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.

Yes, the forest argument is nonsense. The biggest reason for GW to keep selling ePub digital codexes is that there is clearly a demand for them. Not everyone who wanted a digital codex is going to shrug their shoulders and buy the book instead.

Personally, 9th edition was going to the the one where I promised myself I’d make a big effort to get into 40K. Instead, I’m not buying a single book, I won’t be playing the game, I won’t be collecting an army, all because GW refuse to sell me a rule book and codexes in a form I can access.

KillerAngel wrote:
Using more wood/paper is literally the one thing environmentalists are trying to do as it captures a significant portion of carbon from the atmosphere (assuming it's not then burned, so not for fuel).

If I recall correctly, human-planted "forests" of utility trees are actually horrible for the environment (shocking, monocultures being bad?! WHO KNEW!) because they support no ecosystem, and all the carbon trapped in them is released far more regularly than in natural growths because they're cut to schedule. There is no ethical consumption in capitalism.

Wow, cutting down trees is good for forests as it gets people to plant more trees? Planting new trees is actually bad for forests?

I'm not sure who but someone is playing "the counter intuitivist" game here...

Not that I’m getting into the morality tree debate.
But after a certain amount of time, old trees don’t do much for the environment and when many companies cut a tree and replant one, it’s actually better for the environment.
Not tree farms etc, don’t know about them, but just regular ol’ forests of trees.

Danny76 wrote:
Not that I’m getting into the morality tree debate.
But after a certain amount of time, old trees don’t do much for the environment and when many companies cut a tree and replant one, it’s actually better for the environment.
Not tree farms etc, don’t know about them, but just regular ol’ forests of trees.

Yeah, I have to plead 'my bad' here the starting to bit about forests. I honestly believe that making things available as PDFs would help save trees by having fewer cut down to make paper. So someone says my intuitive position is wrong and then someone else says his counter intuitiuve position is wrong and we descend into the counter intuivitist game.

Here's a cartoon explaining the counter intuitivist game if you want to see it.

https://thenib.com/the-counter-intuitivist-584ab53ca873/

BTW I do agree that counter intuitive thinking is often valid and useful when dealing with complex multi factor issues , but when we start getting to the level of dueling counter intuivitism pretty much all hope of progress is lost.

So anyway a viewpoint i took as a given has been turned into a battle of counter intuivitists, maybe we should just drop the saving paper issue. I honestly just didn't see how saying saving trees by replacing paper with pdf was a good thing could become such an issue.

Sincere apologies all around.

Cronch wrote:

KillerAngel wrote:
Using more wood/paper is literally the one thing environmentalists are trying to do as it captures a significant portion of carbon from the atmosphere (assuming it's not then burned, so not for fuel).

If I recall correctly, human-planted "forests" of utility trees are actually horrible for the environment (shocking, monocultures being bad?! WHO KNEW!) because they support no ecosystem, and all the carbon trapped in them is released far more regularly than in natural growths because they're cut to schedule.

Monocultures of trees are especially bad if the species in question are not native (so only used because their yields are larger, but local species may not be able to benefit from them). Planted monocultures of local tree species still support many birds and countless insects, although mixed forests are certainly better. As for the age of trees mentioned above; unfortunately some ecosystem functions are only provided by the oldest of trees, and it's no surprise that species relying on those are typically not doing well in areas "managed" by people.

DakkaDakka becoming a biological conference. 2020 sure is a strange year.

There is no ethical consumption in capitalism.

Well, just because multiple strategies cause harm to the environment doesn't mean some aren't far more harmful than others.

 Coenus Scaldingus wrote:

Cronch wrote:

KillerAngel wrote:
Using more wood/paper is literally the one thing environmentalists are trying to do as it captures a significant portion of carbon from the atmosphere (assuming it's not then burned, so not for fuel).

If I recall correctly, human-planted "forests" of utility trees are actually horrible for the environment (shocking, monocultures being bad?! WHO KNEW!) because they support no ecosystem, and all the carbon trapped in them is released far more regularly than in natural growths because they're cut to schedule.

Monocultures of trees are especially bad if the species in question are not native (so only used because their yields are larger, but local species may not be able to benefit from them). Planted monocultures of local tree species still support many birds and countless insects, although mixed forests are certainly better. As for the age of trees mentioned above; unfortunately some ecosystem functions are only provided by the oldest of trees, and it's no surprise that species relying on those are typically not doing well in areas "managed" by people.

DakkaDakka becoming a biological conference. 2020 sure is a strange year.

There is no ethical consumption in capitalism.

Well, just because multiple strategies cause harm to the environment doesn't mean some aren't far more harmful than others.

"DakkaDakka becoming a biological conference. 2020 sure is a strange year."

Well, i did find out some things about trees and the deeper, more complex issues of saving paper vs deforestation, even if it seemed like at least one person or another was paying the counter intuitivist game.

