eureka!

[MaliGn]

Musing on the chaos codex and it struck me; what gw have done is blurred the edges. With most units fulfilling a battlefield role, the game in my eyes is designed with situational battles in mind, rather than a "if he takes that, then I need this approach" suitable for all pick up and tournament play. With this in mind it becomes nesecary for each army to be able to field a viable force for each scenario, and therefore more flexibilty than the old legion themed tweaks from the 3.5 book. For example a chaos army may include a dark apostle, while a word bearers army is led by a dark apostle, sure it's subtle but that's what they are trying to tell us to do, play narratively and with an army we like for it's background. Gw know that their background material from days gone by is easily available for free on the net so they don't need to add to it unessecarily or repeat it, some of the unit descriptions are almost copy pasted from the last book. We'd all love the army that could field a unique but united force for every scenario of warfare imaginable, it's why an army is never ever done.

 

And besides we're all red corsairs now thanks to Huron being too useful not to include.

[Kol Saresk]

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm going to let you know right now now that about 80 million people are going to show up and tell you why you are wrong. But don't worry, some will agree with you.

[Schultzhoffen]

Since I prefer narrative gaming with mates, I agree with you. Then again, I quite like the new Chaos Codex (and yes, I've been around since 3.5).

 

 

Tournaments may be another issue.

[Kol Saresk]

Well, if the tournaments are narrative tournaments like Eye of Terra and Medusa 5, shouldn't be too much of a problem. And if it's a narrative campaign, again there is no problem. It only becomes a problem when the tournament promotes WAAC instead of good fun.

[Warsmith Aznable]

sure it's subtle but that's what they are trying to tell us to do, play narratively and with an army we like for it's background

 

I disagree that it's subtle, since they tell us more or less directly in the rulebook to do this and all the examples of play in GW publications are heavily themed. The fact that games are player versus player and result in a winner/loser dichotomy unleashes the natural inclination to do what it takes to win that goes against GW's rather airy ideas of narrative campaigning. That's how I perceive it, anyway.

[Biaz]

And besides we're all red corsairs now thanks to Huron being too useful not to include.

 

This is how his army reached Legion size so quickly. :)

[Lepaca]

And besides we're all red corsairs now thanks to Huron being too useful not to include.

 

This is how his army reached Legion size so quickly. :)

 

Mind blown. O_O

[Kelanen]

For many of us, perhaps even most WAAC IS the fun.

 

It's certainly not the fluff or background - 40k background is utterly pathetic drivel. If I rmeotely cared anything for fluff, I woulfn't be playing the game to start with. I play because the rules make for a fun game, no other reason.

[Baluc]

For many of us, perhaps even most WAAC IS the fun.

 

It's certainly not the fluff or background - 40k background is utterly pathetic drivel. If I rmeotely cared anything for fluff, I woulfn't be playing the game to start with. I play because the rules make for a fun game, no other reason.

 

Then you aren't GW target market, and in business terms you don't really matter, you're are just a bonus, if you went away their business plan wouldn't change at all.

 

Further more, the great crusade and the horus heresy are the best sci-fantasy setting in the market.

[Vesper]

Well, if the tournaments are narrative tournaments like Eye of Terra and Medusa 5, shouldn't be too much of a problem. And if it's a narrative campaign, again there is no problem. It only becomes a problem when the tournament promotes WAAC instead of good fun.

 

EoT and Medusa V were worldwide campaigns, not tournaments.

And from what I've been told, tournaments are made up for the WAAC part of the hobby.

[the jeske]

Man I realy dont envy you guys . Richer or not being forced to have two armies one for tournaments and one for non tournaments must realy hit you on your wallets.

 

 

GW cant make anyone play "cinematic" or "narrative" unless it puts in the rules that each player has to sing a 15min poem [music optional] before starting the game . People play with stuff that is good , if stuff was based on narrative/fluff/like-dislike of models the list section would not exist an we would have as many people using BC as we have GH .

 

but it is true that saying something is narrative gives GW a nice smoke screen to explain bad rules , bad units or stuff that is clearly undercosted.

[Baluc]

Man I realy dont envy you guys . Richer or not being forced to have two armies one for tournaments and one for non tournaments must realy hit you on your wallets.

 

 

GW cant make anyone play "cinematic" or "narrative" unless it puts in the rules that each player has to sing a 15min poem [music optional] before starting the game . People play with stuff that is good , if stuff was based on narrative/fluff/like-dislike of models the list section would not exist an we would have as many people using BC as we have GH .

