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.

Recently I got to take a look at the new IG codex and I saw it had some amazing exception rules in it unique to the IG codex. Namely orders and combining squads. Hopefully most will know what these are from the various IG threads that have been running wild for months. I realized a pattern seems to be emerging with codex writing in 5th edition, that is each codex is rewriting the core game for 5th edition with codex specific global style rules. I'm not talking about codex specific rules like only Eldar have Brightlances for example but the strategic kind of rules that really modify the basic game. Each new codex seems to really break the structure of the game with some significant special rules,

"Orders" are going to make imperial guard squad actions unique from any other army

...and there are a lot more powerful game altering strategic abilities in the 5th edition codices (in chronological order) things like these:

Daemons have their own entire set up mechanism which changes every mission
"Mob Rule" lets Orks become fearless in a way unique to the army
"Combat squads" let Marine players shrink and grow scoring units and KP
"Chapter Tactics" gives Space Marines all voluntarily fallback, unique to the army
Many Characters change the F.O. structure in significant ways unique to armies
Stubborn seems to have been sprinkled into the new codices at Random
"Combined Squad" is going to let IG grow and shrink KP and scoring units per mission
IG are getting unique weapons that ignore cover saves?
..and of course orders now

Originally I thought some unique powers were going to be pretty good (as in good for the game) but now I am concerned that the 5th edition rules really are not complete in the basic game, as codices keep coming out with significant game altering mechanics unique to armies. I don't lik this for 3 reasons:

(1) It makes outdated codices diadvantaged
(2) It makes the core rules in the basic book meaningless, where in the basic book does it explain:
Chapter Tactics
Combat Squads
Orders etc.
Will even one army survive the codex rewrites that actually uses the morale rules as written in the core book? What is the point of instant death for example, everything one would like to instant death is now immune to it with Eternal Warrior/hive mind it seems...
(3) It makes the game a convoluted mess, where a player has to own and bring every codex with him all the time to have the whole rule set.

The biggest pains in the neck (complexity and unusual situations) in the last set of rules were arguably unique powers, for example: We'll be back, Monolith, Faith Points, Daemon dex etc.

Until all the codices are published, who knows what 5th is really going to be like, and until your new dex comes out armies seem like they will be really disadvantaged. I think the real 5th edition, has yet to surface, 6th is already being written, right now, in each new codex.

What say you?

You make an excellent point. What it all means is that the Chaos Space Marines got boned. They were struck hard with the mighty nerf hammer and got absolutely nothing in return. The only way they can make this right is to put out Legion codexes for the big four. With the ability to summon their own god-appropriate Daemons and use all the cool stuff from the awesome 4th edition codex. Until then, my Chaos Marines are going to be sulking on their space hulk. Waaagh...

Completely agree!

Unless of course you are a player from newer than the last printing of the current chaos dex in which case 6 obliterators, a Landraider full of Khorne berzerkers, 4 units of plague marines and 2 lash princess is normal to you....

Hmm

I wonder what audacity is coming for the next new codex?

warpcrafter wrote:You make an excellent point. What it all means is that the Chaos Space Marines got boned. They were struck hard with the mighty nerf hammer and got absolutely nothing in return. The only way they can make this right is to put out Legion codexes for the big four. With the ability to summon their own god-appropriate Daemons and use all the cool stuff from the awesome 4th edition codex. Until then, my Chaos Marines are going to be sulking on their space hulk. Waaagh...

*cough...Dark angels...cough* is without a doubt the most boned of all armies that received a new codex hands down. They are the more expensive (points wise across the board), less options marines.

@ Augustus

Many of the 5th edition dexes break the basic rules in the core rulebook. Deamons getting eternal warrior wholesale, demonic assault, SM getting chapter tactics along with special characters that make elite units scoring, Orks with their elite troops scoring, snikrot, Guard with orders.

I also agree each older codex is getting more and more obsolete.

I'm not sure if this trend is as new or as is as game-breaking as you think. Orks have been "ignoring basic morale rules" since 3rd Ed. IG are probably more vulnerable to morale than they were before. And nothing in 5th Ed. is as complicated as Faith Points in a Witchunters army which uses a 3rd Ed. codex.

