarguably the best weapon in our entire arsenal, not to mention that it gives you access to a 2nd shoot again stratagem. Heavily nerfed now that we don't use the Loota bomb anymore but still very important for Orkz to be competitive.

I guess they are planning to merge Vigilus and the new codexes. They are using this books like test ground to see if they released something broken, without that affecting the biggest population that will not get the books.
Maybe the pshychic awakening will be merged with the new codexes.

 insaniak wrote:
You can play competitively, and still not want to play using the rules from a specific campaign.

And when you show up and say "you can't use those rules for your army, I didn't buy them" everyone is just going to laugh and call you TFG and not play against you. You can decline to buy a book yourself but you don't get to insist that other people give up their rules because of that decision. Like it or not if they function like the previous supplements they will be part of the standard game and expected to be as legal as Codex: Space Marines.

Now, you would have a point if this was something like the old Cities of Death book, where you got new content that only applied to special Cities of Death games and nothing in the book applied to normal games. In that case it absolutely would be optional content that you could safely ignore because both you and your opponent(s) had to opt in to playing a special variant game. But that's not at all the case here. GW can call it a "campaign" all they want but in reality it's an extension of the codex intended for normal games, just like if GW published an FAQ/errata document that added a rule to a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
It's not dishonest at all. You only 'need' a campaign supplement if you are choosing to use the rules in that supplement. Whether you're playing competitively or not, that's entirely your choice. You're not forced to use any given set of rules just because it exists.

By that standard the codex for your faction is "optional", since you can just play with the index rules. Hell, even the core rulebook is "optional" because nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play the game. You're free to buy zero rules and just paint your pretty toys. But in the real world this is going to be an extension of the codex and you're putting yourself at a serious disadvantage by refusing to buy it. And it absolutely is dishonest to suggest otherwise, hiding behind a technicality that doesn't really apply in the typical situation and pretending that it makes the price a non-issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


The LRBT formation and its relic are effectively mandatory if you're taking LRBTs.

But few people are persuaded into an army based around LRBTs even though it exists.

That's not the point. If you play IG you probably have and use LRBTs. If you were playing an army with LRBTs before the supplement, as many people were, you had two choices: buy the supplement to continue being on a level playing field with everyone else, or refuse to buy it and have a weaker army compared to someone with the exact same models on the table and a copy of the pay-to-win bonus rules. It would be like insisting on using the index rules for your LRBTs and not getting to fire twice. Who cares if it's technically legal, it's clearly a self-destructive choice to make.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
You can play competitively, and still not want to play using the rules from a specific campaign.

And when you show up and say "you can't use those rules for your army, I didn't buy them" everyone is just going to laugh and call you TFG and not play against you.

Then...... don't?
If I didn't buy Vigilus, but played against friends who did I wouldn't tell them they couldn't use their specialist detachments, assuming I didn't read their book to use specialist detachments. It's like if a necron player decided that no one was allowed to use Vigilus since they didn't get anything in it.

 Peregrine wrote:
GW can call it a "campaign" ...

...and that would make it a campaign.



I'm honestly confused as to what 'disadvantage' you're seeing. You only wind up at a disadvantage if your opponent is using rules that you don't have access to. If you both agree to play the same game, without campaign rules, then I have no idea where this disadvantage is supposed to be coming from.

You are no more obligated to play with campaign rules than you were to play Apocalypse or Cityfight.

 insaniak wrote:
...and that would make it a campaign.

Calling a O a "square" doesn't make it a square, it makes it a mislabeled product. GW can call it whatever they want, but functionally it's an extension of your standard codex rules that applies to all games regardless of what narrative elements you are or are not using.

I'm honestly confused as to what 'disadvantage' you're seeing. You only wind up at a disadvantage if your opponent is using rules that you don't have access to. If you both agree to play the same game, without campaign rules, then I have no idea where this disadvantage is supposed to be coming from.

The disadvantage is that if you don't pay $TooMuch to get the rules that make your relic battle cannon D3 instead of DD3 you don't get that buff. Or you don't bring an army that fits your faction's pay-to-win formation and so can't use it effectively even if your opponent hands you a copy of the rules before the game begins. It's just like showing up to a game with the index because you didn't buy the codex, you have inferior rules because you didn't buy the more powerful ones.

You are no more obligated to play with campaign rules than you were to play Apocalypse or Cityfight.

Apparently you don't get it. This is not like previous expansions, the "campaign" rules are part of normal games. You don't have to agree to a special campaign game where campaign rules are included before using one of the formations and its associated stratagems. Your argument is no better than trying to say that Codex: Space Marines is "optional content" because you aren't obligated to use it and can insist that your opponent use their index rules if you don't want to play a game of C:SM Is Legal.

The point he's getting at, and I don't agree with him much but on this I do, is that sure you can ask someone not to use campaign book rules, but honestly I doubt anyone will listen.

Heres the thing, you might get some people to not do so, but these will be legal rule expansions not just used in the campaign, GW will be sure of that so people buy the books. The fact they'll be legal in all ways, means people won't want to be denied their use, even if you'd rather not pay to win or to pay for that bloaty trend. It'll be just the way it goes, like vigilus it was rare the player not using those formations if their army came with them.

So yeah, it's optional, but if you want to keep up with everyone else unless everyone boycotts it you end up needing to as well to stay with some parity as these bonus rules lately haven't tended to be lateral changes but straight buffs to the armies they came out for.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I haven't seen any of these cracking the top tables. And the ones that do were typically alongside a Castellan or a blob of Discordants.

Victrix Guard
Siegebreaker
CF Liberators
Sword Bretheren
Stalker Pack
Cybernetica
Broodsurge
Windrider Host
Wraith Host
Emperor's Blade
Emperor's Conclave
Emperor's Fist
Tempestus Drop
Stompa Mob (duh)
Kult of Speed
Dread Waagh
Blitz Brigade
Bringers of Despair
Devastation Battery
Cult of the Damned
Daemonkin Ritualists
Host Raptorial
Fallen Angels
Legion of Skulls

I thought you followed the meta fairly closely?

All Ork lists use the Dread Waaaagh detachment for the relic.
Most Imperial Guard detachments are Emperors Fist or Emperors Blade.
The devastation battery is taken a ton in chaos lists.
Cybernetica cohort is taken regularly.
Brood surge is almost mandatory.
Vixtrix Guard rules were added to SM codex 2.0 I believe.

I had assumed it would be campaign books similar to vigilus. Advance the story, add new stuff to keep the game interesting, update things that need updating.

Isn't this what they said they were doing at the launch of 8th? Sprint through all the codexes and then introduce new units and stuff through campaigns. That's the way I understood it and I've enjoyed what's happened so far.

The very first thing they said was they realized 7th got too bloated and they wouldn't make that mistake again, and no we are here on the path back to hardcore bloat town.

Though you are correct, it's just like vigilus just with way more books and most all factions will have a reason to buy at least one of them this time around.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
The very first thing they said was they realized 7th got too bloated and they wouldn't make that mistake again, and no we are here on the path back to hardcore bloat town.

Though you are correct, it's just like vigilus just with way more books and most all factions will have a reason to buy at least one of them this time around.

actually martian_jo is absolutely correct. what GW said was that they no longer felt constrainted to limit additions to armies to codex releases and with the change in policy they can add new stuff. the whole "Ohh no bloat ever" crap? was bs being peddled by review websites like FLG etc. who frankly I doubt knew jack all about GW's long term plans. In fact I know they wheren't because I've play tested gaming supplements before. your focus is on testing whats in front of you, not discussing how it'll fit in with the wider release schedule.

as for all those whining about bloat. what thge feth do you think GW should do when their codices are completed?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

ThatMG wrote:
8th edition spend £1k on your army and £1k on your books to play your army edition.

Like anyone complaining abput how much this hobby vosts actually spends money on this hobby.

Seriously though, I love this idea that in 2019 you can't just get lore from the internet or ignore any rules that you don't need to specifically play your own army and just read about what other armies can do online.

But sure, keep playing victim because the company that makes this game keeps updating the game because keeping the game updated keeps their bottom line looking good.

You know that not everyone lives in america where houses are 4 times the size of a normal flat, and play at home. Some people play at stores, and at stores you can't just go and play with your set of printed official digital rule set, which you of course bought and not just downloaded. It is the same with CA and it is going to be the same for supplements. Maybe not all armies need them, an sm player can play without one, although his army does get better with one. But there are also armies that are just plain bad out of the codex, if a supplement makes them semi playable everyone is going to have to buy two books to start them on top of the CA.

as for all those whining about bloat. what thge feth do you think GW should do when their codices are completed?

I don't know, maybe fix the ones that are strickt worse versions of the index rule sets?

Maybe slow down a bit ? Actually give time for things to settle so they can really work on game balance ? I don't know, dumb things like that I guess.

Okey, but how long is that suppose to be. The game is what 30+ years old, people working on rules at the company work there for 10-20 years. 8th is 2 years old. When is the balancing suppose to start. Because right now it looks like GW is randomly making stuff powerful or just giving some factions extra rules, while giving nothing to other.

For example, the WS book seems to have a lot less stuff then the ultramarine book. I get that WS don't have special character models, so they won't have those. But why the fewer relics, or options for successors?

Karol wrote:
Okey, but how long is that suppose to be. The game is what 30+ years old, people working on rules at the company work there for 10-20 years. 8th is 2 years old. When is the balancing suppose to start. Because right now it looks like GW is randomly making stuff powerful or just giving some factions extra rules, while giving nothing to other.

For example, the WS book seems to have a lot less stuff then the ultramarine book. I get that WS don't have special character models, so they won't have those. But why the fewer relics, or options for successors?

That is exactly my point, in two years some armies have had 2 codex drops, and other awful armies have one, and are terribad. All of the bloat for the bloat gods is sort of just tossing rules everywhere while leaving some armies pretty meh for god knows how long. So they aren't just bloating with campaigns but also releasing multiple editions of codex drops and seemingly ignoring some armies who have been either gutted with choices, or just plain suck.

I say, they should work on game balance but they don't really want it I feel as you say, they've had a long time to learn things. Just like conflict breeds profit for an arms dealer, poor balance pushes players into the arms of each new rules drop in hopes this time, they'll be strong, or stay strong just feeding the arms race while leaving the playing field skewed all the while and ignoring core game issues. So GW as usual I guess.

My only point in responding here is the optional campaign really isn't an option its just an upscale in power you can ignore if you like but most won't.

Game balance doesn't make money, forcing you to buy replacements via legends and rules bloating with campaigns does.

You go make the math.

Enticing people to buy more products isn't bad in itself, specially if the new thing is better, but only if the initial product was good to begin with. GW products sometimes don't work, and they don't put up warrnings that they may not.

