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.

Nice russ, nice.

As far as Warmachine/Hordes is concerned, every character is a special character anyway! They are the only choices you get! Although I don't think we need to get rid of the regular characters that you can tool up with wargear and weapons that you want, I don't mind special characters being in the main lists.

It would also be nice if special characters were....special! They run the gamut to being awesome, and useless, and even the same points as a normal model armed the same!

Posted By jfrazell on 04/06/2007 6:30 AM

Its also been stated that reducing to 3 months means players who are buying new armies won't hold off. For example, I'm a new player or someone suddenly interested in a chaos list, four months before a new codex dex comes out. If there's a 6 month window then there is a good chance they won't buy the soon to be old dex and army (and we would likely counsel that). If the window is 3 months then no one knows the new dex is coming out and off to the store he goes.

Posted By IntoTheRain on 04/06/2007 6:28 AM
The problem with losing sub lists is that there is no longer any reason to actually play that style anymore. The sub lists gave advantages for playing lists a certain way, since they no longer get an advantage for playing fluffy there is no point in playing a fluffy list. Altioc is a good example. It rewarded you for fighting the way the craftworld does, which the current dex doesn't do.

Not to mention some of these are entirely different lists that are not replicable. LATD and kroot mercs come screaming to mind.

They are simply doing to 40k what they did to Fantasy.  You collected and converted a $900 Daemonic Legion army, well too bad you can't use it in any tourneys and we shall obliterate it from the public conscience like Lucas has done the Star Wars Christmas Special. 

Posted By IntoTheRain on 04/05/2007 9:13 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/05/2007 3:50 PM
This thread actually got me to come out of Lurkdom.

But, IntoTheRain, have you actually played a game with DA?  Do you even know who the DA are?  Of course they have named characters, they are one of the 3 Named Chapters with their own codex.  If you don't want a named character, play a DA Successor and then you get to make up your own name and fluff.  It like saying but I want my Ultramarines to be led by Chapter Master Joe and be pink instead of blue.  That's fine, but they ain't Ultras anymore.

EDIT: Took out some remarks to IntoTheRain, this is my first thread, want to be nice...


Ozymandias, King of Kings

Well then welcome out of the darkness and into posting. 

First, I have no idea what your previous remarks are, but you should know that I probably wouldn't have cared. (I'm assuming you went through the angry impulse post mode into fear of backlash edit mode)

As for your comments, I have no idea what your asking.  DA history spans milennia.  How many different leaders do you think they had during that time?  Upwards of the thousands would be my guess.  So why is it we are forced into a few select characters when designing our armies?  I'm all for special characters, but not as the only option availiable.  Especially since most players like writing a history for their commander, and where hes leading his army too, or even why he chose to take along the units he did. (THIS is fluff, you don't have to write the story of an entire successor chapter to set up a backround for your army/commander)

And yes, I have managed to get a few games in against DA. (Getting someone in my group to play them is a chore however)

Yes, their history spans millenia, but this is WH40k, meaning 41st millenium.  If you want to use one of Azrael's predecessors, then do so.  Model your own version and call it what you like.  There is no restriction there.  They are calling the Chapter Master Azrael, because that is who the current CM is.  If you don't want GW writing your fluff, then don't play a named Chapter.

I play DA and though I've only been able to get in two games so far I can see their strengths and weaknesses.  I slaughtered a Gaurd player and then lost badly to Nidzilla list (I had anticipated a Nid horde army and was a little surprised by what I saw).  I am still refining my tactics and trying to get away from playing the same style I did before.  It will take some time, but I am confident that I'll be able to come up with tactics that enable me to win.  Will I always be able to beat Drop Pod Marines or Nidzilla lists?  Probably not, but I don't judge the strength of my army by how well it performs agains the clearly broken lists that tend to dominate the tournament scene.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but GW has always been a fire and forget shop. Fire the army out and once the models are released, never hear from them again on that army for the most part.

 

Thats one thing PP will always have in its favor. EVERY army  gets something. You might not like this round, but you will get something.

Plus PP has a magazine that does what White Dwarf used to do.

