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.

Jazz is for Losers wrote:I've never read this (I have the old one somewhwer), but a cynical person might think that they've deliberately left out weapon descriptions from the codices

The Wargear book has some diagrams, but it doesn't even come close to the old Wargear book back in the day (which pretty much had an image for every weapon).


I see the Wargear book more as a stop-gap since at one point early in 4th edition you had a whole bunch of codices with different rules for the same piece of wargear. The book was an attempt to give a single wargear entry for these items.

As for diagrams, it actually contains very few.

yakface wrote:Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

Won't happen. The new designer incoming will revamp his half of the game system.

Oh, and the changes Jervis is making make me less likely to buy 40K product and more likely to seek life elsewhere.

Jervis is digging a hole he can't get out of.

Sales aren't plummeting through the floor because of anyone else's decisions.

Screw the 10 year olds. I don't want to play them, and their parents don't like the fluff one bit.

They obviously aren't making GW money, probably as a result of not having any.

Am I bitter about the changes? Yes. The only interest I have is in variant armies. A book with 1 army in it? I'm not interested in buying that crap. It's too confusing? Don't play.

You won't be missed.

efarrer wrote:I think Jervis is doing everything he can to reverse history to what it was in 2nd edition. I detest this and think it will only hurt the playerbase. But I don't think it's his son's fault.

Do you recall 2nd Edition? The whole system as a lot more complex, with multiple sizes of Blast and Flamer Templates, whole pages of rules for individual wargear items.

For example, do you recall the 2nd Ed Eldar Codex? I do. Avatars were immune to "heat-based weapons". BS5 Exarches could take Jetbikes with 5-pt Shuriken Cannons to make pop-up attacks. Warp Spiders had a far more involved movement mechanic, and their spinners were Large Flamer Template, which tested against enemy Initiative. Wraithguard were vehicles with W2 and a table of results for their Wraithcannons.

No Jervis isn't making 40k5 into 40k2. He's restoring the thematic elements that shouldn't have been removed in the first place, and reworking them for 40k5. To that end, things like Combat Squads are good.

An interesting side-note are the repeated conversations that come up in the Historical Gaming community, where there seems to be a real struggle between old-timers who came up on games with a lot of bookkeeping, chits, paperwork etc. and newcomers/younger players who are looking for a streamlined gaming experience. Now, what they mean by streamlined is a bit different from what we mean in the sci-fi/fantasy gaming world, but it's sort of fascinating to see this as a 'cross-cultural' phenomenon (as it were). When you see people talking about Flames of War as "WWII 40k", what they're alluding to is the whole discussion of simplifying rules.

yakface wrote:
the new lists in some cases (like Eldar, Chaos & Orks) allow players to make very different army types (should they choose) all from the same central army list without requiring additional rules (like Clan rules) or sub-army lists (like the Craftworld lists).

Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

QFT.

Stelek wrote:

Won't happen. The new designer incoming will revamp his half of the game system.

Oh, and the changes Jervis is making make me less likely to buy 40K product and more likely to seek life elsewhere.

Jervis is digging a hole he can't get out of.

Sales aren't plummeting through the floor because of anyone else's decisions.

Screw the 10 year olds. I don't want to play them, and their parents don't like the fluff one bit.

They obviously aren't making GW money, probably as a result of not having any.

Am I bitter about the changes? Yes. The only interest I have is in variant armies. A book with 1 army in it? I'm not interested in buying that crap. It's too confusing? Don't play.

You won't be missed.

What new designer? Do you have some inside information or are you just speculating?


GW's sales have been declining long before Jervis took over the design studio so I think the only thing we can say for certain is that his changes have not contributed to halting that slide.


I understand that there are players who love variant army lists and are very unhappy to see them go. But remember that there are players out there (like) me who actually do like the direction the game is going quite a bit.

You like the blandification of 40k? I'm so disillusioned.

I don't see elegant rule design as bland. That said, 40K has a long way to go before it's "elegant," but I think it's moving in the right direction.

