PDA

View Full Version : Campaign Books Poll - Yes or No, very straightforward



Mage
17-11-2012, 18:05
Kinda an offshoot of the Crusade of Fire thread, your vote matters!

Edit: I might have been a little trigger happy, it is probably better suiting for this to be in 'General Discussion' but it is closely related to an active thread in this section...

theJ
17-11-2012, 18:25
Yup.
Good readin', nice inspiration, neato rules, perhaps a notch costlier than I'd prefer, but then again, so is everything else, too.

Don't really see what the big problem is. If you don't like 'em, don't buy 'em. Unlike stupidly OP units, there's nothing that "forces" you to pick these things up, and the impact on other releases should be really really tiny, so what's with the complaints?

megatrons2nd
17-11-2012, 18:29
It's an old style White Dwarf in a hard cover. Not to mention that it is probably rehashes of rules in the old rulebook, and old White Dwarf Magazine articles.

Morrslieb
17-11-2012, 18:32
There might be fun new scenarios to use in regular games, simple as that.

Lemonbrick
17-11-2012, 18:40
I loved reading blood in the badlands and the generals compendium before that , I think they are great

Voss
17-11-2012, 18:57
Sure. Fresh ideas and rules are useful and fun. Don't want em? Don't buy it. It impacts you not at all if you don't.

SimaoSegunda
17-11-2012, 19:09
Yes. Even better if they include variant army lists, but since the way they work means that they reflect the (usually fluffy) way that members of the Studio play their games, it gives a useful insight into their thought processes.

I probably won't buy every one that gets released, or even not buy most of them if there ends up being a series, but overall, I'm in favour.

Nymie_the_Pooh
17-11-2012, 19:38
I voted yes. I still get use out of old campaign books. The General's Compendium from Fantasy for instance is a gold mine for playing campaigns and easy to carry over. I also miss the old worldwide campaigns as they gave people something to talk about other than what army or unit was OP or never worth taking. If done right a campaign book helps emphasize the cinematic side of the game GW claims they are wanting to bring more focus to. If done poorly it will be easy to ignore.

Killgore
17-11-2012, 20:15
Yes, they can be an entertaining read, if you dont like campaigns you dont have to buy it!

yabbadabba
17-11-2012, 20:21
Not sure about the down side of campaign books, Storm of Chaos aside. Can one of the "no's" tell us their perspective?

The only issue with campaign books comes with that ever present slavering ogre that is "officialdom". This is what shot Storm of Chaos in the ****. It's certainly an aspect that GW need to develop and make an effective sales generation tool.

viv714r
17-11-2012, 20:23
Get it, read it, use it. Repeat step two for an indefinite period of time. There's nothing quite like going over old material when you should be studying... that reminds me, bye.

Brother Alexos
17-11-2012, 20:25
I say yes to this just because of the stories that it provides. Thats always what Warhammer has been all about for me- the story.

Fagerlund
17-11-2012, 21:07
Absolutely yes. I love campaigns, and even though they're most definitely re-using a lot of stuff in every such book they have and will release in the future they usually combine some things that I've not thought about before - giving me more inspiration when I create my own campaigns.

Why would you not want GW to provide something like that? It's obviously aimed at one niche of players, those who're only in it for competition aren't affected in the slightest so I can't see why people are saying no?

Lord Inquisitor
17-11-2012, 21:41
Not sure about the down side of campaign books, Storm of Chaos aside. Can one of the "no's" tell us their perspective?
I'm not a definite "no" ... I like the idea of campaign books, but I can list some downsides:

Time spent on campaign books could be spent on updating army books that sorely need an update.
Crummy scenarios. The 40K missions book was a total let down and I wasn't particularly thrilled with Blood in the Badlands either. A collection of new, interesting scenarios not just rulebook scenarios with some unbalancing special rule thrown in would be what I'm looking for. Bonus points if there's plenty of scenarios we can just play as one-off scenarios too with standard mirrored forces. Tamurkhan had a few good scenarios but only a couple suitable for regular, matched armies.
Rubbish rules. Really, we can make up a campaign ourselves. Half the point of a campaign supplement would be to have someone else do the legwork. Mighty Empires tiles were nice but a naff campaign system to go with them. I don't mind open-ended rules or house-ruling things but most of the WH supplements seem half finished.

