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.

Posted By ph34r on 01/16/2007 4:32 PM

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.

Yea, to be honest, if GW neutered Chaos like they did with Eldar, I'd simply quit. I'm not saying they're going to, infact rumors of 5 Chaos Codicies seem to contradict that idea quite a bit. If I can't play my IW and my cult armies, there's really no reason for me to play Chaos. I don't want to play a vanilla Chaos list, at all, period, and to be forced to would make me sell all of my models and focus entirely on Confrontation (well, maybe Infinity if that pans out to be a decent game).

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

Except you can't make Black Guardians.  Or a Court of the Young King.  Or a Spear of Khaine.  Or a Seer Council (it's not a Seer Council if there's only 1 Farseer!).  Had they included all of those then I would agree with you.  Losing options is NOT fun.

Likewise it was not fun when Raven Guard/White Scars lost their jump pack command squads/veteran bike squads and unrestricted access to Drop Pods/Rhinos.  And it's gonna be even less fun when they release the SM Codex Redux and retcon all of them into different-colored Ultramarines.

I'm gonna be totally pissed if the 4 Chaos Codices are Codex: Chaos Undivided, Codex: Khorne, Codex: Slaanesh, Codex: Nurgle, and Codex: Iron Warriors.

Perturabo would be an awesome Chaos god.

Talking to the wrong one here. Black Guardians are just that, black guardians to me. I never liked guardians in the first place. If you like the theme, don't worry about the drop in skill... Court of the Young King was an overpriced exarch slaughterhouse, Seer Council wildly imbalanced. Can't say I ever saw a Spear of Khaine....

I don't really see those options as a loss. I saw black guardians and Seer Councils, which to me seemed imbalanced. But that is my opinion.

With the new Eldar dex I see a lot more options, a lot more ways to play Eldar. But, we have had that discussion over and over....

Discussion?  Please.  You're just repeating the same goddamn thing over and over again irrespective of what the other posters are contributing.

1.  I never used said insert unit so I don't miss them - or insert unit is cheesy, so its good that its gone.
2.  I often see insert unit in my gaming group so they are not useless, or have not been nerfed.

Leading to the conclusion:

3.  Player who complain are a bunch of stinky-pants since there are lots of options in the new Eldar codex.  GW is going the right way in codex writing.

That's not discussion.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/16/2007 7:28 PM

Likewise it was not fun when Raven Guard/White Scars lost their jump pack command squads/veteran bike squads and unrestricted access to Drop Pods/Rhinos.  And it's gonna be even less fun when they release the SM Codex Redux and retcon all of them into different-colored Ultramarines.

I agree 100% here.  My Salamanders were not only gutted, they were ignored, had their special rules given away to everyone else, and still haven't received as much as a shoulderpad's worth of attention.  I'd settle for Juan Diaz redoing his Chaplain Xavier, well I'd almost settle for that.  I'd still want a metal shoulderpad!

There seems to be two elements when it comes to Codex Eldar...

Are they nerfed? -and- Is the new layout a good basis for future Codices.

Regarding the former, I don't consider screams of "nerf" to mean much of anything. The way people turn the internet into a river of whine, all that's left is to average it all out. I see some people saying they're nerfed, some saying they're fine. To me that indicates good balance. People like Flavius say they're winning a ton with Eldar. Others insist they've been screwed. They look like a fine list to me, enough power, lots of options, all pretty well balanced.

But... That's not related to item two, the layout. I personally don't like it very much. As people have said, it's a pain to flip back and forth to see if a power/item is worth the cost, or if a model has Fleet of Foot, or what his basic wargear is. I'm not sure why this layout decision had to be made as it was, but it seems wrong to me, and I see a strong echo of that in these forums.

All things considered, if I had to choose a well organized Codex or a fun, balanced list, I'd take the latter. Poor organization is a hassle I can learn to live with. A poorly designed list will always be a poorly designed list. Of course, I shouldn't have to make that choice. The books should be well organized and have good rules content as well.

