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.

Karol wrote:
I have not seen a DE army without a strife succubus since the book came out.

Well it is "OP", so of course you'd see a ton of lists including them.

Well then it makes the book the definition of obligatory. Same could be said about trying to play GK without their PA book.

I'm wondering how much of the CSM and Daemons books Be'lakor will be able to take.

I hope I can take Greater Daemons, but probably not.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Karol wrote:
I have not seen a DE army without a strife succubus since the book came out.

Well it is "OP", so of course you'd see a ton of lists including them.

And all you need is one OP addition to the faction in book and it becomes must have. Like vigilus became must have for orks because of one relic

Must have is a nebulous term...

Karol wrote:
Well then it makes the book the definition of obligatory. Same could be said about trying to play GK without their PA book.

No. Obligatory means you can't play the faction in a game of 40K without the book. However, you can play CSM and GK just fine with just the Codizes or even with just the datasheets in the boxes. It might not be the easiest way to win in a matched play game, but there are other ways to play and winning is not even the most important aspect of the game so that these books are in no way "obligatory".

BrianDavion wrote:
and BOTH these books are out of print and unavaliable.

Not sure about GW Canadia, Brian, but Faith & Fury (and War of the Spider, for what it's worth) is still showing available as a physical book on GW UK.

Vigilus is definitely OOP, though.

Vigilus and the PA books are also available on Warhammer Digital, though I don't think you save enough by buying the ePub over the DTE.

ERJAK wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
I use Junith all the time in my Bloody Rose. She's just not Junith but the Lamenth of St Mina.

Absolutely zero chance I'll switch orders just to have bestest.

I mean, if you're already making up rules wholesale why would ANY rule matter to you? Why do you even have the codex? You could just declare OoML makes all attacks do D3+3 mortal wounds on a 2+ and be done with it.

Are you a Sith Lord who only deals in absolutes? What a way overblown reaction to somebody saying "In agreement with my fellow players, I made a small adjustment to one rule (sub-faction restriction) so I can enjoy my army more" lol.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well then it makes the book the definition of obligatory. Same could be said about trying to play GK without their PA book.

No. Obligatory means you can't play the faction in a game of 40K without the book. However, you can play CSM and GK just fine with just the Codizes or even with just the datasheets in the boxes. It might not be the easiest way to win in a matched play game, but there are other ways to play and winning is not even the most important aspect of the game so that these books are in no way "obligatory".

Well you don't need codexes either. You can just throw dice and say pow pow noices

I think a V1 EC codex would be easy to create, there are a number of characters already well known, noise weapons would be a major theme and then fast attack units like bikers could be a big factor

 Dysartes wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
and BOTH these books are out of print and unavaliable.

Not sure about GW Canadia, Brian, but Faith & Fury (and War of the Spider, for what it's worth) is still showing available as a physical book on GW UK.

Vigilus is definitely OOP, though.

Vigilus and the PA books are also available on Warhammer Digital, though I don't think you save enough by buying the ePub over the DTE.

ahh you're right. still I imagine GW would like to be able to shift the 8th edition books like that out of print. but yeah I'll be picking the book up when it comes avaliable and I have F&F so if no one else does it I'll compare the two books to see what, if anything, has changed

Bleh, more DLC for new codexs? I sincerely hope that this (and the previous Charadon book for that matter) are massive sales flops so GW stops doing this. I was already annoyed that my brand new DG codex was no longer complete mere weeks after release, and it seems like they're about to do the same to Sisters players.

If they really want to do campaign books like this they should have a big 'narrative play only' stamp on the front.

I'll be getting it. Love campaign content and additional fluff.

Yes, Yes, let the bloat flow through you.

Their blatant money hungry bloat pandering is awful. Still won't support and I think it sucks.

Dai wrote:
I'll be getting it. Love campaign content and additional fluff.

These would be much better books if they didn't have matched play content in them, frankly. Curious, who here would complain if these were dedicated Crusade releases?

tneva82 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well then it makes the book the definition of obligatory. Same could be said about trying to play GK without their PA book.

