A scary codex trend.

[Corrupted]

Anyone else notice that all the new 7th edition codexes lack the ability to move units around the FOC? I'm pretty sure its an attempt to push unbound armies. Orks, DE, Grey Knights, all lost their 'makes unit X troops' rules. This might be irrelevant, as it would require the Dark Angels to get a new codex in 7th edition, which probably wont happen. But given GWs propensity for slapping around the Sons of the Loin I'm a bit concerned.  

[Kingleir]

FOC shenanigans is kind of a DA thing

 

If they change it, I see it going 1 of 2 ways:

 

1. Deathwing terminators and ravenwing bike squads become troops permanently.

 

2. Formations for deathwing and ravenwing, and a detachment for mixed wing. All that give Objective secured to DWT and RWB.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I see them making the opportunity to sell us more than one book, that seems to be their latest money making scheme. Yes, I am concerned.

[ElectricPaladin]

I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. The whole point of Unbound is to represent various unusual situations on the battlefield. Do you want to play out a battle like that one where a chapter's dreadnoughts had to defend the monastery when it was attacked while the rest of the chapter was away? Awesome. Go ahead!

 

The idea, I think, is that getting Objective Secured is meant to represent an organized, formal military's superior ability to capitalize on tactical objectives.

 

And you know what? That's fine. So maybe in the future your enormous blob of deathwing terminators won't be as good at holding objectives. So what? They aren't there to hold objectives - they're there to kill the Fallen! It won't actually stop you from playing them - it'll just force you to play them in a different way.

[Knight of the Raven]

It's not the same codex, but I'll be probably a little sad if I'm not able to make bikes troops anymore.

[Corrupted]

I just think it would be annoying to get a codex and have to wait for a supplement or data slate for Ravenwing and Deathwing. 

[durdle-durdle]

I'd expect two detachments in the main rulebook. The first is like the space wolves that opens elite slots, and gives death wing assault. The second opens fa slots and gives bikes scouts. Then in the supplement, a formation that gives a few more special rules if you take both death wing and rave wing.

[shabbadoo]

RW and DW specific forces will likley become Special Formations in the future.  You can always run things Unbound though, which is the only way one can run every type of RW unit without using multiple detachments.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

It's something that doesnt take away my sleep because it's still years in the future and trends end abruptly with GW.

[Master Avoghai]

Anyone else notice that all the new 7th edition codexes lack the ability to move units around the FOC? I'm pretty sure its an attempt to push unbound armies. Orks, DE, Grey Knights, all lost their 'makes unit X troops' rules. This might be irrelevant, as it would require the Dark Angels to get a new codex in 7th edition, which probably wont happen. But given GWs propensity for slapping around the Sons of the Loin I'm a bit concerned.

 

Could you explain me what it brought to turn nobz on bikes into troops? Normal bikes I would understand (and they already are) but nobz... So it's normal they gave up with that.

 

DE? They have a special codex that turns the Elite compulsory so they don't need more troops.

 

Grey Knight? They have termis and DSing PA in troops, what would you like them to turn into troops? Paladins? Come on! There must be a handful of paladins in the whole chapter, and can they constitute the back bone of the army?

 

Fact is, unlocking troops is not something useful, necessary or representative of the armies that were released. That's the first reason.

Now I can imagine that GW may release 2 new FOC, one with 8 ELITE (2 compulsory) to play the DW and one with 8 FA (2 compulsory) to play the RW.

If so, would it be REALLY a problem?

[SnakeChisler]

Stripping Nobz out of troops basically nerfed my mates lists to such an extent when he costed up reworking his Ork force and what he'd need he gave up and started another army.

 

For anyone not running huge chunks of Boyz the codex is a complete disaster with the 2 HQ restriction then putting painboyz in there coupled with the stupid leadership system making cybork into 6+ the list is pretty endless

[knife&fork]

 

If so, would it be REALLY a problem?

 

 

Only when it means buying a separate supplement or dataslate to essentially replace what used to be one sentence in the regular codex.  

[Master Avoghai]

Stripping Nobz out of troops basically nerfed my mates lists to such an extent when he costed up reworking his Ork force and what he'd need he gave up and started another army.

