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.

Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: Going back to the days of 3rd ed when you needed a full 3-ring binder to carry all your extra rules and FAQ's is just as bad IMHO. Would I like to have these extras? Hell yes, I fething play Dark Angels, but I also understand the need to make things simple for people entering the hobby and having numerous FAQ's and errata can be overwhelming.

I can wait for a few years till the DA 5th ed book (hopefully they'll do a DA/BA book like 2nd Ed).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

See, this is just a poor argument. Look, having printed out errata, sections glued into codices, and online FAQs that change frequently are not ideal. Nobody is going to argue that. But it's not the end of the world. You would need a sheet or two of paper, and whatever difficulty it provides for new people playing the army it helps when new people play against the army, and find entirely new wargear! Yes, errata isn't exactly encouraging to new players. OTOH, this is a new generation of gamers, kids understand updates and patches and the fact that the internet can change things. As it stands now, can any of us in good faith say they would point a new player to actually use Codex: Dark Angels for anything other than Death/Ravenwing? I'd rather have a codex that a new player could actually use with patches than one that sits on the shelf.

It's a decision, and it's a difficult one, and they made a choice. Personally, I'd take errata over weirdness, but the weirdness isn't debilitating either. So a DA storm shield is somehow different: I think we'll manage to play the game.

Really, this is just misassigned rage. DA was used to beta test the new marine rules, and now they're stuck with a lemon of a codex. That is the real problem.

So Much for the all new Warhammer 40K.

New Edition, Same Ole bs.

I am glad I decided to NOT to get back into 40K.

Reecius wrote:Exactly, the ultramarine termies also have more bald guys, which clearly gives them the edge.

That is precious

Polonius wrote:Really, this is just misassigned rage. DA was used to beta test the new marine rules, and now they're stuck with a lemon of a codex. That is the real problem.

Good Point. But should we just sit idly by allowing that to occur? More importantly, should GW just sit idly by?

GW could change that with a two pages or less of words.

As the only SM army I'd be willing to play are the space puppies, I'm rather glad their codex is pretty thin and constantly tells you to refer to the main marine codex.

I do feel sorry for everyone else though. This is very much a screw the vets in favor of the children mentality that I have learned to loath from GW. They are fully willing to ignore those of us who got them where they are.

Hellfury wrote:

Polonius wrote:Really, this is just misassigned rage. DA was used to beta test the new marine rules, and now they're stuck with a lemon of a codex. That is the real problem.

Good Point. But should we just sit idly by allowing that to occur? More importantly, should GW just sit idly by?

GW could change that with a two pages or less of words.

Well, GW doesn't do power balances, or much of any rules changes, in between codex revisions. The main infamous counterexample of course was the "misprint" regarding Obliterators toughness in the 3.5 book.

Should you sit idly by? No, you should be figuring out what MEQ codex best provides the rules to play the way you want to play. That's all anybody is doing now. GW will sell a ton of DA codexes to former lysanderwing players in a month or two, I'll bet. BT will spike as people crave heavy weapons in tactical squads (but not in devestator squads). Space Wolves might completely change everything. And, as always, there is Chaos if you can live without ATSKNF and a few other toys.

I dunno, maybe I'm just natrually a cynic, but it seemed to me that the DA book was half assed. Not just in power level, but there was very little that really made it's non-wing units DA (and back then, Krak were useless while all the other rules were nerfs). The one refrain was "wait for 5th and new marines." Well, it's here, DA still are lame, and there literally is nothing anybody can do about it other than not play with those rules.

On a tangent, am I the only person who thinks it funny that people that can transport hundreds of toy soldiers and a dozen tanks somehow find a few pages of errata to be burdensome? And that's not counting the time and effort and money spent buy, building, painting and storing the armies. But grabbing rules updates online, printing them, and slipping them in a binder is simply asking too much!

Apone wrote:
And BA/DA/SW players might get so annoyed they buy the new SM book too! Hell why not some cool new scout bikers while they're at it!

Space Wolves MUST purchase the new SM codex to play, since we only have a half of a codex. I like SW but I'm wondering if its worth all of the extra hassle.

Crimson Devil wrote:

Apone wrote:
And BA/DA/SW players might get so annoyed they buy the new SM book too! Hell why not some cool new scout bikers while they're at it!

Space Wolves MUST purchase the new SM codex to play, since we only have a half of a codex. I like SW but I'm wondering if its worth all of the extra hassle.

this gets better and better everytime.

Tribune wrote:And as I pointed out last time this came up, they did the same with the CSM codex, so you had to know it was coming. In this rare case, you can claim that the loyalists were actually just cut n pastes of their spiky brethren, rather than the other way 'round

But power fists hadn't lost an attack then, so the points increase was a simple and effective method of balancing the powerfist.

