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.

You make it sound like this thread wasn't tainted to begin with.

EDIT: To contribute, I would like to point out that you can create Wolf Guard, Long Fangs, Grey Hunters, and Blood Claws all from the same Space Wolf kit. It's more than likely that GW will simply produce a single kit to create Tactical, Assault, Death Company, and Honour Guard marines from, rather than separate ones. I also think a simple upgrade kit a la Black Templars is unlikely since those apparently have not sold well.

Cryonicleech wrote:
I mean, Praetorians are just Cadians with fancy clothes and stiff upper lips. Catachans are just Cadians with huge muscles. Where's the line drawn?

I hope that you are not being serious right now.

If you are, this is one of the most fething stupid things I have ever read. Ever.

No it's not stupid. Not unless you actually back it up instead of trying to invalidate my argument.

Example: Catachans and Black Templar.

Black Templar are unlike regular Space Marines, just like Catachans are unlike regular Imperial Guard. The only argument I see KK making is that "Oh, they're Space Marines in a different color" Well, by following that same logic, Catachans are just Imperal Guard with different models. What I am asking is where is the line drawn when it comes to variant armies. I'm not at all saying Praetorians suck, or that Catachans suck, I'm glad that Guard players have access to different types of models instead of the same old Cadians.

But then there's the argument on stats. Catachans actually had different stats from regular guard back in the old Catachan 'dex, right? Now, a basic Tactical Marine rarely changes from army to army, and I doubt there are any Tactical Squads with different stats (But different rules is another thing). And sure, the old Catachans probably had different saves, Weapon Skill, etc. than Cadians. But Black Templar have different units and even different squad make-up (BT Tacticals can take scouts, IIRC) Black Templar can take Sword Brethern, The Emperors Champion, Army-Wide Special Rules, etc. Which made them different from Vanilla Marines. The same thing applies to Catachans.

And I would love to thank the academy for some award the internet deems me worthy of receiving, even if it's some lame attempt to discredit my ideas.

Anyway, this discussion is getting off topic, and I suggest we start getting it back on track before the mods smell the blood in the water.

I too think the Blood Angels will get a single box, similar to the Space Wolves, with options for different units. Perhaps a new character sculpt, and I'm hoping a new Furioso.

I also would think a box of Death Company.

ph34r wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Well, no, because TFG could in some cases actually be right. Besides, when that "book" is some random White Dwarf issue that your shop doesn't even carry, it can be difficult to verify what's going on.

Right or wrong the burden of bringing rules is on the person that wants to use them. My previous statements still stand and you have not refuted them at all.[/quote
Are we reading the same thread?

Yeah, the thread where you say that TFGs are a problem when they make up rules, and I say that if you want to use rules you should bring them in print, and then you say nothing to the contrary. If this is confusing please post again.

ph34r wrote:If you don't have white dwarf then you can buy the information for free.

What?

Typo. "If you don't have white dwarf then you can buy the information instead of getting it for free" My other points that you have ignored, as they show how you are incorrect, still stand.

ph34r wrote:It is not the fault of variant books that tournaments had different rules (protip: every tournament has different rules).

Yes, but they shouldn't, and variant books contribute to that problem. Here are the sample rules from a tournament way back in the day-- this doesn't cover scoring, judging, or anything, just the basic rules that the game is played by:
*long list of rules*

Oh, that's long? Adepticon's first section of the first box of the 40k tournament rules are about half as long, and they don't have to list out all the between-books parts of white dwarves. Seriously, if you can't handle the fact that you might be going up against an opponent who is using slightly more updated rules, it is your loss. 40k isn't checkers, new rules coming out is a good thing for the game, and I think that most 40k players are perfectly capable of dealing with it.

It's fairly obvious which is less confusing.

They are equally unconfusing to me. The only difference is, the first one uses less condensed wording. The first list could have said "All recent IA and CA articles" in place of half that list, which makes the lists pretty damn near equal. Of course the old list would still be slightly longer once written more efficiently (8 lines longer than the current) but the fact of that edition was that there were huge changes in the rules because of the recent update from 2nd. It is only natural that 5th edition be more streamlined in tournament rules presentation, because it is more simplified in rules. The removal of CA, IA, and the other IA is not excused by "it was too confusing!", they could have super easily transfered all that information into 2 or 3 new, optional books for the new edition.

You don't have to choose "many books slowly building up complexity of possibilities and clarity of rules" (3e) or "no complexity of rules and moderate clarity of rules" (5e). Now you are the one spouting false dilemma. GW could have easily updated the extra special rules into the new books or a new IA/IA/CA book at the same time they folded the FAQs into clearer rules writing.

