PDA

View Full Version : Angry with new codex layout



Shakkara
07-01-2007, 11:59
The most frustrating thing in the new Eldar codex for me is not that they nerfed starcannons to uselessness or that vypers and phoenixlords are overpriced. No, it's one thing which cannot be avoided.

The horrible layout.

People might complain about the previous Eldar codex, that it was small, and such. Well the reason that it was small, is that it didn't list the whole army list twice! In the previous codex, the whole army list was in one section, and there were a few pages after that where all the weapons, psychic powers, and special rules were listed - alphabetically. Perfect! Couldn't be better!

Now, for some reason which I don't understand, they list the whole armylist twice! Once without points but with very limited special rules (which you then need to look up in the main rulebook if you want to know what it does, most of the time!), and then ANOTHER time but this time without rules but with the point cost. I mean, what a waste of paper! They could just list the point costs of everything in the first section, and leave out the second copy of the army list alltogether! Or remove the first section, and then stuff all those rules on two pages! Now I have to page back and forth because both army lists are incomplete, and another frustrating thing is that the two unit lists are NOT in the same order, so much searching is guaranteed.

Like: Hey, I can buy this ability 'withdraw' for my exarch for 25 points. What does it do? *pages back and forth hoping to find the shining spears entry in armylist #1, which is somewhere in between the pages with the dark reapers and the pages with the pages with the guardians*. Aha, I finally found it. It sais here that.... 'Withdraw' does the same as 'hit and run'. AAAAAAAAH how does 'hit and run' work?! I just want to know what my exarch ability does EXACTLY and I have to search thousands of pages! Give me the old codex please please PLEASE! *bashes head on table*

Now compare this with: Hey, I can buy this ability 'withdraw' for my exarch for 15 points. What does it do? *goes to the page with exarch abilities and looks it up by alphabetical order* Oh right, if the squad is in combat I can fall back out of combat at the end of an assault phase and regroup immediately. Woot!

I got so frustrated that I just typed it all in a text file, which I printed, and I use that as "armybook" now. Next time I'll just borrow or download the dex and type it over, I'm not going to pay for another such piece of ****, noone but a masochist should.

John Wayne II
07-01-2007, 12:07
Seriously dude, there are these things called "bookmarks" that you can use so that you don't have to flip back and forth all the time. :eyebrows:

It's the fantasy army layout, basically. I like it, but if you find it too hard to flip from one page to another then maybe Eldar aren't for you. :rolleyes:

Anyway, we already had this discussion...

N0-1_H3r3
07-01-2007, 12:13
You do realise that, with the exception of the ones released during 3rd Edition, every codex and every Warhammer Armies book since the early 90s has been laid out like that. That works out as almost all of them. You get an armylist section that gives you composition rules and points costs, and a 'bestiary' section that gives you the background and the more detailed rules for those units. Because if you tried to fit all of it in the same section, you'd end up with something vast and awkward, or the utterly-lacking-in-depth-and-background horror that was the 3rd Edition codex format.

As for your complaints over not being able to find 'Hit And Run' - it's a universal special rule in the rulebook. The point of those existing was to prevent having to reprint them in every single codex. With that logic in mind, of course the codex is just going to state "He has the Hit and Run special rule". By only writing the rule down once, you can easily and quickly avoid minor differences in the wording that result in a dozen different rules for the same thing, as happened often in 3rd edition.

Son-Of-Sparda
07-01-2007, 12:15
Whoa! Hold the aggro dude.
I have to agree with you in some respects though- it was infuriating when looking in the unit entry not knowing how much they cost- instead having to have to flick to a separate section, which was designed for 'creating army lists quickly' :wtf:
As for the exarch power example, I was was equally miffed at the non-existent (at least until it was reprinted) Witchblade in the Eldar 'dex.
Despite all of this, we both bought the codex, we moaned, we got used to the layout (and the dissappointment), and GW got their money. So everyone's happy really. :p

Sabbad
07-01-2007, 12:21
I actually really liked the Eldar codex. I thought the rules were great, the background the best I've ever seen in a GW codex, and the decision to remove sub-lists acceptable (and I play Alaitoc).

However, as you are specifically referring to the layout, I'll adress that concern instead.

The reasoning behind the change is simple. The armies list at the back is used for when you are making an army eg Eldar veteran wants to make an army for a 1500pts games, flicks to where all the numbers are and gets out a calculator. It is presumed that he is experienced enough to know what a Mandiblaster does without having it stuck in the middle of the armies list where it takes up space (thus leading to more leafing through pages to find the numbers you need).

If you need to know a rule, you look up the respective unit it applies too (ie. in the front) and look it up there. So for example, if you want to know what the Exarch skills there are for your Swooping Hawks, you go to the Swooping Hawk section and look it up- rather than looking through a massive compilation of Exarch powers most of which having nothing to do with Swooping Hawks.

The end result is that each unit gets a page to themselves, which means that everyone gets decent background. No more crap like "Swooping Hawks excel and bringing death to anyone no matter who they are", now we get a decent amount of fluff material. Plus, by putting it seperate from the actual armies list, you avoid an armies' list that is dozens of pages long.

I actually think that the new system is better and result in less leafing around. The Withdraw example is a special case- given that the USR are all common examples and are all in the rulebook, it is expected that you will know them. Similarly, the rules for Rolling to Hit aren't in the Eldar codex either- if its in the rulebook you're expected to know it already.

To give a different example- how do you find out what Mandiblasters do?

OLD CODEX: Flick to the armoury where the rules are and trawl through stuff that has nothin to do with Striking Scorpions.

NEW CODEX: Flick to the page about Striking Scorpions. Whilst you're at it, see what Shadowstrike does- rather than having to flick back to the armies list and THEN realise that the Scorpions can have that Exarch Power.

The new layout rocks, and I hope GW decides to keep it

Sabbad
07-01-2007, 12:24
I was was equally miffed at the non-existent (at least until it was reprinted) Witchblade in the Eldar 'dex.

The rules for Witchblades are in the rulebook. It is generally expected that you will read- and learn- the rules in the rulebook before you buy a Codex.

Mr_Smiley
07-01-2007, 12:26
I both like and dislike the new codex, it has its bonus' like every rule is right near the units it affects, however splitting up the points to another segment is a little annoying at times.

Spell_of_Destruction
07-01-2007, 12:48
My only criticism of the new codex is an aesthetic one. It looks a bit sparse.

Complaining that the codex doesn't contain details of USRs is stupid. That would defeat the purpose of them being USRs. Secondly, the layout is fine. Comparing it negatively to the abomination that is the 3rd ed codex is a joke.

Read the codex and learn the rules. That will solve all your problems.

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 12:49
I actually really liked the Eldar codex. I thought the rules were great, the background the best I've ever seen in a GW codex, and the decision to remove sub-lists acceptable (and I play Alaitoc).