But GW just couldn't resist the need to overbalance something... or, more likely, the person who wrote the new power fist rule simply didn't know that other 'writers' had increased its points to balance it in newer Codices.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:
But GW just couldn't resist the need to overbalance something... or, more likely, the person who wrote the new power fist rule simply didn't know that other 'writers' had increased its points to balance it in newer Codices.

That would likely be Allessio, who also wrote (part of) the CSM codex (and thus knew full well about the overbalancing)

I really wish GW would get rid of him, I haven't liked anything he's written and found many of his podcasts to just showcase his failures as a game designer (and how he lacks an understanding of the purpose of various units and abilities), although I do give him credit for attempting to explain his reasoning behind the changes and willingness to be a little open about it.

I gotta ask- what would you prefer?

Rules as written
or
Have to buy a new codex

since so many people seem to whine about having to buy things or prices going up etc... then deal with the RAW

as for blanket updates- you end up with a messy situation with many different FAQs that don't match up not because of GW inconsistancy but because of people printing off different versions, not having access to them or not knowing that they are avalible

THAT is when confusion reigns supreme- when you play against someone- and they spring an FAQ on you that you don't know, or don't think is valid- and suddenly arguement time


Both keeping it as written and producing blanket changes have their merits- but the keeping it as is would be in my eyes best for most gamers

Polonius wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

Polonius wrote:Really, this is just misassigned rage. DA was used to beta test the new marine rules, and now they're stuck with a lemon of a codex. That is the real problem.

Good Point. But should we just sit idly by allowing that to occur? More importantly, should GW just sit idly by?

GW could change that with a two pages or less of words.

Well, GW doesn't do power balances, or much of any rules changes, in between codex revisions. The main infamous counterexample of course was the "misprint" regarding Obliterators toughness in the 3.5 book.

Should you sit idly by? No, you should be figuring out what MEQ codex best provides the rules to play the way you want to play. That's all anybody is doing now. GW will sell a ton of DA codexes to former lysanderwing players in a month or two, I'll bet. BT will spike as people crave heavy weapons in tactical squads (but not in devestator squads). Space Wolves might completely change everything. And, as always, there is Chaos if you can live without ATSKNF and a few other toys.

I dunno, maybe I'm just natrually a cynic, but it seemed to me that the DA book was half assed. Not just in power level, but there was very little that really made it's non-wing units DA (and back then, Krak were useless while all the other rules were nerfs). The one refrain was "wait for 5th and new marines." Well, it's here, DA still are lame, and there literally is nothing anybody can do about it other than not play with those rules.

On a tangent, am I the only person who thinks it funny that people that can transport hundreds of toy soldiers and a dozen tanks somehow find a few pages of errata to be burdensome? And that's not counting the time and effort and money spent buy, building, painting and storing the armies. But grabbing rules updates online, printing them, and slipping them in a binder is simply asking too much!

All are words of truth.

I especially like the bit about being burdened by toys, yet it becomes too cumbersome to carry a few printed FAQ pages.

Bignutter wrote:Rules as written
or
Have to buy a new codex

You forgot the third option:

Internal consistency and oversight that avoids idiotic and basic mistakes like the current Ultra vs DA/Chaos debacle.

In other words, it should never reach the stage that it has now because the designers have a clear plan on what they're going to do, rather than acting like a first time driver in a manual transmission car - lurching and bunny hopping in new directions whenever they managed to get the gear lever in the right slot.

And when it comes down to having a new Codex to purchase, or being stuck with a gak one for 6-8 yeas, I think that 'buy a new one' will win a decisive victory at every turn.

BYE

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:And when it comes down to having a new Codex to purchase, or being stuck with a poopy one for 6-8 years, I think that 'buy a new one' will win a decisive victory at every turn.

Definitely. I would happily pay for a codex that stood up to snuff.

I think a big problem was the change from 4th to 5th without everyone having an up to date codex. At least when 4th came out everyone has a 3rd edition book to work with. Now you've got people running around with 3rd edition books still. I think that's completely stupid.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tribune wrote:And as I pointed out last time this came up, they did the same with the CSM codex, so you had to know it was coming. In this rare case, you can claim that the loyalists were actually just cut n pastes of their spiky brethren, rather than the other way 'round

But power fists hadn't lost an attack then, so the points increase was a simple and effective method of balancing the powerfist.

Not a chance, CSM was written with the 5e rules already well underway. The fact is this 'overbalance' has been planned since at least that point. But I know you can't agree with that, as it causes you physical discomfort to give GW any credence at all I remember how much agony you were in, having to actually give them props for doing a great job of re-cutting the CSM sprue.

