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.
Galef wrote: I really hope that Codices don't change anything at all from the Indexes (aside from maybe points adjustments)-
I hope they change a ton. Because there's a lot of factions that NEED changing, that NEED additional unit types, that NEED more and better rules.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
As someone who's just getting back into 40k, I am really not into the idea of going back to Codex books for existing factions. For new ranges like a full Death Guard offering, sure, but for existing armies the Index books are such a better solution. Adding Codex books back in and having to stay on top of where the latest version of your rules are and losing the convenience of the consolidated Index books only a month after their release is not at all appealing to a new player. They JUST managed to make the game streamlined and manageable, there is no need to bloat it back up so quickly.
Because the only thing GW loves more than power creep is more money.
But seriously, the indexes were always only meant to be a placeholder. It even says somewhere in the rulebook or in the indexes that codexes will add relics and warlord traits and the like.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by.
Kheirn wrote: I really hope Aeldari gets a single codex now, or Ynnari will be a pain in the ass to play again... Four goddamn codexes for one army.
CSM from 7th edition tended to consist of...
Codex CSM IA 13
Traitor Legions
Be'lakor epub.
Helbrute epub
Codex KDK Traitor's Hate (if you wanted to use the Black Crusade detachment or a Renegade Knight).
Your 4 books were nothing to my small library that still performed sub-par
Hopefully, the Codices only add optional stuff. Needing 5+ publications for a single army is just ridiculous
Unfortunately, the added Warlord Traits, Relics, Stratagems & <Chapter Tactic> equivalents will all be too necessary to be "optional"
It was nice to have my 2 armies in 2 books for once. Hopefully Aeldari and Chaos get updated later rather than sooner so that it lasts a bit longer.
Kheirn wrote: I really hope Aeldari gets a single codex now, or Ynnari will be a pain in the ass to play again... Four goddamn codexes for one army.
I predict we will see this:
Release Group 1: Codex: Space Marines Codex: Chaos Marines Codex: Grey Knights Codex: Death Guard Codex: Blood Angels Codex: Dark Angels Codex: Thousand Sons Codex: Space Wolves Codex: Space Marines 2, Game-Rigging Boogaloo
Release Group 2: Codex: Imperial Guard Codex: Renegades and Heretics (guardsmen -1) Codex: Inquisition Codex: Daemons Codex: Adeptus Sororitas Codex: Khorne Daemons Codex: Tzeentch Daemons Codex: Imperial Knights Codex: Chaos Knights Codex: Space Marines 3, We Need More Guillimarines
Release Group 3: Codex: Orks Codex: T'au Codex: Deathwatch Codex: We Forgot The Iron Hands Codex: Necrons Codex: Tyranids Codex: Genestealer Cult Codex: Tyranids, But Now They're On A Space Hulk Codex: Aeldari Codex: Drukhari Codex: Harlequins Codex: Ynnari Codex: Primaris Marines
Release Group 4: Codex: 9th Edition, Bitches!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/05 15:10:36
amazingturtles wrote: Hmm.. looking at the faq, codexes are definitely meant to replace indexes, completely.
*sighs*
Where did you see that in the FAQ?
I may be wrong but it seems like it, from these answers:
What’s the difference between a codex and an index book?
The indexes let you play with your Warhammer 40,000 army until the codex for your faction is released. The idea being that the rules for units in codexes eventually supersede the rules for them presented in the index books.
Are the rules changing?
Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.
Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army?
The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.
Galef wrote: Hopefully, the Codices only add optional stuff. Needing 5+ publications for a single army is just ridiculous
Unfortunately, the added Warlord Traits, Relics, Stratagems & <Chapter Tactic> equivalents will all be too necessary to be "optional"
It was nice to have my 2 armies in 2 books for once. Hopefully Aeldari and Chaos get updated later rather than sooner so that it lasts a bit longer.
Galef wrote: I really hope that Codices don't change anything at all from the Indexes (aside from maybe points adjustments)-
I hope they change a ton. Because there's a lot of factions that NEED changing, that NEED additional unit types, that NEED more and better rules.
What are you talking about? All existing models have rules. The only things that "might" need adjusting are points values
-
Inquisition is an army that really needs to be fixed. It has things like the Jokaero that can buff... almost nothing at all, because it can only buff inquisition troops, and inquisition has nothing worth buffing.
But it could all be fixed with a rule that allowed the inq to put their keyword on things they bring in from other armies. Which is my guess as to how it will be done.
But it's true that there are things that really needs to be fixed, and Inquisition is the poster child. Not to say you can't play it, it's just really lazy at the moment.
Codex creep was one of the biggest reasons I left 40k back in 5th Ed. I knew this was coming, but still disappointing to say the least to see it come to fruition in 8th (all Marines by no coincidence, as well).
