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.

I'm not talking about the competitiveness of the armies in them (which, incidentally also seems to be lower), but the format of the books and army lists themselves.

1 By removing the "bestiary" unit entry part if the book with fluff, background, rules and artwork for one unit on each page, and the separate army list, and combining them into one sort of a visual army list I think they have made it a lot worse because
a) You can not get a decent overview of units in one place, but have to go back and forth over a lot of pages
b) Instead of great inspirational artwork you get pictures of the current miniature range. The same as in the webshop that is. Yay! The artwork used to be one of the reasons I fall for an army and want to buy the books, convert and paint the models to try and make them look as cool as the art.
c) Since every unit entry and all its options now has to fit on one half page (compared to before, one page, plus the points entries in the list section) you can only cram in one or two special rules and less options for each squad. Leading to blander, more generic universal special rules usage and less customizable units

2 Also, except for the in my opinion worse format of the books, they seem to have gone away from customizable lists with flavour into more generic lists. Codex SM was/is great, with options to run different style of lists with Chapter traits, and "unlock" different units into Troops by taking some options. Codex Orks is a great example of the newer, way less flexible books. The last edition Codex Orks book had some great artwork on Deffkoptas which made me want to get and paint some. Now instead I get a picture of a 15(?) year old, hideous Gorkamorka model, because that is the one currently available to buy. I was also expecting some ways to customize the army list entry, for example make Bikes into troops in a Speed freeks list, or some "Clan" rules that could flavour the lists more, as in the Codex SM. Nothing like this.

Not worth the money is my sad verdict over the newer Codex books. But more seriously, they make for generic and less fun list making, leading to more standardized and dull games. If they could add more flavour and artwork into them again, instead of distributing it all over Dataslates and Supplements, I would be happy.

I think GW has taken a wrong turn here. Agree?

The format has always sucked. They just went from something bad to something that is also bad, IMO worse.

The Tyranid codex sucks, though the new drop pod may change that a bit, we'll have to see. Certainly the codex in and of itself sucks though.

I can't really comment on DE and Orks, I haven't spent much time with either of them.

The SW codex is a real improvement. The old codex wasn't internally balanced at all, the new one is much more so. But the format is still an issue.

I only have the iBooks versions. My complaint is that the named characters and pictures are interspersed with the unit entries, which makes it a lot harder to navigate and create an army list. There's also a ton of unused space on the unit entry pages and reference section (reference shouldn't be 16 pages long). They could've easily squeezed the same content into 2/3rds as many pages.

Well, it depends. The former DA and CSM codices were jervisified and belonged to the worst 'dexes ever.
The old 3.5 edition CSM was the best ever.

Definitely worse from what I've seen in terms of design. The 6th ed books are actually rather beautiful books full of great artwork, interesting fluff and a simple to use rules section. 7th ones look like catalogues, as if they're afraid I'd they don't show a model for something someone might *shock horror* convert their own!

The lack of FOC shifts are countered somewhat by the unique detachments and the option for Unbound, but this obviously doesn't please everyone. I wait to see what happens with DA when they get a new book, as the FOC swaps are pretty integral to their identity. I hazard a guess they'll get a detachment that emphasises Elites and FA, but DW/RW troops may be going the way of the Dodo.

Wrong turn? Why wrong turn? How about they tried something new but didn't work? Saying wrong turn just sounds like you are nit picking in a well written subject. You almost insinuate that GW is doing this on purpose. Why would GW want to make something actually worse on purpose?

I agree, I thought 6th edition codices were great. I don't like how 7th edition codices look. It looks like it's Visions that most of us don't like and not implemented into a codex.

The way I see it, GW is trying something different that just didn't work out.

It's always good for GW to try change. Sometimes it will work, other times it will not. At least GW is not staying stale. So we need to take the good with the bad, otherwise we will never get any good.

So here is hoping GW sees this is not working and codices coming out will be changing soon. Problem is, if this new format was made last year or so, it could be another 6 months before we see change because the Blood Angles and Necrons would have already been made now with the new format.

Davor wrote:
Wrong turn? Why wrong turn? How about they tried something new but didn't work?

....erm.... "wrong turn" in this context means precisely "they tried something new but didn't work".

When you try something new and it doesn't work... that's taking a wrong turn.

 Paradigm wrote:
Definitely worse from what I've seen in terms of design. The 6th ed books are actually rather beautiful books full of great artwork, interesting fluff and a simple to use rules section. 7th ones look like catalogues, as if they're afraid I'd they don't show a model for something someone might *shock horror* convert their own!

