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.
alextroy wrote: Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
Not quite the same, I'll grant, but weren't some of the later editions of Psychic Awakening obsolete almost from the day they went on sale, because of the edition change?
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
So I wanted to see if my Deathwatch would be well and truly screwed with this change. I typically ran a mixed squad with various upgrades anyway so wanted to see if it washed out.
Generally a sgt with bolter and xenophase, 3-4 bolter/SS, 2 frag cannons, a shotgun, terminator, vanvet with HTH, blackshield.
Old cost 317pts. New cost 344 pts.
And this is for a very non comp unit.
So basically GW wants me to put combi weapons on all my SS dudes, drop the shotgun completely, and upgrade everything.
Sorry, but that’s just stupid. Not really impressed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/07 17:09:58
So basically GW wants me to put combi weapons on all my SS dudes, drop the shotgun completely, and upgrade everything.
Sorry, but that’s just stupid. Not really impressed.
It's the same for many SM-units;
10 Sternguard /w Special Issue Boltguns - 200 pts.
10 Sternguard /w Combi-Plasma (better in pretty much every way) - 200 pts.
AoC was a bandaid. The removal of AoC and subsequent pts-reduction is a bandaid.
I'm guessing 10th isn't far off tho so I don't mind.
And it could be worse... poor CSM-players...
As a SM player without a big collection, I think I would be a bit pissed off at the changes to free wargear.
All my stuff is built and painted, but only with upgrades that used to be necessary in my list. Now I'd need to scramble new miniatures to build all the special weapons and upgrades or else I'm effectively playing with less points than my opponent.
All this effort for GW to maybe change it back in 3 months or maybe with 10th edition or the next SM codex.
And that's not even getting at the game design issue of having something like a flamer being equal to a lascannon, cost wise.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
Heh. I just realized this mess also reverts the Salamanders 'wounds can't be rerolled against them' to 'AP-1 becomes AP 0'
I really would rather go back to the old system of 'here are your rules, check back in 5 years or so' rather than deal with mopping up the rotten remains of unintended and intended consequences every 6 months or so when they decide to throw new random crap at the walls.
They're bad at rules, they can't fix their mess without a major overhaul. I'd rather they stop trying to tinker while in flight, it simply makes the game experience worse. Consistency and stability offer a lot more than badly-thought-out spot fixes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/07 18:27:32
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
I take it that you use the original data in your codex then? After all, they are still up to date and valid, right?
If not, then you aren't actually using the codex, now are you?
95% of most codexes are still accurate, so yes. After all, I still need the codex to tell me the stats of a Marine Captain or how Rites of Battle works. To claim that the whole codex is obsolete because of points changes is deliberately being obtuse on the matter.
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
I take it that you use the original data in your codex then? After all, they are still up to date and valid, right?
If not, then you aren't actually using the codex, now are you?
Do you not bother to let your phone or PC software update? It's not even close to the first time physical gaming objects have had updates. I have a bunch of old Star WArs and Magic cards that have been updated wording, but I can still use the old cards with the understanding that the wording is changed. And I have an old Chapter approved with sections it explicitly tells me to cut out and glue into various codices as errata.
vipoid wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned Harlequins having their invulnerable saves nerfed across the board.
I know wargear costs (or the lack thereof) is an issue but I would have thought such a drastic change might have raised some eyebrows.
I mean, everything has a native -1 to hit not counting the defensive bonuses they get via Light Saedath or how prime being able to Advance + Charge is.
They never needed a 4++ to begin with.
I can understand thinking that a 4++ on every unit (including troops, vehicles, jetbikes) is a bit over the top.
However, it seems a little strange that it was stripped from all their characters as well. I'm struggling to see why a 4++ on a Troupe Master or Shadowseer or Death Jester is beyond the pale, yet a 4++ on a SM Captain, a Necron Overlord, a Canoness, an Autarch, a Succubus, an Exalted Sorcerer, a Farseer etc. is perfectly fine.
Oh the characters should've kept it, absolutely agreed. The complaints I've seen though (especially on the 40k comp Reddit) seem to be for the army in general though.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.
No. It’s not.
FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.
A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.
This kinda hit home hard for me. GW is punishing my 10-year-old's Tyranids because a bunch of try-hard WAAC-babies keep finding new ways to break them.
