Switch Theme:

W40k : rumor of 7th edition for 2014 summer ! How on Earth ?!? * news p.45*  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





staffordshire england

Timmon wrote:

I believe that releasing Imperial Knights as superheavies instead of monsterous creatures is in fact a sure sign that some kind of update to main wh40k rules is incoming.

GW seems to be set to include superheavies to regular games, as an antidote for overdoing monsterous creatures. Look at it this way: more HP for vehicles makes them more equal to MC's. Superheavies ignoring vehicle dmg table makes them more equal to MC (no sudden loss of capabilities). Still, MC's (and GC's) come slightly ahead in the race as their armor save is applied after wounds have been made to high toughness. The 4++ shield on the IK attempts to equalize this aspect too.

As for game balance, simply doubling the existing HP values for all the vehicles would actually make many of them more playable when compared to MC's, even if dmg table effects were to remain. Or, they can go the other way, simply remove vehicle dmg table altogether, and replace with a smaller exposion (or chance of one) when HP run out.

D-weapons could also be "fixed" rather easily. First of all, people tend to forget that a roll of 1 equals a save for non-vech models already. Then, further fixing would be to change D from strips all saves to degrades all saves: a -2 for saves, so that a 3+ would become 5+. Or perhaps -3. And the rest of the D effects could be retained as is.

So, I my view balance is not necessarily lost forever. And for the record, I think 6ed is, all in all, clearly better than 5th. Let's hope 7th is better still.

Timmon

More of an antidote for falling profits



Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men.
Welcome to Fantasy 40k

If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.

Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
 
   
Made in ar
Dakka Veteran




 kir44n wrote:

The tactics threads about knights are bringing this arguments up again, with people expressing that Imperial Knights should be banned just like escalation because they're "grossly overpowered." It's getting kind of absurd. Banning Flyers, Fortifications, Super-Heavies, Imperial Knights....what's next? Dataslates because they allow forces that break FoC? The mindset seems to me that they want to ban anything that wasn't legal and normal in late 4th, early 5th edition, and are instituting a sort of edition freeze, except for minor rules tweaks. And I don't think I can fully agree with that mindset. So I'm hopeful that this rumor is true, because it should solve the arguing, and maybe get this mentality out the door so people can move on and be productive. And not try to *ban* anything new that they don't like.


sorry to point it out, but a new edition will do nothing about it, the problem is balance, and until GW addresses that, something competitive players have asked for for years now, the situation will not change, comp is going nowhere until they strike balance.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 kir44n wrote:
The tactics threads about knights are bringing this arguments up again, with people expressing that Imperial Knights should be banned just like escalation because they're "grossly overpowered." It's getting kind of absurd. Banning Flyers, Fortifications, Super-Heavies, Imperial Knights....what's next? Dataslates because they allow forces that break FoC? The mindset seems to me that they want to ban anything that wasn't legal and normal in late 4th, early 5th edition, and are instituting a sort of edition freeze, except for minor rules tweaks. And I don't think I can fully agree with that mindset. So I'm hopeful that this rumor is true, because it should solve the arguing, and maybe get this mentality out the door so people can move on and be productive. And not try to *ban* anything new that they don't like.


Banning Knights is a slippery slope though, since they're a legal "army". As I said above, at that point why not ban Tau or Eldar? Plus you cause problems when that guy shows up to a tournament with 5 Knights and gets told "Sorry no Knights" as he's bought an army and can't use them. And there's the rub - If you allow Knights, it's one less step to allowing Escalation. And if/when 7th edition includes Escalation and superheavies in the normal rules, it'll be one step less from letting anybody drop a superheavy in a normal game, because "Why can Bill field his Knight army, but I can't use my superheavy?"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/26 15:12:55


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

 loki old fart wrote:

More of an antidote for falling profits


Which may have the opposite effect. It may ramp up sales at the beginning of March as the Codex becomes available, but that is probably when customers will start dropping off again too. I was about to get back into 40K until I read all of this. Now, I am going to bide my time and wait to see how the Knights codex affects the game and what 7th looks like.


Consider a scenario:

A new kid finally gets his parents to cave and buy the rules, a codex and an army. He spends weeks painting up his new army then shows up to a tournament and gets pounded by an experienced player with super-heavies. "This game sucks," he says as he goes home to eBay his models and look up Infinity.

This is obviously an exaggerated example, because GW isn't bringing any "new kids" into the Hobby.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/26 15:15:55


WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
Devastating Dark Reaper




Virginia

 puma713 wrote:
...A new kid finally gets his parents to cave and buy the rules, a codex and an army. He spends weeks painting up his new army then shows up to a tournament and gets pounded by an experienced player with super-heavies. "This game sucks," he says as he goes home to eBay his models and look up Infinity.


Replace "ebay his models and look up infinity" with "put his models away and play video games with his friends" and you've about got it I think. Either way the scenario is a "WIN" for GW. Churn and burn baby!

Edit: there are new kids (my son and his friends are examples from a couple of years ago) but very few, so few. More importantly it wasn't GW that brought them into the hobby; for two it was the kids parents and for the other two it was those kids. GW stores had nothing to do with it. Well, I was in England between '86-90 and so was the other parent of the other kid so the GW stores over there contributed but many years prior to now!

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/26 15:21:31


 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

WayneTheGame wrote:


Banning Knights is a slippery slope though, since they're a legal "army". As I said above, at that point why not ban Tau or Eldar? Plus you cause problems when that guy shows up to a tournament with 5 Knights and gets told "Sorry no Knights" as he's bought an army and can't use them. And there's the rub - If you allow Knights, it's one less step to allowing Escalation. And if/when 7th edition includes Escalation and superheavies in the normal rules, it'll be one step less from letting anybody drop a superheavy in a normal game, because "Why can Bill field his Knight army, but I can't use my superheavy?"