I don't really have a gripe with them putting out campaign books in principle but I've not really found them very useful.

TheDungen
17-11-2012, 21:54
I'd have prefered the summer campaigns to return instead. But hey this neat too.

Horus Lupercal
17-11-2012, 22:00
These books are rubbish. You used to be able to find this sort of thing through 2-3 white dwarfs and it was interesting there, back when WD was half decent (though they are getting better now)

yabbadabba
17-11-2012, 22:01
Allow me to respond:

Crummy scenarios. The 40K missions book was a total let down and I wasn't particularly thrilled with Blood in the Badlands either. A collection of new, interesting scenarios not just rulebook scenarios with some unbalancing special rule thrown in would be what I'm looking for. Bonus points if there's plenty of scenarios we can just play as one-off scenarios too with standard mirrored forces. Tamurkhan had a few good scenarios but only a couple suitable for regular, matched armies. This is about the only thing I partially agree with, and a lot of wargames scenarios do deliberately pitch unfair games. We also have to remember that because of their ill advised and, for me, damaging dalliance with the tournament scene during the early 2000's, much of GWs creative power in terms of scenarios etc has been deliberately quashed over the years. Store staff would, within 6 months, learn more about scenario design than most other people would in a lifetime, just by organising Games Nights. That was also quashed. Finally GW have tied so much of their product design into getting you to buy more toy soldiers that they have forgotten that just good games will get people to buy more toy soldiers. Nonetheless, I do not agree that scenarios should be designed to be one off. In that respect it should be down to you, the gamer, to decide if you have the ability to convert a product from its designed intent to one more suited to your needs.

Lord Inquisitor
17-11-2012, 22:28
I personally play the vast majority of my games as one-off games. I like campaigns but they take a lot of effort and coordination from everyone to actually get off the ground. A campaign book that provides a host of scenarios suitable for one-off games as well as making sense in the campaign format is one that will see a whole heap more use from me, whether they use mirrored forces and victory conditions or not.

As for "unfair games" depends what you mean, plenty of scenarios have non-mirrored forces but that doesn't mean the scenario is unfair. Typically you'll see one side have an advantage in the scenario (fortifications, surrounding positions, etc) to make up for less points, or have some form of objective whose ease of achievement is balanced out by the overwhelming forces of the enemy (e.g. survive 4 turns). But almost always designed to be fair. Really the only place I've encountered simply unfair scenarios is in historical games where the forces are based on historical accounts. Which isn't to say every wargaming scenario is actually perfectly fair but the design is typically to have as fair a game as possible. The major exception is map based campaigns where the forces used represent part of a larger army and therefore manoeuvring at a larger level.

yabbadabba
17-11-2012, 23:05
I personally play the vast majority of my games as one-off games. I like campaigns but they take a lot of effort and coordination from everyone to actually get off the ground. A campaign book that provides a host of scenarios suitable for one-off games as well as making sense in the campaign format is one that will see a whole heap more use from me, whether they use mirrored forces and victory conditions or not. On the other hand learning to convert from a campaign book linked scenarios to support one off games allows you to develop skills and understandings of the game, including becoming more skilled at writing your own scenarios. Which is the more beneficial?

This is a difficult discussion because the parallels are also difficult; why release one army book when another is in more need? Why support WFB when an expanded 40K universe is almost guaranteed to be a better money generator? In the end it's arguing personal choice, but I don't think that personal choice makes for good business decisions, or good hobby decisions. In that I think this is not a very good poll on reflection. For some people the campaign books are ideal, and for others a waste of resource and people will have that opinion about every aspect of the hobby and as such it is deliberately setting up an oppositional conflict within the thread.

