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.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The irony with the whole "forge the narrative" crap is that balanced rules would let you forge the narrative better than the gak we have now. You are limited in themed forces due to the current set of rules - e.g. you can't do an entire Terminator army outside of I believe Dark Angels (not counting GK) and they need a special character who is the grand master of all the terminators who just so happens to be at every single battle that they go on. You field special characters everywhere for their special rules, when you should be able to make your own characters with appropriate rules.

40k lets you forge the narrative in name only, while the rules actually prevent truly narrative games and in any event balanced rules would let you do it more.

If GW were writing the Dark Angels codex now, then the DA codex release would only have rules for Greenwing, with a Ravenwing and Deathwing digital supplement (that's two, mind you) thrown in 1-2 months later.

 Sir Arun wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
The irony with the whole "forge the narrative" crap is that balanced rules would let you forge the narrative better than the gak we have now. You are limited in themed forces due to the current set of rules - e.g. you can't do an entire Terminator army outside of I believe Dark Angels (not counting GK) and they need a special character who is the grand master of all the terminators who just so happens to be at every single battle that they go on. You field special characters everywhere for their special rules, when you should be able to make your own characters with appropriate rules.

40k lets you forge the narrative in name only, while the rules actually prevent truly narrative games and in any event balanced rules would let you do it more.

If GW were writing the Dark Angels codex now, then the DA codex release would only have rules for Greenwing, with a Ravenwing and Deathwing digital supplement (that's two, mind you) thrown in 1-2 months later.

Because that's what they did with the Space Marine codex, right?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
The irony with the whole "forge the narrative" crap is that balanced rules would let you forge the narrative better than the gak we have now. You are limited in themed forces due to the current set of rules - e.g. you can't do an entire Terminator army outside of I believe Dark Angels (not counting GK) and they need a special character who is the grand master of all the terminators who just so happens to be at every single battle that they go on. You field special characters everywhere for their special rules, when you should be able to make your own characters with appropriate rules.

40k lets you forge the narrative in name only, while the rules actually prevent truly narrative games and in any event balanced rules would let you do it more.

If GW were writing the Dark Angels codex now, then the DA codex release would only have rules for Greenwing, with a Ravenwing and Deathwing digital supplement (that's two, mind you) thrown in 1-2 months later.

Because that's what they did with the Space Marine codex, right?

Bet they're kicking themselves at the moment

There was:
Clan Raukaan
Sentinels of Terra
Stormwing Formation
Tyrannic Veterans
Legion of the Damned

 Divine_Tyranny wrote:
I dont get it personally, people complain about the rules then complain because they replace the rules. Some people really dont seem happy unless they are complaining!

People complained about poor rules, and then complained when they were replaced with rules that had worse balance than the rules they were initially complaining about. That seems perfectly reasonable. If GW had proofread and playtested their rules, then even if they were releasing all the digital supplements etc they'd have more support. But they didn't, so they don't.

Some people really don't seem happy unless they can misunderstand the situation.

Has there been any further development since the nay-saying on the % based army list being called out as nothing more than a rumor?

 Eldarain wrote:
There was:
Clan Raukaan
Sentinels of Terra
Stormwing Formation
Tyrannic Veterans
Legion of the Damned

Which is the same as packaging Ravenwing and Deathwing separately from the Dark Angels codex... because of reasons...

What's this got to do with the 7th ed rulebook again

 Wulfmar wrote:
Has there been any further development since the nay-saying on the % based army list being called out as nothing more than a rumor?

Not really, no. BOLS posted something on upcoming ork kits in june, but it's basically just sumarizing the kits that needed a redo for ages, so no surprises there. However, it seems like 7th ed in May is more or less agreed on by everyone and GW tries their good old "we wont say a word to no-one"-tactic, as usuall.

 Sir Arun wrote:


If GW were writing the Dark Angels codex now, then the DA codex release would only have rules for Greenwing, with a Ravenwing and Deathwing digital supplement (that's two, mind you) thrown in 1-2 months later.

No, not at all. I keep seeing this pop up, but if you were to stick with facts, none of the codex supplements uses miniatures not available in the parent book. Did the Tyranid dataslates reintroduce the Doom? Spods? Will the theoretic Catachan supplement have Marbo? The answer is there if you look...

