PDA

View Full Version : Scrap all codexes.



Lion El Jason
26-07-2008, 00:39
GW scrapped all codexes for 40k between 2nd and 3rd editions, they basically started again from the ground up and re-wrote the game. People were quite forgiving, even those of us who did buy all those books. This was also done in fantasy a few times too, 3rd -> 4th editions was a big change and basically thats when the "Codex" army book system they still use was invented. After a time they did the same thing again for Fantasy, 5th -> 6th editions, all army books were scrapped. Now the changes to the game between 5th to 6th werent a total re-write like 40k had, more tidying up and just re doing the magic phase.

It may be a little early, but I suggest that 6th edition 40k does the same thing. I really appreciate the new 5th edition rules, I think they are a huge improvement in all the little tweaks that were made. But I think GW could do much better if they scrapped all the codexes and started over.

Warhammer will, in my oppinion, never need this again. the game is pretty much finished and they could concentrate on army books then whole new armies maybe?
But I think that 40k isn't quite as finished as Warhammer. By invalidating all the codexes and releasing 40k as a new fresh start they could fix all those little issues they haven't been able to change due to the codexes all having them in.
3rd ed was a hugely improved game from 2nd edition, if they could improve 5th -> 6th even half as much I think we'll thank them for it and have a much improved game that, like warhammer, would never need re-booting again.

I'd love to see what you all think but please don't post specific problems. I've tried to avoid them here since any that are posted are guaranteed to drag the thread off topic.

So what would say to scrapping all the codexes?

kultz
26-07-2008, 00:58
Only if they do a good job.

This would be no small undertaking, as the impact on the players would be quite big.

If GW ever wants to do this, then I would say that they should take their time. It should be done right, once and no more.
If they do try a revamp, then this time, they should be much better prepared than ever before, and do a much better job than before, since they've got more experience now.

Revamp is potentially a good idea, but only if they improve everything so much that we don't mind the costs and inconvenience of re-adjustment.

If they don't do a good job, then they risk pissing off the entire fanbase.

TheLionReturns
26-07-2008, 01:25
I certainly agree with you that WFB is pretty much a finished product, and I believe that 40K is a long way from this state.

With 40K I actually feel that the move from 2nd edition to 3rd was a massive step in the wrong direction and not an improvement at all. Don't get me wrong 2nd edition was a very flawed game, but I feel 3rd edition simply removed the fun and replaced it with a very dull game.

So far I am quite happy with 5th edition but would personally prefer a complete change of tack. I'd like 40K to be a proper skirmish game with complexity and fewer models on the table. Movement values, grenades, shooting modifiers, proper psychology, suppressive fire etc would all be nice additions as well as abandoning the IGOUGO system for an initiative based one like epic. The thing is that such a change would require the scrapping of codexes as you suggest.

I am unsure if this will happen though. GW has changed 40K to sell more models. Just look at the size of a marine army in 2nd edition compared to today. If you want a lot of models on the table you need simpler rules with a level of abstraction in order to get the game to move quickly. 5th edition seems to work pretty well in this respect.

Back to the point I would have no problem with codexes being scrapped as long as current units did not become obsolete. A section with basic army lists in the rulebook to get players by until a codex was released would be fine by me. One point which would be essential for me is that Codex Space Marines would have to be done before other chapter specific codexes. I am a little bitter about Codex Dark Angels being a test run for codex space marines and being faced with the prospect that certain weapons are somehow different in the hands of a Dark Angels marine. It would be better if a standard for marine weaponry and stats was established and the the variations by chapter introduced subsequently.

Gensuke626
26-07-2008, 02:20
Yeah, GW would never run a skirmish level game as flagship, it just needs to sell too many models to stay afloat.

But the whole movement + Grenades and suppressive fire would be great for a skirmish game.

Like if they invented a whole new game that uses existing models, and then a few things that you'd "Need to buy" to play the game...They could call it, 40k Advanced Tactica or something...

weissengel86
26-07-2008, 02:42
i would support a total rewrite so long, as suggested before, they do a good job. The biggest problem i have is that d6 is not varied enough nor is the 1-10 stat system have enough variability to properly represent the models played.

Rombo Baak
26-07-2008, 03:29
I would support a new game that uses the same miniatures but is more complex. Something between Necromunda and 40K. With a bit of Inquisitor thrown in for good measure. I don't think regular 40K needs a big revamp, just better playtesting, better proofreading and faster revision of the codexes. Some codexes haven't been changed since 3rd edition!

Mr.terminatorbob
26-07-2008, 03:33
Theirs Epic 40k. According to an article in Firebase, its the game you want to play when you wanna walk away with a headache from tactical thinking. 40k is the game you play to blow things up.

Well, from what I remember anyways.

Christine
26-07-2008, 06:57
Of course the danger with a rewrite is that you do what happened with Epic and you end up killing the game you've tried to save. I remember when Epic was a core game and you saw it regulalrly being played, then epic got a revamp and suddenly no one was playing anymore. Even the attempt to revamp the revamp doesn't seem to have helped although I suspect an element of that is the frickin ridiculous prices which are being charged for epic infantry these days...

starlight
26-07-2008, 07:03
GW scrapped all codexes for 40k between 2nd and 3rd editions, they basically started again from the ground up and re-wrote the game. People were quite forgiving, even those of us who did buy all those books.