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 01/17/2007 9:28 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/16/2007 7:28 PM

Likewise it was not fun when Raven Guard/White Scars lost their jump pack command squads/veteran bike squads and unrestricted access to Drop Pods/Rhinos.  And it's gonna be even less fun when they release the SM Codex Redux and retcon all of them into different-colored Ultramarines.

I agree 100% here.  My Salamanders were not only gutted, they were ignored, had their special rules given away to everyone else, and still haven't received as much as a shoulderpad's worth of attention.  I'd settle for Juan Diaz redoing his Chaplain Xavier, well I'd almost settle for that.  I'd still want a metal shoulderpad!

And I want an Ork codex that actually has some form of Clans.  I want specific characters for each Clan.  I want Goffs that look like Goffs, Skarboyz that look like Skarboyz, Snakebitez that look like Snakebitez.  I want Ork warbikes and vehicles that come with better looking Orks instead of Gorkamorka orks.  I want plastic Grots, a Shokk Attak Gun, and Jump packs that explode on impact.

But I'm not going to get it any time soon.  And with all due respect to everyone else that complains that their niche Space Marine Army just isn't special any more because some other Chapter has their special rules... then I say "Quit your     " 

You can at least paint up an army, model yourself a shoulder pad (use magnets!) and easily convert them when your niche chapter codex comes out.  Neither Orks nor Dark Eldar can do that.  You can use special Space Marine rules. Orks and DE don't even have a recent codex.

And anyone who raises the same complaints about Eldar can just remove "Space Marine" and put "Eldar" into my little rant.

My point being... maybe instead of complaining about all the little things you want, that your army should have, maybe you should be happy that your army (or a similar army) has a useable codex and new models, while many other armies do not.

-Jmz

wow
I must be the only one, but
I Love the layout of the new Eldar codex! and I do hope they switch all the new codexes to that format.
Characters right in the army list.
wargear descriptions right in the unit entry, I thought it was great.

Some Eldar units definitely got nerfed, mostly those that had it coming.  I don't have much sympathy for the player who no longer has a way to use his 35 man seer council.  The designers screwed up by not putting a cap on that originally.  That was the problem with the variant lists.  There were some options that were insanely good and others that were pure crap.  5 man black guardian squads with starcannons and BS4 War Walkers with six starcannon shots made taking anything else foolish.  Another example was the Saim Hann ability to take Vypers as troops = 9 individual Vypers with Star Cannons.   Now the good units are a bit more diversified and Saim Hann players actually need and have a reason to use jetbikes.  The people who got nerfed by the Eldar codex were those that built their armies around one trick ponies.  Ulthwe players got it pretty bad, mostly because 10 B3 guardians with a two shot starcannon aren't very scary.  I feel bad about that somewhat, but overall the codex was an improvement IMHO.  I'd much rather have one Codex that is balanced and a little bland than 4 Codexii that encourage players to play one identical uniformly killy min/maxed army. 

Posted By keezus on 01/17/2007 6:10 AM

1.  I never used said insert unit so I don't miss them - or insert unit is cheesy, so its good that its gone.
2.  I often see insert unit in my gaming group so they are not useless, or have not been nerfed.

Leading to the conclusion:

3.  Player who complain are a bunch of stinky-pants since there are lots of options in the new Eldar codex.  GW is going the right way in codex writing.

Hahaha! This kind of non-critical thought is so true! It's not just one poster here, a lot of other people are guilty of this as well, particularly on other boards where heavy GW kool-aid drinking group think has taken a firm hold (B&C anyone?). These are the same people that will tell you the new Eldar codex has even more options than the previous versions despite being patently false.

It's this line of lowered expectation thinking that GW has latched onto and year after year gives us less options, are more restrictive, continue to ignore long languishing units that have long been overpriced, underpowered, or both etc... The upcoming DA dex sounds like it is rife with this drek where GW is pandering to mewling idiots: "Oh noes! Assault Cannons ar SOOO cheezy!!! WHAAAAAAAH!!! Why can't mai SPaSe Mahrienze do that?!?!"