I would say the guy with the Knight army should've checked with the TO/tournament rules to make sure Knights were allowed before he showed up with an illegal army. Which is what Knight players will probably have to face any time they want to field their army. This will, in turn, damage Knight sales and cause their Codex to be sidelined outside of casual games. But I'm not sure how many casual players really want to play against an army of superheavies.

So, seems like lose-lose. But the push by GW to crowbar superheavies into normal games is becoming more and more blatantly obvious.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/26 15:21:34


WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
The New Miss Macross!





Deep Frier of Mount Doom

 kir44n wrote:


The tactics threads about knights are bringing this arguments up again, with people expressing that Imperial Knights should be banned just like escalation because they're "grossly overpowered." It's getting kind of absurd. Banning Flyers, Fortifications, Super-Heavies, Imperial Knights....what's next? Dataslates because they allow forces that break FoC? The mindset seems to me that they want to ban anything that wasn't legal and normal in late 4th, early 5th edition, and are instituting a sort of edition freeze, except for minor rules tweaks. And I don't think I can fully agree with that mindset. So I'm hopeful that this rumor is true, because it should solve the arguing, and maybe get this mentality out the door so people can move on and be productive. And not try to *ban* anything new that they don't like.


Dataslates are already being ignored by both gamers and tournies for the reason you list. Also, making something 100% official or even in a codex doesn't mean people will allow its use. Both chapter approved army lists (all tank IG) that didn't require any permission as well as codex supplements (catachan jungle fighters) were banned from most major tournies and frowned upon in some local scenes. In my store, you basically played the catachan all jungle army once and then politely declined future games against that army unless he was using them as normal guard. If something breaks the game and/or makes it unfun, it likely be ignored regardless of how official it is.
   
Made in ie
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

xxvaderxx wrote:

sorry to point it out, but a new edition will do nothing about it, the problem is balance, and until GW addresses that, something competitive players have asked for for years now, the situation will not change, comp is going nowhere until they strike balance.


It's something all players (apart from those who seem to regard balance as boring) have been asking for years now. I'm not a competitive player, I don't mind losing. But I don't like it being a foregone conclusion.
   
Made in fi
Jervis Johnson






 Kroothawk wrote:
 kir44n wrote:
The tactics threads about knights are bringing this arguments up again, with people expressing that Imperial Knights should be banned just like escalation because they're "grossly overpowered." It's getting kind of absurd. Banning Flyers, Fortifications, Super-Heavies, Imperial Knights....what's next? Dataslates because they allow forces that break FoC? The mindset seems to me that they want to ban anything that wasn't legal and normal in late 4th, early 5th edition, and are instituting a sort of edition freeze, except for minor rules tweaks.

Guess why? Because most were written with no respect for game balance. Introducing flyers while noone has anti-air weapons, just so you could buy a roflstomp win. Allowing titans and super heavies, so you could buy a roflstomp win.
There are not enough TFGs to sustain sales and not enough opponents happy with being roflstomped. There is a reason, why the flood of new Codices, new supplements and new data slades did not translate into higher revenue, because it is not a balanced game anymore..


No that's not why. It's because money. If this was a video game where you can download the latest OP army and play mirror matches vs others like you there would be far less noise. The standard reply to "That's overpowered" would be "Play it yourself if you think it's so easy". But because this is a miniature game, only a fraction of the player base can keep moving from one flavor of the month army to the next in order to keep roflstomping others year in, year out.

Sometimes complaining is justified, sometimes it isn't. I understand that if GW introduces units that table entire armies in a single turn people might have a legit reason to be upset. The problem to me is that even the whine escalates. People don't simply whine about grossly overpowered units, but they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.

There's no point trying to bring the argument that this time around balance is so bad that something has to be done. Not the case. I won a Grand Tournament with a Siren Daemon Prince back in the day with 9 minor powers. He couldn't be targeted by any weapons and couldn't be assaulted. Everything else in the army was blatantly broken too, and I won 6 games 20-0 and one opponent conceded before the game started. This is soon a decade ago. Everyone, and I mean everyone, who is a veteran in the GW hobby, has similar stories to tell. Nothing's changed.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/26 15:41:15


 
   
Made in us
The New Miss Macross!





Deep Frier of Mount Doom

WayneTheGame wrote:


Banning Knights is a slippery slope though, since they're a legal "army". As I said above, at that point why not ban Tau or Eldar? Plus you cause problems when that guy shows up to a tournament with 5 Knights and gets told "Sorry no Knights" as he's bought an army and can't use them. And there's the rub - If you allow Knights, it's one less step to allowing Escalation. And if/when 7th edition includes Escalation and superheavies in the normal rules, it'll be one step less from letting anybody drop a superheavy in a normal game, because "Why can Bill field his Knight army, but I can't use my superheavy?"


See above. Banning an entire codex is not unprecedented but your comparison to eldar/tau is an apples and oranges one. Banning something completely new versus a long existing codex/army is different. Banning a book in which the problematic unit is the entire focus versus banning a book because of a combo of units from different codex books used with a problematic new rule (allies) is different. Its not a slippery slope and more importantly its a slope that Gw fell smack on their corporate butts before on so should known better to avoid rather than to try and walk up it again.
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

 Therion wrote:
they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.


I'd say that people who have spent a good chunk of money building, converting and painting their armies have a legitimate reason to whine when some new rule comes out that invalidates their army or makes their army less competitive on the battlefield. But GW doesn't care about that person. They've already gotten their money from them.