Mutter wrote: GW will make money with them?
What more reason do they need?
GW would arguably make more money just releasing yearly Indexes. Even if you double their size for fluff, additional faction rules, etc and charge $50, every player will still need to buy them.
currently playing: ASoIaF | Warhammer 40k: Kill Team
other favorites:
FO:WW | RUMBLESLAM | WarmaHordes | Carnevale | Infinity | Warcry | Wrath of Kings
Dr. Cheesesteak wrote: Codex creep was one of the biggest reasons I left 40k back in 5th Ed. I knew this was coming, but still disappointing to say the least to see it come to fruition in 8th (all Marines by no coincidence, as well).
Mutter wrote: GW will make money with them?
What more reason do they need?
GW would arguably make more money just releasing yearly Indexes. Even if you double their size for fluff, additional faction rules, etc and charge $50, every player will still need to buy them.
Codex creep is when each codex is better than the previous one for sales. While this was clearly the case in the past, there is nothing here to say that's gonna be the case now. Everything GW has said so far is in line with them at least trying to balance each codex. That's a huge difference from the previous intentional unbalance they created with codex creep.
What's funny is that even with codex creep, GW still made mid-creep releases just to gak on certain armies. Like CSM, where every release was increasingly mediocre and half-hearted, while being written by the same people that orchestrated the WK and Triptide.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/05 15:17:19
Galef wrote: Hopefully, the Codices only add optional stuff. Needing 5+ publications for a single army is just ridiculous Unfortunately, the added Warlord Traits, Relics, Stratagems & <Chapter Tactic> equivalents will all be too necessary to be "optional"
It was nice to have my 2 armies in 2 books for once. Hopefully Aeldari and Chaos get updated later rather than sooner so that it lasts a bit longer.
Galef wrote: I really hope that Codices don't change anything at all from the Indexes (aside from maybe points adjustments)-
I hope they change a ton. Because there's a lot of factions that NEED changing, that NEED additional unit types, that NEED more and better rules.
What are you talking about? All existing models have rules. The only things that "might" need adjusting are points values
-
Inquisition is an army that really needs to be fixed. It has things like the Jokaero that can buff... almost nothing at all, because it can only buff inquisition troops, and inquisition has nothing worth buffing. But it could all be fixed with a rule that allowed the inq to put their keyword on things they bring in from other armies. Which is my guess as to how it will be done.
But it's true that there are things that really needs to be fixed, and Inquisition is the poster child. Not to say you can't play it, it's just really lazy at the moment.
These are issues that NEED to be addressed as FAQ/Erratas. I am not saying that this edition is perfect, far from it, but I will take a simplified imperfect system over an overly complicated, argument inducing imperfect system any day. Introducing individual faction Codices increases the chances of the later. It also raises the "buy-in" cost for new players, which we should all be against.
-
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/05 15:28:21
Purifier wrote: Codex creep is when each codex is better than the previous one for sales. While this was clearly the case in the past, there is nothing here to say that's gonna be the case now. Everything GW has said so far is in line with them at least trying to balance each codex. That's a huge difference from the previous intentional unbalance they created with codex creep.
Well, by definition, having access to other Strategems, Warlord Traits, and Relics (whatever those will be) than any other army makes it more powerful, no? edit: or at least gives it some sort of advantage.
It kills the balanced playing field of everyone have the same Stratgems, Warlord Traits, etc. It's hard to add more to one thing and not the other thing, and still make both things equal in effectiveness/balance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/05 15:30:24
currently playing: ASoIaF | Warhammer 40k: Kill Team
other favorites:
FO:WW | RUMBLESLAM | WarmaHordes | Carnevale | Infinity | Warcry | Wrath of Kings
Galef wrote: Hopefully, the Codices only add optional stuff. Needing 5+ publications for a single army is just ridiculous
Unfortunately, the added Warlord Traits, Relics, Stratagems & <Chapter Tactic> equivalents will all be too necessary to be "optional"
It was nice to have my 2 armies in 2 books for once. Hopefully Aeldari and Chaos get updated later rather than sooner so that it lasts a bit longer.
Galef wrote: I really hope that Codices don't change anything at all from the Indexes (aside from maybe points adjustments)-
I hope they change a ton. Because there's a lot of factions that NEED changing, that NEED additional unit types, that NEED more and better rules.
What are you talking about? All existing models have rules. The only things that "might" need adjusting are points values
-
Inquisition is an army that really needs to be fixed. It has things like the Jokaero that can buff... almost nothing at all, because it can only buff inquisition troops, and inquisition has nothing worth buffing.
But it could all be fixed with a rule that allowed the inq to put their keyword on things they bring in from other armies. Which is my guess as to how it will be done.