"Oh noes! Assault Cannons ar SOOO cheezy!!! WHAAAAAAAH!!! Why can't mai SPaSe Mahrienze do that?!?!"

Sigged!

CK

The problem with the sub lists is that some of them became the main list. At the 40k GT heat 2 I saw as many Iron Warrior lists as other Chaos lists, and everyone knows about the Ulthwe lists before the new Eldar codex. GW don't want this to happen again. GW probably think they can cut out around 30 army lists by dumping the peripheral lists, while keeping a tighter control over the rest. The supplements will not be used to introduce new units, sub-lists or game rules. They will be like the cityfight codex where you have strategy counters, campaign rules, etc.

I remember that Jervis was very enthusiastic over the Eldar codex format, and said that it was the result of much discussion and thought, so I'm pretty sure it is the way it's going to be.

Lone Pilgrim:

This might come across as overly sour, but all that means is that if you are part of the T4 power-armor crowd with "Marine" in your codex name somewhere, you get 5 codecies.  Everyone else gets all their stuff shoe-horned into one.

That doesn't say much for dropping support of the sub-lists.  Rather, they are restricting support of sublists to the two armies they think will drive their sales.

This is akin to South American farmers clear-cutting (or burning) forest so that you can grow coffee or some-other percieved cash cow.  While it might work in the short-run, it just isn't sustainable... and I think the short run has expired for GW.

As long as marines sell, GW will support them first and foremost. So blame the consumers for being far more interested in buying marines over the years.

Care to make your case?

As far as I can remember, no units were removed from the Codex, and Harlequins and Autarchs were added. Also, I think people tend to mean "more useable options." Eldar had a reputation as a list that could do well, but had a lot of useless units that weren't a part of a winning army. From what I've seen (and heard) there's much more balance between the units.

With the addition of Craftworld Eldar, I can certainly see your point. But that's two books, and I can't say that I see the departure of Craftworld Eldar as a bad thing (Alaitoc Rangers being reason enough).

Posted By deitpike on 01/17/2007 10:47 AM
wow
I must be the only one, but
I Love the layout of the new Eldar codex! and I do hope they switch all the new codexes to that format.
Characters right in the army list.
wargear descriptions right in the unit entry, I thought it was great.

youre right, it is great.

two seperate entries for no reason is not.

Right...

What I'd like to see from them is two seperate entires, but one fluff, one rules. Hell, I'd like to see two seperate sections of the codex altogether, one for fluff, one for rules. As it stands, they've got two seperate entires, one for fluff and rules, one for points. No. Not good.

Fluff section... Rules section... Please.

In the fluff section they can talk about how Singing Spears are wonderful ancestral weapons that yodel for the blood of their foes, or whatever else. In the rules section, just say what it does and what it costs. No adjectives at all. Just "two handed power weapon, can be thrown in shooting phase, etc. etc. +3 points." Standardize the languge, and the way things are said.

It's not hard. Go back and look at all the rules, figure out what constructs exist, and create a single official description. Always use that. No fluff wrapper on it.

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 10:36 PM
Black Guardians are just that, black guardians to me. I never liked guardians in the first place. If you like the theme, don't worry about the drop in skill... Court of the Young King was an overpriced exarch slaughterhouse, Seer Council wildly imbalanced. Can't say I ever saw a Spear of Khaine....

That's completely besides the point.  There are better ways of rebalancing a unit than COMPLETELY ELIMINATING IT.

Posted By Jmznudd on 01/17/2007 10:25 AM

And I want an Ork codex that actually has some form of Clans.  I want specific characters for each Clan.  I want Goffs that look like Goffs, Skarboyz that look like Skarboyz, Snakebitez that look like Snakebitez.  I want Ork warbikes and vehicles that come with better looking Orks instead of Gorkamorka orks.  I want plastic Grots, a Shokk Attak Gun, and Jump packs that explode on impact.

Whoever said Orks shouldn't get those things?  I'd love for Orks to get rules for the different clans.  And I'd love for Eldar to get rules for the main craftworlds and for marines to get rules for Chapters of Legend.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 2:17 PM
As it stands, they've got two seperate entires, one for fluff and rules, one for points. No. Not good.

