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.

DarkHound wrote:I agree with what focusedFire said about it being that the players are so heavily invested.

That in itself begs a question then:

Shouldn't we be?

We put all this time, effort and, yes, lots of money into this so is it therefore wrong to be heavily invested in this? Wouldn't we want our investment to be protected in some manner? 'Cause when that train wreck of a Chaos Codex came out, my investment wasn't protected - my stocks went south. Extending the metaphor, waiting for a new Codex to come out would be like market speculation, yet the trend seems to be an optimistic yet increasingly pragmatic group of investors that usually assume the worst, and are sadly so often right.

We should be. We are. At the same time though, it makes it hard to let go and step back. You get used to an idea of how things 'should be' and can't see anything else being adequite. The Chaos issues are different, because as you stated your armies were invalidated. Chaos needs the 3 virtues: The Big Nine, Renegades (LatD) and Daemons, and they need to be connected. We are currently running on just bearly one, and only because I am counting the current CSM dex and Daemons dex as each half of one. Do I think that CSM is all that it should be? No. I do think it portrays a particular aspect well, but it needs to do more. There are signs that they can do things right though. The Ork dex is great. So is the Space Marine codex, even if Vulkan gets pegged as the flavour of the month. They can do it, they just have to do it. Have a little faith.

Just as an aside, does WHFB suffer from the same problems (I havent played it for donkey's years so I am out of the loop) and if not, why not?

How can GW have one system that 'works' and manage to screw another one up?

I don't know actually.

This site is mainly geared towards 40K (obviously), so Fantasy stuff tends to get shunted into the background, but from what little I've seen I'd say that there isn't that overwhelming sense of dread. In most cases the only complaints are about specific combinations or units being overpowered, not long multi-page threads about how someone's High Elf army has been destroyed by one of the lobotomised monkeys in the Dev team.

But for the people who play Fantasy, if they could chime in, that would be good.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I don't know actually.

This site is mainly geared towards 40K (obviously), so Fantasy stuff tends to get shunted into the background, but from what little I've seen I'd say that there isn't that overwhelming sense of dread. In most cases the only complaints are about specific combinations or units being overpowered, not long multi-page threads about how someone's High Elf army has been destroyed by one of the lobotomised monkeys in the Dev team.

But for the people who play Fantasy, if they could chime in, that would be good.

That's what I thought to be honest. Before the demise of my local gaming club, some of the guys there were fantasy bods as well but I always got the impression that the game was much more 'stable' than 40K and expansions / revisions felt like an iteration rather than a ground up rewrite.

edit: Not sure why that is so though. It doesnt really make much sense beyond the fact that fantasy is a little older as a game. Maybe it is something core?

The theory about GW nerfing their own elites may be true, but I doubt it's intentional. They want to make money by selling stuff. You don't sell stuff by releasing a nice new model and nerfing it.

So my theory is that they merely have a mindset for troops (cheap, core of army) and ignore the scoring issue. They then look at elites and see powerful squads, so they accidentally overprice them.

If they consciously were manipulating the values, you'd find the most expensive models being most competitive.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I don't know actually.

This site is mainly geared towards 40K (obviously), so Fantasy stuff tends to get shunted into the background, but from what little I've seen I'd say that there isn't that overwhelming sense of dread. In most cases the only complaints are about specific combinations or units being overpowered, not long multi-page threads about how someone's High Elf army has been destroyed by one of the lobotomised monkeys in the Dev team.

But for the people who play Fantasy, if they could chime in, that would be good.

I have a theory that because Fantasy army books don't get as much coverage as 40k codicies, the GW developers don't all come together in one big orgy like they do with 40k codicies, and instead a few people just work quitely on the book instead, leading to much more structured and well-planned army books. People don't pull them this way and that, trying to force their ideas in.

filbert wrote:Just as an aside, does WHFB suffer from the same problems (I havent played it for donkey's years so I am out of the loop) and if not, why not?