No Quarters magazine is colorful, has great fiction, has previews, and lots of rules to try out.

I also like how the models themselves have rules on thier cards. You don't even need to wait for GW's snail pace to release codexes at the 2 a year pace.

A new model comes out, you get rules for it.

That alone makes PP a winner in my book.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 04/06/2007 7:30 AM

Posted By scipio.au on 04/06/2007 6:33 AM
That one, jfrazell, is a bloody good point.

You get it now Scipio?

The Lost & the Damned army I have took me a long time to put together (and I mean that in a literal sense). It is also the army I've had the most fun with, and, to me, is what the GW hobby is about.

They release this great new army that has a powerful list and a great background to it. Not only that, but it allows me to use my existing Guard and Chaos armies together, and, best of all, has a new unit that I went out and bought the parts for 90 of them (mutants), which I then got to put together in whatever ways I could imagine. I have over 90 mutants and they are all unique models. Despite the fact that they're make up of Orks, Crapachans, Zombies and Marauders, I've never had more fun putting together GW models. I even used the time to build some of them for a Necromunda Scavvie gang I wanted.

And it's all because of this cool, broad, flexible, flavourful and powerful sub-list.

For that to be shoehorned into 'Take special character X and you can take Elites Choice Y as Troops' just sickens me.

BYE

But see, JJ is saying that this is precisely what they want to avoid.  Any released army will be fully supported by regular releases (I'm guessing similar to how PP does it).  That way, your new army won't ever be discontinued.  You should be happy that they are taking this approach.

Hopefully, LatD will be in the new C:CSM, but even if they are not, I'm sure you could figure out how to use the IG codex to make a viable army.

And as far as the cults go, they have never been necessary.  Taking lots of berzerkers, painting them red, and calling them World Eaters is exactly how World Eaters are!  And if it is you need to take a Berzerker Lord to take Berzerkers, who cares?  Same as if I wanted to play Raven Gaurd in 3rd ed I would take lots of Assault Marines and paint them black.  Or White Scars I would take lots of bikes, etc.  They don't need mini-lists within a codex.  In that regard,the Eldar codex has been a success.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Slave, you may have many years of experience playing 40k but it is clear from your posts that you and your group are not playing 40k at a GT level of competitiveness. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

If your local Godzilla players not have a lot of success, then they clearly don't know how to play the list or had an incorrect build.

A shooty nid army with two shooty tyrants, five shooty fexs, and 3 zonethorpes is one the best 40k armies out there right now. Nothing in the DA codex can consistently match a Godzilla army, virtually no take all comers SM lists can match it, only SM armies built specifically to take on that many T6 creatures can consistently take them. But these lists are often unbalanced and not able to deal with other types of armies.

The reason some of the more experienced players may be attacking you is that your view on Nids completely contradicts what is happen at major tournaments. I suggest you participate at a GT level tournament and see just how effective a Godzilla army can be.

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 9:39 AM

But see, JJ is saying that this is precisely what they want to avoid.  Any released army will be fully supported by regular releases (I'm guessing similar to how PP does it).  That way, your new army won't ever be discontinued.  You should be happy that they are taking this approach.

Hopefully, LatD will be in the new C:CSM, but even if they are not, I'm sure you could figure out how to use the IG codex to make a viable army.

And as far as the cults go, they have never been necessary.  Taking lots of berzerkers, painting them red, and calling them World Eaters is exactly how World Eaters are!  And if it is you need to take a Berzerker Lord to take Berzerkers, who cares?  Same as if I wanted to play Raven Gaurd in 3rd ed I would take lots of Assault Marines and paint them black.  Or White Scars I would take lots of bikes, etc.  They don't need mini-lists within a codex.  In that regard,the Eldar codex has been a success.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

He said fully supported, which means ???  he also said if they glitch a codex well they're not going to change it in the FAQ because they should have caught it. WTF?  That doesn't sound like support to me. That sounds like SOP.

Concerning Cults never being necessary. Templers, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels are hardly necessary either. Lets go back to early 2nd ed for them as well. Just use the stock codex and paint them a different color. I don't understand what the problem is...