I pretty much stopped reading here....:p


Do you actually *remember* the wailing and gnashing of teeth that went on for *years* after the start of 3rd Ed?:eyebrows:

*That's* why GW won't do it again...:(


Personally, if it was done right (which I don't believe they have the capacity to do anymore) I would be okay with it, but sadly the gutting that the Studios have undergone makes this near (if not) impossible.:(

El'Flashman
26-07-2008, 07:21
I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest this and I can't see GW slitting their own throat when their head's (apparently) already down the toilet. I can only imagine that the un-silent minority who constantly Champion this kind of tosh are old embittered vets who still can't believe that we're not playing 2nd anymore. 40K is fine as it is but if you want more put more into it. GW practically invites you to create new scenarios, make up house rules and play campaigns. If you are so unhappy with the core product stop relying on them to change things for you and do it yourself.

rodmillard
26-07-2008, 07:52
I have to agree that I don't think they should abolish the existing codexes again - quite apart from anything else it would be marketting suicide, particularly when they get near to the end of the release cycle (when they made the transition from 2nd to 3rd fewer people had internet access, and codices were a lot smaller and cheaper - can you really see people spending 12 on a book they no from forums like this is going to be invalid in 6 months time when the new core rules come out?!). Picking an example out of thin air - not saying they should - if they want to revise the FOC system it can be simply fixed with an FAQ for each codex stating what each unit now counts as - no need to dump existing material.

I would much rather see them concentrate on getting all the armies released under the same rule set (starting with the ones most in need of an update), and bringing out expansions which can be used (or not) to add tactical depth. Combat Patrol and Kill Team both have the scope for skirmish level, mission driven expansions using existing models, and with an apocalypse style book covering one (or both) of these GW could do a lot to bring disaffected vets back into the game.

march10k
26-07-2008, 07:57
....or go play the finished fantasy product.

starlight
26-07-2008, 07:58
Actually the 2nd Ed ones were quite a bit larger than the 3rd Ed replacements, which was another of the problems. Lots of kids getting into the game, but very little background to explain why you should do things a certain way. The transition from 2nd to 3rd was one of the biggest blunders in GW's history for *many* reasons. :(


Sadly, the same guys are still in charge, aside from the one scapegoat who got shafted out shortly after the start of 3rd Ed, when it didn't meet expectations...

Jo Bennett
26-07-2008, 08:02
@ rodmillard. Codices were smaller and cheaper? Buh? Second ed codices retailed at GBP15, even 12 years ago, and they were 100+ pages each, with new wargear cards and vehicle datafaxes.

Hellebore
26-07-2008, 08:16
Sadly, the same guys are still in charge, aside from the one scapegoat who got shafted out shortly after the start of 3rd Ed, when it didn't meet expectations...



Surely you aren't talking about Andy Chambers? He left after 4th ed.

I would like a rewrite of the game using a d10 because the d6 just doesn't do it properly.

I think the biggest change GW should make is splitting the rules from the background.

Say, have a booklet of nothing but rules for $15, the background for $10 and the two books at a combined price of $20. That way people would be more likely to buy both so that the background section is worth producing.

That way they can release updated rules without screwing the rest of the codex. They can even release additional background sections when new models are released so that the stuff doesn't get stale.

They don't even have to modify the basic rules much, just use D10s instead of D6s and add a unit activation system instead of IGOUGO.

Hellebore

rodmillard
26-07-2008, 08:22
@ rodmillard. Codices were smaller and cheaper? Buh? Second ed codices retailed at GBP15, even 12 years ago, and they were 100+ pages each, with new wargear cards and vehicle datafaxes.

My bad - I was thinking of the 32 page buckets of tripe they rushed out early in 3rd (which, if you do the maths, actually retailed for 12.5p per black and white page - it really ischeaper to photocopy them...)

IJW
26-07-2008, 08:25
They don't even have to modify the basic rules much, just use D10s instead of D6s and add a unit activation system instead of IGOUGO.

I've pointed this out before a few times, but no one ever seems to listen... ;)

Without changing the statlines, changing to d10s would do NOTHING as far as decreasing granularity is concerned.

Look through a few statlines. In the majority of armies, the vast majority of the different statlines is either 3 or 4. Some rare models hit 2 or 5, and even more rarely, 6. MCs and SCs sometimes go out of these ranges, but even then it's fairly rare.
That means, regardless of the die rolled, most tests are against only two different values.

Note - Wounds, Attacks & Leadership all work on a different scale, ignore them for now.

P.S. Hellebore- that's not directed at you personally, it's just for anyone who thinks changing dice without changing statlines would make any difference to 40k.


EDIT. Lion - to get more on-topic, you must be looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses if you think people were forgiving about all the 2nd ed codex book becoming obsolete. There were howls of outrage from every 40k player I knew.

Now, think of the (valid) complaints from Necron, WH, DH, DE & SW players at the moment about getting a new edition while still using 3rd ed army lists.
Now imagine that they are being told - 'No, you can't even use your old codex, here's a really thinned-down army list in 1-2 pages which doesn't include most of your special rules or any fluff, and you're going to have to wait while all the other armies get new books first. See you in 3-4 years'.

lanrak
26-07-2008, 09:05
Hi all.
I belive that you could get a much better game play for 40k with a complete re-write.

And I agree with IJW, just changing from a D6 to a D10, is NOT enough.
Infact I have played games that JUST use D6 and have far more diversity and tactical interchange than 40k.(Because they use intuative well defined rules and apropriate game mechanics.)