Actually, it does. At the start of 3rd edition, everything was so different from 2nd that all the army lists had to be revised, so every army (except Necrons) had a bare-bones army list at the back of the main rulebook. A lot of people (rightfully) complained, because those army lists were extremely sparse. GW then went too far in the other direction, releasing tons of variant lists, mini-Codices, etc. This shift from one extreme to another represents what is commonly referred to as "pendulum swing."

No, you are wrong. This is what happened: New edition released. Rules start building up in complexity. It isn't like GW decided to simplify everything as a final solution, they simply started at ground level and built up. I can't see how anyone, even you, would mistake this for a pendulum swing. It was not "oh I think we simplified it a bit too much" but rather "lets get every list established in the new edition and once everyone has compatible army lists, let's add detail".

The issue is not that the erratas/FAQs weren't optional, the issue is that nonoptional content was mixed in with optional content. The second part, re: updates being online, is only partially true at best. I'm pretty sure not everything was originally available online, since I distinctly remember finding out about Crux Terminatus through the original 3rd edition Chapter Approved compilation, but that was way back in the day and my memory isn't all that good. I do know, however, that I have the original Codex: Dark Eldar. When this Codex got revised, the new rules were published in Chapter Approved, and the Codex was then reprinted. People with the old version of Codex could either use that with the Chapter Approved article or get the new version. An update PDF was available for a time, but was later removed.

Yes, codex DE got updated. FAQs were available online back then just as much as they are now, except back then they worked hard on them and released them in books for us to have an additional way of accessing them. Back then GW solved a lot of problems through FAQs, and maybe this was because of wanting people to buy the FAQs through CA books. However this is vastly preferable to "just make sure your opponent is okay with it!", and then straight up saying that FAQs are optional all together.

ph34r wrote:If the current books had giant errors and problems with them they would require other books. Chapter Approved did not change Codexes for no reason, it changed them for a good reason: they needed fixing. Stop bringing up the "distributed through white dwarf oh god how will you ever track it down", as stores had recent issues of WD and non-recent issues were in books called... Chapter Approved. Having to buy a $25 book on top of a $40 book isn't bad at all, considering how long 3rd edition lasted and how much the 5e book costs. Who cares if a variant army is slightly less well known as a "core" army? That is not a bad thing.

The 5th edition rulebook costs about 20 bucks, thanks to the glory that is Black Reach. This is a very good thing. Barriers to entry have never been lower, except during the bad old days of early 3rd, where the fact that you could know everything with one book was sadly negated by the fact that everything was pretty much the same.

Black reach and 2nd hand rulebooks are a good thing, sure. However that doesn't make anything we were talking about (3e, CA) actively bad, and you also have not refuted anything I just said but rather stated a well known fact: Black Reach Is Good. They did not have Black Reach back then, Black Reach has no effect on "was CA good".

Kveldulv wrote:As for the Chapter Approved debate: 1. Get a hold of WD 255. 2. Open it on page 44. 3. Watch in awe as Pete Haines gives you 6 pages of advanced formulaes for creating Tyranid superheavies.
For me, this is what the hobby is about. The stuff you could make with these optional rules were horribly broken, but they served as a guideline for players' own creativity. The rules weren't meant for tournament play, but for fun.

I liked all the crazy stuff in Chapter Approved (especially the VDR), but having that optional fun/silly content mixed in with nonoptional content is confusing and a bad idea from a design perspective.

Well if the options are "release fun rules not intended for tournaments, and have tournaments have to clarify them as not used", or "not have fun extra rules", I will go with the first every time. Of course there is also "release a fourth extra rules book" but that is probably too complicated too

Cryonicleech wrote:What I am asking is where is the line drawn when it comes to variant armies.

If I were running the place my answer is 1 big 100+ page codex for each major faction. Then lots of small 1, 5, 10, 20 page variant books for all the sub-factions. Throw some in the codex as GW did with the 3.5 Chaos book, throw the rest in WD with at least 1 variant army list an issue. Put them online after a month or two. That way we all have a reason to read WD (imagine, that, you see once upon a time kids everyone read WD every month...) we all see new variant lists and we all have hope that one fine day the Crimson Fists or Ork Freebootaz or Praetorians will get their own list.

Basically dial back the clock to where we were in 2003.

Sure Marines and MEqs got most of those lists (all 18 first founding chapters plus a bunch more) but hey, there were plenty of IG, a few Ork and even a Nid variant or two.

