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.

Because the indexes make the gameplayable... barely..youre beyond saving if you honestly think the indexes we have now are any better than the codexes before

 Purifier wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Purifier wrote:


They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.

It is to me. That stuff doesn't add 'flavour.' Special interactions is definitely bloat, and <whatever> tactics encourages pointless and insane forms of 'armies' that clash horribly with the background.
Every special snowflake rule is a pointless way to introduce yet more imbalances and problems.

The codex/army book has consistently been a method of causing problem armies. The game would be much better if they stuck with the index structure.
Fundamentally, GW has never been able to stick to a design paradigm long enough to go through a whole cycle of codex or army books. Someone inevitably takes their 'pet' faction too far.

Are you sure you're playing the right game? Because it seems like you'd be a lot more happy with something where everyone has the same army, and a small amount of different units.

Yep. Flavour comes from background and the army. It doesn't come from a pile of random crap dripped on everything. A game is like a pizza, if you want some of everything, it just isn't going to bake right.

But a small amount of different units is in fact what we have. You've basically got a single statline with +/- 16% applied on the various dice rolls. The default is 4+, and some armies get to hit, wound and/or save on 3+ or 5+ instead.

Mesokhornee wrote:
Because the indexes make the gameplayable... barely..youre beyond saving if you honestly think the indexes we have now are any better than the codexes before

I find them quite better. Not perfect, but much more coherent and consistent, and designed to work with the base rules, which is often not true of various codexes.
The game for this one month is functional, which is more than I can say about various editions. If they're immediately going back to the old system, without even pausing to see how things really play, I doubt it will stay that way for long.

I find them much harder to play with. Codexes were much easier and better.

This content should be free.

 Marmatag wrote:
This content should be free.

I think I agree, the most "correct" way to do it would be release the Indexes onto the web as free content (Black library?) then charge for a Codex. That would grow the game, by lowering the gateway cost, and allow the cool "fuff" sell the game once people get into it.

Voss wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
A game is like a pizza, if you want some of everything, it just isn't going to bake right.

Ugh, what about a pizza with the works?

Voss wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Purifier wrote:


They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.

It is to me. That stuff doesn't add 'flavour.' Special interactions is definitely bloat, and <whatever> tactics encourages pointless and insane forms of 'armies' that clash horribly with the background.
Every special snowflake rule is a pointless way to introduce yet more imbalances and problems.

The codex/army book has consistently been a method of causing problem armies. The game would be much better if they stuck with the index structure.
Fundamentally, GW has never been able to stick to a design paradigm long enough to go through a whole cycle of codex or army books. Someone inevitably takes their 'pet' faction too far.

Are you sure you're playing the right game? Because it seems like you'd be a lot more happy with something where everyone has the same army, and a small amount of different units.

Yep. Flavour comes from background and the army. It doesn't come from a pile of random crap dripped on everything. A game is like a pizza, if you want some of everything, it just isn't going to bake right.

But a small amount of different units is in fact what we have. You've basically got a single statline with +/- 16% applied on the various dice rolls. The default is 4+, and some armies get to hit, wound and/or save on 3+ or 5+ instead.

Mesokhornee wrote:
Because the indexes make the gameplayable... barely..youre beyond saving if you honestly think the indexes we have now are any better than the codexes before

I find them quite better. Not perfect, but much more coherent and consistent, and designed to work with the base rules, which is often not true of various codexes.
The game for this one month is functional, which is more than I can say about various editions. If they're immediately going back to the old system, without even pausing to see how things really play, I doubt it will stay that way for long.

Never heard of Combination Pizza I guess? Or a Meat Lovers? Or any pizza with more than 5 toppings? The GAME is the pizzeria, not the pizza.

I like codexes, but why did i just spend $50 on 2 indexes if I have to go and spend another $100 on 2 codexes that will be required to play my armies?
I really like warhammer, but I also need money for food.

When the indices came out, people complained about the lack of psychic powers, chapter tactics, and how bland the armies were.
They announce the codices, and now people complain about rules bloat and codex creep.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
When the indices came out, people complained about the lack of psychic powers, chapter tactics, and how bland the armies were.
They announce the codices, and now people complain about rules bloat and codex creep.

In fairness, most of the people complaining now were the ones telling those of us unhappy with the indices to stop complaining before.

-

Voss wrote:

 Purifier wrote:


They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.

It is to me. That stuff doesn't add 'flavour.' Special interactions is definitely bloat, and <whatever> tactics encourages pointless and insane forms of 'armies' that clash horribly with the background.
Every special snowflake rule is a pointless way to introduce yet more imbalances and problems.

The codex/army book has consistently been a method of causing problem armies. The game would be much better if they stuck with the index structure.
Fundamentally, GW has never been able to stick to a design paradigm long enough to go through a whole cycle of codex or army books. Someone inevitably takes their 'pet' faction too far.

