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.

I'm sorry, but I call shenanigans on Jervis (and his Johnson). I'm tired of the designers at GW using 'new gamers' as their excuse for changing things around. How are 5 books going to be any less complex than 1, especially in the Codex Eldar format, where you have to flip back and forth constantly?

Even when they released the 3rd ed. 'simple' codices (all rules, no fluff, remember?) that were laid out all nice and straightforward, you had 'newbies' getting confused. Likewise, plenty of kids and n00bs managed to figure out how to play 40k chaos with the current codex, despite the fact that there are 4 versions floating out there.

If they want to change the direction, or release more books to make more money, or whatever, that's fine, that's their business, but stop saying it's because new players are too stupid.

As far as I can tell, all this does is invalidate rules that already came out with the new edition and push up release schedules even further back. What are they going to do when it's time for 5th edition and the Dark Eldar haven't gotten their 4th ed. codex yet? Put them on the island of misfit toys with the squats? Feh.

Chapters of Legend, get ready to bend over!  It's going to make me sad to see White Scars lose their bikes and Salamanders lose their double special weapons.

Posted By syr8766 on 01/12/2007 3:08 PM
What are they going to do when it's time for 5th edition and the Dark Eldar haven't gotten their 4th ed. codex yet? Put them on the island of misfit toys with the squats? Feh.

At the rate they're going, there won't be a 5th edition.  I think they're hoping the SM redux and Chaos codices will sell enough to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.  If you throw enough marines at the problem it'll go away, right?

Posted By lone pilgrim on 01/12/2007 2:56 PM
I went to the 40k GT 2nd heat and Jervis Johnson gave a seminar. He touched on a couple of points that have cropped up here.
GW think the Chaos codex is understandable for veteran gamers that can read it in the context of previous editions of the game, have read lots of background material and Black Library novels, and need the complexity to use their vast collection of 15 year old models. However, they believe it is very difficult for brand new gamers to use. There are far too many rules spread across too many factions and sublists. Although Jervis didn't confirm multiple codexes, it seems a logical conclusion to draw.

I find this interesting and sad at the same time.  One of the great pulls (at least for me) is the vast, well established background of the 40K universe.  It would be a shame if GW simplified one of the core concepts of this universe, simply because it would be too "complex" for new gamers to grasp.  What is wrong with having certain armies harder to master?  Just because something is a little harder to grasp, doesn't mean it is bad or needs to be changed.

I think another possible conclusion to draw is that GW wants to develop a codex that will "encourage" those same veterans to go out and buy the new minis that would be released with the codex while encouraging younger/newer players to pick up said minis as they'll easily adapt their tactics to the new army.  An excellent short-term marketing plan. :S

AJC

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/12/2007 5:25 PM

If you throw enough marines at the problem it'll go away, right?

I find this comment particularly entertaining, the allegory is potent.

The world of man in the grim darkness of the far future is plagued by choking beurocratic sprawl.  There is no finesse left in it, the Imperium wields a heavy mallet and often too late.

It truly is the policy of Terra to throw marines at a problem until it goes away.  And it seems to be a policy Games Buckshot has adopted, a company that seems to be choking on its own bean counters and beurocrats just as its ficticious counterpart does.

The Chaos codex is crammed with rules and not enough background material. Five codexes would simplify things because each codex would be self contained - it wouldn't be a case of flicking from one book to another. Each book could have a lot more background which would put the army list in context. This would help newer players get a handle on things. Just think about how much background material that isn't in the current Chaos codex - the Slaves to Darkness and Lost and the Damned books, the 13th Black Crusade campaign, the Horus Heresy books, the Index Astartes articles, the Liber Chaotica, the Sabbat Crusade, etc, etc. Of course, the models will drive the release of each codex and what is in each codex, but I won't be complaining if we have legion specific terminators, plastic daemons, proper cultist army lists, etc. Games Workshop also believe that the new format used in the Eldar codex is better and tighter than the old format, so it makes sense that the Chaos codex is one of the earliest to be adapted.

This more 'disciplined' attitude is filtering through to all parts of the company. New rules have been pulled from White Dwarf, sub-lists are being disappeared, the main army lists are being designed for competitive play with other game styles being represented in supplements. In many ways, it is what a lot of veterans have been calling for for many years.