That said, I'd be down for a new edition anytime. I like the core 5th Ed. rules, but I think some small things have really gone haywire in a big way (wound allocation being an obvious example.)

I would also like to see a more nuanced approach to things like vehicle units, but the best fixes for game play would overpower certain units. (The positive benefit of the better rule would be canceled out by the negative of the overpowered Leman Russ squad.) To fix problems like that, we're going to need a willingness by GW to issue errata or else a 2nd -> 3rd Ed. style "reboot." Both would be good for the game, but neither seems likely.

warpcrafter wrote:You make an excellent point. What it all means is that the Chaos Space Marines got boned. They were struck hard with the mighty nerf hammer and got absolutely nothing in return. The only way they can make this right is to put out Legion codexes for the big four. With the ability to summon their own god-appropriate Daemons and use all the cool stuff from the awesome 4th edition codex. Until then, my Chaos Marines are going to be sulking on their space hulk. Waaagh...

I agree with this, I think the chaos marine codex current edition was rushed out just before the apocolypse release and as such didnt get the attention it should have recieved? you point out legion codex's for the big 4, I see it as gw being able to further break up the chaos marine codex's down into smaller codex's with new model releases for each, which will equal gw making more money, rather than the cash they would get for just 1 codex?

Dave47 wrote:That said, I'd be down for a new edition anytime. I like the core 5th Ed. rules, but I think some small things have really gone haywire in a big way (wound allocation being an obvious example.)

I agree with this, take for instance the new marine codex, it says a marine must be trained in all aspects of a chapters way of making war, from assault, to devestator to tactical marine etc, hence when the heavy weapon marine in a squad takes a hit, another marine would pick the weapon up as he is already proficient in its use? yet now we have to allocate wounds to squad members and the heavy or special weapon gets lost a lot quicker, this just doesnt stand for marines either?

my only assumption on gw's part is that they are tryin g to represent the weapon taking a hit, which could happen on a real warzone?

bob

driverbob25 wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:You make an excellent point. What it all means is that the Chaos Space Marines got boned. They were struck hard with the mighty nerf hammer and got absolutely nothing in return. The only way they can make this right is to put out Legion codexes for the big four. With the ability to summon their own god-appropriate Daemons and use all the cool stuff from the awesome 4th edition codex. Until then, my Chaos Marines are going to be sulking on their space hulk. Waaagh...

I agree with this, I think the chaos marine codex current edition was rushed out just before the apocolypse release and as such didnt get the attention it should have recieved? you point out legion codex's for the big 4, I see it as gw being able to further break up the chaos marine codex's down into smaller codex's with new model releases for each, which will equal gw making more money, rather than the cash they would get for just 1 codex?

I would be happy with a single collective codex for the big four, since they wouldn't have to reprint the rules for the Daemons, just make a special rule that the Daemons codex is allowable as allies. They could make special upgrade sprues for chosen and terminators.

Codices break major rules of the game. That's why they're a separate book. That's what they're for. And orks have had mob rule since third, by the by.

And older codices will only become more and more out dated with time...that's just what happens when things get old. Granted, I would like to see a more structured release of codices. Some armies already have 5th books while others are still using 3rd. But I'm having trouble finding your point.

His point seems fairly obvious to me.

The new codexes are each bringing in a lot of non-core special rules which uniquely benefit their own armies and make various core rules meaningless. Also, this powering up means the old codexes are at even more of a disadvantage than they would be from the core rules changes and points changes in 5e dexes.

Just because Orks had Mob Up in 3rd edition doesn't necessarily mean it was a good idea then, or that lots of other special rules are good now.

(Actually I think Mob Up was a pretty good rule, but I agree with Augustus that all rules should be in the core book even if they are only used in a single codex.)

driverbob25 wrote:

Dave47 wrote:That said, I'd be down for a new edition anytime. I like the core 5th Ed. rules, but I think some small things have really gone haywire in a big way (wound allocation being an obvious example.)

