Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Nice. I can't wait for cult marines now so thier are even more contradictions from the generic chaos dex to this. I also like how much ubber characters get in the newer codecies versus the old. Salamanders are so good with twin linked melta buster tanks and horde destroyer flamers that they are the new no brainer and if that is not silly enough how about a whole marine army with fleet?

Kilkrazy wrote:People are already complaining that a lot of units have bog standard Universal Special Rule instead of some special power with a groovy name.

Well, I think those players should be slienced as I possit they have the mentality of 12 year old comic book readers.

(Have you really heard that sort of complaining? Seems like rules issues are a lot more prevalent issues online than "MY TEHSPASE MARINZ NEED THE KOOLOR 1337 NAMEZ..." Which I don't seem to remeber any posts about.)

Lemartes wrote:Nice. I can't wait for cult marines now so thier are even more contradictions from the generic chaos dex to this. I also like how much ubber characters get in the newer codecies versus the old. Salamanders are so good with twin linked melta buster tanks and horde destroyer flamers that they are the new no brainer and if that is not silly enough how about a whole marine army with fleet?

Indeed sir.

I think the worst part is cross chapter characters, Tigurius+Pedro? From diff chapters right? Together? Not good, not fluffy, not smart.

(I thought doctrines were going away, not coming back in the spec rules for chars.)

Janthkin wrote:The really sad thing is that ANY layout software makes this easy, as you can insert what are essentially links to objects - change a definition once, and it will be auto-updated throughout the document.

I understand why they're only putting special rules in one place. I think it's a bad decision, and even good editing and proofing can eliminate it. Of course, I think a lot of this is because they hire hobbyists and not professionals to oversee things.

Augustus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:People are already complaining that a lot of units have bog standard Universal Special Rule instead of some special power with a groovy name.

Well, I think those players should be slienced as I possit they have the mentality of 12 year old comic book readers.

(Have you really heard that sort of complaining? Seems like rules issues are a lot more prevalent issues online than "MY TEHSPASE MARINZ NEED THE KOOLOR 1337 NAMEZ..." Which I don't seem to remeber any posts about.)

I agree that those players are a bit silly.

There was a post on Dakka a few days ago complaining about USRs. I can't be bothered to search for it.

And rules issues are a lot more common.

Augustus wrote:I think the worst part is cross chapter characters, Tigurius+Pedro? From diff chapters right? Together? Not good, not fluffy, not smart.

And how would you suggest GW Marketing cross sell those special characters that collect dust on the rack?

Indeed EDIT: @killkrazy

robertsjf wrote:

Augustus wrote:I think the worst part is cross chapter characters, Tigurius+Pedro? From diff chapters right? Together? Not good, not fluffy, not smart.

And how would you suggest GW Marketing cross sell those special characters that collect dust on the rack?

Apocalypse?

Thinking about it and talking with Salvage over the weekend, I am really thinking that while it is cool to have special army traits predicated on your leaders, they should have made fewer special characters, and just had purchasable traits for HQs. Essentially you could spend X points to exchange Combat Tactics for the abilities, instead of forcing you to use a counts as character you might not really have wanted.


And dear god, I HATE HATE HATE the layout of their new books. Indexes should never be optional for rule books, and you should never have to flip back and forth between sections of rules for a unit. The way they did the previous marine codex worked pretty well I thought, in the sense that they had a big fluff section that described the different unit types, and then all the unit's rules/wargear together (more or less anyway.)

Also, just to give me something to be irked about I guess, but where is the summary sheet? Is it in the very back, or between the last HS unit entry and the first special character/hobby section? That irks me too...

Completely agree Wehrkind.

Index?

Putting Contents and Index into the 5e rules was one of the big improvements.

MS Word builds index lists automatically if you know what you'r doing. There's no excuse for a professional publisher not using that feature.

The thing I hate most about the special character overload in the last few codexes is how they're now cramming the spearheads with them. Seriously I don't need 5 metal HQ units with the new codex...please god no.

Back on topic...the thing I hate most about the new codex layouts is how I sit there, and I read through all the different options and units, and think "hmm that might be cool...oh I like that...oh those are probably going to be good..." but really I have no idea if any of that is true until I can find their actual points costs. And of course if I flip to the back to check their points costs and stat lines, I still don't have any idea what they do. Did they buy stock in army builder? are they trying to force it upon people to have a reasonable way to make an army without having read the codex 20 times?