The current trend in Fantasy Battle seems to be minor rebalancing (mostly just making everything cheaper so you buy more) and bringing back units/characters they had previously removed. Most people seem to be happy with the way their own armies come out, though sometimes there are cases where someone had intentionally built a bad list and the new book ended up turning it into the power-gamer list. That seems to be the worst I have seen, though I am not as attentive to Fantasy Battle as I am 40K.

The only really bad thing about WHFB's army books is the fact that the Daemon one is so ridiculously powerful it's not funny. I'm not kidding when I say you have to really try hard to lose. There are countless slowed things in the book, and Mat Ward was probably high when he wrote it.

The Tzeentch magic, for example, is just unfair. So are Bloodthirsters, the most undercosted thing in the game; you know how in 40k, 350pts is a lot to spend on one unit? Well, since WHFB has larger battles than 40k, 350pts is fairly cheap; it's about how much I spend on my Chaos Lord. For example, Archaon, the Fantasy version of Abbadon, is a staggering 685 pts or something like that, while the Incompetent Warmaster of Chaos is only 275.

This is because in Fantasy, characters are generally a lot more powerful and important, as they provide leadership bonuses to your army and ones like Dark Elf Dreadlords and Chaos Heroes are really, really powerful. Chaos Lords are 210 pts base for a WS 9, S/T 5 model with three wounds, a base 4+ save, lots of attacks, high leadership, and a massive array of equipment to choose from.

Oh, and WHFB still has 'shopping list' style armouries, where characters have a budget for magic weapons/armour and arcane items, but they have the new 'may exchange x for y' when it comes to basic things like shields and non-magical weapons. I preferred it when 40k had this as well.

I cannot believe that anyone thinks GW plans out their Codex/Army book development the way J.H.D.D. thinks they do.

They is no way GW thinks that far ahead...

GW is trying to sell miniatures. ALL of the miniatures in the book, and especially the new ones.

Obviously, THIS is what drives their 'decision making process' (such as it is) above all else.

If this invalidates your squad/allies/entire army, too bad for you.

But please, by all means, buy another 2000 point force plus options.

It can't happen again.

Can it?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Guard = Topic for another thread.

Stay on target people.

OT but now I've officially seen everything. Turn off the lights and break out the rum. The end of the Dog is nigh.

But to the topic: yes. As a former Nid player I dread to think what thyey'll do it. I dreaded to think, and was right on target, to see what they did to vanilla marines. IG have some nice additions, but frankly it just looks like the V3 list with two new units. The loss of doctrines vexes me as much as the positives that hjave been put into play.

Eldar I think will be fine. The cycle will be complete by then and the new eldar dex will have more options than ever seen and starcannon/spiders will again be brutal...

I don't get why people are crying about Doctrines being gone (and honestly this is the first I've heard about it). Is it because of what they represented? There were only 5 or 6 worth taking for 5 slots, and everything else was either outdated and non-functional or useless.

DarkHound wrote:I don't get why people are crying about Doctrines being gone (and honestly this is the first I've heard about it). Is it because of what they represented? There were only 5 or 6 worth taking for 5 slots, and everything else was either outdated and non-functional or useless.

Yeah, but they could have re-written them to make them all viable instead of dropping them completely.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Redbeard wrote:One guiding principle for game design should be "don't take things away".

I would submit that that things like Possessed, Chaos Spawn, Vanguard, Stormtroopers, and Ogryns were carefully playtested and made into overpriced units *intentionally*. None of the above are "core" to the armies in question, but all of them exist as related "flavor" units. So GW basically put their foot down on Chaos Marines and decreed that basic and Cult Marines would be good, and thus are Scoring Troops at reasonable prices, whereas Possessed are somewhat overpriced and non-Scoring Elites. Similarly, GW decided that IG Platoons and Veterans would be good Scoring Troops, while Stormtroopers and Ogryns would be overpriced, non-Scoring Elites. By slapping a 15-25+% points penalty and making a unit non-Scoring, with no potential to become Scoring (see Sternguard vs Vanguard), GW does a better job of defining what each army army does well than if they made each choice equally playable.