No. Obligatory means you can't play the faction in a game of 40K without the book. However, you can play CSM and GK just fine with just the Codizes or even with just the datasheets in the boxes. It might not be the easiest way to win in a matched play game, but there are other ways to play and winning is not even the most important aspect of the game so that these books are in no way "obligatory".

Well you don't need codexes either. You can just throw dice and say pow pow noices

I rarely agree with this poster but I agree with them now. If the rules literally make a faction workable or feel like a must have inclusion not calling them mandatory is pretty dumb. Saying " Well you may never win, but it doesn't mean you need it. " Yeah that kinda does make it mandatory and you need it as I don't know even one player that feels great losing every game. The PA rules were not " mandatory " but they did enough to make the factions worthwhile that they were kind of mandatory if you were playing games with that faction.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yes, Yes, let the bloat flow through you.

Their blatant money hungry bloat pandering is awful. Still won't support and I think it sucks.

I won't get the book, but I don't understand the "bloat" part.

Back in the day of 3/3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons there were over 100 rule books from which you could draw rules from to create your characters. I absolutely loved the edition for having so much "bloat".

5th edition in comparison feels bland with what feels like one rule book every other year.

What's negative bloat for you is positive filling out of lore/factions for me.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I won't get the book, but I don't understand the "bloat" part.

Back in the day of 3/3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons there were over 100 rule books from which you could draw rules from to create your characters. I absolutely loved the edition for having so much "bloat".

5th edition in comparison feels bland with what feels like one rule book every other year.

What's negative bloat for you is positive filling out of lore/factions for me.

I think the issue is that D&D isn't really a competitive experience. So the fact someone has the ruleset to play a dozen different types of fighter doesn't really impact the game. Sure one subclass will mathematically be better than the rest - but the game isn't rooted in Munchkining.

GW would like to argue I think the same with 40k. You don't *need* this set of relics/stratagems/special rules to play the game.
But in practice, if they are better than other ones (and there's usually at least one solid combo) then it feels mandatory for you to own these rules if you are going to a competitive tournament.

I also think its a time issue. I wouldn't really mind a cycle where say you get your codex, then 18-24 months later you get a supplement containing a theme-list with odd special rules, then 12-18 months on you get a new codex etc.
But this system of "okay you bought the book. But btw a handful of weeks later there will be another book containing 4 extra pages of rules that clearly could have gone into the codex" feels bad.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gert wrote:
I think people have been overhyping WE and EC to the point where loads of other people seem to think it's a given since Tsons and DG got theirs.

You call it 'overhyping'. Some of us call it 'hope'. Maybe that's foolish?

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. You should know this by now, especially with GW. They tell us all the time and they were warning us of their business practices this whole time but we thought it was about fluff. Oh we were young then.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yes, Yes, let the bloat flow through you.

Their blatant money hungry bloat pandering is awful. Still won't support and I think it sucks.

I won't get the book, but I don't understand the "bloat" part.

Back in the day of 3/3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons there were over 100 rule books from which you could draw rules from to create your characters. I absolutely loved the edition for having so much "bloat".

5th edition in comparison feels bland with what feels like one rule book every other year.

What's negative bloat for you is positive filling out of lore/factions for me.

I agree. 40k is the only game I've ever played where played Complain about having more options.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yes, Yes, let the bloat flow through you.

Their blatant money hungry bloat pandering is awful. Still won't support and I think it sucks.

I won't get the book, but I don't understand the "bloat" part.

Back in the day of 3/3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons there were over 100 rule books from which you could draw rules from to create your characters. I absolutely loved the edition for having so much "bloat".

5th edition in comparison feels bland with what feels like one rule book every other year.

What's negative bloat for you is positive filling out of lore/factions for me.

Good for you but I didn't like that bloat either. It was just books for books sake and I didn't consider it a boon of 3.5 D and D either. Though its great to know we disagree.I don't like rules for my armies being spread out over lord knows how many books, its just a pain in the bum bum and overly expensive as I couldn't give a flying fig leaf over some sure to be not very interesting story or content I won't ever use for just like 3 pages I may use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yes, Yes, let the bloat flow through you.