You can also see the GW's philosophy on newer players in the changes to White Dwarf. Jervis used the example of Robin Dews, ex WD editor, who subscribes to a sailing magazine. Every year without fail they publish an article on how to prepare a new boat, because every year there is an influx of people new to sailing, and this is exactly the sort of article they want and need. GW feels it hasn't published enough articles like this recently and has therefore been neglecting its new readers. WD will be aimed at these readers. Veterans may be served by something like a resurrected Citadel Journal or by Forgeworld, where they can dig a little deeper into 40k.

Please bear in mind that this is how Jervis put things across in the seminar with a little bit of extrapolation by me. I personally believe that the new direction on the codexes is a good thing but I remain to be convinced on how well they will accomplish their aims. I am less enamoured on the future of WD but I can understand the idea behind it. It's easy to forget as a veteran that other types of gamers have different needs.

Well, they HAVE been counting on those new readers being LOTR people....

Please, god, if everything goes to the Eldar codex format, add a one-line summary of wargear and options in the entry with the points, or put points in the entry with the rules. Having to flip back and forth to see how useful things are compared to the point value is bloody annoying.

I hope they don't use that non-format that the recent Eldar Codex had. I looked at about 4 pages of it and couldn't stand it anymore. Awful. My original 3rd edition Eldar Codex when I first started playing was much better formatted.

Abadabadoobaddon, you are so sigged

I'm sick and tired of hearing about things done to help "new gamers", always at the expense of current gamers. GW needs to grasp the idea of customer loyalty. If people can see it's simply a matter of getting the fish in the boat and forgetting about it, that does them no favours. The veterans are already interested in the product, so give them something they want to buy rather than releasing some strop you know they won't like, aimed at hypothetical customers that require more dollars to be spent on advertising.

That's the overall standing on the issue, now let's break it down: I love my sublists. They add character to a force, they allow you to have your own niche 'version' of SM or CSM or Eldar. I could see dropping some of the smaller White Dwarf Marine chapters, but dropping the Craftworlds was too far and if GW is going to reduce the Undivided Legions (there are only 9 of them dammit, make the effort) to nothing but a few lines of fluff then I am going to be extremely pissed off.

Even if they throw me the bone of four Cult Legions, that won't matter, because I play WORD BEARERS and I've spent a long time building my army. The current format is good, it works, and it should be maintained. If it is not, mark my words, I'll have one last glorious year using my themed, unique (because yes, a few special rules adds validation and purpose to a specific subforce rather than just having a paintjob and a page of handwritten fluff nobody reads) Word Bearers host before GW drops this bomb of a Chaos Codex and I head off to FoW, where they give gamers what I (and I don't believe I am alone) want; characterful subforces recognised and validated in the rules. Hell, I just heard they are releasing rules for fielding a Jewish unit in the British army, now that's the kind of consideration I can admire.

I hope I'm wrong and I can remain a GW customer. The Jewish sublist example is an extreme, I'm not asking for a return to the "Chapter of the Month" days. But I am respecfully telling you that perhaps not even half Chaos players play one of the Cults, and very few play Black Legion. That is a lot of people playing Undivided Legions you are harming if you remove support for their sublist. I don't think I'm asking for a lot, I don't need a Codex: Word Bearers, just a page or two of fluff in an "Undivided Legions" book and a few (no reams required) dedicated rules to give the force some character. What do you say?

Hmm,. Balfazar you generalize too much. Remember that mileage may vary. Around here I see mostly cult lists, and there are quite a few Black Legion lists. Heck, at least 2 are friends I know in the area! There there are the Nurgle and Slanneshi cult lists with a few Khorne thrown in. And as always the few Iron Warriors lists.

Long time Eldar player, and it didn't bother me at all that the book went back to one list. Why should it be more than one? Then all people complain about anyway it your "tricks".
It has the ability to be anything now. I much prefer that. Chaos from the early days really should have had more books,and I hope this is the opportunity for them to expand the lists to more options. Such as renegade guard and such. We will just have to wait and see. If you want to go WW2, go play WW2. To me it isn't even in the same realm. Each game stands on it's own legs. Play what you want, but WW2 will never be the same to me as WH40K.

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I thought that from a business perspective, holding onto customers was the halmark of good business.

