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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


And here is why its good.

They told us that Necrons were getting a redesign, which they havent, the got index +1 like other phoned in books, will they be good, too early to say, but the book is bland (opinion).

It also allows people like me to actually judge the book prior to dropping any money on it, which I will now not be doing, in fact as far as I am concerned they have had all the chances I am willing to give 8th and the continued blandification of the Ed has finally driven me away, I will be sticking to 30k, necromunda and blood bowl and not play 40k, its just not the game I want to play.

Well, firstly, you don't ever have to buy the book right away and there's always a review the same day the book comes out.

This is just McDonald's culture.

You've applied your own value judgement on what redesign means. They weren't ever going to make Necrons vastly different from what they were. You're entitled to your opinion, but to the entitlement of information that you suggest.

That said I don't consider digital piracy a crime.

Thats right I dont have to buy it, and knowing whats in the book before I buy it gives me a good indicator on whether or not I will buy it.

I dont know what mcdonalds culture is, so thats a moot point.

Yep I have applied my own value judgement, like everyone else does, and since redesign means "design (something) again or in a different way." I have applied it correctly, so have you, GW stated that they were redesigning the codex and given how none of the other books have been redesigned its was a good indicator that this book could have been sufficiantly different from the index, it was not.

Yes I am entitled to all the relevant information of a book prior to its release, this is something that GW does not do well, I am not going to "blind" buy something without knowing everything I can about it first, especially if I am going to be dropping a large amount of money on it.

Digital Piracy has no bearing here, GW should be transparent on the design process, releases and playtesting, it doesnt and that puts people like me off.

 Formosa wrote:


Yes I am entitled to all the relevant information of a book prior to its release, this is something that GW does not do well, I am not going to "blind" buy something without knowing everything I can about it first, especially if I am going to be dropping a large amount of money on it.

In GWs view chances are that their local store copy of the codex is your fully all-info-revealed version to read to gain this information. They've also released a fair amount of info in snippets pre-release from their formal news channels. So its not a totally blind buy except right now - whilst its not actually on sale.

The whole free vs paid rules is an endless debate, but basically boils down to individual company choices. Some choose to charge some choose to have it all free with optional books.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

That said I don't consider digital piracy a crime.

As a purveyor of digital products I strongly diasgree.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

That said I don't consider digital piracy a crime.

As a purveyor of digital products I strongly diasgree.

Seconded. Whether it's a digital or physical copy of something, it's still theft and you'd still be a thief.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

That said I don't consider digital piracy a crime.

As a purveyor of digital products I strongly diasgree.

That's fine and I totally understand your position. I won't debate it, because this isn't the place for it.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Maybe we can hope GW will go the other direction and decide on full public playtesting?

index IS public playtesting..

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Maybe we can hope GW will go the other direction and decide on full public playtesting?

That'll be way more dependent on the success/failure of PP's CID more than anything involving leaks. If PP's CID succeeds GW will follow once that the risk is minimal. If PP's CID fails than GW won't bother with the risk.

These leaks are always curated for what the leaker wants us to think about the codex. We are probably seeing their 'top 5 datasheets I hated' from a disgruntled translator or playtester.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Maybe we can hope GW will go the other direction and decide on full public playtesting?

That'll be way more dependent on the success/failure of PP's CID more than anything involving leaks. If PP's CID succeeds GW will follow once that the risk is minimal. If PP's CID fails than GW won't bother with the risk.

These leaks are always curated for what the leaker wants us to think about the codex. We are probably seeing their 'top 5 datasheets I hated' from a disgruntled translator or playtester.

But we have the full codex now. If anything, the 5 units that were shown were some of the best. Overall, it seems very disappointing.

Darsath wrote:


But we have the full codex now. If anything, the 5 units that were shown were some of the best. Overall, it seems very disappointing.

We have the Beta codex dated from Oct/Nov. We have no idea if this is the final version.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Darsath wrote:


But we have the full codex now. If anything, the 5 units that were shown were some of the best. Overall, it seems very disappointing.

We have the Beta codex dated from Oct/Nov. We have no idea if this is the final version.

