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.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I would love to play with Asmodai's old rule Hunt for the Fallen, scoring extra VPs just for killing one guy, but its not happening.

Move on.

Yep, and I would love to have good old veteran scout sergeant Naaman back as an upgrade character to use once in a while but it didn't happen. Just move on and enjoy the codex you have. Anyway it looks like GW will be updating codexes every edition if they keep up the current pacing (w/ supplements for everyone).

Boneswords ignore armour. That's basically AP2.

kb305 wrote:

UnadoptedPuppy wrote:
I think GW honestly trusts their players to ignore the obvious discrepancies. A 5th codex in a 6th world should have some discrepancies, or the game isn't changing much.

i disagree. it looks lazy like you're playing some alpha game full of bugs. for the ammount theyre charging it should be a fully up to date polished finished product.

codexs should be in pdf format, they could constantly update the rules as needed and keep a record of what theyre changing. of course they will never do this because theyre money grubbing and couldnt give two feths about the game quality.

game developers release good update patches with all kinds of stuff CODED into their games and gw cant even be bothered to type up a few sentences

^ This, 100% agree. For the ammount of money they charge their production quality should be through the roof. I honestly only play 40k over other game systems because I LOVE the 40K universe. The setting, the art, the whole dynatopian universe is exactly what I like. I just wish the actual game system was more solid.

 BladeTX wrote:
What? You want them to actually make things correctly? That has literally never happened! For example, why can't we have a DOW that actually has all the races? That's a bicker for another time though. Actually making things correct to the story, and yet balanced and game-worthy takes way to much time and effort when all you want is money.

Well... Dawn of War isn't (and never was) a GW product. It was licensed from GW by THQ and developed by Relic Entertainment, which is now owned by Sega, following THQ's bankruptcy filing earlier this year.

With the old prices it wouldnt be as bad but currently the books alone cost SO MUCH i agree its pretty fething dumb its not polished and well written.

Honestly, who the hell buys a codex/brb for the pretty pictures? Thats what they use to buff the prices up, not the words in the book.

About the time GW needs to be "fixing" the codex is about the time it needs to flatout update it. They only have so much money in the budget though and can't afford to drop in 15 codexes and their supporting model ranges all at the same time, so they use a staggered release schedule.

That said I like the new, faster release schedule. At this rate all the books will be done by mid to late 2015 and we could see a number of supplements available to let people build more variations of different armies to allow us to see even more variety on the table (and I'm a big fan of variety).

 Vineheart01 wrote:
With the old prices it wouldnt be as bad but currently the books alone cost SO MUCH i agree its pretty fething dumb its not polished and well written.

Honestly, who the hell buys a codex/brb for the pretty pictures? Thats what they use to buff the prices up, not the words in the book.

The pretty pictures are for selling the codex to people that don't have models [of that army] yet. I know it worked on me, I started WH40k only because a friend of mine left his ork codex lying around and I read through the fluff and looked at the pictures.

I'm not going to agree with the "it's too expensive to maintain rules" part. Once you have brought your rules into an actual parse-able format, it's only a matter of implementing and testing changes. They should be playing games all the time, or at least looking at games going on at tournaments or GW stores, so someone should have come to notice the rise of the night scythe(random example). What to do?
- Pick up parsable rules, look at night scythe, figure out solution. GW comes up with something awesome as implementing a random table for teleporting necrons out of it.
- On August 1st they release a list of changes, among them "Night scythe: Whenever a unit disembarks from a night scythe, apply following rules: <cinematic table of necrons teleporting to their doom>"
- Add entry to list of changes to the necron codex. No stupid question-answer format.
- Sell fancy sticky-notes (via White Dwarf or whatever) for people to add to their codex.
- Observe more games
- Realize people don't like their warriors randomly teleporting into rocks.
- Find new solution

The entire video game industry does it, TCGs do it, some of the more popular board game companies do it, even their wargaming competitors do it. If they claim, they can't do it, I don't believe them. Sadly many of GW's long-time customers are so traumatized by their terrible rules, they don't believe in good rules. When I tell a long-term WH40k veteran that there is absolutely no situation in Magic: The Gathering where the rules fail to tell you what exactly you have to do, they simply don't believe me.

 insaniak wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Considering the blistering rate of codex rollout right now, it may be better to calm down and just play.

I would agree with this somewhat, if not for the number of errors in those still-smoking codexes.

I think its worth pointing out that other companies such as Privateer Press are able to update every army once a year and at the same time. It is not impossible to both update and balance rules if the desire is there, other smaller companies have proven that. I believe large variation in quality and balance in GW's rules is a cultural issue at the company and relatively low priority for them to fix.

4plus wrote:
I think its worth pointing out that other companies such as Privateer Press are able to update every army once a year and at the same time.

Would YOU want to be in a GW store on new-codex release day?
Just think what the queues would be like, if every new codex came out on the same day, along with new models.
And a new rules set.