40K and most of the GW games aren't the type of games that appeal to most people.  Most of my friends are amazed that I would want to play a complicated board game that lasts for four hours.  Not to mention the hours and hours spent painting.  I do it because I love the hobby.  Appealing to new gamers is best done by making veteran gamers enthusiastic enough to spread interest in the game, not by dumbing down or simplifying the rules.  Their products appeal to a certain demographic. 

GW is on the right track by making their lists with tournament play as the central focus.  I think having additional lists (like the old Craftworld Eldar book, or the 3rd Ed Black Templars) can lead to some seriously broken combos.  The lists should be  competitive with each other and be self contained.  The Chaos Codex thing would only suck, if they referenced each other and the Undivided player needed to buy all five codexii to get wargear rules.

But all of this is no justification for why the Orks are getting shafted.

I agree generally, but I don't think GW views these things as mutually exclusive. I'm not sure I do either.

I look at the 3.x versions of DnD as a great example of this. Not only is the new version simpler and easier to understand than 2nd Edition, but it's also much more flexible and capable. How totally convoluted (for no good reason) was THAC0? Negative numbers are better? Huh? And now, look how easy it is to multi-class, and yet, it's not at all broken, either. Some might disagree, but in my book that's a model and a proof that you can make things both simpler and more sophisticated at the same time.

Not that I blame folks for saying "they're dumbing it down." When it comes to GW, they seem to be in a bit of a rut, not ready to improve or innovate their offerings the way WotC did with DnD. They demonstrate very little vision or ability when it comes to truly improving their rules... So I understand why people do the math and conclude that they can only shift the variables around, but in the end it adds up to "mediocre ruleset."

On the other hand, there was so very much wrong with 2nd Edition DnD, so many ways to fix and improve it. I'm not sure 40K/Fantasy are that bad off. But I'm also not sure I was aware of how messed up 2nd Edition was until they fixed it. When 3rd Edition came out, I found myself saying "hey, yeah, why did Thief abilities need to be a percentile die, when most other stuff is a d20? And why did Strength need to go off on a little tangent when it hits 18?"

I dunno. I think GW might be putting too much stock in the abilities of 'fun, nice guys that love the hobby,' when it comes to their rules. I think they need some real system architects, people who really understand probabilities and game theory inside and out, and can write them a system that really steps things up. They seem terrified of invalidating all their current Codices and products, so they might consider a parallel rules system, maybe one of slightly smaller model count, one that still uses the same models, but totally reinvents the rules. If people like it, the market will show it.

Posted By Samwise158 on 01/15/2007 11:26 PM
I think having additional lists (like the old Craftworld Eldar book, or the 3rd Ed Black Templars) can lead to some seriously broken combos.

Come again? And regular lists don't have these same broken combos? Sub-lists add variety. Now everyone has the same Eldar Codex, rather than a vanilla list and a bunch of specific lists. Yes, certain aspects of some lists were broken (Alaitoc anyone?), but the concept is sound. I don't want to have to buy a whole extra Codex to play a World Eater force, nor do I want to be told "Oh, there is no World Eater list now. Just take Berzerkers as troops and say it's a WE list" like the new Eldar Codex does.

The current way the Chaos Codex works fine. Yes, some things are more powerful than they should be, and some things suck terribly - but I don't want to either get rid of sub-lists, or force them into complete extra books that waste production time on things that need new books (Orks!!!).

BYE

Posted By lone pilgrim on 01/12/2007 2:56 PM
I went to the 40k GT 2nd heat and Jervis Johnson gave a seminar. He touched on a couple of points that have cropped up here.
GW think the Chaos codex is understandable for veteran gamers that can read it in the context of previous editions of the game, have read lots of background material and Black Library novels, and need the complexity to use their vast collection of 15 year old models. However, they believe it is very difficult for brand new gamers to use. There are far too many rules spread across too many factions and sublists. Although Jervis didn't confirm multiple codexes, it seems a logical conclusion to draw.

All future codexes are going to be in the same format as the Eldar codex. GW want to move away from traits, doctrines and sublists. They want everything rolled into a core list which a player 'can use to build a 1500 point army with confidence.' Jervis indicated that other codexes were designed around a different function; they had to appeal to campaign play, multiple games versus specific armies, random tournament play, themed armies, mega games, etc. Now they just focus on one thing - tournament play - and the rest will be picked up by supplements like Cities of Death, codex Apocalypse, codex Darkside, etc. This could be an explanation for the Space Marine redux. If the Eldar codex is the first of a new breed, then the SM codex has to follow soon after because it is THE core codex for 40k.