Am not even against the idea of bad armies in a setting. But GW should at least voice it, that army X is going to get no updates, is not ment for new players and we left it there because someone may want to buy the models to paint. instead they market pre nerf and post nerf Inari the same way, and if someone doesn't know it better, which can happen if your a new player, you may buy in to an army which is horrible. Worse thing the horrible stuff does not cost cheaper then the good stuff. 400$ ispent on two different armies may feel like , one dude burning money, and the other is getting what he paid for.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Game balance doesn't make money, forcing you to buy replacements via legends and rules bloating with campaigns does.

You go make the math.

I know it brother. I'm not even saying its bad, it is what it is. I can wish they'd do better though, even if that dream is foolish.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Game balance doesn't make money, forcing you to buy replacements via legends and rules bloating with campaigns does.

You go make the math.

I know it brother. I'm not even saying its bad, it is what it is. I can wish they'd do better though, even if that dream is foolish.

See, GW behaves like an industrial company that produced massed ware (cardboard boxes), and that is why they don't understand issues of their lines and instead just cut support.

F.E. Look how long Sissters were not really supported, GW not realizing that a non plastic line aswell as outdated rules won't help sales (eg minimal investment in the product line) makes them fail. That is also why they were so surprised when the Sisters came up so heavy in their survey.

In essence GW has the wrong mindset for the part of industry they are in.

And it get's doubly obvious when we are talking about FW armies, Elysians and Renegades.
1 was so overexpensive, even for FW standards stuck with outdated rules that you can easily see why they dind't sell.

As for the renegads. Whoever thought it would be a great idea to sell "Upgrade" sprues for them to be used in conjunction with GW legs is a bloddy moron, especially in the context of an army that had it's basic infantry priced at 3ppm over most editions. (and was infantry heavy) Add to that mostly outdated rules and you get the ides.
The irony of the later though is the IA13 book short before the end of 7th was a masterpiece. It was internally and externally as balanced as could be. Customizable to no end etc.
6 months later and GW writes now the rules for FW and we get an index that missed 60% of unique units and best off all charachter keywords on obvious charachters.
So ofcourse the sales are breaking down.

Karol wrote:
Okey, but how long is that suppose to be. The game is what 30+ years old, people working on rules at the company work there for 10-20 years. 8th is 2 years old. When is the balancing suppose to start. Because right now it looks like GW is randomly making stuff powerful or just giving some factions extra rules, while giving nothing to other.

For example, the WS book seems to have a lot less stuff then the ultramarine book. I get that WS don't have special character models, so they won't have those. But why the fewer relics, or options for successors?

they don';t have fewer relics, they each have the exact same number. they likewise have the same optiosn for sucessors, the ONLY thing the Ultramarines have regarding sucessors that white scars don't is a page of sucessor colour schemes. something done purely because they couldn't fit all of the know ultramarine sucesors in the space marine codex. white scars have the EXACT SAME NUMBER OF OPTIONS that Ultramarines do. they simply have less characters. anyone who tells you differant is lying.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Okey, but how long is that suppose to be. The game is what 30+ years old, people working on rules at the company work there for 10-20 years. 8th is 2 years old. When is the balancing suppose to start. Because right now it looks like GW is randomly making stuff powerful or just giving some factions extra rules, while giving nothing to other.

For example, the WS book seems to have a lot less stuff then the ultramarine book. I get that WS don't have special character models, so they won't have those. But why the fewer relics, or options for successors?

That is exactly my point, in two years some armies have had 2 codex drops, and other awful armies have one, and are terribad. All of the bloat for the bloat gods is sort of just tossing rules everywhere while leaving some armies pretty meh for god knows how long. So they aren't just bloating with campaigns but also releasing multiple editions of codex drops and seemingly ignoring some armies who have been either gutted with choices, or just plain suck.

I say, they should work on game balance but they don't really want it I feel as you say, they've had a long time to learn things. Just like conflict breeds profit for an arms dealer, poor balance pushes players into the arms of each new rules drop in hopes this time, they'll be strong, or stay strong just feeding the arms race while leaving the playing field skewed all the while and ignoring core game issues. So GW as usual I guess.

My only point in responding here is the optional campaign really isn't an option its just an upscale in power you can ignore if you like but most won't.

It's GW as usual as GW still has poor quality rules writers who don't have a solid grasp of game mechanics. They had to gut the game to make 8th simple enough to write rules for and yet they still struggle to handle 8th. We still have rule bloat (which people sung GW's praises about removing the bloat from 7th) and yet we are right back at it with expensive books that make relatively minor changes. 7th died for this mess and this new "simplied" edition is turning to be an even more rules source cluster feth.

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

ThatMG wrote:
8th edition spend £1k on your army and £1k on your books to play your army edition.

Like anyone complaining abput how much this hobby vosts actually spends money on this hobby.

Seriously though, I love this idea that in 2019 you can't just get lore from the internet or ignore any rules that you don't need to specifically play your own army and just read about what other armies can do online.

But sure, keep playing victim because the company that makes this game keeps updating the game because keeping the game updated keeps their bottom line looking good.

You know that not everyone lives in america where houses are 4 times the size of a normal flat, and play at home. Some people play at stores, and at stores you can't just go and play with your set of printed official digital rule set, which you of course bought and not just downloaded. It is the same with CA and it is going to be the same for supplements. Maybe not all armies need them, an sm player can play without one, although his army does get better with one. But there are also armies that are just plain bad out of the codex, if a supplement makes them semi playable everyone is going to have to buy two books to start them on top of the CA.

as for all those whining about bloat. what thge feth do you think GW should do when their codices are completed?

I don't know, maybe fix the ones that are strickt worse versions of the index rule sets?

Way to misrepresent my arguement completely. And even in the states not all of us live in big houses and bleed cash. I rent a small studio apartment for example.

What I was saying is that these rules are optional for you to include in your army. Skip the preorder, check out some reviews and decide of you need them for how you want to play the game. If not, you can catch up on the lore online (Lexicanium is a good free lore resource, as is YouTube) and you can easilly read up on the options other armies have via reviews or tactics articles for free online as well. No purchasing a book just to know what Orks got in their new book.

An informed consumer is a smart consumer. Going into this thing blind under the assumption you must buy every book is a fool's errand and should be saved for collectors or the most die hard meta chasers.

 Vankraken wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Okey, but how long is that suppose to be. The game is what 30+ years old, people working on rules at the company work there for 10-20 years. 8th is 2 years old. When is the balancing suppose to start. Because right now it looks like GW is randomly making stuff powerful or just giving some factions extra rules, while giving nothing to other.

For example, the WS book seems to have a lot less stuff then the ultramarine book. I get that WS don't have special character models, so they won't have those. But why the fewer relics, or options for successors?

That is exactly my point, in two years some armies have had 2 codex drops, and other awful armies have one, and are terribad. All of the bloat for the bloat gods is sort of just tossing rules everywhere while leaving some armies pretty meh for god knows how long. So they aren't just bloating with campaigns but also releasing multiple editions of codex drops and seemingly ignoring some armies who have been either gutted with choices, or just plain suck.

I say, they should work on game balance but they don't really want it I feel as you say, they've had a long time to learn things. Just like conflict breeds profit for an arms dealer, poor balance pushes players into the arms of each new rules drop in hopes this time, they'll be strong, or stay strong just feeding the arms race while leaving the playing field skewed all the while and ignoring core game issues. So GW as usual I guess.

My only point in responding here is the optional campaign really isn't an option its just an upscale in power you can ignore if you like but most won't.

It's GW as usual as GW still has poor quality rules writers who don't have a solid grasp of game mechanics. They had to gut the game to make 8th simple enough to write rules for and yet they still struggle to handle 8th. We still have rule bloat (which people sung GW's praises about removing the bloat from 7th) and yet we are right back at it with expensive books that make relatively minor changes. 7th died for this mess and this new "simplied" edition is turning to be an even more rules source cluster feth.

All too true, and so it'll go on till they really jump the shark which is inevitable at some point. Wonder when we'll see free transports again.

According to the whiners GW has been jumping the shark since at least 4th edition.

Well according to those who see no evil forever they never made a mistake yet. I guess they equal out ?

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

This feels a little bigger than vigilus, which was just for marines (now partly invalidated by the new codex) and csm.

Guard got far more and far better out of Vigilus than Marines did.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well according to those who see no evil forever they never made a mistake yet. I guess they equal out ?

They make mistakes, but this edition have also shown a much better job fixing said mistakes than ever before.

This assumption that they do things solely put of malicious intent is just silly.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well according to those who see no evil forever they never made a mistake yet. I guess they equal out ?

They make mistakes, but this edition have also shown a much better job fixing said mistakes than ever before.

This assumption that they do things solely put of malicious intent is just silly.

That really depends on what you consider malicious. Are they doing things to cause you pain for the joy of it ? No. Are they being less than honest brokers ? Yes. I shouldn't need to get into what or how, that is easy enough to see but they are at their best neutral towards us if anything. We as the players want a balanced, proper game, they want to profit off imbalance and just care in so far as selling us the new item on the list. That is the core tenant of any business sure, but that doesn't make them good by any stretch either.

If we get what we want, really that doesn't give us a lot of incentive to expand, so we're forever at odds in that regard. I wouldn't say they are malicious just dishonest.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well according to those who see no evil forever they never made a mistake yet. I guess they equal out ?

They make mistakes, but this edition have also shown a much better job fixing said mistakes than ever before.

This assumption that they do things solely put of malicious intent is just silly.

That really depends on what you consider malicious. Are they doing things to cause you pain for the joy of it ? No. Are they being less than honest brokers ? Yes. I shouldn't need to get into what or how, that is easy enough to see but they are at their best neutral towards us if anything. We as the players want a balanced, proper game, they want to profit off imbalance and just care in so far as selling us the new item on the list. That is the core tenant of any business sure, but that doesn't make them good by any stretch either.

If we get what we want, really that doesn't give us a lot of incentive to expand, so we're forever at odds in that regard. I wouldn't say they are malicious just dishonest.

I.disagree. What GW wants ultimately is to sell product. This means adjusting lagging armies up to roughly the same standard through points and rules changes so more product sitting around gathering dust sells.

8.5 (as we seem to be calling the C:SM and beyond stuff) is an update to rulesets that were dragging pretty badly in the early part of the edition while this campaign seems to be addressing the criticism that not enough new stuff for armies came out with their books.

We have seen claims for years that GW wants solely to push new as the best and screw the rest, but we see that the old stuff got just as much, if not more, of a boost than the Primaris in the update.

At the end of the day chasing off your player base by intentionally breaking your game is a bad business model that only bites you in the backside (just look at the lootbox fiasco that is still causing companies to suffer major backlash) and GW has shown, at least under Roundtree, they want a more sustainable profit margin.

This claim that they're going out of their way to break the game by withholding key parts of an army shows ignorance to how they codexes are written and assumes a malicious contempt for the playerbase not seen since 8th dropped.