Augustus wrote:
Indeed sir.

I think the worst part is cross chapter characters, Tigurius+Pedro? From diff chapters right? Together? Not good, not fluffy, not smart.

(I thought doctrines were going away, not coming back in the spec rules for chars.)

Since almost all of the Chapter Tactics cannot be combined together in the same army, anyone who takes two special characters is going to be burning points on abilities they can't use.

And since you can always go with a 'counts as' model for a special character I don't see any problems with having Tigirius and Pedro (for example) together in the same army.

Is there a clause in the 'Dakka Owner's Manual' that says you have to become an apologist the moment you own a GW-centric forum?

BYE

yakface wrote:

Augustus wrote:
Indeed sir.

I think the worst part is cross chapter characters, Tigurius+Pedro? From diff chapters right? Together? Not good, not fluffy, not smart.

(I thought doctrines were going away, not coming back in the spec rules for chars.)

Since almost all of the Chapter Tactics cannot be combined together in the same army, anyone who takes two special characters is going to be burning points on abilities they can't use.

And since you can always go with a 'counts as' model for a special character I don't see any problems with having Tigirius and Pedro (for example) together in the same army.

There are contexts beyond the tactics that make it questionable.

Given that previous efforts made things more direct for lists don't you think that combining different chapters special characters in the same army is a bit unsporting, at least a little? (Thematically speaking?)

I'm going to go on record saying that I hate the new format for codexes. My 3rd ed codexes were easy to use because all the information was in one place. I could tell everything about a unit, its options, and its cost at once. None of this....okay the rules are here, the costs are here, the options are here.... why aren't these printed together?

I like the unit "profiles" but don't print multiples of something, each missing an important detail or two. And for the love of god, all those profiles and costs crammed together on plain white pages hurts the eyes. The old codexes used their space and made the entries interesting and well spaced. The new ones give me a headache.

Sweet new marines, I get a break from those pinko commie Tau!

Which takes precedence in case of conflict, the individual unit listing or the army list? The statline is posted in both locations, and we know they're going to find a way to mess up copy&paste eventually.

The best Codex format GW has done, by far, were the original 4th Ed ones - Marines, Tau, Black Templars and Tyranids.

Those four had all the unit entries, options and special ruels right there, and a nice little themed pic so you could see what it was (loved the ones from Codex BTs), the symbols to see where it belonged.

Then all the weapons and wargear were in another section, and the costs of wargear were universal and listed on one page, rather than repeating slightly different versions of the same list dozens of times for each character.

It was a great way of giving all the information on a single unit in one go, made it easy for Vets to flip through and was very simple for beginners to understand.

The new format, starting with the Eldar Codex, has been bad from the word go. It's Jervis trying to emulate the 2nd Ed Codices that also had the same problems with unit rules in one place, weapon rules in another, and then the army list in a different place, only far more jumbled.

The Eldar Codex also started a trend, where certain common pieces of Wargear would be listed in the special rules for a specific unit type (I believe some of the Eldar Grenades that more than one unit has access too have their rules contained in a unit entry, rather than a universal weapons list that collates all Eldar weapons). This is a bad way to design the structure of a Codex.

I like having the little fluff entries that tell you about the units, but keep the rules in the list. Splitting the list into three or more sections just to bulk the page count doesn't help anyone. The Eldar, Dark Angel, Blood Angel, Chaos, Ork and Marine Codices are horrible things to navigate.

BYE

Kid_Kyoto wrote:What I want to know is what happened to the Auspex? Or the holy relic? And how come Chaplains and Librarians can't take artificer armor any more? And how come only special characters can get master crafted items? And how come techmarines can only take power swords and not power weapons?

Auspex? Who cares.

It's good that Relics, Artificer Armour, and Master-Crafted items are limited to Special Characters - it's what makes them special.

Power Swords are Power Weapons.

Kilkrazy wrote:People are already complaining that a lot of units have bog standard Universal Special Rule instead of some special power with a groovy name.

Yeah, it's just not fair that their opponents actually know what the enemy units are supposed to do...