IF a new game system for 40k was developed properly.Not just hastily lashed together from half though out ideas.(3rd 4th and 5th ed...)

Then the new race specific stats organisations etc, could be written at the same time.(Just the rules and army lists.)

And the modeling/ painting guides and fluff could be released with the other ART WORK, the minatures.

If all ths studio are emotionaly driven and deeply involved with breathing life into a race for 40k....(they ARE great at this :D)
Then they are NOT capable of detached rational objectivity required to write a concise and well difened rules at the same time.
And to expect them to be is a bit harsh.IMO.

A complete re -write of 40k is necessary IMO.
The game has changed conciderably in the last 20 years.
The game mechanics have not.

Converesly WH has hardly changed at all, just minor tweeks , and altering the magic game mechanics.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Hellebore
26-07-2008, 09:05
I didn't say not to change the STATs, I said the basic rules.

The basic rules of 40k is comparing two numbers on a table and finding a result you need to roll on.

That wouldn't need to change. You could increase the variability between units more easily. A space marine could be S5, a catachan S4 and a cadian S3.

On a table with a d10 that would mean a space marine requires a 4+ to injure a T3 guardsman (starting with the 50% = strength vs toughness of 6+).

Even if you don't change the stats, S4 vs T3 on a d10 is a 5+ or a 60% chance of success. Compare that to 66.6666% using a D6 and it does change the odds.

Hellebore

IJW
26-07-2008, 09:11
I didn't say not to change the STATs, I said the basic rules.
OK, apologies for mis-reading your post!

marv335
26-07-2008, 09:21
GW said that they will never do the "scrap all the codecies" thing again as it was a total disaster.
They managed to **** off pretty much every fan of 40k in one fell swoop.

Marlow
26-07-2008, 09:36
So what would say to scrapping all the codexes?It is a nice idea, but I think they make too much money from the Codexes to get rid of them.

Yamabushi
26-07-2008, 10:53
I didn't say not to change the STATs, I said the basic rules.

I couldn't agree further. The basic rules need to be changed instead of removing all codicii. I'm making a ruleset using the best of 5th Ed, 2nd Ed and Epic, and using D12s... but thats for another thread.

Removing Codicii would never happen, IMO. GW would be making no business sense if it did so. A major overhaul would also not likely to be taking place anytime soon for reasons an astute poster mentioned. So basically we're stuck with what we have, and since they encourage us to make our own house rules and such...well, so be it then

Hellebore
26-07-2008, 10:58
In the end the core rule of 40k is a table that compares stat values and gives a number required to roll.

I actually think this is perhaps the best way to simulate interaction between two things because it says that for any given value the chance of accomplishing the task = X.

A d10 table of S vs T would look like this:



S/T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ - - - - -
2 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ - - - -
3 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ - - -
4 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ - -
5 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ -
6 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+
7 D 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+
8 D D 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+
9 D D D 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+
10 D D D D 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+




Hellebore

Reinnon
26-07-2008, 11:06
no, the change to 2nd to 3rd still gives me nightmares. I don't want to have to rely upon crappy army lists in the back of the rulebook thank you.

Whats all this talk of fantasy being the more "complete" game? In my experience fantasy is going through the same power creep (arguably on a much faster scale with high eles, vampires and daemons) then 40K, and the ruleset has just as many holes in (the sillyness of thier LoS rules for example).

I do like the idea of the d10 system, but tbh - the d6 system works to a degree that i can accept.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
26-07-2008, 11:11
With regards to this....

It certainly seems there will be no major rule changes ever again in 40k of Fantasy. The basic system itself is now set, and all we will see are periodic updates of the main rulebook to keep up with the released Codecies (for an example 3rd - 4th, with Rending etc going into the main book to give it a single definition).

As such, I would rather play with a slightly wonky Codex than no Codex at all whilst waiting for the update to my army.

Promethius
26-07-2008, 11:24
I really don't think it would happen, although I believe it would be a good idea. My main reason for being 99% sure that it's a no-goer is that GW rejected AC's major overhaul of 40k for 4th ed, which is probably the main reason he left and used his ideas to make the starship troopers game (which imo is far superior). GW are about profit, and scrapping codexes makes players hold off on purchases for that army until the new books are completed.

Chem-Dog
26-07-2008, 11:25
Do you actually *remember* the wailing and gnashing of teeth that went on for *years* after the start of 3rd Ed?:eyebrows:

And still even now, if we're honest.....



Personally, if it was done right (which I don't believe they have the capacity to do anymore) I would be okay with it, but sadly the gutting that the Studios have undergone makes this near (if not) impossible.:(


Actually the 2nd Ed ones were quite a bit larger than the 3rd Ed replacements, which was another of the problems. Lots of kids getting into the game, but very little background to explain why you should do things a certain way. The transition from 2nd to 3rd was one of the biggest blunders in GW's history for *many* reasons. :(

That lack of fluff in the early 40K Ed3 books was heinous and in my opinion even now, it's responsible for some of the most serious crimes against background, not least because fluff intimates an army thematic which rules may not accurately bring across. Sadly in the WD rundown of new 40K it's remarked that Gamers want bigger codexes, a bigger page count, how horribly wrong can you get such a simple concept?!


Sadly, the same guys are still in charge, aside from the one scapegoat who got shafted out shortly after the start of 3rd Ed, when it didn't meet expectations...