All future codexes will be self contained. The Black Templars codex demonstrates this in that you don't need the SM codex to use it. Current codexes that aren't self contained will be revisited sooner rather than later. That could affect the release schedule of future codexes.

LOL!!!!1!!1!11!Eleventyone!11!1!11

So, they are contradicting themselves and have conflicting agendas?. Kirby finally admits that the company has been ignoring the vets (duh!) and now Johnson wants to further idiofy (new word folks) 40K. Talk about communication breakdown. Its not a good sign when a company cant communicate with itself.

I am sorry, but flipping back and forth all over a codex does not a winning salable codex make. If I didnt need it, I most certainly would not have bough it, and I buy every codex that comes out regardless if I play the list or not.

I have a copy of the new dark angel codex (in PDF) and guess what? The layout is just as crappy as the eldar dex! YAY!

I will admit that the chaos codex is a nightmare at first glance. I had to sit down with that thing for the better part of two days trying to make heads or tails of alot of it. But it doesnt need to be made like the eldar codex. They are going from one extreme to the next. I agree with HBMC above me. The example of the world eaters list is exactly what they would do if they followed eldars example. And to be perfectly honest, thats the biggest load of crap.

Man, I have been pissed at them in the past, but never to the point where they would suprise me with even further lows in making sure they dont get money. I wonder if GW has found some strange loophole law like Uwe Boll did for making crap movies and become rich. Thats the only thing I can think of as a rationale for how GW thinks.

For chrissakes. Make good rules already and stop stringing everyone along like youre suddenly going to wake up and be a business worth patronizing. If this is the indicator that youre waking up, just go ahead and push the snooze button. Go back to sleep.

And Codex Darkside?

Ya know? If it wasnt 5 years too late (this was rumoured to be the next expansion after codex CityFight), I would be excited about that news. I really just dont care now... Imagine that? Bonafide news and I could really give a flying rats ass about it. Looks like the reflection has come full circle. GW cares not for the gamers, the gamers dont care when the company finally makes an effort. Whooduh thunk?

And their going to supplement the lists? After all this "No more supplemental list" bull crap? LOL I guess making white dwarf the roughest form of toilet paper imaginable wasnt working. Now they want to make supplemental lists.

Oooh..... its going to be a VERY painful year for GW. Even a monkey could see that if he was tied up in a burlap sack and thrown to the bottom of the Thames. Its crap like this that makes me sick to even look at my miniatures or really even play any games. Perhaps the predictions for the gaming industry this year werent so far off....

(really, I do apologize for the rant everyone, but that seriously struck a chord in me)

My best advice I could ever give GW is to just dump 4th edition and make a new start with 5th to be done with it. Failing that, stop trying to think and just sit there and look pretty! (dont insult us by making rules, just make models)

Ahh well, even though I am inflamed I have to keep everything in perspective. GW is as GW does.




www.somethingpositive.net/sp07142003.shtml

Posted By Samwise158 on 01/15/2007 11:26 PM
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I thought that from a business perspective, holding onto customers was the halmark of good business.

Posted By Balfazar on 01/15/2007 7:14 PM
I'm sick and tired of hearing about things done to help "new gamers", always at the expense of current gamers. GW needs to grasp the idea of customer loyalty.

Modern business practice has long since abandoned the idea of customer loyalty. It's as if the corporations all suddenly woke up one morning and realised that customers were shopping around and thus simutaneously opted to only reward new customers.

Cable/digital/satellite TV providers are a perfect example of this. Loyal customers who have been with the company for decades pay X amount. However, they'd be better off switching to another company to pay Y amount as a new customer and then, six months later, switching back and paying Y amount again as a new customer. And so on...

Companies love that customers are generally lazy and/or apathetic.

 

At least, that's my experience on this side of the pond. I don't know what it's like back in the UK.

Because when a person shells out money for a list they provide, and then invalidates it, it shows exactly what they think of the customer. And they dont think much...

And its not just eldar codex. Storm of chaos comes to mind....

Right. But lets stick with that theme for a minute shall we?

