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.

Alpharius and I were having a conversation yesterday and he encouraged me to post something that was said in order to gauge the opinions of everyone else here:

Does it concern you that new Codices breed a sense of dread, and that conversations are dominated about what we're going to lose and what will be nerfed. I remember when the conversations were with people looking forward to a new Codex, rather than those wishing it would take longer.

There are exceptions, everyone wanted a new Eldar/Ork Codex, as they were armies that simply didn't work any more, and Dark Eldar players want a new Codex so they can get a half-way decent set of new models, and I suspect Necron players want the same so that they can see how GW expands the line, but everyone else is dreading their new Codex. Wolf players are scared that it'll be like the Dark Angel/Chaos Codices. Tyranid players are wondering what parts of their list ('Fexes, 'Stealers or both) are about to be nerfed. I know Daemon players won't like their next revision (assuming they ever get one) as we're bound to see Special Characters removed and things like Blood Crushers get kicked to the curb.

This is why I hate the 40K Codices and love things like Planetstrike. Planetstrike affects the way you play 40K, not how you're allowed to use your army. I despise the Guard Codex because it is boring, bland, and changed every rule (every rule) for no apparent (or good) reason, but didn't add any flavour nor fix any problems (in some cases - Stormies and Ogryn - it made them worse). Planetstrike though opens up a whole new avenue for games, and takes us away from the monotony of Kill Points and Victory Points which, IMO, are dull and boring ways to play the game.

This game needs to have a story behind it otherwise it risks becoming a mathhammer hell where you number-crunch your single killer build from your Codex (Lash/Oblits, Nob Bikers, Vulcan/AssTermy, Fateweaver/Bloodcrushers, MechVet/ValkVet/Executioners) and then play games to score points, where outcomes are unrealistic (ha! I killed heaps of your tiny Guard squads and beat you even though I have 1 model left!) and games are unbalanced where they should be balanced.

More Apoc and PS-like expansions, less Codex redesign. Codices just piss people off. Planetstrike can't 'hurt' anyone.



So what are everyone else's opinions on this? When Planetstrike and things like it come out, there are two camps usually - those that think its great and can't wait to dive in (like me), and those who aren't fussed and probably won't play it. But no one complains about it. There's no one lamenting the end of time or threatening to quit the game because there's an expansion with buildings in it, or a set way of playing mega-games. Yet for Codices... how many Chaos players are no longer Chaos players because of the current mess of a Codex? How many Guard players let out a collective 'uhhgh...' when they saw that the Codex was no better or worse than the last one and had every rule changed for no reason. Or the Wolf players talking about the Russ Exterminators being taken away, the LatD players who lost their armies, the Marines players who are sick of Vulcan and so on and so forth?

I'm interested to hear what y'all think.

I'm still waiting for your IG codex review. Do you really think it's worse than the Spiky Marines one?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And allow me to add that yes, fluffy armies need to be more viable and powergaming of the obscene level we have now should be toned down a lot. Look at the old codicies; some of them were ridiculously cheesy in their day, but they were fun and fluffy. How do I justify a Khorne army being led by Slaaneshi Lash DPs? Do they scare people into going where they want them to?

With any luck, this is just GW's hitting-a-brick-wall phase. D&D's had it recently with the release of 4th edition, which is basically World of Warcraft without a computer.

Not as bad as the 'Chaos' one, no. But that's a subject for another thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On that line of Slaanesh-leading-Khorne, there's a thread in army lists for an 'Iron Warrior' army that consists of a Nurgle Lord leading a Tzeentchian force. What's 'Iron Warriors' about that???

When I read it my heart just sank.

That's what you said three months ago when it came out.

I haven't seen that thread yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some damage to the fluff is just plain stupid and laps over into the game. Havocs with the Mark of Khorne? Ok, so he used to have Havocs and big cannons, but after the last codex where World Eaters were a purely close combat army, it's just silly.

And I miss Blood Frenzy. It was annoying, but it was fun and what's more, it made sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Something I really worry about is the 6th edition Space Marine codex. There is no emoticon for what I would feel if BA, DA, BT and SW became like the Mark of Chaos.

But then, we can have Black Templar Devastators and Space Wolves with Death Company.

I think you're way off-base with your Guard codex thoughts; by and large its a significant improvement and I'm willing to bet that most IG players prefer it to any other IG codex beforehand. Nearly everything negative you wrote about the new codex I can readily apply to the old one (boring, bland, etc); units like the Valkyrie, Penal Legion, Vet Squads, Marbo, and the lumbering behemoth rule added a lot more fun to Guard lists that they simply did not have before. And never before has there been more of an opportunity to field a wide range of diverse lists especially since this is the first book where IG can pick and choose different HQ's and troops as opposed to having to field a company HQ squad and platoons.

Both expansions and codices potentially 'piss people off' but people in general don't like to change as we're creatures of habit and not to mention we have to buy new stuff like bastions and Valks to really exercise the coolness of the new content. But I don't think this is a problem since having the same ten year old army gets dull; if anything people are just tired of waiting and not knowing what to expect via GW's horrible marketing. You can always convert and proxy the new stuff also.

