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.

CSM was bland in 6th edition.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Pull out some units. Add them back via formation dataslates that cost extra.

The equation is simple and does not depend on Unbound.

However it is fine for GW to pull whatever outrageous whacky gak they like because wargamers are never satisfied so any complaints are invalid.

Gawd, what a bunch of whining!!

None of the Formations have actually added new models into their armies. I'm not sure where that idea comes form.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
None of the Formations have actually added new models into their armies. I'm not sure where that idea comes form.

Well, technically the assassins dataslate does it, but other than that, not really.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
None of the Formations have actually added new models into their armies. I'm not sure where that idea comes form.

Well, technically the assassins dataslate does it, but other than that, not really.

That's not a formation though, that's a dataslate which is a stand alone thing. You don't need a codex to use it, but you need specific codexes to use formations. Like I need the CSM codex to use the Helbrute dataslate.

The blandness in the codices in regards to units being straight up removed is directly related to Games Workshop being butthurt about the Chapterhouse defeat. Any unit that doesn't have a model gets tanked, that way 3rd party companies like Chapterhouse can't sell models for that unit. It's dumb and petty on GW's part, because it doesn't actually benefit GW in any way. They don't actually gain anything from, say, Chapterhouse no longer having a demand for their "Not-Doom-of-Malantai-Doom-of-Malantai" model. Games Workshop doesn't actually gain anything from 3rd-partyX's "not-a-mycetic-spore-mycetic-spore" model. It hurts those companies, yeah, but it doesn't directly benefit Games Workshop. So it's just petty foot-stamping on their part, which feths over the 40K fanbase.

The blandess of the codices in regards to things like the removal of all FoC-manipulations is directly related to Unbound. It's apart of the same strategy that GW is using for LoW, which is to subtly coerce players into using these game features. "Oh, you're used to having Wracks as troops and want to continue to do so? Go Unbound then!" and "oh, you're used to using Logan Grimnar and want to continue to do so? Go LoW then!"

Why is GW obsessed with trying to get you to play with Unbound lists and LoW's? Because they want you to buy more models, of course, and LoW's and Unbound are gateways toward enticing you into buying more models. "You're already using Unbound lists so that you can continue playing that Nob-biker army you've been using for 5 years- now that you've dipped your foot in the pool, why not wade in and think about buying some more bikerz so you can field an entire army of Nob Bikerz?! Haven't you always wanted to play a full-on Speed Freakz army? Unbound's got your back." "You're \using the Lord of War slot so that you can continue fielding Logan Grimnar like you've been doing for 5 years. Why not take the plunge and buy a couple of those rad Super-Heavies? I mean, you're already using LoW's anyway..."

 Souleater wrote:

But if Codexes have lost a lot of flavour (and I don't know if this is true) then could it be linked to unbound? What I mean is, have they reduced the rules available in an attempt to prevent unforseen, over-powered combinations?

I highly doubt it.

If their intention was to improve balance, then they would have shot the guy who wrote 'Invisibility' and burned all his other writing just to be sure. Likewise, putting a blanket ban on rerolling invulnerable saves would have stopped a lot of death stars in their tracks.

I think what they're actually doing is putting as little effort into new books as possible, so that they can churn them out more quickly. Frankly, I think it's a sign of desperation on their part - since their finances are looking shaky and, since they don't do market research, they have no idea how to actually appeal to their customers.

Looks like a whole heap of "balance" was applied to Dark Eldar. Lord knows those Special Characters didn't have mode---I mean, weren't balanced! Yeah, that's the word we're using now!

Hurray for blandness...

 Accolade wrote:
Looks like a whole heap of "balance" was applied to Dark Eldar. Lord knows those Special Characters didn't have mode---I mean, weren't balanced! Yeah, that's the word we're using now!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Like I said: gamerz. Can't please 'em. I didnt start war gaming will 2000, and when I got into it I almost jumped right out again and hid behind my D&D players handbook. There's no bigger pool of whiney malcontents. Obviously i found enough that werent that way to proceed, but i am constantly reminded unfortunately of why I love having DM's to squash the bahavior. it isnt that D&D players dont whine. Its that theres someone around with the authority to crush it. And I do like that.

In Warhammer, youre just praying the other guy is reasonable and that he will be willing to roll off disagreements. If it goes the other way...

Unless of course the DM is a whiny malcontent.