 

but it is true that saying something is narrative gives GW a nice smoke screen to explain bad rules , bad units or stuff that is clearly undercosted.

 

If their intent was never to create a tight "tournement" level game, how did they fail? The issue is some tournement players having the expectation that GW cares or intends for a the tournment scene to exist, as a primary motivation. It does exist so they do what they deem feasible and reasonable to keep it functional, but it isn't their market and they have never sold the game as such.

[zyl-]

What we have come to call "codex creep" is a phenomenon that occurs due to tournament mindset.

 

I actually can't believe that people would think this.

There is a lot of evidence to the contrary for the op.

 

Good examples are the predator, bikes and spawn. They were so bad that no one would have dreamed of buying them before, and now they are almost too good to pass up. The players who were playing for a story before used bikes if they damn well felt like it, so changing their effeciency would have had no bearing at all in that market.

Another example is Kahrn the Betrayer. He used to be quite a powerhouse HQ, and there were a lot of people with a Kahrn model. Now that they sold, he's somewhat lackluster.

The same idea, but opposite case could be made for Huron and Ahriman. I almost never saw them in an army, but now all of the sudden, they are great.

Daemon Princes.. I mean who doesn't have like 10 of those already?

And let's not even start getting into the fact that they made special rules for terrain peices. I would heavily bet that the "storyline" players already had a terrain collection, but tournament players didn't care until they could get a heavy4 twin linked skyfire cannon.

 

I can't say that I disagree completely, because I realize that there is a market for that, and a lot of people do play for fun and fun alone. However, I think the point about the fact that there is always a loser and a winner speaks for itself, and even GW can't ignore that as incompetant as they are. and GW likely realizes that. I believe that many of their decisions are aimed at tournament players, otherwise they do a lot of stuff right on accident.

 

edited because in light of our presidential election, i can believe nearly any folley

[Minsc]

Another example is Kahrn the Betrayer. He used to be quite a powerhouse HQ, and there were a lot of people with a Kahrn model. Now that they sold, he's somewhat lackluster.

 

I beg your pardon?

[Kol Saresk]

edited because in light of our presidential election, i can believe nearly any folley

I so want to sig this.

[the jeske]

If their intent was never to create a tight "tournement" level game, how did they fail? The issue is some tournement players having the expectation that GW cares or intends for a the tournment scene to exist, as a primary motivation. It does exist so they do what they deem feasible and reasonable to keep it functional, but it isn't their market and they have never sold the game as such.

their intent is to sell models , they make rules only because it sells more models , then having models without them . GW neither cares for the tournament player[well not anymore] , nor for the fluff player . they do care about people who start new armies , new people that will start up fresh and buy new armies .

 

fluff does not sell models , if it did then chaos under gav dex would have sold better . there would have been more GK players under their first dex , first oger dex would be played by people who like eastern europe etc Non of this happens . good rules sell models and codex . now good rules does not automaticly equal tournament playing . it is perfectly possible to never play in a tournament[nor want to play in one] and still have a need for good rules . Thing is what tournament players want is good rules and options . Do you know why the DA dex is going to be better then the chaos one ? because it is going to give 3 totaly different builds + possible mixs of those builds . This is what tournament players want , many lists and many builds so we dont have to play mirror match ups or when there are 3-4 armies with identical game play , but of course 1 will always be the most optimal , so we have to play it etc .

 

 

the problem with GW rules is not that they are not warmahorde rules ,even if it would have been nice to get a FAQ section like PP has . the problem is that they neither make the dex for tournaments [they make stuff like GK in 5th ed , scyth wing at the start of 6th] , nor for casuals . melee oblits or warp talons are always bad . Doesnt matter if someone wants to build a tournament or non tournament lists.

[Kol Saresk]

Weren't the original Grey Knights supplements to the Daemonhunters army? Seemed like there was enough sales to cause GW to shift from the Inquisition to the supplements for the Inquisition armies, both with Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle. As far as Chaos, the sales might be why it took just this long. No reason to update first if no one is buying.

[Emperors Immortals]

Jeske is right, again *sigh*.

 

40k was made so people with a model collection could zoom around the room going PEW PEW at each other like grown ups.

 

It has evolved into a popular hobby precisly BECAUSE its frustrating, they may look foolish but apart from codex design issues, JJ Gav and crew know EXACTLY what they are doing - its why Blanche still has a job (i personally love his artwork but many many do not). Keep the most amount happy for the most amount of time.

 

Going public was a mistake, we should start a fund and buy back shares in order to make it a fan driven company - but good ;):-ing luck organising that.