Chances are the updated CSM book that I know you're going to try and wave around as proof was finished before Vigilus but was delayed (maybe due to trade issues with China, maybe casting demand is outpacing the studio, I don't know) so it came after Vigilus in release order despite being completed first. We saw Looncurse come out long before the Sylvaneth book due to a similar reason despite the models being done and just waiting for the book.

GW is typically working a year or more ahead of what we see. Which means changes take time.to filter in to the game in terms.of rules. Chapter Approved is about the only thing done on a shorter schedule and even then most of that shortened schedule is points cost related.

I really feel like a lot.of you could stand to listen to the GW podcast so you'd get a better idea how the studio actually works on this stuff instead of making up reasons why GW is secretly planning to kick your dog.

 Peregrine wrote:
Your argument is no better than trying to say that Codex: Space Marines is "optional content" because you aren't obligated to use it and can insist that your opponent use their index rules if you don't want to play a game of C:SM Is Legal.

Going by this comment, I suspect that the disconnect here is coming from you and I having very different opinions on what constitutes 'co-operation'. Nobody should be insisting that their opponents do anything. But it's absolutely ok for someone to ask a potential opponent to play a game using Index lists. Said prospective opponent would be free to agree, or not... just as they would be with any other request involving the rules to be used in game.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Your argument is no better than trying to say that Codex: Space Marines is "optional content" because you aren't obligated to use it and can insist that your opponent use their index rules if you don't want to play a game of C:SM Is Legal.

Going by this comment, I suspect that the disconnect here is coming from you and I having very different opinions on what constitutes 'co-operation'. Nobody should be insisting that their opponents do anything. But it's absolutely ok for someone to ask a potential opponent to play a game using Index lists. Said prospective opponent would be free to agree, or not... just as they would be with any other request involving the rules to be used in game.

In my experiance the disconnect is with Peregrine who seems to believe that one must buy all the optional content just to play the game.

It's a faulty premise that they've built their entire arguement on so instead of admitting they're wrong, they'll keep doubling down instead.

Well, we have one 40k book of each type in our gaming room.
Buying it separately is a bit too costly if you ask me.
GW needs money as always.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Hate to break it to you but the new codex has invalidated the old codex. If you want to play at any event, not just a GW one, you have to use the new codex, the old one does not have the same rules, statlines, abilities or points. Not to mention the rules are way better for marines, so you'd be an idiot not to buy it if you want to be competitive and live in an area where people don't mind running old rules for private games. Which I fear will be the same for psychic awakening (not the invalidation but the power of the rules).

I understand what you're saying with regards the new SM codex invalidating the old for competitive play but I think it's so incredibly trivial to get all of the new rules without splashing cash that it's not a real concern.

If I collected SM, I'd buy the book, but it's up to the individual player of course.

It's not just for competitive, if you want to play anywhere except your garage (or your friend's) you need the new book. At which point you can play whatever you want anyway. And it feels a little dirty to me getting everything through battlescribe. Which I recognise is entirely personal preference.

Nope. Not true. I'm sure when all the Codex books came out GW sent someone round my house and burned the Index ones I had. I still hate them for making all my 2nd edition rules spontaneously combust as well.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, we have one 40k book of each type in our gaming room.
Buying it separately is a bit too costly if you ask me.
GW needs money as always.

Companies exist to make money. Complaining about that is like complaining that the sun rises in the east.

How a company pursues it's goal of money is the important issue, and by ttying to gibe.more frequent update so no army is out in the cold for too long is hardly worth the sort of nonsense I see tossed about here like it's insightful commentary. Hint: it's not.

6th and 7th esitions were clear cash grabs with a lot of clear executive meddling but the direction the game is going now, with frequent smaller updates that allow them to do more for various armies more often than when they releasd the codeces to roll all the changes into the book, is a healthier direction than anything we've seen in years.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I have never once been denied a game or been beholden to some rule I didn't possess, just because I don't own a copy of Vigilus or Chapter Approved, whether it be in Open, Narrative or Matched Play.

That's interesting, in my experience, even among my friends we've all silently agreed everyone needs to keep up with chapter approved, not just if I want to play in a GW store.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I have never once been denied a game or been beholden to some rule I didn't possess, just because I don't own a copy of Vigilus or Chapter Approved, whether it be in Open, Narrative or Matched Play.

That's interesting, in my experience, even among my friends we've all silently agreed everyone needs to keep up with chapter approved, not just if I want to play in a GW store.

Keeping up with points costs isn't exactly hard even without the book (borrow a friends and pencil them into your codex for example). The only other thing most players have to worry about is alternative missions unless you play PL and allow things like thr custom Land Raider or Looted Wagon rules.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Your argument is no better than trying to say that Codex: Space Marines is "optional content" because you aren't obligated to use it and can insist that your opponent use their index rules if you don't want to play a game of C:SM Is Legal.

Going by this comment, I suspect that the disconnect here is coming from you and I having very different opinions on what constitutes 'co-operation'. Nobody should be insisting that their opponents do anything. But it's absolutely ok for someone to ask a potential opponent to play a game using Index lists. Said prospective opponent would be free to agree, or not... just as they would be with any other request involving the rules to be used in game.

I think this is what gets me. Not every game is played between two close friends. Sometimes you play at a store, be it GW or FLGS, and they will require you to use certain rules. So even if you don't want to participate in the psychic awakening ruleset, you will have to play against those who do, and if the rules do turn out to be strong, now you get to enjoy being used to wipe the floor with. Equally, even if there isn't a rule in place, perhaps you and your opponent can't come to an agreement, because he wants to use all his shiny new toys and you say 'sorry old chap, I don't have my copy, and it wold be terribly unfair to play our armies together like this'.
It's sort of like saying you could ask your opponent to agree that there isn't a shooting phase. Of course you can, but realistically 95% of players are not going to agree to that. Or ask not to use a CA points update which nerfed a unit you're using. You could, but will the other player agree? Probably not.

Not buying these "rules updates" as GW calls them, will be like not buying CA. No one is making you, but really if you want to play in the wider community, you sort of have to. Depending of course on what form these rules updates end up taking, but I doubt they'll be designed to allow you to get away with not buying them like vigilus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Keeping up with points costs isn't exactly hard even without the book (borrow a friends and pencil them into your codex for example). The only other thing most players have to worry about is alternative missions unless you play PL and allow things like thr custom Land Raider or Looted Wagon rules.

True, but you still need to keep up with it. The rules and points changes are not optional. And unlike CA, which is one book for every faction, if you want to copy over your friend's rules, you'd better hope they play the same armies. Or just pirate it, but like I said, due to personal preference, I'm not interested in doing that.

Assuming they may function like a codex supplement isn't a bad approach, but recall there is no sign of what these books look like yet. Historically campaign bools for GW have been all over the place in terms of what they add to the game.

Besides, if it doesn't apply to your army directly and they want to play a certain mission or army list the onus on them to jave the rules on hand, not for you to also own a copy of their book unless it also covers your army too.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

I think this is what gets me. Not every game is played between two close friends. Sometimes you play at a store, be it GW or FLGS, and they will require you to use certain rules.

If you're playing in a tournament, sure, you use whatever rules the tournament is using.

If you're playing a pickup game, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from discussing the rules with your opponent prior to the game and reaching an agreement to use whatever rules you want. It's not even just expansions... why, I've occasionally witnessed people playing a previous edition of the game, despite there being a newer one available... something that I'm told should have led to people being laughed from the premises. Laughed at, I tell you!

It's sort of like saying you could ask your opponent to agree that there isn't a shooting phase..

No, asking to not use an expansion that you don't own the rules for is nothing at all even remotely like asking your opponent to remove an entire core component of the basic rules of the game.


Although, funnily enough, was also done on a not too infrequent basis, back in the day. It became quite common towards the end of 2nd edition's lifespan for players to agree to not use Psykers. Also Landraiders, Wolf Guard and Eldar, but that's a slightly different story.

 insaniak wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

I think this is what gets me. Not every game is played between two close friends. Sometimes you play at a store, be it GW or FLGS, and they will require you to use certain rules.

If you're playing in a tournament, sure, you use whatever rules the tournament is using.

If you're playing a pickup game, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from discussing the rules with your opponent prior to the game and reaching an agreement to use whatever rules you want. It's not even just expansions... why, I've occasionally witnessed people playing a previous edition of the game, despite there being a newer one available... something that I'm told should have led to people being laughed from the premises. Laughed at, I tell you!

Depends where you're playing and who you're playing with.

 insaniak wrote:

It's sort of like saying you could ask your opponent to agree that there isn't a shooting phase..

No, asking to not use an expansion that you don't own the rules for is nothing at all even remotely like asking your opponent to remove an entire core component of the basic rules of the game.


Although, funnily enough, was also done on a not too infrequent basis, back in the day. It became quite common towards the end of 2nd edition's lifespan for players to agree to not use Psykers. Also Landraiders, Wolf Guard and Eldar, but that's a slightly different story.

It depends on what it end up being, but I should imagine that like peregrine said, it won't be like the old city fight rules, or planetstrike. This won't be so much an expansion/dlc that you can play with if you want, these will be supplements, entirely part of the core game should you chose to buy them, just like the new SM supplements. And I think you'd be hard pressed to convince a SM player that he either a) should not buy the supplements given all the extra stratagems, characters, relics, doctrines, etc. Or b) that since you don't have a supplement for your army, he should leave his at home.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, we have one 40k book of each type in our gaming room.
Buying it separately is a bit too costly if you ask me.
GW needs money as always.

Companies exist to make money. Complaining about that is like complaining that the sun rises in the east.

How a company pursues it's goal of money is the important issue, and by ttying to gibe.more frequent update so no army is out in the cold for too long is hardly worth the sort of nonsense I see tossed about here like it's insightful commentary. Hint: it's not.

6th and 7th esitions were clear cash grabs with a lot of clear executive meddling but the direction the game is going now, with frequent smaller updates that allow them to do more for various armies more often than when they releasd the codeces to roll all the changes into the book, is a healthier direction than anything we've seen in years.

Example of 6th being a cash grab? 6th had it's favorites (Eldar, Tau) but for every OP release, there where as much if not more model releases that had lackluster or bad rule sets. Beginning of 7th was relatively tame with the new codexes being somewhat underpowered, new models being weak (the Orkanauts being the shining example of early 7th balance decisions) and the vast majority of formations being more flavorful than anything OP. It wasn't until Decurion where it's rather obvious they switched gears to uss these formations to create a power creep arms race which also resulted in an uptick in sales.

Past editions suffered from a GW that just put out a codex with whatever random/intentional balanced choices they made with zero follow up to adjust the impact they did to the game. Now GW circles back to tweek the numbers but in typical GW fashion they charge a tidy sum to access them.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I thought you followed the meta fairly closely?

All Ork lists use the Dread Waaaagh detachment for the relic.
Most Imperial Guard detachments are Emperors Fist or Emperors Blade.
The devastation battery is taken a ton in chaos lists.
Cybernetica cohort is taken regularly.
Brood surge is almost mandatory.
Vixtrix Guard rules were added to SM codex 2.0 I believe.

