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.

Backfire wrote:
. New Big Mek is CHEAPER than his predecessor which was $40 for single metal model.

Is this so? When I bought my Big Mek with SAG in 2009 he was $29.

 heartserenade wrote:

Tsilber wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
I think everyone misses the point: even if LotD does not auto-lose in one mission, it still auto-loses to everything else. The point is that a kind of codex like that is actually worth paying for. Reasonable people would say no.

Well unless you realize running it alone is auto lose, so you buy it for either the fluff, collectors stand point, or the intention of running it with allies. I mean no one would feel sorry for someone who bought this book, bought all the models and showed up to a game or tournament with the intention of screaming "see GW is bad, I bought this book to prove a point, its a codex that can't win"....

Would you buy a paint pot that is advertised that it can be used on its own, but in reality it doesn't do gak unless you mix it with other paints? And it's priced the same as other paints who can actually do things on their own? If you were a company, would selling a clearly defective product like this a good business decision?

Instead of blaming the customers isn't it the company's responsibility to make a non-defective product in the first place?

I understand your point of view. but comparing a GW codex to a paint pot is really stretching to convince me to your side. That's like saying, im not buying peanut butter and jelly and then bread just to make a PB&J sandwhich. They should put Pb, jelly and bread crumbs all in the same jar and include a plastic spoon lol.
Honestly, I do see the flaw in GW printing that book ( a flaw, not a source for the downward spiral argument). But the rule of things not being on the board at the end of the turn causing an auto lose were in 6th as well. Written prior to LOD.

So either they meant for it to be used in conjunction with allies, or wrote a confusing rule on Aid unlooked for/aid from beyond. Either way you know the rules of the game, you buy the codex knowing this for collection value, running it with allies, the fluff, or with the intent to utilize the Aid rule. If you do not like the rule, don't buy it. but in the end it was not some big catastrophic decision GW made as people seem to be using it to further their argument against GW. This is not a good source of fuel for the fire per say... This particular codex usefulness or collection value is all opinion based.

@Tsilber: You won't know its auto lose until you buy it!

The peanut butter scenario would be more apt if you bought peanut butter to make your PBJ, but the peanut butter contained no peanuts.

I think Tsilber and Heartserenade are having a fine discussion on what many companies like Apple or Automotive have always done: Make your primary product the only means to sell more product.
Thinking of Apple-Store or designing parts non-standard so you can only buy from them.
They had this for a while; giving direction that for competitions or photos to appear in White Dwarf conversions had to be majority GW product and no visible competitor parts.
They do not host anything relevant here so add-on pieces are not a worry to buy from other companies.

My fear is that the local stores may enforce the "buy from here, play here" and when GW thinks they can yank out from independent retailers and find out how bad that is the hard way.

Exposure in local stores and clubs is what keeps them going, GW stores really are not that appealing to play in, so hopefully GW can make the right decision in the next year.

After releasing the new BRB they have few traditional revenue generating streams available (the latest ork releases and strange pricing has me genuinely concerned).

 Ouze wrote:

Backfire wrote:
. New Big Mek is CHEAPER than his predecessor which was $40 for single metal model.

Is this so? When I bought my Big Mek with SAG in 2009 he was $29.

Big Mek was £15 when he first came out IIRC (£18 tops). £22.50 now.

By any chance did they explicitly say that the LotD codex should be used allies or other codices, otherwise you will almost always lose? Do other codices have the same problem?

This particular codex usefulness or collection value is all opinion based.

No it isn't.

Can you use other codices on their own? Yes.

Can you use the LotD on its own? Yes, but it will almost always auto-lose.

Is a codex less useful if you can't use it on its own? Yes.

There's no opinion there, only facts.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Backfire wrote:
. New Big Mek is CHEAPER than his predecessor which was $40 for single metal model.

Is this so? When I bought my Big Mek with SAG in 2009 he was $29.

Big Mek was £15 when he first came out IIRC (£18 tops). £22.50 now.

I remember the Finecast version was £21.50, which is still less than the plastic version.

What is this "Auto Lose" Codex that everyone is referring to and why is it considered as such? Chaos Daemons?

Legion of the damned. They only enter via deep strike which would occur on turn 2 which means you're tabled on turn 1...auto-lose.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What is this "Auto Lose" Codex that everyone is referring to and why is it considered as such? Chaos Daemons?

Legion of the Damned, because they always start in Reserve, but the BRB states if you have *everything* in Reserve at the end of Turn 1, you auto-lose. LotD doesn't enter play until Turn 2, ergo without playing a specific mission, taking them as allies or a gentleman's agreement with your opponent, a LotD player automatically loses any game they play after the first turn, during which they don't do anything because everything is in reserve.

 heartserenade wrote:
By any chance did they explicitly say that the LotD codex should be used allies or other codices, otherwise you will almost always lose? Do other codices have the same problem?