 

For anyone not running huge chunks of Boyz the codex is a complete disaster with the 2 HQ restriction then putting painboyz in there coupled with the stupid leadership system making cybork into 6+ the list is pretty endless

Well 1st of, if you NEED the ork nobz as troops to re balance the list, then the problem doesn't come from the removal of the bikes nobz, it comes from the rest of the list.

 

I'm aware that it causes some troubles to ork players but the problem was to introduce such unlocking at the very start. What I'm saying is that there's no fluff reason to justify it.

 

As for the supplement... Who will still buy supplement in the 5 next years?

[Bryan Blaire]

The DA Codex has no need to make DW or RW into Troops either. Zip, zero, zilch. It's a gimmick that can be done via rules in multiple ways, but it doesn't represent the "standard" force deployment for the Dark Angels.

 

We had a similar discussion here.

 

There is no reason to be concerned, as all it takes is an alternate Detachment to make a viable army again. No need to use Unbound.

 

It's funny that people had been asking for options for so long, but now that we are getting them (Unbound, alternate FOCs, campaigns, supplements and alternate options for armies, new units getting added without New Codexes, etc.), people are complaining about their presence. Just more proof that the 40K population will never be satisfied.

[knife&fork]

 Just more proof that the 40K population will never be satisfied.

 

That's a given, because the 40k population is not a monolithic hive mind. I would also argue that just about no one asked for the current state of affairs. It was more in the lines of  "please gives us somewhat balanced codexes and updates more than every other edition".

[Bryan Blaire]

People wanted "options", not just bland single Codexes. Honestly, the only thing wrong with the "current state of affairs" is that not everyone can afford the price of multiple hard backs, and really they don't need to - just buy the stuff you actually need to play. There has been a lot of discussion on expanding the Successor Unforgiven here I this forum (so I can't speak for other forums), but that stuff was never going to be free information. If it involved GW developing new rules (or producing anything, really), it was always going to be something you had to pay for.

[knife&fork]

By the amount of people leaving the hobby it's safe to say that this isn't the state of affairs the majority wished for. It's not just buying the stuff that's off-putting, it's the lack of consistency, multitude of sources (digital or physical it's still a bother) and lack of balance. Who asked for that? 

 

Being 'free' or not doesn't even factor into it since anyone who wants it easily can get everything without giving GW a penny. 

 

Changes will never please everyone at the same time but there's a difference between that and sweeping generalization like 'everyone will just complain no matter what' which just isn't true. 

[Corrupted]

 

Anyone else notice that all the new 7th edition codexes lack the ability to move units around the FOC? I'm pretty sure its an attempt to push unbound armies. Orks, DE, Grey Knights, all lost their 'makes unit X troops' rules. This might be irrelevant, as it would require the Dark Angels to get a new codex in 7th edition, which probably wont happen. But given GWs propensity for slapping around the Sons of the Loin I'm a bit concerned.

Could you explain me what it brought to turn nobz on bikes into troops? Normal bikes I would understand (and they already are) but nobz... So it's normal they gave up with that.

 

DE? They have a special codex that turns the Elite compulsory so they don't need more troops.

 

Grey Knight? They have termis and DSing PA in troops, what would you like them to turn into troops? Paladins? Come on! There must be a handful of paladins in the whole chapter, and can they constitute the back bone of the army?

 

Fact is, unlocking troops is not something useful, necessary or representative of the armies that were released. That's the first reason.

Now I can imagine that GW may release 2 new FOC, one with 8 ELITE (2 compulsory) to play the DW and one with 8 FA (2 compulsory) to play the RW.

If so, would it be REALLY a problem?

 

 

It could be a problem depending on how the execute it. I personally like having objective secured on more than tac marines and scouts, because of that I find unlocking troops to be quite useful.

[daveNYC]

But given GWs propensity for slapping around the Sons of the Loin I'm a bit concerned.  

 

18 posts and nobody is mentioning the best typo ever?

[ElectricPaladin]

 

But given GWs propensity for slapping around the Sons of the Loin I'm a bit concerned.  

 

18 posts and nobody is mentioning the best typo ever?

 

But really, aren't we all sons of the loin?

[Teetengee]

By the amount of people leaving the hobby it's safe to say that this isn't the state of affairs the majority wished for. It's not just buying the stuff that's off-putting, it's the lack of consistency, multitude of sources (digital or physical it's still a bother) and lack of balance. Who asked for that? 