Some of the lists were crap, some had potential, some were great. IG Armored companies went through at least 3 drafts. Drop Troops I'm sure were revised between WD and the list in Imperial Armor. There were some edits to the Index Astres lists between WD and them being collected, that's fine. Editing, refinement and correcting are good things. Tag the lists with some sort of easy system - Experimental (brand new, untested), Trial (2nd draft, reasonably good) and Official (as good as a codex). Let clubs and shops and tournaments decide what they'll accept.

For me the BA PDF is exactly the sort of thing GW should do more of, not disown and ignore.

But a BA codex is coming anyway so hopefully we'll get some neat toys out of it.

So a question, besides shoulder pad what would a BA marine box need? What would be cool to get?

I can imagine getting at least one set of ornate legs and body to make a distincitive BA commander.

Hopefully something i always like the blood angels the best of all the "loyal" legions.

Cryonicleech wrote:But in essence, Praetorians, Death Korps, and Catachans are the same army, they just have different appearances.

Space Marine chapters have their own histories, fighting styles and rules. Why not do the same for them!?

A good question. Just because it is too difficult for the designers to bring new "fighting style" to guards.

Field more vehicles,more guns. Then crush your enemies with them. This is the current "fight style" for guards.

Can you suggest a better one?

I too wish GW made more variant lists like the BA 'dex.

Guard have more options for fighting styles. Steel Legion are Armored Infantry, Catachans are Jungle Fighters, etc. etc.

I would hope for some cooler looking jump packs in the kit though. I mean, they've always looked pretty plain to me, IMHO. And some dynamic poses for the legs, obviously. I can't stand jump troops who look like they're standing around, doing nothing.

Cryonicleech wrote:
But then there's the argument on stats. Catachans actually had different stats from regular guard back in the old Catachan 'dex, right? Now, a basic Tactical Marine rarely changes from army to army, and I doubt there are any Tactical Squads with different stats (But different rules is another thing). And sure, the old Catachans probably had different saves, Weapon Skill, etc. than Cadians. But Black Templar have different units and even different squad make-up (BT Tacticals can take scouts, IIRC) Black Templar can take Sword Brethern, The Emperors Champion, Army-Wide Special Rules, etc. Which made them different from Vanilla Marines. The same thing applies to Catachans.

Here's how to fit the BT codex into the SM codex:

HQ: Emperor's Children (You gain access to units X, Y, Z and you may take these vows for A, B, C points, your army gains ___ etc)

Then you fit in everything. That's how easy it is.

Catachans are as different from Cadians as Spacewolves are from normal Imperial space marines.

Dark Angels are stupidly easy to fit into the normal Imperial marine codex so I'm not even going to go there.

Well considering that The blood angels are so far sighted and want to make new things they should have different variants of weapons and vechiles. Considering that they are they wear red is good enough for me.

Ho-Ho-Ho vampire style. Well i read all i can about all of the legions and the Blood Angels Stand out because they had the most Veterans. (too bad soo many died :*( thanks Kabahanda )
I personnally think that the Blood Angels Primarch was cool but a sorta whinner and could get his head chopped off by any of the primarchs.

Vladsimpaler wrote:
Here's how to fit the BT codex into the SM codex:

HQ: Emperor's Children (You gain access to units X, Y, Z and you may take these vows for A, B, C points, your army gains ___ etc)

Then you fit in everything. That's how easy it is.

Catachans are as different from Cadians as Spacewolves are from normal Imperial space marines.

Dark Angels are stupidly easy to fit into the normal Imperial marine codex so I'm not even going to go there.

Here's how to fit the CSM codex into the SM codex:

HQ:
Deamon Prince (You gain access to units X, Y, Z and you lose access to unit A, B, C, your army gains updrades K,T,N,S___ etc)

Chaos Sorcerer(You gain access to psychic powers P,Q,R, you lose access to unit A, B, C, your army gains upgrades K,T,N,S ___ etc)

Then you fit in everything. That's how easy it is.

ph34r wrote:Yeah, the thread where you say that TFGs are a problem when they make up rules, and I say that if you want to use rules you should bring them in print, and then you say nothing to the contrary. If this is confusing please post again.

The jokes I've seen were about people springing new rules on people from unusual supplements, which may/may not be legitimate. The possibility for this kind of thing is eliminated when such supplements don't contain tournament- or pickup- valid rules.

ph34r wrote:You don't have to choose "many books slowly building up complexity of possibilities and clarity of rules" (3e) or "no complexity of rules and moderate clarity of rules" (5e). Now you are the one spouting false dilemma. GW could have easily updated the extra special rules into the new books or a new IA/IA/CA book at the same time they folded the FAQs into clearer rules writing.