3.0 was GREAT. It truely made a better game......but then came 3.5 rather too quickly. More of a money maker rather than an improvement over all. Some of those changes could have waited till 4th. So they invalidated a bunch of books in a rather quick fashion....and now we hear rumblings of 4th coming. A revolt might be in order, because the grumblings I hear sounds like people ont want to jump too quickly...

And thats also why I didn't renew my WD subscription for the first time in years. There's absolutely nothing of meat in it now.
Its seriously shooting yourself in the foot. If I were an ork, DE, or guard player, exactly what reason is there for me to buy anything new, or otherwise keep my interest?

Posted By carmachu on 01/16/2007 4:23 AM

I look at the 3.x versions of DnD as a great example of this. Not only is the new version simpler and easier to understand than 2nd Edition, but it's also much more flexible and capable. How totally convoluted (for no good reason) was THAC0? Negative numbers are better? Huh? And now, look how easy it is to multi-class, and yet, it's not at all broken, either. Some might disagree, but in my book that's a model and a proof that you can make things both simpler and more sophisticated at the same time.

Right. But lets stick with that theme for a minute shall we?

3.0 was GREAT. It truely made a better game......but then came 3.5 rather too quickly. More of a money maker rather than an improvement over all. Some of those changes could have waited till 4th. So they invalidated a bunch of books in a rather quick fashion....and now we hear rumblings of 4th coming. A revolt might be in order, because the grumblings I hear sounds like people ont want to jump too quickly...

Honestly, this happens any time there is a new edition of any game - WFB, 40K, D&D, Vampire, etc. Besides, v3.5 came out about 4 or 5 years after v3.0. At that time quite a few flaws in the system had become apparent, so they took the time to update the books to reflect the commonly used solutions - and made all the changes available free on the web. I only wish GW would adopt this approach.

I personally like how v3.5 clarified and improved upon the rules. If 4th edition is a better game too, then I'll pick it up. The differences between 3, 3.5 and 4th edition seem to be small enough that material can be updated with a minimum of effort (usually just renaming a few skills).

I liked the clear up to A, but as monte cook pointed out, most of those changes could have waited till 4th. Now that we've had 3.5, 4th is looming. Rather quickly and its not making everyone happy since basically we bough 3.0, then had to buy 3.5- with open game liscense, most people are going to be reluctant to jump to 4th, considering most havent gotten full use of 3.5 yet.

Its a balancing act. While I dont begrudge a company making money, new editions cranked out too quickly looks like a ponsy scheme- its why I stopped playing magic the gathering. Too much, too fast, not enough time to digest. GW has gotten the same way at times, or rather its seeming like it now. WotC seems to be indicating that way too. If 4th comes before 2009, they might see a revolt from the players.

THat is the point, as you noticed: the changes are minor enough that they REALLY didnt need a new edition. 7th ed fantasy seems that same way. Wasnt it someone who said that the changes from 6th to 7th could have been put on ona single sheet of paper?

I havent bothered pickingup th enew rule book. Doesnt seem necessary.

I hated DnD 3.0. It turned an RPG into a tabletop miniature game, suddenly people were more focused on the chess like relationship of minis on the board, and suddenly it was no longer just pure imagination. I still don't like it to this day. Too much emphasis on rules and less emphasis on imagination.

The Eldar sublists were used by me to get a specific list that I couldn't get with the normal codex. I played mostly aspect warriors, or sometimes liked to field a lot of wraithbone constructs. The new eldar book allows me to do both in one army list. I can't say I am playing an Alaitoc or Iyanden list anymore, but I don't need to. I still get the same effect from the same list. All they did was allow more options from one list, and made it rather balanced as far as I can see at the moment. Not a bad thing in my opinion, and if they keep doing this, it will be great and there is no real need for a sublist when you can make a variety of lists with one. The problem is that people "believe" there are fewer options or less character, when in fact there isn't.

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 10:22 AM

The Eldar sublists were used by me to get a specific list that I couldn't get with the normal codex. I played mostly aspect warriors, or sometimes liked to field a lot of wraithbone constructs. The new eldar book allows me to do both in one army list. I can't say I am playing an Alaitoc or Iyanden list anymore, but I don't need to. I still get the same effect from the same list. All they did was allow more options from one list, and made it rather balanced as far as I can see at the moment. Not a bad thing in my opinion, and if they keep doing this, it will be great and there is no real need for a sublist when you can make a variety of lists with one. The problem is that people "believe" there are fewer options or less character, when in fact there isn't.