If anything, not having updates and new rulebooks on a consistent and timely basis is more annoying than waiting over a decade for a proper rules update like what the IG was and how DE still is.

Fluff wise thats entirely up to the players involved but its going to be constantly changing and retconned since its really not all that important to GW; or at least not as important as it is to fluff nutters. As a Star Wars fan who saw just about all of his Expanded Universe reading get retconned once the prequels arrived; I fully understand that fluff is malleable and not set in stone (Tau, Necrons, etc). GW fluff is pretty overrated imo anyway and could use some changes; sure its cool but at its core its just senseless epic sci-fi war designed to sell toys and written at a 12 year old level.

Who the hell wants to wait in this day and age for new stuff? If anything people dread that it takes so damn long for GW to update and introduce new rules especially in terms of FAQs that all new rulebooks inevitably need (cough IG FAQ) - they're just PDF files after all.

I somewhat agree, and somewhat disagree with your original post.

I've run an online game for the last 12 years. It is not at all easy to 'balance' games with this many variables. And, no one is ever happy about what they get, they're only ever upset about what they lose. One guiding principle for game design should be "don't take things away". Change what they cost, but don't ever take something away - that's what pisses people off. On my game, I made this mistake once, and lost a good portion of the playerbase. Even though I firmly believe that what I took away made the game better in the long run, I wouldn't do it again - the loss of players is just too great.

I think this is the first place where new codexes have failed. Rather than reprice options, they have taken things away. And, our human response is to be upset about what we have lost, rather than evaluating what we have gained. In some cases, entire armies have been removed (LatD, Kroot Mercs), and countless options invalidated under the new codexes and design approach.

Furthermore, they've made some really schizophrenic decisions. On one hand, they cancelled 'Chapter Approved', under the pretense that having new options come out regularly would make it too hard for competitive gamers to have balanced tournaments. On the other hand, they have released codexes that clearly lacked playtesting and that yield some options that are just outright better than others.

But, excluding a handful of mistakes that got through, I think the new codexes work well, especially those written with 5th edition in mind (I believe that this started after the Eldar codex - if that makes it Dark Angels, or Orks, or Chaos Marines, well, whichever of those three was next).

I think that, more than anything, the codexes need proper QA. Not "playtesting", because that implies that they're playing. QA should be methodical. It should be process-based. It should involve established baselines, and unit testing as well as playing whole games. But I'm sure that these things go against GW's business model of making new stuff good - a business model that has failed as much as it has succeeded (cases: Beasts of Nurgle, Possessed Marines, Chaos Spawn, Ork Tankbustas, Vanguard, and so on). Even if the goal was to make the new units 'better' by some amount, obviously some additional QA could have improved the odds of succeeding at this.

I agree that expansions like planetstrike and apocalypse are good, because they give without taking anything away. But, I don't know if they're that good, because they're not the base game. They take more prep time, or more stuff to play. While 40k as a whole is lacking some balance, I think that the stratagems in these systems are even worse - to the point where some (Flank March) tend to get banned entirely. If you have a group of friends who game together regularly, having the expansions is a good addition. If you're going to game stores for pick-up games, I think they're not as good as playing the base game.

Redbeard wrote:One guiding principle for game design should be "don't take things away".

When GW has overreached with armies having too much, I think this is a proper response. As 3rd showed, there is a tendency to give players far too much freedom and options, to the point that armies have no proper focus or useful differentiation from other armies. So the real lesson for GW's designers should be "don't make new things" - that way, there won't be a need to take things away later.

I disagree very strongly about the newer Codices lacking playtesting. I would submit that that things like Possessed, Chaos Spawn, Vanguard, Stormtroopers, and Ogryns were carefully playtested and made into overpriced units *intentionally*. None of the above are "core" to the armies in question, but all of them exist as related "flavor" units. So GW basically put their foot down on Chaos Marines and decreed that basic and Cult Marines would be good, and thus are Scoring Troops at reasonable prices, whereas Possessed are somewhat overpriced and non-Scoring Elites. Similarly, GW decided that IG Platoons and Veterans would be good Scoring Troops, while Stormtroopers and Ogryns would be overpriced, non-Scoring Elites. By slapping a 15-25+% points penalty and making a unit non-Scoring, with no potential to become Scoring (see Sternguard vs Vanguard), GW does a better job of defining what each army army does well than if they made each choice equally playable.

The flip side of this is why SM Rhinos, Razorbacks, and Drop Pods are so very cheap points-wise, especially compared to the Chimera. GW *wants* SM players to be full-transport (and not just because of the model sales). Cutting points costs by 15-25% and making them broadly available does an good job here as well.

I think the goodness of Apoc, PS, and PE depends entirely on the group using them in a reasonable, cooperative way. They're not intended for competitive stranger play, so shouldn't be used that way.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Redbeard wrote:One guiding principle for game design should be "don't take things away".

When GW has overreached with armies having too much, I think this is a proper response. As 3rd showed, there is a tendency to give players far too much freedom and options, to the point that armies have no proper focus or useful differentiation from other armies. So the real lesson for GW's designers should be "don't make new things" - that way, there won't be a need to take things away later.