So you're basically saying that GW has decided for the player base what their armies should consist of, should they wish to optimise their lists for competitive play. I am not which outcome I feel better about: HBMC's assertion that the writers of the codecies are idiots, or your assertion that the writers are not, but consider the player base idiots.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
No way. The balance is so far off, there is NO way that GW designers did not recognize that Possessed, Spawn, Vangaurd, Stormtroopers, and Ogryns were horrible for the points. Especially when the rest of the stuff is so tight.

The rest of the stuff is so tight. Ha Ha Ha.

The idea that it just so happened that these non-core concept units "just happened" to be very inefficient is not possible when the rest of the books are so tight.; If it were up to chane as incompetence, then you'd see huge swings in the other Troops choices, along with some for the non-core units being hugely efficient/overpowered.

You do though. You totally see swings in Troop choices, and other non-core units.

Eldar: Guardians are utter crap (and yet they're the core unit choice - by your theory, shouldn't they be good?)
Guard: Platoons and Veterans are good (troops), Penal Legion is iffy. Rough Riders are quite good in CC for their cost - isn't that not supposed to happen in your world?
Chaos Daemons: If you're not playing fluffy slaanesh, no one runs daemonettes. They're a core troop choice.

Going further back:
Witchhunters: Who in their right mind takes stormtroopers when for one point more, you get a sister with +1 weapon strength, +1 Armour, faith, better squad upgrades, and so on. Again - core choices.

This isn't a new problem, it's a systemic problem, due to a lack of process in QA. They eyeball things, make guesses, and hope that it works out, and because they playtest instead of applying a thorough QA process, things slip through. And then, they go and make further changes based on what the minis end up looking like. (I actually talked to Graham McNeil, who wrote the Witchhunter codex, at a Games Day. I asked why Repentia are so bad when they have such nice new models. His answer was that they were initially designed to be a witchhunter terminator equivalent (hence the strike-last/double strength weapons), and had initially had a terminator type save. The got dropped to a 4+ save very late in the development process because they couldn't justify a 2+ save on naked women.

Yeah, that's intentional game design...

If you want to define what an army doesn't do well, you don't do it by providing units that do it at elevated prices, you do it by providing units that do it badly at prices appropriate for doing it badly.

Apparently, you and GW disagree :p

Not if you read what they claim. This is right up there on page viii of the rulebook, "Warhammer 40,000 uses a system of points values that allow players to fight evenly matched battles. Each model is given a points cost that reflects its value in the game."

Note, the point cost is supposed to reflect the value in the game. That's the published definition of the point system. It's not meant to punish players who run non-standard armies. It's not supposed to ensure that players make their armies the right way. It's meant to ensure that when you play a game, you have an even match.

If something is overcosted, that's essentially the same as doing something badly at a good cost. Yeah, you're trying to split a hair, but I see it as the other face of the same coin.

Not at all. If something is overpriced, it doesn't do enough to justify its point cost. If something does something badly at a good cost, then it is justifying its cost, and you can make up for the lack of quality with numbers.

Take the basic guardsman as the ideal example of this. He's not much use in melee, and he's not much good at shooting, hitting only half the time, and generally not hurting anything when he hits. But, he's priced well, so that when you face 300 points of basic guardsmen, you end up facing sixty of them. Sixty lasguns can drop a lot of things, and can accomplish a lot of battlefield roles.

If those guardsmen were eight points each, and given an 12" S4 assault 2 gun instead of their lasgun, you'd have guardians. Guardians are overpriced. You cannot mass them effectively, because they're priced too high. You end up with about 36 instead of 60, with no added survivability, and a loss of ranged firepower to boot. Make a guardian the same price as a guardsman, or even as an ork, and they're now a decent troop choice. They're no better than they were before, but because they're priced less, you can get more of them, and that adds up.