As for "unfair games" depends what you mean, plenty of scenarios have non-mirrored forces but that doesn't mean the scenario is unfair. Typically you'll see one side have an advantage in the scenario (fortifications, surrounding positions, etc) to make up for less points, or have some form of objective whose ease of achievement is balanced out by the overwhelming forces of the enemy (e.g. survive 4 turns). But almost always designed to be fair. Really the only place I've encountered simply unfair scenarios is in historical games where the forces are based on historical accounts. Which isn't to say every wargaming scenario is actually perfectly fair but the design is typically to have as fair a game as possible. The major exception is map based campaigns where the forces used represent part of a larger army and therefore manoeuvring at a larger level. I think fairness is not the right angle here. I think that scenarios need to cover a broad range of needs and that the only wrong scenario is one where it is deliberately set up to ensure one person does not enjoy themselves and another does. I am not sure if currently the GW gamer base is mature or skilled enough to cope with such responsibility. It certainly seems to mirror what I see in education - bright kids who have lost access to skills which I had at my fingertips when I was their age, but in certain limited areas are already achieving beyond what I could ever do.

Sometimes it seems that GW created a welfare state of mind in its customer base, which it encouraged, and now that is coming round to bite the community's fundament.

Lord Inquisitor
17-11-2012, 23:29
On the other hand learning to convert from a campaign book linked scenarios to support one off games allows you to develop skills and understandings of the game, including becoming more skilled at writing your own scenarios. Which is the more beneficial?
We're back to "if GW writes poor stuff you get good at making your own stuff". I'm not going to be grateful for a product I buy being poorly made. If I'm making up my own campaigns because they don't bother with making rules or my own scenarios because GW's campaign books are dull, poorly written or don't contain anything applicable to normal gaming ... why are they wasting time making campaign books and why should I buy them? I can just cut out the middle man and not bother buying the campaign stuff.

Good scenarios, good mechanics make good campaigns. If GW aren't producing this stuff all they've given me is a crummy product. If you get inspired by crummy products, more power to you but I don't see why you need GW to make a half-hearted effort in the first place. A new army book would be more exciting and more useful to more people.


I think fairness is not the right angle here. I think that scenarios need to cover a broad range of needs and that the only wrong scenario is one where it is deliberately set up to ensure one person does not enjoy themselves and another does.
Most of the time that's synonymous with one player having an unreasonable advantage over the other in-game. In most cases both sides having a reasonable shot at victory is a requirement for a good scenario.

yabbadabba
17-11-2012, 23:50
We're back to "if GW writes poor stuff you get good at making your own stuff". I'm not going to be grateful for a product I buy being poorly made. If I'm making up my own campaigns because they don't bother with making rules or my own scenarios because GW's campaign books are dull, poorly written or don't contain anything applicable to normal gaming ... why are they wasting time making campaign books and why should I buy them? I can just cut out the middle man and not bother buying the campaign stuff. No we are not. We are back to GW makes a product and because you can't see the value in it it must have no value. GW makes a product and I see no use for it for me, I don't buy it and I allow GW to worry about selling it. The quality at this point isn't even a question because I have no use for it. I have no right to question someone else's decision for buying that product - that's their decision.

Good scenarios, good mechanics make good campaigns. If GW aren't producing this stuff all they've given me is a crummy product. If you get inspired by crummy products, more power to you but I don't see why you need GW to make a half-hearted effort in the first place. A new army book would be more exciting and more useful to more people. That is entirely subjective and related to relative skills and experience. As such it has no place in this discussion other than you do not need to buy this product, not that GW shouldn't have made it.

Most of the time that's synonymous with one player having an unreasonable advantage over the other in-game. In most cases both sides having a reasonable shot at victory is a requirement for a good scenario. You missing the point by quite some distance.

Also you have missed far more important points in my last post - ones that predicted this growing conflict between opinions and not facts.

Lord Inquisitor
18-11-2012, 00:15
The question was whether the campaign books are good/worthwhile/worth buying. Obviously my opinion is my opinion. You asked why people voted "no" and then tell me that's just my opinion, man.

However:
- if you're looking for good scenarios for one-off games, they're not very useful.
- if you're looking for a campaign material, it's not very complete.
- if you're going to be essentially making a campaign, why bother with the book at all?

All it really seems to provide is some new fluff, which could surely be better incorporated into a new army book or series of white dwarf articles?

malisteen
18-11-2012, 00:25
I don't know. I liked blood in the badlands, but the campaign was written with the idea of larger games in mind, and I find it really difficult to keep up enough energy in a group for multiple large games to happen every week. Both times we've tried to play it, energy puttered out after only about a month and it fell apart.