Yak, thanks for injecting some sanity into the bash-fest. I've been dreading for months the day when Jervis' kid decides to join Dakka, only to find out that his "reputation" has preceded him.

The Power Cosmic wrote:You like the blandification of 40k? I'm so disillusioned.

Sorry.


But seriously, I don't see the current direction the game is moving as "blandification". It is a reduction of specialized rules and army lists to be sure, but I find there to be plenty of variety in the new codices. I certainly enjoy the freedom that is once again give to players to shape an army to their imagination rather than to a set of restrictions set down by a variant list.

For example, I've always wanted to play a 1Ksons army, but I'm more tempted than ever with the new codex to do so simply because I can create the army based on my own personal interpretation of what a 1Ksons army should be rather than exactly what was dictated by the old 1Ksons variant army list.

I don't think 40k will ever reach the rarified beauty of BFG or Epic (latest version), but it's getting a lot cleaner. That's for sure!

My hope is Jervis Jr. asks his dad what a 'magic cylinder' is one day.



I'd be overjoyed if the Jervis philosophy was applied to the main Rulebook. Maybe that's why we're getting 5th edition so soon?

This is your 'Magic Cylinder'...



This is your "Magic Cylinder' filled with beer...



Any questions?

yakface wrote:For example, I've always wanted to play a 1Ksons army, but I'm more tempted than ever with the new codex to do so simply because I can create the army based on my own personal interpretation of what a 1Ksons army should be rather than exactly what was dictated by the old 1Ksons variant army list.

or is it because the 1Ksons have the best rules in the codex?

Sorry but the example you gave just asked for that.

syr8766 wrote:An interesting side-note are the repeated conversations that come up in the Historical Gaming community, where there seems to be a real struggle between old-timers who came up on games with a lot of bookkeeping, chits, paperwork etc. and newcomers/younger players who are looking for a streamlined gaming experience. Now, what they mean by streamlined is a bit different from what we mean in the sci-fi/fantasy gaming world, but it's sort of fascinating to see this as a 'cross-cultural' phenomenon (as it were). When you see people talking about Flames of War as "WWII 40k", what they're alluding to is the whole discussion of simplifying rules.

I'm too young to be a grognard. I don't even play historicals!

yakface wrote:

Stelek wrote:

Won't happen. The new designer incoming will revamp his half of the game system.

Oh, and the changes Jervis is making make me less likely to buy 40K product and more likely to seek life elsewhere.

Jervis is digging a hole he can't get out of.

Sales aren't plummeting through the floor because of anyone else's decisions.

Screw the 10 year olds. I don't want to play them, and their parents don't like the fluff one bit.

They obviously aren't making GW money, probably as a result of not having any.

Am I bitter about the changes? Yes. The only interest I have is in variant armies. A book with 1 army in it? I'm not interested in buying that crap. It's too confusing? Don't play.

You won't be missed.

What new designer? Do you have some inside information or are you just speculating?


GW's sales have been declining long before Jervis took over the design studio so I think the only thing we can say for certain is that his changes have not contributed to halting that slide.


I understand that there are players who love variant army lists and are very unhappy to see them go. But remember that there are players out there (like) me who actually do like the direction the game is going quite a bit.

Yes.

Correct.

It isn't variant army lists, Yak. It's VARIATION in an army list.

Let me see:

Dark Angels, I take a 100-200 point HQ; premade with no options. Sorry, taking a power weapon or a fist is not a damn option.

I take Elite marines, but I can only have 5 so giving them 5 weapons is for retards.

Troops, I *must* spend 200 points to get a lascannon but I can get TL Las on elite dreads or las on the elite marines and I'm right back at min-max 5 man squads which the very concept of MUST take 10 to get a lascannon is supposed to stop....

Fast attack, well I can bring EVERYTHING, or assault marines. Gee, really? I can run bikes/big bikes/floating bikes? WOW Original.

Heavy, I can run...marines or tanks, tanks or marines...or really BIG tanks with marines inside.