After all as a non-MEQ player all you marines look the same to me.

 

Edit: I'm up in the air on this. I will dread the loss of non-standard lists, traits, and doctrines. This is counterbalanced by my view that the eldar codex is much more balanced and is a hopeful sign for the future.

Posted By Scottywan82 on 04/05/2007 7:10 PM

Posted By Slave on 04/05/2007 11:42 AM
IIf they make ALL of the codexes the same way they made the DA and eldar books, the game will be fine, but that requires a redo of the SM codex sooner than later.

I agree with an above poster that this is a step back toward second edition.

The squads' options where listed on the same page. Numbers where mostly static and the game was fine.

Okay, I was so offended by this that I couldn't bother to look and see if anyone responded.  While the numbers for items in 2nd ed. were largely static (the 1pt boltgun), the insane amount of variety available to even the most basic unit was WAY worse than it is in even the current SM codex.  I mean, power axes, swords, hand flamer, autopistols...  you get to cutomize two figures in each unit now, besides the sergeant.  2nd ed was all ABOUT choice in your squads.  And customizable armies.  No troops, fast attack, heavy support.  They trusted us not to be jackasses and make our own decisions about what to include in our armies.  Now perhaps I've misunderstood, and if so, nothing but my humblest apologies (thought please do elaborate, because I'm confused and want to know what you meant).  But it sounds like you're comparing 2nd ed. codices with the new dark angels and eldar codices, and that's just way off base.

I was wondering when someone else was going to make that connection.

Posted By jfrazell on 04/06/2007 10:08 AM

He said fully supported, which means ???  he also said if they glitch a codex well they're not going to change it in the FAQ because they should have caught it. WTF?  That doesn't sound like support to me. That sounds like SOP.

Concerning Cults never being necessary. Templers, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels are hardly necessary either. Lets go back to early 2nd ed for them as well. Just use the stock codex and paint them a different color. I don't understand what the problem is...

After all as a non-MEQ player all you marines look the same to me.

 

Edit: I'm up in the air on this. I will dread the loss of non-standard lists, traits, and doctrines. This is counterbalanced by my view that the eldar codex is much more balanced and is a hopeful sign for the future.

Well it means the opposite of "not supported" which is what we've got now for a lot of armies.  We don't have any specifics yet as its only been a week since Adepticon and this new direction is just that, new.

You are right that BT, BA, SW, and DA could be done with the normal C:SM book, but they have traditionally all had their own (except for BT, but they are pretty divergent) since 2nd ed.  Chaos has never had multiple books and Craftworld eldar had a mini-dex that everyone pretty much agrees was not very balanced.

I think that the approach with C:SM (if they chose to make it for all chapters, not just codex chapters) is going to be that taking an advantage will have an attached disadvantage that will make no traits no-brainers and no traits useless.  Hands up anyone who doesn't take "We Stand Alone" as their minor divergence.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 10:33 AM

Posted By jfrazell on 04/06/2007 10:08 AM

He said fully supported, which means ???  he also said if they glitch a codex well they're not going to change it in the FAQ because they should have caught it. WTF?  That doesn't sound like support to me. That sounds like SOP.

Concerning Cults never being necessary. Templers, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels are hardly necessary either. Lets go back to early 2nd ed for them as well. Just use the stock codex and paint them a different color. I don't understand what the problem is...

After all as a non-MEQ player all you marines look the same to me.

 

Edit: I'm up in the air on this. I will dread the loss of non-standard lists, traits, and doctrines. This is counterbalanced by my view that the eldar codex is much more balanced and is a hopeful sign for the future.

Well it means the opposite of "not supported" which is what we've got now for a lot of armies.  We don't have any specifics yet as its only been a week since Adepticon and this new direction is just that, new.

You are right that BT, BA, SW, and DA could be done with the normal C:SM book, but they have traditionally all had their own (except for BT, but they are pretty divergent) since 2nd ed.  Chaos has never had multiple books and Craftworld eldar had a mini-dex that everyone pretty much agrees was not very balanced.