My point is that they're not up-ending the game. Taking a relic to boost a single model is hardly changing how armies operate. It's effectively 1 CP traded for another 25 point gun that often requires CP to function properly, but no more wounds on the model carrying it. Is that TRULY what is making Orks viable? I doubt it. Considering the lists I see them in are absolutely loaded with Boyz on top of Lootas.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I thought you followed the meta fairly closely?

All Ork lists use the Dread Waaaagh detachment for the relic.
Most Imperial Guard detachments are Emperors Fist or Emperors Blade.
The devastation battery is taken a ton in chaos lists.
Cybernetica cohort is taken regularly.
Brood surge is almost mandatory.
Vixtrix Guard rules were added to SM codex 2.0 I believe.

My point is that they're not up-ending the game. Taking a relic to boost a single model is hardly changing how armies operate. It's effectively 1 CP traded for another 25 point gun that often requires CP to function properly, but no more wounds on the model carrying it. Is that TRULY what is making Orks viable? I doubt it. Considering the lists I see them in are absolutely loaded with Boyz on top of Lootas.

I can't speak for other armies but yea the SSAG is absolutely a key component of competitive Ork play. Without it a players win rate drops to something like 38% and if its not taken as Death skulls the win rate falls below 50% on average. Of taken as Death skulls the win rate is above 55% iirc.

Its also 1 CP for a 75 pt gun really. Because no one takes Big Meks for their statline.

I think you'll struggle to find a winning Ork list without it. There are lists without any boys however that have done very well.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I can't speak for other armies but yea the SSAG is absolutely a key component of competitive Ork play. Without it a players win rate drops to something like 38% and if its not taken as Death skulls the win rate falls below 50% on average. Of taken as Death skulls the win rate is above 55% iirc.

Its also 1 CP for a 75 pt gun really. Because no one takes Big Meks for their statline.

I think you'll struggle to find a winning Ork list without it. There are lists without any boys however that have done very well.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the data - for the moment, but you'd have to analyze all the lists individually and compile the data from there.

It's an incredibly CP hungry gun - Wreckers only gets you so far if your S roll flops. And then only if your attacks roll doesn't also flop. There's a lot underpinning it to make it work.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Your argument is no better than trying to say that Codex: Space Marines is "optional content" because you aren't obligated to use it and can insist that your opponent use their index rules if you don't want to play a game of C:SM Is Legal.

Going by this comment, I suspect that the disconnect here is coming from you and I having very different opinions on what constitutes 'co-operation'. Nobody should be insisting that their opponents do anything. But it's absolutely ok for someone to ask a potential opponent to play a game using Index lists. Said prospective opponent would be free to agree, or not... just as they would be with any other request involving the rules to be used in game.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head and preventing you from asking, but the chances of anyone responding with anything but "lol no, stop asking stupid questions" are close enough to zero that the scenario isn't worth considering. The way the vast majority of people play it each player is responsible for bringing their own rules/models/dice/etc to play their own army. You don't get to try to veto your opponent's choices just because you don't want to buy something for your own army.

Plus from personal expiriance, the more you ask question that other find stupid, the less they want to play with you. Ask to many questions and you may end up with almost no people to play.

Karol wrote:
Plus from personal expiriance, the more you ask question that other find stupid, the less they want to play with you. Ask to many questions and you may end up with almost no people to play.

Anyone who obfuscates how their army works in order to win isn't worth playing.

That said, free resources exist to see how the rules for other armies work exist. Bare minimum would be giving 1d4chan a skim, but you can also watch videos such as GMG's "codex reviews" where he literally holds the page open so you can pause and read it.

We live in an age where it's easier than ever to understand the rules for other people's army's for free so the notion that we must buy every book is a damned lie at best.

Am not sure I understand , how this would suppose to happen. You need a codex to play the game. What does it have to do with someone asking, if they can use index or legend rules, when they are no longer matched play?

Karol wrote:
Am not sure I understand , how this would suppose to happen. You need a codex to play the game. What does it have to do with someone asking, if they can use index or legend rules, when they are no longer matched play?

Warhammer Legends are getting points costs which keep them Match Play Legal but the points costs won't be getting updated and they are recommended to not be legal for tournament play.

Using Index or Legends in casual play should require no more asking than using your codex does.

Well I hope the points are not power points. The AoS legends got points like that too.

Plus I think once stuff goes in to legend and all tournament packs say, no legends, all matched play games are going to be no legends either. Same way rule of 3 is also technicaly only a tournament thing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I can't speak for other armies but yea the SSAG is absolutely a key component of competitive Ork play. Without it a players win rate drops to something like 38% and if its not taken as Death skulls the win rate falls below 50% on average. Of taken as Death skulls the win rate is above 55% iirc.

Its also 1 CP for a 75 pt gun really. Because no one takes Big Meks for their statline.

I think you'll struggle to find a winning Ork list without it. There are lists without any boys however that have done very well.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the data - for the moment, but you'd have to analyze all the lists individually and compile the data from there.

Yea man they spoke about it on the latest stats centre from FLG. To be honest my percentages are probably still wrong but my rough point still stands. Not taking an SSAG is madness competitively if the data is to be believed.

It's an incredibly CP hungry gun - Wreckers only gets you so far if your S roll flops. And then only if your attacks roll doesn't also flop. There's a lot underpinning it to make it work.

Couldn't agree more, I think the main benefits it provides are; an alternative unit to make use of those grot shields if your lootas are already dead and it's one of our only models that doesn't want to push forward to achieve it's goal. I guess it is our only real functional anti armour too. Lootas can struggle against T8 and Tank Bustas are too squishy, short ranged and also need an investment to perform.

Karol wrote:
Well I hope the points are not power points. The AoS legends got points like that too.

Plus I think once stuff goes in to legend and all tournament packs say, no legends, all matched play games are going to be no legends either. Same way rule of 3 is also technicaly only a tournament thing.

Points are not PL.

I popped on over to 40kstats. I don't like data like this either, but it doesn't jive with the FLG perspective.

The problem is no one is diving into the actual lists and so a loss from an ork player with all gretchin against knights is equivalent to a loss of all tankbusters against knights (to make a really crude analogy).

...whoever is running that site needs a slap - Evil Suns and Evil Sunz as different lines? Really?

 Dysartes wrote:
...whoever is running that site needs a slap - Evil Suns and Evil Sunz as different lines? Really?

Probably different sources of data. Garbage in; garbage out.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...whoever is running that site needs a slap - Evil Suns and Evil Sunz as different lines? Really?

Probably different sources of data. Garbage in; garbage out.

Who knew that writing your sub-faction with an s at the end instead of a z was worth over 3 percentile points on your win rate...

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...whoever is running that site needs a slap - Evil Suns and Evil Sunz as different lines? Really?

Probably different sources of data. Garbage in; garbage out.

Who knew that writing your sub-faction with an s at the end instead of a z was worth over 3 percentile points on your win rate...

The thing that's broken my mind is that they've spelled the word correctly, which is un-orky, but in doing so got the name wrong, which is Orky, but they've played better, which is un-orky...

Listen to the latest stats centre. They cover stats that aren’t shared on 40k stats and that’s where you’ll find the percentages. The information you’re after isn't on the webpage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the falcon is diving into the stats as you request.

I do love me some stats, it helps awaken my psychic powers.

If you don't want them don't buy them.

No one has to buy anything.

Really interesting about how releasing cool new material is turned into a whine about how you "have to buy it".

I wonder if you can apply that logic to other areas of your life. Like if a delicious new restaurant opens up on your street are you upset because you now have to spend money eating there?

 Ishagu wrote:
If you don't want them don't buy them.

No one has to buy anything.

Obviously, this doesn't absolve any criticism or points made. Same could be said about bad movies.

Darsath wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If you don't want them don't buy them.

No one has to buy anything.

Obviously, this doesn't absolve any criticism or points made. Same could be said about bad movies.

But the post wasn't whining about this campaign event being bad, which wouldn't make sense as it isn't released yet. It was whining that because it exists the OP will have to buy it.

This is the problem with lumping ruleset changes to paid content. You enter the "pay to win" realm of game design where you need the newest rule sets to have the best chance of being competitive (not only tournament but just playing to win in general). Because of that you end up with the choice of either paying for the new content, saving money but being at a disadvantage, or being a freeboota. Thus the feeling of being required to buy the ruleset to maintain (8ths low) quality of play.

I don't think some are even complaining about it, I said way way back now it is what it is. It's simply someone saying how optional it is when it's going to be full of straight buffs for the armies.

Sure, you can not buy it, very true. What's also true is those who do are going to have an edge in strength for their army over someone who maybe doesn't, makes it feel less optional if you are in a meta that is on the competitive side.

I mean, it's always an option to just not play the game and wait for the next edition overhaul.

Saying its optional though feels a bit like people saying, for instance, the updates for say Destiny 2 are optional. They are, but if you want to keep playing the game you better hand over the cash or be left behind with yesterdays power level. A similar feeling here.

You can voice you don't like it, if you don't like that someone doesn't appreciate it, just don't read the response I guess.

^ you literally don't have to buy it though. The rules will be freely available online and most people will just bring them on paper printouts or battlescribe. It's SO silly to pretend otherwise.

And then, if they are anything like Vigilus they'll come with tons of great art, lore, and campaign missions for those of us who do want them.

Sure, you can literally stop playing the game too. However if you want to keep up with the new rules, you kind of do have to buy it.

Optional is a very broad term, and I think you're not quite picking up whats being put down for why it feels more than optional, other than of course just saying again, but it's optional.

Sure, you can pirate it but is that really the better option ? I mean thats a new talking point though, just don't buy it when you can steal it instead, I like it, very innovative. You're right, you don't have to buy it.

except you DON'T need to buy it to keep playing. do you need to buy it if you want all the options and to remain on the bleeding edge of compeitiveness? Maybe so. but every hobby requires you to spend more money for that. the kind of equipment NHL players wear is considerably more expensive then what you wear to play on the frozen pond at home.
Thing is EVERY game comapny needs to churn the rules etc. is there a single, still supported game, game out there that doesn't offer new stuff to sell?

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Sure, you can literally stop playing the game too. However if you want to keep up with the new rules, you kind of do have to buy it.

Optional is a very broad term, and I think you're not quite picking up whats being put down for why it feels more than optional, other than of course just saying again, but it's optional.

Sure, you can pirate it but is that really the better option ? I mean thats a new talking point though, just don't buy it when you can steal it instead, I like it, very innovative. You're right, you don't have to buy it.

I mean, you're just working yourself into incredible knots to justify making yourself angry about a company producing new products for a game you play.

My issue isn't them being able to stay afloat, they release plenty of models, rules etc otherwise for all of that.

Yet again, I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying its not optional if you play competitive and repeating it forever won't make it any less true the millionth time over the first.