And I found it required a lot of improvising to keep it working, not even counting what would be required to adapt it to smaller games (the default campaign bonus was 'more points in your next game' which simultaneously made smaller games even less balanced, while larger games went from 'bigger than we want to play every week' to 'too big to get through in a day's worth of playing'.


So, I guess, what I'm saying is I'd be down for campaign rules, but I'd want them to either start with smaller game sizes as the default, or at least be designed with scalability in mind. As it is, BitB envisioned a gaming group of dedicated players who don't do anything other than warhammer in their free time, who spend all of their week gearing up for an entire weekend of games workshop gaming every single weekend. And that's just not any gaming group I know. I suppose it's alright to target such supplemental material to a more hard core crowd. I'm not complaining, just saying why I'm not all that excited about the new 40k campaign.

megatrons2nd
18-11-2012, 00:44
I find(as my opinion) that the purchase of this book is the same as those who are buying twinkies on Ebay for $80+US. A horrible waste of money for a dubious bit of content/quality, and a general waste of money for a product that will only satisfy in the short term.

IcedCrow
18-11-2012, 01:32
I have fully gotten my money from the badlands book. I fully intend to get all of my money from this one.

Yes there should be campaign books. The argument "it can be done via a white dwarf article" can be applied to anything. I prefer a book with everything in it not a collection of magazines.

Any army list can also be done via white dwarf. One off games are great if youre into them. I personally dont like one off games and not a giant tournament fan either.

These are why i play the game.

Commissar Merces
18-11-2012, 05:26
Looks really cool and promising. Like most things with GW, however, the price is a major turn off for me. I will need to see some reviews before I put that much money down on a book, especially with the DA codex out soon. Maybe my girl friend will be nice and get it for me for Christmas... course I am getting her diamond so those cancel out... right?

MajorWesJanson
18-11-2012, 07:01
Time spent on campaign books could be spent on updating army books that sorely need an update.

I don't really have a gripe with them putting out campaign books in principle but I've not really found them very useful.

I will argue this point. Campaign books have minimal impact on the schedule of proper codices, as while they take up some writing time, they are not expansions, and therefore not linked to any model releases which need to be developed, statted, produced, and balanced. They also don't add all that much in the way of unit rules, and thus playtesting is far less important as a campaign book does not affect the meta. It's story focused, so the rules can be a tad looser, as if you are playing a campaign to begin with, you are more tolerant of GMing games and house rules. It's a side project some of the studio could work on while say the next codex is being reviewed and playtesting is going on before being handed back for another pass.

Overall, I will probably buy it, mainly for the art, fluff, and completeness sake.

Hrw-Amen
18-11-2012, 17:36
Well they are OK if you lack time or imagination to create your own I suppose, but generally they can be a bit dull. Some are good but only for the extra artwork or background story bits. I'd much prefer some kind of update along the lines of Chapter Approved or the Best of White Dwarf like they used to do in the olden days. I guess it would be hard to choose 'Best Of White Dwarf' nowadays as it is just a glorified sales pamphlet.

Grocklock
18-11-2012, 19:20
I think these books are great yes I have been in he hobby a while and could write a campain for my group. But I like to take inspiration from as meany different things as possible. 25 is a good price for it. could they have done it in a WD? maybe, would not of been so good but It would of been free. but given the size of the book it would of taken up the whole wd, or would of been 4 pages, which is not alot and people would of complained there was not good enough.

Some times I wonder if people can truly be happy with GW, which is a shame.

Chivs
18-11-2012, 20:01
The rumour (or possibly fact, I haven't looked too closely) of it being a limited edition run is what concerns me the most. There's no chance to possibly evaluate it, or find out what people think after a long period of time using it (not just responses based on a first read through or after one game).

I bought the Battle Missions book, and was very disappointed with that. I don't get to play many games anyway, as I haven't found many other players in the area where I live, but few missions struck me as the ones I'd want to play when/if I am able to get a game going. Some were good, but others seemed boring (particularly the 3 Ork missions) and some just seemed plain daft and not properly thought through (Why are both armies collecting prisoners in the Dark Eldar Slave Raid mission?).