That is a fair point, I withdraw my criticism until I see the final product then.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Darsath wrote:


But we have the full codex now. If anything, the 5 units that were shown were some of the best. Overall, it seems very disappointing.

We have the Beta codex dated from Oct/Nov. We have no idea if this is the final version.

We currently can only base our expectations from this leak at the moment. If we see differences between the leaked codex, and the actual content of the new codex, then my opinion would, of course, change as such.

Games workshop again just needs to sell a yearly subscription to the rules in a digital form.

Then there are no leaks. You can release the beta rules early to subscribers, and of course change them at release. People have already paid for them, so there is no need for secrecy.

Codexes do not fit with the model the game has right now, which is frequent updates and a yearly shift with chapter approved.

And of course people will leak the beta rules... is anyone genuinely surprised by this?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

There is a 100% full leak on youtube right now.


Here is why this is bad.


It could convince the bean counters at GW that the current methods are too risky and get the team to pull back on playtesters. The community has nothing to gain with being this impatient.

If playtesters are to be held accountable for the Tau Codex, I'd very well revert to the times of 7th ed.

/s

 Marmatag wrote:
Games workshop again just needs to sell a yearly subscription to the rules in a digital form.

Then there are no leaks. You can release the beta rules early to subscribers, and of course change them at release. People have already paid for them, so there is no need for secrecy.

Codexes do not fit with the model the game has right now, which is frequent updates and a yearly shift with chapter approved.

And of course people will leak the beta rules... is anyone genuinely surprised by this?

I'd totally support this. $7/mo would be about the cost of a codex and CA per year, which is probably what I spend on rules currently.

The only problem is that people will still want books, which is hard to fit into such a system, but I guess progress has it's costs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darsath wrote:

We currently can only base our expectations from this leak at the moment. If we see differences between the leaked codex, and the actual content of the new codex, then my opinion would, of course, change as such.

Yea, it's entirely possible that the book could be the same. It will be extremely interesting to see if anything does change, because it will give us some insight to their process.

I wish GW would give at least a release schedule for the next 6-12 months, like ol' TSR used to do for D&D and whatnot. The main reason I originally came to Dakka was to find out what the $&^%* GW was going to be releasing because GW wouldn't tell you until you could order it off the web site.

 Marmatag wrote:
Games workshop again just needs to sell a yearly subscription to the rules in a digital form.

Then there are no leaks. You can release the beta rules early to subscribers, and of course change them at release. People have already paid for them, so there is no need for secrecy.

Codexes do not fit with the model the game has right now, which is frequent updates and a yearly shift with chapter approved.

And of course people will leak the beta rules... is anyone genuinely surprised by this?

If GW lives long enough this is the eventual result and for most tabletop games. They'll probably still sell books to cover lore and maybe store the latest updates, but an online access to rules would be optimal. Also, seeing a few boardgames start using apps and how well they succeed is a potential indicator of where things are going.

I am actually surprised GW hasn't started more app development. They could put stuff like Open War and such into apps.

Regarding online "subscriptions" and digital only content: If it eventually goes in that direction that is good, but I for one hope they never stop producing actual books and Errata's/FAQs.
There is nothing like physically holding the rules in your hand, being able to flip to an actual page (in most cases much faster than someone can scroll to said page on a digital version), and never having to "charge" your book.

Tablets and other devices are great, and if that works for you, top banana. But please do not hope that GW abolishes all physical content. It would punish those of us who like living in the stone age.
We can have it both ways.

-

So, anyone else notice that in the points sheet deathmarks and lychguard are troops, but on their points cards they have the elite symbol?

NatoSicarius wrote:
So, anyone else notice that in the points sheet deathmarks and lychguard are troops, but on their points cards they have the elite symbol?

Yep. Most likely a typo in the Beta rules.

 Formosa wrote:

And here is why its good.

They told us that Necrons were getting a redesign, which they havent, the got index +1 like other phoned in books, will they be good, too early to say, but the book is bland (opinion).

It also allows people like me to actually judge the book prior to dropping any money on it, which I will now not be doing, in fact as far as I am concerned they have had all the chances I am willing to give 8th and the continued blandification of the Ed has finally driven me away, I will be sticking to 30k, necromunda and blood bowl and not play 40k, its just not the game I want to play.