Here's a ground breaking thought: maybe the game shouldn't be so easy to break. Nobody cares your accidentally broke army got nerfed when they shouldn't be written like that to begin with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/07 18:25:02
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
I take it that you use the original data in your codex then? After all, they are still up to date and valid, right?
If not, then you aren't actually using the codex, now are you?
Yes, I do still use the original data from my codex with the following changes:
1 Balance Dataslate change
Three erratas items
One FAQ question answered
Morvenn Vahl 280 points (+15)
Triumph of Saint Katherine 220 points (-20)
Paragon Warsuits 210 points (-30)
Sisters Repentia 16 points each (+2)
Dominion Squad 14 points each (+2)
Seraphim Squad 12 points each (-2)
Zephyrim Squad 15 points each (-2)
Castigator 135 points (-15)
Exorcist 120 points (-30)
Mortifiers 55 points each (-5)
Penitent Engines 50 points each (-5)
Immolator 90 points (-30)
I think that is less that 1% of the rules changed from the published book. The book doesn't need to be perfect to be not obsolete. Heck, I could play the game straight from the book if I wanted to and most people wouldn't notice if I didn't bring a 100% optimized list or play into the cheesiest rules that were errated.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/07 19:10:05
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: There's more serious problems than the stalker not having core, sadly.
- Phylacterine Hive is useless. They gave a bunch of units core, but Hive was supposed to allow the cryptek to heal those units that became core. It's completely redundant.
- Likewise, the Severed trait has been rendered completely obsolete after they made protocols battlefield wide.
- Destroyer Lords of both varieties do not have the noble trait. Which means they cannot benefit from strats and objectives that specify nobles.
So no Ressurection Protocols and no secondaries.
- RP punishes multiwound models. If you don't roll 3 5s you aren't getting a destroyer back. I get that GW doesn't want a bunch of single wound models but it's still fairly punishing, especially when Necron damage dealers tend to have multiple wounds.
Those are all good points. It would certainly be good if they included some updates for those elements in an errata. Having redundant options is no fun because you just have less choice.
Regarding free changes to a unit's equipment. I don't think they're a problem in general, provided they're not straight upgrades that offer a significant boost to a unit and that are not being used as a balance tool to effectively hand out boosts based on the way a unit is modelled.
As an example, if the marine codex forced all sergeants to have a close combat upgrade and for those units that could take them one in every five marines had to have a special or heavy weapon then by all means make these upgrades free. A flamer might be good, but in other situations a melta or plasmagun might be better. The meta for which weapon is best might change but the unit as a whole feels about right. The issue comes in when everybody has a boltgun and those optional elements are clearly superior to the boltgun they replace.
The change to marines feels like a cash grab aimed at milking those that want to not just have an advantage but simply don't want to be stomped now that armour of contempt is gone.
I play in a friendly environment using power levels so this doesn't change a thing for my units but for those playing with points this feels really bad. I am also disappointed that there's been no power level adjustment for armies given all the points changes. The last one was in March last year (I think) so hopefully one will be along eventually...
The way GW are doing it with churn and burn cycle, yes. But, alas- I guess you just enjoy throwing your money into a giant pit or something...
Well, I run one army and one army alone, Orkz. I have something ridiculous like 18,000-20,000pts of Orkz I have collected over decades. I "throw" money into my one army by collecting new models as they come out if I like them, as an example of the new buggies that came out in 8th I found like 2 of them to be good looking enough to buy and bought 3 scrapjets. I have a grand total of ZERO rukkatrukks even when those were the meta. So when you say "churn and burn" all i hear is "competitive players throwing money to win" and I don't really care. And I also play competitively against those guys. The game has never been this balanced before; I started playing back in 3rd and literally can't remember a better balanced era than today. Is it perfect? God no, but its a lot better than previous editions.
Quality of the official app is not a factor in whether it's a valid source.
In some ways, it's still less accurate than the codex. It still doesn't like trying to make Drazhar a warlord.
You've misinterpreted the point, the army and unit entries are generally entirely accurate on day 1 for any update, it's the army builder that's tripe.
Do you not bother to let your phone or PC software update?
Gods no. First thing I do with new machines is turn off automatic updates. Because I'm a Chad.