To me, this whole thing feels like a board meeting just finished where the topic was, "How can we get our money's worth out of these super-heavies?" As if the gaming community was just chomping at the bit to use them in normal games of 40K, but poor us, we couldn't because we didn't have any official rules for them. So, in making official rules, the floodgates will open and people will rejoice as they can finally use their long-stored superheavies in their normal games.

Or not.

WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in ar
Dakka Veteran




 Therion wrote:

There's no point trying to bring the argument that this time around balance is so bad that something has to be done. Not the case. I won a Grand Tournament with a Siren Daemon Prince back in the day with 9 minor powers. He couldn't be targeted by any weapons and couldn't be assaulted. Everything else in the army was blatantly broken too, and I won 6 games 20-0 and one opponent conceded before the game started. This is soon a decade ago. Everyone, and I mean everyone, who is a veteran in the GW hobby, has similar stories to tell. Nothing's changed.


You are wrong, through the widespread knowleadge the internet brought, the PEOPLE changed, and they are no longer tolerant of it. You said it yourself, this is how people feel NOW, that is how people felt BEFORE.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/26 15:48:12


 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 Therion wrote:
Sometimes complaining is justified, sometimes it isn't. I understand that if GW introduces units that table entire armies in a single turn people might have a legit reason to be upset. The problem to me is that even the whine escalates. People don't simply whine about grossly overpowered units, but they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.


Is that not a valid reason though? Given how expensive the game is to even buy a single army, let alone switch armies, some semblance of balance should be expected so you don't "waste" several hundred dollars buying subpar units and ending up with a subpar force.

I can't speak to its validity but I read on a different forum a quote (might have been paraphrased) from one of GW's designers (Jeremy Vetock I think) when someone asked him at a Games Day about balance. He said something to the effect of "Some armies should be able to easily win against others". I also heard of a similar situation with a (non-designer) GW Store Manager who, when asked what do in a hypothetical situation where you only have one opponent and they play the army that trumps your army, answered that the correct response was to buy the army that trumps your opponent; at least in that case you can kinda maybe sorta excuse it as it was a sales manager, but to have a designer basically admit that it's okay to have armies which can easily win against other armies is ridiculous.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/26 15:50:09


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in fi
Jervis Johnson






 puma713 wrote:
 Therion wrote:
they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.


I'd say that people who have spent a good chunk of money building, converting and painting their armies have a legitimate reason to whine when some new rule comes out that invalidates their army or makes their army less competitive on the battlefield. But GW doesn't care about that person. They've already gotten their money from them.


Ah, the classic complaint right here. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that there are no guarantees when you're building your army. I doubt any sane player, and certainly noone at GW, would promise you that an army you're building will stay competitive for a long period of time. You're basically admitting to what I posted previously. You, or the imaginative person we're talking about, has spent his money on a tournament winner army that he copied from an internet message board, and since the meta is changing due to new even more powerful armies, he is angry or disappointed that he is once again obligated to spend money if he wants to keep playing the most outrageously overpowered army in the game. He is agreeing to a state of complete imbalance by building a strong army, but all of a sudden has a problem with imbalance when an even stronger army enters the game.

If in fact this imaginary person had actually seen the game for what it is and has always been (not a competitive game by any stretch of imagination) he would've avoided this massive misconception.

I'm not being a GW apologist. Far from it. I'm a harsh critic of the way they've squandered their opportunities. That said I'm also a realist and probably have more experience than a lot of the posters here and can say how easy it is to look at your own hobby as something it simply is not when you're still very enthralled by it. Once enough time passes by you should be able to get some perspective on things and note that nothing's changed. A person above claimed that something has changed, but that's simply not true. Composition scoring systems and army restrictions come and go. If you'd write a short history of tournament 40K or tournament FB you'd find the periods keep going in circles. Sometimes people are outraged by everything and want things banned, and at some points it's cool to be the guy who has a 59-1 tournament record with some ridiculous army. I find the novel idea about building a 40K committee extremely entertaining, as if that was somehow a new idea. Warhammer in mainland Europe has been house ruled from top to bottom by a committee of players for a long, long time already (5-10 years).

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/02/26 16:03:49


 
   
Made in ar
Dakka Veteran




 Therion wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
 Therion wrote:
they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.


I'd say that people who have spent a good chunk of money building, converting and painting their armies have a legitimate reason to whine when some new rule comes out that invalidates their army or makes their army less competitive on the battlefield. But GW doesn't care about that person. They've already gotten their money from them.


Ah, the classic complaint right here. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that there are no guarantees when you're building your army. I doubt any sane player, and certainly noone at GW, would promise you that an army you're building will stay competitive for a long period of time. You're basically admitting to what I posted previously. You, or the imaginative person we're talking about, has spent his money on a tournament winner army that he copied from an internet message board, and since the meta is changing due to new even more powerful armies, he is angry or disappointed that he is once again obligated to spend money if he wants to keep playing the most outrageously overpowered army in the game.

If in fact this imaginary person had actually seen the game for what it is and has always been (not a competitive game by any stretch of imagination) he would've avoided this massive misconception.



This game, pits 2 players against each other, there is no way that can not be a competitive game, this is not roleplaying the objective is to beat the other other player. You can argue foolishness all you want, reality is gw is hemorraging customers, while other games are growing pp, infinity so on, they all have 1 thing in common, better balance, at the end of the day win or loose you want to have fun, and rolling dice to get crushed by the same units over and over only gets you so far.

I would even argue that they are using a sub optimal approach as demonstrated by Riot and Blizzaard in Hearthstone and league, everything standing on an almost even field, i am more likelly to buy different units that i know will be usefull just to try out different play stiles, than i am to spend the time and money on a known sub par unit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/26 16:01:14


 
   
Made in us
Honored Helliarch on Hypex





Back in GA

This is less and less about an updated 7th and more about complaining about the current edition.
Any chance we can get back on topic? I understand there are some that hate the game now because it isnt what it used to be way back when. I understand some of you love flyers and superheavies. Maybe all that should be hashed out in discussion rather than the news and rumors thread?