But it's true that there are things that really needs to be fixed, and Inquisition is the poster child. Not to say you can't play it, it's just really lazy at the moment.
These are issues that NEED to be addressed as FAQ/Erratas. I am not saying that this edition is perfect, far from it, but I will take a simplified imperfect system over an overly complicated, argument inducing imperfect system any day.
Introducing individual faction Codices encourages the later.
-
Oh absolutely. But there is a lot that can be done with some nicer fleshed out codexes as compared to a hastily thrown together index, without it becoming overly complicated.
And I think terrain cover rules need to be rewritten. Not because of the "you can only see me through the window, how do I get no cover?"-complaints which I see as no problem at all. I'm fine with things ending up a little silly sometimes in order to keep rules simple and intuitive. My problem is that the current rules are bad, and not at all intuitive. Why do woods work so fundamentally different from ruins? Why is a hill completely unable to confer cover just because it didn't used to be a house that fell down?
I think they should make a consistent ruleset for terrain. I'd recommend looking at Malifaux for ideas on how to do it right.
Purifier wrote: Codex creep is when each codex is better than the previous one for sales. While this was clearly the case in the past, there is nothing here to say that's gonna be the case now. Everything GW has said so far is in line with them at least trying to balance each codex. That's a huge difference from the previous intentional unbalance they created with codex creep.
Well, by definition, having access to other Strategems, Warlord Traits, and Relics (whatever those will be) than any other army makes it more powerful, no?
It kills the balanced playing field of everyone have the same Stratgems, Warlord Traits, etc. It's hard to add more to one thing and not the other thing, and still make both things equal in effectiveness/balance.
In the interim before every army has a codex, yes, this will technically be the case. Ideally, its more of a flavour addition and some tweaks to underperforming units, but going off of GW's track record, there will likely be a minimum of one or two new items/units/stratagems that are overpowered/broken.
While in a perfect world, they'd release all the new codices together at a date further down the road, rolling them out in quick succession isn't the worst thing either. It is a bit of annoyance for those who play armies getting the first few codices as they just bought the relevant index(es) that are now superseded.
Really, they should have just waited longer to release 8th and let the Indexes be the final version of the army lists/rules for each faction with all the special rules and flavour bits already in, then release faction books later with fluff and art, and a reprint of the latest rules for just that faction. Then they can update all the electronic versions automatically whenever they want and FAQ/Errata the paper versions to match.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Purifier wrote: Codex creep is when each codex is better than the previous one for sales. While this was clearly the case in the past, there is nothing here to say that's gonna be the case now. Everything GW has said so far is in line with them at least trying to balance each codex. That's a huge difference from the previous intentional unbalance they created with codex creep.
Well, by definition, having access to other Strategems, Warlord Traits, and Relics (whatever those will be) than any other army makes it more powerful, no? edit: or at least gives it some sort of advantage.
It kills the balanced playing field of everyone have the same Stratgems, Warlord Traits, etc. It's hard to add more to one thing and not the other thing, and still make both things equal in effectiveness/balance.
Everyone is getting a codex. The growing pains before everyone has one are hardly worth mentioning. Codex creep was with everyone already having a codex, they made the next one stronger than all the rest... and the next one stronger than that.
This is not the same thing.
auticus wrote: Codex was never leaving. That was another bit of garbage rumor mongering.
What I do expect is that codex will be much more powerful than index list. And that means those factions that never receive a codex are going to quickly get pwned.
If the codex offers more options it will increase power - this much is clear.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Purifier wrote: Codex creep is when each codex is better than the previous one for sales. While this was clearly the case in the past, there is nothing here to say that's gonna be the case now. Everything GW has said so far is in line with them at least trying to balance each codex. That's a huge difference from the previous intentional unbalance they created with codex creep.
Well, by definition, having access to other Strategems, Warlord Traits, and Relics (whatever those will be) than any other army makes it more powerful, no? edit: or at least gives it some sort of advantage.
It kills the balanced playing field of everyone have the same Stratgems, Warlord Traits, etc. It's hard to add more to one thing and not the other thing, and still make both things equal in effectiveness/balance.
Everyone is getting a codex. The growing pains before everyone has one are hardly worth mentioning. Codex creep was with everyone already having a codex, they made the next one stronger than all the rest... and the next one stronger than that.
This is not the same thing.
Purifier wrote: Codex creep is when each codex is better than the previous one for sales. While this was clearly the case in the past, there is nothing here to say that's gonna be the case now. Everything GW has said so far is in line with them at least trying to balance each codex. That's a huge difference from the previous intentional unbalance they created with codex creep.
Well, by definition, having access to other Strategems, Warlord Traits, and Relics (whatever those will be) than any other army makes it more powerful, no?
It kills the balanced playing field of everyone have the same Stratgems, Warlord Traits, etc. It's hard to add more to one thing and not the other thing, and still make both things equal in effectiveness/balance.