Forced automatic updates are indeed a mistake. I miss Windows 7, where you actually had some semblance of control over your machine, instead of Microsoft making decisions for you. Also, day one patches are a terrible practice. Except game developers have the decency to sell you the updated version, as opposed to GW, where you buy the outdated book, then buy the materials to make it up to date, then consult whatever fixes they posted online. And they have a short life span, so in a couple of years you do it all over again.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/07 23:21:37
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Do you not bother to let your phone or PC software update?
Gods no. First thing I do with new machines is turn off automatic updates. Because I'm a Chad.
Forced automatic updates are indeed a mistake. I miss Windows 7, where you actually had some semblance of control over your machine, instead of Microsoft making decisions for you.
Also, day one patches are a terrible practice.
Except game developers have the decency to sell you the updated version, as opposed to GW, where you buy the outdated book, then buy the materials to make it up to date, then consult whatever fixes they posted online.
And they have a short life span, so in a couple of years you do it all over again.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: This kinda hit home hard for me. GW is punishing my 10-year-old's Tyranids because a bunch of try-hard WAAC-babies keep finding new ways to break them.
I've never taken a Tyranid army with 2xBonesword/Deathspitter Warriors. I only own one Maleceptor. I've only ever owned one full unit of Hive Guard. But because tournament players stretched the capabilities of the Codex (and the last one) to the nth degree, the units I - and I'm sure many more people outside of tournaments - wasn't spamming have to suffer.
vipoid wrote: However, it seems a little strange that it was stripped from all their characters as well.
Because GW uses a pendulum to balance things. The concept of a middle ground is entirely foreign to them, so naturally they hit everything with the same nerf-bat, without any thought to what they're hitting. The only surprising thing about is that you're surprised.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/08 00:44:02
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
I never use the physical codex. At best, I buy it, register the code, then toss it on a shelf to collect dust while I use the app since the codex is going to be wrong and out of date anyways. Generally I just find someone else who doesn’t use the app and get their code from them though. The sooner GW stops wasting paper on books and goes all digital the better, but then they lose the excuse to overcharge repeatedly, so it so it ain’t gonna happen.
I think the problem lies in how we each feel about the change. I'm fairly nonplussed ( the unperturbed kind ) about it. I understand why you don't like it, but it just doesn't register as an issue to me and I don't have a good way to reconcile that dynamic.
I say that in a sense of general balance. Modeling is another part that I weep for people who will scramble for gear.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/08 03:26:11
Daedalus81 wrote: I think the problem lies in how we each feel about the change. I'm fairly nonplussed ( the unperturbed kind ) about it. I understand why you don't like it, but it just doesn't register as an issue to me and I don't have a good way to reconcile that dynamic.
Then let's use the simplest example I can find, and see if that registers.
The Chaos Rhino Old Points Chaos Rhino (80) + Second Combi-Bolter (5) + Havoc Launcher (5) = 90 New Points Chaos Rhino (80) + Second Combi-Bolter (0) + Havoc Launcher (0) = 80
A Chaos Rhino with an extra Combi-Bolter and a Havoc Launcher was an interesting "Poor Man's Razorback", that had merit if you had a few spare points with nothing else to use them on at the end of making a list. Now, you get that, and you get it for nothing.
Is there ever a reason not to take the additional weaponry (or even the Combi-Melta option instead, given that's also free)?
You are literally getting more for nothing, same as if you swapped out a Bolt Pistol for a Plasma Pistol, or a Chainsword for a Power Sword. You give up nothing to get this. You haven't had to make a choice. This equipment might as well be default if you don't have to pay for it.
And I will continue to say that this point is demonstrably false. We have gone from an environment where you have base equipment for X points, and upgrades for X+Y, to one where you have base equipment for X points, and upgrades for X points as well, meaning there is never any reason not to take the maximum amount of upgrades possible because you don't lose anything or give anything up to do so.
That is not balance, no matter how small the shift in power is. It is terrible rules writing, and it is another example of GW just giving up as we hurtle towards the end of yet another all-too-short yet somehow all-too-bloated edition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/08 05:03:05
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.
"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."
Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.
It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.
Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?
Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.
I never use the physical codex. At best, I buy it, register the code, then toss it on a shelf to collect dust while I use the app since the codex is going to be wrong and out of date anyways. Generally I just find someone else who doesn’t use the app and get their code from them though. The sooner GW stops wasting paper on books and goes all digital the better, but then they lose the excuse to overcharge repeatedly, so it so it ain’t gonna happen.