Not trying to be a jerk but every topic seems to grind to hate and arguments and it is hard to keep up with the actual news and rumors.

I do what the voices in my wifes head say...
 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 Fishboy wrote:
This is less and less about an updated 7th and more about complaining about the current edition.
Any chance we can get back on topic? I understand there are some that hate the game now because it isnt what it used to be way back when. I understand some of you love flyers and superheavies. Maybe all that should be hashed out in discussion rather than the news and rumors thread?

Not trying to be a jerk but every topic seems to grind to hate and arguments and it is hard to keep up with the actual news and rumors.


To be fair though there isn't much of a rumor beyond "Some guys said there might be". As I recall we've heard conflicting that:

* There will be a 7th edition
* It will be more like 6.5 than a new edition and include Escalation/superheavies by default
* There will be a new box (Orks vs. Blood Angels)
* Said new box is actually for a revised Epic, not 40k (Yeah, right)

And that's about it. There isn't much in the realm of rumor development.

Really at this point I think they should look at doing a total revamp like 2nd to 3rd; maybe not for 7th edition but for 8th edition. They need to rewrite the game from the ground up to actually fix issues that have persisted for 15+ years now, and bring the game back to its roots. Make it similar to Bolt Action, with additional bits for:

* Skirmish games (i.e. Kill Team)
* Large Epic-like games (i.e. Apoc)

Give Kill Team actual rules that let you do more e.g. you can pick less than a full squad, and then publish at some point a DataSlate for experience/advancement and campaigns (i.e. Necromunda!). Limit superheavies and the like to Apoc rules and scenarios. Fix the stupid reliance of random tables, which contrary to what Jervis Johnson thinks do not make the game more fun. Bring things back like allowing a 5-man squad to take a special OR a heavy weapon, instead of requiring 10 to get a heavy (one of the stupidest changes ever IMO; I get that they wanted to kill the Las/Plas 5-man squads, but they could have done it much easier).

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot




Vior'la Sept

WayneTheGame wrote:
 Fishboy wrote:
Spoiler:
This is less and less about an updated 7th and more about complaining about the current edition.
Any chance we can get back on topic? I understand there are some that hate the game now because it isnt what it used to be way back when. I understand some of you love flyers and superheavies. Maybe all that should be hashed out in discussion rather than the news and rumors thread?

Not trying to be a jerk but every topic seems to grind to hate and arguments and it is hard to keep up with the actual news and rumors.


Spoiler:
To be fair though there isn't much of a rumor beyond "Some guys said there might be". As I recall we've heard conflicting that:

* There will be a 7th edition
* It will be more like 6.5 than a new edition and include Escalation/superheavies by default
* There will be a new box (Orks vs. Blood Angels)
* Said new box is actually for a revised Epic, not 40k (Yeah, right)

And that's about it. There isn't much in the realm of rumor development.

Really at this point I think they should look at doing a total revamp like 2nd to 3rd; maybe not for 7th edition but for 8th edition. They need to rewrite the game from the ground up to actually fix issues that have persisted for 15+ years now, and bring the game back to its roots. Make it similar to Bolt Action, with additional bits for:

* Skirmish games (i.e. Kill Team)
* Large Epic-like games (i.e. Apoc)

Give Kill Team actual rules that let you do more e.g. you can pick less than a full squad, and then publish at some point a DataSlate for experience/advancement and campaigns (i.e. Necromunda!). Limit superheavies and the like to Apoc rules and scenarios. Fix the stupid reliance of random tables, which contrary to what Jervis Johnson thinks do not make the game more fun. Bring things back like allowing a 5-man squad to take a special OR a heavy weapon, instead of requiring 10 to get a heavy (one of the stupidest changes ever IMO; I get that they wanted to kill the Las/Plas 5-man squads, but they could have done it much easier).


I think that the game really does need a total revamp sometime. I mean for me its really annoying to have all of these little additions coming out that are changing rules and that can be totally game changing (Escalation). If its in the fatbook at the beginning of the new edition then it should stay and new crazy stuff shouldnt be added. I like the idea of the TBL but releasing $50 books to add on to the already $75 for the book and $40 for the codex is going to start weighing down on the wargamers pocket book.
   
Made in ie
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

 Therion wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
 Therion wrote:
they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.


I'd say that people who have spent a good chunk of money building, converting and painting their armies have a legitimate reason to whine when some new rule comes out that invalidates their army or makes their army less competitive on the battlefield. But GW doesn't care about that person. They've already gotten their money from them.


Ah, the classic complaint right here. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that there are no guarantees when you're building your army. I doubt any sane player, and certainly noone at GW, would promise you that an army you're building will stay competitive for a long period of time. You're basically admitting to what I posted previously. You, or the imaginative person we're talking about, has spent his money on a tournament winner army that he copied from an internet message board, and since the meta is changing due to new even more powerful armies, he is angry or disappointed that he is once again obligated to spend money if he wants to keep playing the most outrageously overpowered army in the game. He is agreeing to a state of complete imbalance by building a strong army, but all of a sudden has a problem with imbalance when an even stronger army enters the game.

If in fact this imaginary person had actually seen the game for what it is and has always been (not a competitive game by any stretch of imagination) he would've avoided this massive misconception.

