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.

Chad Warden wrote:

3rd Edition - 6 Years (1998-2004) (2 codex per year)
12 Codexes: SM, DE, BA, CSM, DA, Orks, Eldar, IG, Tyranids, Tau, DH, WH
6 Supplements: Assassins, Catachans, SW, Craftworld, EOT, Arma,
1 Expansions: Cityfight
25 'Data slates': 11 different army lists and 14 different optional units/rules.

You forgot Necrons and Chaos 3.5
BA were a minidex

Updated!

Damn, and here I was getting psyched about buying several brand new CSM sqauds redone like the excellent new vanilla tacticals. Turns out its just the same models. I guess GW doesn't want my money?

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Damn, and here I was getting psyched about buying several brand new CSM sqauds redone like the excellent new vanilla tacticals. Turns out its just the same models. I guess GW doesn't want my money?

Forgeworld does! Behold, Chosen!




However, I agree that CSM are overdue for new sculpts!

They are saving new sculpts for the release of the next Chaos Codex supplement detailing the history and forces of the feared warband: Indigo Snuggles.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


And that requires a full-price hardback release that could have better served putting out a single "Legions of Chaos" book with new rules for the major Legions/Warbands, including any required FOC changes, Warlord Traits and unique Wargear.

What a wasted opportunity.

Well it really depends on what opportunity you are refering to? The opportunity to release an actually usable resource that would appeal to many different CSM players or the opportunity to charge customers, once again, for nothing really at all? If the former then yes they missed the opportunity, but since this is GW I expect the latter was the real opportunity for them so they hit the mark dead center on that one.

Skriker

 kronk wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Damn, and here I was getting psyched about buying several brand new CSM sqauds redone like the excellent new vanilla tacticals. Turns out its just the same models. I guess GW doesn't want my money?

Forgeworld does! Behold, Chosen!




However, I agree that CSM are overdue for new sculpts!

What models are those? I feel like you may be on to an (overpriced) something. A squad of those as chosen may be pretty cool!

 Skriker wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


And that requires a full-price hardback release that could have better served putting out a single "Legions of Chaos" book with new rules for the major Legions/Warbands, including any required FOC changes, Warlord Traits and unique Wargear.

What a wasted opportunity.

Well it really depends on what opportunity you are refering to? The opportunity to release an actually usable resource that would appeal to many different CSM players or the opportunity to charge customers, once again, for nothing really at all? If the former then yes they missed the opportunity, but since this is GW I expect the latter was the real opportunity for them so they hit the mark dead center on that one.

Skriker

Sadly agreed. It seems to be their new marketing to put out 50 pages of fluff and a minor rules tweak and charge full codex price for it.

Somebody at GW is laughing all the way to the bank.

WayneTheGame wrote:

It really feels like they're just giving anyone who doesn't buy into their "forge the narrative" line and actually wants good rules the finger.

I'm a Forge The Narrative guy. I love Cinematic rules. I have a detailed story for my models and like to imagine what is happening as if I were watching a movie.

_BECAUSE_ of those things, I didn't want or need this codex. If they wanted to spend a Codex showing a story of a Chapter falling to Chaos, I would have MUCH rather heard more about Huron or another of the already established renegades, not this relatively new one.

But more than that, BECAUSE I am a Forge the Narrative kinda guy, I want Legion books. Supplements with only a page or so of rules is fine, so long as they are vaguely reflective of the story they have built.

godswildcard wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Damn, and here I was getting psyched about buying several brand new CSM sqauds redone like the excellent new vanilla tacticals. Turns out its just the same models. I guess GW doesn't want my money?

Forgeworld does! Behold, Chosen!




However, I agree that CSM are overdue for new sculpts!

What models are those? I feel like you may be on to an (overpriced) something. A squad of those as chosen may be pretty cool!

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/The_Horus_Heresy/Legiones_Astartes/Sons_Of_Horus/SONS_OF_HORUS_REAVER_ATTACK_SQUAD.html

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 pretre wrote:
- 72pp codex
- Full history of the fallen Crimson Sables transformation into the Crimson Slaughter
- Warlord Traits
- Relics
- "Echoes of War" Narrative Missions
- Planetstrike & Cities of Death Strategems
- Crimson Slaughter Army List: Possessed CSMs can be taken as TROOPS

And that requires a full-price hardback release that could have better served putting out a single "Legions of Chaos" book with new rules for the major Legions/Warbands, including any required FOC changes, Warlord Traits and unique Wargear.

