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.

countchocula86 wrote:Is there a business model that allows for monetization without necessarily losing sight of the original goal?

Yes - you, the founder, retain control of the company rather than sell it to an investment group.

I find it bizarre that people think that vague/bizarre/imbalanced rules are fine because they are designed for a game that's all about kicking back with your mates creating stories through the wonderful medium of toy soldiers...

The problem is that this is not a two way street. People who want to play competitively require a tightly written ruleset - concise, accurate and balanced. The existence of this would in no way affect the kind of 'story-based' gamers who write their own special rules and scenarios and adapt the rules to fit their way of playing. These players will do this whatever a core 'official' rulebook has in it.

However, a vague, inaccurate and unbalanced ruleset (as we have now) does hinder competitive play.

The problem, as always with GW is that they've done everything half-assed. They have moved over the years towards a pseudo-competitive points based system but it has been done very badly and at the cost of diluting the very background that has always been a major appeal of their universes.

For example, Chaos armies have been compartmentalised by type (WFB Daemons, WoC, Beastmen, 40kDaemons, CSM) whilst instituiting a 4-way love-in of the Chaos Powers where they all get along really and Khorne warriors are quite happy to fight for Slaaneshi generals... Meanwhile LatD, which should (according to GWs own source material) be the most common type of 40k Choas army has been squatted outside of a rearguard action by forgeworld.

This kind of trashing of the fluff has in no way improved the game rules, so both sides lose out again, whether you want to play a tounament or at home with friends.

GW need to get their act together, sort out exactly what the background is and what it means. Translate it into game terms that make sense and then for the love of God playtest the damn thing to equalise the points values and make sure the game works as advertised. Doing this would resolve 99% of the complaints about GW while in no way making the game less fun for the 'we'll get together and write our own stuff' crowd.

[/rant]

Foda_Bett wrote:PP is just starting to approach the slippery "hobby only" slope that GW has done in the past that annoyed so many. PP this year introduced certain rules for non existent models that were only to be used in their league.
It was suggested that you use a normal unit with different markings to represent these new models. These rules were thought to be a little over the top for some and under powered for others.
However what about those people who converted up these models?!
Apparently they should be supported forever even though PP said they wouldn't make models for them or support them beyond this little campaign. This is the same thing GW did for LaTD, pirate ghosts, slayers, etc.. These were great lists in their time and maybe even got a unit or 2 but GW did not have plans supporting them beyond those books.

I don't think this is a slippery slope at all. The PP rule for the league models is, if you're
using models of base type x, they count as the special league model for the three week
time period of the league. No one has to convert anything. Once the league is over, models
revert back to their original status.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you're interested in house rules, Grunt13 made a Harlequin Codex:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Grunt13%E2%80%99s_Harlequin_Rules

And you can discuss his rules here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278020.page

Chimera_Calvin wrote:I find it bizarre that people think that vague/bizarre/imbalanced rules are fine because they are designed for a game that's all about kicking back with your mates creating stories through the wonderful medium of toy soldiers...

The problem is that this is not a two way street. People who want to play competitively require a tightly written ruleset - concise, accurate and balanced. The existence of this would in no way affect the kind of 'story-based' gamers who write their own special rules and scenarios and adapt the rules to fit their way of playing. These players will do this whatever a core 'official' rulebook has in it.

However, a vague, inaccurate and unbalanced ruleset (as we have now) does hinder competitive play.

The problem, as always with GW is that they've done everything half-assed. They have moved over the years towards a pseudo-competitive points based system but it has been done very badly and at the cost of diluting the very background that has always been a major appeal of their universes.

For example, Chaos armies have been compartmentalised by type (WFB Daemons, WoC, Beastmen, 40kDaemons, CSM) whilst instituiting a 4-way love-in of the Chaos Powers where they all get along really and Khorne warriors are quite happy to fight for Slaaneshi generals... Meanwhile LatD, which should (according to GWs own source material) be the most common type of 40k Choas army has been squatted outside of a rearguard action by forgeworld.

This kind of trashing of the fluff has in no way improved the game rules, so both sides lose out again, whether you want to play a tounament or at home with friends.

GW need to get their act together, sort out exactly what the background is and what it means. Translate it into game terms that make sense and then for the love of God playtest the damn thing to equalise the points values and make sure the game works as advertised. Doing this would resolve 99% of the complaints about GW while in no way making the game less fun for the 'we'll get together and write our own stuff' crowd.