This particular codex usefulness or collection value is all opinion based.

No it isn't.

Can you use other codices on their own? Yes.

Can you use the LotD on its own? Yes, but it will almost always auto-lose.

Is a codex less useful if you can't use it on its own? Yes.

There's no opinion there, only facts.

No, the usefulness and collection value's are opinions. I even said I understand your points of view and opinion on the matter... but i guess that is not good enough. I must agree with you that the book is useless or I must be wrong...

Fact, a thing that is indisputable. Opinion, a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Can the codex be used in conjunction with other armies and played from with an allies standpoint? YES. Can the book be used in an apoc game or certain formation as a stand alone, Yes. Can you use the book with non-douchbag friends and have a fun game, YES these are all examples and opinions of just how useful the book is. Does the book have fluff and collection value? As a collector I say yes...

So again the usefullness and collection value of this book, is opinion based from judgement. And you are entitled to yours, as I should be entitled to mine. I truly can't believe we are disputing over what a fact and opinion is. Something you find to be useless could be the ultimate treasure to another person...

 agnosto wrote:
Legion of the damned. They only enter via deep strike which would occur on turn 2 which means you're tabled on turn 1...auto-lose.

Ha ha! Someone should turn up at Throne of Skulls with a pure Legion of the Damned,list, then deliberately make a scene if the judges rule that they automatically lose. Embarrass the feth out of GW.

Does this affect other armies? A pure Drop Pod Space Marine list?

Are you not allowed to withhold an entire army in reserve to arrive on turn 2+ anymore? That used to be a valid tactic...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Legion of the damned. They only enter via deep strike which would occur on turn 2 which means you're tabled on turn 1...auto-lose.

Ha ha! Someone should turn up at Throne of Skulls with a pure Legion of the Damned,list, then deliberately make a scene if the judges rule that they automatically lose. Embarrass the feth out of GW.

Does this affect other armies? A pure Drop Pod Space Marine list?

Are you not allowed to withhold an entire army in reserve to arrive on turn 2+ anymore? That used to be a valid tactic...

the rule states if you have no units on the board at the end of any of your turns you lose. Drop pods, 50% come in first turn. but yeah if you do reserve your entire army. And have no way of getting them on the board turn 1 (Like a Deathwing assault) You lose, as at the end of turn one you have no units on the board. Same thing is said you have reserves that fail to come on by turn 2 per say. So at the beginning of turn 3 your opponent kills/destroy all units on the board, if your reserves fail to come in from reserves on your turn 3, you auto lose for having no units on the board.

I never said it was useless. Where did I say that? I said it was less useful.

Another fact: is a screwdriver with interchangeable heads more useful than a screwdriver with only one head? Yes.

Again, facts. That is not opinion. The LotD book is less useful than the others. That's a fact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 heartserenade wrote:
I never said it was useless. Where did I say that? I said it was less useful.

Another fact: is a screwdriver with interchangeable heads more useful than a screwdriver with only one head? Yes.

Again, facts. That is not opinion. The LotD book is less useful than the others. That's a fact.

okay then you say its less useful, my dispute remains unchanged.

Being a mechanic in the past, your screwdriver analogy is also an opinion. Interchangeable heads strip and dont have the same torque, a certain fillips head or hex head gets lost easier do to size. And then the interchangeable with multiple heads becomes less useful then having an original set of regular screwdrivers in the first place.

But either way we are getting off topic. Lets just agree to disagree on the relevance of usefulness of the LOTD compared to other codex's.

Spoilered because of slight off-topicness.



As for the relevance of the LotD, yes it's not the only problem with GW's rules. Everything else is also a problem. And that's the problem.

 heartserenade wrote:
Spoilered because of slight off-topicness.

Spoiler:

I like how you "edit" your post by removing it entirely and replacing it with a new one.

Let's say my screwdriver analogy is flawed since I know nothing about screwdrivers (and you seem to conveniently know something about them after 8 edits or so). Then go back to the paint analogy that you dismissed: objectively speaking would you think it's entirely reasonable to charge the same for a product that needs to be used with other products in order to be useful, while other products on the same line can be used on their own just fine?

It's not an opinion and that was the point.. If we just chalk everything up to opinion then we have no basis on what is a justifiable price tag for a product. Because if a product is considerably less useful than your other similar products but you charge the same amount for it, is that reasonable?