I agree with this, take for instance the new marine codex, it says a marine must be trained in all aspects of a chapters way of making war, from assault, to devestator to tactical marine etc, hence when the heavy weapon marine in a squad takes a hit, another marine would pick the weapon up as he is already proficient in its use? yet now we have to allocate wounds to squad members and the heavy or special weapon gets lost a lot quicker, this just doesnt stand for marines either?

my only assumption on gw's part is that they are tryin g to represent the weapon taking a hit, which could happen on a real warzone?

bob

Either the Weapon taking the hit or (in the case of heavies) the armour iswired into the bearers power armour, its also a game balance mechanic to stop characters and specials from getting a protective bubble making them the last to die, and while yes you could pick up a weapon, by doing this in the rules you also have to make seargent McPowerfisty safe, otherwise you need two different wound allocation mechanics. (which would be silly) In fact I'm a really big fan of 5th for wound allocation. my only big gripe is that defensive weapons are strength 4 (I think it should be 5) and that vehicles cannot split fire. Eternal warrior is not as everywhere as we think, its just that everyone uses Lysander, (when was the last time you played marines without him?) but the point of the new system is that they make eaxh codex unique in more than just wargear points and stats so that theres a real difference in Feel to the game, hence increasing the funzies.

I think this was actually the point of 5th et as it happens in all of the true 5th ed codexes (Orks, daemons, marines, gaurd). The other supposed 5th ed codexes (eldar, Dark angels and Chaos marines) were written much earlier iirc meaning that they are based on an idea for 5th wheras the true 5ths are written for 5th with a mostly defined ruleset. If you look at the codex design for the %th ed codexes and the proto 5th ed codexes you can see a shift in thinking between the two groups, as if the fundemental baseline for what GW wanted from 5th changed a lot between the two. Yeah this puts older codexes at a Disadvantage but theres nothing that can be done about it, and besides, if codex orks has taught us anything, good things come to those who wait.

Seems to me this is more a problem of lack of planning and feature creep (either knowingly or unknowingly).

A lot of the rule breakers specific to each codex usually fits in line with that codex's army.

The main difference is, they could have provided foundations for these rules in the main rulebook. the marine combat tactics could easily be a global ability listed in the main rulebook.

Overall, these alone don't make me worry, as it helps differentiate each army. On the other hand, GW does have its own track record of mismanaging later codexes.

padixon wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:You make an excellent point. What it all means is that the Chaos Space Marines got boned. They were struck hard with the mighty nerf hammer and got absolutely nothing in return. The only way they can make this right is to put out Legion codexes for the big four. With the ability to summon their own god-appropriate Daemons and use all the cool stuff from the awesome 4th edition codex. Until then, my Chaos Marines are going to be sulking on their space hulk. Waaagh...

*cough...Dark angels...cough* is without a doubt the most boned of all armies that received a new codex hands down. They are the more expensive (points wise across the board), less options marines.

I think Grey Kngihts might have that shaft a bit harder. At least you guys can carry heavy weapons...

I only hope the Tyranids get something interesting, and not just a reworded hash of old rules.

Chaos got boned pretty hard, yet oddly enough, they took alot of the top spots at Adepticon. Dual Lash is the bee's knees!

Augustus wrote:
Originally I thought some unique powers were going to be pretty good (as in good for the game) but now I am concerned that the 5th edition rules really are not complete in the basic game, as codices keep coming out with significant game altering mechanics unique to armies.

I'm going with bad game design and/or poor designers. The fact that for every new army book that is released, they feel a need to break core rule mechanics means the game is poorly designed.

You can't tell me that they are incapable of sitting down, and brainstorming all kinds of USRs for the main rules (a la warhammer ancients, where all the USRs are in the main rules, and subsequent books use those USRs for 90% of the lists created after), and the using those core USR to create 'uniqueness' in newer armies.

I also don't understand their reluctance to use the same mechanic to do the same thing across books, rather than making some exception or needing to add an additional rule somewhere that appears only in that codex. If you want to have daemons "summoned" call it Deep Strike. Then, instead of writing more "summoning" rules, make another USR called "Fury of the Warp (or something)" which allows units to assault after Deep Strike. Gee, then you could give Fury to a unit in another codex, without copy/pasting and invariably writing different rules.