Did you even PLAY 40k when every effing army was BLUE, RED, YELLOW, OR BLACK Space Marines man? That's where we're going, that's some real boring s**. I quit for a LONG time because GW couldn't make decent armies to play with. Now they have them, and they're not making BLAND rules. They're making rules for stupid 10 year olds that wouldn't know tactics from whining.

Do YOU play 10 year olds where you game? Do YOU enjoy it? Do YOU enjoy playing 10 year old compatible army lists?

I know I don't like any of it.

If 40K is somehow too complex for a person, they need to go back to middle school and GRADUATE to high school.

Bloody simple game, and the only real fun is having ALOT of different pieces to try and make neat AND DIFFERENT armies with.

This 'everyone plays pawns' crap will not save 40K, it will drive it right into Wal-mart, and then the hobby DIES.

That isn't the kind of simplication and price drop people want, is it?

How fun will the games be then? Walmart sells 'em, Hasbro makes the rules?

GAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hellfury wrote:

yakface wrote:For example, I've always wanted to play a 1Ksons army, but I'm more tempted than ever with the new codex to do so simply because I can create the army based on my own personal interpretation of what a 1Ksons army should be rather than exactly what was dictated by the old 1Ksons variant army list.

or is it because the 1Ksons have the best rules in the codex?

No wai! TS aren't as good as generic CSM for general play. TS are only good against MEQ at close range.

How do I know this? Because I've always wanted to play a Hyper-Puritan SM army that's so far gone, they're CSM, but the rules and Fluff didn't allow me to do so until recently. Now I can create the army based on my own personal Fluff and preferences of what my army should be, rather than being shoehorned into some narrow variant army list.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

yakface wrote:For example, I've always wanted to play a 1Ksons army, but I'm more tempted than ever with the new codex to do so simply because I can create the army based on my own personal interpretation of what a 1Ksons army should be rather than exactly what was dictated by the old 1Ksons variant army list.

or is it because the 1Ksons have the best rules in the codex?

No wai! TS aren't as good as generic CSM for general play. TS are only good against MEQ at close range.

How do I know this? Because I've always wanted to play a Hyper-Puritan SM army that's so far gone, they're CSM, but the rules and Fluff didn't allow me to do so until recently. Now I can create the army based on my own personal Fluff and preferences of what my army should be, rather than being shoehorned into some narrow variant army list.

Why were you shoe-horned? You were always free to ignore the variant lists / traits / doctrines and just field your army with the basic list regardless of colour scheme.

No one ever forced you to play your Khorne army as World Eaters. If you wanted to, great. If you didn't, that was cool too. Now the option and choice are gone.

Asmodai wrote:
Why were you shoe-horned? You were always free to ignore the variant lists / traits / doctrines and just field your army with the basic list regardless of colour scheme.

No one ever forced you to play your Khorne army as World Eaters. If you wanted to, great. If you didn't, that was cool too. Now the option and choice are gone.

Like I said before, once GW gave each faction its own sub-list there suddenly were a good amount of players who would get genuinely annoyed or angry at you if you chose not to use that faction's army list if you painted your minis in that paint scheme. There even were (are) tournaments that technically required you to use that faction's rules if you painted your models that way.

Stelek wrote:It isn't variant army lists, Yak. It's VARIATION in an army list.

Dark Angels

Did you even PLAY 40k when every effing army was BLUE, RED, YELLOW, OR BLACK Space Marines man? That's where we're going, that's some real boring s**. I quit for a LONG time because GW couldn't make decent armies to play with. Now they have them, and they're not making BLAND rules. They're making rules for stupid 10 year olds that wouldn't know tactics from whining.

From what I see, we have very nearly as much variation the CSM and Eldar lists as before. Chaos, in particular, has far more combinations than ever before. I think this can be proven pretty clearly by combinatoric mathematics.