Pfft, conversions are just a concept "beardy" players invented to try and ruin your gaming experience! If you're a true GW hobbyist, you should disregard all conversions and follow the official Citadel kits.

Davor wrote:
Wrong turn? Why wrong turn? How about they tried something new but didn't work? Saying wrong turn just sounds like you are nit picking in a well written subject. You almost insinuate that GW is doing this on purpose. Why would GW want to make something actually worse on purpose?

I agree, I thought 6th edition codices were great. I don't like how 7th edition codices look. It looks like it's Visions that most of us don't like and not implemented into a codex.

The way I see it, GW is trying something different that just didn't work out.

It's always good for GW to try change. Sometimes it will work, other times it will not. At least GW is not staying stale. So we need to take the good with the bad, otherwise we will never get any good.

So here is hoping GW sees this is not working and codices coming out will be changing soon. Problem is, if this new format was made last year or so, it could be another 6 months before we see change because the Blood Angles and Necrons would have already been made now with the new format.

Agreed, I want to be constructive and not just complaining. But I believe this is indeed a "wrong turn", because I think this (the moving of content and releasing it separately as supplement) is a business decision, why sell just one book when you can sell two? But by making more generic, less rich content they are indeed putting me off starting new armies so end up selling one less Codex book. And, I fear, making the game blander which in the end leads to less sales. Hence, wrong turn.

The book format part of my issue I believe is something they came up with to try and get rid of the going back and forth in the book between the bestiary and list. Which in the end did not turn out great because now you HAVE to go back and forth over a lot of pages to even make a list, not just when you have to look something up. This is just speculating on my part.

Either way, I think a constructive way of helping GW get better at trying new concepts is to have a wider focus group, which they could let test new concepts and changes and see how they react. In other industries this is very common. Lending a copy of a new format Codex book to wider focus groups in the community before printing them could easily have predicted this, what it seems like, widespread disliking of it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Davor wrote:
Wrong turn? Why wrong turn? How about they tried something new but didn't work?

....erm.... "wrong turn" in this context means precisely "they tried something new but didn't work".

When you try something new and it doesn't work... that's taking a wrong turn.

I am tired. Not feeling well. I reread it again, and yeah I think I made another boo boo. For some reason I thought I read something entirely different. Time for nap.

 Paradigm wrote:
Definitely worse from what I've seen in terms of design. The 6th ed books are actually rather beautiful books full of great artwork, interesting fluff and a simple to use rules section. 7th ones look like catalogues, as if they're afraid I'd they don't show a model for something someone might *shock horror* convert their own!

I definitely agree that the new books look more like catalogues.

Hell, why are we paying so much for them? They've literally replaced the artwork with adverts... can we perhaps get a discount in exchange?


Thing is though, I hate the layout of most books these days. There's far too much flipping back and forth for my tastes. Unit entry and special rules on one page, weapon stats on another page, weapon costs on yet another page, and unit costs on a different page. 7th edition books are, I suppose, marginally better in this regard, but not by much.

 vipoid wrote:
.

Hell, why are we paying so much for them? They've literally replaced the artwork with adverts... can we perhaps get a discount in exchange?

My answer: Don't! The 'updates' these days are so minimal that it's nothing a few notes in a word doc and the Battlescribe file can't cover. I refuse to buy GW books these days, there is no value in them and the old ones work perfectly fine.

Looks: Leave something to be desired.
E-Books: Funky to Navigate when on PDF
Hard Copy: Probably one of the Better put together books.
>I now only really need to look at 1 or 2 Pages. One Page have everything you need except for Mundane Wargear most of the time. As far as Special Rules, they are usually right there. USRs are listed on ONE or TWO Pages in the back of the book. No more looking at 2-5 pages to find everything you need.
I only have one minor complaint, I wish the Wargear Points were on one of the last pages.

 Paradigm wrote:

My answer: Don't! The 'updates' these days are so minimal that it's nothing a few notes in a word doc and the Battlescribe file can't cover. I refuse to buy GW books these days, there is no value in them and the old ones work perfectly fine.

Oh, I quite agree. I haven't bought a book since the 6th edition IG book.

The navigation on the E-Books is awful.

In terms of actual content, most of them aren't much to write home about. The IG book was thoroughly disappointing, lots of removals, few needed fixes for glaring internal balance issues, and stupid naming conventions. The SW book was allright, that's probably got the best internal balance of the new books I think. The GK book is hit and miss, I feel they may have overnerfed it in some places. The Ork book is very strong, but still doesn't quite seem to click right. Dark Eldar seem ok, but seem overly reliant on a couple of things (particularly getting Nightfight which will make or break a game for them).