But that gives them flexibility to have wargear cost different pts depending on who takes it.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/17/2007 2:40 PM

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 10:36 PM
Black Guardians are just that, black guardians to me. I never liked guardians in the first place. If you like the theme, don't worry about the drop in skill... Court of the Young King was an overpriced exarch slaughterhouse, Seer Council wildly imbalanced. Can't say I ever saw a Spear of Khaine....

That's completely besides the point.  There are better ways of rebalancing a unit than COMPLETELY ELIMINATING IT.

Agreed. It smacks of laziness on the part of the design team.

"Oh well, we cant be bothered to try to balance that out, so we will just have to drop it. Yeah, we know you spent money and time making those units, but...*Lilly tomlin voice of the phone operator*  We're GW and we do what we want. *snort*"

Sorry, but whether you feel the unit was worth keeping or not is irrelevant, toreador. There are plenty more people who have made such units that feel quite different.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 1:19 PM
Care to make your case?

With the addition of Craftworld Eldar, I can certainly see your point. But that's two books, and I can't say that I see the departure of Craftworld Eldar as a bad thing (Alaitoc Rangers being reason enough).

I'll let Abby make the case for me:

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/16/2007 7:28 PM

Except you can't make Black Guardians.  Or a Court of the Young King.  Or a Spear of Khaine.  Or a Seer Council (it's not a Seer Council if there's only 1 Farseer!).  Had they included all of those then I would agree with you.  Losing options is NOT fun.

Likewise it was not fun when Raven Guard/White Scars lost their jump pack command squads/veteran bike squads and unrestricted access to Drop Pods/Rhinos.  And it's gonna be even less fun when they release the SM Codex Redux and retcon all of them into different-colored Ultramarines.

That said, I didn't specifically mention Craftworld Eldar, though I did imply them in my post. The loss of these units is yet another backhanded way of GW redacting units they pushed, then made illegal so people would have to buy more miniatures. If they were abusive (and I agree, v3 Alaitoc Rangers were annoying), fix the rules. Deleteing them isn't fixing them. 40 person Seer Council too much? Limit it to three, four or even five seers.

The point of all this isn't so much as what units were lost, but that it's a slap in the face for anyone that has spent a hundred dollars or more purchasing figures for a unit then taken just as much time cliping, building, converting and painting said figures (particularly if they do so to a high standard) and then after getting a few games in, are now told that unit is illegal. Couple this constant invalidating of unit options, whole units (or even armies....) and then add WYSIWYG and you have vast swathes of peoples collections being made worthless.

Think Shrike's lightning claw honor guard, I bet GW retcons them out and everyone that was enthusiastic enough to build 10 man LC jump pack honor guard squads are going to be out a lot of money, time and effort. It's just asinine for GW to suggest that they can't write some sort of toned down replacement rule that would allow those options to be used. Chapter Approved was wonderful for this, too bad they put the kibosh on it.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/17/2007 2:40 PM

Posted By Toreador on 01/16/2007 10:36 PM
Black Guardians are just that, black guardians to me. I never liked guardians in the first place. If you like the theme, don't worry about the drop in skill... Court of the Young King was an overpriced exarch slaughterhouse, Seer Council wildly imbalanced. Can't say I ever saw a Spear of Khaine....

That's completely besides the point.  There are better ways of rebalancing a unit than COMPLETELY ELIMINATING IT.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Folks, we have a winner! Since Chambers & Haines "left" this seems to be the default "fix" by the tattered (and neutered?) remains of the design team. "Oh, it is so hard to figure out how to make this woefuly abusive unit balanced, lets just eliminate it, nobody likes it anyway, right guys?"

Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 2:17 PM

Fluff section... Rules section... Please.

In the fluff section they can talk about how Singing Spears are wonderful ancestral weapons that yodel for the blood of their foes, or whatever else. In the rules section, just say what it does and what it costs. No adjectives at all. Just "two handed power weapon, can be thrown in shooting phase, etc. etc. +3 points." Standardize the languge, and the way things are said.