Frankly, I don't think they have that kind of planning when they go from edition to edition. It all seems to be knee-jerk reaction to the power builds and rules that are most often manipulated in the version prior. i wouldn't be surprised to see wound allocation change yet again, not due to planning, but because they botched it with units like Nob bikers, which had far reaching consequences.

I really enjoyed third edition, with the armies from the back of the rulebook. Better balanced than anything since, tactical, lots of maneuver, with no exceptions to the core rules bringing up wonky situations.

So, like I said, I'm sticking with bad game design.

Cruentus wrote:

Augustus wrote:
Originally I thought some unique powers were going to be pretty good (as in good for the game) but now I am concerned that the 5th edition rules really are not complete in the basic game, as codices keep coming out with significant game altering mechanics unique to armies.

I'm going with bad game design and/or poor designers. The fact that for every new army book that is released, they feel a need to break core rule mechanics means the game is poorly designed.

You can't tell me that they are incapable of sitting down, and brainstorming all kinds of USRs for the main rules (a la warhammer ancients, where all the USRs are in the main rules, and subsequent books use those USRs for 90% of the lists created after), and the using those core USR to create 'uniqueness' in newer armies.

I also don't understand their reluctance to use the same mechanic to do the same thing across books, rather than making some exception or needing to add an additional rule somewhere that appears only in that codex. If you want to have daemons "summoned" call it Deep Strike. Then, instead of writing more "summoning" rules, make another USR called "Fury of the Warp (or something)" which allows units to assault after Deep Strike. Gee, then you could give Fury to a unit in another codex, without copy/pasting and invariably writing different rules.

Frankly, I don't think they have that kind of planning when they go from edition to edition. It all seems to be knee-jerk reaction to the power builds and rules that are most often manipulated in the version prior. i wouldn't be surprised to see wound allocation change yet again, not due to planning, but because they botched it with units like Nob bikers, which had far reaching consequences.

I really enjoyed third edition, with the armies from the back of the rulebook. Better balanced than anything since, tactical, lots of maneuver, with no exceptions to the core rules bringing up wonky situations.

So, like I said, I'm sticking with bad game design.

Yep, that about says it all. Screw the game, it's just the pipe that we shove the plasticrack into!

I disagree completely.

Each codex should be making every attempt to define the race with a unique play style. It that involves giving races abilities that match thier fluff, then so be it.

5th edition played with 5th edition codexes is the best version of 40k by far in terms of theme, list variation, and race specific tactics. Orks play like Orks, Deamons play like Deamons and Marines play like Marines.

The way I view it is the codexes are just as important as the core rulebook in considering the system, and exceptions to rules have been in the game since the beginning.

There is no reason you can't have unique races, with unique abilities, wargear, and troops, and have those things in the core rules.

Imagine a world, if you will, where they actually *know* what all the USRs are. They have them all in the main rulebook. This does two things:

1) Allows GW to playtest all the USRs and rules at the same time; and
2) Allows all the players of the game to know what all the units do, without having to buy every codex.

In the codex, you outline force org, wargear, new weapons, vehicles, etc. and units - these are the things, when tied with the main rulebook, that define an army's uniqueness. Oh, and let's not forget about the fluff and background to add in, since we've saved all those pages by not having to duplicate rules.

Instead, we have a ruleset which requires you (basically) to buy every book out. Otherwise, you have no idea what your enemy is capable of, in terms of special rules. "Wait, you can't do that, the BRB says... "; "Well, actually, all of these units have this special rule in my codex which allows me to ignore the BRB rules of X, Y, Z"

This leads to quirks and problems in the rules you can drive a baneblade through, which GW is loathe to FAQ/Errata to actually change.

Remember when Invulnerable Saves were introduced. Wow, cool. An invulnerable save. Nothing can get through that. Oh, until that weapon that ignores invulnerbale saves is added to a codex. But wait, that doesn't ignore daemonic saves, does it? Yup, they're invulnerable. How about wyche dodge saves? Yup. Invulnerable. Or, should I say "less vulnerable saves".