 TheSilo wrote:
I only have the iBooks versions. My complaint is that the named characters and pictures are interspersed with the unit entries, which makes it a lot harder to navigate and create an army list. There's also a ton of unused space on the unit entry pages and reference section (reference shouldn't be 16 pages long). They could've easily squeezed the same content into 2/3rds as many pages.

I hate the electronic versions. I bought one, and regret it. The paper versions are so much better.

I photocopy the pages I really need, and have them in a binder. I have like, 11 books condensed into 1 binder for play purposes.

While I'm enjoying the new codex very much, and I'm loving the flavor of the current armies - the format is horrendous and the E-versions are even worse.

I really hate the shift from art to studio models. Personally, it just gives the book a feeling of a catalog rather than a gaming aid.

Well, in fairness, I don't reject the idea of pictures of models in gaming books; I'd just want the price to reflect that. Art costs money, and part of the value of GW's codices, however poorly they're laid out, was in the cool new art and fluff. Lately we haven't been getting any new fluff and very little in the way of new art. In fact, the Guard codex lost most of its fluff, and consisted of entirely recycled art with the exception of one or two Scion pieces.

Either way, I don't think the layout of any codex has been particularly good. There's always been that model picture section between the rules and the list, not to mention the rules scattered all about the book.

 vipoid wrote:

I definitely agree that the new books look more like catalogues.

Hell, why are we paying so much for them? They've literally replaced the artwork with adverts... can we perhaps get a discount in exchange?

Thing is though, I hate the layout of most books these days. There's far too much flipping back and forth for my tastes. Unit entry and special rules on one page, weapon stats on another page, weapon costs on yet another page, and unit costs on a different page. 7th edition books are, I suppose, marginally better in this regard, but not by much.

There are some books that seem like a great value (like Space Marines), and others that are a horrible value (like Imperial Knights). I mean, there's what, SEVEN pages of useful material at the end? The rest is just fluff, which is fine, but there isn't even much of that. They should give away the rules, and charge (less) for the fluff. Or something. It just doesn't feel worth $50 lol.

Talys wrote:

There are some books that seem like a great value (like Space Marines), and others that are a horrible value (like Imperial Knights). I mean, there's what, SEVEN pages of useful material at the end? The rest is just fluff, which is fine, but there isn't even much of that. They should give away the rules, and charge (less) for the fluff. Or something. It just doesn't feel worth $50 lol.

Well, SM certainly seem like great value compared to other GW books. Probably less so when you compare it to what other companies produce and charge.

But, yeah, I imagine the SM book does seem like good value. After all, it didn't lose anything and gained quite a lot - both in terms of new units and in terms of rules (like the Chapter Tactics stuff).

Compare that to other books - IG seemed to lose a ton of fluff, as well as many of their SCs (and even some units)... but, rather than going down, the price went up. Hell, GKs lost about half their codex, yet the price still doubled over the 5th edition version. That sort of thing makes it abundantly clear that GW's prices have no relation whatsoever to the content you get.

And, as you say, we then have stuff like the supplements or Knights - which can be the same price as a normal codex, but for just 2 pages of rules.

I think they really need a better attitude in terms of pricing their rules.

 vipoid wrote:

Talys wrote:

There are some books that seem like a great value (like Space Marines), and others that are a horrible value (like Imperial Knights). I mean, there's what, SEVEN pages of useful material at the end? The rest is just fluff, which is fine, but there isn't even much of that. They should give away the rules, and charge (less) for the fluff. Or something. It just doesn't feel worth $50 lol.

Well, SM certainly seem like great value compared to other GW books. Probably less so when you compare it to what other companies produce and charge.

But, yeah, I imagine the SM book does seem like good value. After all, it didn't lose anything and gained quite a lot - both in terms of new units and in terms of rules (like the Chapter Tactics stuff).

Compare that to other books - IG seemed to lose a ton of fluff, as well as many of their SCs (and even some units)... but, rather than going down, the price went up. Hell, GKs lost about half their codex, yet the price still doubled over the 5th edition version. That sort of thing makes it abundantly clear that GW's prices have no relation whatsoever to the content you get.

And, as you say, we then have stuff like the supplements or Knights - which can be the same price as a normal codex, but for just 2 pages of rules.

I think they really need a better attitude in terms of pricing their rules.

Word! SM is definitely one of the better value *out of the GW set*. IG is a terrible value. IK is the absolute worst, in my opinion. A couple of decades ago, all of the rules in the last few pages would have been a White Dwarf article.

