Codex: Space Marines | Multi-Part Intercessor & Vanguard Vet Teaser | Legends Culling

[Zebukkuk]

13 hours ago, Griefbringer said:

Perhaps revisiting for the classic "Grav Attack Tank" would better fit the current space marine style:

 

http://www.solegends.com/citrt2/rtxxgravtank/index.htm

 

The original model and RT-era rules appeared in WD 95. Updated rules for 3rd edition can be found in WD 252. It may not have had much coverage since then.

Ummm..... You know that was never a kit, right? It's a men's deodorant container with some parts from Zoids toys tacked on.  

That sleek Dark Age of Technology style would fit much better visually with the Leagues of Votann.

 

Anyway..... It looks like all we get for models with the new Codex is the Intercessors, the Vanguard Veterans, the new Outriders, and the Outrider Captain. Has anyone heard anything additional?

[Griefbringer]

24 minutes ago, Zebukkuk said:

Ummm..... You know that was never a kit, right? It's a men's deodorant container with some parts from Zoids toys tacked on.  

That sleek Dark Age of Technology style would fit much better visually with the Leagues of Votann.

 

After some thought, I also came to the view that it is a bit too sleek for the current marine range. It would fit better with the Custodes style, though they already have a number of sleek grav tanks in their product line-up.

 

And while the original Grav Attack Tank was based on a deodorant bottle, a couple of plastic spoons and bits box contents, the original instructions do not mention Zoids components. You may be incidentally thinking of the Ground-hog tunneller that was also covered in the same article, which was a rather straightforward conversion of a Slitherzoid toy (and looked nowhere as cool as the Grav Attack).

 

Just because it was not a kit in the first place, does not mean that it cannot be turned into one in future. Imagine a nice cardboard box containing an official WH40K 40th anniversary deodorant container, a plastic sprue containing parts for a turret you can attach to it, a flight stand, transfer sheet and a booklet with assembly instructions.

[Kallas]

47 minutes ago, Griefbringer said:

Imagine a nice cardboard box containing an official WH40K 40th anniversary deodorant container, a plastic sprue containing parts for a turret you can attach to it, a flight stand, transfer sheet and a booklet with assembly instructions.

That'll be £200 please.

[Antarius]

3 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

A handful of people over the weekend were reporting finding books with the codes taken from inside stores or buying them, taking them home and the code is registered.

 

So it's not a none-problem even if not typical.

I have the Ork codex and I quite simply refuse to believe that it would be easier to steal the code from that than from one of the previous codexes, without being noticed (I assume that last part is the thing we're comparing here, as obviously everything can be stolen).

Compared to my Death Guard Codex, where one would have to
1)remove the shrinkwrap and
2) open the codex and
3)write down/take a picture of the code,

To steal the Ork Codex code, one would have to
1) remove the codex from its slipcase
2) open the codex
3) fold out the last page
4) Scratch off the scratchable stuff to see the code
3) write down/take a picture of the code
5) refold the last page
6) replace the codex in its slipcase

I simply can't see how the latter is supposed to be easier to do unnoticed. Plus, if someone does it, you can easily avoid buying a codex with a used code by checking it in-store at the counter, as the code will obviously be scratched.

I also kinda wonder why someone wouldn't steal a character model or something similar instead, which is a) easier to sneak out of the store  b) more valuable and c) not easily invalidated (I would assume a code can be deactivated if it's reported as stolen), but that's neither here nor there.

Still, assuming it is an actual problem, there's nothing inherently unshrink-wrappable about the new codex format, so it's not exactly an unsolveable problem.

Edited Wednesday at 11:02 AM by Antarius

[Mogger351]

4 minutes ago, Antarius said:

I have the Ork codex and I quite simply refuse to believe that it would be easier to steal the code from that than from one of the previous codexes, without being noticed (I assume that last part is the thing we're comparing here, as obviously everything can be stolen). I also kinda wonder why someone wouldn't steal a character model or something similar instead, which is a) easier to sneak out of the store  b) more valuable and c) not easily invalidated (I would assume a code can be deactivated if it's reported as stolen), but that's neither here nor there.

Still, assuming it is an actual problem, there's nothing inherently unshrink-wrappable about the new codex format, so it's not exactly an unsolveable problem.

Its more if you pick up a book to buy and it's sealed, you know it's safe. Less so with the slip case.

 

Ont top of that the moral/risk proposition to taking a snip of a code when "I'll never buy a codex" is very common in this space, vs physically stealing a boxed product is quite large.

 

There's a lot of people who used or buy knock off cd keys or fake windows registration and so on, but they aren't the same people comfy with shoplifting.

[de Selby]

Taking the code has the crucial aspect that it deprives someone else of use. Either GW can't sell the book they manufactured or they do and the buyer can't use it properly. This is quite a different state of affairs to ordinary copyright infringement. It also seems to require a similar level of in-person effort and subterfuge to just shoplifting the whole book (although probably harder to prosecute).

[Evil Eye]

Gee golly, almost like forced app integration for an analogue medium (tabletop wargaming) is an absolutely awful idea.

[Antarius]

2 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Gee golly, almost like forced app integration for an analogue medium (tabletop wargaming) is an absolutely awful idea.

Now this I agree with.

[Antarius]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

Its more if you pick up a book to buy and it's sealed, you know it's safe. Less so with the slip case.

 

Ont top of that the moral/risk proposition to taking a snip of a code when "I'll never buy a codex" is very common in this space, vs physically stealing a boxed product is quite large.

 

There's a lot of people who used or buy knock off cd keys or fake windows registration and so on, but they aren't the same people comfy with shoplifting.

But again, the code has to be scratched in this new codex format, so it’s 100% visible if it’s been done.