Instead of having USRs of: Invulnerable Saves, Field Saves, Dodge Saves, and Daemonic Saves in the BRB, then giving those out, and then giving out specific exceptions. So, now the Psycannon comes along, and we give it: Ignore Daemonic Saves. There, nice and simple. No question about cover, dodge, field, or invulnerables. It just ignores the daemonic ones.

See, that wasn't so hard. And clears up a pile of mess that writing rules ignoring special rules creates. Requires more work? Yup. Will they ever to it? Nope. Because they want you to buy more books, buy all of them.

I'm still sticking to poor game design if the best you can come up with is "let's make this rule ignore that basic rule", and even worse is "its always been that way, why change it." We should change it because other systems have shown that you can do it that way. 40k and Fantasy are the only games I know that continue to be afflicted with 'historical shackles disease' where they can't change things because its always been done that way. Sad.

but isn't that how Warmachine works?

Core rules, and then each unit uses some USR, and some unique to the unit that break the core rules and make the factions feel unique? Combos of rulesbending is the core tenet of that game.

And that is tromped out as masterful game design, not poor at all.

Having the Codices break core rules is not bad design.

But in GWs case, they tend to forget the ramifications of other armies' special core rule breakers.

Which can make it bad design in application.

6th ed couldn't come fast enough. I'm just not a fan of 5th ed.

Kilkrazy wrote:His point seems fairly obvious to me.

The new codexes are each bringing in a lot of non-core special rules which uniquely benefit their own armies and make various core rules meaningless. Also, this powering up means the old codexes are at even more of a disadvantage than they would be from the core rules changes and points changes in 5e dexes.

Just because Orks had Mob Up in 3rd edition doesn't necessarily mean it was a good idea then, or that lots of other special rules are good now.

(Actually I think Mob Up was a pretty good rule, but I agree with Augustus that all rules should be in the core book even if they are only used in a single codex.)

Right. Yeah. Ok.

How does this make fifth any different than any other version of 40k?

I mean, you complain that you need a codex to know the guard special rules. I remember back in third when you needed the big rulebook, the space marine codex, and the white dwarf with the chapter approved article on firing points and access hatches just to use a rhino.

And I don't think that it's so much of a "powering up" that we're seeing with new codices, although that does happen. But some changes NEED to be made to adjust to the new edition. Good examples in the Guard codex are the ability of units to meld into larger squads (remember everyone complaining how guard could never win at kill points?) and them being able to transport other units in their dedicated transports besides the unit they were bought for...like almost every other army in the game. Yes, the older codices are being left behind. But if you dumb down the rules of the newer codices so they don't out pace the older ones, what's the point of even printing newer codices?

I think the solution is simple planning. Write all of the codices for a single edition (5th, in this case) at once and playtest them together so the rules all sync with each other. Then, release one about every three to four months after the release of the new edition. (As a player, I would prefer them all to be released together, but as a company I understand this would hurt GW. The slower release raises hype and lets armies be a flavor of the month, increasing sales) Finally, I think codices should be released in order of oldest codex to newest codex. In other words, if your army is using the oldest 3rd ed codex, you get the first 5th ed codex. If your army is using the second oldest codex, you get the second 5th ed codex, etc, etc, etc.

And, finally, once again, if all the core rules were in the rulebook...why even have codices? And, come to think of it some of the more specific rules are so specific that, taken out of context, they would just be stupidly hard to explain.

Cruentus wrote:I really enjoyed third edition, with the armies from the back of the rulebook. Better balanced than anything since, tactical, lots of maneuver, with no exceptions to the core rules bringing up wonky situations.

So, like I said, I'm sticking with bad game design.

Are you...serious?

That was third ed for maybe about six months. Until they realized how unclear and poorly designed it was and the next thing you knew you needed a suit case full of white dwarf chapter approved articles to play it.

I disagree with Augustus' point 3 in the OP, but do agree with most of what has been written by Augustus and Cruentus.

What seems to be happening is a return to 3rd edition where the base rules are okay (even if I don't agree with several of them), but Codexes are used to break core rules. These codexes also escalate in power. IOW, it is a return to the sell more models through Codex escalation design model.