I did get Storm of Vengeance though back in the tail end of 2nd edition, and that is still a resource I go back to time and time again. It came with a great terrain centrepiece (I still use the powerplant all these years later), and had a variety of diffent missions, and it was centred around mine (Dark Angels) and my brother's (Orks) armies. It has a terrific story - considering he wrote it originally it's a real shame Jervis had to change so much in the recent Dark Angels codex, which Phil then also used in the Ork Codex (For the uninformed/young, I'm referring to the fight between Ghazghkull and Belial - the two never met in the whole of the campaign). It was only 15 though, and came with the terrain, 9 scenarios, background material, guides to choosing your forces and new rules for sentries.

I doubt I'll be getting the new Crusade of Fire book. As for whether it's a good thing, I think that really just depends on if it's any good or not. If done well, then it can be inspirational as well as providing some solid alternative scenarios that groups can easily choose to play. If it's done badly, then it'll just be viewed as (another) cynical cash in.

I'd love it to be a great product that benefits the whole of the community (and particularly me of course). So long as I can decide in the future if I want to purchase it or not, and not only during a week of preorders before it's gone forever.

Chem-Dog
19-11-2012, 00:57
I will wait and see on this one. On one hand I'm pleased that GW are doing this kind of thing again, but if it's anything like the Battle Missions book (Hey, everyone really hates Kill Points, let's make a book of Scenarios that act like KP's are the best thing ever) it'll be disregarded.
If it's a good and useful thing, or pretty enough to warrant the purchase, it'll go on my gradually growing list. But there's quite a few novels I need to buy first.

It's a small leap in real terms, but I was happy to spend 20 quid on a Codex or an equivalent sized book, 30 for the same is starting to feel a bit too pricey. At 20 Quid I would have picked up every Codex released, at 30 I'll pick up every Codex (or equivalent) I want to use.

Erronius
19-11-2012, 01:16
Some times I wonder if people can truly be happy with GW, which is a shame.

My issue is the ongoing debate over the content and cost of GW's books. Some books I can swallow unnecessary additions and glossy page bloat, but on things like this I highly doubt that all 96 pages are going to be core content. If this turns out to be another book that is 25% content and 75% extra stuff to push the retail price and profit margin higher, then it will be a resounding no for me. And I was going to say that I'd wait a bit to see how good it was and buy it later, but given the "WHILE SUPPLIES LAST" bit...lol.

ehlijen
19-11-2012, 01:29
I don't think the answer here is that simple.

Yes, I want campaign books. I liked cityfight and I thought Planetstrike was a good idea. More variance to the scenarios can easily bring more variance to all comers forces and bring new life to the game. Not sure one's needed so soon after 6th ed, but that's a minor point. In general, more different ways to play the game means a better game overall.

However: I'm not going to buy it if GW doesn't at least do a somewhat decent job on it. Cityfight was great fun, but with planetstrike they missed the mark; the deployment and bombardment rules actually encouraged players not to play a planetary landing, but a race for the hills instead. Simply having a deployment edge should have cost the attacker stratagem points. The 6th ed reserve rules should have been in place for the defender (ie no more than 50% and lose if you're tabled at the end of a game turn).
Planetstrike was salvagable, though. The battle missions book was terrible. Apart from kill team I never wanted to play a single scenario from it more than once. And instead of making it a seperate book, they could have just kept the specialist missions in the back of the rulebook as 3rd and 4th ed had.
And then this book's going to be hardcover full colour just because. That's going to make it so expensive it's going to seriously need to impress me to even consider buying it. If it was a cheaper softcover at a lower price, it'd be a lot easier to justify getting it to see if it's any good.

I'm not actually expecting too much. There is no way they'll include any kind of campaign system that needs more than a post it note in bookeeping between games (ie, no unit location record keeping, no supply status etc). There'll be no persistent casualties as the game is simply too lethal to support that kind of campaign. And they'll try hard not to let strategic advantages to affect any single game too much either, as last stands don't matter without persistent casualties to inflict on the attacker. I'm expecting another slight expansion on what used to be in the back of previous rulebooks.

And that's not a bad thing, if they put some effort into ensuring what they write makes the games fun for both players. I just don't fully trust them to do that after seeing planetstrike and battle missions.

