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.

 Elemental wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
Very freaking excited!!

I was disappointed with Genestealer's and I would love some extra love (even if small) to make them a little better on the battlefield.

I understand they make a bit more money doing things this way but hell.. I have 5 bucks to throw at a unit and am more than happy too!

Seriously... its $5.. I spend more then that on candy crush in a month!

How would you have reacted if the price of the codex had been more honestly hiked to $75? Because that is what's happening.

Must. not dip toe into Unholy Vortex of Hate....gah!

So looking forward to this.

I like the way (apart from the cost, but only slightly) we are now getting a huge amount of customisation with our lists. It really adds to the narrative and I enjoy the variations in the rules. The farsight book was great, looking forward to the Flyers list (as that was my wish for the codex) or a chance to run a genestealer list properly

bodazoka wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm assuming that GW wouldn't be goofy enough to count the Tyrannic War Veterans e-book as one of the three Tyranid slates?

"All three of these are going to have new datasheet formations for Tyranid armies to use"

Would suggest no.

Why, you don't believe GW would allow Tyrannic War Veterans to ally with Tyranids to fight against Ultramarines ?

I'm looking forward to them, might get some of our old units back hopefully.

What I do not like however is how much of a blatant money grab this is. If the dataslates were reasliss around March/April time onwards I wouldn't care, but it's the fact that pne is being realised the same month as the codex, essentially saying the codex sucks and we know it does, buy our dataslates and you might be able to do well!

My money is on the idea that one of those dataslates contains rules for mycetic spore pods and another for the special characters that got removed.

 tomball0706 wrote:

What I do not like however is how much of a blatant money grab this is. If the dataslates were reasliss around March/April time onwards I wouldn't care, but it's the fact that pne is being realised the same month as the codex, essentially saying the codex sucks and we know it does, buy our dataslates and you might be able to do well!

If the rumours about the designers running out of time with the codex are true, it is possible that this is their way to patch it instead of it being a mere money grab. It remains to be seen with the next codex release whether this is actually a new, planned strategy, or merely a one time panic move to fix a broken codex.

 Crimson wrote:

 tomball0706 wrote:

What I do not like however is how much of a blatant money grab this is. If the dataslates were reasliss around March/April time onwards I wouldn't care, but it's the fact that pne is being realised the same month as the codex, essentially saying the codex sucks and we know it does, buy our dataslates and you might be able to do well!

If the rumours about the designers running out of time with the codex are true, it is possible that this is their way to patch it instead of it being a mere money grab. It remains to be seen with the next codex release whether this is actually a new, planned strategy, or merely a one time panic move to fix a broken codex.

I'm currently 50/50 on whether that rumour is true or not, because with that rumour came the idea that the play testers told the deisgners that it was poorly balanced and written badly a few months before the deadline came, the designers chose to ignore them. But if they were rushed to push this product, then kudos to them for getting data slates out so quickly to rectify it. Only time will tell I guess.

Also, do you know where that rumour came from? because I first read it on the hoooooooge tyranid rumor/discussion thread but I can't find anyone citing a source, so it could actually be a GW employee saying that, just to try and stop the hate, but im not that much of a miserable so and so, so I don't believe that

 Kanluwen wrote:

JWhex wrote:
For the price you are paying for a codex it is ridiculous to have to pay extra for this content.

Oh please. You're talking about $6.99 for a Dataslate as though it's some obscene amount, with no idea of exactly what kind of content is within.

NO HE ISNT!

He's talking about the price of a codex, one that can be questioned as having being produced intentionally lacking content, in order to generate additional sales with more game-valuable content in online transactions.

Add-ons and top-ups might be a mere 6.99, so what happens when they start releasing them every other week, over the space of 4 years, and you need them to remain able to fight what everyone else is buying? (well, the everyone else who's left playing).

I personally am very worried that this, along with many other changes taking place in 6th, are killing the game, the hobby and the company, in the long term and I'd really like them to stop jumping shark after shark and reign it back in a bit, before they screw a jump and the shark gets them.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


He's talking about the price of a codex, one that can be questioned as having being produced intentionally lacking content, in order to generate additional sales with more game-valuable content in online transactions.

This argument that is carried on over and over seems crazy to me, you didn't hear one Demons player complaining about Belakor not being in thier codex and demanding his dataslate for free. The codex is fully playable, maybe not to the level that many people personally desire, but it is. A dataslate is not content that should of been required in the codex and it is not a right for people to own because they bought an over-priced codex.

I don't advocate the purchase of dataslates in the least. Actually I refuse to buy them. But they are bonus content that GW pays to produce.

Shamanlord1961 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


He's talking about the price of a codex, one that can be questioned as having being produced intentionally lacking content, in order to generate additional sales with more game-valuable content in online transactions.