There's a difference - in my mind at least - between taking away wargear options (not a big deal) and taking away an entire set of models. LatD and Kroot Mercs, as big examples, Chaos legions as another.

In a game where weapons are required to by WYSIWYG, invalidating weapon layouts means people are left with unusable models. I agree that sometimes a game designer realizes that they went too far, or that they want to pursue a new direction. The more you can do this without impacting player's stuff (in this case, collections) the better a designer you are. Outright invalidating armies is the exact opposite of that.

I disagree very strongly about the newer Codices lacking playtesting. I would submit that that things like Possessed, Chaos Spawn, Vanguard, Stormtroopers, and Ogryns were carefully playtested and made into overpriced units *intentionally*.

I don't buy this, at all. Either it shows a complete lack of understanding of point-based game systems, or faulty playtesting. I'd rather think that they erred on the side of the latter.

If you're selling a game that says that it uses points to ensure that the sides are fair, and then you deliberately make stupidly weak units, you're undermining the whole concept.

By slapping a 15-25+% points penalty and making a unit non-Scoring, with no potential to become Scoring (see Sternguard vs Vanguard), GW does a better job of defining what each army army does well than if they made each choice equally playable.

No, what they do is ensure that the bad stuff doesn't get played, and therefore, doesn't sell well. This is neither good game design, nor good market strategy.

If you want to define what an army doesn't do well, you don't do it by providing units that do it at elevated prices, you do it by providing units that do it badly at prices appropriate for doing it badly. Look at Kroot as a good example of this. Tau don't do assault. Kroot are the best assault units that the Tau get, and they're pretty bad at it - and yet they're still a decent option in the army, because they don't cost much. Crappy troops should be cheap.

Vanguard are a mistake. You cannot even try to justify such great new models, with fluff describing how these veteran marines do this cool stuff, only to make them bad at the cool stuff they can do.

Furthermore, it's not always that the army in question isn't meant to do what the bad unit does. Flash Gitz are a great example of this. You could claim that orks aren't meant to be shooty, but that answer ignores the fact that ork shooting is really good, overall. Shootas and Lootas are amazing shooty units. Flash gitz aren't a bad shooty unit in a codex that's not meant to be shooty, they're supposed to be the best shooters in an army that's actually decently shooty, and they fail at it.

Forcing a view of 'what an army should be' based on point cost, instead of available options, is just outright poor game design. If points are really used to ensure that when two players agree to play a game their forces are equal, then applying point penalties just hamstrings that whole concept. In an ideal world, I should be able to pick my units entirely based on what models and fluff I like, and put them on the field and have an even chance of winning against an equally skilled opponent. We'll never have that ideal world, but good game design strives towards it.


Besides, your argument falls apart the moment you try to tell someone that the reason Vanguard suck is because GW wants to define that veteran marines aren't good at launching assaults... it's a flimsy argument.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Alpharius and I were having a conversation yesterday and he encouraged me to post something that was said in order to gauge the opinions of everyone else here:

Does it concern you that new Codices breed a sense of dread, and that conversations are dominated about what we're going to lose and what will be nerfed. I remember when the conversations were with people looking forward to a new Codex, rather than those wishing it would take longer.

Here I have to say "Yes, I agree."

And until H.B.M.C. wrote it, I didn't even realize it!

JohnHwangDD wrote: As 3rd showed, there is a tendency to give players far too much freedom and options, to the point that armies have no proper focus or useful differentiation from other armies. So the real lesson for GW's designers should be "don't make new things" - that way, there won't be a need to take things away later.

I disagree very strongly about the newer Codices lacking playtesting. I would submit that that things like Possessed, Chaos Spawn, Vanguard, Stormtroopers, and Ogryns were carefully playtested and made into overpriced units *intentionally*. None of the above are "core" to the armies in question, but all of them exist as related "flavor" units. So GW basically put their foot down on Chaos Marines and decreed that basic and Cult Marines would be good, and thus are Scoring Troops at reasonable prices, whereas Possessed are somewhat overpriced and non-Scoring Elites. Similarly, GW decided that IG Platoons and Veterans would be good Scoring Troops, while Stormtroopers and Ogryns would be overpriced, non-Scoring Elites. By slapping a 15-25+% points penalty and making a unit non-Scoring, with no potential to become Scoring (see Sternguard vs Vanguard), GW does a better job of defining what each army army does well than if they made each choice equally playable.

Come on John!

That's just crazy talk, and some rather convoluted 'logic' to boot!

I don't think GW planned it that way at all.

I mean, roll on a random table for a power, after deployment, and you could end up with something you can't use?

Planetstrike affects everyone. Therefore it is more well received.

Codices affect only a particular player-base either well or horribly. Therefore leaving one particular group screwed or the rest of the groups screwed.

I for one am looking forward to a new Tau codex.

ObiFett wrote:I for one am looking forward to a new Tau codex.

Because it can't get any worse?

Because if the Tau get the same boost as the Guard they'll be unstoppable. Which will becoming boring.