Lord Inquisitor
19-11-2012, 01:56
I will argue this point. Campaign books have minimal impact on the schedule of proper codices, as while they take up some writing time, they are not expansions, and therefore not linked to any model releases which need to be developed, statted, produced, and balanced. They also don't add all that much in the way of unit rules, and thus playtesting is far less important as a campaign book does not affect the meta. It's story focused, so the rules can be a tad looser, as if you are playing a campaign to begin with, you are more tolerant of GMing games and house rules. It's a side project some of the studio could work on while say the next codex is being reviewed and playtesting is going on before being handed back for another pass.

Overall, I will probably buy it, mainly for the art, fluff, and completeness sake.

I agree up to a point, particularly for campaign books like Blood in the Badlands, although this is the exception rather than the rule, most other campaign books and supplements - e.g. Tamurkhan, Storm of Magic, Cityfight, summer campaign books like Eye of Terror or Storm of Chaos - are all tied to miniature releases, either dedicated models/terrain like storm of magic, goblinhewers or wulfen, add-on sprues or whatever. Even then, you could conceivably release an update army list with no miniature support (e.g. Sisters of Battle WD update) with the resources spent on a campaign book.

I honestly am not against the idea of campaign or add on supplements to expand the game, I was just griping that they're just not all that useful or value for money.

Limited release, however, drives me nuts. I wouldn't mind a limited release in the sense that they don't want to produce it forever, but they only produce a tiny amount of these things. Magic cards and so on. If I don't preorder them off the website I run the risk of not getting it at all, this has happened several times to me - even on release day it's sold out and unavailable anywhere. So I can't even have a look or wait for feedback on a new campaign supplement. That's what happened with Blood in the Badlands - I had to preorder it because there was just none in the stores. I bought it and have used it only a couple of times, quite disappointed with it. Now, what? 40-odd dollars for something I might like? Grr. I'm going to wait this one out and if I miss the boat no tears there.

owen matthew
19-11-2012, 01:59
No, because then you buy the new army and play it and then not long after GW will invalidate the army. Fun but unsupported, and ultimately doomed. LotD, 13th Co etc...

blackcherry
19-11-2012, 09:46
Its fun, adds to the setting but can be ignored if people don't like it or don't want to purchase it. I can't see a downside

myrdinn
19-11-2012, 10:32
Voted Yes. In my experience I never actually play the campaign as described in the book but for extra background, colour, new rules, inspiration for building your own campaigns and generally being a good read they're always a good bet.

DaemonprincePaul
19-11-2012, 15:45
I would rather they released campaign books and then make certain characters from them rules illegal (for example crom the conquror i think his rules are in storm of chaos book but thanks to gw making that illegal you technically can not use him in game)

IcedCrow
19-11-2012, 16:05
No, because then you buy the new army and play it and then not long after GW will invalidate the army. Fun but unsupported, and ultimately doomed. LotD, 13th Co etc...

My group still supports Eye of Terror lists. And Storm of Magic. GW doesn't invalidate the army. Tournament organizers invalidate the army. Run events that use these lists. There is more to the hobby and to the 40k world than the next tournament.

owen matthew
19-11-2012, 16:13
My group still supports Eye of Terror lists. And Storm of Magic. GW doesn't invalidate the army. Tournament organizers invalidate the army. Run events that use these lists. There is more to the hobby and to the 40k world than the next tournament.

No, GW officially invalidated the Eye of Terror lists.

I am glad that your group still allows them, though!

Brother Loki
19-11-2012, 16:20
I really like Blood in the Badlands, and the General's Compendium before it, even though I've never actually used the rules in a campaign. I enjoyed them for the ideas they presented and the new waysa of looking at the game. As someone who spends way more time thinking, reading and talking about the games than actually playing them they are very inspiring products.

jeffzcubfan
19-11-2012, 16:36
Campaign books are great because they add scenarios you could use otherwise, in addition, campaigns tend to make players think on another level and have to think about the limited resources they might have. A weaker tactical player can win a campaign through better strategic thinking.

IcedCrow
19-11-2012, 16:53
No, GW officially invalidated the Eye of Terror lists.

I am glad that your group still allows them, though!

Where did Games Workshop invalidate the Eye of Terror lists? I can't find any reference from them saying "these lists don't count anymore and you should not use them anymore" or something to that effect.

I found a couple of posts talking about how the Grand Tournaments of old barred them, but that just means that they are "illegal" in those tournaments.