Their blatant money hungry bloat pandering is awful. Still won't support and I think it sucks.

I won't get the book, but I don't understand the "bloat" part.

Back in the day of 3/3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons there were over 100 rule books from which you could draw rules from to create your characters. I absolutely loved the edition for having so much "bloat".

5th edition in comparison feels bland with what feels like one rule book every other year.

What's negative bloat for you is positive filling out of lore/factions for me.

I agree. 40k is the only game I've ever played where played Complain about having more options.

How about we get those options back in our wargear selections ? Oh wait...

So options of paying GW more money for burn and churn " optional " rule books is good options but having more options for weapons we can take in squads is bad. Well at least I have the option to pay GW more money for 3 or 4 pages of rules while being narrowly hamstrung by punitive weapon choices for squads so they can make no sense. Very cool, thanks for the options GW.

Would it be better if they stated that the additional rules are only usable if you are playing the campaign? So if you buy the book you are buying to play the campaign and if your not interested in the campaign then you don’t feel compelled to buy it for the rules to keep up with the Jones

mrFickle wrote:
Would it be better if they stated that the additional rules are only usable if you are playing the campaign? So if you buy the book you are buying to play the campaign and if your not interested in the campaign then you don’t feel compelled to buy it for the rules to keep up with the Jones

That would be much better yes but they won't do that because they realize the only thing that sells these books to a high degree is keeping up with the jonses. Take that away and you have a waste of a print run for them as they feed on the matched play crowd.

Yea, for all their talk about "three ways to play" GW must be smart enough to know that matched play players are the golden geese that drive book sales.

Although I don't think GW is malicious enough to make the Charadon rules deliberately OP. Its just a natural consequence of one sub faction having more strats/relics/warlord traits etc than another, hence why CoS is so good. Meanwhile the Ad Mech and DG rules weren't as bad, as they have actual restrictions.

 Fergie0044 wrote:
Yea, for all their talk about "three ways to play" GW must be smart enough to know that matched play players are the golden geese that drive book sales.

Although I don't think GW is malicious enough to make the Charadon rules deliberately OP. Its just a natural consequence of one sub faction having more strats/relics/warlord traits etc than another, hence why CoS is so good. Meanwhile the Ad Mech and DG rules weren't as bad, as they have actual restrictions.

I think the way the games is setup making new rules OP or fixing weakness is the only way to make new rules interesting. They never seem to change the way the army plays just for fun.

mrFickle wrote:

 Fergie0044 wrote:
Yea, for all their talk about "three ways to play" GW must be smart enough to know that matched play players are the golden geese that drive book sales.

Although I don't think GW is malicious enough to make the Charadon rules deliberately OP. Its just a natural consequence of one sub faction having more strats/relics/warlord traits etc than another, hence why CoS is so good. Meanwhile the Ad Mech and DG rules weren't as bad, as they have actual restrictions.

I think the way the games is setup making new rules OP or fixing weakness is the only way to make new rules interesting. They never seem to change the way the army plays just for fun.

I disagree, they often do but we tend to forget about them pretty fastand fixate in the "OP stuff that will win matched play"

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well then it makes the book the definition of obligatory. Same could be said about trying to play GK without their PA book.

No. Obligatory means you can't play the faction in a game of 40K without the book. However, you can play CSM and GK just fine with just the Codizes or even with just the datasheets in the boxes. It might not be the easiest way to win in a matched play game, but there are other ways to play and winning is not even the most important aspect of the game so that these books are in no way "obligatory".

Well you don't need codexes either. You can just throw dice and say pow pow noices

I rarely agree with this poster but I agree with them now. If the rules literally make a faction workable or feel like a must have inclusion not calling them mandatory is pretty dumb. Saying " Well you may never win, but it doesn't mean you need it. " Yeah that kinda does make it mandatory and you need it as I don't know even one player that feels great losing every game. The PA rules were not " mandatory " but they did enough to make the factions worthwhile that they were kind of mandatory if you were playing games with that faction.