I'd describe the current edition as a good balance between early 3rd edition (very little detail, but very clear) and late 3rd/4th edition (tons of detail, but often unclear or unbalanced). I think 5th edition is the best edition of 40k yet, and barring a few wonky spots (KPs, limited scenarios, wound allocation for complex multi-wound units), I can think of very little that I would want to change for a potential 6th edition of the basic 40k rules.

ph34r wrote:This is what happened: New edition released. Rules start building up in complexity. It isn't like GW decided to simplify everything as a final solution, they simply started at ground level and built up. I can't see how anyone, even you, would mistake this for a pendulum swing. It was not "oh I think we simplified it a bit too much" but rather "lets get every list established in the new edition and once everyone has compatible army lists, let's add detail".

I don't have access to my 3rd edition rulebook, or else I would quote the section in the designer notes that explains this. As more and more supplements came out, 2nd edition, which already used more detailed mechanics than modern 40k, became even more complex. GW decided that the game was too complex and was bogging down in larger battles, so they released the much simpler 3rd edition. The mechanics changed enough that new, extremely simplified lists were required-- while these lists were not intended as permanent solutions, the Codices that came out soon after the release of 3rd edition indicate that a simpler approach was, in fact, considered favorable at the time. Compare the original 3rd edition Codex: Chaos Space Marines to the 3.5e one, or the 3rd edition Codex: Space Marines to the 4th edition one, or even the original Codex: Dark Eldar to the updated/"patched" Codex: Dark Eldar. This approach was considered to be undesirable, so later versions of these Codices featured many, many more options. Classic pendulum swing: lots of detail to very little detail to lots of detail again.

Yes, codex DE got updated. FAQs were available online back then just as much as they are now, except back then they worked hard on them and released them in books for us to have an additional way of accessing them. Back then GW solved a lot of problems through FAQs, and maybe this was because of wanting people to buy the FAQs through CA books. However this is vastly preferable to "just make sure your opponent is okay with it!", and then straight up saying that FAQs are optional all together.

GW's current attitude towards FAQs really has very little to do with Chapter Approved, and more to do with their general move away from tournament play, or at least official GW tournaments. This opens the opportunity for the community to create their own FAQs in order to resolve key problems.

ph34r wrote:]Black reach and 2nd hand rulebooks are a good thing, sure. However that doesn't make anything we were talking about (3e, CA) actively bad, and you also have not refuted anything I just said but rather stated a well known fact: Black Reach Is Good. They did not have Black Reach back then, Black Reach has no effect on "was CA good".

The obvious inference is that the current system, in which you have to buy fewer books, is better than the old system, in which you had to buy more books.

ph34r wrote:Well if the options are "release fun rules not intended for tournaments, and have tournaments have to clarify them as not used", or "not have fun extra rules", I will go with the first every time. Of course there is also "release a fourth extra rules book" but that is probably too complicated too

I like the "release an extra rulebook, which is clearly for X games only" approach. Planetstrike, Apocalypse, and Cityfight/Cities of Death are good examples of this.

tokugawa wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:
Here's how to fit the BT codex into the SM codex:

HQ: Emperor's Children (You gain access to units X, Y, Z and you may take these vows for A, B, C points, your army gains ___ etc)

Then you fit in everything. That's how easy it is.

Catachans are as different from Cadians as Spacewolves are from normal Imperial space marines.

Dark Angels are stupidly easy to fit into the normal Imperial marine codex so I'm not even going to go there.

Here's how to fit the CSM codex into the SM codex:

HQ:
Deamon Prince (You gain access to units X, Y, Z and you lose access to unit A, B, C, your army gains updrades K,T,N,S___ etc)

Chaos Sorcerer(You gain access to psychic powers P,Q,R, you lose access to unit A, B, C, your army gains upgrades K,T,N,S ___ etc)

Then you fit in everything. That's how easy it is.

Summed it up better than I could.

To be honest BA and DA especially have had some of their uniqueness taken away by newer SM releases. BA currently are more unique then DA because their specialty (Jump pack orientated troops) and other unique units (furioso, DC and Baal pred) have largely not be copied. DA used to be the only army that could have either all Terminators or all Bikes, now neither is unique. Therefore new codex's are needed to make the chapters more unique again.

As to specific BA kits I think they'll get an upgrade kit like SW with the extra parts used to kitbash BA specific units. GW will probably come out with a BA vehicle kit that has a spare Dread arm and the turret for the Baal Preditor. I wouldn't mind them making a BA honor guard/veteran assault squad box though.

GW's going to milk all they get out of SM (more codex's, and releases), we all know that, why they don't try it with other armies is beyond me (guard or chaos being the main ones). That being said doesn't FW have alternate guard lists?

