Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 pretre wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.

3rd edition codexes were also some of the worst from a page count, fluff and substance standpoint. Codexes today have 2-3 times as much content, better paper and are hardcover. Seriously, go back and take a look at 3rd ed Codex: Space Marines and compare it to the 6th edition one.

They had the rules needed to play the army, simple how-to-paint guides and basic fluff to get a feel for what the army is about. If you wanted more fluff, or better painting guides then you had other products that you could purchase to complement the codex.

A Codex is a tool that allows a player to play the game, extra fluff, hardcovers (lol-what? this is a gaming tool, not a coffee table book!), and recycled pictures of static models are just excuses to jack up the price, they don't make it a better product by any stretch of the imagination.

PhantomViper wrote:

 pretre wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.

3rd edition codexes were also some of the worst from a page count, fluff and substance standpoint. Codexes today have 2-3 times as much content, better paper and are hardcover. Seriously, go back and take a look at 3rd ed Codex: Space Marines and compare it to the 6th edition one.

They had the rules needed to play the army, simple how-to-paint guides and basic fluff to get a feel for what the army is about. If you wanted more fluff, or better painting guides then you had other products that you could purchase to complement the codex.

A Codex is a tool that allows a player to play the game, extra fluff, hardcovers (lol-what? this is a gaming tool, not a coffee table book!), and recycled pictures of static models are just excuses to jack up the price, they don't make it a better product by any stretch of the imagination.

Pretty much my thoughts. The Codex was for gaming, it didn't need 50 pages of background, it needed a basic background and there were other sources (White Dwarf, books, GW site, etc.) for getting more in depth about a Space Marine's physiology or epic battles of the Eldar. I liked them being slim and cheap versus the current $50.

PhantomViper wrote:

 pretre wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.

3rd edition codexes were also some of the worst from a page count, fluff and substance standpoint. Codexes today have 2-3 times as much content, better paper and are hardcover. Seriously, go back and take a look at 3rd ed Codex: Space Marines and compare it to the 6th edition one.

They had the rules needed to play the army, simple how-to-paint guides and basic fluff to get a feel for what the army is about. If you wanted more fluff, or better painting guides then you had other products that you could purchase to complement the codex.

A Codex is a tool that allows a player to play the game, extra fluff, hardcovers (lol-what? this is a gaming tool, not a coffee table book!), and recycled pictures of static models are just excuses to jack up the price, they don't make it a better product by any stretch of the imagination.

It doesn't make it better as strictly a rules delivering device... no

Some of us do like more content about the fluff etc then others though...

puma713 wrote:
I wonder how iPads would be doing if the consumer found out that, every update, the iPad didn't work any more and he had to buy a new one. You think that would go over well? Or you think people would just stop buying iPads?

What an extremely poorly chosen comparison. I'm surprised you could pick one this bad. The iPad I bought a few years ago isn't competitive with new iPads anymore. It's crap. It works to an extent, but it doesn't do the job as well as the new ones. It's inferior in its purpose. Should I be outraged that my iPad isn't competitive forever? Should I just stop buying iPads?

99,9% of armies people build will work very far into the future. They most likely last longer than the iPad, which as an electronic device will just stop functioning sooner or later, while the models will remain. The army you bought won't be as competitive as the new ones, but it'll still work. Noone will take your models away. You can even use them for other armies. It's like buying only half an iPad to upgrade the old junk to competitive status again. Neither the iPad or the army manufacturer are organising competitions for the products, nor are they claiming that the product you bought remains the most competitive forever. You made that connection. Your mistake.

Sounds like you're the emotional one here. Take a step away from the computer and then come back and let's talk like adults. I'm neither lying nor ignorant. I didn't say there have never been problems. I said I've never seen tournament play this way. Gorgon brought up some points that I wasn't aware of because I didn't play tournaments in 2nd or 3rd edition, but I did play the game.

You're the only one who feels that out of my last dozen posts one can deduce that I'm emotional about the subject. It's a misunderstanding of massive proportions, but I'm not surprised. There's a lot of misconceptions in the way you view the game and perhaps the whole world.