This is NOT a mistake, this is a design decision. Frankly, AM have always been less than efficient in SM. You take them because you need PA HtH for countercharge, not because they're awesomely efficient. Just compare Vanguard with BA VAS and you have to conclude this is deliberate.

No, you don't have to conclude that at all. What you could also conclude is that GW has really poor rules writers - I think there's more evidence that supports that conclusion. Compare Dark Angels and Space Marines, two PA codexes released within a couple of years from each other, and note that Space Marines get just about everything for 5-10 points cheaper than Dark Angels. Does this mean you have to conclude that Dark Angels were deliberately designed to suck? I think not.

(No comment on Orks)

Clearly - ignore evidence that goes against your claim.

As I've said elsewhere, GW breaks army elements into three categories:
1. core, which are well-costed and effective

Like guardians, daemonettes, and inquisitorial stormtroopers, and for that matter, firewarriors and necron warriors.

2. non-core, which are somewhat over-costed or somewhat ineffective

Like Nobs, Lootas, Bloodcrushers, Vulkan, Eldrad, TH/SS termies, Obliterators, Carnifexes, or.... I mean, seriously, you actually believe this? Every single codex has non-core units that are under-costed.

Most game designers strive for balance based on categories 1 & 3 only. GW adds the intermediate step entirely for flavor purposes. This is why "flavor" units are non-core things that appear in the Fluff or army history. I think this is the one conceptual innovation that GW has made in points cost that is actually ahead of conventional games design understanding.

That's because it's not intentional, because if it was, it would be stupid. You don't say "we're going to make a system to ensure that players have an even match" and then turn around and deliberately hamstring units for flavor.

My concerns with the new Tyranid codex aren't about losing things, per se. I'm resigned to the fact that elite Carnifexes either won't be available or will be very different in their execution. I'm an old-timer, and was never a pure Nidzilla guy anyway.

What I worry about is whether GW will properly gear the army to 5th edition. In a mech-heavy environment, swarm Tyranids really need some help to stay competitive. And I'm not sure if they'll break the eggs they need to to make that happen.

It's interesting to note that with the 4th edition Tyranid codex, some of Phil Kelly's mistakes were with things he didn't change *enough*...mainly the medium bugs' abilities and pricing. As I've said countless times here, if you fix Warriors -- really fix them -- swarm armies will get a big boost even if you don't touch another thing.

I think that the problems with the release cycle for 40K and WFB at this point in time are pretty different for each other. For me (and it seems a few others here) 40K's problem is that no one has any clue of what's going on from codex to codex. There doesn't seem to be a cohesive plan on the direction of 40K, besides crap organization of the codex's content and limiting of options.

WFB does seem to have a clear plan. Most of the newer army books have any army wide special rule (or rules) that go against the standard. HE have ASF, DE have hatred, DoC all cause fear are ItP etc., Vampires crumble, Lizzies cold blooded, etc. etc. On top of this, there is a re-emphasis on the magic phase and more powerful characters. There also seems to be a a lot of newer armies that ignore or circumvent psychology. The thing is, most players I know don't like the direction WFB is going, even though they can see a clear direction is present.

To top it off, WFB is far more unbalanced than 40K. That is, while there are a few clear front runners based on tournament results, it is nowhere near as skewed as WFB with the DoC, VC, and DE trio.

This is entirely based off my observations, and only thought of this morning right when I got up, so I could be totally off here.

DarkHound wrote:I don't get why people are crying about Doctrines being gone (and honestly this is the first I've heard about it). Is it because of what they represented? There were only 5 or 6 worth taking for 5 slots, and everything else was either outdated and non-functional or useless.

The concept of Doctrines is a wonderful thing that brings life to an otherwise quite stale army. The ability to tailor your force to match either the fluff of your regiment or your own play style is a great ability to have. Of course, that's the concept of Doctrines (and Traits for that matter). GW's execution of that concept left a lot to be desired. I was not sad to see Doctrines go, not because I disliked Doctrines but because I disliked the Doctrine system as it stood. 2 no-brainers, 4-6 others that were quite viable, and all the rest were junk. Plus there's the whole 'illusion of choice' thing with the restricted units that I won't go into here unless asked.