[/rant]

On the Chaos point, I did not read anything in the books that says the powers "get along really".
What I read was that they occasionally ally, and therefore the rules will not restrict you from combining to allow for these situations.

I think what Priestley was getting at is that with a lot of historicals, the scenario and accurate forces are more important than "Balanced forces" in certain settings.
I have played many historical rules, and most are geared at creating a historically accurate result, not a balanced game.
The big exception would be Field of Glory. That one feels balanced to me.

WRT 40k, this is represented in some of the builds you can create that feel underpowered. Because of wanting to represent the fluff, some builds and matchups are horrific.
But most likely if they were to balance things, you just wouldn't be allowed to build the army that way.
Added restrictions that benefit the tournament game but hurt the laid back game.

I believe a large part of the perceived imbalance of 40k comes from the sheer multitude of armies, units, wargear, and special rules.
Every rule you tweak needs to be analyzed to see how it affects everything else. GW just doesn't have the design resources to do this.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but the list of names credited in the last few codices has shrunk, and there are quite a few of those names I don't recognize.

i really want the adeptus mechanicus guard army

taylorton147 wrote:i really want the adeptus mechanicus guard army

And there is nothing stopping you from having it.

skrulnik wrote:
Every rule you tweak needs to be analyzed to see how it affects everything else. GW just doesn't have the design resources to do this.

Whilst I appreciate the point you're making, its not actually as difficult to fix as you think. What they need to do is standardise all the special rules (as USR's) from all armies and then look at them side by side on the one page. Any conflicts are then resolved by giving a priority order to rules (rule A trumps rule B). This kind of thing could be done incredibly quickly - but it won't be because it would involve GW saying 'we fethed up and now we need to fix it'.

Hubris is bad

The problem with this is that the effect of fixing the rules inconsistencies would be to affect the relative power of units in-game and would therefore require an overhaul of the points value of each unit (something else that desperately needs doing). This is what would take the time...

Mr. Burning wrote:

taylorton147 wrote:i really want the adeptus mechanicus guard army

And there is nothing stopping you from having it.

+1.

Just make a guard army using the units you think they would use. I would think hardened vets and lots of tanks.

thanks i think they are called the skatarii

taylorton147 wrote:i really want the adeptus mechanicus guard army

Then you shall have a Skitarii force

There's a bunch around but this one looks like the best one after I searched around for one before.

http://www.tempusfugitives.co.uk/pdf/40k/Codex%20Cult%20Mechanicus.pdf

thanks guys

I could see a whole mess of problems with releasing future codexes as Beta test PDFs, honestly. o-o First of all: if the codex doesn't change much, all you'd have to do is go in and notate a few things in your free PDF. Bam, free codex. I know I would.
Second: A whole lot of confusion as to which rules are the official ones, not the Beta. I could definitely see people trying to rule Beta rules as official rules because the official release was less than they hoped for. Not that people don't try to field their own rules already.

Well by the looks of it they just condensed them down into one unit then threw away the concept.

anooci wrote:I could see a whole mess of problems with releasing future codexes as Beta test PDFs, honestly. o-o First of all: if the codex doesn't change much, all you'd have to do is go in and notate a few things in your free PDF. Bam, free codex. I know I would.
Second: A whole lot of confusion as to which rules are the official ones, not the Beta. I could definitely see people trying to rule Beta rules as official rules because the official release was less than they hoped for. Not that people don't try to field their own rules already.

well maybe they would just cut it down like only give you rules and stats no fluff. i would prefer my codex to have fluff so i would by that instead of changing the beta

Beta Test PDF's "sound" great, but how do they filter the feedback and then implement it?

-There are no official forums.
-I feel bad for the poor saps that would have to slop through the garbage in search of some worthwhile feedback.
-How do you get over the Designer's personal agendas?
It's one thing to have your work critiqued by your boss/ co-workers. Something else entirely to have to listen to the likes of Stelek and other internet tough guys.

That said, I agree that there's no excuse for sloppy rules writing. The "Beer and Pretzel" excuse is a cop out, not a reality. Writing tight rules strengthens the tournament side, but doesn't effect the fluffy gamers. Clearly written rules also has the potential to bring both sides of the hobby closer.

Even though GW is out to make as much moolah as possible (I have no ill will towards this), I don't forsee anything changing. GW will continue to finance money loosing retail shops, continue to miss out on incorporating FW into their official GW line (IG exception) and continue to sell 1st draft rule books, which they've been doing since Rogue Trader.

idk why GW doesnt have a forum section in its official website

Because there was good reason their old forums were derogatorily referred to as, 'The Eye of Terror.'