I'm not being a GW apologist. Far from it. I'm a harsh critic of the way they've squandered their opportunities. That said I'm also a realist and probably have more experience than a lot of the posters here and can say how easy it is to look at your own hobby as something it simply is not when you're still very enthralled by it. Once enough time passes by you should be able to get some perspective on things and note that nothing's changed. A person above claimed that something has changed, but that's simply not true. Composition scoring systems and army restrictions come and go. If you'd write a short history of tournament 40K or tournament FB you'd find the periods keep going in circles. Sometimes people are outraged by everything and want things banned, and at some points it's cool to be the guy who has a 59-1 tournament record with some ridiculous army. I find the novel idea about building a 40K committee extremely entertaining, as if that was somehow a new idea. Warhammer in mainland Europe has been house ruled from top to bottom by a committee of players for a long, long time already (5-10 years).



If the game is meant to run in a way that anything can completely invalidated at a whim then they should be up front about it. As it is people are wary about investing into the game and having units or rules made obsolete. And it's not an insignificant investment getting an army and getting up to speed with it. If it was something like Infinity if your faction became useless (which is unlikely) you can get another one for £30, but with 40K it could mean £300.

If GW want to do as much as they can to encourage sales, they need to do something to alleviate the concern that anything a customer buys will become unless within a matter of months.

For example: I want to buy the Dwarf Army book (and the IG book next month), but I know that WHF is meant to be getting a 9th Ed this summer, so I'm likely to wait until that drops. As with the IG book if there is a new 6.5/th Ed 40K I might wait and see how that goes, too. Because neither book is cheap enough for me to want to buy something that'll potentially leave me with a useless army before I can get more than a couple of games in.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/26 16:32:29


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Biloxi, MS USA

WayneTheGame wrote:


Really at this point I think they should look at doing a total revamp like 2nd to 3rd; maybe not for 7th edition but for 8th edition. They need to rewrite the game from the ground up to actually fix issues that have persisted for 15+ years now, and bring the game back to its roots.


I'd love a "ground up" rebuild of the GW systems, but it won't happen and it definitely won't curtail the complaining. I remember the kvetching towards the end of 2nd because our Codexes were being made unusable and we'd have to buy new ones in addition to a new box.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 Platuan4th wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:


Really at this point I think they should look at doing a total revamp like 2nd to 3rd; maybe not for 7th edition but for 8th edition. They need to rewrite the game from the ground up to actually fix issues that have persisted for 15+ years now, and bring the game back to its roots.


I'd love a "ground up" rebuild of the GW systems, but it won't happen and it definitely won't curtail the complaining. I remember the kvetching towards the end of 2nd because our Codexes were being made unusable and we'd have to buy new ones in addition to a new box.


Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

 Therion wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
 Therion wrote:
they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.


I'd say that people who have spent a good chunk of money building, converting and painting their armies have a legitimate reason to whine when some new rule comes out that invalidates their army or makes their army less competitive on the battlefield. But GW doesn't care about that person. They've already gotten their money from them.


Ah, the classic complaint right here. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that there are no guarantees when you're building your army. I doubt any sane player, and certainly noone at GW, would promise you that an army you're building will stay competitive for a long period of time. You're basically admitting to what I posted previously. You, or the imaginative person we're talking about, has spent his money on a tournament winner army that he copied from an internet message board, and since the meta is changing due to new even more powerful armies, he is angry or disappointed that he is once again obligated to spend money if he wants to keep playing the most outrageously overpowered army in the game. He is agreeing to a state of complete imbalance by building a strong army, but all of a sudden has a problem with imbalance when an even stronger army enters the game.


Apparently you've misunderstood me or you have a misconception of people playing the game. I am not referring to people who build the next best thing - who get their lists from the internet and then build what someone else tells them to build. I am talking about someone who has spent their time and money building a force that they feel is both fun and competitive. They may not win every game, but they can hold their own in a tournament. All of a sudden, their list that they have lovingly worked on for however long is no longer viable on the table. Or, it may be, but you're going to lose the majority of your games. I wonder how many Tyranid lovers feel this way right now?

So, you're saying, "Sorry, get over it." bs. That person has spent as much time and money as the netlister (probably more) and so they deserve to play a fair game against them. What you and GW are both saying are, "Too bad for that guy." as pointed out in your next comment:

 Therion wrote:


If in fact this imaginary person had actually seen the game for what it is and has always been (not a competitive game by any stretch of imagination) he would've avoided this massive misconception.


What? So, this game isn't competitive? Isn't that what a game is? So, sorry if you like Tyranids or Sisters of Battle or a myriad of other army combinations out there, you're out of luck? That's fun? For who?

Just change the name to Tau Empire: Eldar 40,000 if that is what you're saying.

 Therion wrote:

I'm not being a GW apologist. Far from it. I'm a harsh critic of the way they've squandered their opportunities. That said I'm also a realist and probably have more experience than a lot of the posters here and can say how easy it is to look at your own hobby as something it simply is not when you're still very enthralled by it. Once enough time passes by you should be able to get some perspective on things and note that nothing's changed. A person above claimed that something has changed, but that's simply not true. Composition scoring systems and army restrictions come and go. If you'd write a short history of tournament 40K or tournament FB you'd find the periods keep going in circles. Sometimes people are outraged by everything and want things banned, and at some points it's cool to be the guy who has a 59-1 tournament record with some ridiculous army. I find the novel idea about building a 40K committee extremely entertaining, as if that was somehow a new idea. Warhammer in mainland Europe has been house ruled from top to bottom by a committee of players for a long, long time already (5-10 years).



I've played 40K since 2nd Edition, been playing in tournaments for a long time and I've never seen the state of the game like this. Never before have TO's been forced to make "make or break" decisions about the game and, therefore, their tournaments to make sure there is adequate player turnout.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote:


If the game is meant to run in a way that anything can completely invalidated at a whim then they should be up front about it. As it is people are wary about investing into the game and having units or rules made obsolete.