One can only hope this means that they are chastened made wise by their previous folly ;)



Look through a few statlines. In the majority of armies, the vast majority of the different statlines is either 3 or 4. Some rare models hit 2 or 5, and even more rarely, 6. MCs and SCs sometimes go out of these ranges, but even then it's fairly rare.
That means, regardless of the die rolled, most tests are against only two different values.

Even the exisiting tables could be stretched out a bit, Why can't you get a hand to hand hit on a 2 or a 6?


GW said that they will never do the "scrap all the codecies" thing again as it was a total disaster.
They managed to **** off pretty much every fan of 40k in one fell swoop.

The aftershocks still reverberate around places like this from time to time.


It is a nice idea, but I think they make too much money from the Codexes to get rid of them.

I think the OP's talking about dropping the current ones and re-doing them rather than just abandoning the concept altogether.


I don't think this kind of move is conscionable unless GW could actually get their act together and release get-by codexes of value or a complete range of codexes for existing armies in one go. Given the Company's apparent lack of constancy I certainly think it's an eventuality we don't want to entertain.

Bunnahabhain
26-07-2008, 12:25
I've said it before, 5th ed should have been released as version 4.5, with a revamped starter set, and a explicit statement that it's a large set of minor changes.

The major change would have been a set of tweaks to every codex, and the main rules, covering the typos,( yes terminators do have terminator armour), clarifying various things ( ie just how WBB works), and plain changing some things ( holo fields = re-roll, must take 2nd result, assualt cannons do not rend)

These would be available in store as a codex sized pamphlet for each book for free, or online as a PDF. If a new print run of the book is done, then these changes are incorporated, and the book marked as edition 4.5.

This would have fixed alot of the biggest problems with 4th ed, which were mainly codex related, rather than core rule related.

After that, any new codexs would be released as background in one book, rules in another, with a discount for buying both together. This is to prepare the ground for a real 5th Ed. It would take a long time to do,s o that's why version 4.5 has to be a fairly cheap and easy patch, that would hold for long enough to work on 5th Ed.

A real 5th ed would have a new system entirely. It would at least try to balance shooting and close combat, armoured vehicles and monstrous creatures, and elite and horde troops. It would use simple mechanisms, rather than the mish mash of rules trying to make up for a lack of initial variation- ie a move stat to replace run, fleet, slow and purposeful etc etc.

That's how you can scrap all codexs- by having a set up that allows you to replace them at once, more easily.

Chem-Dog
26-07-2008, 12:29
I've said it before, 5th ed should have been released as version 4.5, with a revamped starter set, and a explicit statement that it's a large set of minor changes.

Well, technically, it would have to be Version 3.75 as Edition 4 was ACTUALLY Version 3.5 (least that's what they said when it was released :D). And it's got a revamped starter set, I believe it's available to pre-order now.

Helicon_One
26-07-2008, 12:33
I think you're looking at this the wrong way around.

GW didn't scrap the 2nd Ed codexes because they really wanted to rewrite all the army lists from scratch, they scrapped them because the amount of changes in the core ruleset between 2nd and 3rd Ed meant they couldn't carry over the old lists in any viable way.

If the design studio thinks 40K needs a massive fundamental rewrite for 6th Ed (or 7th , or 8th...) which renders the current army lists unworkable, then we'll see all new codexes bought in. Until then its too much of a headache both for GW and us to do it.

Magos Explorator
26-07-2008, 15:23
A real 5th ed would have a new system entirely. It would at least try to balance shooting and close combat, armoured vehicles and monstrous creatures, and elite and horde troops. It would use simple mechanisms, rather than the mish mash of rules trying to make up for a lack of initial variation- ie a move stat to replace run, fleet, slow and purposeful etc etc.


This was called 2nd Edition. Which I'd still like to play again, if I could find others!

Lion El Jason
26-07-2008, 15:43
I'm not a 2nd edition advocate, 3rd ed was a huge improvement and the small tweaks since then make the game better and better, but imagine all the small fixes that simply could never be made while the have the keep the codexes policy...
I think they have pushed themselves into a place where they can't put out the best game they could make because they refuse to scrap the codexes and re start.

I'm not talking about huge changes, remember the change from 5th -> 6th edition warhammer. It was largely the same game and played much better for the reboot and tidying up. If they did that again to 5th->6th I think GW have the writers and talent to make 40k even better and address problems that they currently can't due to codexes relying on those problems.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
26-07-2008, 15:46
The Warhammer Army Books changed as a matter of army selection.

I used to play a lot of 4th and 5th Ed Warhammer, and still have my books. But when I look at them, I cannot remember how to make a force. But it was like 2nd Ed 40k, up to 25% Characters, at least 25% stuff, and up to 25% Hard stuff. The new books streamlined it, and need to be done due to the change in Magic Items and Magic.

Carlos
26-07-2008, 17:39
Now we have 80% of the 40K ruleset set in stone (M6, AP, Cover saves etc) I think its time GW started to move focus back to the narrative and shaft all tournament players out there (whom seem to make up the majority of the winging greybeards here on Warseer) into giving up powergaming in favour of a decent story of their army.

Instead of giving marks to players based on army selection and winning games howabout a tournament where players are rewarded on their fluff for their armies, the characterful nature of their troop selections and their adherency to the background material? The thing that seperates 40K from Chess is the imagination and the miniatures and I think its time GW started to play to their strengths a little more: comprehensive background.