In the interim before every army has a codex, yes, this will technically be the case. Ideally, its more of a flavour addition and some tweaks to underperforming units, but going off of GW's track record, there will likely be a minimum of one or two new items/units/stratagems that are overpowered/broken.
While in a perfect world, they'd release all the new codices together at a date further down the road, rolling them out in quick succession isn't the worst thing either. It is a bit of annoyance for those who play armies getting the first few codices as they just bought the relevant index(es) that are now superseded.
Really, they should have just waited longer to release 8th and let the Indexes be the final version of the army lists/rules for each faction with all the special rules and flavour bits already in, then release faction books later with fluff and art, and a reprint of the latest rules for just that faction. Then they can update all the electronic versions automatically whenever they want and FAQ/Errata the paper versions to match.
All solid ideas and input.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/05 15:39:24
currently playing: ASoIaF | Warhammer 40k: Kill Team
other favorites:
FO:WW | RUMBLESLAM | WarmaHordes | Carnevale | Infinity | Warcry | Wrath of Kings
For you gamers out there, one very exciting addition are new rules representing specific sub-groups in many of the major factions; these range from old classics like the Space Marine Chapters or Chaos Space Marine Legions to returning rules for individual craftworlds, as well as previously unexplored groupings like Necron dynasties and Adeptus Mechanicus forge worlds. These will be included in each codex.
YES!
Fear not, chapters and legions are coming back. I can't for the life of me imagine how codex books won't just be a straight up improvement over what we're currently seeing in the indexes. I doubt SM will suddenly become the top dog just because they get some special rules (which I assume will be free as they have in the past), but there's a fair chance they will rise in the stacks until other armies get their releases too. I hope they properly balance these new rules - I'd not be too disappointed to see points costs attached if the fluffy special rules don't stack well against each other.
Interesting there was also a comment int the Codex FAQ article about models receiving rules in the box, but the Matched Play points being available online. Perhaps this is a hint at a centralised points database? Maybe we will actually see balance changes between codex releases, as GW have promised, but it's far too early to tell.
lolman1c wrote: I have a feeling they might update points depending on what sold more and crap... (and they will say it's player feedback)
I would expect the opposite.
gw sells umpteen thousand boxes of ___ *insert undertcosted unit name here*
gw "due to community feedback we have increased the points of ___ (listed above) unit and adjusted the point of unit ___ (which was previously less competitive and a different kit) to balance them with the rest of the game after much playesting this adjustment was determined to be needed"
gw already sold the original models now people will need the less popular kit to have a slightly undercosted unit. rinse and repeat until you are back at the original kit as people will ahev sold those on ebay or to casual players and they can sell more of the original again! welcome to the new gw same as the old gw, but with a social media presence and better pr department
"This is codex creep!"
"No, it's not."
"Semantics."
... ok.
You're defining codex creep by the basis that each of the codices creep over the previous. Obviously that's not the case since this is the first wave of codices. It's still the same principle - a codex will put an army at an advantage over the other (edit: in case I need to explain it. SM/DG/GK/CSM will have the advantage over DE/Nids/etc simply by having codices while the others don't).
What do you want to call it? Codex precedent?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/05 16:14:50
currently playing: ASoIaF | Warhammer 40k: Kill Team
other favorites:
FO:WW | RUMBLESLAM | WarmaHordes | Carnevale | Infinity | Warcry | Wrath of Kings
My biggest hope is that they find a balance and that the Indexes are still valid.
For example, I play Eldar but I sometimes add Dark Eldar or Harlequin units to my lists to portray a Corsairs theme (without having to get the FW book). Hopefully, I can still use the rules printed in my Xenos 1 Index for those few DE units even after DE get there own Codex.
As I primarily play Eldar, getting the Eldar Codex is a given (sadly), but I'd like to still take 1-2 DE units without needing yet another expensive hard-cover book
The same is true of my Daemon army. I occasionally add 1-2 CSM units and even though CSM are getting their own codex soon, I hope it does not invalidate the rules that were JUST PRINTED in a book I just bought.
TL,DR: Codex additions are fine, Invalidating rules in the Indexes that were just released is horrible customer service.
Codex's are great. I really hope they are used to expand the various factions. I'd really like to see books come out detailing smaller factions. With some data-slates for new units, lots of fluff etc detailing their place in the universe (similar in some ways to what has been seen in AOS)
Keep an annual GH type book to adjust the rules and point costs.
Would really like to see books for new things, rather than just 8th edition Codex's for the same factions.
Demiurg
Exodites
Etc.
The first rule of unarmed combat is: don’t be unarmed.
6000 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 
4000 pts - 
1000 pts - 
1000 pts 
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
7000 