I also got to let people know about the counter intuitivist game.

So this thread was at least somewhat informative in various ways.

Plus your quip about 2020 being a strange year when dakkddakka hosts a minim biodiversity symposium was quite funny.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
The issue is that the app doesn’t contain the background and art. There are all kinds of reasons from visual impairments to dyslexia, why some people prefer to buy digital versions. GW just turned their back on those people.

And thus why some of us pirate the PDF codex/tombes for the 3 core games and give a digital pat on the should to the source!

We live in a digital world, for GW to still force upon us a physical product for the 3 core games that will be invalidated by errata and faq after 4 weeks is straight up cooprate greed of the worst kind.
(boxed games books are better as they only see an errata/faq once per year or so so i have no problems buying thouse)

Not Online!!! wrote:


GW--> Great ideas, Worthlessly executed.

“Piracy is a service problem.”

Valve's Gabe Newell. somewhere in the 2010's...

was on page one, and still holds true.

Also lol on those that seriiusly thought this would work out well with the GW app

Danny76 wrote:
Not that I’m getting into the morality tree debate.
But after a certain amount of time, old trees don’t do much for the environment and when many companies cut a tree and replant one, it’s actually better for the environment.
Not tree farms etc, don’t know about them, but just regular ol’ forests of trees.

Actually it depends by what metrics you're measuring "good/bad". Removing an old tree can cause a surge in growth of the lower tier of the forest floor for a short period of time. Increased competition and general instability does create a positive net gain there. Of course one reason that they are so focused on that stage is often because damage to the ecosystems has resulted in a significant loss of that specific habitat (boundary/newgrowth) even stripping out of it (muntjac in the UK cause terrible damage to that segment of woodland).

That said old trees have incredible value still. First up they can provide habitats for different species than a younger tree or newly opened ground. Then as the tree starts to die you get a huge habitat for fungus, insects and other species. In fact our obsession with "cleaning woodlands" results in a catastrophic loss of deadwood habitats; natural breakdown in soils and such. Even the act of cutting the tree to create clearance and then harvesting the wood is an issue because you are removing nutrients and that deadwood from the system (though in many developed nations nutrient levels in many areas are artificially high as a result of run-off from farming).

I'm human-centric. I value humans, not the environment. Humans, to survive, must transform the environment to suit our needs. It may sound counter-intuitive, because you have to think about it, but if you want more trees, humans need to Value trees.

Whether Games Workshop uses PDFs or books is entirely irrelevant to the issue of trees, but since someone brought up the issue of trees incorrectly, I needed to correct him or her.

Once again, if you want this planet to be green, you have to be human centric (egoistic) and understand the hierarchy of the human value system and our need to transform the environment for survivial qua man.

I will gladly support trees by buying physical books.

 BuFFo wrote:
I'm human-centric. I value humans, not the environment. Humans, to survive, must transform the environment to suit our needs. It may sound counter-intuitive, because you have to think about it, but if you want more trees, humans need to Value trees.

Whilst I agree with your viewpoint that to protect the environment, mankind must find value within it - I'd argue that your viewpoint that you " value humans, not the environment" actually highlights one of the major failings of modern education. That it creates a concept of the "human and natural" worlds as being distinct and separate elements on the planet. When in reality there is no such division what so ever. Humanity is totally reliant on the environment; to value humanity is to in turn value the environment. A lack of education in the complexity of environmental interactions and the, often short term, viewpoint humans use to evaluate the environment and its use often results in huge negative impacts to humanity. A neat example is the strip cutting of forests for lumber - a great idea until lowland farmland and settlements are flooded year after year because of the loss of the rain-catching tree canopy and underlayers of the forest. That the loss of that huge buffer means water saturates the ground far quicker; leading to rapid increased run off and thus far greater river surges resulting in broken banks and far more regular flooding events in regions that, prior, would perhaps only have flooded in an extreme weather situation (eg a once in a 100 years event)

All good points lads, and apologies for my part in descending into 2020 madness (and what comes off as pretty snippy when I re-read it). I'll just say that I have a deep-science background (truthfully unrelated to agriculture whatsoever), and my points about trees are a wave-top summary of a growing scientific consensus (with a bit of econ101 thrown in) on improving the environment and sustainable living (which I'm a big supporter of, as well as free-market solutions to complex problems). You all bring up good points about the details though, and I encourage self-learning and research in these areas.

And *puts on cowboy voice* despite ya'll bein some tree-huggin Ur-O-Peein tyaaaapes, we can still be friends.
Happy to discuss any scientific literature about the subject on another venue.

Back to the topic at hand if I may, a question to the PDF codex users: What's the issue with the free online resources for the codices? I notice places like Wahapedia have good online reference for when a book is too bulky. I always suggest supporting a company with dollars, but if you refuse to buy a hardcopy book, and can't purchase a PDF, is something like Wahapedia not sufficient? If not sufficient, what is needed for it to be ideal in your case?