What do you mean "clash horribly with the background"? Ideally this stuff should be encouraging more flavorful armies: Thousand Sons with very powerful psykers, White Scars with a bunch of bikes, etc. etc.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Anyone who bought the indexes should rightly feel ripped off. They are being punished for not being pirates.

I bought the index with the understanding and expectation that a codex would be coming sometime soon after. I bought a stopgap, I got a stopgap, exactly as advertised.

 valen2258 wrote:
I like codexes, but why did i just spend $50 on 2 indexes if I have to go and spend another $100 on 2 codexes that will be required to play my armies?
I really like warhammer, but I also need money for food.

Well...two blocks from my GW shop is a place that buys Plasma...

pinecone77 wrote:

 valen2258 wrote:
I like codexes, but why did i just spend $50 on 2 indexes if I have to go and spend another $100 on 2 codexes that will be required to play my armies?
I really like warhammer, but I also need money for food.

Well...two blocks from my GW shop is a place that buys Plasma...

BLOOD FOR THE PLASTIC GOD!

Unfortunately in my country I cannot exchange blood for plastic OR money.

I do prefer getting codecies, but I hope that it doesn't drown out AoS. I consider the lack of attention fantasy got was part of the cause 8th ed and fantasy in general died. Balance is required.

PS and what do I need to do the show the proper flag. I have not in Australia. Its like showing the US flag if your Mexican or Canadian.

It's based on your IP... So I dunno.

PM Yakface?

EDIT:

Profile Editor wrote:
Country Flag:
(displayed next to each post)
The flag displayed next to your posts is set automatically based on your IP address. Sometimes this is detected incorrectly, so if you want it to be reset to a fixed override, PM a moderator or admin and they can lock your flag to a specific country.

I don't feel ripped off. Without the index for my army, I wouldn't be able to play until a codex was released. Who knows when that will happen. If I get 5 games with the index, I would consider that money well spent, and I've gotten way more than that.

£3 or less per game...

Seems fair to me.

 Selym wrote:
£3 or less per game...

Seems fair to me.

Unless you play once every 2-3 months like I do.

 agnosto wrote:

 Selym wrote:
£3 or less per game...

Seems fair to me.

Unless you play once every 2-3 months like I do.

Try a running average of about 3 games per year :-/

Well, I'd would consider the entire hobby too expensive for that few games. Honestly, at that few games, why not just wait and find the codex on sale when you need it rather than buying it when its released. It isn't as though the vast majority of needed info is known when the books are released.

I'm not buying anything atm, and almost never give money directly to GW. This lack of gaming is enforced by where I live, and I'll be heading off to uni soon, so this should rectify itself.

Goddamn I need to get out of this area.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Well, I'd would consider the entire hobby too expensive for that few games. Honestly, at that few games, why not just wait and find the codex on sale when you need it rather than buying it when its released. It isn't as though the vast majority of needed info is known when the books are released.

I did that with two indices; went to play a game and picked up the indices for the units I was playing (GK army with an IK) so that's $50 down the drain because they'll both likely have a full codex release by the time I play again.

Voss wrote:


Yep. Flavour comes from background and the army. It doesn't come from a pile of random crap dripped on everything. A game is like a pizza, if you want some of everything, it just isn't going to bake right.

But a small amount of different units is in fact what we have. You've basically got a single statline with +/- 16% applied on the various dice rolls. The default is 4+, and some armies get to hit, wound and/or save on 3+ or 5+ instead.

-Emphasis mine-

Of which we have none currently in the indexes. There is almost no fluff in the indexes. 1, maybe 2 pages before each army list. That's not flavor, that's barely an aroma. There's no individuality for the armies. Every selection has the same options. Other than a jump pack or terminator armor, I can put the same exact load out on an Aspiring Champion that I can on a Chaos Lord. Yay..? And to the pizza analogy, that's just a weird statement. Supreme pizza's 'bake' just fine.

Stat-lines have always been just a variation of numbers. That's nothing new. But most armies have very few deviations from that stat-line. With the exception of Terminators and Scouts, every standard infantry unit in the SM codex has a virtual identical stat-line. Always has. Most of the units in the AM codex are fairly similar, and so-on. That is simply a differentiation of the armies on a macro level. What makes individual armies unique within the same armies owned by different people are the choices available to them, out of the book. Different wargear options for characters, customization for various units and especially characters. No one has this now, and it feels bland. My Thousand Sons army is quite literally -identical- to another persons in the store I generally play at. Why? We have nothing else to set them apart. Many people like the "random crap dripped on everything". There's a reason good steak houses offer mushrooms, onions, horseradish and au juous for your prime rib. Not everyone likes the same thing, and some, or all, of those additions add too, and accentuate the flavors of the meat. Otherwise, it's just a piece of rare steak. Some people like that, obviously, but options are a good thing. I don't necessarily want a bunch of special rules, I feel the ones we currently have are sufficient. But I most definitely want more OPTIONS. So do most others I've spoken to at the store I play at.