The Harlequin codex was only necessary because Gav's 3rd ed Eldar codex was flavorless dribble (especially compared to the 2nd ed one). It's good to try and correct mistakes, but it's better to not make them in the first place.

Don't forget the downside to Chapter Approved. Does anyone else remember playing games with binders and binders of rules and scenarios in 2nd?

What a quirky codex! You could have over 300 point troop selections very easily. I would really like to see this on the table. You could chase Monstrous creatures all over the tabletop with some of those grossly overpowered weapons! I strongly approve.

The word you were looking for was drivel.

Gitzbitah wrote:What a quirky codex! You could have over 300 point troop selections very easily. I would really like to see this on the table. You could chase Monstrous creatures all over the tabletop with some of those grossly overpowered weapons! I strongly approve.

I've already versed Tyranids with it.
List was basically Warrior spam in pods with a Tyranid Prime and a Tyrant with two sets of Scything Talons.
Harlequins get owned in CC, their only defence in that book is the halving weapon skill thing, even then they need to be ws4 or lower for it to actually have an effect. But hitting everything on 3s is nice.

It's a fun "codex" though, but it seems very unfogiving to play.


As for the Ad Mech one, I haven't used it yet.

n0t_u wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:What a quirky codex! You could have over 300 point troop selections very easily. I would really like to see this on the table. You could chase Monstrous creatures all over the tabletop with some of those grossly overpowered weapons! I strongly approve.

I've already versed Tyranids with it.
List was basically Warrior spam in pods with a Tyranid Prime and a Tyrant with two sets of Scything Talons.
Harlequins get owned in CC, their only defence in that book is the halving weapon skill thing, even then they need to be ws4 or lower for it to actually have an effect. But hitting everything on 3s is nice.

It's a fun "codex" though, but it seems very unfogiving to play.


As for the Ad Mech one, I haven't used it yet.

Isn't the 'quin dex set up for 3rd ed rules? Just interested.

I'm not familiar with 3rd ed rules, but it does seem to have some 4th ed stuff that's gone in it.

The_0perator wrote:So I've recently been very disenchanted with Warhammer, and more importantly GW. The way 5th edition (Which is a step forward in a lot of ways) has developed the game, changed the meta, and shifted the hobby has left some armies in the dust. When I first got into the hobby GW was all I new and I was head over heels in love with 40k and Fantasy... But that was 2005, this is 2010. I'm older and have been opened up to other miniature companies and war games. And I can now compare GW to other companies, such as Privateer Press.

But I recently came across something interesting. I was going over the old Codex Harlequins written by Gav Thorpe (The Man, The Legend) for the harlequins which was designed as a beta test for when GW would eventually write codex Harlequins lol. Now this shocked me as GW literally comes across as the fat cat suit wearing monster most of the time. But this codex, made in the year 2000 shows that things were not always so bleak. Codex Harlequin Beta was released through the net for the public to play test it and hobbyists and players were encouraged to write in and comment on what they liked, hated, wanted changed etc.... exactly like a video game beta. Privateer Press did this with Warmachine MKII, which probably was the smartest move by a hobby company I've seen.

Imagine if GW went back to this, If they released lesser known forces like Harlequins, Mechanicum, Squats etc in PDF codex's for download. It would encourage fandom, conversions and sell more models. It would give fans of the fluff a chance to play a force they could not normally play. Imagine if GW released PDF's for all published armies to bring them in line with 5th when the rulebook dropped, and then added content and new models to the finished codex release. I know this is a lot of wish listing, but I saw this and it made me remember a time when there was more to GW then Jervis hating, Price Hikes, and people whining that there lists need updating. What do you guys think? Should GW adopt a more community conscious business form, can us as fans, and the people who pay their salaries, and play there games band together and force some changes.... am I crazy! Let me know.⨪

Bro, I have been saying this for years.

Is it going to happen? No. thats why I finally up and gave GW the two finger salute. I still like painting the models, putting the armies together and playing an occasional game, but as for jumping on the band wagon and drinking the Kool aid, no thanks. I've had my fill affter the shaftings that I continually got over the years, even after well thought out discussions and arguments over thier game directions, evolution( or devolution) and thier long term buisness models.

F!@$k em.

They decided that Lord of the Shwing was more important that the specialist game line, hobbying and building your own armies and units was taboo, and that you now will play a cookiecutter army and like it.

Once a long time ago it was about- Hey, here are the games, you guys out there go on ahead and have fun with it.