Would I have preferred Doctrines to be re-written into a workable system (ie. based on platoons rather than army wide, losing the 'restricted' units malarkey), yes, of course. Do I think GW could have done that? Not at all.

So good riddance to the Doctrine System we had, but shed a tear for a fantastic idea left to drift off into the ether in favour of Jervis' Generic Wonderland.

DarkHound wrote:I don't get why people are crying about Doctrines being gone (and honestly this is the first I've heard about it). Is it because of what they represented? There were only 5 or 6 worth taking for 5 slots, and everything else was either outdated and non-functional or useless.

Agreed. Not to mention that there is far more diversity in this new dex than ever before. The 3.5 IG codex was one of the worst examples of GW's infamous codex cycle since it was just the third edition codex with a page or two of doctrines added to it. The new 'dex is far better (yes this is on topic, deals with the OP). The doctrines system seemed like an afterthought and really only limits the player (hell all this talk about Ogryns and Stormtroopers throughout the thread....you couldn't even use them if you didn't have the right doctrines for it -- players tend to forget this IIRC). The 5th edition codex didn't take any unit away and made the IG more customizable, diverse, competitive, and more importantly fun; qualities all codices should be. As for a fluffy list, thats always been in the hands of the players involved but just about anything can be justified and explained in the vast epic grimdark that is 40k.

---

I'm not sure how this fits in the thread but I'll throw it in there anyway; Apoc datasheets. For IG you can field stuff like all Stormtrooper and all Rough Rider armies although the content rivals the Steel Legion's Armageddon codex entry than an actual codex (meaning its only half a page or so long), but I'm sure most opponents wouldn't mind using those lists in a casual game. However what the lists lack in content they make up for in price (free) and lets players field armies that they never could before although you'll run into problems fast on the tabletop.

And there's nothing to stop people from using HOUSE rules if there are parts of a codex or rulebook that could use some sprucing up.

So we (yes, we) want more options. Any army has the 'option' to be played with literally any style you want (Guardian Horde anyone?). We want more flavor options, and not entire rewrites of the codex every update so that we can count on the options to remain. Without random flavor options, the codex is off to a bad start (although the ork dex doesn't have many flavor options, but it is fun and functional). Am I getting all of this (as if it actually mattered)?

40k's codex updates tend to reinvent the wheel instead of refinning what was done before.

This is their greatest failure as each new version removes the old errors and imbalance and replaces them with completely new errors and new imbalance.

That there is truely the root of the problem Keezus, regardless of strange schedules and any flavor options.

keezus wrote:40k's codex updates tend to reinvent the wheel instead of refinning what was done before.

This is their greatest failure as each new version removes the old errors and imbalance and replaces them with completely new errors and new imbalance.

And this is what happens when a specialty games company 1) goes public, and 2) realizes the real money is with selling products that support the game rather than the game itself.

GW isn't much of a games company anymore. They're a miniatures manufacturer. As such, their motivation isn't to advance their games toward some state of perfection. Their motivation is to change games just enough so that we are forced to buy more miniatures but remain in the hobby.

While Jervis and Jes and co. are presented as the face of GW, what's behind the mask is a fairly soulless amalgam of accountants, sales organizations and plastics manufacturing machinery.

keezus wrote:40k's codex updates tend to reinvent the wheel instead of refinning what was done before.

This is their greatest failure as each new version removes the old errors and imbalance and replaces them with completely new errors and new imbalance.

keezus wrote:40k's codex updates tend to reinvent the wheel instead of refinning what was done before.

This is their greatest failure as each new version removes the old errors and imbalance and replaces them with completely new errors and new imbalance.

DarkHound wrote:That there is truely the root of the problem Keezus, regardless of strange schedules and any flavor options.

At this point, I'd like to share my experience of writing a Fan-dex.