The jokes I've seen were about people springing new rules on people from unusual supplements, which may/may not be legitimate. The possibility for this kind of thing is eliminated when such supplements don't contain tournament- or pickup- valid rules.

It really isn't an issue. If you have the supplement, it is legitimate. If you are listing rules off the top of your head to someone who has never heard of them you must bring the rules or be laughed at.

I'd describe the current edition as a good balance between early 3rd edition (very little detail, but very clear) and late 3rd/4th edition (tons of detail, but often unclear or unbalanced). I think 5th edition is the best edition of 40k yet, and barring a few wonky spots (KPs, limited scenarios, wound allocation for complex multi-wound units), I can think of very little that I would want to change for a potential 6th edition of the basic 40k rules.

5th edition is fine, but the lack of CA/IA/IA width of rules being encompassed into the sucks. 5th edition would be improved by additional rulebooks, or additional rules rolled into the basic rules. Most CA/IA/IA rules were left out.

I don't have access to my 3rd edition rulebook, or else I would quote the section in the designer notes that explains this. As more and more supplements came out, 2nd edition, which already used more detailed mechanics than modern 40k, became even more complex. GW decided that the game was too complex and was bogging down in larger battles, so they released the much simpler 3rd edition. The mechanics changed enough that new, extremely simplified lists were required-- while these lists were not intended as permanent solutions, the Codices that came out soon after the release of 3rd edition indicate that a simpler approach was, in fact, considered favorable at the time. Compare the original 3rd edition Codex: Chaos Space Marines to the 3.5e one, or the 3rd edition Codex: Space Marines to the 4th edition one, or even the original Codex: Dark Eldar to the updated/"patched" Codex: Dark Eldar. This approach was considered to be undesirable, so later versions of these Codices featured many, many more options. Classic pendulum swing: lots of detail to very little detail to lots of detail again.

If you want to consider that a pendulum swing then I guess I will not dissuade you. I too am aware of the 3rd edition book, and would not interpret this as a "lets see how everyone likes the rules condensed to near 0 flavor! oh no they hated it add more rules" but rather "all the rules changed. we need to make new codexes fast, we can add more rules later".

GW's current attitude towards FAQs really has very little to do with Chapter Approved, and more to do with their general move away from tournament play, or at least official GW tournaments. This opens the opportunity for the community to create their own FAQs in order to resolve key problems.

Too bad they still haven't made satisfactory FAQs, and they still hold on to the "get your opponent's permission to use the rules correctly!"

ph34r wrote:Black reach and 2nd hand rulebooks are a good thing, sure. However that doesn't make anything we were talking about (3e, CA) actively bad, and you also have not refuted anything I just said but rather stated a well known fact: Black Reach Is Good. They did not have Black Reach back then, Black Reach has no effect on "was CA good".

The obvious inference is that the current system, in which you have to buy fewer books, is better than the old system, in which you had to buy more books.

No gak sherlock. Again, Black Reach having a cheap rulebook has no relation at all with Chapter Approved. No CA in 3rd ed would not make GW make a cheaper rulebook, and CA now would not increase the price. In fact, a cheap core rulebook creates the opportunity to focus more on expansion books (not mission books like CoD, planetstrike, whatever), rather than not at all.

I like the "release an extra rulebook, which is clearly for X games only" approach. Planetstrike, Apocalypse, and Cityfight/Cities of Death are good examples of this.

And I hate it. "Do you want to play Planetstrike?" No. "Do you want to play CoD?" No. People don't design their normal armies to play missions where the board is entirely covered in cities or everything deep strikes. I would much rather have books that improved armies for every day play, rather than rules for missions to totally change the game. And, as we saw in 3rd edition, there is no reason that these cannot coexist.

Well to get back on track...

1. Marine heads with hair and no braids/beards.
2. Heads with fangs...maybe?
3. Chapter Banner, a Chalice, apothicary/chaplain bits a plastic death mask for your home made Lemartes
4. Power Axes (seem popular on BA models), PA&Termy Helmets, legs, torsos, backpacks, dreadnought/Rhino/LR bits with iconography for regular BA as well as BA. I hope the BA shoulder pads look good as the GW metal ones suck donkey. If they are 70% of the FW termy SPs then Ill be happy.
5. Drop pod doors? Im half expecting FW to start doing Chapter specific doors. Why not?
6. Dante/Mephiston with a new pack pack. Resculpt of Tyco and some RETCON fluff.
7. Hopefully some completely new character. or rules for BA sucessor Chapter Masters since there arent any special BA companies like DA, or Captains like SW...Blackmane's.
in my dreams bits for flesh terrors and a Seth model. I wouldnt be opposed to something totally random like a BA techmarine who can pilot vehicles with overcharged engines or even operate a thunderfire with BA ammo or some such. Just for something different.