When did they tell us that? I read the warhammer community stuff every week and I don't remember anything like that. Was it on Facebook?

I'm used to a bunch of hype about how all the changes and new units are going to make your army super powerful, but that's pretty normal. I'm not used to any claim of a redesign apart from what they did with Age of Sigmar and 40k 8th edition, and 3rd edition. Though I guess if they did make such a claim, I could have lumped it in with the meaningless hype and forgotten about it, to be fair.

I don't think it was published anywhere formally but was specifically mentioned using those words (redesign etc) at the seminar event at LVO.

Part of the issue is that some people took that to mean that it was suddenly going to be an entire new codex with all new units.

Rules adjustments, point changes, dynastic traits, nearly 30 stratagems and 2 pages of relics supporting different character builds. That is absolutely a revision of the index.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
I don't think it was published anywhere formally but was specifically mentioned using those words (redesign etc) at the seminar event at LVO.

Part of the issue is that some people took that to mean that it was suddenly going to be an entire new codex with all new units.

Rules adjustments, point changes, dynastic traits, nearly 30 stratagems and 2 pages of relics supporting different character builds. That is absolutely a revision of the index.

new units no, that was never to be expected.

redesign means changing a army from what is is, into something that has never existed before. however just upgrading the index to a codex is NOT the defination of a redesign!
IF the codex leak is legit, there is not a single hint of redesign and thus the statement at LVO was a pure lie.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
I don't think it was published anywhere formally but was specifically mentioned using those words (redesign etc) at the seminar event at LVO.

Part of the issue is that some people took that to mean that it was suddenly going to be an entire new codex with all new units.

Rules adjustments, point changes, dynastic traits, nearly 30 stratagems and 2 pages of relics supporting different character builds. That is absolutely a revision of the index.

new units no, that was never to be expected.

redesign means changing a army from what is is, into something that has never existed before. however just upgrading the index to a codex is NOT the defination of a redesign!
IF the codex leak is legit, there is not a single hint of redesign and thus the statement at LVO was a pure lie.

If that was your expectation, then prepare to be disappointed.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
I don't think it was published anywhere formally but was specifically mentioned using those words (redesign etc) at the seminar event at LVO.

Part of the issue is that some people took that to mean that it was suddenly going to be an entire new codex with all new units.

Rules adjustments, point changes, dynastic traits, nearly 30 stratagems and 2 pages of relics supporting different character builds. That is absolutely a revision of the index.

new units no, that was never to be expected.

redesign means changing a army from what is is, into something that has never existed before. however just upgrading the index to a codex is NOT the defination of a redesign!
IF the codex leak is legit, there is not a single hint of redesign and thus the statement at LVO was a pure lie.

If that was your expectation, then prepare to be disappointed.

It was an expectation that they themselves pushed forward, updating the index is not a redesign and if this codex leak is the true codex it represents deception on their behalf and blatant lies at worst, very bad from a consumer stand point.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

NatoSicarius wrote:
So, anyone else notice that in the points sheet deathmarks and lychguard are troops, but on their points cards they have the elite symbol?

Yep. Most likely a typo in the Beta rules.

I hope flayed ones and deathmarks get moved to troops. They feel too weedy to be elite.

They are specialists however, and I feel they belong in Elite for that reason.

I could see Flayed ones MAYBE going into troops as they're essentially a version of a warrior.

Deathmarks should 100% in the elite section. They're a bunch of robot assassins who travel time and space just to kill somebody at the exact right moment.

 AaronWilson wrote:


Deathmarks should 100% in the elite section. They're a bunch of robot assassins who travel time and space just to kill somebody at the exact right moment.

Fair enough. Could be cheaper though. They are really easy to lose if you use them as intended, and they don't deal that much damage.

Hopefully though they wipe out a target enemy character the moment they appear, then they have achieved their purpose (they might not make their points back, but if the enemy was relying on a crucial buff from that character then the value of getting rid of it may be more than its listed points...)

Well if this is how the finished version arrives crons are screwed there's nothing that fixes the major problems with the index.

And I'll have to break it to my friend that I won't be getting that boxset with him after all.