 

I LOVE the background, fell in love in 2nd ed (1993 ish i think) and have been reinvigorated with th eHH series - pure GW some great ideas and high points some ridiculous cheese and a lot of middle ground different enough from everything else out there.

 

 

 

/end rant.

 

 

-edit- Kol, id say that CSM is the hardest dex (alog with eldar maybe nids) to deliver a truly all round product that will keep the collectors happy. 4-5 lists are truly needed, and it cant be OP or UP. Pretty hard compared to Loyalist shooters or Astartes psychos of any flavour.

[Brother Ambroz]

Another example is Kahrn the Betrayer. He used to be quite a powerhouse HQ, and there were a lot of people with a Kahrn model. Now that they sold, he's somewhat lackluster.

 

I beg your pardon?

 

Seconded.

 

Khârn is just as good now as ever, only "nerf" he got was with the general nerf to all CC characters.

[Lexington]

good rules sell models and codex .

Nonsense. I've played for fifteen years, and in that time, generic Space Marines have almost never been a top-tier army, but they've been the best-selling one by far the entire time.

 

Models sell models, Codexes, etc. Rules figure in to some extent, but it's pretty minimal.

[RapatoR]

Another example is Kahrn the Betrayer. He used to be quite a powerhouse HQ, and there were a lot of people with a Kahrn model. Now that they sold, he's somewhat lackluster.

 

I beg your pardon?

 

Seconded.

 

Khârn is just as good now as ever, only "nerf" he got was with the general nerf to all CC characters.

Uhm and what about passing hate and fearless to squad he is with?

If Khârn was nerfed I will eat a shovel.

[Izhim ur-Baal]

Weren't the original Grey Knights supplements to the Daemonhunters army? Seemed like there was enough sales to cause GW to shift from the Inquisition to the supplements for the Inquisition armies, both with Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle. As far as Chaos, the sales might be why it took just this long. No reason to update first if no one is buying.

No reason to buying as rules are lackluster and boring, and the circle close (now also chaos won't sell good as rules are weak and diversity is gone).

[Kol Saresk]

Yes and no. Do you recall the amount of people who went head over heels for the minis? Those will keep selling for a while, especially if eeryone just uses the FW Heresy lists to play their 40K Chaos armies. The minis will still sell. GW won't care if the Codex is actually used. Like Jeske and everyone else points out, GW likes their money. And as long as that comes in, tey won't care. Like right now, I wonder just how many DA players are buying minis to build new armies just in preparation for what might come in their new Codex. Sure, it'll die off in a while, everything from furbies to digimon to Warhammer will sell good, peak and die. And when GW finally gets the urge to resurrect it, it comes back.

 

And the diversity is as dead as it ever was. Has been since 3.5 was born and will stay dead long after. Diversity is something only we can create. The book can only do so much and being diverse is not it. It is when we stop being different from each other that diversity dies. You are unique. Just like everyone else. Difference is, you are unique. Cookie to the person who figures that one out.

[Cpt_Reaper]

Ok...I am kind of over this. We waited years for a codex that fixed all the mistakes the old one created. So now we get a new codex and...we call it broken? It hasn't even been out very long. Why must we concentrate on the things we don't feel work to the exclusion of all else? It is this mentality that scares me away from the local gaming joint because I was told "you now worship Tzeentch". When asked why the reply was anything else isn't worth it. I am damned well certain every unit our the codex is worth it, people just don't want to think anymore. It's all copy/paste WAAC lists that play themselves...what happened to creating tactics, using models you liked to beat the enemy? I see it in army list reviews all too often. Person X states they want their army reviewed but don't wish to (or are unable to) change what models are in it and ask for tactical advice, only for person Y to demand they scrap the list and use "this list I copied from Mr WAAC over on Winnerz.com or something..."

 

/rant

[UglyWretch]

I hate Cheese lists! I play Chaos and I use the models I like. In fact, I do that with my Orks and Necrons too. Granted, I don't win very often, but at least if I do win it's down to skill (or luck!). I've gotten to the point where I don't even use named HQs anymore. Well, unless I'm playing BAs with Mephiston. Then Abaddon makes an appearance. But I can't work out if they've nerfed him now or not. :s

But my point being: use what you like, rather than just the models with the best rules. That's what I was worried about with the introduction of Cultists: squads of 30 with loads of Plasmaguns taking over every Chaos MARINES army. I think it's gonna be bad enough with all the players touching themselves over Plague Zombies. Oh well. Glad Plague Marines got their Plague Knives back.