UltraPrime wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:


If GW were writing the Dark Angels codex now, then the DA codex release would only have rules for Greenwing, with a Ravenwing and Deathwing digital supplement (that's two, mind you) thrown in 1-2 months later.

No, not at all. I keep seeing this pop up, but if you were to stick with facts, none of the codex supplements uses miniatures not available in the parent book. Did the Tyranid dataslates reintroduce the Doom? Spods? Will the theoretic Catachan supplement have Marbo? The answer is there if you look...

Terminators and Bikes would still be in the parent book, just they'd make you pay more to be able to field a proper deathwing or ravenwing army (ie all terminators or all bikes).

Just like they did with the Farsight Enclaves and fielding an all crisis suit army.

The % system for force organisation would shake things up really well. Since balance is out of the question, I'm onboard for just rolling the dice and seeing what comes.

The percentage system isn't happening.

 Eldarain wrote:
There was:
Clan Raukaan - Not required to play Iron Hands, just added stuff to them for anyone who is a very serious fan of the Chapter, and gave details about one specific company of Iron Hands
Sentinels of Terra - Not required to play Imperial Fists, just added stuff to them for anyone who is a very serious fan of the Chapter, and gave details about one specific company of Imperial fists
Stormwing Formation - Added to the codex by allowing you to create a formation out of stuff that's already in the codex. Plus people who want to ally Marine flyers for some reason without going Marine heavy benefit
Tyrannic Veterans - Added to the codex by allowing you to create a formation out of stuff that's already in the codex. Oh and the allies thing also applies here too. You don't have to take the whole Marine codex to bring these guys
Legion of the Damned - Stand alone book for people who want to ally Legion of the Damned to their army but don't want to take other Space Marines to do it.

Responses in yellow. Seriously, none of that stuff is required to play anything. It's a bunch of add on stuff that doesn't add in things that are missing, they just expand on what is already there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The percentage system isn't happening.

Agreed. It just doesn't fit with the current system of the rumors of a "small rework", it came out of nowhere, and sounds more like GW trying to flush out leaks again.

Also people have been wanting a all crisis suit army since forever.

Now that gave that option to people with some drawbacks in what you get access too, or that you have to take certain things to do it.

So they gave you the option to do what you have always wanted. But has not been available before nor should have been expected to be available.

With that being said are you happier that the option is available or would you be happier if the option was not available at all.

 Leth wrote:
Also people have been wanting a all crisis suit army since forever.

Now that gave that option to people with some drawbacks in what you get access too, or that you have to take certain things to do it.

So they gave you the option to do what you have always wanted. But has not been available before nor should have been expected to be available.

With that being said are you happier that the option is available or would you be happier if the option was not available at all.

I think, for me, the criticism that could be laid at the doorstep of GW with regards the mini-dexes, or whatever you want to call them, could be release dates for them.

I think it's weird they are released so soon after, or in conjunction with, their parent codex. I'd personally be inclined to produce a good all round codex with lots of solid builds and as good as it could be and then release it.

Then, several months down the line, when the players of said army were satiated with their new purchases, the army was a part of the 'meta' etc, then I'd have some folks run up the mini-dex, to reinvigorate sales and interest in that same army.

eg Ork codex is released, good all round book, nice new models, ork players happy... - 4 months later: Blood Axe minidex is released, stormboyz and kommandoz in troop choices, loses access to certain other units, may only take deffdreads with mixed cc and ranged weapons not all cc, preferred enemy - orks, may take Astra Militarum as blood brothers but no tempestus or priests in said AM army, ogryn bodyguard mob for warboss etc etc. Sufficient to really change the dynamic of the army without being an 'unlock' to something that should have been in the original codex. Changing up composition, allies, special rules etc you can bring a lot of interest without hamstringing the original book and making the customer feel you've only sold them half a product.

Why do you have to make a separate book for people to violate the force org. Just make it a special rule for a given SC just like every other Codex used to do (including DA with DW/RW)

If the models already exist, then there's even less reason for a $50 supplement. The fact of the matter is that you can't play an all-Crisis Suit force org without the Farsight supplement, and the question is "Why?"

The irony being that talking to your opponent about modifying the force org to allow an all Suit Tau list is exactly the sort of thing that "forging a narrative" should be all about..