Seriously though,

Have you ever considered that boring and bland is their style. That a ground pounder grunt, artillery, and slow Tank army are going to be boring because they are not special ops. If you want exitement then you need an army that runs a higher risk of getting completely tabled. A special ops army. An army of specialists.

Or could be familiarity breeds contempt and you've just become overly familiar with said army. Not saying this is what has happened, just putting out ideas for why your feeling negative on the subject of a codices but positive about things that put your army in a new enviroment.

To put it more clearly. A codex changes "your" army where planet strike changes just the scenario. One forces a change on something that you've become possessive of where the other doesn't.

Just an Idea

focusedfire wrote:
Seriously though,

Have you ever considered that boring and bland is their style. That a ground pounder grunt, artillery, and slow Tank army are going to be boring because they are not special ops. If you want exitement then you need an army that runs a higher risk of getting completely tabled. A special ops army. An army of specialists.

I fail to see how a massive army of average Joes with nothing more than lasguns and flak armour charging across a battlefield supported by hugeass tanks isn't exciting.

Guard = Topic for another thread.

Stay on target people.

What I'm really stunned by is the fact that GW doesn't release all five SM codicies to keep them consistent with each other. That way, BA, BT, DA, and SW players get their 3+ Storm Shields and can stop whining.

I have to say I always get excited when new expansions come out because it usually means new models get released and I always enjoy seeing what they're releasing next. Also, the expansions just sound really fun and interesting. I have to say that Planetary Empires has me pitching a tent in anticipation.

As far as codexes go, I generally look forward to them. I used to play Orks so the build up to their release was positive for me. I do agree though that GW takes a little too long to put out new stuff.
I

Redbeard wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Redbeard wrote:One guiding principle for game design should be "don't take things away".

When GW has overreached with armies having too much, I think this is a proper response.

There's a difference - in my mind at least - between taking away wargear options (not a big deal) and taking away an entire set of models. LatD and Kroot Mercs, as big examples, Chaos legions as another.

LatD has the most legitimate complpaint, and is actually worthy of a proper Codex - you'll get relatively little argument from me there.

Kroot Mercs was a WD list, so it's fine to go away, although adding a few more Kroot options in the next Tau Codex would be sufficient to capture the gist of the army.

Legions were an abomination, and complaints of "losing an army" are largely unfounded as well as falling on deaf ears. They lost unbalancing rules that resulted in broken, unimaginative armies. I think if you were to ask the GW designers what they think their worst Codex was, CSM Legions would probably rise to the top of the heap in a hurry.

Redbeard wrote:The more you can do this without impacting player's stuff (in this case, collections) the better a designer you are.

I completely agree that it's better not to invalidate stuff, when possible. But if they need to clean house, then they should do so unabashedly.

Redbeard wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I disagree very strongly about the newer Codices lacking playtesting. I would submit that that things like Possessed, Chaos Spawn, Vanguard, Stormtroopers, and Ogryns were carefully playtested and made into overpriced units *intentionally*.

I don't buy this, at all. Either it shows a complete lack of understanding of point-based game systems, or faulty playtesting. I'd rather think that they erred on the side of the latter.

If you're selling a game that says that it uses points to ensure that the sides are fair, and then you deliberately make stupidly weak units, you're undermining the whole concept.

No way. The balance is so far off, there is NO way that GW designers did not recognize that Possessed, Spawn, Vangaurd, Stormtroopers, and Ogryns were horrible for the points. Especially when the rest of the stuff is so tight. The idea that it just so happened that these non-core concept units "just happened" to be very inefficient is not possible when the rest of the books are so tight.; If it were up to chane as incompetence, then you'd see huge swings in the other Troops choices, along with some for the non-core units being hugely efficient/overpowered. Ergo, the only sensible conclusion is that GW actually does jnow what they';re doing and that the imbalance is ntentional.

Redbeard wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: By slapping a 15-25+% points penalty and making a unit non-Scoring, with no potential to become Scoring (see Sternguard vs Vanguard), GW does a better job of defining what each army army does well than if they made each choice equally playable.

No, what they do is ensure that the bad stuff doesn't get played, and therefore, doesn't sell well. This is neither good game design, nor good market strategy.

If you want to define what an army doesn't do well, you don't do it by providing units that do it at elevated prices, you do it by providing units that do it badly at prices appropriate for doing it badly.

Apparently, you and GW disagree :p
____

more...

The "bad" stuff won't be played in tournaments, and probably isn't intended to be played there. Some have claimed that GW is prebuilding tournament army lists with the way they bias points costs, and I wouldn't doubt it. But the stuff is passably OK for casual play against other "soft" lists, and that's probably what was intended.

If something is overcosted, that's essentially the same as doing something badly at a good cost. Yeah, you're trying to split a hair, but I see it as the other face of the same coin.

Redbeard wrote: Look at Kroot as a good example of this. Tau don't do assault. Kroot are the best assault units that the Tau get, and they're pretty bad at it - and yet they're still a decent option in the army, because they don't cost much.

Vanguard are a mistake. You cannot even try to justify such great new models, with fluff describing how these veteran marines do this cool stuff, only to make them bad at the cool stuff they can do.