This. Exactly this. Back when I was helping others get into the game, picking out whichever army you felt suited you best was the first step into the game. Often it is Space Marines and then you work your way into Xenos. No longer is the game a matter of choosing just whichever faction you like best. Now you must research which factions are doing what in the current meta, otherwise you're going to blow $500-$1000 (easy) on an army that is both unforgiving and does poorly in the current edition. Balance should be strived for, not thrown out the window because it is unattainable.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/26 17:04:20


WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

WayneTheGame wrote:
Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.

3rd edition codexes were also some of the worst from a page count, fluff and substance standpoint. Codexes today have 2-3 times as much content, better paper and are hardcover. Seriously, go back and take a look at 3rd ed Codex: Space Marines and compare it to the 6th edition one.

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






Southeastern PA, USA

 Therion wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
 Therion wrote:
they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.


I'd say that people who have spent a good chunk of money building, converting and painting their armies have a legitimate reason to whine when some new rule comes out that invalidates their army or makes their army less competitive on the battlefield. But GW doesn't care about that person. They've already gotten their money from them.


Ah, the classic complaint right here. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that there are no guarantees when you're building your army. I doubt any sane player, and certainly noone at GW, would promise you that an army you're building will stay competitive for a long period of time. You're basically admitting to what I posted previously. You, or the imaginative person we're talking about, has spent his money on a tournament winner army that he copied from an internet message board, and since the meta is changing due to new even more powerful armies, he is angry or disappointed that he is once again obligated to spend money if he wants to keep playing the most outrageously overpowered army in the game. He is agreeing to a state of complete imbalance by building a strong army, but all of a sudden has a problem with imbalance when an even stronger army enters the game.

If in fact this imaginary person had actually seen the game for what it is and has always been (not a competitive game by any stretch of imagination) he would've avoided this massive misconception.

I'm not being a GW apologist. Far from it. I'm a harsh critic of the way they've squandered their opportunities. That said I'm also a realist and probably have more experience than a lot of the posters here and can say how easy it is to look at your own hobby as something it simply is not when you're still very enthralled by it. Once enough time passes by you should be able to get some perspective on things and note that nothing's changed. A person above claimed that something has changed, but that's simply not true. Composition scoring systems and army restrictions come and go. If you'd write a short history of tournament 40K or tournament FB you'd find the periods keep going in circles. Sometimes people are outraged by everything and want things banned, and at some points it's cool to be the guy who has a 59-1 tournament record with some ridiculous army. I find the novel idea about building a 40K committee extremely entertaining, as if that was somehow a new idea. Warhammer in mainland Europe has been house ruled from top to bottom by a committee of players for a long, long time already (5-10 years).



Therion, nice work with your posts regarding GW and the state of the game. Have an exalt.

Unfortunately, I think many human beings can't simply be told that things are cyclical...that similar things have happened before and will happen again. People want to think their problems and experiences are fresh and novel.

I do think that perhaps one incremental change that might be throwing some extra gasoline on this fire is the push (in the U.S. especially) by some to try to turn GW games into faux-sports, with national rankings, cash prizes, etc. I suspect that fifth edition may have snookered some into thinking that these games are suited for that kind of competition. (As an aside, I still think some people look back on past editions and confuse certain equilibriums that were reached during those editions with "balance.") GW getting out of the GT business also helped hurry that along.

It'd be great if their games were suited to that kind of highly competitive play all the way done to casual play, like chess or tennis or whatever. But this vet stands in agreement with you...they aren't that, never were, and never will be. It's not just about certain designers...the entire company isn't aligned that way.

And yeah, a lot of the conversations around comp systems make me feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.



My AT Gallery
My World Eaters Showcase
View my Genestealer Cult! Article - Gallery - Blog
Best Appearance - GW Baltimore GT 2008, Colonial GT 2012

DQ:70+S++++G+M++++B++I+Pw40k90#+D++A+++/fWD66R++T(Ot)DM+++

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 Therion wrote:
Ah, the classic complaint right here. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that there are no guarantees when you're building your army. I doubt any sane player, and certainly noone at GW, would promise you that an army you're building will stay competitive for a long period of time. You're basically admitting to what I posted previously. You, or the imaginative person we're talking about, has spent his money on a tournament winner army that he copied from an internet message board, and since the meta is changing due to new even more powerful armies, he is angry or disappointed that he is once again obligated to spend money if he wants to keep playing the most outrageously overpowered army in the game. He is agreeing to a state of complete imbalance by building a strong army, but all of a sudden has a problem with imbalance when an even stronger army enters the game.

If in fact this imaginary person had actually seen the game for what it is and has always been (not a competitive game by any stretch of imagination) he would've avoided this massive misconception.

I'm not being a GW apologist. Far from it. I'm a harsh critic of the way they've squandered their opportunities. That said I'm also a realist and probably have more experience than a lot of the posters here and can say how easy it is to look at your own hobby as something it simply is not when you're still very enthralled by it. Once enough time passes by you should be able to get some perspective on things and note that nothing's changed. A person above claimed that something has changed, but that's simply not true. Composition scoring systems and army restrictions come and go. If you'd write a short history of tournament 40K or tournament FB you'd find the periods keep going in circles. Sometimes people are outraged by everything and want things banned, and at some points it's cool to be the guy who has a 59-1 tournament record with some ridiculous army. I find the novel idea about building a 40K committee extremely entertaining, as if that was somehow a new idea. Warhammer in mainland Europe has been house ruled from top to bottom by a committee of players for a long, long time already (5-10 years)
Let's do a bit of analysis from my perspective on the above form my CSM army. I started with 2nd edition, but didn't really play a lot until 3rd.