This argument that is carried on over and over seems crazy to me, you didn't hear one Demons player complaining about Belakor not being in thier codex and demanding his dataslate for free. The codex is fully playable, maybe not to the level that many people personally desire, but it is. A dataslate is not content that should of been required in the codex and it is not a right for people to own because they bought an over-priced codex.

I don't advocate the purchase of dataslates in the least. Actually I refuse to buy them. But they are bonus content that GW pays to produce.

I said it can be questioned.

And why on earth shouldn't dataslates or whatever be free?

PDF codices used to be free, there used to be full rules for using new models online for free. If you produce a good set of additional rules, for free, online, your sales of the model will go up... So asking for more money for the rules themselves, when we have other companies putting their entire ruleset online for free, seems a little desperate/greedy/like your trying to fight back the recently released financial report by clutching for every last grain of sand???

Shamanlord1961 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


He's talking about the price of a codex, one that can be questioned as having being produced intentionally lacking content, in order to generate additional sales with more game-valuable content in online transactions.

This argument that is carried on over and over seems crazy to me, you didn't hear one Demons player complaining about Belakor not being in thier codex and demanding his dataslate for free. The codex is fully playable, maybe not to the level that many people personally desire, but it is. A dataslate is not content that should of been required in the codex and it is not a right for people to own because they bought an over-priced codex.

I don't advocate the purchase of dataslates in the least. Actually I refuse to buy them. But they are bonus content that GW pays to produce.

Because What we're starting to see is a pay-to-win model where if you don't have the latest datasheets/supplements then your behind those that do. This is something new to the tyranid codex..

The PDF codices that were free had been published in White Dwarf originally. The PDFs went up after the White Dwarfs were long gone.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The PDF codices that were free had been published in White Dwarf originally. The PDFs went up after the White Dwarfs were long gone.

...has no point, no bearing on the fact they were freely available and, if now released, would cost in excess of $30.

But thanks for the random factoid.

I'm curious to see how they'll actually make genestealers and lictors viable. Any rumors on specifics yet?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The PDF codices that were free had been published in White Dwarf originally. The PDFs went up after the White Dwarfs were long gone.

...has no point, no bearing on the fact they were freely available and, if now released, would cost in excess of $30.

But thanks for the random factoid.

Except for the fact that it does have a point, whether you want it to or not. They published the rules in White Dwarf which you had to buy if you wanted the rules.

It was not until long after the stock of White Dwarfs was gone that they went up for free.

But really. We're getting off topic.

The only way without allowing them to assault from deepstrike (the logical way) is to not allow them to be the targets of ranged weapons and/or reduce a target units movement by d3 or something.

This way, they can appear, not assault, but still have the fluffy advantage of being really deadly to the target unit they have been stalking.

But heaven forbid Lictors be made viable.

My concern is that even if they are the fix (doubtful) that the Tyranids need it's looking like the major tournies like Templecon arn't going to be allowing datalsate formations (which is not necessarily a bad thing after the ridiculously OP Tau Hunter Cadre).

Doesn't look like tyrnaids can catch a break.

Awesome, looks like GW learned from the video game industry. Make a cool feature and then strip it out and sell it as almost 0-Day DLC. Lovely.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The PDF codices that were free had been published in White Dwarf originally. The PDFs went up after the White Dwarfs were long gone.

...has no point, no bearing on the fact they were freely available and, if now released, would cost in excess of $30.

But thanks for the random factoid.

Except for the fact that it does have a point, whether you want it to or not. They published the rules in White Dwarf which you had to buy if you wanted the rules.

It was not until long after the stock of White Dwarfs was gone that they went up for free.

But really. We're getting off topic.

One question for you, was there, for quite some time, free to download gaming content, including PDFs, on the GW site? Yes or No?

If the answer to my question is yes, then my original point stands, just as it did when I made it, and all your posted counters are pointless, because they relate to no issue I made... So you've just wasted your posting energies on arguing a strawman that has no bearing on what I've said.

Whether or not they were printed in a magazine, written in the clouds by a plane or inscribed on the eyelids of pedants making random unrelated points on the internet is not an issue, the issue was that they were made available and free online. Free content was provided by the company, it can be strongly argued that this free content contributed to sales of miniatures to people who wished to use those armies.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

JWhex wrote:
For the price you are paying for a codex it is ridiculous to have to pay extra for this content.

Oh please. You're talking about $6.99 for a Dataslate as though it's some obscene amount, with no idea of exactly what kind of content is within.

NO HE ISNT!

He's talking about the price of a codex, one that can be questioned as having being produced intentionally lacking content, in order to generate additional sales with more game-valuable content in online transactions.