 Therion wrote:
*snip*

You're right. Everything GW is doing is perfect and it is the players who buy into it who are to blame. How could I have been so misguided? It makes it sound like a husband (GW) that beats his wife (their consumers). " You should've known what getting into this situation would get you, so why are you complaining? Just take your beating. "

I guess what people will do is leave the situation and avoid the beatings.

 puma713 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
*snip*

You're right. Everything GW is doing is perfect and it is the players who buy into it who are to blame. How could I have been so misguided? You sound like a husband (GW) that beats his wife (their consumers). You should've known what getting into this situation would get you, so why are you complaining? Just take your beating.

I guess what people will do is leave the situation and avoid the beatings.

Puma that is a pretty inflamatory and offensive comparison there.

 Fishboy wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
*snip*

You're right. Everything GW is doing is perfect and it is the players who buy into it who are to blame. How could I have been so misguided? You sound like a husband (GW) that beats his wife (their consumers). You should've known what getting into this situation would get you, so why are you complaining? Just take your beating.

I guess what people will do is leave the situation and avoid the beatings.

Puma that is a pretty inflamatory and offensive comparison there.

Edited so it didn't sound like an attack on Therion, which it wasn't.

Let's dial it down a notch or two please.

 puma713 wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
*snip*

You're right. Everything GW is doing is perfect and it is the players who buy into it who are to blame. How could I have been so misguided? You sound like a husband (GW) that beats his wife (their consumers). You should've known what getting into this situation would get you, so why are you complaining? Just take your beating.

I guess what people will do is leave the situation and avoid the beatings.

Puma that is a pretty inflamatory and offensive comparison there.

Edited so it didn't sound like an attack on Therion, which it wasn't.

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but I don't think it is considered offensive because you were personally engaging another poster. It is considered offensive (ridiculous, in my opinion) because nothing about the customer satisfaction of luxury goods is remotely comparable to domestic abuse. Let's try and keep things in perspective here.

WayneTheGame wrote:I never found the 3rd edition codexes to be lacking; they didn't have as much of course but they had enough to get a feel for the army and they had the army list and the gallery/how to paint section.

Then you never played Dark Eldar. Second Codex in 3rd edition, completely new faction, 4 background pages explaining who they are. No, not enough to get a feel for this new race. not at all

PhantomViper wrote:They had the rules needed to play the army, simple how-to-paint guides and basic fluff to get a feel for what the army is about.

Then you never played Orks or Dark Eldar. The Ork Codex didn't even have a table with weapon stats.

That said, even the first few 3rd edition Codices were much more informative than e.g. the digital Codex Adepta Sororitas, as you had at least several different colour schemes shown.

There was no 3rd edition, Codex: Sisters of Battle or Codex: Adepta Sororitas. There was a 3.5 Codex: Witchhunters, but that's a different breed from the 3rd edition codexes we were discussing.

 Kroothawk wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:I never found the 3rd edition codexes to be lacking; they didn't have as much of course but they had enough to get a feel for the army and they had the army list and the gallery/how to paint section.

Then you never played Dark Eldar. Second Codex in 3rd edition, completely new faction, 4 background pages explaining who they are. No, not enough to get a feel for this new race. not at all

PhantomViper wrote:They had the rules needed to play the army, simple how-to-paint guides and basic fluff to get a feel for what the army is about.

Then you never played Orks or Dark Eldar. The Ork Codex didn't even have a table with weapon stats.

That said, even the first few 3rd edition Codices were much more informative than e.g. the digital Codex Adepta Sororitas, as you had at least several different colour schemes shown.

I actually did have the Dark Eldar Codex, because I was considering an army of them since I had the 20 warriors or whatever from the boxed set. I never once felt that anything was lacking there, although to be fair I was like 18 then. I looked through the bit of fluff and still was able to figure out who they were, where they came from and what they were like. And I didn't have to spend $50 for a hardcover and glossy pages. I pretty much bought every 3rd edition Codex up until the 3.5 revamps, when I only bought Chaos because that was my primary army. I never found anything lacking with any of them.

xxvaderxx wrote:
it is never the editions that cause the maihem, its the CODEXES. The unit that has the 2++ rerollable save is the problem, not the fact that there are invulnerable saves or rerolls in the game, and that 2++ was introduced in a codex, not in the BRB.