Just look at the amount of people here saying they won't buy the book - it's pretty much not mandatory, obviousely. If you want that additional content, go get it, but your faction will be playable without it just fine. The book is only mandatory if you want to play the Charadon warzone campaign.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well then it makes the book the definition of obligatory. Same could be said about trying to play GK without their PA book.

No. Obligatory means you can't play the faction in a game of 40K without the book. However, you can play CSM and GK just fine with just the Codizes or even with just the datasheets in the boxes. It might not be the easiest way to win in a matched play game, but there are other ways to play and winning is not even the most important aspect of the game so that these books are in no way "obligatory".

Well you don't need codexes either. You can just throw dice and say pow pow noices

I rarely agree with this poster but I agree with them now. If the rules literally make a faction workable or feel like a must have inclusion not calling them mandatory is pretty dumb. Saying " Well you may never win, but it doesn't mean you need it. " Yeah that kinda does make it mandatory and you need it as I don't know even one player that feels great losing every game. The PA rules were not " mandatory " but they did enough to make the factions worthwhile that they were kind of mandatory if you were playing games with that faction.

Just look at the amount of people here saying they won't buy the book - it's pretty much not mandatory, obviousely. If you want that additional content, go get it, but your faction will be playable without it just fine. The book is only mandatory if you want to play the Charadon warzone campaign.

Or if something is BiS and you do events Cough DE, cough DE, cough cough

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Dai wrote:
I'll be getting it. Love campaign content and additional fluff.

These would be much better books if they didn't have matched play content in them, frankly. Curious, who here would complain if these were dedicated Crusade releases?

I for one wouldn't complain if the War zone books were purely narrative.

Nor would I complain if the matched play content in the War zone books was for faction who aren't getting codexes for a while.

Its the optics of the "one week later DLC" which people are rightly annoyed with.

It doesn't have to be this way, GW has us all wrapped around its finger and we will lap up whatever they put out, they don't need to engage in the practise of DLC.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yes, Yes, let the bloat flow through you.

Their blatant money hungry bloat pandering is awful. Still won't support and I think it sucks.

I won't get the book, but I don't understand the "bloat" part.

Back in the day of 3/3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons there were over 100 rule books from which you could draw rules from to create your characters. I absolutely loved the edition for having so much "bloat".

5th edition in comparison feels bland with what feels like one rule book every other year.

What's negative bloat for you is positive filling out of lore/factions for me.

But with bloat often comes inbalance, Back in the day (3.5) I had to ban the book of nine swords from my D&D table as everything in it was open to abuse and every character was coming with the same broken combinations.

And D&D by its nature isn't supposed to be a game where the players are competing against eachother or the GM, 40k on the otherhand is exactly that.
Throw in competition play and surely you see the issue?

Pickled_egg wrote:
But with bloat often comes inbalance, Back in the day (3.5) I had to ban the book of nine swords from my D&D table as everything in it was open to abuse and every character was coming with the same broken combinations.

And D&D by its nature isn't supposed to be a game where the players are competing against eachother or the GM, 40k on the otherhand is exactly that.
Throw in competition play and surely you see the issue?

Bo9S was my favourite out of the bunch Loved how it made fights more than just "I make a full attack" for melees.

D&D isn't competitive, but the fun for everyone is just as ruined if the power level between two characters is too big. As a GM you surely understood how impossible it is to challenge a "core only, lvl 20 Fighter" and a creative Wizard who knows their stuff at the same time.

Same applies to 40k, really. If you show up with the latest netlist pre-nerf Dhrukari against someone who plays a casual Guard list, it won't be a good game for either of you.
I acknowledge that the more rulebooks you have, the higher is the chance that there might be something (too) strong in it, but that is a trade off for more options that I willingly take.

On a side note:
It is easier to say "can we please not use that book today?" than "Here are my 5 pages of homebrew rules I want to use in our battle".