KillerAngel wrote:


Back to the topic at hand if I may, a question to the PDF codex users: What's the issue with the free online resources for the codices? I notice places like Wahapedia have good online reference for when a book is too bulky. I always suggest supporting a company with dollars, but if you refuse to buy a hardcopy book, and can't purchase a PDF, is something like Wahapedia not sufficient? If not sufficient, what is needed for it to be ideal in your case?

The issue for me is that, until this edition, I could enjoy the same experience as everyone else. I could see the pages as they appeared in the physical book. I could appreciate the layout, the art, the whole feeling of the physical book, just like everyone else. I could then zoom in so I could actually read the flipping thing!

Now, that has been taken away from me. I feel excluded.

Write to them, put in accessibility terms, remind them that they've done it before and to remove it could be interepreted as something the disability discrimination act would potentially have issues with

they might relent and bring them back (even if you might now have to launch it from within the app)

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Write to them, put in accessibility terms, remind them that they've done it before and to remove it could be interepreted as something the disability discrimination act would potentially have issues with

they might relent and bring them back (even if you might now have to launch it from within the app)

I'd not perhaps go toward the whole "threatening them with the disability act" angle. I'd rather encourage them by showing support for and from lots of disabled players who directly benefit from the pdf release. Ergo instead of blackmail try encouragement. Chances are it will get more results.

I'm not suggesting writing it as a threat, more as a concerned fan (with the disability) who doesn't understand why they'd junk something they've already shown they could do

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

The issue for me is that, until this edition, I could enjoy the same experience as everyone else. I could see the pages as they appeared in the physical book. I could appreciate the layout, the art, the whole feeling of the physical book, just like everyone else. I could then zoom in so I could actually read the flipping thing!

Now, that has been taken away from me. I feel excluded.

I can see how that is frustrating, considering that even the app won't give you that experience either. I have a feeling that they assume (rightly or wrongly) that the players that want to read the lore buy the physical book, and the people who wanted easily referenced rules for gaming bought the PDFs. Ergo, removing PDFs with the introduction of the app, which potentially will make it even easier to reference rules during a game.

I don't know if their digital codices were locked down with DRM (the books don't seem to be), so the app is certainly an easier way to prevent sharing of digital files.

KillerAngel wrote:
I don't know if their digital codices were locked down with DRM (the books don't seem to be), so the app is certainly an easier way to prevent sharing of digital files.

The normal ePubs didn't have DRM, the iBook ones had Apple's normal rubbish.

I know 8 players who are walking away from 40K because of this decision to stop releasing a digital codex. I will simply use BattleScribe for the time being until GW remove their head from their backside.

Were those 8 already wanting to walk away? It seems very extreme to dump hundreds of £/$ of armies and dozens and more of hours building and painting because you can't get the rules on your phone/tablet in a complete format.

 Overread wrote:
Were those 8 already wanting to walk away? It seems very extreme to dump hundreds of £/$ of armies and dozens and more of hours building and painting because you can't get the rules on your phone/tablet in a complete format.

Of course, it's not like they couldn't just use the minis to play older editions of the game or anything.

I mean, that would be preposterous (joking!)

Honestly, I don't play enough as it is. I was buying digital editions to read and collect, but I don't want physical ones. So well, that's one less buyer.

 Overread wrote:
Were those 8 already wanting to walk away? It seems very extreme to dump hundreds of £/$ of armies and dozens and more of hours building and painting because you can't get the rules on your phone/tablet in a complete format.

if you think about this, people can never quit a GW game as there is always a lot of money and time wasted if you leave
no matter what reason you might have

and no legal access to the rules is one of the better reasons

Sunk Cost Fallacy.

 kodos wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Were those 8 already wanting to walk away? It seems very extreme to dump hundreds of £/$ of armies and dozens and more of hours building and painting because you can't get the rules on your phone/tablet in a complete format.

if you think about this, people can never quit a GW game as there is always a lot of money and time wasted if you leave
no matter what reason you might have

and no legal access to the rules is one of the better reasons

I hate to be the one who asks this, but where they leaving due to lack of LEGAL access to the rules?

Many people do like to be legal. If you leave no legal option for one such person, they can easily surmise the company doesn't actually want them as customers.

BrianDavion wrote:

I hate to be the one who asks this, but where they leaving due to lack of LEGAL access to the rules?

No digital full Codex available from GW
you always can get them from other sources, written down in BS for just the rules or scans/pictures on the web

but if you want a legal digital Version, specially something comfortable and not just a pdf, you are out of luck for now

 Karthicus wrote:
I know 8 players who are walking away from 40K because of this decision to stop releasing a digital codex. I will simply use BattleScribe for the time being until GW remove their head from their backside.

Point them in the direction of Grim Dark Future from One Page Rules. Or just tell them that the 8 of them together is a solid play group for continuing to play 8th edition.