With that model in place, GW will more likely sell more models for the most recent codex, but as we all know, they'll get through about 70% of the Codexes before moving to a new edition. I also bet that the last 2-3 5th Edition codexes will be built with 6th edition in mind.

It is a ferris wheel I got off of a few months after 5th edition came out. I love the models and most of the background, but the unwillingness to provide a consistent rules framework for a whole edition and then shout "you aren't playing the game right" to those who complain about broken lists/codexes finally broke me.

See you in 6th edition.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:I disagree with Augustus' point 3 in the OP, but do agree with most of what has been written by Augustus and Cruentus.

What seems to be happening is a return to 3rd edition where the base rules are okay (even if I don't agree with several of them), but Codexes are used to break core rules. These codexes also escalate in power. IOW, it is a return to the sell more models through Codex escalation design model.

With that model in place, GW will more likely sell more models for the most recent codex, but as we all know, they'll get through about 70% of the Codexes before moving to a new edition. I also bet that the last 2-3 5th Edition codexes will be built with 6th edition in mind.

It is a ferris wheel I got off of a few months after 5th edition came out. I love the models and most of the background, but the unwillingness to provide a consistent rules framework for a whole edition and then shout "you aren't playing the game right" to those who complain about broken lists/codexes finally broke me.

See you in 6th edition.

I see what you're saying.

Codex creep is irritating.

But I wouldn't call it a "return to" anything. We never left. Nothing has really changed with fifth. Aside from the rules, I mean. The business model is the same. The out dated codices and increasing special rules are the same. Granted, just because it's always been that way doesn't mean that it's a good way to be. But my point is it's not a 5th edition problem, it's a GW problem. And it's a problem I was aware of when I picked up every edition of this game that I have played. I'm not saying it isn't a problem just simply that...I'm not surprised.

Now, keep in mind, GW is a company. They're here to make money. What I think a lot of people miss is that...that's not always a bad thing. Their business model revolves around releasing armies individually to increase sales. People get excited, talk about, make army lists, and finally buy the new army. The fact that it has new, army specific rules they have never seen before adds to the excitement. And, as a player, as much as I would like to have all the armies all it once I must admit it is kind of a fun time when a new codex comes out.

So, understanding GW's business model and their need to slowly release armies to increase sales, I'm cool with it. However, you're right, there are a lot of problems that need to be fixed. In my last post to you I outlined what I would like to see done. And I would also like to add that they shouldn't be releasing codices for the next edition until after that edition is out. Granted, that creates a down time in their new releases that is really bad for a company. Stagnation is death. But they could use that time to release things like apocalypse, run world wide campaigns, release games like Necromunda, etc.

Having been through 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and now 5th edition. I get it. I know its a GW problem, and its a planning problem.

Its an issue with having to juggle so many armies, sub armies, etc. that their release schedule makes in impossible to actually finish an edition before the next one comes out. That's a problem because they don't patch the holes - neither the ones caused by the new edition, or the ones the new edition makes in and of itself.

Don't get me wrong. I love 5th edition. I think the game plays better than before, aside from some wonky stuff (Kps, wound allocation), I think they've made leaps and bounds to fix it. THEN we get the codicies which throw everything in the toilet. Let's see, on one hand, Dark Angels, Eldar. On the other Orks, Daemons. In the middle CSM, SM, maybe BA. Its uneven. DA heralded a 'toned-down' approach to codicies. Orks and Daemons didn't (and some would add lash CSM to this). Sure, its one or two builds, or one or two powers, or how the unit interacts with core rules (wound allocation), but it just strikes me as lazy and poorly handled. Did no one in playtesting think to take two lashes? No one? And if someone did, and GW ignored it, then we know where the blame lies.

And 3rd edition, when I played it out of the box, was fine afaik. It wasn't until the TAR, TVR, and other issues eventually came to the surface that the errata and FAQs, and patching started. Also happened to be when the codexes were rolling out too. Coincidence?

And I understand the company line and making money, I do, and that's fine. I'll continue to play it the way I have for years, and make it work.