Sure but then, he's not your DM very long is he?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The blandness in the codices in regards to units being straight up removed is directly related to Games Workshop being butthurt about the Chapterhouse defeat. Any unit that doesn't have a model gets tanked, that way 3rd party companies like Chapterhouse can't sell models for that unit. It's dumb and petty on GW's part, because it doesn't actually benefit GW in any way. They don't actually gain anything from, say, Chapterhouse no longer having a demand for their "Not-Doom-of-Malantai-Doom-of-Malantai" model. Games Workshop doesn't actually gain anything from 3rd-partyX's "not-a-mycetic-spore-mycetic-spore" model. It hurts those companies, yeah, but it doesn't directly benefit Games Workshop. So it's just petty foot-stamping on their part, which feths over the 40K fanbase.

The blandess of the codices in regards to things like the removal of all FoC-manipulations is directly related to Unbound. It's apart of the same strategy that GW is using for LoW, which is to subtly coerce players into using these game features. "Oh, you're used to having Wracks as troops and want to continue to do so? Go Unbound then!" and "oh, you're used to using Logan Grimnar and want to continue to do so? Go LoW then!"

Why is GW obsessed with trying to get you to play with Unbound lists and LoW's? Because they want you to buy more models, of course, and LoW's and Unbound are gateways toward enticing you into buying more models. "You're already using Unbound lists so that you can continue playing that Nob-biker army you've been using for 5 years- now that you've dipped your foot in the pool, why not wade in and think about buying some more bikerz so you can field an entire army of Nob Bikerz?! Haven't you always wanted to play a full-on Speed Freakz army? Unbound's got your back." "You're \using the Lord of War slot so that you can continue fielding Logan Grimnar like you've been doing for 5 years. Why not take the plunge and buy a couple of those rad Super-Heavies? I mean, you're already using LoW's anyway..."

In regards to the Force Org Manipulation, I don't feel that is really relevant to codex blandness. I mean, it does hurt it a little, but with everything now being capable of scoring, you don't need the force org manipulating. I also like the feeling that my ACTUAL troops have more relevance with being capable of 'super scoring' instead of being a mere tax to get more and more of my 'troops but not troops'.

Will I miss being able to fill my Troops slots with Nob Bikers? Bet your ass I will. But will I cry about it? No. Because it's not that bad. It's also dumb that my super durable nob bikers could super score. It's also dumb that my Deff Dread could super score. Troops have value now. Though I do understand not every codex has 'good' troops. But that's the weakness of those armies when it comes to objective based games.

 Jancoran wrote:
Like I said: gamerz. Can't please 'em. I didnt start war gaming will 2000, and when I got into it I almost jumped right out again and hid behind my D&D players handbook. There's no bigger pool of whiney malcontents. Obviously i found enough that werent that way to proceed, but i am constantly reminded unfortunately of why I love having DM's to squash the bahavior. it isnt that D&D players dont whine. Its that theres someone around with the authority to crush it. And I do like that.

You're seriously using D&D as an example of a community that is not a "pool of whiney malcontents", with the amount of constant whining over 4E? We're not talking about it on a game-by-game basis, unless you regularly have conversations about the merits of Games Workshop's policies while playing the game. WoTC are far more competent at pleasing their fanbase. They also don't charge nearly as much, and they aren't anywhere near as stupid as Games Workshop (please see anything ever uttered by Tom Kirby, of which there are some real gems that grace various signatures on Dakka). Furthermore, D&D is a non-competitive game that is extremely accepting of house ruling due to its freeform nature and DM format, so problems caused by the developer are far less problematic. You're also very rarely forced to use the latest rules for D&D.

Speaking of non-existent models and Chapterhouse, I love that line by the GW guy that goes something like "People say that [Chapterhouse owner] is providing a service to wargamers who just want those models. But he's not! He's evil and a money thief! If he was even slightly into the hobby - which he is not at all - then he would know that every unit in every book we have ever made is a model we intend to make and sell and provide to our legions of mindless fans". That is a funny joke, Games Workshop man. Surely they intended to graciously provide me with a Mycetic Spore and a Doom of Malan'tai to put in it, but they couldn't because the stars weren't aligned properly.

You can win. Its easy. You listen to people.

People will talk to you. If you ignore them, they think you can't hear them.

People will yell at you. If you ignore them, they realize you're not listening.

People will scream at you. If you ignore them, they leave.


Dropzone and Xwing are two games that have really happy communities. Yes the games are smaller... but I primarily believe its because they KNOW the developers are listening to the community, are engaging the community, and are there for the community (and to take the community's hard earned money in exchange for plastic crap).