However, as you are specifically referring to the layout, I'll adress that concern instead.

The reasoning behind the change is simple. The armies list at the back is used for when you are making an army eg Eldar veteran wants to make an army for a 1500pts games, flicks to where all the numbers are and gets out a calculator. It is presumed that he is experienced enough to know what a Mandiblaster does without having it stuck in the middle of the armies list where it takes up space (thus leading to more leafing through pages to find the numbers you need).

If you need to know a rule, you look up the respective unit it applies too (ie. in the front) and look it up there. So for example, if you want to know what the Exarch skills there are for your Swooping Hawks, you go to the Swooping Hawk section and look it up- rather than looking through a massive compilation of Exarch powers most of which having nothing to do with Swooping Hawks.

The end result is that each unit gets a page to themselves, which means that everyone gets decent background. No more crap like "Swooping Hawks excel and bringing death to anyone no matter who they are", now we get a decent amount of fluff material. Plus, by putting it seperate from the actual armies list, you avoid an armies' list that is dozens of pages long.
Uhhh but now they have to DUPLICATE it all and we end up with two incomplete lists, thus taking up even more pages, which is such a waste. There is plenty of room for point costs in the first list, but they aren't there, that makes no sense to me. If they'd just make ONE army list with two units per page with all the rules on it (and no fluff/pics, fluff should be on a seperate page, nowhere near rules), then I'd be happy.

Also, if all the weapon rules are in one section, I only have to bookmark ONE page. And a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that the units are in a completely messed up order.

Armylist 1:
1 Avatar
2 Farseer/Warlock
3 PAGE WITH WARLOCK AND FARSEER POWERS (HEY just like in the old codex! how consistent could they be :wtf: )/Autarch
4 Dire Avengers/Howling Banshees
5 Fire Dragons/Striking Scorpions
6 Dark Reapers/Swooping Hawks
7 Warp Spiders/Shining Spears
8 Rangers/Guardians
9 Guardian Bikes/Vypers
10 Falcon/Fire Prism
11 Warwalkers, BOX WITH ALL VEHICLE UPGRADES/Support Weapon and Waveserpent
12 Wraithguard/Wraithlord
13 Harlequins Fluff/Harlie special rules
14 Eldrad Fluff/Eldrad rules
15 Prince Yriel Fluff/Yriel rules
16 Phoenix Lord General/Asurmen, Jain Zar
17 Baharroth, Karandras/Fuegan, Maugan Ra


Armylist 2:
1 Autarch, Farseer, Locks / Avatar, Yriel, Eldrad, Phoenix lords
2 Scorpions, Firedragons, Wraithguard / Banshees, Harlequins, Wave Serp
3 Dire Avengers, Rangers, Guardians, Jetbikes / Spears, Spiders, hawks, Vyper
4 Support wep, reapers, wraithlord, walker / falcon, prism

As you can see, it's hell to look up the corresponding rules.



I actually think that the new system is better and result in less leafing around. The Withdraw example is a special case- given that the USR are all common examples and are all in the rulebook, it is expected that you will know them. Similarly, the rules for Rolling to Hit aren't in the Eldar codex either- if its in the rulebook you're expected to know it already.
All that it does is require me to have TWO books with me instead of one, and looking in THREE different places, when I am going to make an army list :mad: :cries:


To give a different example- how do you find out what Mandiblasters do?

OLD CODEX: Flick to the armoury where the rules are and trawl through stuff that has nothin to do with Striking Scorpions.

NEW CODEX: Flick to the page about Striking Scorpions. Whilst you're at it, see what Shadowstrike does- rather than having to flick back to the armies list and THEN realise that the Scorpions can have that Exarch Power.


Old codex: Page to the weapon list and look it up.

New codex: Page to Autarch entry, and not finding the mandiblasters there. :D

Son-Of-Sparda
07-01-2007, 12:52
The rules for Witchblades are in the rulebook. It is generally expected that you will read- and learn- the rules in the rulebook before you buy a Codex.

At that point, I was without a rulebook (I was a wee bit smaller then).
As of now, I know what a Witchblade does- gee, rulebooks are useful :p

Lastie
07-01-2007, 12:55
I'm still in two minds over the new layout. While, on one hand, I've always liked the WFB style and I love its reintroduction into the 40K system, I can't see it working for everyone. Can you imagine Chaos being done like this? With the plethora of options every single unit can take (Marks, Weapons, Daemonic Gifts, etc.) a Chaos 'dex done in this style would occupy 84 pages with just the army list alone! With Eldar it worked (of sorts) because of the restrictive nature of the Aspect Temples, but with the more versatile unit-soaked armies out there (Chaos Space Marines, Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Inquisition, in fact mostly the Imperium armies) the jury's still out ...

Edit: Shakkara, I agree with you on the ordering. It makes no sense at all, it's not as it's written in the Army List (which would be practicle), or in alphabetical order (which wouldn't be as handy, but still easier to navigate). All you can do is memorise where each unit is, a difficult task if you're just starting out.

Hellebore
07-01-2007, 13:59
Well for a start, the bestiary section isn't new, it was in the 2nd edition Eldar codex.

Second, it is there to describe the unit backgroundwise, as much as it is to give the rules for them.

How many people here use Army builder, or GWs version?

Do you bitch and moan that the descriptions of the wargear etc is not in the list? Of course not.

The ARMY LIST in the eldar codex is precisely that - an army list to put your army together, just like the AB programme. It is a QUANTITATIVE list.

The Bestiary section is the section you use when actually playing the game - you have a unit, it is listed as equiped with this, so you look that up in the bestiary. It is a QUALITATIVE list.

When using your AB programme, do you look up the list on the programme to determine what things do, or do you just look up the codex?

The Army LIST is designed for just making armies, whilst the Forces section is designed to tell you HOW that army plays.

One you use BEFORE the game to compose the army, and the other DURING, never the twain shall meet.

Hellebore

yankeeboy
07-01-2007, 14:22
I've been having the worst time playing with the new codex layout for the Eldar. It's a real pain in the butt. My biggest gripes are pretty much the same as others, but to recap:

1. Codex books should include basic rules common to the rulebook, like the Witchblade. It was included in the rulebook because it was excluded previously. Now there is a new codex, so it should rightfully be listed in the new book, but they left it out, as it's covered in the main rulebook. yet, only Eldar use this equipment, so why not make it convenient and reprint it in the appropriate codex?

2. Layout is nice, looks pretty, but the book is completely disorganized. As mentioned previously, there's no real order to the listing of units. It's certainly not organized by force organization chart, nor is it alphabetical. It's bad enough that I have to keep flipping back to the unit entries, but worse when you can't find them via a logical organizing principle. Where are Harlequins again? Under "H".... no. Damn. Maybe under "Elites" ? Nope... hmm oh yeah, they're after wraithlords and wraithguard. What?!