As for the Dark Angels, isn't the point that they are specialized versions of Space Marines? So shouldn't their options be narrow and more restricted precisely to differentiate them from generic Space Marines? I don't understand that portion of your rant. As I see it, DA (and SM) is about making choices. Do you want to spend your 3 Elite slots on 5-man Las/Plas teams, or do you want uber Termies or Scouts? Choosing between Devs and Tanks seems normal for HS. Same with choosing between AM and Bikes / Speeders for FA. If every army could take every option without restriction, that would be a hallmark of poor design, because the armies wouldn't be well-differentiated.

So yeah, I remember when SM were mostly only differentiated by color. And that is most definitely NOT where Jervis is going. BA, BT, and DA are all clearly different armies, but it's OK if they share some common characteristics beyond the basic statline and ATSKNF.

I thought shiney, chromey rules were passe.

yakface wrote:

efarrer wrote:
Ultimately that is one and the same. The design tennets are the core of the designs. It's like excusing Joe Q for the mess that is Spiderman "one More Day" because JMS is the writer. The person who sets the rules for the design/story is responsible for the outcome. With the design tennets established by Jervis the Chaos book that was released was a steaming pile. Not having the Ork book i don't know if it was an actual success, or just a success based on how bad the preceding book was.

That is completely, totally false.

Jervis is responsible for the "sandbox" for the designers to work with but the writers themselves are responsible for what they create within the "sandbox". Two people can work in the same sanbox and one person can make a simple sand castle while the other person can make a giant beautiful sculpture. Both people had the same tools its just that one of them used them with more ingenuity and talent.


Many people like the Ork & Eldar codex but dislike the Chaos & DA/BA codex. However all five were written under Jervis's command.

He only wrote Dark Angels & Blood Angels.

CSM was written by Gav/Alesso

Orks and Eldar were written by Phil Kelly.


You cannot blame Jervis's overall tennents if you like any of those codices. They were all produced under them.

Then let me put it as bluntly as is humanly possible. I do not like any of these books. I find them bland uninspired pieces of excrement. I feel that the quality has dropped and I am really thinking about dropping my 5,000 dollar investment and finding new games to play. Why? Because I play BA and Chaos (which was 4 distinct armies for me) and those armies are no longer the armies that I have worked on for the last 10 years. I don't mind change, but this set of changes has set my teeth on edge and I don't think it's been balanced (in particular in light of Codex Eldar). I no longer have faith in the design team, and suspect the good designers are all long gone, and we have been left with the ones not good enough too have migrated.

The only game I feel is still good that GW still produces new material for is the LotR which does have a solid system which was well updated.

Asmodai wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I've always wanted to play a Hyper-Puritan SM army that's so far gone, they're CSM, but the rules and Fluff didn't allow me to do so until recently. Now I can create the army based on my own personal Fluff and preferences of what my army should be, rather than being shoehorned into some narrow variant army list.

Why were you shoe-horned? You were always free to ignore the variant lists / traits / doctrines and just field your army with the basic list regardless of colour scheme.

No one ever forced you to play your Khorne army as World Eaters. If you wanted to, great. If you didn't, that was cool too. Now the option and choice are gone.

Not so. 40k3 WYSIWYG was interpreted in many tournaments that an army in World Eaters colors & heraldry *must* be played as WE, and an army in Dark Angels colors & heraldry *must* be played as DA. For a while, the only armies that had options would be custom armies.

In the case of CSM, those armies would have had to have been played as MoCU renegades, rather than a Legion, because all of the Legions had specific color, etc. In any case, the excess of 0-1 restrictions was stifling to army concept, and the ridiculous point costs for certain CSM units made many concepts totally nonsensical.

With the current CSM book, there are far more options expressly given to the player, so I don't have to be some guy who's twisting the fluff unnaturally to field my army.

Stelek wrote:

Yes.

Correct.

It isn't variant army lists, Yak. It's VARIATION in an army list.

Let me see:

Dark Angels, I take a 100-200 point HQ; premade with no options. Sorry, taking a power weapon or a fist is not a damn option.