It's not hard. Go back and look at all the rules, figure out what constructs exist, and create a single official description. Always use that. No fluff wrapper on it.

What's funny, is they could do this and have plenty of room for optional sublists in the back of the dex (like they did with a bunch of the v6 WHFB army books). An army list, devoid of all the fluff mumbo jumbo bs should take no more than 10 pages. In a 70 page book, that's a *lot* of room for fluff, cheat sheets (weapon lists, summaries, etc.. ) modeling, and sublists. With the eldar 'dex, I just get this overwhelming feeling they were padding space because they're all burnt out or something.

I can understand your point about models being illegal, and the player's time and effort being wasted. It doesn't seem as prevalent as you're suggesting though. Black Guardians can just be normal Guardians. The Court of the Young King can split up and join aspect squads. Etc.

The only one that really can't be re-used is the massive Seer Council, and you're suggesting it be reduced in size anyway. There's probably no way around that.

Ultimately it's hard for me to see how this isn't a case of them "fixing" the rules for the broken units. You can't take free, but better, Guardians any more. You can't take a ridiculous broken HQ. You can't kill your opponent before the game, and automatically pin his whole list, just cause... It seems to me like fixes, not like they banned all Striking Scorpions or something.

On top of that, I've seen very positive response to the idea that all future Codices will be meant for tournament play. Say what you will about GW's rules authoring capabilities, but the more variant lists, offshoot lists, campaign lists they make, the more chances for Alaitoc Rangers and Seer Councils. The more models you offer, the more combinations it creates, and the more possibilities for some unforseen super-combo. Yes, on some level that's a condemnation of their rules writing, but it's also a recognition that trying to keep all the units balanced, imagining EVERY tricky combination is hard. No matter who you are, it's hard.

Ultimately GW has to be realistic, too. They wrote Craftworld Eldar, they thought it was a good, fun book, it turned out to be a horrible abomination. Should they, in good conscience, try it again? Shouldn't we commend them for recognizing their error and not risking a repeat?

I mean, take a look at Craftworld Eldar... It's got the Disruption Table and it's got the Seer Council. One thin little book has two of the most broken lists in the past two Editions. Good riddance. For guys that love to take a dump on every Marine player who takes more than two Assault Cannons, you sure do have a lot of sympathy for the guys who abused the hell out of the Seer Council and Disruption Table.

Posted By Jmznudd on 01/17/2007 10:25 AM

Posted By Drake_Marcus on 01/17/2007 9:28 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/16/2007 7:28 PM

Likewise it was not fun when Raven Guard/White Scars lost their jump pack command squads/veteran bike squads and unrestricted access to Drop Pods/Rhinos.  And it's gonna be even less fun when they release the SM Codex Redux and retcon all of them into different-colored Ultramarines.

I agree 100% here.  My Salamanders were not only gutted, they were ignored, had their special rules given away to everyone else, and still haven't received as much as a shoulderpad's worth of attention.  I'd settle for Juan Diaz redoing his Chaplain Xavier, well I'd almost settle for that.  I'd still want a metal shoulderpad!

And I want an Ork codex that actually has some form of Clans.  I want specific characters for each Clan.  I want Goffs that look like Goffs, Skarboyz that look like Skarboyz, Snakebitez that look like Snakebitez.  I want Ork warbikes and vehicles that come with better looking Orks instead of Gorkamorka orks.  I want plastic Grots, a Shokk Attak Gun, and Jump packs that explode on impact.

But I'm not going to get it any time soon.  And with all due respect to everyone else that complains that their niche Space Marine Army just isn't special any more because some other Chapter has their special rules... then I say "Quit your     " 

You can at least paint up an army, model yourself a shoulder pad (use magnets!) and easily convert them when your niche chapter codex comes out.  Neither Orks nor Dark Eldar can do that.  You can use special Space Marine rules. Orks and DE don't even have a recent codex.