Full mini hardcover rulebook set is something like $400 (from a discounter too). They would be better of selling a hardcover, 3-volume fluff-less "Complete 2014 Rules" for $200. I'd buy it in a heartbeat (even though I own all the codexes already). Then, the typical buy would be the Complete Rules (including all lists) + 1 complete codex with all the fluff for your chosen faction. Most players don't buy all the codices anyhow. In the Fluff book, include artwork, photography, AND the lists.

Every year, they could sell an updated "Complete 20xx Rules" volume for another $200, which people wouldn't HAVE to buy, but a lot of people would anyhow, just so they could have all the new units and any errata.

I used to buy all the codex books, when they were $20/25 it was doable, and they didn't weigh a metric ton.

At $50, with often less content? And twice the weight? Forget it. I've purchased one codex book this year and regret even that.

Of any of them though, the SM codex is pretty solid. It's probably the best book that GW's done in quite a while. Relatively ok internal balance, differentiated Chapter Tactics rules, relatively low amount of super-abuseable stuff, not a whole lot of complete junk either, and more content than any other codex book to boot, with no stupid renaming also! I only wish my poor Imperial Guard and Chaos Space Marines had gotten such treatment.

The loss of the talented and awe inspiring art work for stock studio paint job models is the real killer. The layout could be the most easy to use and intuitive design ever and I'd still call all of the seventh edition codexs worse by a mile.

Be aware though, OP, that the Dark Eldar codex contains 49 pages of fluff. FORTY NINE.

The old DE codex contained like..what? 20 pages? If you add the rest, you can see that the extra text found in the bestiary just shifted into the background section, plus there still is unit text in the newer codexes, just abridged.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Be aware though, OP, that the Dark Eldar codex contains 49 pages of fluff. FORTY NINE.

The old DE codex contained like..what? 20 pages? If you add the rest, you can see that the extra text found in the bestiary just shifted into the background section, plus there still is unit text in the newer codexes, just abridged.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd gladly lose those ~29 pages of fluff if it meant knocking £15 off the cost of the codex.

Also, it's not very helpful when you add more fluff to the fluff, but then strip all the fluff and flavour out of the rules.

The Scion artwork is pretty cool

Guys I've been out of this for a while and I have a question that applies to this subject. What are these new supplement books? What is their purpose and what do they do? When would one use them?

 Great White wrote:
Guys I've been out of this for a while and I have a question that applies to this subject. What are these new supplement books? What is their purpose and what do they do? When would one use them?

different warlord traits table, different relics section, maybe a new unit entry or two; maybe some units shift from elites to troops etc., scenarios for that particular subfaction, and lots of fluff

 Sir Arun wrote:
Be aware though, OP, that the Dark Eldar codex contains 49 pages of fluff. FORTY NINE.

The old DE codex contained like..what? 20 pages? If you add the rest, you can see that the extra text found in the bestiary just shifted into the background section, plus there still is unit text in the newer codexes, just abridged.

The Imperial Knights codex contains 56 pages of fluff and 7 pages of content. 17 of those 56 pages of fluff is House" stuff where there is no meaningful art -- it's just same IK drawing, colored differently in Illustrator and with slightly different heads. When I eagerly opened the shrink wrap, I was like, are you guys kidding me? I then promptly offered to photocopy it for all my friends




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Great White wrote:
Guys I've been out of this for a while and I have a question that applies to this subject. What are these new supplement books? What is their purpose and what do they do? When would one use them?

Well, the basic rulebook has no army lists. So, whatever faction you want to play, you need to have access to the codex of. And, if you're a serious player, you need the rules for all the other army lists (so that you can understand special abilities, tactics, and limitations of your opponent's units). All of the codexes contain fluff (background story and pictures) in the front, and gaming material in the back, and most of them have a cheatsheet at the very back.

Each Codex also has rules for special named independent characters (like draigo or stern for Grey Knights).

Some books are very beefy (like Space Marines) that have tons of content where people generally say, "I got my $60 worth" (or whatever they paid). Many others feel like they are army lists that should have been free.

Also, there are a few subfaction/specialty books (like Haemonculous Covens for Dark Eldar, or Space Wolves for SM) -- these are essentially ways to get more money out of you because new models were sculpted. There are also a few books (like Escalation) that have rules unusual units. And then there are books with scenarios/campaigns.

So, all in all, you could easily blow $1000 on buying books Often, if friends regularly play at someone's house, the host will have a full set of books for reference (so that everyone doesn't have to bring theirs...), and that ain't cheap.

Or, you could get a free mini rule book, and find some way of assembling your army without actually buying a codex. A decent compromise, in my opinion, is to share codexes between friends; for instance, if you don't play Orks, but your friend does, simply borrow it to read the fluff (if you're into that) and copy the foldout at the back; reciprocate with the Tyranids with them.