- From 2nd to 3rd, I had to do a major upgrade on my army because it was all terminators in 2nd and was not legal. While I was not exactly happy, I understood the change and could still use (barely) use my previous models. CSM Terminators have been corner case units ever since 2nd edition and aren't typically taken. This was the shift to having more base troops, not really a big deal.
- From 3rd to 4th, I lost the use of transports, but there were still ways to use them. The rhino rush was dead, but for the most part nothing was really all that bad. I got to add in defilers and raptors, but these units were not required.
- From 4th to 5th, my army was split as god specific demons are now their own army. This means I have a partial army of unusable models that don't do much other than collect dust.
- From 5th to 6th, my core troop selection is now garbage, meaning the army is basically garbage. I can now use my demons again, but Berserkers were nerfed into the ground, making them basically unplayable. However, I gained a OP flyer (which looks like crap IMO).

Instead of making my army balanced and allowing new choices to be used because they filled a different role or made things specialized, GW chooses to just invalidate huge chunks of my army. The army I fielded in 4th edition is non-competitive in the current environment because the main troop choice for the CSM codex, you know the Chaos Space MARINES are not viable due to their current rules.

On the other hand Privateer Press chooses to still allow my models which are over 7 years old to be playable and competitive, even after an edition change and several expansions. The army I fielded with Warmachine when I first started is still competitive with expansions allowing me to have more options and shiney things to play with.

CSM Undivided
CSM Khorne 
   
Made in us
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






Southeastern PA, USA

 puma713 wrote:
I've played 40K since 2nd Edition, been playing in tournaments for a long time and I've never seen the state of the game like this. Never before have TO's been forced to make "make or break" decisions about the game and, therefore, their tournaments to make sure there is adequate player turnout.


If you've been playing that long, you should remember a few things.

1) GW made the decisions and not indy TOs, because big indy events were rare and tended to follow GW's lead anyway.

2) GW (in the U.S. at least) went through a variety of comp systems from '97 to around '03 trying to fix the game for competitive play.

3) For their GTs in 2nd edition, GW (again in the U.S.) made a number of hard decisions, including outright bans and rule changes.

Things may be worse than ever, but they aren't truly *new problems*, if you follow me.

My AT Gallery
My World Eaters Showcase
View my Genestealer Cult! Article - Gallery - Blog
Best Appearance - GW Baltimore GT 2008, Colonial GT 2012

DQ:70+S++++G+M++++B++I+Pw40k90#+D++A+++/fWD66R++T(Ot)DM+++

 
   
Made in fi
Jervis Johnson






puma713 wrote:
Apparently you've misunderstood me or you have a misconception of people playing the game. I am not referring to people who build the next best thing - who get their lists from the internet and then build what someone else tells them to build. I am talking about someone who has spent their time and money building a force that they feel is both fun and competitive. They may not win every game, but they can hold their own in a tournament. All of a sudden, their list that they have lovingly worked on for however long is no longer viable on the table. Or, it may be, but you're going to lose the majority of your games. I wonder how many Tyranid lovers feel this way right now?

No, I didn't misunderstand you at all. What you wrote above is inconsequential. I feel none or very little sympathy towards anyone upset about the arbitrary and highly subjective matter of his personal miniature army's competitiveness. Cry me a river if someone has spent his time and money and no longer feels the product is competitive enough, when it's not even the seller of the product who is organising the competition. That guy didn't know what he was stepping into. The game didn't change. He was just oblivious to the facts that would've been readily available if he talked to anyone sensible in advance.

So, you're saying, "Sorry, get over it." bs. That person has spent as much time and money as the netlister (probably more) and so they deserve to play a fair game against them. What you and GW are both saying are, "Too bad for that guy."

Again the time and money wording, as if we should feel sorry for someone who invests his disposable income and free time voluntarily on a luxury product. I won't say too bad, because I'm less sympathetic than that.

What? So, this game isn't competitive? Isn't that what a game is? So, sorry if you like Tyranids or Sisters of Battle or a myriad of other army combinations out there, you're out of luck? That's fun? For who?

Games don't necessarily have to be competitions that are taken so seriously that you are willing to argue about the finer points of game balance and even get emotional about them. If you want to argue semantics, be my guest, but it's not the purpose of this thread. As to the second part of your phrase, yes, if you play Tyranids or SoB or a myriad of other armies, you're out of luck. If you didn't know it when you started playing 40K, you're out of luck. Apparently when you started you didn't join a community of veterans who could've told you that each edition is always dominated by one or two armies, which even in average hands can't be reasonably beat.

Just change the name to Tau Empire: Eldar 40,000 if that is what you're saying.

No, the name is Warhammer 40K, because the days of Tau or Eldar dominating are numbered. Those who got into the game and as their first army bought a Taudar list that they expect to dominate with for the next five years are in for a surprise. Their 1000 dollars or more won't dominate. They can play, and they're not going to get invalidated, but they won't dominate. They might even be trash if they're really unlucky.

I've played 40K since 2nd Edition, been playing in tournaments for a long time and I've never seen the state of the game like this. Never before have TO's been forced to make "make or break" decisions about the game and, therefore, their tournaments to make sure there is adequate player turnout.

This doesn't deserve an extensive reply as you're either lying about your experience or just ignorant. The game has been in far more turmoil than this before, and so has Fantasy Battle (perhaps even more so). What we're seeing right now regarding game balance is in no way unusual.

gorgon wrote:
I do think that perhaps one incremental change that might be throwing some extra gasoline on this fire is the push (in the U.S. especially) by some to try to turn GW games into faux-sports, with national rankings, cash prizes, etc. I suspect that fifth edition may have snookered some into thinking that these games are suited for that kind of competition. (As an aside, I still think some people look back on past editions and confuse certain equilibriums that were reached during those editions with "balance.") GW getting out of the GT business also helped hurry that along.