I am currently working on a rewrite of the Tau. Went in with the intention of just tweeking markerlights, a shifting a unit in the foc to make room for another, and writing rules that actually have meaning(Seriously, battlesuit wargear is that bad). What ended up happening is that every correction and tweek forced adjustments elsewhere. Then these adjustments forced further adjustments and so on, and so on, ect....By the time I get done it will have been easier to trash the entire thing and start from fresh.

There are those that complain that GW does good on original releases but fails in the up date department. Personal experience tells me that the updates are in many ways more difficult.
It is because your working with in a much more confining enviroment.
First, People have preconcieved expectations of what the army and specific units should do.
Second, Existing model line affects army design due to physical design(You cant have X unit do that because there is no firing point,Guard excluded of course ).
Third, Existing model design due to financial reasons(We paid X for those molds, no way were dropping that unit).
Fourth, Limiting fluff saddles you with a rank and promotion track that just doesn't work. Player expectation that each promotion will show an improvement in stats.
Fifth, Territorialism about existing "Franchise" units. The reason that Vespids are less than optimal is that if you make them any better, or move them to elites, then they would be tresspassing on Crisis Battlesuit turf. Even if in different FOC slots they would steal thunder from the Tau trademark unit.

I could give a few more examples but I think this enough to get my point across. I seriously feel that this may be why so many game systems completely revamp their systems as opposed to "simple updates".





Off-Topic - And Mods I'm not trying to start anything but in case the thread derails from this...Mea Culpa.
Hey John, In reply to your reply. Are you sure that GW hasn't taken on the full role of the Multi-national Corp. and doesn't use the philosophy of Tsung Tsu?

One of Tsung Tsu's first lessons is that in order to be effective, "appear" to be ineffective or incompetent. GW has done a great job of cultivating this little cottage, "Brit's tinkering around in an antique factory with lots of steam and copper", image but all the while they managed to get some of forgeworld production shifted to China before anyone knew. This speaks to me of a company much better organised than their image implies. Also pls consider that I'm offering this up in support of your stance that GW does send out their product with a plan.

On Topic- Any one wondering where this is leading and how it applies to the thread. It is this:

GW doesn't have to do anything to support an army after it's initial release. I actually find it amazing that a Multi-National goes as far as it does to support outdated platforms. Think about windows and how long before a specific edition is no longer supported. How long do auto manufactures support discontinued models? In the US they are supposed to stock up certain key parts for about 5-7 years but this is only because of a law in the us and they only have to stock for "Projected" need.

What I'm getting at is that the only thing that I really dread or fear is that GW will start truly behaving like a Multi-national Corporation and casually squat various army lines just to make room for the next new thing.

focusedfire wrote:At this point, I'd like to share my experience of writing a Fan-dex.

I am currently working on a rewrite of the Tau. Went in with the intention of just tweeking markerlights, a shifting a unit in the foc to make room for another, and writing rules that actually have meaning(Seriously, battlesuit wargear is that bad). What ended up happening is that every correction and tweek forced adjustments elsewhere. Then these adjustments forced further adjustments and so on, and so on, ect....By the time I get done it will have been easier to trash the entire thing and start from fresh.

I am not surprised you are having trouble based on that description. IMO, to write a codex properly, you need the following progression:

1. A world view on how the army is going to function.
In the case of the Tau, that would be: Mobile Firepower, Weak in assault.

2. The second task is to determine how the desired function can be achieved based on the core ruleset. This is where interactions between units should be hammered out in an abstract sense.
This can be achieved through: Shooting strength is determined by weapon strength/quantity/availability/accuracy. Mobility is based on movement and vehicles. Making the Tau worthless in assault is easy, so no thought needs to be given to this. This is the step where one would determine how markerlights would actually function as they modify weapon accuracy. Additional rules such as jump-shoot-jump and any specialized movement rules should also be determined in this step, as would any behavioral modifiers such as Ethereals and bonding.

3. Once the interactions are determined, wargear and statistics can be assigned. The next step is to playtest various configurations to determine the relative effectiveness of each unit in its intended role.