 

Being 'free' or not doesn't even factor into it since anyone who wants it easily can get everything without giving GW a penny. 

 

Changes will never please everyone at the same time but there's a difference between that and sweeping generalization like 'everyone will just complain no matter what' which just isn't true. 

I don't know if it is just my area, but I have seen an influx of 40k players recently.

[Bryan Blaire]

 

 

By the amount of people leaving the hobby it's safe to say that this isn't the state of affairs the majority wished for. It's not just buying the stuff that's off-putting, it's the lack of consistency, multitude of sources (digital or physical it's still a bother) and lack of balance. Who asked for that? 

 

Being 'free' or not doesn't even factor into it since anyone who wants it easily can get everything without giving GW a penny. 

 

Changes will never please everyone at the same time but there's a difference between that and sweeping generalization like 'everyone will just complain no matter what' which just isn't true.

 

I don't know if it is just my area, but I have seen an influx of 40k players recently.

Agreed Teetengee, I'd have to see some actual factual numbers and some statistics before I'd agree that there are an "amount of people leaving the hobby" that represent what the "majority" of people wished for. If the argument to dismiss a "sweeping generalization" is another sweeping generalization with no facts to back it, then we have to apply equal validity to both.

 

My FLGS seems to be doing very steady, if not better, 40K business and Saturday tourneys than they did previous in 5th or 6th, and those playing have changed up armies as well as the power levels of armies has changed (so the store stays in business and so does GW). Yeah, people complain about derpy models and derpy rules, but everyone still seems to be having fun and generally seem to enjoy the added options of the supplements and many have embraced the latest zany models and rules added with WD (and the rules thing is something people have been requesting return for a while). There's even a new FLGS open near me that seems to have a very wide selection of 40K products and a regular league, and I'm hoping very much to have time to get in and play there.

 

I get the issue with lack of consistency, that's something that gets dealt with a lot (heck, I'm dealing with it in my professional work environment as well), but 40K hasn't been super consistent ever really that I can recall. The closest for Marines I can remember was back in the "Supplement Codex" days of 3rd Edition, and even then, there was disparity.

 

As far as who asked for it... Well, I did, for one, and still will. I love all the different options, campaign settings, variant rules and formations/detachments and the like. They are great and I hope we see a lot more. They have added a lot of fun and flavor to the game for me. I'd actually be really sad if they went away.

 

Would I like them to be new balanced? Sure. Consistent too. But I also look at the history of this game and realize that all of that has always been a constantly shifting target, and so I'm not nonplussed about it all.

[SvenONE]

GW is probably licking their chops over our eventual next codex, not one but two potential supplement. Certainly there will be a DW one and perhaps a RW one also. All part of the Inner Inner Circle Limited Edition version im sure. Dont worry, if it sells out you can get the regular Inner Circle Edition.

 

I think this is the reason we're still one of the only codices of our generation that doesnt have a supplement yet.

 

Thing is though unless they tighten up these rules I'm probably done with the first. Been having to much fun with the new DE book.

[Kabbala]

 

I don't know if it is just my area, but I have seen an influx of 40k players recently.

 

Me too. I run a group with a fairly consistently growing population of players (42 currently). About half started during 5th, the others stopped playing between 4-5th and started back up when 6th hit. I've only had 2 members quit since 6th was released.

[knife&fork]

 I don't know if it is just my area, but I have seen an influx of 40k players recently.

Agreed Teetengee, I'd have to see some actual factual numbers and some statistics before I'd agree that there are an "amount of people leaving the hobby" that represent what the "majority" of people wished for. If the argument to dismiss a "sweeping generalization" is another sweeping generalization with no facts to back it, then we have to apply equal validity to both.

 

 

How about GWs own financial reports? Without resorting to anecdotal evidence like the state of our local communities it's the best numbers we have.

 

Our gaming club also had an influx of players recently. We've lost some 40k veterans and the WHFB  player base has shriveled up to less than a handful of active players. Interestingly enough what drove the veteran players away (to other game systems) wasn't the cost, it was the pace and width of new releases. Staying on top of everything became too time consuming and so they left to play WM, FoW, X-wing or other such games. Previously a lot of these would fall back to the specialist games but now that there's zero support for games like epic, blood bowl and battle-fleet gothic they instead get their fix with the competitors.