Should the PFist be 25 points? That's another question entirely...

Tribune wrote:The fact is this 'overbalance' has been planned since at least that point.

I trutly doubt that much planning goes on at that place any more. It's more a bunch of designers really doing whatever they want as long as it sells the shiny new toy they're putting out.

Tribune wrote:But I know you can't agree with that, as it causes you physical discomfort to give GW any credence at all I remember how much agony you were in, having to actually give them props for doing a great job of re-cutting the CSM sprue.

Revisionst history much?

I'm a firm believer in giving credit where credit's due. I will always give credit to the GW model makers as they make some wonderful stuff. I also give credit when GW makes something that is actually quite interesting - like this new Marine Codex, or Cities of Death or Apoc, and, hopefully soon, Planetstrike and 40K Mighty Empires - but I'm not take the "Well suck it up" bs that we get from a few members here whenever a Codex is heavily nerfed because of idiotic later decisions.

Tribune wrote:Should the PFist be 25 points? That's another question entirely...

When it still got +1A for the pistol - absolutley. Now that is has less attacks (and is therefore less powerful), no, it shouldn't go up in price when it gets a reduction in power.

BYE

Vaktathi wrote:That would likely be Allessio, who also wrote (part of) the CSM codex (and thus knew full well about the overbalancing)

I really wish GW would get rid of him, I haven't liked anything he's written and found many of his podcasts to just showcase his failures as a game designer (and how he lacks an understanding of the purpose of various units and abilities), although I do give him credit for attempting to explain his reasoning behind the changes and willingness to be a little open about it.

Wait, isn't he the one usually responsible for any strong Fantasy Battle armybook? Does he somehow know what he's doing over there and not in 40k? I don't follow WHFB, so maybe I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall that being the case.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tribune wrote:The fact is this 'overbalance' has been planned since at least that point.

I truly doubt that much planning goes on at that place any more. It's more a bunch of designers really doing whatever they want as long as it sells the shiny new toy they're putting out.

You say this mainly because you revel in projecting the idea of GW's complete incompetence. I always read your posts as they're full of pithy humour, but sometimes your polarised view needs to be tempered. Otherwise I wouldn't have replied.

Fact remains, the fist was made 25 points in CSM and that's consistent in the SM dex too. They planned for it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tribune wrote:But I know you can't agree with that, as it causes you physical discomfort to give GW any credence at all I remember how much agony you were in, having to actually give them props for doing a great job of re-cutting the CSM sprue.

Revisionst history much?

I'm a firm believer in giving credit where credit's due. I will always give credit to the GW model makers as they make some wonderful stuff. I also give credit when GW makes something that is actually quite interesting - like this new Marine Codex, or Cities of Death or Apoc, and, hopefully soon, Planetstrike and 40K Mighty Empires - but I'm not take the "Well suck it up" bs that we get from a few members here whenever a Codex is heavily nerfed because of idiotic later decisions.

Show me a post where you give GW unqualified credit. C'mon, it's just not your style

H.B.M.C. is just like me dear old dad: he loves with his fists.

But all in all he's an alright guy.

You're right about the termies, I've been working on my BT army lately and it stuck in me head.

Alpharius wrote:

Darknite wrote:A couple of thoughts -

1) Legacy codexes retain old style org charts & wargear - infinite range psy hoods, termies with two heavies, las/plas, etc. Backrev'ing Codex SM gear is an advantage when combined with old codex syndrome.

2) I find GW to be amazingly lazy in how they maintain their product. I've been playing Star Wars Miniatures for a while before coming back to 40k and you can say what you will about WOTC but they keep their fingers damn close to the pulse when it comes to FAQ'ing and bringing old rules into line with new releases. It's not perfect but it beats GW with a thunderhammer any day.

DN

I think the only 'old' SM Codex that will still be valid that would allow 2 heavies in a termi squad (under 10) would be the BT Codex. I'm pretty sure the DA and BA books already got rid of this.

Las/Plas is GONE come the new SM book.

All the other things are easy to bring into line using the FAQ/Patch approach.

I think.

GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:I think a big problem was the change from 4th to 5th without everyone having an up to date codex. At least when 4th came out everyone has a 3rd edition book to work with. Now you've got people running around with 3rd edition books still. I think that's completely stupid.