And anyone who raises the same complaints about Eldar can just remove "Space Marine" and put "Eldar" into my little rant.

My point being... maybe instead of complaining about all the little things you want, that your army should have, maybe you should be happy that your army (or a similar army) has a useable codex and new models, while many other armies do not.

-Jmz

Hahahha- well I'm the President of the Brian Nelson is a sculpting god club.  Guess what my favourite army is?  Just ;cause I like my sallies doesnt' mean I like them more then my Ork/Orcs!

They're cool because they're green!

Another problem is that with the lack of editing that the GW books go through, we likely to get the same problem with the DA Codex as the Eldar Codex, that being page references to other rules that don't actually take you to the rule they're referencing.

We shouldn't have to flip back and forth between two parts of a Codex to build a single unit.

In all the 2nd Ed Codices, you had the fluff section, which had detailed entries for each unit, their stats, and any special rules. No points of squad sizes or weapon options or anything. Then you had the list, which had the unit, all their options and points costs, squad sizes, weapon options, everything that wasn't fluff. Special Rules might be referenced.

The new Eldar Codex is like that, but splits up each unit entry over two pages at opposite ends of the book. I don't know why they thought that was a good method.

BYE

Keezus, you also read that it was my opinion. I don't see it as a great loss as a good part of those lists caused a lot of imbalances in the game. Not just cheesy, but downright broken. I tended to shy away from the lists for just that reason.

I also see that in the new Eldar codex you can pretty much make any of the lists that were in the Craftworld codex barring a few things here and there. They also added a bit more variety in changing around the list and point costs. To me there are many new options and ways to play one codex as opposed to the old codex with Codex Craftworld.
It was a wash to me. It tends that one persons idea of usefulness of a unit verses another's idea is always different. Environment and competition are two big factors.

So exactly how is the new Eldar dex less options nyarlathotep667? In making more units useful, wouldn't that by default make the list have more options? The fact that it can pretty much cover everything that was in the old dex AND in the craftworld dex in one list make it have more options? And don't tell me in all your great wisdom that the Court of the Young King was a great buy, or actually useful. Ok, so Iyanden list we lost nothing and actually gained Spirit Seers in the main list. Wild Riders can't be made as is, but now jetbikes are a lot cheaper to field and core, along with the Autarch, a new unit which can fill the role of the chief. Alaitoc can be fielded, but without the cheesy rules everyone hated. Path-Finders now added to the basic list. An eldar list can now be fielded with aspects as the entire force. The Court just isn't efficient, but may be a loss to some people. Most aspects in the new list are much better though. Ulthwe loses Black Guardians. Ok, paint your guardians Black. I never could see the balance in that list. Better guardians for no points AND the seer council. You can still have 2 Farseers in a squad of 3-10 Warlocks. You just can't have the massive 5 Farseers with the unlimited warlock pack. So we can make most of what was in the codex list, and combined with the fact that most units in the book are better at what they do now than in the old book makes it look to me like they have more options. Throw in the Autarch and the Harlequins along with Phoenix Lords being part of HQ, and I just don't see your point. But, it might just be that I am blinded by my worship of GW or something...

It looks to me like they took everything they had, then balanced it out and put it in one book. But again, just my opinion.

And it doesn't take much to notice that all you two do is female dog about almost everything GW does. Doesn't matter if it is good or bad. You have the same knee jerk reactions as the other half of us that like a lot of GW product.

And I am sorry, but if you think that assault cannons or the amount of them that can be fielded in the basic marine dex is balanced, then I do know you are definitely in another world than I am.

And I do agree H.B.M.C. The layout seems fine for WHFB, but it doesn't seem to translate as well for 40k. But who uses a book to make lists now anyway?

Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 7:07 PM

On top of that, I've seen very positive response to the idea that all future Codices will be meant for tournament play. Say what you will about GW's rules authoring capabilities, but the more variant lists, offshoot lists, campaign lists they make, the more chances for Alaitoc Rangers and Seer Councils. The more models you offer, the more combinations it creates, and the more possibilities for some unforseen super-combo. Yes, on some level that's a condemnation of their rules writing, but it's also a recognition that trying to keep all the units balanced, imagining EVERY tricky combination is hard. No matter who you are, it's hard.

Ultimately GW has to be realistic, too. They wrote Craftworld Eldar, they thought it was a good, fun book, it turned out to be a horrible abomination. Should they, in good conscience, try it again? Shouldn't we commend them for recognizing their error and not risking a repeat?

Future codices meant for tournament play. Its a great idea, it really is, because to have a set of codices for tourney play implies that the rules are sound enough to stand against the most minimal scrutiny, and more.

That simply isnt the case. They fully stated that this game is meant for a "beer and pretzels" atmosphere, not tourney play.

How do they expect to make tournament grade codices when the rules they base them upon is ambiguous to outright flawed?

I agree variant lists make tournament play harder to keep track of. But, once again, they are trying to fix something rather than make it right in the first place. They should have learned that from third ed. You cant fix the base of a pillar that is broken, you have to completly remake it.

What is my point?

Make a new edition. "4th" (or revamped 3rd ed, whatever the hell GW wants to call it) is the best yet, but (speaking as a MTG player) is by no means tournament capable. Even Yakface who lauds 4th ed as the best yet (which it is) has a FAQ longer than GW cares to recognize. GW is going from stating their game is meant for light hearted play  "beer and pretzels"  to proclaiming that it is "Tournament ready" just makes no sense and everyone will suffer for it. Zero to stupid in less than 60 seconds.

Do it right or dont do it at all. $hit or get off the damned pot!

That entails making a new edition ASAP.

  Honestly, I don't know why anyone is surprised that the Eldar lost units between editions.  Look how many they lost between 2 and 3.  I don't own the codices, but I seem to recall Pirates, Exodites, Harlequins, Space Marine allies, Imperial Guard allies, Squat allies. 

  I play Spase Marinez (hurr).  I am not annoyed in the slightest that I can no longer officially field my Thudd Gun or Commissar Yarrick with my Ultramarines.  In the extremely unlikely event that I go to an official tournament, they can "count as" something, or I'll leave 'em at home. 

  Something written by Gav Thorpe (I know, I know) a year or two back said that the design team basically thought that the sublists were a Bad Idea because the constantly increasing number of army types made playtesting the various matchups a logarithmically increasing task.  Okay, I don't think he used that exact phrase.  Where am I going with this?  Oh, who cares, onward to better points:

  It might have been nice to have the "Court of the Young King" and the "Spear of Khaine" (what is that, anyway?) as "special character/units" a la the Ultramarines Honour Guard and Tyrannic War Vets, and Shrike's Wing.  Oh well.  Maybe next time. 

  My impression is that the new Eldar Codex was an improvement in that it made more units viable on the playing field.  Ever since the first Eldar craftworld list was released for Rogue Trader, the Eldar haven't exactly lacked for unit types.  However,  many of the units were completely useless.  While the new codex may have slightly reduced the total number of unit types available, it increased the number of viable units (while nerfing the most abusive/annoying choices).  I think that we will see much more variety on the battlefield when it comes to Eldar armies now than we did before. 

  On D&D...  I work in a bookstore, and we get people who are AD&D 1st edition fanatics, 2nd edition fanatics, and people who buy those interminable sourcebooks for 3.5 (what is it, two per month?).  I myself stopped with 3rd edition.  I couldn't really see any difference in 3.5 sufficient to warrant spending any money on it, and it makes it easy to resist buying the aforementioned interminable sourcebooks. 

  Damn, this post is just random scattershot musings, but that's what happens when you're responding to like six pages of posts: I think that the assault cannon should be nerfed.  It's not that I think that it's some horrendous, game-imbalancing thing.  It's that it is always to obvious choice.  It's both the best anti-infantry weapon for Marines, and the best anti-(light to medium)armour weapon for Marines.  Why take anything else? 


  I wouldn't be surprised if they got rid of Shrike's Wing, come to think of it.  There were a bunch of special characters in the "Realm of Chaos" boxed set (for...  5th edition WHFB?) that weren't brought into the next edition because they never made models for them. 