I think that the approach with C:SM (if they chose to make it for all chapters, not just codex chapters) is going to be that taking an advantage will have an attached disadvantage that will make no traits no-brainers and no traits useless.  Hands up anyone who doesn't take "We Stand Alone" as their minor divergence.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Later second ed. Originally it was the INSERT COLOR HERE marines. I'm not saying the cults each need separate codexes - thats whats maddening to me about the endless series of marine codexes and why I liked the Trait System.  But they do need separation. To say they're not the same is disingenuous.

Further, we do have specifics by his own statement. They no longer playtest the armies and they will not update the FAQ to create their own errors, but will wait when there 's a profitable opportunity several years down the road. I don't see an eldar FAQ yet, do you?

But they can do separation within a codex much like how the DW and RW can be separated within the DA codex. You can say, if you take a Berzerker character, you can take berzerkers as troops. You can create a World Eaters army that way, or you could create a Renegade Marine Army full of crazy berzerkers that way. It would work out fine.

He didn't say they don't playtest, just that they don't outside playtest. I have no idea what you mean about the FAQ's.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

-Yes they no longer playtest.  Internal playtesting? Er…ok how many designers do they have again?

 

-Read the comment on the FAQ.  If they goof up and put in codex Emperor’s Mailmen that they can drop pod and assault, well they are not going to issue an FAQ to correct that. Instead they’ll wait to the next time they revisit the army-that’s several years later.  In other words they are continuing their 4^th ed practice. Yep, fully supported they are.

Posted By Ebon on 04/05/2007 5:07 PM
1) He said they are NOT going to make rules changes with FAQs, but I think it depends on how you define a rules change. I'm being serious here cause I think you misunderstood what I wrote. To clarify, I'll give examples.

For Jervis, "this cost 12 points here, and 15 here, which is it?" is a clarification, not a rules change. Making the Master of the Ravenwing shoot bolters and the plasma cannon on a jetbike is a rules change, so they won't do it.

We'll have to wait and see how firm he is committed to this principle when it comes to bolt pistols and charging.

Re-read the above post from Ebon.  I agree with Ebon that clarifications of rules are ok to do w/ FAQ's.  I consider making rules that are confusing (like shooting bolt pistols and charging or assaulting from Drop Pods) are not changes, just clarifications of the rules.

And as far as playtesting, we really don't know how much they do internally.  Saying its zero is pure conjecture.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

It can't be a whole heck of a lot though. How many people are on the design team? How many projects are they working on at any one time?

Posted By jfrazell on 04/06/2007 10:38 AM

Later second ed. Originally it was the INSERT COLOR HERE marines.

I'm just being a ninny, but the first codex released in 2nd edition was Space wolves, followed by Eldar and then who knows....Marines got treatment right off the bat...

Basically they said that Witch Hunters was there most tested codex ever.

On a later date they said they played 30 games with the codex.

That's one of the big myths. There was a picture of the Dev room with a white board with 30 games on it. They never directly said how many games had actually been played.

And even if it were true, 30>0

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 8:58 AM
  Will I always be able to beat Drop Pod Marines or Nidzilla lists?  Probably not, but I don't judge the strength of my army by how well it performs agains the clearly broken lists that tend to dominate the tournament scene.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

The actual 'broken' lists are the ones that can't contest against those lists.  For instance, anything from the Dark Angels codex...

A quick question, do pathfinders/scouts with sniper rifles/vindicare assasins/lootas with sniper rifles/nurgles rot/'urty syringe/plague swords not utterly bollock 'zilla nid lists?

No, because the big guys still get their armor saves. Also, those guns are suboptimal at best against other armies, so you never see them in take all comers lists (with the occasional exception of Eldar Pathfinders and RARELY SM Scouts).

Going back to rumours. I have been asking around.

High Elves in June, with first official announcements next month. Salute 2007 will be a good opportunity for me to ask more.