4. Then, and only then, should points values be assigned.

EXAMPLE:

1. Tau are good at shooting and mobility.
2. Devilfish -should- to be able to better support the troops. Troops can already fire when disembarking, but what can help them from being assaulted.
IDEA: Suppresing fire of some sort.
EXAMINE RULESET: Make hits from burst cannons cause pin checks.
APPLY TO EXISTING FRAMEWORK, EXAMINE ARMORY: Does making burst cannons pinning change the roles of other units that can take them: Not really. Does it overpower them: Not apparently, but playtesting will bear this out.
PLAYTEST

It is painfully obvious that GW does not look at the army as a whole and designs single units in isolation. This is why Crisis suits are such turkeys. They have no defined purpose, but are overpriced jacks of all trades. Vespid are another example of a unit was designed without a clear picture of how the unit is supposed to work.

Off-topic: @Keezus-I went in with that very world veiw and with the intention of making it fit. But, You also left out their quick tech adv and several others defining paramenters of that should be in the world view. It isn't as simple as you think. You go in trying to take an overly simplistic view and it turns into a mess very quickly.

The point I was getting at is that You can have a very deep understanding of an army and how it works. You can go in with a good idea of what they are supposed to be with the intention of making just a tweek and it creates a domino effect. I knew what I was getting into when I started but have still been suprised by some of the secondary adjustments.

Case in point. Drones are for all intents and purposes troops. They have all of the negatives and none of the benefits. So I made them troops and made the ones on transports part of the squad that purchased. They load and unload at the same time.
Now what about shield drones?
I had already changed them to where the shielding is only good for ranged attacks and has an area bubble of effect.
How do they work when on the vehicle?
Its a little thing but still something you have to consider lest you over-power the army. In this case the shield drones give the Dev fish an inv save on its front armour.
But what about when a shot gets through?
No longer automatcically destroys the drone. But does require a special note in their entry that drones mounted are subject to weapon destroyed results.

Over all nice but not over powering.This is just an example of how one shift can cause a cascade effect.


My Fan-dex is coming along nicely and even people that don't play or even care for Tau like how it is shaping up. I invite you to go over to the How would you Fix the Tau in 5th ed thread and take a look. Let me know what you think. The more feed back the better.


On Topic: My experience has lead me to believe that GW does try to think things through but that dead-lines may be the real culprit when you find something that seems to be an obvious error.

I think they play test to some extent just to a realistic level as opposed to a detailed level. The point here is that years after the BRB and a codex come out people will still find wording issues that can cause problems in game.(Tau ASS and drones on Broadsides being an example)

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ObiFett wrote:I for one am looking forward to a new Tau codex.

Because it can't get any worse?

Yeah, basically.

Well, the sad fact of the matter is that for many the imminent release of a new Codex for their favorite army is probably accompanied by a greater sense of fear than anything else.

Well, other than current Dark Angel players...

In my case:

IG -- GW just redid this, and I was sufficiently annoyed that my IG project stopped dead in its tracks. I wanted Light Infantry Platoons and more Platoon coolness and got none of it. Bastards.

BA -- I'm somewhat hopeful, as GW seems to have decided down that BA will be the JP Assault Chapter. As long as that moves forward in a reasonably competitive way, I'll be OK. That said, all BA rebuilding is on "hold" until the Codex comes out. Hopefully, BA AM can be like SM AM / CSM Raptors and take more than just Plasma Pistols...

Eldar -- No real fear, as my model base and bitz collection makes me largely immune to any nerfing or rebalancing that I could envision. As with the last Codices, a new Codex means a big chunk of what I'm currently playing goes on the shelf, and clean the dust off an equal chunk of stuff. Most likely, I'll have to buy Jetbikes & Vypers, but I've been planning on that for years. I think any new Codex would be a non-event, although I would like to see Aspects moved back to Troops.