What a wasted opportunity.

Also, yaaaaaay you made arguably the worst Chaos unit into troops. Have fun with your 26 point troops!

We wanted Heldrake Troops!

I'm going to start scouring the various forums for topics like this, compile them all into links into an e-mail, and send it to every GW e-mail address I can find.

Not that it'll do any good, but at least I can say I tried to get GW to pay attention.

GW, please stop giving us stuff we don't want.

Please give us stuff that we do want.

We are the playerbase, we are the customer. If us beardy guys that track down these rumors aren't pleased, we'll be the ones that will push the target demographic AWAY from buying this crap, whereas if they produced something we were truly excited about, we'd be telling all the newbies, 'You should definitely get this! It's super exciting! It's awesome! It has everything that we love about the game in it!' and lo and behold, they would sell more.

drbored wrote:
I'm going to start scouring the various forums for topics like this, compile them all into links into an e-mail, and send it to every GW e-mail address I can find.

Not that it'll do any good, but at least I can say I tried to get GW to pay attention.

Threads like this? Ugh. At least write a letter or something.

Agreed. Write a letter. Spell check it and have a friend check it for grammar.

Sign it and then mail it.

Yeah, an e-mail with links is going to get deleted. Heck, I would delete it as soon as I saw it.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
I'm a Forge The Narrative guy. I love Cinematic rules. I have a detailed story for my models and like to imagine what is happening as if I were watching a movie.

_BECAUSE_ of those things, I didn't want or need this codex. If they wanted to spend a Codex showing a story of a Chapter falling to Chaos, I would have MUCH rather heard more about Huron or another of the already established renegades, not this relatively new one.

But more than that, BECAUSE I am a Forge the Narrative kinda guy, I want Legion books. Supplements with only a page or so of rules is fine, so long as they are vaguely reflective of the story they have built.

This. This. A thousand times this.

I have long written up back-stories and a series of linked narrative games for various Chaos Commanders. I don't want nor need a damned 'Crimson Slaughter' book that amounts to nothing more than "New Chapter has something happen to it, now they staple babies to their foreheads - have a new Warlord Chart".

Have weekly releases not sunk in yet here?... There is every likelihood of plastic chosen week on Friday for preorder. If it doesn't happen then by all means moan. However, until it doesn't isnt it about time people stopped the incessant whinging when things haven't happened? In terms of marine based books there is a plethora of viable marine forces available that can merrily represent both 30k and 40k. Here endeth the first rant...

 pretre wrote:
Long story short, even with the book for one unit of Knights, that doesn't mean they won't put out more substantial books.

Sounds like someone 'apologising' for GW's release schedule.

And I don't think anyone's arguing that they won't petre, but I think people would prefer if it they released 'subtantial' books all the time. We didn't need nor want a Crimson Slaughter book. Chaos players want a Legions book. We'd all pay for a full-priced hard cover Legions book. Why on earth do they think we're clamouring for a book about some random fallen Loyalist Chapter?

And I notice in your list of Codices you note ‘expansions’ and ‘dataslates’ for 3rd Ed. That’s a nice try, but it’s not accurate at all. For starters you list Catachans in ‘expansions’, yet you list Blood Angels and Dark Angels as full Codices. Those were the same – a book that makes reference to a core book. I know what you’re trying to do, reframe 3rd Ed to make it look like GW has always done the Codex/Expansion/Dataslate thing, but really they haven’t and your attempts to make it appear that way are mighty dishonest.

drbored wrote:
GW, please stop giving us stuff we don't want.

Please give us stuff that we do want.

Doesn't work that way unfortunately. GW has a general attitude of "they'll buy what we make", rather than "we'll make what they'll buy".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sounds like someone 'apologising' for GW's release schedule.

Whatevs.