Marks could be given for the following catagories:

- Army selection (based on 40K background, not powergaming tactics)
- Painting ability
- Co-operability (the ability for you and the opponent to come up with a plausible reason your armies should be fighting)
- Heroics (if you lost, did the enemy suffer crippling casualties? Last Stands)
- Uniqueness (Originality in army selection. "Oh look, another falcon with holofields/stones/vectors/scatters. -10 pts")

I think if they did a big tourment push into establishing character, narrative and you actually scored well for losing battles as well as winning them (Heroics) then we might actually see a beneficial result across the gaming spectra.

El'Flashman
26-07-2008, 17:44
@ Carlos

Hate to say it but Tournaments aren't really there for friendly fluffy games. It's a competition for Pete's sake, it's all about being competitive and what's wrong with that? Surely a structured campaign among a group of local gamers is the better forum for what you are suggesting?

I personally don't think it's a good idea for GW to 'shaft' any part of it's community.

Brother Ranz
26-07-2008, 18:07
40K and WFB will get redone every 5 years or so. The good thing now is that we can all be part of it. The great thing about the rules being reset is that it keeps things fresh. Like now in the States, we will have 4 or 8 years of democratic rule and people will lose their minds and then we will have a reset and the other side will lose their minds. The Republic will survive. The best thing about new codecies is that the models get better and better and each new codex means new sculpts. :)

The reson GW does it is to keep things interesting and keep the money rolling in. Look at the main page here. There are almost always more people viewing the Rumours areas than the general discussion and tactics added together.

Plastic Rat
26-07-2008, 18:20
Personally I'd like to see them go to PDF downloads for pure stats and army lists. This would let them update and tweak stuff as they want instead of having to bring out their decidedly crappy and generally very late 'FAQs'.

Bring out the codexes purely as army fluff/art/modeling guides. I'd still buy them. I know there will be a hue and cry about people not buying the codexes anymore, but I really think this isn't true.

Folks that wouldn't buy the codex are the same guys who will use a friend's copy today, download it from the net, or photocopy it. People who do buy the codexes today are rarely strongarmed into it.

Carlos
26-07-2008, 18:21
@ Carlos

Hate to say it but Tournaments aren't really there for friendly fluffy games. It's a competition for Pete's sake, it's all about being competitive and what's wrong with that? Surely a structured campaign among a group of local gamers is the better forum for what you are suggesting?

I personally don't think it's a good idea for GW to 'shaft' any part of it's community.

My point is that surely its beneficial to 40K to rid ourselves of the competition and produce tournaments that are less about cut-throat winning at all costs (which bleeds back into normal games and discussions) and putting fluff and imagination back into the core of the game?

Perhaps there needs to be less of an emphasis on competition and more on story and background. By encouraging more sportmanship and imagination surely the gaming community would grow faster? Surely n00bs wouldnt feel put under by over zealous vets who argue every rule?

For too long now the tourments fraternity have cast a shadow of powergaming and exploitation over the effort and creativity that GW put into their games. Whilst one could blame GW for making their lists and rules exploitable thats like blaming the record companies for piracy by making their music copyable.

Aaron
26-07-2008, 18:22
There was a lot of furore when GW moved from 2nd to 3rd edition.

However, the vast majority of the gripes were about models/units becoming obsolete rather than the wholesale changes to the rules.

Rules are cheap. A rule book and a codex is only about 40-50. Models are very expensive - both in terms of monetary value and time invested in modelling/painting. People get very upset when the unit or army they've spent a lot of love on is suddenly removed from the game.

GW could learn from the last transition. Even with wholesale changes to do the ruleset, they could still take the current codexes as a starting point. Update the points value of each unit, modify special rules that no longer make sense and give units new statlines as appropriate. Make sure that no old options (especially ones with official models) are made obsolete. They could then post these updates on their website and everyone would be reasonably happy.

With GW's current financial position, it's not going to happen any time soon.

Brother Ranz
26-07-2008, 18:26
Turnaments are one of the things that make GW the best. They bring out far more good than bad in players. THe effect this has on the current rules is debatable, but unless you really care about tournaments, you can certainly play with older rulesets or your own variants and not care a bit aobut the current environment, right? I like both.

Francis29
26-07-2008, 19:25
i've only been to the schools league tournament and that was nothing like the picture being painted here of powergamers everywhere, anyway on topic:

i think that it would be a good idea to have all the rules as PDFs and codexes full of fluff, i'd still buy a codex as i base my armies of the fluff.

Minister
26-07-2008, 23:40
Some of the main problems with the 40K ruleset are not in the details like who can take objectives or how many attacks a power fist allows, but in the core assumptions. Armour Penetration is still a hack job, grenades still feel flat-out wrong and vehicles rules are still too far separated from the infantry (and far too flimsy when compared to monsterous creatures, even if they do tend to have far more firepower). Without a total reboot of the system, none of these can be fixed.

This is why I was hoping that 5th edition would launch in about 2 years with a similar shift as from the 4th/5th WHFB ruleset to the 6th/7th WHFB ruleset. With the current setup I'm going to end up replacing my codex and rule book(s) anyway, so I may as well get a good system out of it.