Forcing a view of 'what an army should be' based on point cost, instead of available options, is just outright poor game design. If points are really used to ensure that when two players agree to play a game their forces are equal, then applying point penalties just hamstrings that whole concept.

In an ideal world, I should be able to pick my units entirely based on what models and fluff I like, and put them on the field and have an even chance of winning against an equally skilled opponent.

Besides, your argument falls apart the moment you try to tell someone that the reason Vanguard suck is because GW wants to define that veteran marines aren't good at launching assaults... it's a flimsy argument.

Kroot are decently playable and Troops. Now compare with Vespids, which are non-Scoring Fast and crappy.

This is NOT a mistake, this is a design decision. Frankly, AM have always been less than efficient in SM. You take them because you need PA HtH for countercharge, not because they're awesomely efficient. Just compare Vanguard with BA VAS and you have to conclude this is deliberate.

(No comment on Orks)

As I've said elsewhere, GW breaks army elements into three categories:
1. core, which are well-costed and effective
2. non-core, which are somewhat over-costed or somewhat ineffective
3. not allowed, which don't appear in the army book
Most game designers strive for balance based on categories 1 & 3 only. GW adds the intermediate step entirely for flavor purposes. This is why "flavor" units are non-core things that appear in the Fluff or army history. I think this is the one conceptual innovation that GW has made in points cost that is actually ahead of conventional games design understanding.

That's a rather naive approach, precisely because it presumes that all points should be equal, and in reality it isn't. For example, look at Formula 1. The rules are supposed to be "even", yet Ferrari wins an awful lot. For the same money spent, and the same number of cars fielded, Ferrari outperforms the competition. Also, because nobody randomly selects an army.

GW defines Space Marines as 10-man Bolter squads, not Jump-Pack BP&CCW squads. Vanguard are good at what they do, and are the ultimate counterchargers with their Heroic Intervention. But they aren't core to a C:SM army, and never will be. That's why they aren't Troops, and never Score. And to drive that point home, they're a bit overpriced for competitive play.

Cheese Elemental wrote:What I'm really stunned by is the fact that GW doesn't release all five SM codicies to keep them consistent with each other. That way, BA, BT, DA, and SW players get their 3+ Storm Shields and can stop whining.

That's more to do with GW's inability to have a coherent and consistent design ethos across all their books. I've said before that they change horses multiple times during a race, and this can be seen just by looking at each Codex since the 4th Ed Marines.

And it filters down through everything, not just the rules. We all know the 'joy' of the current way they layout Codices. Guard Codex is the best example of this, with more than half of the 'Vehicle Upgrades' section being located elsewhere in the Codex, and that part of the Codex filled with nothing but page references. Or in the Marine Sternguard entry where 3 of their four ammo types are in their own entry, but the other one has to be found elsewhere, meaning you need 3 pages in that book for the rules to one unit. Why even have a Wargear section if all the rules are going to be scattered at random throughout the book?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I shouldn't do this... but... uhh... suffer not the moron to live. *makes sign of the Aquila*

Here we go:

*dives in*

JohnHwangDD wrote:LatD has the most legitimate complpaint, and is actually worthy of a proper Codex - you'll get relatively little argument from me there.

This from the guy who argued with me for pages about how LatD hadn't lost their list and Counts As was fine for representing them (and also someone who was so quick to twist the knife when the LatD Datasheet came out). I should be revelling in the ironic nature of your post John, but somehow I just can't find the energy.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Kroot Mercs was a WD list, so it's fine to go away...

Based on what? What arbitrary standards do you base that comment on?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Legions were an abomination, and complaints of "losing an army" are largely unfounded as well as falling on deaf ears.

You are just wilfully ignorant, aren't you? We had a whole thread, a fairly substantial thread, about the Chaos Codex recently and we got post after post after post about how people had stopped playing Chaos because of the loss of Legions, or had sold armies, or had had their armies reduced to pale shadows of their former selves.

And not all those posts were mine either.

So your claim that Legions were an abomination is out and out STUPID.
Your claim that the complaints being unfounded is a LIE.

JohnHwangDD wrote:They lost unbalancing rules that resulted in broken, unimaginative armies.

You act like the Chaos list doesn't have broken elements now, or that the Legions were somehow responsible for Chaos being broken then, or that no other list has any broken items and that it was only the Legions that did this.

Unimaginative? God... you say that the new Codex has more options and the old one was less imaginative despite the actual truth of that being the complete opposite.

You're mad. Completely mad.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think if you were to ask the GW designers what they think their worst Codex was, CSM Legions would probably rise to the top of the heap in a hurry.

Based on? Where are you pulling this bull gak from John, really?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Ergo, the only sensible conclusion is that GW actually does jnow what they';re doing and that the imbalance is ntentional.

That's a conclusion, yes. 'Sensible' might be a bit of a stretch though. The other conclusion, sensible or otherwise, is that GW simply don't care. Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to a lack of intelligence, or, in this case, never attribute to malice what can be attributed to apathy.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Apparently, you and GW disagree :p

Just like you and reality and common sense tend to disagree so often.