And I notice in your list of Codices you note ‘expansions’ and ‘dataslates’ for 3rd Ed. That’s a nice try, but it’s not accurate at all. For starters you list Catachans in ‘expansions’, yet you list Blood Angels and Dark Angels as full Codices. Those were the same – a book that makes reference to a core book. I know what you’re trying to do, reframe 3rd Ed to make it look like GW has always done the Codex/Expansion/Dataslate thing, but really they haven’t and your attempts to make it appear that way are mighty dishonest.

I fixed BA and Catachans. I forgot DA was a minidex too and fixed that as well.

As for the other part, I think that's just taking a shot at me. How does it make me look dishonest? I'm not reframing a damn thing about 3rd edition. 3rd was a huge hodge-podge of Codexes, add-on codexes, sub-codexes and white dwarf articles. A dataslate is basically the same as a unit entry, which were in WD all the time. Want to field GK before CH? You had to use a WD article. Cult Terminators? WD Article. etc, so on. A supplement is just like the add-on codexes and mini-dexes we got in third. Are there differences? Sure, but I'm comparing output by types of material, which is pretty clear.

Anyways, even if you just compare main codexes, 6th edition is far and away the most productive edition. We have gotten the most main codexes per year of any edition. Which was my point. Even with all the dataslates and all the mini-codexes and supplements, we still are getting a faster codex and army release schedule than any other edition. We're not sacrificing anything for these add-ons, in fact we're getting more.

Either way, I fixed the DA thing, so we're down to 2 per year in 3rd edition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why on earth do they think we're clamouring for a book about some random fallen Loyalist Chapter?

Maybe they assumed people liked Crimson Slaughter because the DV chosen models were so well-received? Maybe GW misinterpreted the demand for new Chaos models as a desire to learn more about the red paint job they were given?

It's stupid but that's the only thing I can come up with. That would also be assuming GW even knows the models are mostly well-liked, which they likely don't because they don't care what their customers think at all.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why on earth do they think we're clamouring for a book about some random fallen Loyalist Chapter?

Maybe they assumed people liked Crimson Slaughter because the DV chosen models were so well-received? Maybe GW misinterpreted the demand for new Chaos models as a desire to learn more about the red paint job they were given?

It's stupid but that's the only thing I can come up with. That would also be assuming GW even knows the models are mostly well-liked, which they likely don't because they don't care what their customers think at all.

More likely, someone in design / development really likes Crimson Slaughter and wanted to do a book about them.

So in other words no one is really clamoring for them and it's just a designer's pet project? That does make more sense, actually.

 Sidstyler wrote:
So in other words no one is really clamoring for them and it's just a designer's pet project? That does make more sense, actually.

Wasn't there a recent WD article to that effect? They work on what they want to work on (outside of actual big releases).

I imagine a lot of the dataslate/supplement/extra stuff has to do with that. Designers/development sitting around and going... "I totally want to field more riptides! I'll make a dataslate."

Either way, I fixed the DA thing, so we're down to 2 per year in 3rd edition.

Two full codex books per year on average is basically what I remember from back then as well and it amounted to one new army book every 2-3 months roughly between the two big lines with a yearly LOTR starter/book around the winter premiere of the movies. You also had weekly releases of products previewed on the website but I guess that is back now with the smaller format White Dwarf. The types of stuff that comes out in the codex supplements would previously have been a web or WD article with a year end compilation of them all that costed less than a single supplement does now. IIRC, the Legion of the Damned were released that way in 3rd.

 warboss wrote:
Two full codex books per year on average is basically what I remember from back then as well and it amounted to one new army book every 2-3 months roughly between the two big lines with a yearly LOTR starter/book around the winter premiere of the movies. You also had weekly releases of products previewed on the website but I guess that is back now with the smaller format White Dwarf. The types of stuff that comes out in the codex supplements would previously have been a web or WD article with a year end compilation of them all that costed less than a single supplement does now. IIRC, the Legion of the Damned were released that way in 3rd.

Right and we're getting 3.5 full codex books per year now in 6th edition. We don't get previews and the stuff that would be a web or WD article either goes to print or is a digital release.

So even with all of the dataslates, extra stuff, we still get more full codex/army books than we did during any other edition.

edit: You may disagree with how they're releasing the extra stuff (digidex, supplement, etc vs White Dwarf/Web), but you can't say that it is slowing down our codex releases, since those are actually increasing in speed.

 pretre wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
So in other words no one is really clamoring for them and it's just a designer's pet project? That does make more sense, actually.