Back then, you didn't have to ask your mom if it was OK if you had an Ork Boss with a squad of genestealers that he caught on the hulk that they found, with the squad of space marines that he found along the way and made a deal with to go and crump stuff, while he used a platoon of IG that had defected to his side, along with the mutants, chaos cultists, and genestealer hybrids to bulk up the forces as added bulletstoppers.

Now, you better take that ork force all by itself, you better like it, and heaven help you if it isn't painted the way GW TELLS YOU TO!

Fantasy was the same way. You didn't need to ask permission to get different forces add them together with a narative of how it happened.

It didn't help that people went along with it like lemmings, happy just to get a new shiney. but there are some of us out there that grudgingly are going along with some asshat suit ideal of how gaming is supposed to be.

What they are ultimatly telling you as a player is that you arn't smart enough to make decisions. They are telling you everything from what to play to how to play it, to every detail in between to as little as how to paint it.

Add that to 50.00 boxes of a whopping 1-5 models, and you can go ahead and get your foot off my neck. I've had enough and there are more important games out there that are more relevent to my time, my effort, and my cash.

If youy want to play Eldar as a strictly Harlequin army, you should go on ahead and go with your gut. F!@#k them. Play your army and if someone wants to give you static, tell them to go blow. If you want to have a couple squads of IG and an inquisitor along for the ride, with a unit of ork mercanaries, why not. You go on ahead and do that to.

As long as you don't be a jackass about it, you have reasonable rules that are not stupid crazy, trying to be the be all kill all army, that you always have an answer for everything and "Well so and so has this special rule that... so basicly I get an automatic epic win. Suck it." then you shouldn't have an issue.

If you are having fun, that is the ultimate issue. Go out there and have some fun making YOUR army.

Wow, how long ago did you start playing?

Thanks of the shout out on my codex malfred.

I also made an army profile of my Harlequins:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Grunt13’s%20Harlequins
I am currently adding another troupe of harlequins, two more shadow seers, and another death jester.

I have had a lot of experience playing the CJ Harlequin rules; as an army, as allies to my eldar and radical daemon hunters, and even against them. Right when the beta codex came out I made a lucky Ebay find of a bunch of old harlequin models and created a 2000-point army. Way back in third they really could destroy the old power gamer lists that existed at the time. TMC spam and the three wraithlord armies fell like wheat to my harlequins, but armies that had numbers to throw around were almost impossible to beat once my opponents wised up to my tactics. Even a space marine army that favored infantry would outnumber the harlequins and swamp them easily. The rule of thumb was that a player that focused on creating super elite units was going to get embarrassed by a competent harlequin commander, but the harlequin army that has to face a number of basic troops would have an uphill climb. I actually had opponents which kept pouring points into super units for the express purpose of defeating my harlequins, “looks like that’s another supped up 3.5 edition chaos lord to die at the hands of my solitaire”.

The beta codex is over-cost and does not deliver as a competitive codex, it never did; that being said, I thoroughly enjoyed playing it. The beta codex also suffers because of its age. 3rd edition suffered a lot from having a lot of the flavor removed from the game, something that later editions rectified a bit, and the harlequin beta codex is a clear example of this 3rd edition mentality. Rules like “hit and run” didn’t exist in the game at the time the codex was created, so rather regrettably, the harlequin beta codex is like a fossil of the harlequins’ ancestor rather than what they should be.

I made my fan made rules to bring them into line with 5th edition and add a bit to their character. I am short on both opponents and time so I didn’t get much of a chance to play test my rules yet; so any feedback on my codex is appreciated.

PS: There are other beta codices out there, Genestealer cults are one I clearly remember.

@grot 6. I wanna play a game with you. It sounds like you would have no issues with my Tau/Ork army. I can't get anybody to go with the concept of a "radical" ethereal who has an understanding that while the Orks are impossible to convince to join the greater good they are simple creatures who can be manipulated. If Kroot mercenaries are acceptable for Tau so are Orks if used for a specific goal. I try and limit myself to specific groups of Orks that would be mercenaries per fluff but I like to mix them. Good way to solve the no close combat for Tau in a logical way and it still requires tactics since the Tau still need to stay out of assault.

skrulnik wrote:The word you were looking for was drivel.

No, it was dribble. Like the spit that runs out the side of your mouth when looking away aimlessly. I think that fits quite nicely.

If we're talking about "unofficial" Codices, BoLS does this already.

GW really doesn't need to create unofficial stuff that won't be supported.

5 years later, and Codex Harlequin is back