Add-ons and top-ups might be a mere 6.99, so what happens when they start releasing them every other week, over the space of 4 years, and you need them to remain able to fight what everyone else is buying? (well, the everyone else who's left playing).

I personally am very worried that this, along with many other changes taking place in 6th, are killing the game, the hobby and the company, in the long term and I'd really like them to stop jumping shark after shark and reign it back in a bit, before they screw a jump and the shark gets them.

From a business perspective what GW is doing makes sense. If you are a casual gamer, you do not NEED to pick up the dataslates. You can buy them if it interests you. If you want to be competitive then you may need them. It has always been more costly to compete. However, if tournaments ban them, then it will not be necessary to buy them at all.

I find the more frequent introduction of rules and units refreshing and a good thing. This being said, these types of things should not follow right on the heels of the codex.

Regular releases have not killed games like MTG. I do not think that it will for 40k. It would be nice to get stuff for an army more than once every four or so years.

I stopped buying GW stuff a couple of years ago, so this does not effect me very much. I still play their games occasionally.

 buddha wrote:
My concern is that even if they are the fix (doubtful) that the Tyranids need it's looking like the major tournies like Templecon arn't going to be allowing datalsate formations (which is not necessarily a bad thing after the ridiculously OP Tau Hunter Cadre).

Doesn't look like tyrnaids can catch a break.

That's exactly the problem. You can't easily allow all Dataslates because of that nonsense.

xruslanx wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
Very freaking excited!!

I was disappointed with Genestealer's and I would love some extra love (even if small) to make them a little better on the battlefield.

I understand they make a bit more money doing things this way but hell.. I have 5 bucks to throw at a unit and am more than happy too!

Seriously... its $5.. I spend more then that on candy crush in a month!

How would you have reacted if the price of the codex had been more honestly hiked to $75? Because that is what's happening.

Must. not dip toe into Unholy Vortex of Hate....gah!

That's a nice way of making it sound like you have some sort of argument, without needing to go the effort of actually arguing.

Well when you buy 3 pages of rules make sure to thank GW for allowing you to spend money on rules that should have been included in the 100 page 50$ rulebook.

Thats a brilliant idea! Prior to checkout GW makes you checkmark a box that says "Thank you for this micro transaction GW, perhaps next time I'll pay 10$ instead if you let me"

I suspect real soon TOs are going to have to allow dataslates in some form or another (like say as an 0-1 option or similar).

Shamanlord1961 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


He's talking about the price of a codex, one that can be questioned as having being produced intentionally lacking content, in order to generate additional sales with more game-valuable content in online transactions.

This argument that is carried on over and over seems crazy to me, you didn't hear one Demons player complaining about Belakor not being in thier codex and demanding his dataslate for free. .

What kind of piss-poor argument is this?

Was Belakor's release announced one day after Daemons came out?

No. There is a clear distinction between "additional content" and "content that was obviously taken out of the codex so that it could be sold later".

It's why you'll never see a gamer complain about the DLC that comes out for, say, Fallout or Skyrim, which are massive packs of additional content and come out months after the game's release, but you DO hear them bitch about "Day 1 DLC" and gak that's being sold as additional content but was obviously created at the same time as the game.

"Additional content" should be additional. It shouldn't be content that was clearly created at the exact same time as an entire product yet held back by some bean-counter so that it could be released as a separate entity later.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Shamanlord1961 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


He's talking about the price of a codex, one that can be questioned as having being produced intentionally lacking content, in order to generate additional sales with more game-valuable content in online transactions.

This argument that is carried on over and over seems crazy to me, you didn't hear one Demons player complaining about Belakor not being in thier codex and demanding his dataslate for free. .

What kind of piss-poor argument is this?

Was Belakor's release announced one day after Daemons came out?

No. There is a clear distinction between "additional content" and "content that was obviously taken out of the codex so that it could be sold later".

It's why you'll never see a gamer complain about the DLC that comes out for, say, Fallout or Skyrim, which are massive packs of additional content and come out months after the game's release, but you DO hear them bitch about "Day 1 DLC" and gak that's being sold as additional content but was obviously created at the same time as the game.

"Additional content" should be additional. It shouldn't be content that was clearly created at the exact same time as an entire product yet held back by some bean-counter so that it could be released as a separate entity later.

There was remarkably little complaining about Cypher's obvious omission from the Dark Angel codex. There was a huge amount of complaints about the price, *before* people realised that it was actually more a mini-dex.

I really don't see the problem in paying a few pounds more for a mini-dex - as long as it *is* a mini-dex with fluff, lots of rules options etc. Stuff like this hasn't been "held back" because it was never a part of codexes to begin with, very few codex releases have had a myriad of unique and fun ways to play your army, certainly the Dark Angels codex would have been huge if it contained everything in the Cypher data slate.