I might imagine Marines as a whole could get:

1. honor guard (not sure here as these may undercut the existing sales of the vanguard and Sternguard metals)
2. generic Librarian or Chaplain box akin to the Captain...(not likely same as above)
3. Recut Predator, but I think the Baal options might end up on a "Ravenwing" like sprew with other vehicle upgrader.
4. NO thunderhawk. I dont think GW is taking 40k into a flyer oriented game, storing transporting, and cost seems prohibitive.

ph34r wrote:

The jokes I've seen were about people springing new rules on people from unusual supplements, which may/may not be legitimate. The possibility for this kind of thing is eliminated when such supplements don't contain tournament- or pickup- valid rules.

It really isn't an issue. If you have the supplement, it is legitimate. If you are listing rules off the top of your head to someone who has never heard of them you must bring the rules or be laughed at.

Up here in Washington this WAS a problem for about a year. In 4th ed, one guy had all the old supplements and would spring them on various people who were fairly new to the game, using their ignorance to gain an unfair advantage over them. Eventually he was kicked out of the store because it was pissing people off and they weren't coming back. Having all the information spread out all over the place gives the experienced players an unfair advantage in this regard since the newer players simply don't know those rules exist (and therefor haven't looked for them) or can't afford every single essoteric rulebook that may or may not be in print. When you walk into a store and see a row of codexs you think, "Ah... here is my info, now I can battle". If you find out you have to collect a library of stuff that is going to be hard to get, you might just decide it's not worth it and play a different system. Price of collecting all those various books also becomes a barrier to entry. Not good for new recruits.

I have to agree that I do not like chasing down abstract rules from ancient tomes. The main rule books + codexs + any special game system (Planet Strike, Apocalypse etc...) + FAQs is more than enough. For this same reason I disliked the PDF BA rules that we go handed down. Without a real codex my opponent is less likely to know what my forces/abilities are because they may not know where to find the information. YES, before there's a snarky remark, I have had this happen. Remember that we who post here often know more than your average player. People who get surprised by things often think you are trying to pull a fast one, and that can put a cloud over the game. So, a new codex will be greatly appreciated as ALL CURRENT RULES should be in print and visible on the store wall, not hidden away in the store's drawer if they're there at all.

Moopy wrote:Up here in Washington this WAS a problem for about a year. In 4th ed, one guy had all the old supplements and would spring them on various people who were fairly new to the game, using their ignorance to gain an unfair advantage over them. Eventually he was kicked out of the store because it was pissing people off and they weren't coming back. Having all the information spread out all over the place gives the experienced players an unfair advantage in this regard since the newer players simply don't know those rules exist (and therefor haven't looked for them) or can't afford every single essoteric rulebook that may or may not be in print. When you walk into a store and see a row of codexs you think, "Ah... here is my info, now I can battle". If you find out you have to collect a library of stuff that is going to be hard to get, you might just decide it's not worth it and play a different system. Price of collecting all those various books also becomes a barrier to entry. Not good for new recruits.

I have to agree that I do not like chasing down abstract rules from ancient tomes. The main rule books + codexs + any special game system (Planet Strike, Apocalypse etc...) + FAQs is more than enough. For this same reason I disliked the PDF BA rules that we go handed down. Without a real codex my opponent is less likely to know what my forces/abilities are because they may not know where to find the information. YES, before there's a snarky remark, I have had this happen. Remember that we who post here often know more than your average player. People who get surprised by things often think you are trying to pull a fast one, and that can put a cloud over the game. So, a new codex will be greatly appreciated as ALL CURRENT RULES should be in print and visible on the store wall, not hidden away in the store's drawer if they're there at all.

Tragic story, but it isn't the CA's fault that a player used them to trick new players. I could just as easily pull out my 3.5e codex CSM and trick a new player.

The thing about 3rd edition and your "abstract rules" and "ancient tomes" is that they weren't abstract and they weren't ancient. They were relevant, important, clarifying, and expanding. They were new, and people knew about them. Now, looking back you might think "look at all those crazy rules! we certainly don't have that many rules now!" but at the time those were the rules.

I don't think we'll see a new predator variant any time soon. More likeley the parts for an assault cannon turret will be in the one sprue they'l make, just like they did with Dark Angels.