So much stuff is infinitely more 'acceptable' if you talk it over with the other person. If you screw me over, I'd really appreciate it if you tried to explain why. Even if I don't agree, at least you made the effort to acknowledge you've wronged me (injury perceived or real).

Personally I don't mind bland books. This whole game is at a level of crazy I just can't get behind. The kind of game that lets a tranny c'tan hit the table isn't a game I'm very interested in anymore.

What I have a problem with is the fact that a). GW will not keep on this course forever and we'll be back in crazytown in no time b). GW's own current releases are inconsistent as they randomly put crap like knights and supplements and dataslates in. If you're going to rein in the game, rein it in. Don't pull back with your left hand but shove crazy forward with the right.

Can anyone actually think of any other games with a fanbase they would consider generally unhappy?

I mean D&D I would have said so a year back but 5th ed seems to have been really well revived by the vast majority of the fanbase.

Warmachine I have met some players I could only describe as donkey caves, but that is me being put off the game by them, not the company putting them off the game.

I honestly can't think of any other company that attracts this much flak from their customers.

I do: Every single company.
GW hardly gets any flak, it's just how a forum works if excessive whining isn't a bannable offence.

Melevolence wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The blandness in the codices in regards to units being straight up removed is directly related to Games Workshop being butthurt about the Chapterhouse defeat. Any unit that doesn't have a model gets tanked, that way 3rd party companies like Chapterhouse can't sell models for that unit. It's dumb and petty on GW's part, because it doesn't actually benefit GW in any way. They don't actually gain anything from, say, Chapterhouse no longer having a demand for their "Not-Doom-of-Malantai-Doom-of-Malantai" model. Games Workshop doesn't actually gain anything from 3rd-partyX's "not-a-mycetic-spore-mycetic-spore" model. It hurts those companies, yeah, but it doesn't directly benefit Games Workshop. So it's just petty foot-stamping on their part, which feths over the 40K fanbase.

The blandess of the codices in regards to things like the removal of all FoC-manipulations is directly related to Unbound. It's apart of the same strategy that GW is using for LoW, which is to subtly coerce players into using these game features. "Oh, you're used to having Wracks as troops and want to continue to do so? Go Unbound then!" and "oh, you're used to using Logan Grimnar and want to continue to do so? Go LoW then!"

Why is GW obsessed with trying to get you to play with Unbound lists and LoW's? Because they want you to buy more models, of course, and LoW's and Unbound are gateways toward enticing you into buying more models. "You're already using Unbound lists so that you can continue playing that Nob-biker army you've been using for 5 years- now that you've dipped your foot in the pool, why not wade in and think about buying some more bikerz so you can field an entire army of Nob Bikerz?! Haven't you always wanted to play a full-on Speed Freakz army? Unbound's got your back." "You're \using the Lord of War slot so that you can continue fielding Logan Grimnar like you've been doing for 5 years. Why not take the plunge and buy a couple of those rad Super-Heavies? I mean, you're already using LoW's anyway..."

In regards to the Force Org Manipulation, I don't feel that is really relevant to codex blandness. I mean, it does hurt it a little, but with everything now being capable of scoring, you don't need the force org manipulating. I also like the feeling that my ACTUAL troops have more relevance with being capable of 'super scoring' instead of being a mere tax to get more and more of my 'troops but not troops'.

Will I miss being able to fill my Troops slots with Nob Bikers? Bet your ass I will. But will I cry about it? No. Because it's not that bad. It's also dumb that my super durable nob bikers could super score. It's also dumb that my Deff Dread could super score. Troops have value now. Though I do understand not every codex has 'good' troops. But that's the weakness of those armies when it comes to objective based games.

It's a bit inconsistent to start off your post with saying "everything scores now so it doesn't matter if they're troops anyway" and then repeatedly say throughout said post "troops are valuable now instead of being a tax". Do troops have value or don't they? If they do then yeah, your nob bikers losing the option to become them for no reason other than to coerce more money out of people sucks balls.

That aside, I don't know see anyone "crying" about it, unless in your mind pointing out that removing all the FoC manipulations and flavor from the codices was a completely arbitrary and moronic decision that was only made for the sake of getting more money out of the fanbase and had absolutely no benefit on the game at all constitutes as crying.

Kangodo wrote:
I do: Every single company.
GW hardly gets any flak, it's just how a forum works if excessive whining isn't a bannable offence.

I didn't explicitly state that I meant within this hobby, but I thought it was implied. Keeping that in mind can you actually provide evidence to back this up?
None of the official forums I have seen, nor the other sections of Dakka not covering GW games, have mods banning people or removing posts and yet there is almost no negativity there.

Back to the subject of blandness -

No. Unbound is NOT the cause of the "blandness". As was already pointed out, unbound in combination with some of the 7th ed. rules changes may be responsible for the lack of HQ's shifting force org slots but that's about it. I say this because I was around for the shift from 2nd. to 3rd. Does anyone else remember that? The original 3rd ed. books were basically pamphlets passed off as codexes. If you think Orks have it bad now, you should have seen them then. They went from a super fluffy race consisting of multiple clans and styles to just "Orks". Almost all of their history and character got removed and all the fun bits were left on the cutting room floor. Pretty much all the books went through that and it's why I sat that entire edition out. Gav Thorpe even said at one point that, looking back, they went way too far in "streamlining" those books and feels they took a good deal of fun out of the game.

So no, unbound isn't causing "bland" books and, if I'm being honest, while the new books aren't the best we've ever had, they're a damn site better than some of the previous editions. It's just another hill in the roller-coaster ride that is GW imo.

Kangodo wrote:
They got rid of the units without models for legal reasons.

This seems to work like this:
1. Codex gets written, and includes entries without models.
2. Models for the codex entry gets made by 3rd party.
3. CHS lawsuit happens.
4. GW now cannot make models for codex entries because 3rd parties beat them to it, and GW would be copying their models.

So, GW now cannot make models for their own units and characters, as the legal ownership is relevant to the medium of the item.
GW owns the entry in print, and rules, and usually in pictures.
But now, as the model was created when GW didn't have one, only the 3rd party can create that model now, and GW are stumped. Even if it was based on the codexes description, or even GW's pictures, they cannot make a model that looks like that.

Or something.

But yes, bland codexes can ally more easily.
Supplements can fill in some colour, but hardly enough.

One thing I'll say is that I don't think FoC switching was ever a good idea.

I can't recall a single instance that didn't lead to one of the following scenarios:
a) The unit is underpowered in its own slot, so needs the FoC switch just to be worthwhile (Wracks and Hellions both come to mind).
b) The unit is strong in its own slot, and becomes overpowered as a troop choice.

Neither seems good for the game.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Like I said: gamerz. Can't please 'em. I didnt start war gaming will 2000, and when I got into it I almost jumped right out again and hid behind my D&D players handbook. There's no bigger pool of whiney malcontents. Obviously i found enough that werent that way to proceed, but i am constantly reminded unfortunately of why I love having DM's to squash the bahavior. it isnt that D&D players dont whine. Its that theres someone around with the authority to crush it. And I do like that.

You're seriously using D&D as an example of a community that is not a "pool of whiney malcontents", with the amount of constant whining over 4E? We're not talking about it on a game-by-game basis, unless you regularly have conversations about the merits of Games Workshop's policies while playing the game. WoTC are far more competent at pleasing their fanbase. They also don't charge nearly as much, and they aren't anywhere near as stupid as Games Workshop (please see anything ever uttered by Tom Kirby, of which there are some real gems that grace various signatures on Dakka). Furthermore, D&D is a non-competitive game that is extremely accepting of house ruling due to its freeform nature and DM format, so problems caused by the developer are far less problematic. You're also very rarely forced to use the latest rules for D&D.

Speaking of non-existent models and Chapterhouse, I love that line by the GW guy that goes something like "People say that [Chapterhouse owner] is providing a service to wargamers who just want those models. But he's not! He's evil and a money thief! If he was even slightly into the hobby - which he is not at all - then he would know that every unit in every book we have ever made is a model we intend to make and sell and provide to our legions of mindless fans". That is a funny joke, Games Workshop man. Surely they intended to graciously provide me with a Mycetic Spore and a Doom of Malan'tai to put in it, but they couldn't because the stars weren't aligned properly.

You didnt read what I said. i said there were whiners...actually....if you had read it... But that there was someone to crush the silly behavior. A way to rid yourself of it.

Anything GW removed, for fear of someone else making it first, can be added back in with a White Dwarf article and Dataslate when and if GW decides to make the model.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Like I said: gamerz. Can't please 'em. I didnt start war gaming will 2000, and when I got into it I almost jumped right out again and hid behind my D&D players handbook. There's no bigger pool of whiney malcontents. Obviously i found enough that werent that way to proceed, but i am constantly reminded unfortunately of why I love having DM's to squash the bahavior. it isnt that D&D players dont whine. Its that theres someone around with the authority to crush it. And I do like that.

You're seriously using D&D as an example of a community that is not a "pool of whiney malcontents", with the amount of constant whining over 4E? We're not talking about it on a game-by-game basis, unless you regularly have conversations about the merits of Games Workshop's policies while playing the game. WoTC are far more competent at pleasing their fanbase. They also don't charge nearly as much, and they aren't anywhere near as stupid as Games Workshop (please see anything ever uttered by Tom Kirby, of which there are some real gems that grace various signatures on Dakka). Furthermore, D&D is a non-competitive game that is extremely accepting of house ruling due to its freeform nature and DM format, so problems caused by the developer are far less problematic. You're also very rarely forced to use the latest rules for D&D.

Speaking of non-existent models and Chapterhouse, I love that line by the GW guy that goes something like "People say that [Chapterhouse owner] is providing a service to wargamers who just want those models. But he's not! He's evil and a money thief! If he was even slightly into the hobby - which he is not at all - then he would know that every unit in every book we have ever made is a model we intend to make and sell and provide to our legions of mindless fans". That is a funny joke, Games Workshop man. Surely they intended to graciously provide me with a Mycetic Spore and a Doom of Malan'tai to put in it, but they couldn't because the stars weren't aligned properly.

You didnt read what I said. i said there were whiners...actually....if you had read it... But that there was someone to crush the silly behavior. A way to rid yourself of it.

You did not put the D&D community into the "pool of whiney malcontents" that are impossible to please (and if you are, it makes your point totally invalid because you were using them to contrast the 40k fanbase). Your point wasn't that "D&D and 40k players whine just as much about silly things, but in D&D you can ignore them". You were specifically complaining about the wargaming community is the "bigg[est] pool of whiney malcontents".

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
We're not talking about it on a game-by-game basis

Unless DMs regularly wade into forums and use their DM powers to "crush the silly behaviour". People complain about things. Sometimes their complaints are valid. When it's GW, complaints are almost always valid. As other people have said, this is demonstrable by looking at the communities of other wargames (Infinity, Warmahordes, etc) and how they are generally much more positive. This isn't because Warhammer players are of a particularly nasty breed, but because of the producers of the games in question (especially considering that a lot of people who play other wargames started with 40k or Fantasy).

 adamsouza wrote:
Anything GW removed, for fear of someone else making it first, can be added back in with a White Dwarf article and Dataslate when and if GW decides to make the model.

So, in addition to charging twice as much for each new codex, GW might be kind enough to throw us a crumb and allow us to purchase one of the units they removed as DLC?

 vipoid wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Anything GW removed, for fear of someone else making it first, can be added back in with a White Dwarf article and Dataslate when and if GW decides to make the model.

So, in addition to charging twice as much for each new codex, GW might be kind enough to throw us a crumb and allow us to purchase one of the units they removed as DLC?

Stop giving Kirby ideas.

 vipoid wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Anything GW removed, for fear of someone else making it first, can be added back in with a White Dwarf article and Dataslate when and if GW decides to make the model.

So, in addition to charging twice as much for each new codex, GW might be kind enough to throw us a crumb and allow us to purchase one of the units they removed as DLC?

Option 1. Gone and lost forever

Option 2. New model and White Dwarf Article/DLC

Yeah, I'll take option 2.

This all works a lot better when you stop pretending that GW is interested in anything other than making money.

Or...

Option 3. Produce codices that are full and complete with no need to produce DLC/WD/dataslates to include stuff that was once in the book.

I'll take 3.

 adamsouza wrote:

Option 1. Gone and lost forever

Option 2. New model and White Dwarf Article/DLC

Yeah, I'll take option 2.

Or, option 3, don't remove existing units in the first place.

 adamsouza wrote:

This all works a lot better when you stop pretending that GW is interested in anything other than making money.

I'm not pretending anything of the sort. I just don't see how taking a metaphorical dump in your customer base helps business.

Alienating your player base is never a good way to make money, even if the goal was to make money.

 vipoid wrote:
One thing I'll say is that I don't think FoC switching was ever a good idea.

I can't recall a single instance that didn't lead to one of the following scenarios:
a) The unit is underpowered in its own slot, so needs the FoC switch just to be worthwhile (Wracks and Hellions both come to mind).
b) The unit is strong in its own slot, and becomes overpowered as a troop choice.

Neither seems good for the game.

that seemed to have happened with codex space marines and bikes. even while fluffy for one chapter, they are almost the byword for Codex space marine troops.


As for "dlc", I prefer to have something like the looted wagon come out as a little extra thing. you don't have to buy the White dwarf, but someone who likes the looted wagon might still want it