I sometimes wonder if you ever realise just how off base you are. Do you sit there, reading your White Dwarf, covered in plastic glue and think "Man... I am so freakin' wrong!".*

*cookie for the reference

JohnHwangDD wrote:Legions were an abomination, and complaints of "losing an army" are largely unfounded as well as falling on deaf ears. They lost unbalancing rules that resulted in broken, unimaginative armies. I think if you were to ask the GW designers what they think their worst Codex was, CSM Legions would probably rise to the top of the heap in a hurry.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Yes, the rules weren't that balanced, but they didn't have to have a fit and get rid of them. They were colourful. An Iron Warriors army should rightly include Basilisks and have no fast attack, and Alpha Legion should be able to infiltrate most of their army. Word Bearers should be able to use a lot of marked Daemons, and Night Lords should have lots of fast attack units and leadership-reducing abilities.

They just needed balancing, which could have been achieved easily. Look at their WHFB counterpart, Warriors of Chaos. Now THAT is a good book. Mono-god armies are actually both fun and strong, unlike this rubbish we have for CSM. Why should Khornate Daemon Princes get a measly +1 attack? Why aren't they better at fighting? Why are Khorne Berzerkers calm warriors?

Alpharius wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: I disagree very strongly about the newer Codices lacking playtesting. I would submit that that things like Possessed, Chaos Spawn, Vanguard, Stormtroopers, and Ogryns were carefully playtested and made into overpriced units *intentionally*. None of the above are "core" to the armies in question, but all of them exist as related "flavor" units.

Come on John!

That's just crazy talk, and some rather convoluted 'logic' to boot!

I don't think GW planned it that way at all.

Crazy. Like a fox.

If it's unplanned, then what's the alternative, given the precision and sheer coincidence / convenience of what turned out? I look at it, and see that everything lines up just far too neatly for this to have been left to chance. What are the odds that *all* of the IG & CSM Troops are perfectly good, but not broken, *and* the Elites are tournament bad, but not casually unplayable?

I've seen some random things in my life, but to expect that the CSM, SM, and IG Codices all turned out like this defies mere happenstance.

Alpharius wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: So GW basically put their foot down on Chaos Marines and decreed that basic and Cult Marines would be good, and thus are Scoring Troops at reasonable prices, whereas Possessed are somewhat overpriced and non-Scoring Elites.

I mean, roll on a random table for a power, after deployment, and you could end up with something you can't use?

What Possessed powers can't be used? All of them either accelerate Possessed into Assault, or help them once they get there.

John, are you approaching this from the angle that GW is a multi-national corp. and regardless of their image they actually do things just like every other multi- national corp.?

That they apply Tsung Tsu's(sorry for the americanied spelling) principle of warfare to business?

That GW like most other corporations have a business plan that is down right Machiavellian in its scope and application.

Say it isn't so.


H.B.M.C.-I may have started my last post a little off-topic but it was in reply to your own word in the original post.

The rest of the post was attempt to answer your question in a way that you might not have intended.

I was pointing out that it may not be so much what GW at the root of your problem as much as it might be you yourself by way of being overly invested.

That you don't look upon your favorite army as GWs army to do what they want with but rather that they are tinkering with"your"army. If that is the case it happens to most over time. In this situation you eventually sit back and think it over and get a different perspective and find the thing that originally got you into the hobby in the forst place.

Not saying this is the case. Just offering a different perspective.

Personally, I look forward to my next Tau Codex. Will it be everything that I want? Probably not even close. But it will be a new learning curve that will kick start the brain and there will be a pleasant surprise in their somewhere.

If I strongly enough about wanting a Codex that has everything that I feel is right, then I can always write one......Oh wait a minute....I am. Never mind.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Legions were an abomination, and complaints of "losing an army" are largely unfounded as well as falling on deaf ears. They lost unbalancing rules that resulted in broken, unimaginative armies. I think if you were to ask the GW designers what they think their worst Codex was, CSM Legions would probably rise to the top of the heap in a hurry.

According to Games Workshop HQ, the current Chaos Codex is supposed to represent Renegade Space Marines. If you think about it a little, it actually does an excellent job of this. There is only one, no, two small problems: 1) their existing player base all played Chaos Legions, 2) no one wants to play Renegade Space Marines. They have stated on more than one occasion that there will be a fifth edition Chaos Legions Codex (or Codecies --- they have not ruled out splitting them, like they have done with the Loyalists), so clearly they did not see the Legions as their worst idea --- hell, they are more talkative about Chaos Legions than Space Wolves or Skaven!

As for the main topic of the thread, I am split. Largely, I look at the update as a positive. Then again, as a Sisters player, I know some things (especially Repentia) cannot possibly get worse. I do, however, have an underlying feeling of dread about an update. I am resigned to the likely fact that my army will lose its primary mechanic (Acts of Faith), because it does not fit with the current design. I am certain my army will lose a lot of flavour in the update, and I would not be surprised if the update presents me with a completely different army from the one I originally wanted to play. Ultimately, I am hopeful that the good outweighs the bad, but there is that spectre of fear hanging over it.