You're really harping on difference of opinion.  I don't think disenchanted eldar players are harping on lack of diversity, but the absence of notable improvement to certain units which have already languished for an entire edition - We'll look at a few examples:

Wraithguard have no clear purpose.  They have a powerful gun, but few shots.  They can be transported, but in small numbers.  They can be taken as troops on foot, but are slow with short range.  They are fairly resilient against small arms, but die horribly to the anti-MEQ proliferation of special/heavy weapons due to a lack of invulnerable save.

The Fireprism is a direct-fire skimming vehicle with AV12.  While it is much improved over its 3rd edition version, and can be a strong VP denier due to its high survivability, -EVERY- result on the glance table stops it from participating in the battle.  For straight VP denial, there are other easily hidden models who do not tie up valuable HS slots.

Swooping Hawks - A unit which is equipped with two diametrically opposed roles:  Mowing down light infantry at range and killing vehicles in HTH.  The real truth is that they are too expensive to be a good throwaway cruise-missile type unit, and their guns are too weak to act effectively as a harassment unit.  Skyleap, while looking cool on paper, merely dilutes them further by reducing the number of shots you get (since you skyleap before shooting).

This effect isn't limited to the Eldar Codex either.  Gun-drone squadrons, Lictors, Marine Veterans, Landspeeder Typhoons and Techmarines were largely worthless in 3rd edition, and continue to be largely worthless in 4th because they are either too weak, or too expensive, or are inefficient at filling their assigned roles. 

The Krootox on the other hand was an example of how to turn a terrible unit into a usable one... the other stuff seems to be mostly spraying perfume on poop and hoping that players wouldn't notice.

Of course, all this is a matter of opinion.  One might think that Gun Drones are the bee's knees and that GW is churning out a perfectly servicable product with a good corporate plan...  However, I can say from experience, some players aren't willing to wait another 10 years for their Iyanden army to become playable again.

I actually haven't heard those issues, and in fact have seen quite a few wraithguard on the tabletop as a fire soak unit.

And in fact the things I do hear from people is they hate the loss of the Eldar codex that helped define or push them into certain roles or give them certain advantages that they now have lost in the new dex. I don't hear them complain much about the units within the new Eldar dex as much as each seems to have their place. The whole Fire Prizm issue is more an issue that the Falcon is so much better, than the Prizm not being good enough.

The real question is what is to fast for a new edition. do you base it upon the 5% or less that continue to play the game after a 18 months or the 95% who stay in the hobby less than 18 months. The marketers know that most of the money comes from sale of new product to the under 18 monthers. Face facts guys, if you are on boards like this you aren't the target audience, and your feelings matter little to the marketers.

Most of GWs money comes from selling figures that they know will never be cut from the sprew or see a lick of paint. We want content, but shiny catalogues with oooh and ahhh images sell more to the short timers than useful rules and background story.

The place where GW and other companys are currentl falling short is in attracting new customers. This shows in the sales conditions accross the hobby as a whole. They seem to have forgotten that if you realy on advertising by word of mouth, you need to make sure your current customers have nice things to say about you.

*holds up GW financial reports for the last couple years*

I think they just might be wrong.......You can keep saying "we're not the target audience" but judging by units sold, their idea isnt panning out. At all. YOu might want to face that fact: if you drive away loyal customers of 5-10 years.....you BETTER be able to recruit a hell of alot more to replace them.

And their not. Its pretty clear in black and white.





Says you. GW might be falling down on that front, but many others are not. PP's a year ago saw FOUR times as many sales as the year before, they only expected twice.

Fact is, if you treat people right AND have a good product, they'll stick around.

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 11:36 AM
I actually haven't heard those issues, and in fact have seen quite a few wraithguard on the tabletop as a fire soak unit.

Well... as with any unit, utility depends on the environment. 

The way I see it (and would play against it).  10 dudes plus their minders is around 400 points projecting a serious threat to vehicles (i.e. most likely kill or maim said vehicle) within 18" and a moderate threat to infantry within 18" (i.e. good for around 5-6 MEQ).  (I've intentionally discounted the 5 man teams since they can't reliably harm infantry at all due to too few shots and too few attacks in HTH).