 

I’m not saying this to be argumentative or because I’m particularly invested in the new codex format being better. It’s just that in this particular instance it seems inarguably easier to see, whether the code has been tampered with or not.

 

I guess you’re right that there’s probably a mental thing there, where some people might not see it as stealing (but it is, of course, actually worse than stealing because, assuming your act is not discovered you’re actively hurting another hobbyist).

[Sete]

Wish we could buy digital codex. 

If ya want to make me use an app for List Building it thats the bare minimum.

Edited Wednesday at 08:13 PM by Sete

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Antarius said:

But again, the code has to be scratched in this new codex format, so it’s 100% visible if it’s been done.

 

I’m not saying this to be argumentative or because I’m particularly invested in the new codex format being better. It’s just that in this particular instance it seems inarguably easier to see, whether the code has been tampered with or not.

 

I guess you’re right that there’s probably a mental thing there, where some people might not see it as stealing (but it is, of course, actually worse than stealing because, assuming your act is not discovered you’re actively hurting another hobbyist).

 

I think Mogger might be realizing that they hang out with knaves and curs, as I have no friends or anyone I know who feels its okay to steal the code at the back of a codex.  Utilize some grey area 3rd party websites sure, but I don't know anyone who is okay with screwing over another normal person like that. 

[Orange Knight]

I would expect people that steal to also cheat.

I wouldn't play against them...

 

 

 

[Mogger351]

34 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

I think Mogger might be realizing that they hang out with knaves and curs, as I have no friends or anyone I know who feels its okay to steal the code at the back of a codex.  Utilize some grey area 3rd party websites sure, but I don't know anyone who is okay with screwing over another normal person like that. 

At no point did I say I personally know anyone who does that? I mean, as I say, there's enough online voices who openly promote pirating, so there's definitely some on here that would maybe.

 

There's also a lot of people who won't see it as screwing over another person, as per the above comments "GW will just give them a replacement", so it's only the corporation that loses out really is the rationale.

 

24 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I would expect people that steal to also cheat.

I wouldn't play against them...

 

 

 

 

Do you expect people who 3d print 40k unit scans will cheat by extension?

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

Gee golly, almost like forced app integration for an analogue medium (tabletop wargaming) is an absolutely awful idea.

Or they should stop trying to sell rules ro begin with and go 100% digital. 

[jaxom]

50 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

Do you expect people who 3d print 40k unit scans will cheat by extension?

False equivalency. More accurate would be if one expects people who take decal sheets or a sprue out of a kit to cheat.

Edited Wednesday at 03:37 PM by jaxom
Trimmed to quote to relevant text

[Mogger351]

18 minutes ago, jaxom said:

False equivalency. More accurate would be if one expects people who take decal sheets or a sprue out of a kit to cheat.

Why is it a false equivalent? Theft is theft, one just has more steps involved.

[Mazer Rackham]

6 hours ago, Kallas said:

That'll be £200 please.

 

Not today, James Workshop! 

 

Yarr! 

 

[Evil Eye]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

Or they should stop trying to sell rules ro begin with and go 100% digital. 

That's literally the opposite of the solution.

 

GW needs to spend longer writing, checking and playtesting the rules, then barring errata or FAQs, once the rules are out, they're final. Your Codex doesn't suddenly become obsolete the next week- no patches or rewrites or whatever. It's just done.

 

"But what if they didn't perfectly balance it for tournament play and they need to take the data from tourneys to-" I don't care. Tournament players are going to break the game no matter what, and should not be the main intended audience for the game. Catering to tournament play has only made the game immeasurably worse. Tournaments setting up their own internal restrictions or whatever is an acceptable cost for not forcing digitization onto the game.

[phandaal]

8 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

 

This is actually awesome. 'Scuse me, gonna check the purple site.

 

Oh snap, there's an APC too??

 

[SvenIronhand]

26 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

GW needs to spend longer writing, checking and playtesting the rules, then barring errata or FAQs, once the rules are out, they're final. Your Codex doesn't suddenly become obsolete the next week- no patches or rewrites or whatever. It's just done.

 

Errata is a patch or rewrite, though?

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

Why is it a false equivalent? Theft is theft, one just has more steps involved.

The impacted parties are different. Case set 1: Games Workshop or a retail store doesn’t gain money from a sale. Case set 2: Assuming Games Workshop or a retail store do not take the lose and replace the partial product with full product, it is the customer who does not gain the full product.

[Mogger351]

29 minutes ago, jaxom said:

The impacted parties are different. Case set 1: Games Workshop or a retail store doesn’t gain money from a sale. Case set 2: Assuming Games Workshop or a retail store do not take the lose and replace the partial product with full product, it is the customer who does not gain the full product.

The premises was that someone who steals is more likely to cheat at the game. Does it matter how they steal to come to that conclusion?

[Evil Eye]

44 minutes ago, SvenIronhand said:

Errata is a patch or rewrite, though?

Errata usually refers to correcting very minor errors or clarifying unclear parts, rather than outright rewriting rules or points values for the sake of balance. Typos, missing content or actual mistakes are for errata, not for changing rules that already function perfectly well as intended.

[jaxom]

24 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

The premises was that someone who steals is more likely to cheat at the game. Does it matter how they steal to come to that conclusion?

Yes.

[SvenIronhand]

23 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Errata usually refers to correcting very minor errors or clarifying unclear parts, rather than outright rewriting rules or points values for the sake of balance. Typos, missing content or actual mistakes are for errata, not for changing rules that already function perfectly well as intended.

See, where I think we differ is whether or not post-codex balance changes that could conceivably affect a non-competitive pick-up game are acceptable or no.