3. It would help to have a single reference section for equipment. It's completely lame that I have to find the warwalker section to look up vehicle upgrades for my falcon. Hust put it all in one armoury section, like EVERY OTHER 40K CODEX! As for Sabbad, at least when you looked up Mandiblasters, it was fairly quick, as it was all arranged ALPHABETICALLY.

I have played 40k since Rogue Trader, and Fantasy for a year now. I own most of the army books for each game system, and frankly, I find the Eldar one to be the most annoying in terms of layout, organization, and ease of use. Beautiful looking book, cool rules, great army list. Horrible when it comes to function.

Onisuzume
07-01-2007, 14:23
With WHF you have to refer to your armybook (codex) and rulebook more often if you'd want to look up what ever weapon/armour does.
The special rules of your army are supposed to be learned, so you don't have to look them up every now and then.

The unit entries are now less cluttered with text. (grab codex: Smurfs for example and try finding the cost of an weapon for a squad, you usually have to read the entire bit of text to find out) The Fantasy layout does away with this. (don't have codex: eldar but do have 2 fantasy army books)

And since the next codices are to follow this layout, I'm happy.
And if they decide to change it back, please do so after the Dark Angels are released. :p

How many people here use Army builder, or GWs version?
I only use Army Builder to toy around with ideas, for actual army lists I use good old Pen&Paper, or Excel. (usually P&P)

Weregerbil
07-01-2007, 14:29
Chill dude the layout aint bad, and from what Phil Kelly told us at the GT all the new codexs after this are going to be the same layout.

PaRaSiTe_X92
07-01-2007, 14:40
All I can say is I LOVE the new layout. Much easier, more fluff....it's great!

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 14:44
Well for a start, the bestiary section isn't new, it was in the 2nd edition Eldar codex.

Second, it is there to describe the unit backgroundwise, as much as it is to give the rules for them.
Fluff should be in the fluff section, and no-where near rules of any kind.


How many people here use Army builder, or GWs version?

Do you bitch and moan that the descriptions of the wargear etc is not in the list? Of course not.

The ARMY LIST in the eldar codex is precisely that - an army list to put your army together, just like the AB programme. It is a QUANTITATIVE list.
And the only army list that should be in the book.


The Bestiary section is the section you use when actually playing the game - you have a unit, it is listed as equiped with this, so you look that up in the bestiary. It is a QUALITATIVE list.

No, it's an INCOMPLETE list that has no right to exist. Can't use it to build the army, and can't use it during play as most of the rules aren't even discribed there. Just said "hey this works like said in the rulebook". Which would be fine, if they wouldn't call things "withdraw" and "masters of stealth" and "surprise assault", which makes you look in the useless-list only to find out that they actually mean "hit and run", "move through cover + stealth" and "deep strike". If they'd bloody say so in the normal army list, so I wouldn't have to look at the useless-list first for nothing, then it'd be a lot better. However, when they do, they put in the useless-list things as: "Special rules - Fearless: This means this unit is fearless!" and "Special rules - Monstrous Creature: This means this unit is a monstrous creature!". Sheesh, it's like listening to talking politicians. I can fill pages with non-information, and duplicate useful information over and over again, making sure that each duplication contains only 75% of the total information, filling page after page, it's not that difficult! And it probably sells great!


When using your AB programme, do you look up the list on the programme to determine what things do, or do you just look up the codex?

The Army LIST is designed for just making armies, whilst the Forces section is designed to tell you HOW that army plays.

One you use BEFORE the game to compose the army, and the other DURING, never the twain shall meet.

Hellebore

I never use the useless-list during game play if I didn't have to go through that godforsaken thing. Information is allover the place. If I build a list and I want all data about my falcon, I have to look in FOUR places: First, find the falcon entry in the point-list to look up the point costs for it and upgrades which are possible, secondly, find the falcon entry in the horrid mess that is the useless-list, as there's no logical order in it, then go search the horrid mess again for the table with vehicle upgrades that's hidden in a corner which appears to be part of the warwalker entry at first glance, and then at the weapon table, which is "conveniently" placed 8 pages before the end of the book, because shuriken cannon stats and all the other stuff you'd like as secondary weapon aren't listed in the falcon entry.

Compare this with the beauty of the third ed codex: I'd goto the one and only army list in the book which lists all points and essential things, and THEN I go to my nice wonderful wargear section where I can find everything I want about each weapon and upgrade on two pairs of pages!

The useless-list in the new codex is completely inconsistent. It gives some rules for the units, but often it doesn't. It appears it doesn't have lists anymore, but the farseer/lock psychic powers and the vehicle upgrades are hidden in small lists on a completely different pages then the unit rules are. Yes I know where to find mandiblasters, swooping hawk wings, jump generators, fusion guns, laserlances and so on, but there is no reference at all to them in the list for the Autarch. The Phoenix Lords also require to to page back and forth to the entries for their aspects (and sometimes different aspects, or sometimes it isn't listed in the aspect entry at all and you find out that you have to look it up in the weapon table 8 pages from the end of the book, see Maugan Ra's executioner and shuriken cannon) to find the special rules for their equipment and abilities.

Again, this wouldn't be so bad if only the useless-list was in the same order as the point-list, which it isn't. Also, in the phoenix lord entries, they suddenly call the Exarch abilities by the USR name instead of their funky Eldar-ish name! (see Baharroth's 'hit and run' ability, which suddenly ISNT called 'withdraw' anymore, and there are several more).

Sabbad
07-01-2007, 14:51
Uhhh but now they have to DUPLICATE it all and we end up with two incomplete lists, thus taking up even more pages, which is such a waste. There is plenty of room for point costs in the first list, but they aren't there, that makes no sense to me. If they'd just make ONE army list with two units per page with all the rules on it (and no fluff/pics, fluff should be on a seperate page, nowhere near rules), then I'd be happy.

Also, if all the weapon rules are in one section, I only have to bookmark ONE page. And a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that the units are in a completely messed up order.

Armylist 1:
1 Avatar
2 Farseer/Warlock
3 PAGE WITH WARLOCK AND FARSEER POWERS (HEY just like in the old codex! how consistent could they be :wtf: )/Autarch
4 Dire Avengers/Howling Banshees
5 Fire Dragons/Striking Scorpions
6 Dark Reapers/Swooping Hawks
7 Warp Spiders/Shining Spears
8 Rangers/Guardians
9 Guardian Bikes/Vypers
10 Falcon/Fire Prism
11 Warwalkers, BOX WITH ALL VEHICLE UPGRADES/Support Weapon and Waveserpent
12 Wraithguard/Wraithlord
13 Harlequins Fluff/Harlie special rules
14 Eldrad Fluff/Eldrad rules
15 Prince Yriel Fluff/Yriel rules
16 Phoenix Lord General/Asurmen, Jain Zar
17 Baharroth, Karandras/Fuegan, Maugan Ra


Armylist 2:
1 Autarch, Farseer, Locks / Avatar, Yriel, Eldrad, Phoenix lords
2 Scorpions, Firedragons, Wraithguard / Banshees, Harlequins, Wave Serp
3 Dire Avengers, Rangers, Guardians, Jetbikes / Spears, Spiders, hawks, Vyper
4 Support wep, reapers, wraithlord, walker / falcon, prism

As you can see, it's hell to look up the corresponding rules.