CSM -- GW is pretty schizo on CSM, so it's hard to predict what they might do. It's hard to imagine what sorts of changes are even possible, based on where CSM currently sit. Short of screwing the whole thing up, that is...

SoB -- This is one of my smallest armies, and it's all canonical Sisters stuff going back to the original 2E / 3E forces, so I'm not too worried here. Short of Squatting the Sisters, I think I'm immune to what GW might do.

Inq -- I really hope GW doesn't do something stupid here, but after the IG Codex, I think Inquisition has the potential for a royal cluster fick of the highest order. With any luck, GW never gets around to updating Daemonhunters.

keezus wrote:It is painfully obvious that GW does not look at the army as a whole and designs single units in isolation

This is even more obvious when you look at things like Inquisitorial Storm Troopers vs Sisters of Battle. 1 point more for all that extra stuff? Did GW not read their own Codex? Or how things like Ogryn and NuStorm Troopers can even exist. Unless you subscribe to Jonnyboy's lunatic "they do it on purpose" theory, which is utterly insane for all the reasons Redbeard has already stated, we're only left with that conclusion - they look at each unit, and look at it in a vacuum. That would also explain Forge World rules...

Our group, as a lot of you know, has been designing our own version of 40K since 4th Ed came out. It started a bit before that with a small project - as these things often do - with a re-write of the Eldar Codex. At the time we were in 3rd Ed with the TAR and TVR and the Eldar had been reduced to Codex: Vypers. Virtually nothing in their list worked and every army list was the same. We decided that we could do a better job so started writing a patch. By the time the patch was half-way done 4th Ed came about, and so disgusted were we with the infantile rules changes that we came to a consensus to redo the whole thing.

We have since, over the past however many years it is, designed a fully working rulebook that is kind've a half-way point between 3rd and 4th, but adds in a little more of the interesting detail from 2nd Ed plus some more 'common sense' things. We have also re-written most of the Codices, with the Eldar and Space Marine ones all but 100% complete. That's important to note because that's two Codices in development for over 5 years. Virtually every game we play is a playtest, and before playtests come hours of list-testing, number crunching and comparisons between units within the Codex, and units outside of the Codex.

We have the luxury of not having to sell shiny new model kits, so we can have a defined role for every unit. Doesn't mean we've been successful yet - my attempts to write a Guard Codex have hit a wall more times than I can count, and I'm only just beginning to 'get it' with how they should work within our framework - and we've had versions of each Codex where they things were just impossibly powerful (Tyranids have gone through more paradigm shifts than anyone else) to completely pathetic (a number of Tau changes). It's not easy, nor should it be really, but having gone through all this I can respect that while writing a Codex is easy, getting it right is very hard and you have to try to make it work.

GW doesn't try, and this is why we all live in fear of what they're going to feth up next when they release a new Codex, and why I prefer expansions because they can't hurt anyone or take anything from the players.

JohnHwangDD wrote:With any luck, GW never gets around to updating Daemonhunters.

And there we have it. Another voice alongside the rest of ours.

It really worried me when everyone comes together so quickly on a topic that is so bad (from a hobby perspective). We're the paying customers, and we actually don't look forward to new Codex releases because we're dreading what we're going to lose more than celebrating what we're going to gain. The only Codex in recent memory that I can remember actually being excited about was the current Marine Codex. As I've said in the past, that book was a celebration of all things 'pendulum' with bad units made good, good units made bad, new units being awesome, things being invented out of thin air to sell new models, and so on - it was a great Codex filled with stuff. We only really lost Traits, but, as before, the Trait system, whilst a great concept, was done in a gakky manner, so losing it was no loss.

Everything else (bar Orks, which existed under the "We'll take anything over what we have now!" banner) has been "What are they going to change? What's going to be removed? What will I have to buy?" I foresee Tyranids being the next big "reinvent the wheel" Codex, with a lot of 'Nid players either dropping the army or breaking out the super-glue and breaking apart their models whilst buying more Gaunts and Warriors (who will be buffed in the new 'Dex no doubt as no one really uses them now).