I further would rather they had a small thing to buy, with just the rules, and maybe one with all the fluff, lore, etc in it for the collectors. However I know they don't do that because people would just buy the rules mostly which is why they don't make just campaign books anymore.

I don't mind spending money on the hobby, my army lists are wide and varied I've done my part and a few other players parts. I do dislike needing all the books, when I just want the rules. I honestly doubt anyone would care if the rules base sold for like half or a third of the book as their own thing, you'd see very few complaints I'm willing to bet.

So yeah, you don't need to buy it, depending on area and game group. Some people will need to get ahold of the rules though and that is either through stealing it, info gathering it from online reviews, or battlescribe or buying it.

If it was just a campaign resource or an expansion then yes, totally optional. They stopped making those pretty much because they didn't sell.

They don't like making game expansions that really are optional as they don't sell, as people go " oh I'll never need it " and it sits on the shelf then. They designed it to not be optional or at least not feel optional while saying, of course, it's optional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordoape wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Sure, you can literally stop playing the game too. However if you want to keep up with the new rules, you kind of do have to buy it.

Optional is a very broad term, and I think you're not quite picking up whats being put down for why it feels more than optional, other than of course just saying again, but it's optional.

Sure, you can pirate it but is that really the better option ? I mean thats a new talking point though, just don't buy it when you can steal it instead, I like it, very innovative. You're right, you don't have to buy it.

I mean, you're just working yourself into incredible knots to justify making yourself angry about a company producing new products for a game you play.

That would be true, but I'm not angry, well in any way but my name on here.

At the end of the day, these excuses about needing the rules just to play the game, rules we haven't even seen and may not even add much to the game, are just that: excuses. They're self justifications to buy rules unseen instead of waiting, seeing if you even want to use them, and then spending money on the rules.

It's pretty clear to me that this isn't even about rules or expansions for some, it's just another outlet to complain, to moan and generally wallow in negativity.

How dare anyone voice their opinion in a forum based on opinions. I know, it burns my burrito at both ends too.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
How dare anyone voice their opinion in a forum based on opinions. I know, it burns my burrito at both ends too.

Opinions based on faulty logic should not be given free reign. From the inflamatory title to the contortionist logic employed in this thread it is clear that the majority of the opinions shown aren't on the level of "I don't like supplements" or "Campaigns are bad" but rather attempts to paint horns onto GW's actions before the end product is even seen and call them evil and malicious.

That crosses from being an "opinion" into straight up lying about the facts of the matter.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
How dare anyone voice their opinion in a forum based on opinions. I know, it burns my burrito at both ends too.

Opinions based on faulty logic should not be given free reign. From the inflamatory title to the contortionist logic employed in this thread it is clear that the majority of the opinions shown aren't on the level of "I don't like supplements" or "Campaigns are bad" but rather attempts to paint horns onto GW's actions before the end product is even seen and call them evil and malicious.

That crosses from being an "opinion" into straight up lying about the facts of the matter.

you're welcome to voice an opinion but you damn well better be perpared to be called out when you express an opinion that is based on poor information "ohh it's my opinion!" does not sudden;y render a statement immune to criticism.

BrianDavion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
How dare anyone voice their opinion in a forum based on opinions. I know, it burns my burrito at both ends too.

Opinions based on faulty logic should not be given free reign. From the inflamatory title to the contortionist logic employed in this thread it is clear that the majority of the opinions shown aren't on the level of "I don't like supplements" or "Campaigns are bad" but rather attempts to paint horns onto GW's actions before the end product is even seen and call them evil and malicious.

That crosses from being an "opinion" into straight up lying about the facts of the matter.

you're welcome to voice an opinion but you damn well better be perpared to be called out when you express an opinion that is based on poor information "ohh it's my opinion!" does not sudden;y render a statement immune to criticism.

Yeah, basically. I mean if you're going to make stuff up people are going to call you out for it. Backpedalling to grab for the "opinion" label when you're clearly stating things as "facts" doesn't deflect criticism.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
How dare anyone voice their opinion in a forum based on opinions. I know, it burns my burrito at both ends too.

Opinions based on faulty logic should not be given free reign. From the inflamatory title to the contortionist logic employed in this thread it is clear that the majority of the opinions shown aren't on the level of "I don't like supplements" or "Campaigns are bad" but rather attempts to paint horns onto GW's actions before the end product is even seen and call them evil and malicious.

That crosses from being an "opinion" into straight up lying about the facts of the matter.

Careful now, going to fall on off from the lofty height of your moral high ground and hurt yourself. First off, it's an opinion, so it can't be right or wrong, just mine or yours. Second you can believe logic is as faulty as you want, but you don't get to act like your " right good " opinion is better than mine or anyones when truth be told not one of us know the absolute facts. All we can do is make judgement calls based on our best guess from what we take in and/or believe to be truth.

The very fact this theads gone on so far shows we can all have wildly different views on the situation. You sir, have no right to try and wrangle in my opinion or anyones just because you think it's too dangerous to be aired or unworthy of your consideration. We all just voice our words as we feel them to be true and in the end, only time will tell. Some will agree and disagree and we'll move on to the other topics to rage at each other about.

GW has a whole PR team to go around and paint them halos on top of their head, maybe taking some time to see the horns is good too eh ?

I don't actually hate GW but I can speak my annoyances in products they put out or things they make or rulings they hand down. We don't always need to agree, but we are all in it together so relax with the whole " bad opinion on faulty logic talk " we're all friends here in a niche hobby.

The claim that anyone "must" buy any product has been proven fase several times. It's not an opinion, it's BS.

You can state an opinion like "I don't like supplements because it means that I have to buy the supplement to use the rules" and I have no qualms over that opinion. But when.it's stated that you need the books so others can use the rule it's not an opinion, it's a lie.

We don't even know the shape these rules will take. For all we know they're going to be mission packs or Vigilus style formations (which were competetively seen as more "meh"), nothing of which are things you need to have to play competetively.

You know what you do need to buy? Your codex (and your codex supplement if you're a Vanilla Marine who wants to play Special Characters). That's it. If you play tournaments the mission pack means you don't need more than the free core rules, FAQ and current points costs (which you can easilly borrow from a friend or Google). Anything else is optional. This crying about books we haven't even see previews for js jumping to.conclusions with no evidence. Complaining about a product you haven't seen is just sad.

And yeah, calling it sad is an opinion.

If you actually read any of my posts, you'd see I agreed, by the exact nature of the word, yes it's optional, and no you don't need it. However in the broader sense, they put it out because while that is said, the vast majority view it as a must have, because of the rules inside which add to the game. That while they won't implode the army if you don't have them, add a great deal of worth to the factions they are in there for.

Like the long ago mentioned vigilus detachments for Guard with the relic battle cannon that is pretty much a mainstay in most any guard list using LRBTs.

The vigilus formations some of them were meh, a good amount were considered must takes if you were using those units in those armies they were made for. I can't speak for all of them, but a few were very tasty.

I never said I hated supplements. where did I write that ?

I also never said I needed it so other people can use the rules, where are you getting that from ?

I'm not even saying its bad, all I have said is, and I'll be clear here, It is optional but for some people it really won't be optional as to keep up with the johnsons they'll need to pick it up. As it will add competitive edge to the armies in question. Yes that is a guess I have but I'm pretty sure they won't make the books weak, they want to sell them. We will see however, if I'm wrong I'll give you a personally written out apology. However, I'm not even trashing it, so lets be clear on that.

sure but you can use that argument for ANYTHING new, GW introduces a new guard tank, and what if it's a "must have"? and that could put you out a lot more money then a 40 dollar supplement. (given a new heavy tank'd proably sell for roughly 100 bucks and if it was a OMG must have unit you'd likely buy several) new things get added to the game, that's honestly just part of the nature of a game system. complaining about it is well.. silly I mean "how dare this gaming company sell me new things!" is when you step back kinda silly.

Well there is difference, I think, between GW making a new tank and it having good rules, so people buy 3 of them, and GW making a shrine of past good codex model, which makes you crappy units suddenly okey, because then such a book or model you can not skip. In first example skipping means losing power, in second skipping means losing playability.

The two seem kind of a different to me.

Ok, so you agree with me, thanks for letting me know and no I don't think its silly, as really that is all the OP was saying, and all that others who agreed with him have basically said this whole time.

I also have never cared about a new model dropping that is a must have. Models to me have more extended worth than a rules supplement, personal opinion.

I play admech did I rage about the new transport/tanks dropping ? Some consider them must haves, nope, no rage. Not even any rage here, and if people are actually agreeing to my point I don't see why anyone keeps fighting on it.

Clearly, it's optional, but not really if you want the most bang for your buck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Well there is difference, I think, between GW making a new tank and it having good rules, so people buy 3 of them, and GW making a shrine of past good codex model, which makes you crappy units suddenly okey, because then such a book or model you can not skip. In first example skipping means losing power, in second skipping means losing playability.

The two seem kind of a different to me.

You do seem to get my point. Thank you.

I have 4 buggies sitting on my shelf right now that should prove to you all that the latest models aren't always the best. One is so bad it is basically throwing away 140pts.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I have 4 buggies sitting on my shelf right now that should prove to you all that the latest models aren't always the best. One is so bad it is basically throwing away 140pts.

I was going to say GW can be really hit or miss with new models but usually less so with rules supplements. I just didn't want to belabor the point.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I have 4 buggies sitting on my shelf right now that should prove to you all that the latest models aren't always the best. One is so bad it is basically throwing away 140pts.

I was going to say GW can be really hit or miss with new models but usually less so with rules supplements. I just didn't want to belabor the point.

How many Marine players who running Siegebreakers to win tournaments again?

Heck, let's not forget the new character they screwed up.

It's amazing how fast you guys turn from attacking GW to tearing at each other.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It's amazing how fast you guys turn from attacking GW to tearing at each other.

He says, while ironically attacking all members of the thread.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It's amazing how fast you guys turn from attacking GW to tearing at each other.

My criticisms of GW have largely been answered by GW and their increased transparency on how the game is developed.

My issues with the community is that a portion of them still think it's 7th edition and that Kirby still has a deathgrip on the studio.

Gone are the days of waiting three to ten years to see a codex update, and while GW is still trying to find their footing to update armies more frequently the fact remains they are actually trying to meet player demands in a more timely manner.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is a new business model, especially when you have to balance customer and shareholder demands.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It's amazing how fast you guys turn from attacking GW to tearing at each other.

He says, while ironically attacking all members of the thread.

There can be only war, and war never changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It's amazing how fast you guys turn from attacking GW to tearing at each other.

My criticisms of GW have largely been answered by GW and their increased transparency on how the game is developed.

My issues with the community is that a portion of them still think it's 7th edition and that Kirby still has a deathgrip on the studio.

Gone are the days of waiting three to ten years to see a codex update, and while GW is still trying to find their footing to update armies more frequently the fact remains they are actually trying to meet player demands in a more timely manner.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is a new business model, especially when you have to balance customer and shareholder demands.