Looking at the future release plans, my main dread is in the dullness of the future. In 18 months of fifth edition, we have had two armies updated. Games Workshop are clearly in no hurry to bring the armies in line. The current rumours also put a MEQ-heavy spin on the majority of updates in the next two years, which ultimately creates a dull meta-game. When Space Wolves come out, I anticipate them to be the most powerful MEQ army in the game, but at the cost of much of the flavour in their current book. When Dark Eldar come out, they will be a completely different army... but that is a good thing! Necron? They cannot possibly get worse! There is a definite pessimism around my views of future releases, but I still seem to have enough optimism around thing ultimately getting better.

@focused:

GW is a multi-national, and they're slowly taking advantage of that, but not strongly.

I highly doubt GW applies Sun Tzu's Art of War to their business - that's more of a Japanese / Chinese thing, not a British thing.

I don't think GW is so well-organized to be properly Machiavellian. But they sure do their darndest to squeeze every penny from their ever-shrinking pool of customers.

Does anyone, anyone at all, have even the slightest clue what he's ^ talking about? Is he even on topic? Does he know what the topic is?

Anyway, Focused:

focusedfire wrote:H.B.M.C.-I may have started my last post a little off-topic but it was in reply to your own word in the original post.

The rest of the post was attempt to answer your question in a way that you might not have intended.

Sorry, it got lost in all the Hwangerry going on in this thread.

But, yes, as to what you said, I can see where you're coming from. Thing is, it's not just Guard (and that's the reason why I don't want to keep coming back to Guard as an example). My first thought with the hint of a new Codex isn't "What are they going to do" but rather "What are they going to take away." Sometimes its obvious - I knew Doctrines were going when Guard came around as I knew Traits would vanish when the Marine Codex came around. Those sorts of things you just accept. But shouldn't I/we be looking forward to a new Codex? I said there were exceptions, but those exceptions are usually from armies that are so old (Orks, Space Wolves) or so unworkable (Eldar then, Necrons now) that I think it's less a case of "We're looking forward to this!" and more a case of "We'll take anything over what we've got now!".

Elric said it just below me:

"Ultimately, I am hopeful that the good outweighs the bad, but there is that spectre of fear hanging over it."

I also think that GW's unwillingness to tell us anything about upcoming releases until they're just about to hit also exacerbates this problem. We don't know what's coming, we're relying on rumour and Chinese Whispers (50% of which will turn out to be wrong), and from the people in charge we get nothing. We, then, can only look at precedent and the precedent isn't good.

And then, there's the other side of it. Say you're a Chaos or Dark Angel player, and you've got your stinking turd of a Codex. Now you're stuck with it for 4-10 years. When they announce they're going to re-do it 4-10 years down the track, do you get excited? Did you get excited last time only to get shat on? Or do you fear more gak being slung your way?

As a chaos player, I hope that a new codex will bring some flavor back, but doubt it, I just hope my emperor's children will remain different from a khorne army in more than just color scheme. I pity alpha legion and Iron warriors players, those poor sods.

As a sisters player, I need a new freaking codex.

As a Tau player, I need a new freaking codex.

So yeah, as much as I dread what could happen to my current army, I pretty much have nothing to lose with 2/3 of my armies, and not much to lose with the other.

Canonness Rory wrote:As a sisters player, I need a new freaking codex.

Are you sure about that? Your Acts of Faith will (probably) go. Your Wargear list will go. No more Book, no more Cloak, no more whatever the other thing Sisters players take. Your Exorcist will be plastic and/or nerfed. Your squad sizes will be changed. Your ability to take special weapons will be curbed too, so, like Orks and Chaos, you'll have to stick to the Codex Astartes to get your Multi-Meltas and Heavy Flamers. You might get Repentia that don't suck, maybe. But what else?

Now from my perspective. I'm not a Sisters player, but I am a Witch Hunters player. As I've said in a number of threads I am a DH/WH player who plays only Inquisitorial, no GK or SOB, and use the Rogue's Gallery of really crappy units that they have. But that's fine, I like playing that army because it's colourful and characterful and great in Apoc games/story based campaigns and so on. Doesn't have to win as long as I can tell a good story with it. Now, a while back we get a comment from High Lord Jervis up in his ivory tower that they're going to cut back the Inquisitorial stuff because they 'got a bit carried away'. Ok... so he's telling me that an army I play was 'over the top', and they're going to cut away at it.

Should I be getting excited about the prospect of a new Daemonhunter or Witch Hunter Codex?

Ok, well, before we jump to conclusions let's take a look at history. History gives us a good indication of what mistakes GW is going to make despite how often they change what their design ethos is, and let's look at all the recent Codices:

Generic unit entries.
Loss of options.
Codex Astartes upgrade schemas.

Hmm... so chances are my Inquisitors are going to lost all their Wargear, and just get a list of weapons they can have. Not a good start. Their retinues will be generic with maybe a few 'Advisor' style singles (but bye-bye Mystics and Sages). My Storm Troopers will become 16 points wastes of space (as if they weren't bad enough already) and there's a decent chance that my Daemonhosts, Acho's and other similar units won't even be in there, with the Codices focusing more on Grey Knights and Sobs.