Outside of 18", there's pretty much no reason to shoot them, especially if there's better targets for your heavy and middle strength weapons.  At mid-range 24-18, plasma will significantly thin the squad.  I'm not sure that only being a "bullet catching tarpit" is such a great thing. 

Finally, the 18" sweet spot is also charge range for most models.  As such, improperly moving that unwieldy unit means that your bullet-catchers may be tarpitted in HTH (should their opponent wish to halt their shooting).

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 11:36 AM

And in fact the things I do hear from people is they hate the loss of the Eldar codex that helped define or push them into certain roles or give them certain advantages that they now have lost in the new dex. I don't hear them complain much about the units within the new Eldar dex as much as each seems to have their place. The whole Fire Prizm issue is more an issue that the Falcon is so much better, than the Prizm not being good enough.

 At any rate, anger at change is something that players deal with.  Good players adjust to the changes and adapt.  However, just because good players -can- adapt doesn't mean that these players should lie down and accept that:

1.  GW did not rebalance the system on the launch of 4th edition and will not address certain codecies indefinitely.  Finally, when they do, they may arbitrarily discontinue certain army lists as they see fit (broken or not) - On topic - There has been discussion that this may happen to some Chaos lists.

2.  GW will continue to write poorly edited rules and publish barely playtested armylists at a glacial pace, while flooding the market with 5x more power armor codices than are actually necessary.

3.  GW will continue to raise prices for the above ruleset to go with their fantastic(ly expensive) new sculpts.  (Damn you new Eldar and Fantasy models!)

I think it has nothing to do with being able to adapt tactically, and rather, the limits of tolerating GW's poor support of the customer base which helped them get where they are.  Contrast the excitement surrounding 40k at the 3rd ed launch with the 4th ed.  I think many players have gone from disatisfied to completely fed up.  In the case of the later, even releases like WHFB 7th Ed and Eldar is not enough to bring them back.

At any rate, your view on the matter is so complely opposite to mine, I think this will be my last post on the matter in this thread.

Meh, I can't agree...

I can certainly see how a more free form game got more concrete. When I used to run 2nd Ed DnD, we always had some sort of big sheet of paper to draw a map, and to mark where the players were going. There was some concept of scale, but I'd mostly just get the player's intended goal (run over here and attack) and then say if they could or not (you can only get to here). In 3.#, there's a grid, you can move a specific distance, attacks of opportunity are important, etc. It's more rigid in that respect, but it's ultimately doing a better job at what I had been doing all along. In fact, in 3rd I created a whiteboard with the 1" grid on it, and I'd draw the scene out on that, but now it could be to accurate scale, and the players could know where they could go without asking.

So, I don't think that places less emphasis on imagination. You're probably just jaded, as all RPG players become. You learn the system and want to game it, rather than get immersed like you did the first times you played. But, if the DM is good, if he handles the rules, translates them into real world verbiage for the players, and keeps them focused on the story, it's really a better system, since it makes things less arbitrary, and allows for realistic outcomes that are also consistent.

The simplification of the system, the "d20 does it all" approach also makes things quicker, and lets you focus on the story. I was always struggling to find a good way to simulate basic actions in 2nd. In 3rd, it's almost always a clearcut d20 roll that resolves things in a satisfying way.

We should bear all the in mind when it comes to 40K, too. The more jaded you become with the game, the harder it will be to impress and satisfy you. The better/worse the community you play in, the less you'll enjoy yourself, and thus the less you'll applaud the game itself. If you had a great DM, I think you'd think 3.# was great too. If you have a great place to play 40K/Fantasy, I think you'll consider the game, or the current version, to be great as well.



More important still is what is the point of a new edition? I'm not sure I can see why DnD would need a new edition. I have a lot of faith in the guys doing the design for DnD, so if they think so, go for it, but I don't see the benefits. 40K/Fantasy, on the other hand, seem to need some sort of help.

Posted By lone pilgrim on 01/12/2007 2:56 PM
All future codexes are going to be in the same format as the Eldar codex. GW want to move away from traits, doctrines and sublists.

You have got to be kidding me.

It seems GW wants to move into administration as quickly as possible. Yay for corporate apathy!