What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I am not a big fan of defending any organization whose net worth out weighs my own, but when it comes to the misrepresentation of facts involving a hobby I partake in then I'm going to call BS when people keep making stuff up and presenting it as "fact".

I suspect the campaign idea is for GW to inject new models and rules into the game (much like how FW campaigns do) between codex updates. My concern is that if this is the case and the space between updates is too long then it could require too many books to play the new stuff, but if it's too short it defeats the purpose of the campaign book as a means of adding things to the game.

I don't know the best approach here, at least not one that satisfies the consumer bases' preference for print media, and I don't know if GW does either.

I do think that they don't expect people to buy every book thst comes out anymore and the faster release schedule reflects that.

I am not sure about the transparency part though. For example in the case of Grey Knights design all GW said, was that they thought a normal smite would make them too powerful, so they nerfed it. There was zero explanation to other nerfs, and I mean stuff that wasn't linked to nerf to exect same type of rules or units other factions or marines have. Plus later on the put out 1ksons who have normal smite, multiple psychic schools to pick powers from etc. It is as if the design did a 180 at some time, and the anwser they give to any question on the GW facebook page is alsways something like we aren't currently planing to X with Grey Knights.

GW pod casts are full about how they focuse on primaris design, how they enhance marine faction, both in lore and rules. Great stuff. But when they go to GK and say they won't be getting primaris, and they aren't making any new non primaris marines, and design says we are not planing, then what the hell are they planning ?

Karol wrote:
I am not sure about the transparency part though. For example in the case of Grey Knights design all GW said, was that they thought a normal smite would make them too powerful, so they nerfed it. There was zero explanation to other nerfs, and I mean stuff that wasn't linked to nerf to exect same type of rules or units other factions or marines have. Plus later on the put out 1ksons who have normal smite, multiple psychic schools to pick powers from etc. It is as if the design did a 180 at some time, and the anwser they give to any question on the GW facebook page is alsways something like we aren't currently planing to X with Grey Knights.

GW pod casts are full about how they focuse on primaris design, how they enhance marine faction, both in lore and rules. Great stuff. But when they go to GK and say they won't be getting primaris, and they aren't making any new non primaris marines, and design says we are not planing, then what the hell are they planning ?

Transparency in how they make the game and what goes into it doesn't mean complete transparency on what they plan to do in the game itself.

I can imagine GW knows that there is a problem with Grey Knights as they currently are and if anyone would need the psychic supplement to fix their army it's likely them.

There have been no facts falsely given, at least by me. So I'm really not sure what the fight is we are having about when you've already agreed with my point. I went out of my way to say " opinion " on pretty much everything I said.

That doesn't stop me from making my best guess on precedent to their intentions and policies heading into the future which is all anyone can use to judge the future.

The bloat is an issue of contention as well for some and yeah it feels like this might be an issue with it all.

If they didn't believe most of their player base would buy at least one or more of the books, I doubt they'd make them though. Hence why they were very sure to let people know at least one book would be out for everyone.

I don't expect every player to buy every book but I suspect most will get at least one because of the nature of improvements that they'll put in each book as they will feature only two armies in each one.

I don't think they will all have models released with them either, like I doubt some factions will get new models for awhile yet. I'd be surprised to see any new guard stuff for instance, just a feeling on that though.

AngryAngel80 wrote:


What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I don't think you understand what that word means if you think people whom are "defending GW" aren't debating the policies they enact. Not everyone sees "new content for your armies!" as a bad thing.

BrianDavion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:


What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I don't think you understand what that word means if you think people whom are "defending GW" aren't debating the policies they enact. Not everyone sees "new content for your armies!" as a bad thing.

Find me where I ever said new content was bad, please.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:


What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I don't think you understand what that word means if you think people whom are "defending GW" aren't debating the policies they enact. Not everyone sees "new content for your armies!" as a bad thing.

Find me where I ever said new content was bad, please.

never said you did, I was more pointing out that accusing anyone whose not immediatly dogpiling on GW for doing the campaign books thing, and instead actually defending it might simply just be fine with, or even happy to see this.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:


What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I don't think you understand what that word means if you think people whom are "defending GW" aren't debating the policies they enact. Not everyone sees "new content for your armies!" as a bad thing.

Find me where I ever said new content was bad, please.

You do understand that criticisms of behavior in this thread aren't all aimed at you, right?

BrianDavion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:


What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I don't think you understand what that word means if you think people whom are "defending GW" aren't debating the policies they enact. Not everyone sees "new content for your armies!" as a bad thing.

Find me where I ever said new content was bad, please.

never said you did, I was more pointing out that accusing anyone whose not immediatly dogpiling on GW for doing the campaign books thing, and instead actually defending it might simply just be fine with, or even happy to see this.

Well you did quote me with that statement I figured it had to be in relation to something I've said. If not, no worries was just wondering. No one is actually dog piling on GW, at least not me. If they are doing well I'll praise them if they do bad I'll say that too. At this point I think most who picked up what I wrote have my point pretty clear and it isn't that I hate GW or think they are the devil. I'm not going to say it again but I got my point across so it's all good for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:


What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I don't think you understand what that word means if you think people whom are "defending GW" aren't debating the policies they enact. Not everyone sees "new content for your armies!" as a bad thing.

Find me where I ever said new content was bad, please.

You do understand that criticisms of behavior in this thread aren't all aimed at you, right?

You do understand he directly quoted me, so I was responding to that yes ?

You've also gotten defensive when I was calling out specific behaviors in this thread while bot directly aiming anything at you.

Basically just because someone responds to you via quoting dowsn't mean that the entire conversating has to be directly about you.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Transparency in how they make the game and what goes into it doesn't mean complete transparency on what they plan to do in the game itself.

I can imagine GW knows that there is a problem with Grey Knights as they currently are and if anyone would need the psychic supplement to fix their army it's likely them.

okey, but then it is going to be just like the fixs in the first CA. Yes Grey Knights did get point drops on HQs and dreads, but so did everyone else, plus a lot of other units got point drops. This ment the top of the top armies stayed the same, the mid tier armies got better, and in proportion to that GK at best did not move on the power scale. If everyone is going to get psychic or what ever rules, then what the Grey Knight rules would have to be exeptionaly good, everyone else would have to be at least a tier or two weaker, and the GK ones would probably have to be more numerous then those for other armies. Because a single psychic power that can take an army from meh to good, would have to be so broken, I can't even imagine what it could be.

And again regarding other marines faction there is some transparancy, they do talk about cool new stuff. And that is good, it is very nice that they do that, and that people can always expect to get something extra over time. With GK the transparancy go down to them saying no, and no we are not planning anything. And if they plan to phase them out, they could at least say, so people don't invest in to books or models in an army that is never going to be good.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You've also gotten defensive when I was calling out specific behaviors in this thread while bot directly aiming anything at you.

Basically just because someone responds to you via quoting dowsn't mean that the entire conversating has to be directly about you.

When its quoting me and saying " you " Who should I assume it's directed at ? As well if I was defensive on something not directed at me otherwise for that I do apologize, not my intention he was very clearly talking to me though. I'll double check though.

The topic is truly silly.

I play AdMech as one of my armies. I don't use anything from the Vigilus book in my list.

Could it be? Could it be that I don't have to own a campaign book? Shock and horror.

 Ishagu wrote:
The topic is truly silly.

I play AdMech as one of my armies. I don't use anything from the Vigilus book in my list.

Could it be? Could it be that I don't have to own a campaign book? Shock and horror.

Do you own the first vigilus book though ? Now if anyone would, I'd assume you would as some of that stuff is good for primaris units the vets stuff from it.

I do actually own it, yes - but I love campaign books.

I didn't use the Vigilus formationd too often, but there was some good stuff for Astartes.

It isn't mandatory to play the game, hence my responses to this topic.

Hi all. I'm an old timer who started playing in the 1980s, not 40k mind you but Warhammer Fantasy. I may be remembering things wrong, but I struggle to think of a time when I've been offered the opportunity of buying new rules at such a high rate by GW. I say offered, as I agree no one has forced me to buy anything, and indeed I haven't bought a couple of books I probably should have.

However.. The fact my main opponent plays marines has shown me that yes, actually, you really do need to buy the latest book if you want to make the best possibly army you can. If you don't want to make the best possible army for yourself - why are you playing a wargame?

My other favourite game is Bolt Action. They released a 2nd edition of rules to fix a few things that were wrong with the first edition. They released a rule book for the armies. This gave the impression of a company that let things settle, took the time to listen, and try and nail it 2nd time around.

Does anyone else have examples of other wargame systems? Are GW alone in spitting out new costs for units at such a rate?

I would also add I thoroughly enjoy playing 40k, as I suspect we all do on this forum, there's no need to get nasty over all of this. We all want the best possible game, but should we be charged for it?

Why wouldn't you want to make the mathematically perfect army? Asthetics, narrative focus or because you collect more than you play. Not everyone plays solely to win games. Heck I'm.chasing improving my painting more than my army these days.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You've also gotten defensive when I was calling out specific behaviors in this thread while bot directly aiming anything at you.

Basically just because someone responds to you via quoting dowsn't mean that the entire conversating has to be directly about you.

When its quoting me and saying " you " Who should I assume it's directed at ? As well if I was defensive on something not directed at me otherwise for that I do apologize, not my intention he was very clearly talking to me though. I'll double check though.

ohh I totally was responding to you, but rather was addressing your comment that some people seem more intreasted in "defending GW then debating it" I simply argued that some people might genuinely be debating in defence of what GW's doing because they LIKE it

KirvesUK wrote:
However.. The fact my main opponent plays marines has shown me that yes, actually, you really do need to buy the latest book if you want to make the best possibly army you can. If you don't want to make the best possible army for yourself - why are you playing a wargame?

This really highlights the MASSIVE canyon between how different people think and approach these games. For example, I think that if your main objective is to make the "best possible army" for yourself in order to try and beat your opponent into dust, then you probably shouldn't be playing wargames.

 Hollow wrote:

KirvesUK wrote:
However.. The fact my main opponent plays marines has shown me that yes, actually, you really do need to buy the latest book if you want to make the best possibly army you can. If you don't want to make the best possible army for yourself - why are you playing a wargame?

This really highlights the MASSIVE canyon between how different people think and approach these games. For example, I think that if your main objective is to make the "best possible army" for yourself in order to try and beat your opponent into dust, then you probably shouldn't be playing wargames.

The entire point of a game is to use the rules of the game to achive a win state.

Don’t know about everyone else but as a GK player, having been ignored in vigilus, and the marine codex update and in general... I for one pray for a ‘supplement.’ Something that makes playing the army not a miserable demoralising experience in futility.

Whether the update is more than one sentence saying ‘GKs can psykic lolz,’ is yet to be seen.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

KirvesUK wrote:
However.. The fact my main opponent plays marines has shown me that yes, actually, you really do need to buy the latest book if you want to make the best possibly army you can. If you don't want to make the best possible army for yourself - why are you playing a wargame?