I take Elite marines, but I can only have 5 so giving them 5 weapons is for retards.

Troops, I *must* spend 200 points to get a lascannon but I can get TL Las on elite dreads or las on the elite marines and I'm right back at min-max 5 man squads which the very concept of MUST take 10 to get a lascannon is supposed to stop....

Fast attack, well I can bring EVERYTHING, or assault marines. Gee, really? I can run bikes/big bikes/floating bikes? WOW Original.

Heavy, I can run...marines or tanks, tanks or marines...or really BIG tanks with marines inside.

Did you even PLAY 40k when every effing army was BLUE, RED, YELLOW, OR BLACK Space Marines man? That's where we're going, that's some real boring s**. I quit for a LONG time because GW couldn't make decent armies to play with. Now they have them, and they're not making BLAND rules. They're making rules for stupid 10 year olds that wouldn't know tactics from whining.

Do YOU play 10 year olds where you game? Do YOU enjoy it? Do YOU enjoy playing 10 year old compatible army lists?

I know I don't like any of it.

If 40K is somehow too complex for a person, they need to go back to middle school and GRADUATE to high school.

Bloody simple game, and the only real fun is having ALOT of different pieces to try and make neat AND DIFFERENT armies with.

This 'everyone plays pawns' crap will not save 40K, it will drive it right into Wal-mart, and then the hobby DIES.

That isn't the kind of simplication and price drop people want, is it?

How fun will the games be then? Walmart sells 'em, Hasbro makes the rules?

GAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unless you care to share more information about the upcoming design team shake-up we really can't discuss more on that topic. If that does happen then certainly things will be different by I'm under the basic premise that the current design concepts are going to be in place for the forseeable future, simply because I haven't seen any actual evidence to the contrary (not saying you're wrong, just that I don't have the same information you apparently do).

I've played 40K since Rogue Trader, so I've seen and played it in all its forms.

I just couldn't disagree with you more. I find the game fun to play. I do enjoy army list construction but it isn't my sole enjoyment. In fact, sometimes (often) I actually play with sub-optimal army lists just to challenge myself to see if I can beat my opponents with units I consider not the best of choices. I'm not saying this way of playing is for everyone, but just that if you don't find the actual playing of the game very fun then it certainly makes sense to me why the removal of sub-army lists would be frustrating.


I believe your use of Dark Angels as the example of the new style of codex isn't very fair simply because Dark Angles are easily the most specialized (i.e. limited) of the new codices, which was clearly intentional. It isn't like the Eldar, Chaos or Ork codices which do allow for a pretty nice array of different army types.

Alpharius wrote:

I think 5th is going to be a lot closer to 3rd than I'd like, but, them's the breaks!

by "breaks" are you referring to people like me that shelved things like their CSM armies and went out and got into Flames of War?

I will be the flip side of your coin then Efarrer. Our group has gained a lot larger following, and things are growing. People have hope about the new books and systems, and see a sort of balance to a lot of it. There are still problems, and some people moved on from the new Chaos books, but others picked it up with gusto. You can't make everyone happy, you just try to make the most of them relatively happy. The new changes have been doing that around here. 40k was thriving 4 years ago here, and last year it was almost dead. The release of the new books and Apoc has brought it back from the dead. It's not perfect, but a lot of people have a new sort of hope.

Been playing for 27 years, and I don't even want to add up what I have spent throughout it. Will probably be here for many more. It's just a game after all.

In a vacuum I love the DA dex. I think it represents the DA better than any list ever has. There are always a few knee jerk items that must be chosen, but overall there is a lot of competition of what to field in each slot. Each HQ choice has it's benefits and it's penalties. Do I take a full squad of 10 to get a heavy, or do I field a squad of 5 with a lazor razorback. Maybe a dread with las, or a dev with the same. They are all around the same cost in points, and all give you the AT you need, but each choice has it's pros and cons that are very different. The book is a lot of give and take, and can make a lot of different styles of lists. Almost all of the gear is there also, it's just balanced by choice. The standard Captain has almost all of the options previously available to him, and can still be kitted out very differently depending on need.

And yeah, the I get to play against the 11 year old that lives in my house. To negate the youngens you also kill the future of these games. We like to bring them in and teach them, not make fun of them. We were there once, and so were you. Done right they grow up to be good gamers.

And it is all your opinion. We differ on that. I feel the quality is getting better. (can't get much worse than it has been the last few years). If they could only do a main rulebook correction or FAQ to fix some things, and I think our group would be quite content.

syr8766 wrote:An interesting side-note are the repeated conversations that come up in the Historical Gaming community, where there seems to be a real struggle between old-timers who came up on games with a lot of bookkeeping, chits, paperwork etc. and newcomers/younger players who are looking for a streamlined gaming experience. Now, what they mean by streamlined is a bit different from what we mean in the sci-fi/fantasy gaming world, but it's sort of fascinating to see this as a 'cross-cultural' phenomenon (as it were). When you see people talking about Flames of War as "WWII 40k", what they're alluding to is the whole discussion of simplifying rules.

but FoW isn't "WW2" 40K.

The rules make sense, they have clear rules and they put out well worded FAQ's.

Nevermind that a Panzer from 1942 is always going to be a Panzer from 1942 and won't change from a "Close Combat Death Machine" to a "Gun Platform of Doom" overnight in the writers next great idea to drive sales.

You mean Warhammer WW2?

And it is in a lot of ways. It is older style, but a lot of the same. Things have changed dramatically quite a few times since they started long ago. But with something historical, there is a lot less leeway.

Been there done that, I also play Hordes, doesn't mean they are great games either. Most games have problems, it's just how you let it get to you.

FAQs are nice, and I really wish GW would get off their bum and do em. Makes no sense. But I hate the flip side that has happend with WM and old 40k. Having to keep up to date and carry around reams of paper worth of rules changes. It's hard to keep up if they are too quick to release them.

yakface wrote:


I understand that there are players who love variant army lists and are very unhappy to see them go. But remember that there are players out there (like) me who actually do like the direction the game is going quite a bit.

then I hope all of the rest of the Eldar and Tyranid players can make up for everyone else.

Toreador wrote:You mean Warhammer WW2?

Been there done that, I also play Hordes, doesn't mean they are great games either. Most games have problems, it's just how you let it get to you.

Translation: "I play Tyranids".

And Orks, don't forget the orks, and Tau who always have been around.

I used to play nids, but sold most of them off, still wish I hadn't done that.

I play mostly DA, Orks, Eldar and SOB. With the eldar I like to play a mostly foot army. My tourney lists and takes are much different than my normal "fun" play lists. But that includes most of the other games I play. You just don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Jervis has made a series of changes to the game. I happen to like the changes (finding it a more mobile, objective oriented game, rather than just deploying twinked out stand and shoot uber-units), but that’s besides the point. It’s a constantly changing game, and this is just the latest evolution.

Some people didn’t like the changes. Some people liked being able to play around with the old codices, producing list after list of interesting armies that they never played. Other people used the old codices to produce really, really powerful armies like Iron Warriors. These people started to use terms like ‘simplified’ and ‘bland’ to describe the new books. These are excellent for internet criticism because they sound like scathing criticisms without actually meaning anything.

While that criticism was continuing, Jervis mentioned his son in the context of a couple of things that had been missed in the codices. This was brought up to show how GW and its customer base had become quite insular, a little daunting to a potential new player like his son. The boy was used as an example, related to the completely non-contraversial ideas of including pictures of gear in the books and making the books easier to reference.

People then used Jervis’ kid as the poster boy for the ‘simplified’ and ‘bland’ rules. Jervis’ kid had nothing to do with the rules changes, but that didn’t seem to matter. This is the internet, people never let reality get in the way of a rant.

How this has morphed into people being critical of Jervis for using his son in his business is, well, just another one of those ridiculous internet things.