If a lot of GW's sales come from bandwagoning, that'd die off if there's no army of the month.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
With the old prices it wouldnt be as bad but currently the books alone cost SO MUCH i agree its pretty fething dumb its not polished and well written.

Honestly, who the hell buys a codex/brb for the pretty pictures? Thats what they use to buff the prices up, not the words in the book.

The pretty pictures are for selling the codex to people that don't have models [of that army] yet. I know it worked on me, I started WH40k only because a friend of mine left his ork codex lying around and I read through the fluff and looked at the pictures.

I'm not going to agree with the "it's too expensive to maintain rules" part. Once you have brought your rules into an actual parse-able format, it's only a matter of implementing and testing changes. They should be playing games all the time, or at least looking at games going on at tournaments or GW stores, so someone should have come to notice the rise of the night scythe(random example). What to do?
- Pick up parsable rules, look at night scythe, figure out solution. GW comes up with something awesome as implementing a random table for teleporting necrons out of it.
- On August 1st they release a list of changes, among them "Night scythe: Whenever a unit disembarks from a night scythe, apply following rules: <cinematic table of necrons teleporting to their doom>"
- Add entry to list of changes to the necron codex. No stupid question-answer format.
- Sell fancy sticky-notes (via White Dwarf or whatever) for people to add to their codex.
- Observe more games
- Realize people don't like their warriors randomly teleporting into rocks.
- Find new solution

The entire video game industry does it, TCGs do it, some of the more popular board game companies do it, even their wargaming competitors do it. If they claim, they can't do it, I don't believe them. Sadly many of GW's long-time customers are so traumatized by their terrible rules, they don't believe in good rules. When I tell a long-term WH40k veteran that there is absolutely no situation in Magic: The Gathering where the rules fail to tell you what exactly you have to do, they simply don't believe me.

They already realized that people don't like warriors teleporting into rocks. That's why there is no random table.

Random example is still random. Replace with helldrake, purifier or whatever people in a store near you are complaining about.

 Skinnereal wrote:

4plus wrote:
I think its worth pointing out that other companies such as Privateer Press are able to update every army once a year and at the same time.

Would YOU want to be in a GW store on new-codex release day?
Just think what the queues would be like, if every new codex came out on the same day, along with new models.
And a new rules set.

If a lot of GW's sales come from bandwagoning, that'd die off if there's no army of the month.

Who still buys in store?


The thing is, they could still have their flavour of the month army ... it would just be centered around new model releases and expansion material, rather than core rules.

The fact that with the current system an army can go through 3 different editions of the game without a codex update is laughable.

I think that if 40K has a main theme, it's that the rules are downright draconian when it comes to updating anything.

Some of this "releasing a bunch of new codices all at once is hard (or doesn't make as much money)" talk is missing the point. This isn't really about all-out revisions, just easy patches.

I think the Nightscythe example isn't that good. That's making a significant change to how the game plays. Really all that needs to be done is for GW to say "now Nightscythes cost a base of X" points, where X is more than they cost now. Iterate on that a few times until Necrons do well in matches but aren't ridiculously overrepresented. Or they could say "the Tesla rule only applies when not snap-firing" and would instantly fix a whole lot of what's weird about the Necrons. Small tweaks are perfectly fine between codex releases, but small tweaks really should be made in order to make bad units worthwhile and so as not to allow too-good units to dominate lists.

Sometimes it's immediately apparent after a codex comes out that some things are too good and some things are too bad. The Eldar codex is still pretty new, but I think everyone's aware that Wave Serpents are really good while Howling Banshees are still awful. It's a little annoying that there's no chance of that changing until 7th or a new Eldar codex. Complicated new mechanics aren't necessary. "One use only" on Serpent Shields probably brings them into line with most other codices. Maybe Banshees should be able to assault out of Serpents. Try those and see what it does to Eldar lists and Eldar win rates against different armies.

I too would like to see points adjustments in FAQs. Didn't they try that before though?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I too would like to see points adjustments in FAQs. Didn't they try that before though?

Once, in a errata for CSM.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I too would like to see points adjustments in FAQs. Didn't they try that before though?

Once, in a errata for CSM.

Did it go well? There has to be a reason why they didn't keep doing it.

That wasn't an actual point adjustment. Hellbrutes were 105 in the English codex and 100 in every other language, so it was just a typo.

Heck, the ruling that allowed chaos terminators to wield two special weapons again was more of a change.

I would have to say what defines a broken codex?

One thing I enjoy in warhammer40k is that their are so many choices in the codex. You have several HQ's a few Fast attack at least 2 Troops a few Elites and a Few heavy support. That is at least twenty unit options which also have more options which can be moved around for more options spread around for a dozen codexes and you get the confused mess that is warhammer 40k.

What makes a codex broken is the main deciding factor. For me it is when the rules of the army no longer apply/work in how we expected them to. IE orks and their wagh. As far as new codexs go they work how they are suppose to for the most part. Sure you can argue that a few of your units "suck." That really is just player perspective and skill level. Units that die easy, or lack lustily fill a roll is often the fun or fluffy units. Flash gits are a good example and so are tau vespids. They are playable, they do work, but the majority don't to invest in non sure fire units.