Also this "dlc created at the same time as the game" is a myth. If you follow Paradox games you'll know that DLC is created *after* the devs have finished the product and it's in the production/marketing eather. In 40k terms, the game developers start working on data slates after the codex has been written, while it is being printed/edited etc. Since the dataslates do not need this process, it is a rational way to operate - it would actually be *more* effort to work on the data slates at the same time as they work on the codex, and working on dataslates after the codex has gone to print gives them the certainty of knowing what the codex contains. You can't have a derivative dataslate in production at the same time as the codex, when the dataslate is reliant on the codex's information, which would be subject to change during development.

The above is all assuming that the data slates are (what I would deem to be) value for money. If it is just a cut/paste from the codex then bad form GW. But I don't think they'd do something so gratuitous.

xruslanx wrote:

There was remarkably little complaining about Cypher's obvious omission from the Dark Angel codex. There was a huge amount of complaints about the price, *before* people realised that it was actually more a mini-dex.

I really don't see the problem in paying a few pounds more for a mini-dex - as long as it *is* a mini-dex with fluff, lots of rules options etc. Stuff like this hasn't been "held back" because it was never a part of codexes to begin with, very few codex releases have had a myriad of unique and fun ways to play your army, certainly the Dark Angels codex would have been huge if it contained everything in the Cypher data slate.

Also this "dlc created at the same time as the game" is a myth. If you follow Paradox games you'll know that DLC is created *after* the devs have finished the product and it's in the production/marketing eather. In 40k terms, the game developers start working on data slates after the codex has been written, while it is being printed/edited etc. Since the dataslates do not need this process, it is a rational way to operate - it would actually be *more* effort to work on the data slates at the same time as they work on the codex, and working on dataslates after the codex has gone to print gives them the certainty of knowing what the codex contains. You can't have a derivative dataslate in production at the same time as the codex, when the dataslate is reliant on the codex's information, which would be subject to change during development.

Cypher? That guy who was released 12 MONTHS after the Dark Angels release?

Do you know what a "false-equivalency" is?

Created "after" print? That's a joke. How long do you think it takes to take a unit, write a page of fluff for it, and then slap some "special rules" like "Ymgarl Genestealers can assault after deployment"?

The only reason Ymgarl genestealers and other missing units didn't make it into the 6E codex is because Games Workshop made a purposeful decision to not include them. That is the point.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Cypher? That guy who was released 12 MONTHS after the Dark Angels release?

Do you know what a "false-equivalency" is?

Well it's my opinion that Cypher was deliberately held back from the DA codex, if only because the DA codex was 6th edition and the deamon codex (which also had a model without rules) was also 6th edition. It could just be a coincidence of course

 Elemental wrote:
How would you have reacted if the price of the codex had been more honestly hiked to $75? Because that is what's happening.

LOL I live in Australia.. I bought my codex for $83 so totally fine with $75

Did people care so much when things similar to this were released in the white dwarf? I mean... the argument for "why wasent this in the codex" could of been used then? Is this not similar to a digital release of that information just on a grander scale?

And what about chapter approved? I am not 100% but didnt that contain extra rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

bodazoka wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm assuming that GW wouldn't be goofy enough to count the Tyrannic War Veterans e-book as one of the three Tyranid slates?

"All three of these are going to have new datasheet formations for Tyranid armies to use"

Would suggest no.

Why, you don't believe GW would allow Tyrannic War Veterans to ally with Tyranids to fight against Ultramarines ?

Bought the war veterans dataslate you havent?

xruslanx wrote:

There was remarkably little complaining about Cypher's obvious omission from the Dark Angel codex.

Why the hell Cypher would have been in DA codex? It would make about as much sense than Yarrick being in Ork codex (or indeed Tyrannic war veterans being in Tyranid codex.)

 Crimson wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

There was remarkably little complaining about Cypher's obvious omission from the Dark Angel codex.

Why the hell Cypher would have been in DA codex? It would make about as much sense than Yarrick being in Ork codex (or indeed Tyrannic war veterans being in Tyranid codex.)

Cypher was in the 3rd Edition Codex (iirc the first, or the first modern codex anyway), hiis omission from the 6th edition codex disapointed a lot of Dark Angel vets.. Imo if it weren't for the data slate format he would have been in the 6th Edition DA codex; since the designers cearly hadn't forgotten about him or purged him from the fluff, and he already has a model - there would be no cost whatsoever.

Frankly I still think it's more of a mystery of why he was cut from the 5th edition Dark Angel codex. As I say, he does have a model out and they're not above just c&ping his fluff.