Heru Talon
26-07-2008, 23:56
GW scrapped all codexes for 40k between 2nd and 3rd editions, they basically started again from the ground up and re-wrote the game. People were quite forgiving, even those of us who did buy all those books. This was also done in fantasy a few times too, 3rd -> 4th editions was a big change and basically thats when the "Codex" army book system they still use was invented. After a time they did the same thing again for Fantasy, 5th -> 6th editions, all army books were scrapped. Now the changes to the game between 5th to 6th werent a total re-write like 40k had, more tidying up and just re doing the magic phase.

It may be a little early, but I suggest that 6th edition 40k does the same thing. I really appreciate the new 5th edition rules, I think they are a huge improvement in all the little tweaks that were made. But I think GW could do much better if they scrapped all the codexes and started over.

Warhammer will, in my oppinion, never need this again. the game is pretty much finished and they could concentrate on army books then whole new armies maybe?
But I think that 40k isn't quite as finished as Warhammer. By invalidating all the codexes and releasing 40k as a new fresh start they could fix all those little issues they haven't been able to change due to the codexes all having them in.
3rd ed was a hugely improved game from 2nd edition, if they could improve 5th -> 6th even half as much I think we'll thank them for it and have a much improved game that, like warhammer, would never need re-booting again.

I'd love to see what you all think but please don't post specific problems. I've tried to avoid them here since any that are posted are guaranteed to drag the thread off topic.

So what would say to scrapping all the codexes?

Scrapping all the Codices is what put us in such a mess with crudtastic 3rd Edition Codices which all had to be pumped out in quick succession (one a month?).

Vaktathi
27-07-2008, 00:00
Personally, as long as this was done in a competent manner, I would have no problems with a total scrapping and re-working.

That said, I have serious doubts about the ability of the current design studio to deliver on this. Alessio has not impressed me *at all* with any of his work, and while I feel Jervis is thinks he is trying to make the game better, everything seems like oversimplifications and uses hammerblows where pinpricks would do. Flavor and effective mechanics go out the window in place of "streamlined" (read: gutted) rules or oversimplified mechanics that either make some things entirely too protected or do nothing for others (e.g. the 4+ cover save for shooting trough intervening units instead of BS modifiers or something similar)

Especially with the route that 5th ed has taken (being a giant step to the side, different for the sake of being different, rather than making the game overall better) I do not see the current design studio as being competent to handle this.

Minister
27-07-2008, 00:36
One thing that does strike me, though, is that Epic: Armageddon was produced without the full staff of the design studio by making extensive use of contact with the players. Whilst the ruleset is by no means perfect, it is a) far better than the initial pre-release system was and b) an amalgamation of most of the best bits from the Epic 40,000 and Titan Legions/Space Marine rulesets.

Particularly by separating the playtest from the main website and (now long-killed) forum, as well as placing a few hoops to jump through, the torrent of input was much reduced, and became manageable, much reducing the mistakes and clunky bits in the final book (except from the inevitable leavings of the Typo Gremlins).

For some reason the studio seems to be doing the exact opposite these days as a matter of policy, removing all playtest bar for that which is carried out in-house. If anyone is privy to their reasons for this, or if I am misinformed, please do let me know.

splinter & poison
27-07-2008, 04:50
I am all for scrapping the codexes. I think that with the arrival of 5th edition this wold really help make the game that much more understandale and fun:)



In commorragh death is not a right, but a privlidge

Gutted
27-07-2008, 09:36
I personally feel the 40k ruleset still has an awfully long way to go. At some point they will probably have to scrap all the codexes, or maybe they won't.

What I would like to see is not a complete rewrite, but new 40k game released along side 40k. Something that caters to all the existing armies, does something different (smaller battles, skirmishes and character centric) and uses the same minitures. The rules however would be completely different to current 40k.

Magos Explorator
27-07-2008, 10:00
Again, the skirmish ruleset with more detail on individuals was what 2nd edition (and Necromunda) were like.

Kettu
27-07-2008, 11:41
<snip>
It may be a little early, but I suggest that 6th edition 40k does the same thing. I really appreciate the new 5th edition rules, I think they are a huge improvement in all the little tweaks that were made. But I think GW could do much better if they scrapped all the codexes and started over.
<snip>
So what would say to scrapping all the codexes?

I have to say no.

Ok, kinda short, so here is three more words to explain my reasons why; Sisters of Battle.

1997(8?) Their codex is released. then a few months later it is invalid.

2004 (Almost the entire Length of 3rd edition) they lack a codex of their own till they get placed into a codex with some rather poor reconning to explain why the =][= is baby sitting them and giving them play-dates.
Again, there is a new edition just after them in a matter of months and they couldn't even be written with the new edition in mind.

2008 Vth Edition is here and with the rumours that the poor girls won't be updated till sixth edition is almost upon us we can at least hope that they are written with the next update in mind, perhaps setting the tone much like Eldar did for Vth. (here's hoping for unkillable Exorcists and 'You-can't-see-me' Repentia. :cheese::angel:)

However, should sixth render them obsolete then GW would be better off not releasing them till after the transition as anyone with net access would know they would be obsolete and not buy it.
Conversely, they don't update all the 3rd edition codices before any more edition changes and there will be hell to pay.

Minister
27-07-2008, 13:42
I would also point out that the change from skirmish (RT) to platoon-scale (2nd) to company-scale (3rd-5th) was based primarily on what the games were being used for. 2nd edition was routinely being stretched to breaking point with far larger games than it was designed for (and gods help you if everyone in your 4000 point game had blind or plasma grenades).