The baal predator will be updated. as a plastic-metal hybrid kit it is exactly the sort of kit GW is try to update and replace. Also you forget that a Baal Predator is more than just an assault cannon turret. You also need the sponsons. That is 6 and 8 parts just for the weapons, depending on how they fit together. Assuming they want additional add-on bits for it, like the ammo box, or other variants it only takes up more sprue. GW will likely make a whole new sprue that is composed of those 10 or so bits, the two parts that make the turret and the 6 sponson parts. The one sprue would replace the two non-rhino sprues in the predator kit.

ph34r wrote:

I'd describe the current edition as a good balance between early 3rd edition (very little detail, but very clear) and late 3rd/4th edition (tons of detail, but often unclear or unbalanced). I think 5th edition is the best edition of 40k yet, and barring a few wonky spots (KPs, limited scenarios, wound allocation for complex multi-wound units), I can think of very little that I would want to change for a potential 6th edition of the basic 40k rules.

5th edition is fine, but the lack of CA/IA/IA width of rules being encompassed into the sucks. 5th edition would be improved by additional rulebooks, or additional rules rolled into the basic rules. Most CA/IA/IA rules were left out.

I consider that desirable, as it reduces clutter and increases balance. This is similar to how I favor the 5th edition Codex: Space Marines over the 4th edition one, though. The 4th edition Codex was a lot more customizable, but often in silly ways, like the broken Traits system. The 5th edition Codex, on the other hand, is much more balanced while still containing a lot of options.

ph34r wrote:

GW's current attitude towards FAQs really has very little to do with Chapter Approved, and more to do with their general move away from tournament play, or at least official GW tournaments. This opens the opportunity for the community to create their own FAQs in order to resolve key problems.

Too bad they still haven't made satisfactory FAQs, and they still hold on to the "get your opponent's permission to use the rules correctly!"

I disagree that GW FAQs are generally unsatisfactory. Remember that the most recent FAQ was for Codex: Imperial Guard, and it admirably solved every ambiguity or issue I had with the Codex (Valkyrie/Vendetta measurement to model vs. measurement to base, orders to allies, GKTs in Valkyries, mortar/MoO multiple bombardment silliness). I believe that you too found this FAQ satisfactory, or at least said so at the time.

[quote=[h34r]

I like the "release an extra rulebook, which is clearly for X games only" approach. Planetstrike, Apocalypse, and Cityfight/Cities of Death are good examples of this.

And I hate it. "Do you want to play Planetstrike?" No. "Do you want to play CoD?" No. People don't design their normal armies to play missions where the board is entirely covered in cities or everything deep strikes. I would much rather have books that improved armies for every day play, rather than rules for missions to totally change the game. And, as we saw in 3rd edition, there is no reason that these cannot coexist.

I think that for the BA release there'll be a sprue, like the DA/SW sprue, lots of nice BA bits which can go with any other kit (e.g tac, dev etc) to make BA units.

I think that they may also do some new assault sprue, for Death compny/vet jump troops.

Otherwise, maybe a plastic Ball/Furioso (one or other) I'd also guess a few new metal characters, max 5.

Personally i hope when they do marines in 6th, it's codex Marines and codex odd marines to include BA, DA, BT and SW two books are all you need, and please please don't stick stuff in WD or the net, it's a lot easier to organise vents when it's just books and not funny bits of printed paper floating around!

Sounds like a good prediction. A lot of people seem to be expecting a Predator recut, which would be welcome but doesn't seem totally necessary. On the other hand, the Marine line is good enough at this stage that we're really dealing primarily with "luxury items" here, other than the obvious BA sprue to match the DA/SW/BT ones, so who knows what will happen?

Cryonicleech wrote:

tokugawa wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:
Here's how to fit the BT codex into the SM codex:

HQ: Emperor's Children (You gain access to units X, Y, Z and you may take these vows for A, B, C points, your army gains ___ etc)

Then you fit in everything. That's how easy it is.

Catachans are as different from Cadians as Spacewolves are from normal Imperial space marines.

Dark Angels are stupidly easy to fit into the normal Imperial marine codex so I'm not even going to go there.

Here's how to fit the CSM codex into the SM codex:

HQ:
Deamon Prince (You gain access to units X, Y, Z and you lose access to unit A, B, C, your army gains updrades K,T,N,S___ etc)

Chaos Sorcerer(You gain access to psychic powers P,Q,R, you lose access to unit A, B, C, your army gains upgrades K,T,N,S ___ etc)

Then you fit in everything. That's how easy it is.

Summed it up better than I could.

That would be how you would fit in the CURRENT Chaos codex.

Even then, there are still marks. There are still 4 different Cult units, different Terminators, Possessed, Obliterators, Raptors, etc.

Now, if there was a REAL Chaos codex, one that like the 3.5 codex, the above suggestion would definitely not work.

Cryonicleech, you said that there were like 5 or 6 different things about the Black Templar. There are many more differences between Chaos and Imperial space marines.

Sorry to destroy your battleship there.

ph34r wrote:Tragic story, but it isn't the CA's fault that a player used them to trick new players. I could just as easily pull out my 3.5e codex CSM and trick a new player.

Ahh but then you would be cheating, and not using the current poorly organized rules (spread out and hard to find in many cases) to your advantage. In one of your previous posts, you mentioned that you would rather have books that improve everyday play. I agree with that. Having all your rules centrally located in as few places as possible goes to improve the game for everyone. There's less time looking it up, and less arguments because everyone is on the same page. How that happens goes in my next point.

ph34r wrote:The thing about 3rd edition and your "abstract rules" and "ancient tomes" is that they weren't abstract and they weren't ancient. They were relevant, important, clarifying, and expanding. They were new, and people knew about them. Now, looking back you might think "look at all those crazy rules! we certainly don't have that many rules now!" but at the time those were the rules.

All of that refers to the inability of people actually get their hands on the rules at the time. Lots of these rules came out in the WD's and weren't reprinted until much later. During that doughnut hole of time, the WDs went out of print and people couldn't get them- I remember trying to get hold of the Iron Hands rules, but because I was stuck in classes and didn't have a car, the WD was sold out when I finally got to my store; I was SOL. When you can't get your hands on a complete set of the rules they do become nebulous to the player even though they are perfectly legal. You don't want to create a system of haves/have nots when it comes to the rules. Thus having the minimum amount of books keeps everyone on the same footing (core rule book + codex).

Again, this is why I'm looking forward to the BA codex, probably more so than any of the plastic kits. Don't get me wrong, I really want new DC and a brand new BA sprue to customize my (bat riding?) neo-space vampires, but more importantly I want a codex that people don't have to go out of their way to find.

It amuses me that WD used to sell out in 3rd edition due to things ACTUALLY being printed in it that werent just painting advertisements

I can see it now in the GW boardroom

GW Executive #1: We have the new reports.. based upon us putting useful information inside of white dwarf magazine the demand has outstripped our supply! What should we do about this?

GW Executive #2: Roll a D6. 1: 1s always fail. The only logical answer to demand outstripping supply is to LOWER demand by getting rid of everything people want to read"

GW Executive: JOLLY GOOD SHOW CHAP.. We will call this "4th edition" and it will be a new era in WD irrelevancy

Kid_Kyoto wrote:(And now a message from an alternate universe...)

Now I know a lot of people have been complaining about the new codex that's coming out. They say it's not needed, that the differences between this army and the others does not justify a full codex. They say it's just the same as the vanilla codex but painted red.

These people are wrong.

First of all they forget that the fluff has long-established that Praetorians are the best bayonette fighters in the Imperium which was reflected in the 3rd edition Praetorian Codex but dropped in that crappy PDF Praetorian Codex GW did for 4th edition. Also only Praetorians have the Stiff Upper Lip rule and Beefeater squads.

Plus the Victoria-Patten Leman Russ and Edwardian-Pattern sentinels are unique vehicles that right now you can only get in crappy metal-plastic hybrid kits. We need them in plastic.

Vanilla Guard, Catachans, Death Korps, Cadians and Praetorians are very different armies with their own histories, fighting styles and rules. You can't just lump them into one book like GW does with Space Marines (who are basically the same models painted different colors).

Right now 4 of those armies have a codex but Praetorians have to use a crappy PDF with no fluff in it. Plus the Death Korps and Catachan books are from 4th edition and are showing their age. Maybe after all the books are updated to 5th edition then we can talk about doing a codex for some crazy Marine sub-list but for now GW has to focus on the unique armies.

Don't forget their Rorke's Drift special scenario! It still uses VPs!

Kirasu wrote:It amuses me that WD used to sell out in 3rd edition due to things ACTUALLY being printed in it that werent just painting advertisements

I can see it now in the GW boardroom

GW Executive #1: We have the new reports.. based upon us putting useful information inside of white dwarf magazine the demand has outstripped our supply! What should we do about this?

GW Executive #2: Roll a D6. 1: 1s always fail. The only logical answer to demand outstripping supply is to LOWER demand by getting rid of everything people want to read"

GW Executive: JOLLY GOOD SHOW CHAP.. We will call this "4th edition" and it will be a new era in WD irrelevancy

So true :*(.
Thats how they do stuff.
and thats how i buy items.

How's this:

BLOOD ANGEL ASSAULT SQUAD
5 assault marines, with BA-style breastplates. Tons of shoulder pads and angel bitz to add to other squads and vehicle doors.
Furioso arm and Baal guns on that sprue.

They might be able to do it in one box.

I totally endorse it!