QFT

 puma713 wrote:
I am talking about someone who has spent their time and money building a force that they feel is both fun and competitive. They may not win every game, but they can hold their own in a tournament. All of a sudden, their list that they have lovingly worked on for however long is no longer viable on the table. Or, it may be, but you're going to lose the majority of your games. I wonder how many Tyranid lovers feel this way right now?

I do feel exactly that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
There was no 3rd edition, Codex: Sisters of Battle or Codex: Adepta Sororitas. There was a 3.5 Codex: Witchhunters, but that's a different breed from the 3rd edition codexes we were discussing.

You misunderstood him. He said that even the third editions codexes (in general, not only for Sisters) had more than the current Codex: Adepta Sororitas.

Really I think that 3rd edition 'barebones' codices pretty much sucked. There wasn't much of fluff, and what was often sucked. OTOH, I think that some of the present books have gone too much to other extreme: they're just not very economical either in terms of cost to player, or how the page count is used. For example, in current Tau codex every unit type gets a page full of text: oftentimes it feels like they just put a word generator on to fill the page. Devilfish or Hammerhead doesn't need a huge wall of text to explain what it is and what it does. Old 4th edition codex told much of the same in much less pages.

No, I LOVE the new codices, if it werent for GW still not managing to print one without spelling mistakes (the Dark Angels one is pretty atrocious in this regard)

I absolutely, positively, LOATHED the 3rd edition codices.

My first army was Eldar.

I was 14 years old.

I got into 40k by reading their fluff from an online page, FFS. Some random website that summarized The Fall and the Eldar Pantheon and the Court of the Young King etc. I was instantly hooked.

Then I bought the blue codex and....felt like I had been smacked in the face.

2 or 3 pages of fluff, thats all.

Boom. Nothing else.

It is easy to compare the 3rd ed codices to the current hardcover full color ones to justify the older ones being cheaper.

But it isnt so easy to compare them to the mid-to late 4th edition ones, which came with 20 pages of fluff and were perfect, starting with the Dark Angels.

Backfire wrote:
or how the page count is used. For example, in current Tau codex every unit type gets a page full of text: oftentimes it feels like they just put a word generator on to fill the page. Devilfish or Hammerhead doesn't need a huge wall of text to explain what it is and what it does. Old 4th edition codex told much of the same in much less pages.

Nope, see 4th edition Dark Angels codex 2006 (the first of the new kind) it already had an entire page dedicated to one unit, so this practice is 8 years old now.

Only the 5th edition codices started to go up in price, e.g. Grey Knights and Necrons.

So yeah, if anyone has the 4th edition Codex: Eldar lying around (2006), then you'll get an idea of how the perfect codex looks like.

My only gripe with the current ones is that the weapons and wargear shoudnt have their own section, but be detailed in the unit entry.

That way when you are browsing the armylist section at the back and need some more info, you can open the unit page number as detailed in the armylist section, and then do not have to additionally flick back to the wargear section to see what Brother Boreale's fancy sword does.

Sir Arun, the wargear section is done because lots of units get the same stuff to pick. The options for a CSM Champion aren't much different from what a Chaos Lord can take and lots of weapons are also used by lots of squads.
Besides, every IG player would crap bricks if every single page of the codex had the rulesbox for the lasgun. This is a codex, not the infantrymans uplifting primer...

What irks me most about the codices is that they are very expensive. I see most people walk around with a tablet or something similar in a couple of years and a good digital release is much more user-friendly than a printed book.
But the digital releases aren't exactly cheap too. Since a lot of content isn't exactly new, including artwork and model pics, I wonder how GW is going to justify the high prices should a codex contain only minor changes.

 Kosake wrote:


What irks me most about the codices is that they are very expensive. I see most people walk around with a tablet or something similar in a couple of years and a good digital release is much more user-friendly than a printed book.
But the digital releases aren't exactly cheap too. Since a lot of content isn't exactly new, including artwork and model pics, I wonder how GW is going to justify the high prices should a codex contain only minor changes.