Wasn't there a recent WD article to that effect? They work on what they want to work on (outside of actual big releases).

I imagine a lot of the dataslate/supplement/extra stuff has to do with that. Designers/development sitting around and going... "I totally want to field more riptides! I'll make a dataslate."

And that's why the Crimson Slaughter Supplement makes sense. As a player, any one of us would prefer special rules for our Legion army we've cultivated carefully based on old background. But as a designer, why would you want to just rehash something that has been done before by many others? Wouldn't you prefer to create your own brand new thing? Add to the 40k universe rather than simply rehash it?

Iamjack42 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
So in other words no one is really clamoring for them and it's just a designer's pet project? That does make more sense, actually.

Wasn't there a recent WD article to that effect? They work on what they want to work on (outside of actual big releases).

I imagine a lot of the dataslate/supplement/extra stuff has to do with that. Designers/development sitting around and going... "I totally want to field more riptides! I'll make a dataslate."

And that's why the Crimson Slaughter Supplement makes sense. As a player, any one of us would prefer special rules for our Legion army we've cultivated carefully based on old background. But as a designer, why would you want to just rehash something that has been done before by many others? Wouldn't you prefer to create your own brand new thing? Add to the 40k universe rather than simply rehash it?

Rehash something that was ripped away while giving new things to SM?

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Fayric wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Excessus wrote:
Just as usual then, only this time the fluff is about somebody nobody cares about...

Pretty much. Very disappointed I was hoping for something to make Chaos good. I was excited about it, but I'm not paying $50 (technically $100 for C:CSM too) for pages of fluff, missions that nobody uses to refight battles nobody cares about, and one page of rules that lets me use a bad unit as Troops instead of Elites.

GW sure knows how to please the crowd. First black legion, now CS and posessed, and also a brand new helbrute. Who needs super heavy knights!

It really feels like they're just giving anyone who doesn't buy into their "forge the narrative" line and actually wants good rules the finger.

And that's been different from how they've run the game for the past few editions how?

 pretre wrote:
How does it make me look dishonest?

Because you’re making false equivalencies. 3rd Ed and 6th Ed are most alike in that we have a mess of rules from multiple sources, but to categorise the various sources of rules from 3rd Ed (and 4th and 5th) using the modern 6th Ed parlance seems like nothing more than attempt to justify GW’s new methodology. Releasing a thin little book that says “Look in Codex Space Marines” for the rules for Tactical Squads is quite removed from a massive hard-back book that says “Possessed are Troops now”. They’re putting out physical and digital Codices for single units now, and that never happened in 3rd Ed. Closest we ever got to this in 3rd was the Assassins Codex, which had 4 units in it. 3rd Ed was a complete mess by the end due to all the various rules from various sources, but it’s not the same as 6th Ed.

As to the rest of what you said about productivity, I actually agree. GW has never been so active in their release schedule, and there doesn’t appear to be any downtime (even less now with the shift to weekly releases). It’s just a shame that they’re not putting their productivity to good use with things we actually want, like a Legion book, rather than things no one cares about, like Marine Chapter #47345 turning to Chaos.

 pretre wrote:
We're not sacrificing anything for these add-ons, in fact we're getting more.

I'd debate that as well. The studio's time couldn't have been better used making a Legions of Chaos book that all Chaos players would flock to buy, even if it included a few "buy all our play-sets and toys!" cynical nonsense like letting Iron Warriors take Squadrons of Helbrutes as Troops to drum up sales of the new kit? Nope. Rando Traitor Marines get a whole book to themselves. That's a better use of time and resources.

I am actually happy with this as I was with BL supplement. No new models and crimson codex saves my money. Thank you god, of warhammer. Btw, I totally agree with anyone saying that this new slaughter makes sense. Designers are there to create new things/rules from nothing, and rebuilding old legion rules even if it pains me to say is not creative. Believe me I wanted badly night lords rules. But I m still a happy hippo with what I have. I enjoy csm when I play with friends, and if I wanna go competitive I play daemons, or I mix daemons with csm.