It'd be great if their games were suited to that kind of highly competitive play all the way done to casual play, like chess or tennis or whatever. But this vet stands in agreement with you...they aren't that, never were, and never will be. It's not just about certain designers...the entire company isn't aligned that way.

And yeah, a lot of the conversations around comp systems make me feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

Right on the money. Because I've frequented Dakka since 2001 I have an idea on how the approach has kept changing in the US. At one point the US scene was all about comp and fair play, but later on people started making mockery of those who only want to play 'weak' armies and try to cram 'sportsmanship' into a game that so obviously doesn't need it (supposedly). Now the talk is again that this or that has to be banned. All the while in Europe, the invention of the ETC Army Restrictions for Warhammer Fantasy changed the whole scene. People admitted that the game isn't suitable for a competitive tournament, and took steps for better balance (not to be confused with balance). Naturally, we've seen the threads where others argue how it's about moving the goal posts and so on, but the point remains: There has to be Warhammer, and Tournament Warhammer, because they aren't the same thing. Some communities can agree that this is necessary, and some can't.

Funnily enough, I've seen how different countries play completely different versions of the GW games. The 40K played in US hasn't always been the same as 40K played in Europe. There's been very large divisions in how competitive and abusive armies people are willing to admit to tournaments. Even with two small countries like Finland and neighbouring Sweden, we've always had completely different types of tournament circuits. Finnish tournaments allowed everything, while Swedes looked down on us with disdain as some types of barbarians who play with brainless cheese that requires no skill whatsoever to play, and our armies wouldn't have even been legal at their tournaments. In this light, like you said, it's always a bit funny to see youngbloods who try to paint this situation as somehow new and interesting, and how the community all of a sudden has to react, as if we were in a state of imbalance that has never existed. Groundhog Day indeed

Finally, like you said, even the highly house ruled Tournament Warhammer shouldn't be confused with chess or other actually very balanced games, because no matter what the organised gamers decide as a community, the company adding supplements and expansions to the overall product isn't interested in tournaments or competitive play of any kind and doesn't design new products that way.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2014/02/26 17:38:34


 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama



Not going to keep going, because we obviously vehemently disagree. I feel that anyone playing the game should be able to bring his army to the table, be able to play a fun game and know that he has a reasonable change of winning. I am not saying that 40K has ever been this way. I am saying that it is what should be driven at. Funny how other gaming companies seem to get it.

You obviously disagree. Someone like Barfolomew above shouldn't be surprised at all that he has to buy a new chunk of his army every edition because he was told that by his gaming community. Oh, that $1200 you just dropped on a new army? Yeah, half of that might be worthless next edition. Oh, you like Tyranids? I wouldn't advise playing them. I guess I can see why there are so few new people coming into the game now and veterans leaving.

You know, if this semblance of game building was working, you'd think the community would be on the steady rise.

I wonder how iPads would be doing if the consumer found out that, every update, the iPad didn't work any more and he had to buy a new one. You think that would go over well? Or you think people would just stop buying iPads?


 Therion wrote:
I've played 40K since 2nd Edition, been playing in tournaments for a long time and I've never seen the state of the game like this. Never before have TO's been forced to make "make or break" decisions about the game and, therefore, their tournaments to make sure there is adequate player turnout.


This doesn't deserve an extensive reply as you're either lying about your experience or just ignorant. The game has been in far more turmoil than this before, and so has Fantasy Battle (perhaps even more so). What we're seeing right now regarding game balance is in no way unusual.


Sounds like you're the emotional one here. Take a step away from the computer and then come back and let's talk like adults. I'm neither lying nor ignorant. I didn't say there have never been problems. I said I've never seen tournament play this way. Gorgon brought up some points that I wasn't aware of because I didn't play tournaments in 2nd or 3rd edition, but I did play the game.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/26 17:28:09


WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 pretre wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.

3rd edition codexes were also some of the worst from a page count, fluff and substance standpoint. Codexes today have 2-3 times as much content, better paper and are hardcover. Seriously, go back and take a look at 3rd ed Codex: Space Marines and compare it to the 6th edition one.


I never found the 3rd edition codexes to be lacking; they didn't have as much of course but they had enough to get a feel for the army and they had the army list and the gallery/how to paint section. The 6th edition SM Codex doesn't to my knowledge even have a "how to paint" section, just pages of pretty pictures. The fact it's hardcover with glossy pages don't matter one bit to me as it was clearly just a way to justify the price increase.

I have also played 2nd and 3rd edition and it was not as bad as the current meta. I have off and on frequented this site since probably late 2000/early 2001 (the old EZBoard) and I don't ever remember this level of anger at GW from back then. GW wants the game to be something that a lot of their customers don't.

I do agree though I think a lot of it is cultural. Europe and the UK especially seem to not be as competitive and instead encourage close-knit gaming clubs where you always have fun with your mates; the US in contrast doesn't have as many and most games are pickup games at game stores where you're basically at the mercy of whoever turns up to play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/26 17:42:24


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

WayneTheGame wrote:
 pretre wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.

3rd edition codexes were also some of the worst from a page count, fluff and substance standpoint. Codexes today have 2-3 times as much content, better paper and are hardcover. Seriously, go back and take a look at 3rd ed Codex: Space Marines and compare it to the 6th edition one.


I never found the 3rd edition codexes to be lacking; they didn't have as much of course but they had enough to get a feel for the army and they had the army list and the gallery/how to paint section. The 6th edition SM Codex doesn't to my knowledge even have a "how to paint" section, just pages of pretty pictures. The fact it's hardcover with glossy pages don't matter one bit to me as it was clearly just a way to justify the price increase.

To each his own, I suppose. Having lived through the 3rd edition codexes, there was a reason they were only $15-20 though.

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: