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 Phryxis on 01/17/2007 7:07 PM

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.   

What Phryxis said.

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

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.

I think you are correct.

But let me ask a heretical question - has 40k ever been 'tournament ready' at any point throughout it's editions? I've seen 'em all and remember that Army Lists have always been full of problems, and that was outside of the tournament context.

Asking a more abstract question, what is it that other games systems do 'right' to make them work well in tournament play? Or is it the case that there are complaints about every game? Benchmarking agaionst your peers is a good way to see how to do something better - who can GW learn from in this area?
 

50% of new lists? Look again. If you say MEQ, then it's 71% (and that's not including Codex: Xenos Hunters, which will in all likelihood have some MEQ elements in it).

And there's nothing but MEQs in 2007. Un-freakin-believable.

But it gets even worse when you look at the big picture .

Until now, we had a 7/2/6 (or 47%/13%/40% if you prefer) split on Codici. Slightly weighted in favour of MEQs and very unpopular.

Now, however, the balance has shifted. It's now going to be 11/3/6 (or 55%/15%/30%). So more MEQ and less variety. Yawn.

All those Chaos/Marine Codici and yet they couldn't include Craftworlds in the Eldar Codex because that would be 'too complicated'? Someone should tell GW that there's a big difference between complicated and complex.

And doing away with the Doctrine/Trait system? As far as my experience goes, those were (aside from a few hitches) one of the most popular innovations GW has come up with in the last decade.

Thank the heavens I'm working on my last 40k army. (Well, we'll see.) Failing that, thank every god out there that we have Warmachine and Flames of War.

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

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.

Excellent and exactly on point. Its clear, little thumbthrough, and helps with FAQ/legal issues immensely.

Forgot to add this point to the discussion on codex lay out.

To my mind, the thumbing back and forth aspect of codices is problematic - annoying but not unworkable.

However, the base layout of the space marines dex, while effective & minimalistic, is complicated by having addendum rules in the forms of traits, and the Chaos dex of course, is worse again. It says 'take this simple list then apply all these additional rules to it' - presenting that with simple clarity is GW's issue.

OK, so that's been said.

What I would see as the way forward would be to have context sensitive information available for your base army list - when referencing the list, a way to see the modifiers or rules for that unit, be it for traits, doctrines, marks of chaos whatever. Of course, you won't get that in print format.

The solution I would advocate is to accept that print is a flawed mechanism and offer an electronic medium - army builder has been the Rolls Royce option for a few years now, and can cope with this sort of thing. I click on unit options and can have context sensitive information whenever I need it.

Of course, GW can't & won't step away from print - a lot of people still won't have easy access to PC's or Macs etc, plus GW wants people to browse a little in store, to allow them to see a unit description, get excited and buy a unit or two while they're there.

So, buy out or license Army Builder to become GW's e-codex solution. Each printed codex would contain a one use only code that is redeemable against the Army Builder GW product for that codex only. The buyer still pays for the printed version, GW still ssees their revenue stream, the trait/doctrine/mark user gets a slick & tailored army builder product that gives them the rules and list validation they need, in the format they want. Plus they can read the fluff in the printed dex.

Of course, that wold make too much sense.
Did I mention I rate Army Builder?

So, buy out or license Army Builder to become GW's e-codex solution. Each printed codex would contain a one use only code that is redeemable against the Army Builder GW product for that codex only. The buyer still pays for the printed version, GW still ssees their revenue stream, the trait/doctrine/mark user gets a slick & tailored army builder product that gives them the rules and list validation they need, in the format they want. Plus they can read the fluff in the printed dex.

Don't they already do that? http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=Individual&code=60040199004&orignav=9

Posted By SisterJoey on 01/18/2007 6:31 AM

Don't they already do that?

No, because that product is a limited thing of ugliness. AB is far better, and hence why I didn't even bother to mention GW's offering as an option.

Also note that GW gleefully charge you extra for that existing product. I am proposing codex purchase entitles you to the online equivalent at no further charge.

Posted By Tribune on 01/18/2007 6:41 AM

Posted By SisterJoey on 01/18/2007 6:31 AM

Don't they already do that?

No, because that product is a limited thing of ugliness. AB is far better, and hence why I didn't even bother to mention GW's offering as an option.

Also note that GW gleefully charge you extra for that existing product. I am proposing codex purchase entitles you to the online equivalent at no further charge.

Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean that it isn't out there for those who want it.  As for buying or licensing AB, why would Wolflair even bother?  GW in not the only game that uses it.  GW files aren't the only ones I have on my AB. 

As for getting online content at no charge, dream on.  GW will gleefully charge extra for that "free" content, and we all know it.  And Wolflair is not entirely innocent.  They require a yearly subscription if you want to continue to get updates for AB 3.  You need to update for each new army, as well as download the latest "bug fixes" that crop up.

I offered a solution, and the GW product did not fit that solution. I also said 'what are the chances?', so I think I got you covered on the low probability it would ever happen.

Your points on Wolflair charging are valid though, and that's what happens when I reference a company based on my experience of their older product, which I paid my one time license fee for and got to use indefinitely.

Let's take the specific type of e-codex solution out fo the discussion, to make it less contentious. Let's call it an online e-codex product and discuss the overall ideas, not get hung up on the detail. It's all a hypothetcial, but then this a discussion forum - the home of hype, rants and "what if's"

So, back on the topic, what if the printed codex buyer gets the e-codex at a small 'upgrade' charge?

Hi guys.
I've been reading this thread with interest.

The new schedule appalls me.
The two biggest problems in 40K at the moment that I see are the over-proliferation of space marines, chaos or otherwise and the lack of attention payed to just about every other faction.
I had quit 40K for a year and a bit, but recently got back into it to play with a friend.
Frustrated with the lack of attention to the Ork codex in particular (I'm a very long term Ork player, although I think Dark Eldar should be re-done first) I decided to be pro-active and re-write the damn thing myself for use in my games at home.

I hate seeing variant chapters come out, because I thought that was what the damn traits system was for . I'm so sick of bloody seeing them. I am furious that Tau, Templars and now Dark Angels got re-done before Orks. (Eldar I can live with)

...
There are no words to describe my frustration.
Plastic fecking devastators?
WTF?
How about models for the Ork special characters, for pain bosses, for skarboys, for flash gitz, for the various ways the vechicles are armed? Hell, how about a vehicle that isn't over a decade old? Models for lootas, models for battlewagons (I mean, they can do a venerable dread, but not the mainline Ork tank?). A kit for looted vechicles.
AAAAAARGH!
Of course space marines are popular!They are the only race mentioned on the rulebook cover, they've come with every boxed set, they are the "winners" in every diagram. They get more pages of advertisement than any other faction in the rulebook. they have a variant for every taste. If Orks were given that much attention everyone would play them too, and it'd be just as bad for the game.

Seriously makes me think that the company will change hands and the old gaurd can't be arsed putting any effort into new work before that happens.

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

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.

What I was getting at is they could have easily toned down some of the abusive stuff and/or put them in as a "back of the book" list ala many v6 WHFB army books where they would still be available as "optional" (and possibly not tourney legal) but still easily available options for local club beer & pretzels play. Instead, they were eliminated completely, something which just smacks of laziness and continues to reinforce an image of a design team with a terrible work ethic.

As Mauleed would say, they do just enough to get by. Unfortunately for GW, just enough isn't cutting it. Players are sick and tired of being sick and tired of seeing yet another Spase Mahrienz release (I am, and I'm, or was, a marine player) while Orks get pushed back, again, while other armies with codices released within the past four years get their second one. They are tired of seeing some unit they spent loads of money and time putting together eliminated for no good reason.

It's not like rules for these figures/units/armies can't be put out as optional, look at WHFB's Ravening hordes. Chaos Dwarves, who don't even have any current release figures (outside of the Hellcannon), still have an army list available vis a vis the Ravening Hordes (though I'm not sure where they stand in v7). It's like that very beaten dead horse, the Squats, why was it so hard to put out just some Ravening Hordes style list, absent of any fluff and just the bare necessities to play it? It's not like GW couldn't have said that they had zero plans to revisit the army and that once the existing product was out of stock, that was it. Rules =/= miniature support.

Posted By SisterJoey on 01/18/2007 6:59 AM
And Wolflair is not entirely innocent.  They require a yearly subscription if you want to continue to get updates for AB 3.  You need to update for each new army, as well as download the latest "bug fixes" that crop up.

Bzzzt! Wrong, you need the yearly subscription only if you want the auto updates. Without it you can still manually update AB as they come available by downloading them at the appropriate websites. Some lists aren't even put up for for auto-updates and have to be downloaded and manually installed (which is all point and click anyway).

That said, I don't think GW would ever put up an eCodex that wasn't already published elsewhere and wasn't put out on a locked .pdf (ie: what they already do now).

All this talk does remind me how much awesomeness Chambers & Haines brought to 40k and how the beancounters have turned it into an unplayable mess that makes nobody happy.

No they haven't.



Its really about attitude. Privateer Press, Mongoose, Battle Front, etc are selling games. GW sells toys, the rules are just a means to an end.

Posted By Crimson Devil on 01/18/2007 11:08 AM
Its really about attitude. Privateer Press, Mongoose, Battle Front, etc are selling games. GW sells toys, the rules are just a means to an end.

Yup.

Remember that they are a miniatures company first, and writing rules are far down their priority list.

So they write rules to sell figures, not for competitive play.

And to demonstrate, “The Circle of Nerf”. What is good in one addition, will be bad in the next. What is bad in this edition, will be good in the next. That way, when everyone has a lot of x units that are good, they nerf it, and make unit y good so everyone has to buy it. For example: In 2nd edition Assault cannons and Librarians were great, in 3rd edition they were awful, and in 4th they are all over the place. In 3^rd edition everyone used a lot of rhinos. What ever happened to them?

 

 

GWs mantra is “Greed before Need”. Space Marines account for a huge amount of their revenue. So you will see Space Marines first, last, and always. That is why they are moving up the Chaos Codex. Chaos is one of their biggest sellers (2^nd best seller in 40k, best seller in Fantasy).

 

GW does not care about the Orks, because they are not a good seller. That is why you have Tau and a host of other codexs before you see the ork come out, even though they are badly in need of a re-write. And it is not as if they can publish the rules for them, but they will not bother unless they have figures to sell you.

 

Remember in fantasy Wood Elves and Chaos Dwarfs were waiting forever to get their army books. Then, out of the blue, comes the Ogre Kingdoms before they are done with the armies that they already have. Why? Because a new army will sell better than a re-release of an existing one. With a new army you have to buy an entire new army, instead of adding to the figures that you already own. I would not be surprised if they create a whole new race before the Orks get their codex.  

Well, sure... One issue is whether they're living up to their promise to be tourny ready. You say no, and I probably agree... But whether or not you think they're actually doing it, you like the idea, as do many others. The point I was making isn't that they ARE pulling it off, but rather that if they want to pull it off, then reducing the numbers of variant lists, sub-Codices, etc. is a way to reduce the volume of rules they have to review for balance.

I agree with you that they should make more sweeping changes, or at least not rule them out, but I don't think it matters if it's iterative changes from where they are, or a total rewrite. Frustrated programmers tend to want a full rewrite, and it's not always a bad idea, but it's also not the only way, nor is it the most common.



In theory a nice idea, in practice, very bad. There's simply no way the electronic system will be bug free. When bugs do arise, or even when the programmers simply come up with a different RAW meaning than others, which do you trust? It'd create as many problems as it'd save. Army builder also doesn't handle in game questions, just list building.

That said, the idea is actually very good when it comes to an electronic form of documentation. Being able to mouse over a weapon's name and get a statline and special rules for it would be great, and it also wouldn't run into any problems, since it's not interpreting anything, it's just doing the "page flipping" for you.



There's some merit to this, though it is a bit of a compromise (and a compromise is an abscence of leadership), it might work nicely. Have each Codex contain fluff, core rules, then optional rules. The optional rules wouldn't be as rigorously playtested, and wouldn't be tourny legal.

The problem is that it only works for some people. For me, the Black Guardians are still around, now they're just Guardians. Alaitoc Pathfinders are still around, they're just not totally broken. That's me. Somebody else (you apparently) would be happy as long as you can still use the units in friendly games. But somebody else might be angry that they can't use their list in tournys. Other people might be angry and confused by which rules to use when. People might get mad at GW for letting "cheese" rules in at all, optional or not.



I don't really attribute it to laziness, but I also don't really care. I want the best product possible. If I'm not getting it, I don't care if it's cause they're lazy, stupid, were attacked by hyenas, etc. I want the best product. When GW ceases to give me what I want, and there's a better option elsewhere, that's that. If they can turn out the best of the best while putting in half days and working four days a week, fine.

Personally I think they work very hard. I just don't think their mindset and skillset is right for the job. I think a guy like Jervis Johnson is very passionate, very enthusiastic about the game and the business. I just don't think he's got the skillset to do what's being asked of him.

Posted By Blackmoor on 01/18/2007 11:38 AM

  I would not be surprised if they create a whole new race before the Orks get their codex.  

I wouldn't be surprised to have them announce Tyranids ate all the Orks. :S

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 01/18/2007 5:24 AM

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.

The issue is consistency. GW should not rely on several seperate entities to make FAQ's for their broken product. Sure, I can download Adepticons FAQ, play many test games to get the feel for how it plays, then go to adepticon knowing full well where any issues lie (atleast one resolved in the FAQ).

But I shouldnt have to. Especially since I paid $50 for a broken rulebook. Broken as in its beer and pretzels not tournament ready. GW is breaking their own rule book by stating one thing, then stating it is another. Simply doesnt work that way.

And everytime they print a new codex, the diligent souls who made their FAQs for the tourney crowd are going to have to sift through the mess and do it all over again.

Relying on other places for FAQ's is hopeful at best. Misguided at worst.

Rules are just that, things EVERYONE has to abide by, no matter locale. There would be far less "houserules" instituted if the rules were not only clearer but also made more sense.

All that said, I do enjoy 4th ed because I play games that arent harshly competitive. I love me some good games of kill team and combat patrol set in cities of death. great stuff.

But I would also love to be able to rely on the rules to provide me a solid basis for rules in competitive play. That isnt the case right now, no matter what outside source tries to correct the problem.

Posted By Tribune on 01/18/2007 5:25 AM

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

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.

I think you are correct.

But let me ask a heretical question - has 40k ever been 'tournament ready' at any point throughout it's editions? I've seen 'em all and remember that Army Lists have always been full of problems, and that was outside of the tournament context.

Asking a more abstract question, what is it that other games systems do 'right' to make them work well in tournament play? Or is it the case that there are complaints about every game? Benchmarking agaionst your peers is a good way to see how to do something better - who can GW learn from in this area?
 

No, its never been tournament ready, looking back on it. In the more naive days I thought it was, but as soon as I got into that strata, it was clearly apparent that is was not quite ready for prime time. CODEXs themselves have always had problems, that sucks. Th rules did too, which suck even more. I dont mind it so much when there is a badly thought out phrase in a codex, but when it comes to rules, I expect them to be tight. That really isnt much to ask. They are rules after all.

As to what the competition is doing right? Thats both easy and difficult to answer at the same time.

I have just gotten into warmachine, so I cant give you analysis based on them. But based on other games that are deemed tournament playable by their producers (MTG, Pirates of the spanish main, etc.) I can tell you that they listen to the more hardcore gamers that play their games and have a reputation for knowing what the hell they talk about.. They listened to feedback, they playtested what the proven gamers asked for, and in most instances instituted those changes.

MTG made sure thier product was so tight that they instututed lawyers to write their rules. They did this long before any hasbro buyout, because they knew in order for the game to last, they had to make sure that not only the mechanics were sound, but thattt all loopholes were covered. The only problems in that game now are when the designers write a bad card. "Skull clamp" is a very good example of that. But that has nothing to do with broken rules, the rules for that game are quite sound. They dont have to go back and fix rules, just "erase" bad cards.

Granted, wargames have far more variables than a 60 card deck. So it is admittedly more difficult to make sure severe instances are covered.

To me though, it seems GW just played games ignoring the fact of niggly instances and simply rolled a D6 for the result of snafu. Thats fine for beer and pretzels, but that crap doesnt cut it when youre in a tournament where you paid airline travel, hotel expenses, tournament entry fees for.

Therefor, the game cannot be considered for actual tournament play in a truly competitive capacity.

GW simply will not listen though. People with far more acumen for rules have said from the get go that if they wish their rules to be used in a competitive setting, they they would have to look at how other games are being successful in that market.

They may listen in the future, but I have no faith in that. not after 10+ years of them telling us that we are too stupid to know what we are talking about, by the actions they give and the rules they print.

No, instead they pander to idiots who cant be botherd to buy anything more than a battleforce and they cry cheese over starcannons and assault cannons. Sure they need to be fixed. Starcannons need more gaurdians to field them. Assault cannons need to have AP 1. But instead of looking at the root of the problem, they just take the road they frequently travel and then "nerf" it. How many starcannons do you see nowadays?
Thats not fixing it, thats killing it.
Scatter lasers are the obvious default choice, and there is sure to be plenty more newbs to cry about thos as well in the coming years.

I'm not so sure... The CCG is a much more controlled environment, but it's also very combination driven. Not only do you have to make sure that no two cards can feed off each other and produce endless mana, or damage, or whatever, but you also have to make sure that no combination of cards does that. Basically each card is like a unit choice in a GW game. Imagine fielding an army with 60 different units, drawn from a Codex with a thousand units in it? To check every possible combination and permutation for abuses is daunting. I think it's far harder than what GW is trying to do.

But, as you point out, WotC brought in lawyers to help review their rules. I'm not sure lawyers are who I'd choose, but apparently they did the job, and it should give some clue to GW what they need to do. Experts are needed to help them examine their rules as system, to give them mathematical tools to compare lists, etc. etc.

Posted By Phryxis on 01/18/2007 3:19 PM

Granted, wargames have far more variables than a 60 card deck. So it is admittedly more difficult to make sure severe instances are covered.

I'm not so sure... The CCG is a much more controlled environment, but it's also very combination driven. Not only do you have to make sure that no two cards can feed off each other and produce endless mana, or damage, or whatever, but you also have to make sure that no combination of cards does that. Basically each card is like a unit choice in a GW game. Imagine fielding an army with 60 different units, drawn from a Codex with a thousand units in it? To check every possible combination and permutation for abuses is daunting. I think it's far harder than what GW is trying to do.

But, as you point out, WotC brought in lawyers to help review their rules. I'm not sure lawyers are who I'd choose, but apparently they did the job, and it should give some clue to GW what they need to do. Experts are needed to help them examine their rules as system, to give them mathematical tools to compare lists, etc. etc.

That is true to a point. MTG has over 10000 cards in the whole database. That is a lot of testing. But you just dont test all those cards at once. Every new expansion, you test how the expansion works with the older cards. Thats alot easier to see interactions of 360 cards with different formats of play. Whats in the new exapnasion with whats type 2 and whats type 1.

GW on the otherhand, does have to go through alot of variables, because its quite obvious that even they know how flawed their rules are. If they werent so flawed from the get go, the rules for codices would be nearly as bad as they are now.

It doenst take rocket scientists to playtest games, but it takes a hell of a lot more than GW has right now to do the job adequetly.

LOL, reading all this has reminded me of the first UK GW in-shop tournaments they tried to run nationally, some years back.

You'll be surprised to hear that the only army you could pick to be in 40k was loyalist marines. 1000 points, and it may even have been from a very limited list. Thing is, did that mean it was balanced? What price would you be willing to pay for balance?

PS. FWIW, I like the idea of clearly delineating the hard & fast tourney lists from casual optional extras. That's what Forgeworld rules basically do already, as far as I know. If the fact was that traits were not allowedin tourneys, but you could legally play them against friends or in a pick up game, then how horrible would that be*?

* Excluding the howls from those who have put together such an army with the strict intent of only ever playing in a tournament setting...

I was thinking about it again, and here's another angle: If you're playing friendly games, then just use Craftworld Eldar (or whatever). Does GW really need to tell you what's ok in your private games? Can GW ever really tell you that you CAN'T use your models any more? Are they out repossessing any Farseers people own beyond the first four?

No...

So, yeah, they did away with Craftworld Eldar. That doesn't mean you can't still use it if you want to.

It wouldn't work. Far too many people in this hobby believe "not official" equals cheating. Its sad really.

Depends on the opponent. If it is a pick up game, they will more than likely shun the idea of not playing against the most current list.

If it is against somebody you normally play against, then you probably wont have a problem.

I still play my Elysians to this day, just not in the updated version, but the old CA version.

The saddest thing is dependant on opponents, which is why they may insist on the most current release. I am sure they would love to play a list from by gone days, but dont for fear that somebody may deny them that privilege as well.

I am not sure if I made much sense trying to explain it though.

Posted By Toreador on 01/18/2007 12:35 AM
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.

That's the point.  Yes, Harlequins are nice.  Yes, the Autarch is nice.  Yes, it's nice that they made jetbikes and shining spears better.  Yes, overall the new codex is better than the old one.  But there's no reason why they couldn't have done all of that and still included Seer Councils, Courts of the Young King, Black Guardians, etc etc.

Posted By Toreador on 01/18/2007 12:35 AM
And don't tell me in all your great wisdom that the Court of the Young King was a great buy, or actually useful.

Well, instead of eliminating it they could have, oh I don't know... MADE IT ACTUALLY USEFUL.  I guess I was just under the impression that rebalancing units was the kind of thing you get the opportunity to do when you redo a codex.  So why didn't they just drop jetbikes and shining spears too?  Afterall, don't tell me in all your great wisdom that jetbikes were a great buy, or actually useful.

Posted By Toreador on 01/18/2007 12:35 AM
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.

Good point.  It's not like they could have given guardians the option to upgrade to BS4 for a pts cost.  That would just be absurd!

Posted By Phryxis on 01/18/2007 12:29 PM
Personally I think they work very hard. I just don't think their mindset and skillset is right for the job. I think a guy like Jervis Johnson is very passionate, very enthusiastic about the game and the business. I just don't think he's got the skillset to do what's being asked of him.

I get the feeling they could do a better job, but their hands are tied by directives issued from on high due to marketing considerations.  I've read that Andy Chambers wanted to completely overhaul the core rules for 4th ed, but management rejected them and limited him to making minor tweaks to 3rd ed rules so that they would be backward compatible with all the 3rd ed codices.

Posted By Tribune on 01/18/2007 4:12 PM
LOL, reading all this has reminded me of the first UK GW in-shop tournaments they tried to run nationally, some years back.

You'll be surprised to hear that the only army you could pick to be in 40k was loyalist marines. 1000 points, and it may even have been from a very limited list.

So it was sort of like how it is now, but with slightly fewer not-marines?

Ever think that maybe the way the new exarch power rules work that it would be hard to balance the Court of the Young King, or too many rules would be made for just one sublist? Or that if you allowed BS4 Guardians that everyone would field them? Maybe that the Farseer council turned out to be just too much. Maybe what they included in the Eldar Codex IS the balanced version of what they wanted. Who knows really.

In some great way tournaments are what killed the earlier version of 40k. It was more for "fun" and a lot of times wasn't exactly balanced. It was more scenario based and even called for a GM for some of it.

And having sublists that aren't truly official does no good. Most Warhammer players wouldn't play anyone with one of the back of book lists as they were considered mostly unbalanced.

Just as well play DBM if we water the ruleset down too much. It loses a lot of flavor at some point. I do agree that the current rules is not the best it could be, it is just the best set up to this point.

And jetbikes and shining spears are now useful. They folded everything that was common to every craftworld into one (more) balanced list and gave us more options instead of concentrating on a few unique units common to single craftworlds.

And Wolflair is not entirely innocent.  They require a yearly subscription if you want to continue to get updates for AB 3.  You need to update for each new army, as well as download the latest "bug fixes" that crop up.