And to that point, I think that they should give you a product key for digital download when you purchase the hardcover. You can still buy the digital version, but if you like having the hardbacks and also have a digital device, you could still buy your preferred medium, but have the digital books for convenience.

Similar to Kindle Matchbook.

 puma713 wrote:
And to that point, I think that they should give you a product key for digital download when you purchase the hardcover.

Haha, they arent even giving a product key to Limited Edition owners. You're expecting sense from GW.

The codexes are fine, they're just at least $10-15 too expensive.

They're verging on textbook-expensive. I can literally buy a 600 page textbook for $100, and college textbooks are notoriously bloated in price.

$58 for a children's book-sized codex with a nice hardcover back to it? I'm sorry, but it's absurd and anyone should be able to see that. The writing quality isn't great, most of the content is copy-pasted from previous codexes including the fluff, the rules, and nearly all of the artwork. There is no conceivable reason that putting a pretty hardback cover on it should cause the price to double.

I also agree with consolidating the special wargear and weapons onto the unit pages. Azrael's entry in Codex: DA I think shows how it should be done. His unique equipment is detailed clearly so you can read it all in one place.

Kroothawk wrote:That said, even the first few 3rd edition Codices were much more informative than e.g. the digital Codex Adepta Sororitas, as you had at least several different colour schemes shown.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 pretre wrote:
There was no 3rd edition, Codex: Sisters of Battle or Codex: Adepta Sororitas. There was a 3.5 Codex: Witchhunters, but that's a different breed from the 3rd edition codexes we were discussing.

You misunderstood him. He said that even the third editions codexes (in general, not only for Sisters) had more than the current Codex: Adepta Sororitas.

That is correct, should have been clear with "even the first few 3rd edition Codices" with Witchhunters being one of the last. But I just triggered one of his standard flame posts against me.

 Kroothawk wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:They had the rules needed to play the army, simple how-to-paint guides and basic fluff to get a feel for what the army is about.

Then you never played Orks or Dark Eldar. The Ork Codex didn't even have a table with weapon stats.

I never played Orks, but I did play Dark Eldar and what more feel did you need? You got that they were raiders and slavers and were hiding from Slanesh in an hidden city on the old Eldar Webway.

If you wanted to know about inter-kabal politics and delve deeper into their society then you had other sources for that...

 puma713 wrote:

 Kosake wrote:


What irks me most about the codices is that they are very expensive. I see most people walk around with a tablet or something similar in a couple of years and a good digital release is much more user-friendly than a printed book.
But the digital releases aren't exactly cheap too. Since a lot of content isn't exactly new, including artwork and model pics, I wonder how GW is going to justify the high prices should a codex contain only minor changes.

And to that point, I think that they should give you a product key for digital download when you purchase the hardcover. You can still buy the digital version, but if you like having the hardbacks and also have a digital device, you could still buy your preferred medium, but have the digital books for convenience.

Similar to Kindle Matchbook.

I never said there is no reasonable solution to the issue. It's just that if GW would use reason, there wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

 Kroothawk wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:That said, even the first few 3rd edition Codices were much more informative than e.g. the digital Codex Adepta Sororitas, as you had at least several different colour schemes shown.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 pretre wrote:
There was no 3rd edition, Codex: Sisters of Battle or Codex: Adepta Sororitas. There was a 3.5 Codex: Witchhunters, but that's a different breed from the 3rd edition codexes we were discussing.

You misunderstood him. He said that even the third editions codexes (in general, not only for Sisters) had more than the current Codex: Adepta Sororitas.

That is correct, should have been clear with "even the first few 3rd edition Codices" with Witchhunters being one of the last. But I just triggered one of his standard flame posts against me.