Yeah but didn't Mechanicus folk traditionally use power axes?

Da Boss wrote:Yeah but didn't Mechanicus folk traditionally use power axes?

Exactly.

It's a very minor thing and yes, anyone who posts on dakka will know power sword=power weapon and can take any form. But for the main rulebook for the flagship army it's a terrible typo. New players should not have to guess what the writer really meant.

I'm still not sure how repeated ranting about the format that has been standard for a good while now should effect the rating of the codex itself. Thats like rating spaghetti and meatballs when you don't like meatballs and giving it a bad rating every single time you sit down and have a meal. You might as well take that little "layout" score out of the equation since its going to be the same hit to every codex that will have come out since the eldar one. You're scaling the curve down but when you do that all you do is lower the bar and the high end remains the same. You can't rate things in a regressive sense due to a recurring design flaw that is not in anyway intrinsic to the specific item you are reading.

It just doesn't work that way in any sense but the most childish.

Is there a clause in the 'Dakka Owner's Manual' that says you have to become an apologist the moment you own a GW-centric forum?

It's right next to the clause that says that obvious trolls can never be reprimanded (that would be you).

Yeah but didn't Mechanicus folk traditionally use power axes?

The descriptions I've read have mentioned a ceremonial axe (gear shaped), a cutting torch, a plasma cutter, or any number of similar devices being used. The axes shape is intrinsic to the cult of the machine but I don't think its a required part of a tech-marines arsenal.




Honestly I like the codex a lot. There are a few typos and the format is horrifying but thats part in parcel for codexes. It's a lengthy read with a ton of fluff and some excellent art (just because a lot of it is old doesn't make it bad. A total artistic redesign in every codex would be stupid.). It's not perfect but its better than the old ork codex and thats the one I grew up using. Not to mention it gives a huge possible amount of variety for force structure and is very malleable, which is the most important aspect of all in a codex.

Don't know about the rest but...

Kid_Kyoto wrote:And how come only special characters can get master crafted items?

Because master-crafted items are rare? And only made for specific individuals?

And how come techmarines can only take power swords and not power weapons?

Wait, power weapons and power swords are different now?

Viperion

"Waaaaa... I have to flip pages...waaa, I can't just memorize the rules of my own army and therefore not have to even pick up the book...oh wait..."

Quite crying, at least all the rules are in one BOOK, unlike in 2nd edition. Can you say "Codex Imperialis" I knew you could.

Shummy The Wonder Grot wrote:It's right next to the clause that says that obvious trolls can never be reprimanded (that would be you).

Says the man who seems to want to shoot me with a pistol. Methinks you take this (and me, for that matter) a little too seriously.

All the people here who get on with me have long since realised that I'm only ever half serious about what I say. All the people who take me too seriously... well... they end up like you - stalking me with a pistol and geiger counter.

BYE

For some reason I like the format used in WHFB books but struggle when it is in 40k.

I think as has been mentioned earlier that in WHFB there are way fewer special rules/wargear for each entry and most relate to a core special rule from the main rulebook.

A GIANT BRONZE STATUE OF PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN wrote:

Shummy The Wonder Grot wrote:It's right next to the clause that says that obvious trolls can never be reprimanded (that would be you).

Says the man who seems to want to shoot me with a pistol. Methinks you take this (and me, for that matter) a little too seriously.

All the people here who get on with me have long since realised that I'm only ever half serious about what I say. All the people who take me too seriously... well... they end up like you - stalking me with a pistol and geiger counter.

BYE

If this were the fallout universe none of those actions would seem bizzare in the slightest.

Calgar isn't Lincoln. Lincoln was never a pimp. Learn your history Shummy.

BYE

Given that the 5th ed rulebook was a major step forward in clarity and useability over 4th ed, it is disappointing to learn they did such a poor job of organisation on this one.

It is something that really irritates me having to flip through a book three times in the middle of a game trying to find a rule I KNOW is in there somewhere! I don't play any single game (40k included) enough to learn the rules off by heart, so I need easy-to-search rules.

GW not getting this right after all these years is a bit of a slap in the face for gamers really. It also shows that they simply do not understand.

"Pee-up a brewery in could not organise a GW" please rearrange these words to make a well known phrase or saying...