  And before anyone calls me an unthinking GW fanboy or some such nonsense, I quit buying GW for a decade over Epic 40,000.  You guys have it so easy now!    Wahhh!  You can't use your Spear of Khaine (whatever that is!) anymore!  Well, I can't used my Squats anymore!  Any of them! 

Posted By lone pilgrim on 01/17/2007 12:42 PM
The problem with the sub lists is that some of them became the main list. At the 40k GT heat 2 I saw as many Iron Warrior lists as other Chaos lists, and everyone knows about the Ulthwe lists before the new Eldar codex. GW don't want this to happen again. GW probably think they can cut out around 30 army lists by dumping the peripheral lists, while keeping a tighter control over the rest. The supplements will not be used to introduce new units, sub-lists or game rules. They will be like the cityfight codex where you have strategy counters, campaign rules, etc.

I remember that Jervis was very enthusiastic over the Eldar codex format, and said that it was the result of much discussion and thought, so I'm pretty sure it is the way it's going to be.

And that has immediately removed strong revenue generators from me. No WDs, no Chapter Approved books, no mini-codices sparking a new list.  After all, from the looks of it the new lists coming from the main codex are 50% marines. Thats an oustounding meh from me.

Posted By Hellfury on 01/18/2007 12:56 AM

Posted By Phryxis on 01/17/2007 7:07 PM

On top of that, I've seen very positive response to the idea that all future Codices will be meant for tournament play. Say what you will about GW's rules authoring capabilities, but the more variant lists, offshoot lists, campaign lists they make, the more chances for Alaitoc Rangers and Seer Councils. The more models you offer, the more combinations it creates, and the more possibilities for some unforseen super-combo. Yes, on some level that's a condemnation of their rules writing, but it's also a recognition that trying to keep all the units balanced, imagining EVERY tricky combination is hard. No matter who you are, it's hard.

Ultimately GW has to be realistic, too. They wrote Craftworld Eldar, they thought it was a good, fun book, it turned out to be a horrible abomination. Should they, in good conscience, try it again? Shouldn't we commend them for recognizing their error and not risking a repeat?

Future codices meant for tournament play. Its a great idea, it really is, because to have a set of codices for tourney play implies that the rules are sound enough to stand against the most minimal scrutiny, and more.

That simply isnt the case. They fully stated that this game is meant for a "beer and pretzels" atmosphere, not tourney play.

How do they expect to make tournament grade codices when the rules they base them upon is ambiguous to outright flawed?

I agree variant lists make tournament play harder to keep track of. But, once again, they are trying to fix something rather than make it right in the first place. They should have learned that from third ed. You cant fix the base of a pillar that is broken, you have to completly remake it.

What is my point?

Make a new edition. "4th" (or revamped 3rd ed, whatever the hell GW wants to call it) is the best yet, but (speaking as a MTG player) is by no means tournament capable. Even Yakface who lauds 4th ed as the best yet (which it is) has a FAQ longer than GW cares to recognize. GW is going from stating their game is meant for light hearted play  "beer and pretzels"  to proclaiming that it is "Tournament ready" just makes no sense and everyone will suffer for it. Zero to stupid in less than 60 seconds.

Do it right or dont do it at all. $hit or get off the damned pot!

That entails making a new edition ASAP.

Now lets be fair here.  For tournament play they at least put out their own FAQ's and rulings that are specific to their tournaments.  Sure some people may not like the way they went with rules for the UK GT's, and I'm sure there will be *female dog*ing about the US GT Rules FAQ when it comes out, but they're cleaning it up and they'll have Judges to rule things for bad situations IF they come up (which is not that often from what I've been able to tell).

Adepticon, the Necro, etc all have their own FAQ's on how to resolve issues with the rules to take it from the "Beer & Pretzels" setup to a tournament setup.  Playing this game at a tournament isn't the most complicated thing in the world, sure you can have some hiccups but most of the time it seems to get along just fine.