As for the relevance of the LotD, yes it's not the only problem with GW's rules. Everything else is also a problem. And that's the problem.

I did not remove a post entirely, I posted inccorectly, and then I corrected some wording and phrasing to try to better get my point across. I am a terrible typer, FACT. Sorry for my edits if they upset you... I am no longer sure what we are disputing, and its clear now no matter how I say or nicely put it, the more I disagree with you the more off topic we are getting about this post. Apologies, for 'conveniently' knowing about screwdrivers. I was not trying to call you out or embarrass you in any way, only disputing facts from opinions.

Back to the topic, most of the downfall or what is said to conclude a hypothesis that GW is moving more negative then positive (customer satisfaction, pricing, profits, quarterly reports) Seems to be true indeed.

But just like the screwdriver analogy, I think in some cases people need to find a better argument or battle to wage in order to further their grievances or better get their opinions across . The LotD book argument is really grasping for straws (my opinion). There are plenty that were happy to see the book come out from a collectors standpoint, as well as play value, whether twieking the aid unlooked for rule or agreement among friends. i plan to run em as allies for the share fun of running them as a Lotd Army. Do I plan to win, no, I plan to have fun and bring a cool list in my opinion.

I do not remember saying I was upset of your edits, man.

I'm surprised this is still rolling on, but anyone postulating that LotD has value as a collector's item realises it is digital only right?

Now, that doesn't preclude it from having some value to a collector, granted, but I'd say that pretty much eviscerates it. In my opinion.

So we have a product that features, essentially, one unit from a Codex, with some extra shinies and bits and pieces that represent a limited amount of value to, I'd suggest, most gamers. For almost half the price of one codex. So, in essence, one unit for the cost of half a codex. That doesn't work properly, or have any value as a physical item, because it doesn't exist.

This is a perfect summary of what GW has been doing (selling less product, for more money, at lower quality, while trying to reduce overhead) and probably represents the stuff they really need to stop doing in order to start growing again.

Doesn't unbound now entirely invalidate the idea of a codex for a single unit that was already in another codex?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Doesn't unbound now entirely invalidate the idea of a codex for a single unit that was already in another codex?

Unbound just means you can use anything. It wouldn't change the natuer of one unit Codices.

But given the fact that this dex auto loses if not played with allies it would be an 'allied codex' in everything but name. A way for legion of the dammed to aid their imperial allies without having to take other space marine allies. So now there is no need for it at all unless someone actually wants a sergeant as their warlord.

I see what you mean. Yes, you're right. Same applies to the Inquisition Codex, the Knight Codex and, really, the Latinus Stormstrooperus books as well.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Doesn't unbound now entirely invalidate the idea of a codex for a single unit that was already in another codex?

Ah, but don't forget that Codex Grey Knights Coteaz can't cast Malefic, but Codex Inquisition Coteaz can.

So.... there's that...

Clearly he is a secret heretic who just hides it when the GKs come around.

Wouldn't you?

Unbound invalidates the concept of a codex except as a collection of imperial stories concerning a particular faction.

If the codex is regarded as a list of units, it could be organised one page per unit type and released as separate pages: one page "codexette" for Tau Crisis Suit, one page "codexette" for Tyranid Tervigon, one for Ork Boyz.

To make an Unbound army, you simply grab the individual pages to match whatever theme you want to put on table, and there is your army codex.

As relates to the topic, this concept allows GW to put out "codexes" as collections of unit fact sheets or you might say datasheets, plus pages of fluff and pics. These could be physically organised as ringbinder pages.

In itself this is actually quite a good idea. If done right it removes the problem of having to look up rules in eight separate pages of two different books to make the unit work, as for example with the 5th edition Tervigon, and it allows players to carry only the stuff they need.

The downside is that it undoubtedly would be used as a reason to increase prices again.

Plus you'd need to buy your Official™ Citadel™ Ring™ Binder™. And there's probably be a Limited™ Edition™ Citadel™ Official™ Ring™ Binder™ with a special dust jacket.

Official™ Citadel™ Ring™ Basher™ is the price rise associated with the introduction of the Official™ Citadel™ Ring™Binder™.

Yes DakkaDakka is a bastion of free thought (as someone mentioned earlier.)

Someone needs to be the bad guys.

Someone needs to whine about what everyone is thinking.

Someone needs to be that one jerk who finds the bad in every situation.

DakkaDakka is that someone.

(Not sarcasm I love this website and it's general atmosphere.)

Most people that "bash GW" here that I've seen credit them in some areas so it's not mindless bashing. I compliment GW on their recent plastic quality (if not always the designs), their shade and base paint quality (if not price or pots), and so on. We really do love 40k... just not GW ; p