I would have to say the recent releases of the Codexs have been good. I enjoy the new Chaos, and DA's and more especially with these supplements. However, no matter how well a game system is created their is always going to be unused units and things that are "broken" it is all about the players mind setting.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I too would like to see points adjustments in FAQs. Didn't they try that before though?

They have also done it for things like SW and DA storm shields when the rules updated on them.

I would have to say what defines a broken codex?

I would say one of the following:

1) Broken tactics that appear relevant, but require rule dancing to make even the slightest sense
2) Lack of variety. If a codex wins tournaments, we assume its a good codex. But what if its literally only one or two lists that actually work, while the rest get crushed instantly?
3) Poor grammer, primarily as a result of bad translations (including between the English dialects not just between languages). A unit, rule, or weapon may make 0 sense because of the way its worded. Tau bomber for instance...it has no bomb to start with even though its pretty obvious its SUPPOSE to.

The rest are just the shifts of balances no longer favoring a codex such as point costs, which they will NEVER change in a faq. Im still surprised you sometimes see a slight stat change in faqs, as even that releases codex info for free.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I too would like to see points adjustments in FAQs. Didn't they try that before though?

They have also done it for things like SW and DA storm shields when the rules updated on them.

And it took how long before they actually gained these?

There is another, perhaps more sinister, reason for not fixing overpowered units in Codexes - although admittedly some good work has been done in fixing overpowered Codexes overall as they're being updated.
That reason is extra sales for units that weren't doing too hot before. I think it's fair to say Wave Serpents were very popular back in 4th, then much less so in 5th, and suddenly now they're tasty cookies again under the new 6th Codex. And while Banshees are still kinda meh, Swooping Hawks have received a buff and Dire Avengers are no longer the auto-choice they once were compared to Guardians.

There is no way the situation with Daemon Flamers last year was accidental, either. I'd love to see the sales figures for those over the last 3 years or so.

pantsonhead wrote:
Some of this "releasing a bunch of new codices all at once is hard (or doesn't make as much money)" talk is missing the point. This isn't really about all-out revisions, just easy patches.

I think the Nightscythe example isn't that good. That's making a significant change to how the game plays. Really all that needs to be done is for GW to say "now Nightscythes cost a base of X" points, where X is more than they cost now. Iterate on that a few times until Necrons do well in matches but aren't ridiculously overrepresented. Or they could say "the Tesla rule only applies when not snap-firing" and would instantly fix a whole lot of what's weird about the Necrons. Small tweaks are perfectly fine between codex releases, but small tweaks really should be made in order to make bad units worthwhile and so as not to allow too-good units to dominate lists.

Sometimes it's immediately apparent after a codex comes out that some things are too good and some things are too bad. The Eldar codex is still pretty new, but I think everyone's aware that Wave Serpents are really good while Howling Banshees are still awful. It's a little annoying that there's no chance of that changing until 7th or a new Eldar codex. Complicated new mechanics aren't necessary. "One use only" on Serpent Shields probably brings them into line with most other codices. Maybe Banshees should be able to assault out of Serpents. Try those and see what it does to Eldar lists and Eldar win rates against different armies.

That's pretty much what I meant. I just assumed that GW wouldn't get the "small tweak" part the first ten times around and would start tossing weird things like random tables or strange special rules at things. I just picked night scythes because I overheard a couple of people at a store discussing whether to ban them from the next tournament, because apparently two necron players keep placing first and second with their croissants of doom lists. None of the discusser actually have a say in that though. You're probably just better at explaining than me

 Vineheart01 wrote:
New editiona rendering something useless is understandable, and its usually faq'd if its important pretty quickly.

What i dont get is brand new rules have glaring holes in them, and arent noticed by gw at all or not for awhile. Ymdc threads are full of examples.
Or rather than a rule, a new or pre-existing unit in a new codex doesnt get fixed to atleast have a fun factor level of use. Vespid come to mind on this one. Was trash before, still is. I dont even know how i would just mess around with them theyre so bad lol

Or Ork Kommandos. Can no longer assault from outflank or infiltrate, and so are worthless. They haven't received any buff to make up for this, or a points drop, or anything. Can't even get Shootas on the damn things.

Edit: Or Flash Gits. Or even the new Blitzabommer - AP4 makes that thing a joke

Just having two bombs is really what makes them a joke. If you could get an array of missiles like the burna bommer, it would at least just be overcosted and not a total joke.
Seriously, the best thing to happen is rolling the worst result on table, because only by crashing the whole damn plane into something you have a realistic chance of destroying your target.

You might also want to add kanz, deff dreads, looted wagons, warbuggies (especially the skorcha) and nobz (both squad leaders and the unit) to the list. All of these could use some fine-tuning to make them viable again.