Posted By skyth on 04/06/2007 4:34 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 8:58 AM
  Will I always be able to beat Drop Pod Marines or Nidzilla lists?  Probably not, but I don't judge the strength of my army by how well it performs agains the clearly broken lists that tend to dominate the tournament scene.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

The actual 'broken' lists are the ones that can't contest against those lists.  For instance, anything from the Dark Angels codex...

So you are saying that every codex should aspire to have the one "invincible" list rather than make a codex where every unit has its use?  Ok...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Having a use, and having a good use are two entirely different things....

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 5:16 PM

Posted By skyth on 04/06/2007 4:34 PMThe actual 'broken' lists are the ones that can't contest against those lists.  For instance, anything from the Dark Angels codex...

So you are saying that every codex should aspire to have the one "invincible" list rather than make a codex where every unit has its use?  Ok...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

No.  Everyone agrees that a codex where everything has a use is much better.  But it needs to contain builds capable of competing on relatively even ground with the big tourney armies.

Clearly balance is the goal.  But where Jervis is setting the bar and where it SHOULD be set are not necessarily the same place.  The Eldar codex is brand new.  The Tyranid and Tau codices are also pretty darn recent.  ALL of these have very strong configurations running in tournanaments now.  Is it a better idea to make new codices balanced with them, or make new codices weaker, and not have a general balance until these armies themselves are revisited? 

I think the answer, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, is obvious.  But somehow it's not obvious to Jervis.

So... then... what's the answer? Write it out in full and maybe he'll read this and see the light!

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/06/2007 5:34 PM

No.  Everyone agrees that a codex where everything has a use is much better.  But it needs to contain builds capable of competing on relatively even ground with the big tourney armies.

Clearly balance is the goal.  But where Jervis is setting the bar and where it SHOULD be set are not necessarily the same place.  The Eldar codex is brand new.  The Tyranid and Tau codices are also pretty darn recent.  ALL of these have very strong configurations running in tournanaments now.  Is it a better idea to make new codices balanced with them, or make new codices weaker, and not have a general balance until these armies themselves are revisited? 

I think the answer, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, is obvious.  But somehow it's not obvious to Jervis.

Is there really a good solution here short of a 5e rulebook with army lists for all armies in the back?

Posted By Lowinor on 04/06/2007 6:34 PM

Is there really a good solution here short of a 5e rulebook with army lists for all armies in the back?

This may very well be giving GW more credit than they deserve, but thats probably not far off the bat.

I can see planning for the next edition already.

Jervis has all but said that 4th edition is not a balanced game. I can very well see him making codicies that will continue to piss people off, then make a 5th ed ruleset where it atleast makes somwhat more sense.
Rememeber how they made the 4th ed rules allow 3rd ed codicies? I can easily see that happening for 5th ed as well. Perhaps more armies might be able to be developed if rules for an army are already balanced to 5th ed standards. Perhaps armies that get the DA Treatment" in 4th might not need to be revisted in 5th ed.

But like I said, I could very well be giving them far more credit than they deserve. But I do sincerly hope that I am not too far off base.

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 5:16 PM

Posted By skyth on 04/06/2007 4:34 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/06/2007 8:58 AM
  Will I always be able to beat Drop Pod Marines or Nidzilla lists?  Probably not, but I don't judge the strength of my army by how well it performs agains the clearly broken lists that tend to dominate the tournament scene.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

The actual 'broken' lists are the ones that can't contest against those lists.  For instance, anything from the Dark Angels codex...

So you are saying that every codex should aspire to have the one "invincible" list rather than make a codex where every unit has its use?  Ok...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

What I'm saying is that every codex should be able to create a list or two with the same highest power level as the other current codecies.  The ideal codex would have internal balance so that all units in it are equally useful, but the most important balance is between codecies rather than balance internal to codecies.

The power lists for every codex should be relatively equal (With perhaps a bit of rock-paper-scissors action between them, but not overpoweringly so.).  A codex that cannot produce one is inherently broken, not the power lists from other codexes. 

Meh, I think DA in the mech configuration can compete with Zilla lists. It is still a crapshoot as it depends on scenario and deployment, but I sitll carry about as many heavy weapons in that config as I did with Space Marines. Just fewer tornadoes.