OK, that's fair enough. The 1st armies list was designed in an order that made sense fluff-ways rather than games-ways (Aspect Warriors grouped together, Vehicles grouped together etc.). I can see how this would be a problem- but does it really take that long? Perhaps you should buy some post it notes...




All that it does is require me to have TWO books with me instead of one, and looking in THREE different places, when I am going to make an army list :mad: :cries:

Why would you ever play a 40K game without a rulebook? Is it really that much to ask to have both a rulebook and a codex with you when you play a game? Or would you like the rules for the Shooting Phase and the Assault Phase in the Eldar codex as well?





Old codex: Page to the weapon list and look it up.

New codex: Page to Autarch entry, and not finding the mandiblasters there. :Dc

Ha ha, good point.

EarlGrey
07-01-2007, 15:01
The organisation is laid out in quite an obvious order:
Avatar, Psykers and Autarch.
Aspect Warriors.
Rangers and Guardians.
Jetbikes.
Vehicles and Support Weapons.
The Walking Dead (Wraithguard and Wraithlord).
Harlequins.
Characters.

Need to know rules for an aspect warrior? Turn to the aspect warrior section. Then you don't have to remember what force organisation slot they come under. You can see that they've tried to make it easier, and I don't see a problem with it.

They use different names than from the Universal Special rules to - and I don't understand why anyone is complaining about this - make them sound cooler and in fitting with the character of the unit.
If you're going to play Warhammer at all, the least you can do is remember what a few things translate to? :)

So, in all, the new layout means: more fluff and speedier army list building, but with the disadvantage of needing to remember a couple of extra rules? :)

Here's an idea: Quick reference sheets? Write down all the rules you can't remember onto a page or two. That way you don't have to keep flicking through the books. Genius!

THE CHIEF
07-01-2007, 15:11
I'm still in two minds over the new layout. While, on one hand, I've always liked the WFB style and I love its reintroduction into the 40K system, I can't see it working for everyone. Can you imagine Chaos being done like this? With the plethora of options every single unit can take (Marks, Weapons, Daemonic Gifts, etc.) a Chaos 'dex done in this style would occupy 84 pages with just the army list alone! With Eldar it worked (of sorts) because of the restrictive nature of the Aspect Temples, but with the more versatile unit-soaked armies out there (Chaos Space Marines, Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Inquisition, in fact mostly the Imperium armies) the jury's still out ...

perhaps this is why there is talk of up to five chaos codices! :rolleyes:

EDIT

and i don't know much about the eldar list as such, but i'm familiar with the new style of layout. it foxed me a bit at first too, but i was learning the rulebook at the same time. to be honest once i was down with the rules it all got pretty easy and i much prefer the fluff being broken down and associated with the appropriate units too. it's more engaging that way IMO.

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 15:13
OK, that's fair enough. The 1st armies list was designed in an order that made sense fluff-ways rather than games-ways (Aspect Warriors grouped together, Vehicles grouped together etc.). I can see how this would be a problem- but does it really take that long? Perhaps you should buy some post it notes...
Yes it takes much longer then just 'bookmarking' one page which has all the rules on it, I'd say. With the current system I either have to read an average of half the bookmarks before opening the correct page, or start searching the area and hope I remembered correctly where that pesky rule was listed.


Why would you ever play a 40K game without a rulebook? Is it really that much to ask to have both a rulebook and a codex with you when you play a game? Or would you like the rules for the Shooting Phase and the Assault Phase in the Eldar codex as well?
Well, there are only two places where I make my army lists. In bed, before going to sleep, where it is annoying to hold up such a big and heavy book, or during travel to/ breaks at school, the less weight in my pack the better. And it can also get damaged/lost. My old codex... well... it had water spilled over it once, and got soaked during rain another time. You know how much time it took to ensure that it dried properly so that pages wouldn't stick together and go blank when tearing them apart? About 4 hours each time, not counting that incident at school where I had to keep it wet until I had enough time to dry it properly. I wouldn't want to do anything like that to a rulebook of a few hundred pages. Anyway, my 3rd ed codex is still in relatively good condition despite all the water.

Lastie
07-01-2007, 15:20
The organisation is laid out in quite an obvious order:
Avatar, Psykers and Autarch.
Aspect Warriors.
Rangers and Guardians.
Jetbikes.
Vehicles and Support Weapons.
The Walking Dead (Wraithguard and Wraithlord).
Harlequins.
Characters.


That is indeed the order they appear to have been written in, but the question remains: WHY? It takes a lot longer to become accustomed to than should be for a Codex layout that has apparently got the Games Developers all excited over.



Here's an idea: Quick reference sheets? Write down all the rules you can't remember onto a page or two. That way you don't have to keep flicking through the books. Genius!

I would think that a Codex that requires me to re-write its contents so I may remember it better has failed somewhat in its purpose.

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 15:31
The organisation is laid out in quite an obvious order:
Avatar, Psykers and Autarch.
Aspect Warriors.
Rangers and Guardians.
Jetbikes.
Vehicles and Support Weapons.
The Walking Dead (Wraithguard and Wraithlord).
Harlequins.
Characters.

Need to know rules for an aspect warrior? Turn to the aspect warrior section. Then you don't have to remember what force organisation slot they come under. You can see that they've tried to make it easier, and I don't see a problem with it.

They use different names than from the Universal Special rules to - and I don't understand why anyone is complaining about this - make them sound cooler and in fitting with the character of the unit.
If you're going to play Warhammer at all, the least you can do is remember what a few things translate to? :)

So, in all, the new layout means: more fluff and speedier army list building, but with the disadvantage of needing to remember a couple of extra rules? :)
No it doesn't mean that.

Speedier army list building? Why? The 3rd ed codex had a similar point-list.

More fluff? Why?
3rd ed: 49 pages. 18 rules (37%), thus roughly 31 fluff and pics remaining.
4th ed: 85 pages. 47 rules (55%), thus roughly 38 fluff and pics remaining.
4th ed my style: 85 pages. 18 rules (21%), 67 fluff and pics.

The rules of the 3rd edition can be compacted further by removing the unit discription sidebar and the sections of text/pics at the bottom of some pages, but this room would be used by the new harlie and yriel entries.
Note: 3rd ed uses a special small font in the army list section, which is not the case in the 4th ed.
EDIT Note 2: You may say that half the 'useless-list' in 4th ed is fluff too, but there's also fluff in the 'rules' sections of the 3rd edition, the special char sections which I counted as 'rules' is 75% fluff/pics, and the point-lists in 3rd edition contain a sidebar with fluff/pics, and usually fluff/pics at the bottom of the pages too.