So, again, should I be getting excited about the prospect of a new Daemonhunter or Witch Hunter Codex? Or would it be more prudent to put them on the shelf now alongside my Lost & The Damned. And my Deathguard. And my Iron Warriors. And my Alpha Legion. And my World Eaters. And my Word Bearers. And my $1500+ worth of Daemons?

Elric of Grans wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Legions were an abomination, and complaints of "losing an army" are largely unfounded as well as falling on deaf ears. They lost unbalancing rules that resulted in broken, unimaginative armies. I think if you were to ask the GW designers what they think their worst Codex was, CSM Legions would probably rise to the top of the heap in a hurry.

According to Games Workshop HQ, the current Chaos Codex is supposed to represent Renegade Space Marines.

1) their existing player base all played Chaos Legions, 2) no one wants to play Renegade Space Marines.

They have stated on more than one occasion that there will be a fifth edition Chaos Legions Codex (or Codecies --- they have not ruled out splitting them, like they have done with the Loyalists), so clearly they did not see the Legions as their worst idea --- hell, they are more talkative about Chaos Legions than Space Wolves or Skaven!

as a Sisters player, I know some things (especially Repentia) cannot possibly get worse. I do, however, have an underlying feeling of dread about an update. I am resigned to the likely fact that my army will lose its primary mechanic (Acts of Faith), because it does not fit with the current design.

The current rumours also put a MEQ-heavy spin on the majority of updates in the next two years, which ultimately creates a dull meta-game.

When Space Wolves come out, I anticipate them to be the most powerful MEQ army in the game, but at the cost of much of the flavour in their current book. When Dark Eldar come out, they will be a completely different army... but that is a good thing! Necron? They cannot possibly get worse! There is a definite pessimism around my views of future releases, but I still seem to have enough optimism around thing ultimately getting better.

@Elric, you're aware that all Chaos Marines are Renegade, just that some turned from the Emperor's light before others. Also, time in the Eye isn't the same outside the eye - for some CSM, the Heresy isn't that long ago.

I started CSM as nominally Fallen Angels in 3rd, I never played CSM in 4th, I never wanted to play as a Heresy-era Traitor Legion, and I am very happy with a non-Legion CSM army.

IMO, the only reason that Legions gets so much talk is because the players ask about it. And the answer is becoming rote: GW would like to do Legions (eventually), but there are no plans they can speak of at this time. It's very similar to the current DE answer and the Squats answer before that. If GW really did like the notion of Legions, they could have used the Special Characters very differently, like DA or even SM. Or reworked the FOC rules like Eldar. Instead, we got a rehash of the first 3E CSM book.

As a fellow Sisters player, I'm looking forward for the notional focus shifting away from WH Inquisition back to Sisters. I think Acts will stay in some form, but perhaps work more like Psychic Powers. Faith points will, of course, go away, and I'm OK with that as long as Sisters stay BS4. Hopefully, Sisters become Stubborn / Fearless.

If you look at releases:
2008 = Orks, Daemons & SM
2009 = IG (& SW)
2010 = Nids & BA
That's one MEQ and one non-MEQ per year, with Daemons added as a bonus last year. GW's really not so MEQ heavy as the non-MEQ players would claim.

Given GW's recent Codices, I highly doubt SW will be uber. I know DE and Necrons are what a lot of fans want, but we'll have to see what happens, given how tight-lipped GW is nowadays.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I started CSM as nominally Fallen Angels in 3rd, I never played CSM in 4th, I never wanted to play as a Heresy-era Traitor Legion, and I am very happy with a non-Legion CSM army.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. You can't possibly know what you missed if you didn't use the last CSM codex.

Not really. I tried playing as IW, once, but it didn't do anything for me. I sold my FA and considered rebuilding a couple different ways, but the basic 0-1 restrictions and Legion restrictions made the whole thing unworkable. It wasn't until the current CSM book came out the everything gelled and I could make the CSM army I wanted.

Instead, I played Drop Guard through 4th and had a great time. With the new IG book, they're going back on the shelf, and I'll probably play Eldar and/or some MEQ variant.

I agree with what focusedFire said about it being that the players are so heavily invested. I came after the switch to 5th and was brought in only knowing this 5th Edition Chaos dex (although I've looked up the 4th edition dex). Entire armies were invalidated, and it was infinitely cruel for a company to do that to its faithful patrons. I've observed that most of the hate for the new CSM codex comes from people who's armies were invalidated or misrepresented. It doesn't let them see the codex for what it is really worth, and makes it easier for them to believe the codex must only have one power build and can't possibly be any good except for that, and all the other negative things the Internet People have come up with.

What do I think? I'd like Legions to represented correctly, but I don't want to lose my Renegades to do it. If they swing the pendulum too hard towards the Legions my dual culted Renegades are going to be torn in half and I might end up like one of the angry people from the last codex. Chaos is so diverse, I think there needs to be a seperation of codicies so that the flavour of one type doesn't smother another, but at the same time they need to be able to ally like the Loyalists because putting a huge schism between the forces of Chaos when there is so little of an actual gap doesn't make sense. In conclusion, if Chaos Space Marines were to become only about playing one of the Big Nine I'd probably quit and go work on my Orks.