Whilst I certainly would not object to a skirmish game in addition to mainline 40K, I would object to one replacing mainline 40K.

Carlos
27-07-2008, 15:26
I would also point out that the change from skirmish (RT) to platoon-scale (2nd) to company-scale (3rd-5th) was based primarily on what the games were being used for. 2nd edition was routinely being stretched to breaking point with far larger games than it was designed for (and gods help you if everyone in your 4000 point game had blind or plasma grenades).

Whilst I certainly would not object to a skirmish game in addition to mainline 40K, I would object to one replacing mainline 40K.

This seems like a logical solution. A cross between the 2nd edition and 5th edition rules for 'Commando' battles and Combat Patrol-size games would probably be welcomed a lot by the veteran players. This gives those of you who want to play with finer details the option to do so without hampering those of us (like me) who prefer to play larger battles (Yeah, as mentioned above the 4000+pts of 2nd edition that we used to play ALL THE TIME slowed to a crawl with all the templates and remain-in-play gumph flying around)

With the way 40K is played at the minute it would be impossible to step backwards into a more detailed state because things would slow to a crawl, and if a 6th edition does rip everything to shreds what it needs to keep at its core is speed, elegance and finesse in its rules system. 3rd edition was the most comprehensive of this.

Elios Harg
27-07-2008, 15:30
The only way I could see this happening successfully is by keeping all of the existing units and their equipment options from each army list, but strip the army itself of all special army and unit specific special rules. They could allow the units that make sense to keep the USRs, tweaked to fit within the new basic ruleset. They would then need a fairly quick release schedule of the army codices. Which would mean either delaying the new edition quite a bit until a good chunk of the codices were already done with another chunk being ready within a few months of release, or making sure they are all ready to go at one time.

To really make it worthwhile, however, they would need to move away from the D6 and possibly the 0-10 statline. This would allow the return of Armor Save and To Hit modifiers as well as allowing more room for rules to reflect fluff. Why do Tau whom are completely dedicated to ranged combat not better shots than Imperial Guardsmen? Why is an Ork not stronger than a Guardsman? Why does just about every basic armament have the same stopping power as a Boltgun?

Templar Ben
27-07-2008, 15:41
Personally, as long as this was done in a competent manner, I would have no problems with a total scrapping and re-working.

I agree that there is nothing on its face that says you can't start over. The key would be to have a detailed plan and a system in place to ensure that armies would be available to each player at the time of the switch. I would have a "trial" pdf online for each army. After feedback is received on each army they can be physically printed with the "final" version and those also made available online without the art or background material.


That said, I have serious doubts about the ability of the current design studio to deliver on this. Alessio has not impressed me *at all* with any of his work, and while I feel Jervis is thinks he is trying to make the game better, everything seems like oversimplifications and uses hammerblows where pinpricks would do. Flavor and effective mechanics go out the window in place of "streamlined" (read: gutted) rules or oversimplified mechanics that either make some things entirely too protected or do nothing for others (e.g. the 4+ cover save for shooting trough intervening units instead of BS modifiers or something similar)

To be fair though, Alessio has no business in that job. It is the worst example of the Peter principle. They plucked up a guy that played the game well. They didn't go to a major university and hire a graduate of game design. They didn't look for people with mathematics degrees. They didn't go out of their way to find people with technical writing experience.

If you hire a carpenter you really can't expect him to do architecture.

I think they rules are made the way they are because of the target market over anything else.


Especially with the route that 5th ed has taken (being a giant step to the side, different for the sake of being different, rather than making the game overall better) I do not see the current design studio as being competent to handle this.

Well this is something of a moot point anyway.

El'Flashman
27-07-2008, 16:01
Whilst I certainly would not object to a skirmish game in addition to mainline 40K, I would object to one replacing mainline 40K.

I couldn't agree with this sentiment more and I hope that this maybe the reasoning behind GW removing Kill Team from the main rulebook. I've long supported GWs current policy of bolt-on supplements for the core rules and I hope that in time we will see a re-invention of the Kill Team rules which could give suitable depth to squad based action so as to draw back some of the disenfranchised 2nd edition gamers. I also hope that such a system could cover an updated version of Space Hulk.

megatrons2nd
27-07-2008, 16:52
I have never been very keen on complete rewrites. Since I started gaming (1989) I have bought:
2 Battletech basic core game books 1 in '89 and one last year. The game has remained almost identical in both books and only fixed a few problems and added new equipment. (Aprox 2 books in 20yrs)
1 Vor core rulebook with a second coming some time next year. The new book is supposed to fix it's vehicle problems. (Approx 2 books in 15yrs)
3 40K core rulebooks each with it's own strengths and weaknesses. The core game mechanics are close but the balance seems to swing wildly form one spectrum to another. I don't think it is a mechanics issue in the game (mostly) but a balance/power creep/point cost problem. (Approx 1 book every 6-7yrs)

Not trying to complain about GW but that is my 2cents.

Random Integer
27-07-2008, 17:04
Is Alessio not the main guy behind all 3 current Core rulesets? I haven't played LoTR or WFB 7th but the rulesets seem to get a lot of praise which would tend to indicate that he is at least a competent designer. Complaints about WFB seem mostly to focus on the army books rather than the actual game mechanics.

El'Flashman
27-07-2008, 17:17
I know Alession is responsible for the current state of WFB maybe someone else could enlighten us as to who wrote LOTR:SBG?