Here's an idea: Quick reference sheets? Write down all the rules you can't remember onto a page or two. That way you don't have to keep flicking through the books. Genius!

That's exactly what I did, I re-wrote the whole thing to the old 3rd edition system. But as I said, next time I'm not going to pay for a codex anymore, when I have to do all the work myself to make it readable.

Sabbad
07-01-2007, 15:59
Wow, in one thread Shakkara has undergone the full induction of Scout to Space Marine. Welcome to Warseer my good man!

As to the actual topic- I really can't think of another response other than a shrug of the shoulders. I like the new layout and you don't. I don't think that either of us will convince the others to change their minds.

But, to be brutally honest, GW has already declared that this will be the format of all future codices, and it is not going to change its mind regardless of your complaints (or even hundreds of complaints). You have three options: you can continue to complain in the knowledge that nothing will change anyway, you can vote with your wallet and refuse to by any more codicies because of the poor layout (which is a dumbass reason not to buy a codex imo) or you can learn to find ways that will compensate for the layout you dislike. Whether this is by writing reference lists or -SHOCK HORROR- learning the rules in the codicies and rulebook is entirely up to you.

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 16:08
Don't worry, I'm now adding fluff, pics and a cover to the stuff I've already re-written, and I'm going to make a full codex out of it. I'll let you guys know when I'm done.

yankeeboy
07-01-2007, 16:39
Sabbad, ever the uber GW apologist.

1. My complaint is not on the graphic design layout of the new codex. It's the disorganization. Either list units in alabetical order, or list them using the Force Organization Chart. Either way is obvious and easy to use. The current book is poorly organized.

2. It makes far more sense to retain the classic armoury/wargear reference section that all 40k books use. If they reject using the armoury wargear system, then it should be an obvious an obligatory move to reprint the relevent wargear information under each unit entry. In this scenario, one should not have to remember that vehicle upgrades are listed under the warwalker page when trying to look them up. they should be readily availabe under the current entry. Same thing applies to apsect exarch wargear that's available to autarchs. Either print it under each entry, or consolidate the information into one relevent heading area.

3. Given the current layout, there's really no reason that the designers can/could not have placed the force limitations and point values with the unit descriptions. The general unit entries (as opposed to the army list) can easily fulfill the basic function of army list. I prefer the army list format (as found in previous codices and the current marine, tau codices), but the current version seems fairly redundant.

4. As for the claims that everyone should memorize the army special rules: It generally takes many games before a player is fluent with a new army. There's no reason to make the book harder to navigate. The book's function should dictate it's efficiency. Its function is to present the army , its units, its rules, and army selection in a clear coherent manner. Using a basic organizational system, (perhaps the alphabet) seems an obvious choice.

dblaz3r
07-01-2007, 17:29
i like to use a little thing called memory. is it really that hard to remember something these days? alot of what i see on these forums is complain complain complain, a better way of using that energy is looking up the rule or whatever you need and then looking at the page number, boom, thats on that page, sweet. and if its all new then practise makes perfect

golembane
07-01-2007, 17:38
The codex being taken back to the 2nd edition layout is probably the best choice GW has made in a long time.

There isn't any disorganization, you need to know special rules in detail for the avatar? Go to the leaders section. Harlies? Those are there too, but since they aren't common in all Eldar forces they are near the end before the characters which are even rare. That goes for all classes, An aspect warrior type will be among all the aspects while vehicles are with the vehicles.

The area with the points is the army list. It isn't meant to be a huge wall of text you page through and read, it's supposed to be a summary of what was stated in previous pages, and give the *needed* information unstated in the unit's details(ie:point value).

3rd edition codexs WERE terrible because they cut out so much fluff. Most people have no clue about 90% of the Dark Eldar history, let alone things like Craftworld Iyanden unless they got their hands on WD articles, or things of that nature. Now Prince Yriel has a whole page of detail to add to the fluff of Iyanden, in addition to the Iyanden's main page. Dark Eldar, using the same layout if/when they get rereleased, will actually have the room to make them into a complete army with fluff and rules instead of a half complete army consisting of almost all rules, and no fluff.

Why do I press the need for fluff so much? Because Fluff is what makes you truly pick an army you enjoy. Fluff is that tool that tells how the armies will battle, in general. I enjoy using Warping spiders because the image of a 7 man squad suddenly stepping out from a warp hole behind an enemy is interesting to me. I could take Hawks, but their images and fluff doesn't strike me like the Spiders. All this goes for those people who pick Librarians over Chaplains, Necrons over SoBs, Slaneesh over Nurgle.

Karnesdorff
07-01-2007, 18:26
I have to admit I like the new layout for the codices. The 3rd ed codex pamphlets annoyed me a touch for how so little was in them, plus the ever so slightly differently worded versions of the same rule got annoying (How many varations of True Grit were there?), having one definition as a USR is a much, much better idea and the 2nd ed style codices are a change from what we've got used to, but definitely a step up IMO.

Frankly during a game, or even if your wanting to do a quick stat comparison for a list your planning, look at the summary sheet at p.68 of the Eldar codex, where you can find all ranged weapon stats, all model's stats and also a page ref that takes you to their section in the beastiary where if your in a game you'll find the rules your looking for, or if your making an army you can look at the unit's beasiary page for a bit and either go 'ooh, that's cool! I'll have a sqaud of that!' or 'Well THEY suck don't they', move on the army list and actually tot up the points once you have an idea of what you want each sqaud to do and how the army will hang together.

That's not too hard surely?

K.

EarlGrey
07-01-2007, 18:35
No it doesn't mean that.
Speedier army list building? Why? The 3rd ed codex had a similar point-list.

A lot of the units are listed on a single spread, so less page flicking when calculating your army. The Tau codex really needs this treatment; I'm forever flicking back to their wargear section.



More fluff? Why?
3rd ed: 49 pages. 18 rules (37%), thus roughly 31 fluff and pics remaining.
4th ed: 85 pages. 47 rules (55%), thus roughly 38 fluff and pics remaining.
4th ed my style: 85 pages. 18 rules (21%), 67 fluff and pics.

The rules of the 3rd edition can be compacted further by removing the unit discription sidebar and the sections of text/pics at the bottom of some pages, but this room would be used by the new harlie and yriel entries.
Note: 3rd ed uses a special small font in the army list section, which is not the case in the 4th ed.
EDIT Note 2: You may say that half the 'useless-list' in 4th ed is fluff too, but there's also fluff in the 'rules' sections of the 3rd edition, the special char sections which I counted as 'rules' is 75% fluff/pics, and the point-lists in 3rd edition contain a sidebar with fluff/pics, and usually fluff/pics at the bottom of the pages too.