Maybe it's just me but it seems like GW (and DP9 who make Heavy Gear) choose to ignore what to me is an obvious choice. You keep the page count and content of the current style books but come out with two versions:

1) Soft cover with interior B&W lower quality paper pages except for the model showcase @$30-35 for the mass market
2) Hard Cover glossy Direct Only and possibly Limited Edition full color version @$50-60

People who want to splurge can and people who want a leaner (both physically and financially) book can get one. The biggest issue I have with the current books is that the increased cover and page count means that I can't put them in my GW carrying cases anymore without risking crushing models. I also prefer cheaper B&W ones for use on the tabletop and lending out to people as well which I no longer do. Maybe the margin on that would be lower or maybe GW is just doing a typical derp and switch but that seems to me to be the best of both worlds.

 Kroothawk wrote:

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 pretre wrote:
There was no 3rd edition, Codex: Sisters of Battle or Codex: Adepta Sororitas. There was a 3.5 Codex: Witchhunters, but that's a different breed from the 3rd edition codexes we were discussing.

You misunderstood him. He said that even the third editions codexes (in general, not only for Sisters) had more than the current Codex: Adepta Sororitas.

That is correct, should have been clear with "even the first few 3rd edition Codices" with Witchhunters being one of the last. But I just triggered one of his standard flame posts against me.

Oh boo hoo. There was no flame.

And yes, I misunderstood. Although it is still incorrect, yes there may have been more paint jobs, but there certainly wasn't more content.

 warboss wrote:
Maybe it's just me but it seems like GW (and DP9 who make Heavy Gear) choose to ignore what to me is an obvious choice. You keep the page count and content of the current style books but come out with two versions:
1) Soft cover with interior B&W lower quality paper pages except for the model showcase @$30-35 for the mass market
2) Hard Cover glossy Direct Only and possibly Limited Edition full color version @$50-60

or, even better,

3) Soft cover with interior high quality full color paper pages @$40-45 for the mass market

 puma713 wrote:
I am talking about someone who has spent their time and money building a force that they feel is both fun and competitive. They may not win every game, but they can hold their own in a tournament. All of a sudden, their list that they have lovingly worked on for however long is no longer viable on the table. Or, it may be, but you're going to lose the majority of your games. I wonder how many Tyranid lovers feel this way right now?

By and large my 6th ed armies are the same as my 2nd ed armies, freqently the only real difference is their size. If you build lists specifically to cater for single editions, the 'current meta', then of course your armies are going to fluctuate wildly in power. Its pointless building 'competative' 40k armies and expect them to perfrom in the same manner across editions, GW's constant tinkering and inability to balance their rules will ensure that your efforts are wasted.

Personally I find it far more beneficial to build an army in a manner that you find interesting and don't take the game seriously. If you want truely competative wargaming then you need to look outside GW.

I have a similar philosophy, I intend to, or already do, own at least one of each unit for each of the armies I play, and will be, or are, full size, perhaps with other models to allow for different options.

My frustration is, despite this approach (which one could argue is the 'correct' one, at least from GW's perspective) I still can't really use all the models I want to use if I want to put together a TAC list.

Bloodcrushers being a great example of a unit that I have a sizeable number of (6, so one larger or two min size units) but I cannot realistically spend points on in a list I want to take to my local club and have a reasonable chance of competing.

We're not talking a competitive environment like a tournament here, merely an environment where there are a few Eldar and Tau players, who, with the exception of one, are far from WAAC, and almost go out of their way to minimise the imbalance between their books and others.

You're right that if I took this seriously and wanted a game that rewarded player skill that I'd need to look outside of GW games, but that is a problem that GW really need to address quite urgently, or their player base could very well disappear.

 Palindrome wrote:

Personally I find it far more beneficial to build an army in a manner that you find interesting and don't take the game seriously. If you want truely competative wargaming then you need to look outside GW.

Or, as I have done in the past, just collect your favorite army. Eventually, you will have enough models to field just about any combination they could throw at you outside of new units. After all, GW have repeatedly made references to them being a "collectible" company rather than a gaming company.

Did GW update the description for the knight? It says that it is 6" tall, I thought it use to say 8.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440160a&prodId=prod2380151a

edit: blarg. i hit the wrong thread. sorry
>.<

 Lockark wrote:
Did GW update the description for the knight? It says that it is 6" tall, I thought it use to say 8.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440160a&prodId=prod2380151a

Yes, several days ago, and wrong thread.