Forgeworld lists are often also barred from tournaments but that does not make them invalid. That means that they aren't used in those tournaments. Campaign lists are different I feel than tournament-valid lists.

Prisoner24601
19-11-2012, 17:25
Where did Games Workshop invalidate the Eye of Terror lists? I can't find any reference from them saying "these lists don't count anymore and you should not use them anymore" or something to that effect.

I found a couple of posts talking about how the Grand Tournaments of old barred them, but that just means that they are "illegal" in those tournaments.

Forgeworld lists are often also barred from tournaments but that does not make them invalid. That means that they aren't used in those tournaments. Campaign lists are different I feel than tournament-valid lists.

Because New 'dexes have rolled out since then AND rulebooks w/o updates for EoT rules.

I voted no.. as this is an expensive book that will be played for maybe a week or two in my LGS before it is forgotten about/disallowed

I would have voted depends if it was an official game update. and not limited edition.

IcedCrow
19-11-2012, 17:35
That doesn't invalidate the list. That's an assumption. WE validate or invalidate a list.

I'm glad that the folks at GW realize that there are some of us out here that enjoy campaigning and enjoy products other than "official updates" and "tournament rules".

spudthebear
19-11-2012, 17:39
I have never used one before. we just usually make our own up.
Peace Spud 11th Legion

Spiney Norman
19-11-2012, 18:13
No, GW officially invalidated the Eye of Terror lists.

I am glad that your group still allows them, though!

In fairness, trying to play a 6th edition variant list from a campaign supplement in 8th edition is never going to be plain sailing, but there is no such things as "officially invalidated", in casual gaming its totally up to you and your opponent how you want to play, which rules you want to use and which lists you field your armies from. There is no GW rules-police that are going to turn up at your house to make sure you are playing the most recent edition of their games with the latest army books, you can do whatever the hell you like.

Lord Inquisitor
19-11-2012, 18:16
At some point trying to use a variant list based on army books now with new editions becomes "fan made rules based on old supplements". Nothing wrong with that at all but it's not really the case that these old lists don't become obsolete pretty fast.

IcedCrow
19-11-2012, 18:56
Thats all true except for the fact that most campaigns are designed around such things and so regularly incorporate elements not used in tournament style gaming

Nymie_the_Pooh
19-11-2012, 19:11
I imagine it might not be taking a whole lot of extra time. The GW team is likely playing campaigns in office on a regular basis where they are recording things as they go if for no other reason than the planning involved and keeping everybody updated. Integrating some small lists for allying with other armies would fit in here and the only other time consuming part will be fiction and organizing the notes from a campaign they already ran.

I think this could likely be broken up and spread out in White Dwarf, but this is half the price of a year's subscription to White Dwarf and the page count for the book means the content could take a year of White Dwarf articles if half of the book is actual content. I'd rather buy one book at half the price than a year's subscription for White Dwarf as this and the occasional army update would be all that's in there to interest me.

fred953d
21-11-2012, 10:35
I'm quite sure one of my "friends" will be getting it anyway...

Fizzy
21-11-2012, 10:49
No. I think that it is a waste of time and just a really cheap and easy way for them to get some extra money.

We are more than capable to create our own campaigns. I have done it, my friends have done it. They are even more fun as well as they are customized for our armies and ideas we have.

Those 25 can be spent on 2 tickets to "The Hobbit" instead.

ehlijen
21-11-2012, 16:02
Those 25 can be spent on 2 tickets to "The Hobbit" instead.

Only two? :S

Prisoner24601
21-11-2012, 16:04
Only two? :S

To watch it in IMAX (tbh Hobbit and LoTR was made with that thing in mind, not literally but jeez it was awesome watching the trilogy in there..) it will be close to 25 for two

Fizzy
21-11-2012, 18:00
Only two? :S

I might get 1-2 left.

And I only need two tickets, One for me and one for my girlfriend ^^ The sound and quality is better for such a big movie. There is usually an event for the premiere where all ticket buyers get stuff and the seats are awesome.

Ruination Drinker
22-11-2012, 04:15
No.

STFU and GBTW on the rest of the codecii. When everyone has an updated codex and the rules in the BRB are balanced out then you can go nuts on making silly scenarios that we already do, GW.

Here's a suggestion: why don't they just publish the best player made campaigns?