But if you give GW $50, then they give you permission instead.

If the models already exist, then there's even less reason for a $50 codex. The fact of the matter is that you can't play an Space Marine without the Space Marine codex to supplement your rulebook, and the question is "Why?"

 TedNugent wrote:
Why do you have to make a separate book for people to violate the force org. Just make it a special rule for a given SC just like every other Codex used to do (including DA with DW/RW)

If the models already exist, then there's even less reason for a $50 supplement. The fact of the matter is that you can't play an all-Crisis Suit force org without the Farsight supplement, and the question is "Why?"

This. Couple of pages with:

Master of Mont'ka: An army containing Farsight as it's warlord may take Crisis units as troops. In addition, a 3 man crisis team is a 1+ choice.

We Stand Alone: If you choose to do so, you may play an army representing the Farsight Enclaves. A Farsight Enclaves army may choose from any units from this codex but may not include Shadowsun or Aun'va and does not have access to the normal signature systems listed in the wargear section of this book or the Tau Empire Warlord Traits table (unless specified otherwise). Instead they have access to the Enclaves Signature Systems and Enclave Warlord Traits table. If you are playing a Farsight Enclaves army and your army contains Farsight himself, then he must be your warlord.

Blood Brothers: Every unit in a Farsight Enclaves army must take the Bonding Knife Ritual, if it is available to it.

Ork Fighters: All units in a Farsight Enclaves army have Preferred Enemy Orks in close combat.

Enclaves Signature Systems: blah blah blah. Can be taken by Riptides.

Enclave Warlord Traits: blah blah blah

The Eight: If you wish you may take up to 7 members of The Eight (except Farsight himself) in place of the Shas'vre bodyguard available to Farsight. They must be taken as is, with no modifications.

List of the stats and wargear of the eight

Now that wasn't hard and certainly wasn't worth £30

 motyak wrote:
People complained about poor rules, and then complained when they were replaced with rules that had worse balance than the rules they were initially complaining about. That seems perfectly reasonable. If GW had proofread and playtested their rules, then even if they were releasing all the digital supplements etc they'd have more support. But they didn't, so they don't.

Just to clarify, although I complained about poor rules and then complained when they were replaced with rules that had even worse balance, I also complained that the new, worse-balanced rules were also more expensive and/or less complete than the original badly balanced rules. I don't know about anybody else.

I definitely don't agree with the price point of supplements (I also don't agree with the price of the codexes either and wish they were in the sub $30 range at least) but the idea of supplements isn't a bad one. They can drastically alter an army, change options, offer modellers paint scheme ideas, bring forth new lore for those who dig it, it's a really solid idea.

The problem is it's paired with a really high price point and doesn't just include the basic codex in the book to allow you to just completely sub it for the basic book.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


The problem is it's paired with a really high price point and doesn't just include the basic codex in the book to allow you to just completely sub it for the basic book.

Also, this. I hate having to flick between books. Hell, I hate having to flick between pages in some cases.

Worst case example: See a bit of wargear available to a unit in Dark Eldar codex but can't remember what it does. I know! I'll look it up in the armoury section. Find it in the armoury section, it says: look on page 36 (or whatever).

What's the point of having an armoury section if you don't have all the rules for wargear in it?

So would you rather the rules existed or not?

Because when the book was released you did not have the option.

I would rather have the option than not. Also considering that the books can be sitting around for who knows how long and then they release something after. Something like farsight could have been completed MONTHS after the initial print run of the book, but they didnt release the book until much later.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I definitely don't agree with the price point of supplements (I also don't agree with the price of the codexes either and wish they were in the sub $30 range at least) but the idea of supplements isn't a bad one. They can drastically alter an army, change options, offer modellers paint scheme ideas, bring forth new lore for those who dig it, it's a really solid idea.

The problem is it's paired with a really high price point and doesn't just include the basic codex in the book to allow you to just completely sub it for the basic book.

Exactly

The issue with GW has, by and large in the last two years, not been with their ideas for the game, it has been in horrible execution, crazy pricing, poor design choices or a medley of all three.