Using the App that requires you to own the codex is just like using the codex. The few adjustments may be in the App rather than the Errata document or MFM, but that doesn't make much of a difference in the end.
I will say, Chainsword to Power Sword isn't the best example.
Rhino with extra guns is a straight buff.
But against, say, GEQ...
A WS3+ S4 model does .44 damage per attack with a Power Sword, and .37 per attack with an AP-1 Chainsword.
Since the Chainsword gives an extra attack, that means a Chainsword does more damage than a Power Sword against GEQ all the way up to 5 attacks before bonus from weapon.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
You didn't want marines to have AoC. You wouldn't want marines to be a horde army. And you damn well know that datasheet rewrites aren't happening and dropping AP game-wide has far more consequences than people are willing to explore.
So what exactly do you expect GW to do?
You are literally getting more for nothing
Yes, that's the point. The units weren't as worthwhile and less so with the upgrades. First born were almost never on the table - especially not the ones being bandied about right now. My havoc launchers I took for occasional OOLOS shooting and usually killed a model once in a while. Then the OOLOS nerf happened and I just paid for it anyway, because I wasn't going to be bothered to take it off the unmagnetized rhinos. Now I save 10 points, which is hardly mind-blowing.
If you think all the weapon trades have a clear winner then I'm not sure what to tell you. There are so many units with so many different profiles that just simply taking melta or powerswords isn't going to win you games.
I'm not saying that this is going to go smoothly. I don't think it's possible to change so many things and have it come out fine. I just don't think this particular dead horse is the swan song people want to make it to be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/08 05:30:29
Daedalus81 wrote: I think the problem lies in how we each feel about the change. I'm fairly nonplussed ( the unperturbed kind ) about it. I understand why you don't like it, but it just doesn't register as an issue to me and I don't have a good way to reconcile that dynamic.
Then let's use the simplest example I can find, and see if that registers.
The Chaos Rhino Old Points Chaos Rhino (80) + Second Combi-Bolter (5) + Havoc Launcher (5) = 90
New Points Chaos Rhino (80) + Second Combi-Bolter (0) + Havoc Launcher (0) = 80
A Chaos Rhino with an extra Combi-Bolter and a Havoc Launcher was an interesting "Poor Man's Razorback", that had merit if you had a few spare points with nothing else to use them on at the end of making a list. Now, you get that, and you get it for nothing.
Is there ever a reason not to take the additional weaponry (or even the Combi-Melta option instead, given that's also free)?
You are literally getting more for nothing, same as if you swapped out a Bolt Pistol for a Plasma Pistol, or a Chainsword for a Power Sword. You give up nothing to get this. You haven't had to make a choice. This equipment might as well be default if you don't have to pay for it.
And I will continue to say that this point is demonstrably false. We have gone from an environment where you have base equipment for X points, and upgrades for X+Y, to one where you have base equipment for X points, and upgrades for X points as well, meaning there is never any reason not to take the maximum amount of upgrades possible because you don't lose anything or give anything up to do so.
That is not balance, no matter how small the shift in power is. It is terrible rules writing, and it is another example of GW just giving up as we hurtle towards the end of yet another all-too-short yet somehow all-too-bloated edition.
You realize that you are ranting about something that'll (likely) only last 6 months or so, right?
If/when it doesn't work? GW'll just change it & throw some more gak at the wall. Or maybe 10e really will come along - possibly changing everything.
And if this current crap isn't to your liking? Then sit out the next few months tourney wise. Also maybe discuss it amongst those you play with when not in a tourney (you do that, don't you?) & reach some solution that suites you & yours.
I never use the physical codex. At best, I buy it, register the code, then toss it on a shelf to collect dust while I use the app since the codex is going to be wrong and out of date anyways. Generally I just find someone else who doesn’t use the app and get their code from them though. The sooner GW stops wasting paper on books and goes all digital the better, but then they lose the excuse to overcharge repeatedly, so it so it ain’t gonna happen.
All it would mean is you pay same for just the code.
Or are you assuming by being digital it would be free? Digital!=free automatically
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/08 07:11:04
5500 pts 
6500 pts 
7000 pts 
9000 pts 
13.000 pts 
~4100
~1660