 Vryce wrote:

Voss wrote:


Yep. Flavour comes from background and the army. It doesn't come from a pile of random crap dripped on everything. A game is like a pizza, if you want some of everything, it just isn't going to bake right.

But a small amount of different units is in fact what we have. You've basically got a single statline with +/- 16% applied on the various dice rolls. The default is 4+, and some armies get to hit, wound and/or save on 3+ or 5+ instead.

-Emphasis mine-

Of which we have none currently in the indexes. There is almost no fluff in the indexes. 1, maybe 2 pages before each army list. That's not flavor, that's barely an aroma. There's no individuality for the armies. Every selection has the same options. Other than a jump pack or terminator armor, I can put the same exact load out on an Aspiring Champion that I can on a Chaos Lord. Yay..? And to the pizza analogy, that's just a weird statement. Supreme pizza's 'bake' just fine.

I was actually thinking about this the other day when I realized I don't even have a description for my new DG weapons yet. I wanted to start planning some conversions, and realized I was lacking information about some equipment still. Are blight grenades still heads, and does the blight launcher fire them? What about the plaguespitter, presumably it fires liquid by the name, but am I sure it isn't some sort of aerosol substance?

Why are Codexs returning? Because people want special rules for their armies that are currently missing. SM players want chapter tactics, Eldar Players want Craftworld Rules, CSM want Legion rules, Necrons want Dynasty rules and Orkz want Klan Rules.

Add to that, the game is horribly imbalanced and for some armies, whole swathes of their current "Codex" are unusable.

Anecdotal but for Orkz we basically field Boyz, things that buff Boyz, things that transport boyz and maybe a Gorkanaut if you are feeling squirrely. Kanz, Dreadz, Morkanaut, Stompa, Flash Gitz, Burnas, Nobz, Warbikers, Nob Bikers, Meganobz, Wartraks, Skorchas, Warbuggies are all basically sub par at what they do and are so situational or just plain garbage that they aren't being used in any meaningful way. For a number of those units its a bit disheartening because they were trash last edition as well, for some its been over a decade since they were usable.

So why are they releasing codexs? Hopefully to fix the HUGE problems with the game atm.

 Purifier wrote:


I'm keeping an open mind that it could go either way, giving GW the benefit of the doubt. This is the first time ever they've ever claimed that they were trying to create balance. You're stating as fact that it's going to be like it was before. There's a big difference between our standpoints, and yours is the one that's really putting this forum into the dumps, and making people that were looking to potentially get back into the game think it's the same it always was. Which it isn't, you're just claiming it is.

As someone back to the game from 3rd edition.. GW basicly feels the same. Sure they got crazy bad in the last decade, but now they seem to be back to "normal" which is still bad, just not quite as abusive. 40k is still a very poorly balanced wargame. There are obvious "never take" and "always take" options in every index. I mean, 40k is a fun game, kinda.. but it's laughable to call it balanced.

I guess to a degree it all depends on how invested in 40K you are and how much you will play this ed. It's not a complaint, but we won't be using the codex books. We'll stick with the Indexes and be perfectly happy with them. If 40K was my primary gaming passion, where I spend the majority of my limited gaming budget, I'd probably get the codex's.

But we play 40K, Napoleonic's, Colonials, Warhammer Ancient Battles, King's of War, Necromunda, Bloodbowl, Rules of Engagement WW2, American Civil War, and a few more I'm forgetting..

For a group interested is so many different wargaming periods, the Indexes are the ONLY reason my group are playing 40K again. The ability to affordably get army lists for all the old armies in the game .... well it has us playing 40K again. It might not be perfect but it works just fine.

pessa wrote:
I guess to a degree it all depends on how invested in 40K you are and how much you will play this ed. It's not a complaint, but we won't be using the codex books. We'll stick with the Indexes and be perfectly happy with them. If 40K was my primary gaming passion, where I spend the majority of my limited gaming budget, I'd probably get the codex's.

But we play 40K, Napoleonic's, Colonials, Warhammer Ancient Battles, King's of War, Necromunda, Bloodbowl, Rules of Engagement WW2, American Civil War, and a few more I'm forgetting..

For a group interested is so many different wargaming periods, the Indexes are the ONLY reason my group are playing 40K again. The ability to affordably get army lists for all the old armies in the game .... well it has us playing 40K again. It might not be perfect but it works just fine.

yeah the indexes are great for that. and if you happen to be playing a army with a codex and want a bit more depth to your rules they're optional.

pessa wrote:
I guess to a degree it all depends on how invested in 40K you are and how much you will play this ed. It's not a complaint, but we won't be using the codex books. We'll stick with the Indexes and be perfectly happy with them

So if someone's army is expanded in a codex and they want to use that, you'll tell them no, grab the index instead-- even if it meant their army was invalid?