The point I'm making is they could do a better job of it, and have a direction, and stick with it, rather than acting like an ADD 10 year old. Of course, we all know they're not a rules company, but a miniatures company

Cruentus wrote:The point I'm making is they could do a better job of it, and have a direction, and stick with it, rather than acting like an ADD 10 year old. Of course, we all know they're not a rules company, but a miniatures company

On this point, we are agreed. Very much so. GW rulebooks sometimes remind me of G.I. Joe and Ninja Turtles. Cartoons that existed for the sole reason to sell toys. Now we've grown up, and we need a better excuse to buy toys.

I just disagree agree on how the problem should be fixed. I don't think that having all the armies in one book is the answer, for a number of reasons I've already given. But I think the current model needs a lot of fixing...most of which I've pretty much already out lined.

whocares wrote:I just disagree agree on how the problem should be fixed. I don't think that having all the armies in one book is the answer, for a number of reasons I've already given. But I think the current model needs a lot of fixing...most of which I've pretty much already out lined.

I was never proposing that all the armies be listed in one book. The 3rd edition reference was to having the lists 'rebooted' for the new edition. I don't think that all the armies be in one book, but all the USRs that govern those armies be in that book. We already have one or two pages of USRs in the book. Why not add all the others that currently reside in the codicies, and you know, codify them.

That way they're all on the table from the get-go, can be considered in the game design proper, rather than being added willy-nilly from left field when codex X hits the shelves. It would cut down dramatically on rules conflicts, and would also allow similar powers to work similarly across books.

Actually, I'd just be happy if they actually got all the codexes out for the current edition of the game, before 6th edition.

Cruentus wrote:

whocares wrote:I just disagree agree on how the problem should be fixed. I don't think that having all the armies in one book is the answer, for a number of reasons I've already given. But I think the current model needs a lot of fixing...most of which I've pretty much already out lined.

I was never proposing that all the armies be listed in one book. The 3rd edition reference was to having the lists 'rebooted' for the new edition. I don't think that all the armies be in one book, but all the USRs that govern those armies be in that book. We already have one or two pages of USRs in the book. Why not add all the others that currently reside in the codicies, and you know, codify them.

That way they're all on the table from the get-go, can be considered in the game design proper, rather than being added willy-nilly from left field when codex X hits the shelves. It would cut down dramatically on rules conflicts, and would also allow similar powers to work similarly across books.

Actually, I'd just be happy if they actually got all the codexes out for the current edition of the game, before 6th edition.

You could cut down on rules conflict just as easily by writing all the codices at once and playtesting them all together, special rules and all. In fact, I think it's the only real effective way to balance the game properly.

If you write all the USRs at once, and then design the codices the way GW does now, what do you think would happen when they realized that they forgot some special rule for an army, or they realized some codex they printed was over powered? Even if it was over powered using USRs from the rulebook. They would go right back to putting individual rules in codices resulting in the first 5 codices all using the same USRs and the next five all increasingly having their own individual special rules to counter the first 5. Think about what you know about GW and tell me I'm wrong.

I think the best way to avoid this, as I said, is to playtest the thing as a whole. Rulebook, codices, and all and then just stagger their release dates. Not their design dates.

I also don't think it really benefits the players that much. Sure, I guess it would make certain armies less "surprising." (demon summoning and drop pod assault come to mind) But once it's happened once, you remember. And I don't think reading your opponent's codex before the game would be any more cumbersome than reading that one rule in the back of the book that only one army in the game uses so you completely forgot about. Because you know people won't remember those any better than they remember individual codex rules.

I don't know. I liked the trend GW was using for the DA, Chaos and Blood Angels books. I liked having the Codexes simplified or more accurately, streamlined. I didn't see the reason behind all the "my options are gone" hysteria when Chaos came out. One could always do counts-as for a lot of things.

I don't want every Codex to break some rule. When that happens it is inevitable for one to get Codex rules vs Codex rules conflicts. For crying out loud, it isn't like every other game system I've played hasn't codified special rules/exceptions in a consistent fashion.

OTOH, many of the non-core games have been fairly balanced and played well. Maybe that's why they were dropped so quickly.

Edit: ever > every