I have no philosophical objection to super heavies, mini dexes, supplements or any other new concepts that have been introduced since 6th, but I do have a problem with the way a lot of it has been introduced.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
Why do you have to make a separate book for people to violate the force org. Just make it a special rule for a given SC just like every other Codex used to do (including DA with DW/RW)

If the models already exist, then there's even less reason for a $50 supplement. The fact of the matter is that you can't play an all-Crisis Suit force org without the Farsight supplement, and the question is "Why?"

This. Couple of pages with:

Master of Mont'ka: An army containing Farsight as it's warlord may take Crisis units as troops. In addition, a 3 man crisis team is a 1+ choice.

We Stand Alone: If you choose to do so, you may play an army representing the Farsight Enclaves. A Farsight Enclaves army may choose from any units from this codex but may not include Shadowsun or Aun'va and does not have access to the normal signature systems listed in the wargear section of this book or the Tau Empire Warlord Traits table (unless specified otherwise). Instead they have access to the Enclaves Signature Systems and Enclave Warlord Traits table. If you are playing a Farsight Enclaves army and your army contains Farsight himself, then he must be your warlord.

Blood Brothers: Every unit in a Farsight Enclaves army must take the Bonding Knife Ritual, if it is available to it.

Ork Fighters: All units in a Farsight Enclaves army have Preferred Enemy Orks in close combat.

Enclaves Signature Systems: blah blah blah. Can be taken by Riptides.

Enclave Warlord Traits: blah blah blah

The Eight: If you wish you may take up to 7 members of The Eight (except Farsight himself) in place of the Shas'vre bodyguard available to Farsight. They must be taken as is, with no modifications.

List of the stats and wargear of the eight

Now that wasn't hard and certainly wasn't worth £30

Actually I think the Farsight Enclaves codex is the only semi-decent one out of all the supplements released so far for the content you get. All the others only give you custom warlord traits and custom wargear.

I liked Ilyanden supplement too. I like the farsighted one too but agree with the price point issue. Now I am just awaiting more info on the 7th (6.5) and to see if they update my digital edition of the rule book

Also Farsight somehow fits to the Tau...no other sept has been given any particular attention by GW, so once you have the Farsight supplement, that's that. You feel satisfied as a Tau player and probably dont ask for more.

But with the other supplements, it feels like there should be more.

E.g. with Eldar and Iyanden, you'll end up wondering whether you'll go buy a Biel-Tan supplement, or Alaitoc, Ulthwe, Saim-Hann etc.

Same wirh Space Marines - Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, so where are my Salamanders, Crimson Fists and Black Tempalrs?

One thing that just occurred to me: I've never needed help "forging a narrative". I've been adding narrative to my 40K games since I was 12. There have been few games I've played where my characters haven't had names, my army hasn't had fluff, and I haven't had a specific narrative event in mind when either organising the game/s or just playing them in general. The rules shouldn't encourage "forging a narrative", that should happen naturally. The rules, on the other hand, are never going to be 100% balanced - that's virtually impossible - but they should be unambiguous and well written from a technical standpoint. If they are, the narratives will forge themselves and won't need forcing.

This.

HBMC has it right, there is too much to balance correctly, they just need to tighten up what they've got so it's clearer.

Lastly, why are we all calling it 7th? It's not 7th!!!! If the rumors are to be believed it's a consolidation of FAQ's, errata's, and supplements. That's not a new edition, it's a 'consolidation' of current rules. Either 6.1... or 6.5... or 6thv2 or something.

This could also be 45 pages of rubbish, as we don't know for certain what's coming. Strip the fat from this thread and we'd have 1-2 pages of relevant comment. I'm surprised the MOD's haven't locked it yet tbh.

 snowman40k wrote:
This could also be 45 pages of rubbish, as we don't know for certain what's coming. Strip the fat from this thread and we'd have 1-2 pages of relevant comment. I'm surprised the MOD's haven't locked it yet tbh.

Welcome to every rumours thread ever. The mods would either have to ban commenting on rumours or spend ages cleaning threads.

 snowman40k wrote:
This could also be 45 pages of rubbish, as we don't know for certain what's coming. Strip the fat from this thread and we'd have 1-2 pages of relevant comment. I'm surprised the MOD's haven't locked it yet tbh.

There's not much point in having a section of the forum devoted to discussion of news and rumours if you don't allow the discussion of news and rumours in it...