I think you nailed the real problem GWP. Their codices are all over the board on how current they are and the speed in which they are attempting to correct that doesn't seem to be fast enough for the most part. Some codices that have been updated to 4th are being updated again to 5th while we still have a quite a few lingering in 4th and 3rd. Then to step out and declare this army, SM, to be of the same cloth but cut differently and with the same options but different effects per options, just seems crazy. I don't blame GW for wanting vanilla SM to be, well, more unique in a way. But wow.

bejustorbedead wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:That would likely be Allessio, who also wrote (part of) the CSM codex (and thus knew full well about the overbalancing)

I really wish GW would get rid of him, I haven't liked anything he's written and found many of his podcasts to just showcase his failures as a game designer (and how he lacks an understanding of the purpose of various units and abilities), although I do give him credit for attempting to explain his reasoning behind the changes and willingness to be a little open about it.

Wait, isn't he the one usually responsible for any strong Fantasy Battle armybook? Does he somehow know what he's doing over there and not in 40k? I don't follow WHFB, so maybe I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall that being the case.

That's one way of putting it.

He really should have been canned after the Skaven army book though.

That thing is a monstrosity that really lend itself to creating armies that aren't a lot of fun to play against.

One example of a codex that is sorely out of date are Space Wolves. I mean, they lost two rules I believe in 5th edition. It's almost like the thing is so old it's sloughing off rules like dead skin.

GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:One example of a codex that is sorely out of date are Space Wolves. I mean, they lost two rules I believe in 5th edition. It's almost like the thing is so old it's sloughing off rules like dead skin.

Space Wolves and Dark Eldar are the two armies that I think are most in need of new a codex as both are still from third edition. I don't remember if Dark Eldar got it's update in fourth, but I know that it wasn't a significant change to the codex. The other codices that have been floated around as in need of an update would be Necrons and Guard, which I believe have both been confirmed to be 2009 releases(though I may be wrong on Necrons). Honestly, I'm holding out hope for Wolves to be next, I'd like to at least see one non Smurf army get the new gear, if nothing else than to give hope that the rest will eventually.

derek wrote:

GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:One example of a codex that is sorely out of date are Space Wolves. I mean, they lost two rules I believe in 5th edition. It's almost like the thing is so old it's sloughing off rules like dead skin.

Space Wolves and Dark Eldar are the two armies that I think are most in need of new a codex as both are still from third edition. I don't remember if Dark Eldar got it's update in fourth, but I know that it wasn't a significant change to the codex. The other codices that have been floated around as in need of an update would be Necrons and Guard, which I believe have both been confirmed to be 2009 releases(though I may be wrong on Necrons). Honestly, I'm holding out hope for Wolves to be next, I'd like to at least see one non Smurf army get the new gear, if nothing else than to give hope that the rest will eventually.

DE never got a 4th ed codex. Both need the 5th ed update badly...but according to rumor on B&C SW forum, SW are not coming out in 2008.

This is the post. Take it with as many grains of salt as you would like.
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=144299

Well they wouldn't. Marines are October, which leaves 2 more months in the release schedule - enough time for one more Fantasy and one more *sigh* LOTR release.

BYE

I have hopes for Wolves in the near future. But it really going to be a wait and see issue... then groan when something gets messed up.

ProtoClone wrote:

derek wrote:

GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:One example of a codex that is sorely out of date are Space Wolves. I mean, they lost two rules I believe in 5th edition. It's almost like the thing is so old it's sloughing off rules like dead skin.

Space Wolves and Dark Eldar are the two armies that I think are most in need of new a codex as both are still from third edition. I don't remember if Dark Eldar got it's update in fourth, but I know that it wasn't a significant change to the codex. The other codices that have been floated around as in need of an update would be Necrons and Guard, which I believe have both been confirmed to be 2009 releases(though I may be wrong on Necrons). Honestly, I'm holding out hope for Wolves to be next, I'd like to at least see one non Smurf army get the new gear, if nothing else than to give hope that the rest will eventually.

DE never got a 4th ed codex. Both need the 5th ed update badly...but according to rumor on B&C SW forum, SW are not coming out in 2008.

This is the post. Take it with as many grains of salt as you would like.
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=144299

I know they never got a new codex, but they did get an update to their existing one. Regardless, they need a new one.

Space Wolves at least have an out as far as updated wargear goes:

Page 14 C: SW wrote:Important: Space Wolves may NOT pick wargear from the Armoury in Codex: Space Marines and must take all of their equipment from the list below. A number of entries are basically the same as their counterpart in the standard Space Marine Armoury and, in this case, we've noted this by writing the entry in italics below. There is a brief description of how these items work on the summary page later in this Codex but you should refer to the Wargear section in Codex: Space Marines for a full description.

What's wrong with having 2 or 3 marine armies released in a row? It's the money earned from those sales that propel GW forward and allow them to even work on other armies, especially insignificant (at least as far as profit goes) armies like Dark Eldar. At least this way, the marines are out of the way and we can finally get to the good stuff. Except for Space Wolves, they are made of good stuff.