This really highlights the MASSIVE canyon between how different people think and approach these games. For example, I think that if your main objective is to make the "best possible army" for yourself in order to try and beat your opponent into dust, then you probably shouldn't be playing wargames.

The entire point of a game is to use the rules of the game to achive a win state.

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

BrianDavion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

KirvesUK wrote:
However.. The fact my main opponent plays marines has shown me that yes, actually, you really do need to buy the latest book if you want to make the best possibly army you can. If you don't want to make the best possible army for yourself - why are you playing a wargame?

This really highlights the MASSIVE canyon between how different people think and approach these games. For example, I think that if your main objective is to make the "best possible army" for yourself in order to try and beat your opponent into dust, then you probably shouldn't be playing wargames.

The entire point of a game is to use the rules of the game to achive a win state.

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

I thought it was masochism.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The entire point of a game is to use the rules of the game to achive a win state.

No it isn't. The point of game is to simulate anachronistic warfare in a cool setting using your beautifully painted miniatures.

BrianDavion wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

Fun is not in the RAW, so it is not allowed. Permissive ruleset, you see.

 Hollow wrote:

KirvesUK wrote:
However.. The fact my main opponent plays marines has shown me that yes, actually, you really do need to buy the latest book if you want to make the best possibly army you can. If you don't want to make the best possible army for yourself - why are you playing a wargame?

This really highlights the MASSIVE canyon between how different people think and approach these games. For example, I think that if your main objective is to make the "best possible army" for yourself in order to try and beat your opponent into dust, then you probably shouldn't be playing wargames.

STOP HAVING FUN IN A WAY I DONT LIKE FORGE MORE BEER AND EAT MORE PRETZELS.

Hey, at least we are not complaining about all the money GW forces us to spend on the pretzels!

BrianDavion 779687 10556735 wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

the only way for it to be fun when your losing, is for either to be playing with family or friends, and it not being game time, but friend or family time. Or being paid to play.
There are few entice to go out and play, when you know your going to get whooped again. Specially in places where people don't buy new armies on a monthly basis, and where you know what your opponent are going to bring, you can be in a lose/lose situation for months, if not years.

For example, I think that if your main objective is to make the "best possible army" for yourself in order to try and beat your opponent into dust, then you probably shouldn't be playing wargames

What about people with armies which don't mechanicaly work in 8th edition, isn't that like the reverse of playing with an army with a 60% win ratio, but still just as unfun, only not for your opponents, but for you?

Some of us find challenges fun. I had a game in 6th where (between my dice and just how much stronger the Necrom codex is over over the Sisters one) I was getting stomped and ended the game with three models left, and I won on turn 6.

Not everyone derives fun from playing incredibly fine tuned and powerful armies. I honestly find it boring if my army is too strong because my choices matter less during the game.

Okey, but that is one game. What if you played 50 or 100 games, and you lost every one of them. And opposing army did not change, neither does your army. And you know the next 50-100 games are going to be a losing grind too.

I am not claiming that someone who loses a game should sell their army, because it doesn't have 100% ratio. But trust me losing every time is not fun. People at some point don't even want to play with you anymore, there is nothing to prove or check, as both you and them know that the chance of them losing to GK is like winning in a lotto.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Some of us find challenges fun. I had a game in 6th where (between my dice and just how much stronger the Necrom codex is over over the Sisters one) I was getting stomped and ended the game with three models left, and I won on turn 6.

Not everyone derives fun from playing incredibly fine tuned and powerful armies. I honestly find it boring if my army is too strong because my choices matter less during the game.

And you (just like most people) have conflated "fun" with the "purpose" of game rules.

You can have fun however you want, but if you aren't activly trying to utilise the rules of the game to achive a winning state you are, for lack of a better phrase, doing it wrong.

Karol wrote:
Okey, but that is one game. What if you played 50 or 100 games, and you lost every one of them. And opposing army did not change, neither does your army. And you know the next 50-100 games are going to be a losing grind too.

I am not claiming that someone who loses a game should sell their army, because it doesn't have 100% ratio. But trust me losing every time is not fun. People at some point don't even want to play with you anymore, there is nothing to prove or check, as both you and them know that the chance of them losing to GK is like winning in a lotto.

Oh I have lost a lot (usually to horde armies because my TAC list didn't have a lot of flamers) but I will gladly play a tablomg put to the end in hopes of turning a loss into a win or at least a tie.

It's basically the same sort of mentality that makes Dark Souls fun.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Some of us find challenges fun. I had a game in 6th where (between my dice and just how much stronger the Necrom codex is over over the Sisters one) I was getting stomped and ended the game with three models left, and I won on turn 6.

Not everyone derives fun from playing incredibly fine tuned and powerful armies. I honestly find it boring if my army is too strong because my choices matter less during the game.

And you (just like most people) have conflated "fun" with the "purpose" of game rules.

You can have fun however you want, but if you aren't activly trying to utilise the rules of the game to achive a winning state you are, for lack of a better phrase, doing it wrong.

I'd add the caveat that this doesn't just include the rules of the game, but also any self imposed rules for the purpose of challenge or other personal satisfaction.

For instance, setting yourself the rule that your faction will be Space Marines and that you're only using Primaris. You are not fully utilising all the rules of the game to win by putting such a restriction on yourself, but it is something most people do to one extent or another. It's definitely not 'doing it wrong'.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Some of us find challenges fun. I had a game in 6th where (between my dice and just how much stronger the Necrom codex is over over the Sisters one) I was getting stomped and ended the game with three models left, and I won on turn 6.

Not everyone derives fun from playing incredibly fine tuned and powerful armies. I honestly find it boring if my army is too strong because my choices matter less during the game.

And you (just like most people) have conflated "fun" with the "purpose" of game rules.

You can have fun however you want, but if you aren't activly trying to utilise the rules of the game to achive a winning state you are, for lack of a better phrase, doing it wrong.

And that is where you fail to basically everything. I am still playing to win the game, I just do it with an understanding my army isn't going to kick teeth in and take names without a lot of effort on my part. And army that can do that mindlessly isn't enjoyable to play with in my book.

Fun comes from the challenge for me, not from the win state.

And the game rules are there to give you a toolbox to craft your own sense of enjoyment, not dictate what that enjoyment has to look like. So min/maxers, challenge seekers and even painters can derive fun from the same game in different ways despite using the same rules.

 Stux wrote:

I'd add the caveat that this doesn't just include the rules of the game, but also any self imposed rules for the purpose of challenge or other personal satisfaction.

For instance, setting yourself the rule that your faction will be Space Marines and that you're only using Primaris. You are not fully utilising all the rules of the game to win by putting such a restriction on yourself, but it is something most people do to one extent or another. It's definitely not 'doing it wrong'.

Yep, I don't want to win in the armybuilding stage. I make a reasonably balanced force that I find visually and thematically appealing. Trying to win comes only when the game actually begins.

There's other ways to excel at the game that aren't so focused on winning, and more focused on the lore, etc.

From 3rd through 5th I had a Tyranid army of nothing but Ripper Swarms, a Malanthrope, and some Hormagaunts, and a Carnifex or two (as well as the old FW Broodnests), as a competitive list, it was the worst thing I could make, but it perfectly fit the End Stage lore that I was replicating.

I must have played a hundred games with that list, taking it to GW stores in another city, etc, I can witch my wins on one hand. BUT! Winning was never my goal, I knew it would be practically impossible, so I focoused on getting a Draw, I'd pass up obvious tactics in favour of getting the Draw. Against people that hadn't played, they were always confused by what I was doing, but I had more Draws than losses!

I had a small joke game with my friend of Rangers and Illic Nightspear versus a Tervigon and Termagants. Very fun even if I did win on pure luck.

 Blndmage wrote:


I must have played a hundred games with that list, taking it to GW stores in another city, etc, I can witch my wins on one hand. BUT! Winning was never my goal, I knew it would be practically impossible, so I focoused on getting a Draw, I'd pass up obvious tactics in favour of getting the Draw. Against people that hadn't played, they were always confused by what I was doing, but I had more Draws than losses!

Playing to draw is unnatural though. It is like playing to injur a specific player from opposing school, not care if you get removed from this day event or not. Specially when draws give both players 0pts.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And you (just like most people) have conflated "fun" with the "purpose" of game rules.

You can have fun however you want, but if you aren't activly trying to utilise the rules of the game to achive a winning state you are, for lack of a better phrase, doing it wrong.

You're conflating the purpose of the game with the objective of the game.

The objective is to win the game.
The purpose of any game is to have fun. As in, that's literally the dictionary definition of the word 'game'.


You can have fun by doing everything you can to achieve the objective. You can have fun by pushing models around the board with your eyes closed and hoping for the best. The only way either of those approaches (or anything in between them) is wrong is if they prevent your opponent from also having fun.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 779687 10556735 wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

the only way for it to be fun when your losing, is for either to be playing with family or friends, and it not being game time, but friend or family time.

game time IS family/friend time. why would you play a game with people you hate?

Karol wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


I must have played a hundred games with that list, taking it to GW stores in another city, etc, I can witch my wins on one hand. BUT! Winning was never my goal, I knew it would be practically impossible, so I focoused on getting a Draw, I'd pass up obvious tactics in favour of getting the Draw. Against people that hadn't played, they were always confused by what I was doing, but I had more Draws than losses!

Playing to draw is unnatural though. It is like playing to injur a specific player from opposing school, not care if you get removed from this day event or not. Specially when draws give both players 0pts.

That's only true in events, not in the casual play most of us actually play games in.

Karol wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


I must have played a hundred games with that list, taking it to GW stores in another city, etc, I can witch my wins on one hand. BUT! Winning was never my goal, I knew it would be practically impossible, so I focoused on getting a Draw, I'd pass up obvious tactics in favour of getting the Draw. Against people that hadn't played, they were always confused by what I was doing, but I had more Draws than losses!

Playing to draw is unnatural though. It is like playing to injur a specific player from opposing school, not care if you get removed from this day event or not. Specially when draws give both players 0pts.

When I was playing this way in the minorly competitive scene I was in a loss was 0, draw was 1, win was 2. In a 5 game round, Drawing 3 losing 2 still gave 3 points. Yeah, I was nowhere near the top, but I wasn't at the bottom either.

Also, "unnatural", really?

I know that the way scoring works has changed in the big tourney scene, and with the game in general, so that Draws aren't really a thing anymore, which, honestly is kinda sad in a way.

Karol wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


I must have played a hundred games with that list, taking it to GW stores in another city, etc, I can witch my wins on one hand. BUT! Winning was never my goal, I knew it would be practically impossible, so I focoused on getting a Draw, I'd pass up obvious tactics in favour of getting the Draw. Against people that hadn't played, they were always confused by what I was doing, but I had more Draws than losses!