Don't worry. You'll grow soon grow to love it and find yourself waking up smiling and reaching for each new codex. Seriously, it happened to me!
More fluff is good. It adds to the game considerably. Yes, they could have stuck points values there and had it all follow the force organisation chart, but then there would be a whole lot more page flicking. If you can't remember the what something means while making your army list, you'll be flicking through the codex for each rule during a game no matter what the layout is. I find it hard to remember it all, but the new layout does work well; give it a chance? Please?



That's exactly what I did, I re-wrote the whole thing to the old 3rd edition system. But as I said, next time I'm not going to pay for a codex anymore, when I have to do all the work myself to make it readable.

You don't pay for the codex for the rules that allow you to play your army? :)

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 18:40
The codex being taken back to the 2nd edition layout is probably the best choice GW has made in a long time.

There isn't any disorganization, you need to know special rules in detail for the avatar? Go to the leaders section. Harlies? Those are there too, but since they aren't common in all Eldar forces they are near the end before the characters which are even rare.
Sorting by rarity and some imaginary grouping really makes sense. NOT! We already have grouping, it's called HQ, Elites, Troops, Fast Attack and Heavy Support.

And have you even seen the layout of the 2nd edition Eldar codex? It goes like this:
1 Content list
2 Some general fluff
3 Fluff about some specific units
4 More general fluff
5 More fluff about some specific units
6 THE AVATAR RULESET
7 More fluff about aspect warriors, but including a table with aspect stats
8 The fluffy way of telling about units, like seen in 4th edition, in no particular order (like: guardians, warlocks, farseers, rangers....)
9 Multipage fluff story
10 Lots of pages with pictures
11 Cards with vehicle statistics
12 Cards with wargear stats
13 Second multipage fluff story
14 Exarch Power List
15 Armor list
16 Third multipage fluff story
17 Weapon list, including surprise surprise, the AVATAR weapons
18 Wargear list
19 Fourth multipage fluff story
20 Some general rules about the army, full of fluff references in it.
21 Another wargear/weapon list with point costs
22 Unit list with points
23 Special character list
24 Part and model list

I am thankful that I wasn't playing 40k yet with the 2nd edition, because, oh my god...



That goes for all classes, An aspect warrior type will be among all the aspects while vehicles are with the vehicles.

The area with the points is the army list. It isn't meant to be a huge wall of text you page through and read, it's supposed to be a summary of what was stated in previous pages, and give the *needed* information unstated in the unit's details(ie:point value).
Why not add the point value to the useless-list in the beginning, then those would be relatively complete and we would only need ONE list.


3rd edition codexs WERE terrible because they cut out so much fluff. Most people have no clue about 90% of the Dark Eldar history, let alone things like Craftworld Iyanden unless they got their hands on WD articles, or things of that nature. Now Prince Yriel has a whole page of detail to add to the fluff of Iyanden, in addition to the Iyanden's main page. Dark Eldar, using the same layout if/when they get rereleased, will actually have the room to make them into a complete army with fluff and rules instead of a half complete army consisting of almost all rules, and no fluff.

Why do I press the need for fluff so much? Because Fluff is what makes you truly pick an army you enjoy. Fluff is that tool that tells how the armies will battle, in general. I enjoy using Warping spiders because the image of a 7 man squad suddenly stepping out from a warp hole behind an enemy is interesting to me. I could take Hawks, but their images and fluff doesn't strike me like the Spiders. All this goes for those people who pick Librarians over Chaplains, Necrons over SoBs, Slaneesh over Nurgle.

Have you even read my post? Third of the second page. The 3rd edition codex has MUCH MORE fluff then the 4th edition. And they could have put MUCH MORE fluff in the 4th edition, if only they hadn't duplicated the rules!

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 18:49
A lot of the units are listed on a single spread, so less page flicking when calculating your army. The Tau codex really needs this treatment; I'm forever flicking back to their wargear section.
Old codex point list: 9 pages
New codex point list: 8 pages



Don't worry. You'll grow soon grow to love it and find yourself waking up smiling and reaching for each new codex. Seriously, it happened to me!
More fluff is good. It adds to the game considerably. Yes, they could have stuck points values there and had it all follow the force organisation chart, but then there would be a whole lot more page flicking. If you can't remember the what something means while making your army list, you'll be flicking through the codex for each rule during a game no matter what the layout is.
Not really, in the old codex all I needed was the wargear/upgrades/powers section which was all together. And as I said, the new lay-out leaves LESS room for fluff!!!



I find it hard to remember it all, but the new layout does work well; give it a chance? Please?
I HAVE given it a try, at first I didn't mind that much, but the more I use it, the more angry and frustrated I become.


You don't pay for the codex for the rules that allow you to play your army? :)
I'm not going to pay for a torture-device. I'll just borrow it from someone else next time and type over all the rules. Just like I'm doing now to made the hell-spawned thing USABLE! And once I'm done the codex will either be sold or end up on a shelf, or be cut up for the nice pictures, never to be touched again.

Karnesdorff
07-01-2007, 19:01
Have you even read my post? Third of the second page. The 3rd edition codex has MUCH MORE fluff then the 4th edition. And they could have put MUCH MORE fluff in the 4th edition, if only they hadn't duplicated the rules!

All background is not equal. While percentages can be made to show the 3rd ed codex had more fluff, which is debateable to say the very least, I would argue that that background was not as sucessful as giving you a feel of who the Eldar 'are' and how they got to be where they are. Compare the background in the 3rd ed. codex for Shining Spears to the 4th ed. codex background for Shining Spears. The 4th ed. one gives you a rather better idea of what they are and what seperates them from Guardian jetbikers, no?

K.

FarseerUshanti
07-01-2007, 19:04
The thing is though, had you been playing in 2nd edition, you would have not known a different style for the codex so would have embraced the codex.

As for me it was a bit of a pain at first, but now i know most stats and points costs by heart so i just use the codex for reference.In time you will learn the sam.

Master Jeridian
07-01-2007, 19:28
I'm sorry but many of the excuses for the new layout seem a bit weak.

"You wouldn't have known a better layout if you hadn't have played 3rd Ed"
"Get used to it, because GW tells you too"
"I like it because GW told me too"
"Veterans like the new layout as somehow they've memorised the Codex- despite it being new."
"Is it too much to ask for you to spend ages flipping between sections- sheesh, it's like you know of a more efficient method..."
Etc.

Fluff and an effective layout are not mutually exclusive- it would not require a cosmic shift in the universe just to include the pts costs in the first list too.
Then someone new to the game or army can write their army list whilst looking at the unit's abilities- whilst these 'Vet's' can use the more concise army list.

I know it is used in Warhammer- but it works there because there aren't that many variations in unit abilities and upgrades. For the most part you can upgrade a squad with a Sergeant, a Musician and a Standard Bearer which do the same thing in almost every army. Other than that the unit consists of identical troops- who are equipped with Spears, Swords, Handguns, etc again that have the same rules throughout the armies.