Aaron
27-07-2008, 18:07
One thing that does strike me, though, is that Epic: Armageddon was produced without the full staff of the design studio by making extensive use of contact with the players. Whilst the ruleset is by no means perfect, it is a) far better than the initial pre-release system was and b) an amalgamation of most of the best bits from the Epic 40,000 and Titan Legions/Space Marine rulesets.

I think both Epic and Blood Bowl are shining examples of what GW can achieve when they engage the community properly.

It's little surprise that they're Warseer's favourite GW games (http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2811072&postcount=117).

Minister
28-07-2008, 00:43
Epic and Blood Bowl also seem to have been run on a policy of regular rules tweaks and a downloadable "living rulebook". Whilst there were revisions for the other specialist games, this was far less prevalent. Epic in particular also had a lot of instances of the community thinking up sections of rules which were then published as official or semi official on the website.

zaarin7
28-07-2008, 02:33
I rate GW games overall this way:

Epic
BFG








everything else
(have to admit never did Necromunda or BB or Inquisitor)

IMHO the best scifi company/batalion game has already been done. Its a little gem called Stargrunt II by Ground Zero Games. But I play WH40k because nobody local plays it.

I have played 2 games of 5th. Have to say the personal jury is still out. I also have thought for years that the UK GT results and comments have far more input in GW rules righting than anything else. Just my opinion, your millage may vary and I respect that.

Occulto
28-07-2008, 03:05
Epic and Blood Bowl also seem to have been run on a policy of regular rules tweaks and a downloadable "living rulebook". Whilst there were revisions for the other specialist games, this was far less prevalent. Epic in particular also had a lot of instances of the community thinking up sections of rules which were then published as official or semi official on the website.

Which works for free rulebooks.

You'd need the same thing with 40K. So that when a codex or rule was updated, you could just replace the relevant page. I guess the alternative is cutting and pasting errata - although after a while your books could end up looking like scrap books.

Now (and be realistic), what are the chances of GW releasing living codices/rulebooks for 40K?

Minister
28-07-2008, 03:09
They do, on the other hand, have a White Dwarf in dire need of more content. If new units and rules, or even whole army lists, were published as playtest articles it might allow some of the more glaring problems to be solved.

CHOOBER SNIPES
28-07-2008, 03:24
k, i know its been said before, but wouldnt it be a good idea to release several small expansions for small games or more complex games. For example, you could add in general rules and options that would be available to everyone, like digging in and suppressive fire and whatnot. you could still use the codices, and you could always keep playing normal 40K if you wanted, too.

Stormhammers
28-07-2008, 03:29
that is a gret idea, but GW makes WAAAYYYY to much money on 40K to give out information freely. I'm sure it would be more enjoyable for the gamers, but not so much for GW or many of the local stores. I know it might not bankrupt either one, but I'm sure it would cut into their bottom line more than they would like.

imweasel
28-07-2008, 04:11
Now we have 80% of the 40K ruleset set in stone (M6, AP, Cover saves etc) I think its time GW started to move focus back to the narrative and shaft all tournament players out there (whom seem to make up the majority of the winging greybeards here on Warseer) into giving up powergaming in favour of a decent story of their army.

Instead of giving marks to players based on army selection and winning games howabout a tournament where players are rewarded on their fluff for their armies, the characterful nature of their troop selections and their adherency to the background material? The thing that seperates 40K from Chess is the imagination and the miniatures and I think its time GW started to play to their strengths a little more: comprehensive background.

Marks could be given for the following catagories:

- Army selection (based on 40K background, not powergaming tactics)
- Painting ability
- Co-operability (the ability for you and the opponent to come up with a plausible reason your armies should be fighting)
- Heroics (if you lost, did the enemy suffer crippling casualties? Last Stands)
- Uniqueness (Originality in army selection. "Oh look, another falcon with holofields/stones/vectors/scatters. -10 pts")

I think if they did a big tourment push into establishing character, narrative and you actually scored well for losing battles as well as winning them (Heroics) then we might actually see a beneficial result across the gaming spectra.

Why play a game at all?

Tournaments and 40k should never, ever be used together.

Stormhammers
28-07-2008, 04:13
that would be great being that me army is pure fluff, I think I do pretty good, but it is deffinately not a power list.

Occulto
28-07-2008, 04:33
They do, on the other hand, have a White Dwarf in dire need of more content. If new units and rules, or even whole army lists, were published as playtest articles it might allow some of the more glaring problems to be solved.

Unfortunately, I don't think just opening it up for playtesting would guarantee good rules.

People can suggest improvements etc, but you still need to sit down to work out (and playtest) whether those suggestions are actually worthwhile. Is this someone with a legitimate point, someone who wants their army made more powerful or someone who wants their opponent's army made less powerful?

Let's say they release a new race to ally with Tau:

You don't want to have to wade through a few thousand reponses saying: "these suck because they're just another shooty unit. Tau need a kick **** combat unit instead."

Neither do you want: "these suck because they're obviously too powerful, they need to be made more expensive and have weaker guns."

What you actually want is something like: "I would reprice these because in the thirty games I used them against MEQ they did this, while against hordes they did this. I used a range of missions and terrain setups that look like this, this and this. Against MEQ, they were very powerful against 3+ armour, which means they're probably going to compete against Vespid. Considering how cheap they are, if they were released, I reckon we'd see even less people using Vespid."