Sception Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 I'm not sure I'd say rushed, exactly... but there are certainly units and rules that seem like they weren't actually played as written, or if they were that the feedback from those players was not adequately considered. I'd get into it more, but this isn't the complaint thread, and honestly anything I might mention specifically has already been discussed to death there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Well the out of a blue change to NM points that the units , that may have not been given new models , may have not been as well though over/what ever GW calls testing right now. Not that that it matters much to the anyone save for the few EC players out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzen Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 I feel a lot of the belly-aching about our current codex comes from a very nuanced view of how each individual wants their army to be. For example legion armies, with legion terminators. And I think in the interests of game balance they did attempt to cater to those people by allowing marks and such. They aren't Berserker terminators, nor are they Thousand Sons terminators but with a little imagination they can be. Honestly the stuff that feels rushed is things like the lack of options for Dark Apostles and the evil Tech priest. Underwhelming goes without saying, but their lack of any real impact on the codex leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. This is true about every codex though, they all seem to have units in them which seem to lack any kind of "intelligent design". A living rules system would really help with this for every army book. Not just Chaos. Personally I am quite happy to use my Dark Apostle miniature as my Chaos Sorcerer. Job done. I disagree with you Excessus when it comes to legion rules. I think it could be done, but it would be a very large undertaking and would need to have a complete re-write of the whole codex. Everything would have to be re-thought out. The problem with Chaos armies at the moment is they are very Schizophrenic. Chaos Just have too many different kinds of armies it is trying to be.I think a lot of things we have come to love about the current incarnation of CSM's would have to be dropped or drastically changed to accommodate legions. Going back to the subject at hand though, I share your view on our codex. It isn't so much that the codex itself is poor, it is just poor in comparison to what the fast-paced codex creep has done to it. We are really only likely to see rules for things like the Dreadclaw when they eventually bring the model out. Would be really great to get them as an option If they did implement a living rules system, I think we would see less tournament rules and bans such as the ones in the OP. But I do not think it would eliminate them altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Might see that Dreadclaw this year, something with them busy working on it (this was in a White Dwarf, but not sure what one). Although i wont be having any plans when it comes to getting models from GW, they still havent given some love to a certain Fantastic Knight army that to me is pretty iconic for the genre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaeron Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Realistically, the only thing they'd ban is the thing that makes us most competitive due to its effectiveness - I'm optimistic they'll simply leave it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 I'm keeping hopes low for the new dreadclaw. The previous one was nigh unusable due to high cost, forced deep strike, lack of any scatter or mishap mitigation, and taking up a separate force org slot. The new one is supposed to be bigger and carry more models, which makes it all the less likely that it would be a dedicated transport. It will probably have all the same problems only worse due toa higherpoints cost for the privilege of delivering even larger, more expensive units directly into the mishap table's hungry maw. Maybe it will be better than that, but if it is I'll just let myself be pleasantly surprised, rather than getting worked up now and risk being bitter and disappointed later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excessus Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Yes Tzen, but not as it is in the loyalist codex (as I said). Their version is forcing a single legion on the whole army. That wouldn't work with a chaos army since we have bits and pieces of stuff from all over. Yes, you could have a warband containing just a single legion, but you should also be able to have a warband that consists of multiple legions at the same time. Thus why I on't think that the SM model works for us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 To be honest what we realy need is mind wipe for anyone who seen 3.5 and desctruction of all 3.5 copies. Then it wouldn't look that bad . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excessus Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Make that the 2nd ed codex too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Ambroz Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Now now, Dark Angels aren't in all that much better a position than we are, at least when it comes to winning. I mean, yeah, I'm envious of their more coherent codex, their multiple builds deliberately designed to function rather than our mishmash of disconnected units and rules with little to no synergy - but things are hardly rosey for Dark Angels these days, if the tournament standings are anything to go on, and once again they got a new, somewhat conservative book shortly before generic space marines roll out with something much more exciting. I don't think directing our bitterness as the players of other factions, the dark angels faction in particular, is at all fair. That wasn't directing bitterness, simply stating that they're better off than we are, especially when we (CSM) fight deathwing like that. That and they're a far more coherent codex which I am envious of and wish we had too. A "living" set of rules would be interesting, but I doubt it would ever come to pass. I'd be very happy if it did though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 yeah I know what you mean . Dude picks RW[viable or not] he knows that this units are his troops , this is his plasma dakka transport , this vehicle buffs his jink etc. Other picks DW and this is his troops , this units are his melee support , his transports etc or he can mix . We can only mix [not bad per se , if all people would realy want to play HCF] , because if I take PMs as my troops what else do I take besides helldrakes? Now I know I could take 4 drakes and 8 units of pms and that is more then enough for 1999pts , but what if I wanted to play something less spamy ? OR worse what if am one of those crazy AL/WB/NL dudes and all those 3 armies build the same lists ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveNYC Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Didn't someone here run Daemons/CSM that used the Grimoire? Just not with Fateweaver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyl- Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Eh, if we had living rules the loyalist would ever be the one to profit, and we would still complain. Loyalists can ally so heavily that almost every change would pertain to them. We would have a much narrower scope.. and the tyranid players wouldn't bother subscribing. We already have FAQs once in a while. I am all for better balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucial Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Subscribing to living rule updates. Ive seen the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboarder Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 To be honest what we realy need is mind wipe for anyone who seen 3.5 and desctruction of all 3.5 copies. Then it wouldn't look that bad . You don't need to have read 3.5 to ask why the a cult trooper gets less blessed when they are promoted or why their are no cult terminators. That was a key flaw in our FIRST 3rd ed book, one which GW fixed back then with IA...why they decided to ignore 10 or so years of rules development I will never understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warsmith Aznable Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Subscribing to living rule updates. Ive seen the future... What would this be like? Instead of buying a book for $50 and getting free FAQs, we just pay $50 a year to get updates to our iPad app? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzen Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Quarterly updates with a person as the figure head of the updates. Someone the community can interact with. They will balance the rules in general as best they can with input from the community etc. Codex creep will be taken into account, points will change for different unit types based on the current codex books and the most recently released codex books. Basically a living rules set is a much more comprehensive version of the current FAQ system we have now. The person in charge of it will basically do it as a full time job. Whilst every three months the big changes will happen if needed, that person will be able to tweek the codex books and the rules in them as and when they need to. For example clarifying rather ambiguous rules entries in new codex books etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.