Playing to draw is unnatural though. It is like playing to injur a specific player from opposing school, not care if you get removed from this day event or not. Specially when draws give both players 0pts.

Not really - if you consider it an asymmetrical scenario from a force perspective, then achieving that draw is still denying the opponent a victory.

There are quite a lot of historical scenarios where one player is going to "lose" the battle by being wiped out, but they may still be able to draw, or even win, depending on what they needed to achieve during the game.

insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And you (just like most people) have conflated "fun" with the "purpose" of game rules.

You can have fun however you want, but if you aren't activly trying to utilise the rules of the game to achive a winning state you are, for lack of a better phrase, doing it wrong.

You're conflating the purpose of the game with the objective of the game.

The objective is to win the game.
The purpose of any game is to have fun. As in, that's literally the dictionary definition of the word 'game'.


You can have fun by doing everything you can to achieve the objective. You can have fun by pushing models around the board with your eyes closed and hoping for the best. The only way either of those approaches (or anything in between them) is wrong is if they prevent your opponent from also having fun.

Have an exalt, sir, and a tip of the hat I'm not currently wearing.

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 779687 10556735 wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

the only way for it to be fun when your losing, is for either to be playing with family or friends, and it not being game time, but friend or family time.

game time IS family/friend time. why would you play a game with people you hate?

...please don't get him started.

Now that the discussion has shifted around to the nature of why we play the game, it reaffirms the blurred line of 'optional'. Personally, I play to win. Not to WAAC, but I'm never going to take a deliberately terrible list, because having my arse kicked for two turns only to get tabled turn three is never fun. If these new rules provide a real competitive edge, and you don't like getting your butt kicked in every game, they aren't really optional, you either buy or pirate them. (Of course it is possible to have fluffy, thematic armies that are still strong, if not super strong, you can have both, certain people thing it's either or for some reason.)

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Now that the discussion has shifted around to the nature of why we play the game, it reaffirms the blurred line of 'optional'. Personally, I play to win. Not to WAAC, but I'm never going to take a deliberately terrible list, because having my arse kicked for two turns only to get tabled turn three is never fun. If these new rules provide a real competitive edge, and you don't like getting your butt kicked in every game, they aren't really optional, you either buy or pirate them. (Of course it is possible to have fluffy, thematic armies that are still strong, if not super strong, you can have both, certain people thing it's either or for some reason.)

But this assumes that your opponent makes as tough list as possible as well. If you both make weaker fluffy lists then you won't automatically get your butt kicked.

Maybe this will finally see the release of that rumored psychic-vore/plastic bio/pyro vore kit.

Bottom line, if you're going to be a meta chaser, you're always going to be giving GW money. That is completely a you thing, and in no way is it mandatory. You could be better off getting really good with your army (lots of reps) within the boundaries of one or two supplements, rather than seeking the holy grail of lists. This is not meant to be a git gud post, it's just a fact that reps will improve your game (heaven knows I need more reps for sure).

Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The entire point of a game is to use the rules of the game to achive a win state.

No it isn't. The point of game is to simulate anachronistic warfare in a cool setting using your beautifully painted miniatures.

It's kinda lame that's how narrow your viewpoint is BCB. You also don't actually play the game, so there's that.

BrianDavion wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

Fun is not in the RAW, so it is not allowed. Permissive ruleset, you see.

RAW is always right? Right? Except when its not.

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 779687 10556735 wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

the only way for it to be fun when your losing, is for either to be playing with family or friends, and it not being game time, but friend or family time.

game time IS family/friend time. why would you play a game with people you hate?

That seems very binary. I don't have everyone who is not my family. I go to a sport school, I have to daily wrestle with people, I don't hate them just because they are not from my family. Hating 7 bilion people would be very tiring, I think.

Bottom line, if you're going to be a meta chaser, you're always going to be giving GW money.

What about all the people that aren't "meta chasers", but they armies are still bad?

If you both make weaker fluffy lists then you won't automatically get your butt kicked.

Try playing a termintor army vs casual eldar or casual IG, if you think that is true.

 bullyboy wrote:
Bottom line, if you're going to be a meta chaser, you're always going to be giving GW money. That is completely a you thing, and in no way is it mandatory. You could be better off getting really good with your army (lots of reps) within the boundaries of one or two supplements, rather than seeking the holy grail of lists. This is not meant to be a git gud post, it's just a fact that reps will improve your game (heaven knows I need more reps for sure).

I'm not meta chaser, I just don't like getting wrecked. Losing a fair game is fine, losing a game where you were always going to lose just isn't fun. I'm not after the 'holy grail of lists', I'm after a list that can hold its own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
But this assumes that your opponent makes as tough list as possible as well. If you both make weaker fluffy lists then you won't automatically get your butt kicked.

a) in the two places I play, rarely are the lists weak. They aren't tournament strong, but they're strong. b) why should a fluffy list be weak? I play space marines, I can field a demi company or thereabouts with support elements and have it be strong This is the false dichotomy I referenced earlier. People who only play 'fluffy lists' that are weak seem to think people who play decent lists are automatically not interested in the fluff or lore, only in winning tournament matches. My iron Warrors are chosen with lots of plasma and vehicles (with the FW doors, not something you buy if you're saving money for the next great unit), with a kick arse lord (the metal warsmith model) and a demon prince with a hellbruts, and a few cultist slaves. I've got my own backstory for them, I've gone down the mechanised advance route rather than demon engines, it is still 'fluffy', it's just not bad, it can hold its own. I'm not putting it on the table to lose.

And if it sways anyone's opinion or matters, I have only ever played in one tournament in my 10 years of 40k.

I think at the end of the day my advice still holds: before we lament the injection of new models and rules this way we should wait and see what they bring to the table and decide from there.

To quote one TotalBiscuit: pre-order nothing and wait to make informed purchases.

And on that note, wait to make informed complaints as well. Without knowing if Psychic Awakening will even give your army something worth using it's too soon to complain about being forced to spend money.

So, we should wait till it comes out and if it seems to feel mandatory then complain ? I'll be there.

Jokes aside, we actually play games the same way, I like challenge and I actually didn't get vigilus but I can see why people don't really view it as optional content when its a straight buff to some units.

We will need to see what this new supplement system has but I bet my bottom dollar it'll have much power in it for all concerned.

I really hope the GK see some of it, as they tend to need a bit of a buff and if they don't get one, being so psychic heavy, I don't know what I'd think about that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I think at the end of the day my advice still holds: before we lament the injection of new models and rules this way we should wait and see what they bring to the table and decide from there.

To quote one TotalBiscuit: pre-order nothing and wait to make informed purchases.

And on that note, wait to make informed complaints as well. Without knowing if Psychic Awakening will even give your army something worth using it's too soon to complain about being forced to spend money.

Very true. But it's still fun to have a good grumble.

 Blndmage wrote:


When I was playing this way in the minorly competitive scene I was in a loss was 0, draw was 1, win was 2. In a 5 game round, Drawing 3 losing 2 still gave 3 points. Yeah, I was nowhere near the top, but I wasn't at the bottom either.

Also, "unnatural", really?

I know that the way scoring works has changed in the big tourney scene, and with the game in general, so that Draws aren't really a thing anymore, which, honestly is kinda sad in a way.

I wasn't thinking about tournaments, but normal games at a store. Am not sure tournaments would like to have people that draw 3 games and lose 3, anyone who matchs up against them would automaticly end up with fewer small points. It would be like trying to make the tournament expiriance of other worse. Comperable to droping after two games, and for the next 4 rounds someone ending up with a buy.

I think at the end of the day my advice still holds: before we lament the injection of new models and rules this way we should wait and see what they bring to the table and decide from there.

Maybe it is the data speaking through me, but history is important too. From what I understand from this and other threads, the last GK good update was in 5th ed. This new update could be of course super awesome, and better then anyone elses update. But what is the chance for that in reality, I thought the first CA going to be full of fixs for GK.. Now am kind of a disllusioned, I think. Plus there is the odd think of the supplements being 2 armies each. Even if they make 4 a year, yours could still be 8th and happening in 2 years time.

All we have is assumptions and not much else right now. Just because there as some guesses how it'll all work doesn't mean we know for sure how it'll all work.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 779687 10556735 wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

the only way for it to be fun when your losing, is for either to be playing with family or friends, and it not being game time, but friend or family time.

game time IS family/friend time. why would you play a game with people you hate?

That seems very binary. I don't have everyone who is not my family. I go to a sport school, I have to daily wrestle with people, I don't hate them just because they are not from my family. Hating 7 bilion people would be very tiring, I think.

I'm sorry Karol, are we getting something crossed here, a mistranslation perhaps? you said "Family/Friend." I interpeted that as family and or friends. and there's nothing binary about it. if you wanna play a game with someone they should be someone you like. if you hate them and, more importantly, cannot trust them, why would you want to play a game with them. Lives too short for me to put up with people whose company I don't enjoy in my leisure time.

Well I bought models, they are there to play games. Having paid money for an army, and not playing it and getting something out of playing the game would be a huge waste.
And to a degree I do think, that I would have been better if I bought a tablet like my sister did. Only time she was not happy with it, was when it broke for a week.

On the other hand nothing in the rules says you have to like people you play against. In general I don't like people, mostly because I don't understand social interactions. But I would never say I hate people. I don't think there are only two states, hate or like. I mean most people are just indifferent


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
All we have is assumptions and not much else right now. Just because there as some guesses how it'll all work doesn't mean we know for sure how it'll all work.

Well that is true. But there is living in fear of livingstone vulcano erupting and ending all life probability, and next year being a draught here again, like it was for the last 9 years.

If the supplement is going to be for everyone, and all faction would get similar type of rules or what ever. Then the most profiting from it are going to be armies with a wide number of usable models, those that points structure can be easily adjusted to fit in new or more stuff. Otherwise it is going to be like the CA point drops that everyone got. It only really helped the mid and high tier armies, it didn't really have much impact on those that were weak.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
First off, it's an opinion, so it can't be right or wrong, just mine or yours.

Note that one can be of the opinion that the earth is flat and be entirely wrong.

Warhammer is a little less clear cut, but the notion that opinions are unassailable or always of equal weight is a major problem with society these days.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
First off, it's an opinion, so it can't be right or wrong, just mine or yours.

Note that one can be of the opinion that the earth is flat and be entirely wrong.

Warhammer is a little less clear cut, but the notion that opinions are unassailable or always of equal weight is a major problem with society these days.

I'd say angryangel80 is right, all opinions have equal merit. the problem is people confuse their beliefs about what facts are true with opinions. An opinion is something entirely subjective, such as cake is nice/bad. Those have equal merit, because it's personal taste, i.e. an opinion. Saying the earth is flat is proclaiming a belief that the earth is a certain shape. This belief is wrong, as anyone with half a brain can tell the earth is round, you need only look at a ship going over the horizon, but people think their beliefs and opinions are one and the same.