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 19:37
All background is not equal. While percentages can be made to show the 3rd ed codex had more fluff, which is debateable to say the very least, I would argue that that background was not as sucessful as giving you a feel of who the Eldar 'are' and how they got to be where they are. Compare the background in the 3rd ed. codex for Shining Spears to the 4th ed. codex background for Shining Spears. The 4th ed. one gives you a rather better idea of what they are and what seperates them from Guardian jetbikers, no?

K.

Which is completely irrelevant, as we are discussing the layout, not the quality of the fluff, no?

corsair_01
07-01-2007, 19:45
personally i like the eldar codex
but i dont like how they did the armoury section
at first it was really confusing to me me
other than that id say best codex yet

Karnesdorff
07-01-2007, 20:17
Which is completely irrelevant, as we are discussing the layout, not the quality of the fluff. K?

In the seection I quoted in my previous post you were making a highly dubious point to back your argument up based on the amount of background in books and my post was based on that.

As to layout, as I stated previously I fail to see the problem. You earlier on stated that the actual army list in the 4th ed codex is 8 pages compared to 9 for 3rd ed. Not a big difference on paper until you actually look at the army lists. In 4th ed, the All the HQ selection are on one two page spread, All the elites are on the next two page spread, All the Troop choices are on one page, etc.

Compare to the 3rd ed codex, where The elites section starts a third of the way down the page after the HQ section and bleeds over to another page and a half before the troops section starts halfway down that page and so on, not to mention the paragraph 'blocks' of upgrades in the unit entries compared to the lists of the 4th ed codex, which along with what is almost certainly the intentional spreading out of entries so you can see all the HQ's together at a glance, all the Elites together at a glance, etc. that also probably accounts for the bigger font on the army list pages and makes it much easier to go through the list and pick what you want since just by looking down the page or onto the page adjacent you can compare all units in the same section of the Force org to each other.

Can't remember what a special rule is in your newly bought 4th ed Eldar codex? go to page 68, just after the army list, and it'll tell you where to look for everything you need to know about that unit type. Can't remember what a special rule is in your newly bought 3rd ed Eldar codex(circa 1999)? Go the first page and then look up the contents where you need to go, go to where the page numbers stop after page 33, look for the section your wanting then search out what your looking for in the page/boxout of Exarch powers, Wargear, whatever, since all of them for all aspects are together.

I do not see how the 3rd ed layout is a superior way of sorting the book. The summary tells you all stats for ranged weapons, and frankly, surely it's not too much asking you to remember a rule you read just a few pages back?

K.

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 20:58
In the seection I quoted in my previous post you were making a highly dubious point to back your argument up based on the amount of background in books and my post was based on that.
The AMOUNT, aka QUANTITY of the background, not the QUALITY. If the new codex had the same layout, there would have been much MORE room for fluff!


As to layout, as I stated previously I fail to see the problem. You earlier on stated that the actual army list in the 4th ed codex is 8 pages compared to 9 for 3rd ed. Not a big difference on paper until you actually look at the army lists. In 4th ed, the All the HQ selection are on one two page spread, All the elites are on the next two page spread, All the Troop choices are on one page, etc.

Compare to the 3rd ed codex, where The elites section starts a third of the way down the page after the HQ section and bleeds over to another page and a half before the troops section starts halfway down that page and so on, not to mention the paragraph 'blocks' of upgrades in the unit entries compared to the lists of the 4th ed codex, which along with what is almost certainly the intentional spreading out of entries so you can see all the HQ's together at a glance, all the Elites together at a glance, etc. that also probably accounts for the bigger font on the army list pages and makes it much easier to go through the list and pick what you want since just by looking down the page or onto the page adjacent you can compare all units in the same section of the Force org to each other.
This is mostly caused by the fact that there are now more HQ choices and that special characters are now in the HQ section then anything else.



Can't remember what a special rule is in your newly bought 4th ed Eldar codex? go to page 68, just after the army list, and it'll tell you where to look for everything you need to know about that unit type.
Yeah right, so I'm looking at the points list and don't know what the exarch ability I might be interested in does, so I first have to find the horribly placed summary sheet which isn't even properly at the end or beginning of the book (this annoyance actually almost made me rip out the 8 pages with pictures at the end), and then go find the appropriate page with the rule on it, and then find out that the rule isn't even in the codex, but in the main rulebook. Great. Or look up a psychic power. Go find the farseer entry. Hey, it's not here! It's two pages away in a LIST with all Eldar psychic powers, much like the 3rd edition codex but in the middle of all the fluffy entries of other units! And the worst thing is, they could have fit it on the same page with the Farseer and Warlocks, but noooooo most of that page is filled with fluff instead! Not to mention trying to search for a vehicle upgrade for a Vyper! Oh, it's in that shady corner which is part of the Warwalker entry!


Can't remember what a special rule is in your newly bought 3rd ed Eldar codex(circa 1999)? Go the first page and then look up the contents where you need to go, go to where the page numbers stop after page 33, look for the section your wanting then search out what your looking for in the page/boxout of Exarch powers, Wargear, whatever, since all of them for all aspects are together.
I wouldn't need to go to the index, because fortunately the book is bonded in such a way that the appropriate page which contains all the nice special rules falls open almost automatically. (just take a look, the book is bonded in 3 parts, and the 3rd part is where the special equipment and abilities are. You ALWAYS have to look in one place, not somewhere in between the chaos of 47!!! pages with rules!


I do not see how the 3rd ed layout is a superior way of sorting the book. The summary tells you all stats for ranged weapons, and frankly, surely it's not too much asking you to remember a rule you read just a few pages back?

K.
The summary is in an awkward place. And since I have almost 12000 points of Eldar (no kidding) and thus able to field every unit, and thus having to make difficult choices and calculations very often, I have to remember much more then a casual player, who only has roughly half the units listed in the book at his disposal.

DoctorTom
07-01-2007, 21:18
Yes it takes much longer then just 'bookmarking' one page which has all the rules on it, I'd say. With the current system I either have to read an average of half the bookmarks before opening the correct page, or start searching the area and hope I remembered correctly where that pesky rule was listed.

Or, perhaps, use the index? The first page lists the pages for all the units, as does the reference sheet. Granted, the page numbers for the units should also be listed with the units themselves on the army lists so as to make it easier, and the mandiblaster and banshee mask in the Autarch section should have at least been referenced to the appropriate page in the army building section if not also given descriptions in the Autarch section, but to me these are minor things that they can work on to improve in future codices. I wouldn't chuck out the entire format because of that.


Well, there are only two places where I make my army lists. In bed, before going to sleep, where it is annoying to hold up such a big and heavy book, or during travel to/ breaks at school, the less weight in my pack the better. And it can also get damaged/lost. My old codex... well... it had water spilled over it once, and got soaked during rain another time. You know how much time it took to ensure that it dried properly so that pages wouldn't stick together and go blank when tearing them apart? About 4 hours each time, not counting that incident at school where I had to keep it wet until I had enough time to dry it properly. I wouldn't want to do anything like that to a rulebook of a few hundred pages. Anyway, my 3rd ed codex is still in relatively good condition despite all the water.