Posted By SisterJoey on 01/18/2007 6:59 AM
Bzzzt! Wrong, you need the yearly subscription only if you want the auto updates. Without it you can still manually update AB as they come available by downloading them at the appropriate websites. Some lists aren't even put up for for auto-updates and have to be downloaded and manually installed (which is all point and click anyway).

That said, I don't think GW would ever put up an eCodex that wasn't already published elsewhere and wasn't put out on a locked .pdf (ie: what they already do now).

All this talk does remind me how much awesomeness Chambers & Haines brought to 40k and how the beancounters have turned it into an unplayable mess that makes nobody happy.

I stand corrected.

Abba>  Dude.  Just give up.  The Eldar are all strawberry cakes, honey and roses in the land where Toreador lives, and we're all evil trolls because Gee Dubs can do no wrong.

While I'm a troll, I'd like to be that plastic one from the Battle for Skull Pass.  He has loads of personality and I really dig that sculpt.

dude!

Stone trolls have way more personality!

Love those lil blue guys.

sometimes I wish GW would release a basic get you by list for every army at the start of every edition and the update them all gradually rather than one at a time.

I do much prefer honey and roses. I have lived too long to get overly pissed about a game.

That's one example where marketing may have done the right thing. Sure, there are complaints about the 4th ed. rules and "backward-compatibility," but can you imagine the howls if GW had scrapped all the codices AGAIN? Orks may not have been scheduled for their codex until 2012. Overall, it was probably the right decision for the majority of their customers...who aren't Dakkaites.

See, this is the problem. We get caught in a conversation about nerfing this unit because it's too powerful or getting rid of this unit because it's 'too hard to make it work', or powering up a unit because it was underpowered in the previous edition. By having that conversation, we've already bought into their thinking, which is ipso facto erroneous.

The thinking should be the following:
1. Each codex's rules should be consistent with the USR/40k4 rulebook and other codicies.
2. Each unit within the codex should be balanced and viable, including in tournament/league play as well as 'pick-up/beer&pretzels' games.
3. The codex itself is easy to read and internally consistent.
4. Previous units, including special units or units from sub-lists, should be represented in some way, while keeping with the aforementioned rules.

Items 1 and 3 are not hard; they just require someone to do some serious editing, perhaps a team of technical writers.

I would argue that Item 2 is also not difficult, every single unit should be useful as more than just a pretty paperweight. The function of said units should be clear, and there shouldn't be 'better alternatives' in the codex (i.e. each unit has a specific role that is useful). Likewise, Item 4 is not difficult. Take the Eldar Codex: they included Pathfinders and WG as troops (albeit in changed format) from the sublists, why not include a special upgrade for guardian to make black guardian (perhaps only when you're using Eldrad, much in the same way Farsight or Lysander work)? Why not create a seer council with a limit of 2-3 other farseers,again, if only for Eldrad?

These are all things are doable, except that GW has convinced (some of us) that these things are 'too hard', that the only way to update a codex is to flip the whole thing upside-down and render thousands of points of lovingly painted armies irrelevant. I'm sorry, but that's shenanigans. Period. It is not too much to ask of a company whose purpose is creating miniatures games and figures to plan the new rules out and all the codices/sublists out in advance, coordinate them, and make every unit viable and balanced (internally and with each other). If this company, supposedly a giant of the industry, can't do simple things like that, then why shouldn't they expect their market share (and profits) to collapse and to have angry customers?

4. Is not ever truly a requirement. I haven't played many games systems where this was ever a standard. Things change. Not that I have bought into it, but I see that working on a few unique units that aren't necessarily used by every eldar craftworld isn't a priority. They wanted to make a generic Eldar book that would cover as much of the Eldar race as possible. Why connect things to Eldrad? He's dead. And it isn't like they made any miniatures obsolete. They just cut down on a few options they saw as needless or that didn't fit neatly into the book. Why MUST those units be included? Heck, I want my core dragon rider units that elves used to have in WHFB!

1 and 3 should be standard. With GW products it is lucky when it happens.

2 is why games are ever changing. Every game.