For going to school you could always get one of the small rulebooks included in Battle for Macragge. It has all the relevant rules, it's just missing the fluff and the scenarios after the basic missions.


[/QUOTE]I'm not going to pay for a torture-device. I'll just borrow it from someone else next time and type over all the rules. Just like I'm doing now to made the hell-spawned thing USABLE! And once I'm done the codex will either be sold or end up on a shelf, or be cut up for the nice pictures, never to be touched again.[/QUOTE]

And if your opponent isn't familiar with Eldar and questions you on a rule? I hope you're not expecting him to take the word of a bunch of sheets of paper that you've typed out. Most people would want to see the rule in the codex itself.

I think Dblaz3r's comment about memery is apt. I would think it would require less effort to read through the codex a few times so as to memorize the special rules and equipment than to go retype the whole thing in a different format. Of course, you might find yourself memorizing the rules by typing it out in the new format - that's one way to do it. I wouldn't rely on the typed out version for anything more than army building, though. If I were playing against you I'd expect at least one of use to have the proper codex for our armies, and a homemade list doesn't fit the requirements.

DoctorTom
07-01-2007, 21:23
Yeah right, so I'm looking at the points list and don't know what the exarch ability I might be interested in does, so I first have to find the horribly placed summary sheet which isn't even properly at the end or beginning of the book (this annoyance actually almost made me rip out the 8 pages with pictures at the end)

Horribly placed? You haven't figured out yet that GW likes placing the reference sheet as the last B&W page in the codex? It was even this way with the older layouts that you tout as being so superior. The only thing that's changed about the reference page is that they've added page numbers for where to find the unit description, which is an advantage over before.

EDIT: Of course, the older layout version fell down on the job when they forgot to put in the reference sheet for the Ork Codex, but that's an entirely different matter.

ashc
07-01-2007, 21:24
seriously if you have that much of an issue with having to flick through a few pages to find rules you don't know, or just plain cannot be bothered to learn the rules for your own army, then what hope is there?

Obviously its too much effort; GW should simplify 40k further obviously so it fits on an A4 sheet, then just print all the rules for every army on a similarly sized sheet as people who play the game just cannot handle anything further; would that make people happy?

A game shouldn't be played unless both players own their relevant codex and you have the core rulebook to hand anyway.

Ash

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 21:28
Or, perhaps, use the index? The first page lists the pages for all the units,
BUZZZZZ! No it doesn't. There is... no index! :mad:


As does the reference sheet. Granted, the page numbers for the units should also be listed with the units themselves on the army lists so as to make it easier, and the mandiblaster and banshee mask in the Autarch section should have at least been referenced to the appropriate page in the army building section if not also given descriptions in the Autarch section, but to me these are minor things that they can work on to improve in future codices. I wouldn't chuck out the entire format because of that.
Both issues already explained in previous posts.


For going to school you could always get one of the small rulebooks included in Battle for Macragge. It has all the relevant rules, it's just missing the fluff and the scenarios after the basic missions.
And how would I just 'get' that? I don't NEED a full boxed set with two armies I don't play. There are also those old cardboard A4 sized cards with most of the rules summarized, but I never have been able to get my hands on that either.


And if your opponent isn't familiar with Eldar and questions you on a rule? I hope you're not expecting him to take the word of a bunch of sheets of paper that you've typed out. Most people would want to see the rule in the codex itself.

I think Dblaz3r's comment about memery is apt. I would think it would require less effort to read through the codex a few times so as to memorize the special rules and equipment than to go retype the whole thing in a different format. Of course, you might find yourself memorizing the rules by typing it out in the new format - that's one way to do it. I wouldn't rely on the typed out version for anything more than army building, though. If I were playing against you I'd expect at least one of use to have the proper codex for our armies, and a homemade list doesn't fit the requirements.

I'm playing in two places. The game shop, which always has a few Codex of every army in stock, and at home. In the first case I can tell them to go fetch it and look at it if they don't trust me, and in the second case I can just "get" the whole rulebook as PDF pretty quickly.

Voltaire
07-01-2007, 21:29
Posts like this remind me of that joke - What do you call Warhammer Fantasy for beginners? 40K!

Seriously, the Eldar codex layout is reflective of the superior fantasy method of laying things out and moving towards something superior isn't a bad thing you know!

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 21:32
Horribly placed? You haven't figured out yet that GW likes placing the reference sheet as the last B&W page in the codex?
Well they could just have removed all the stupid pages of pictures after the reference sheet eh? Or place it right at the beginning, like it was with the old layout. Now it's not easy to find. (easy being in less then 1 second).


It was even this way with the older layouts that you tout as being so superior. The only thing that's changed about the reference page is that they've added page numbers for where to find the unit description, which is an advantage over before.
Untrue, it's NOT this way with the older layouts. And they only need those page numbers because otherwise it's nigh impossible to find the appropriate entries in all that mess.

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 21:37
seriously if you have that much of an issue with having to flick through a few pages to find rules you don't know, or just plain cannot be bothered to learn the rules for your own army, then what hope is there?
It's NOT 'a few' pages, PLUS this argument is void, as said before, because there is a BETTER way to put a codex together!


Obviously its too much effort; GW should simplify 40k further obviously so it fits on an A4 sheet, then just print all the rules for every army on a similarly sized sheet as people who play the game just cannot handle anything further; would that make people happy?
It has nothing to do with the amount of rules, it has everything to do in the way they organize the data! Your argument is again void.


A game shouldn't be played unless both players own their relevant codex and you have the core rulebook to hand anyway.
If you come up with a crap argument like that, I could say that a game shouldn't be played unless each player is able to look up all the appropriate rules for each of his units in less then 1 second per lookup, with new codex layouts I have to wait for ages and that makes me bored.

ashc
07-01-2007, 21:40
If you come up with a crap argument like that, I could say that a game shouldn't be played unless each player is able to look up all the appropriate rules for each of his units in less then 1 second per lookup, with new codex layouts I have to wait for ages and that makes me bored.

Im sorry, Im not making an argument; Im stating a fact. You really shouldn't be playing a game if you do not have all relevant rulebooks to hand.

If you have an attention span that means you only have 1 second to look up a rule before you consider yourself bored then honestly this isn't the game for you.

Ash

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 21:42
Posts like this remind me of that joke - What do you call Warhammer Fantasy for beginners? 40K!

Seriously, the Eldar codex layout is reflective of the superior fantasy method of laying things out and moving towards something superior isn't a bad thing you know!

Just because it works for Warhammer Fantasy doesn't mean it works for 40k. Like someone already said before.

Warhammer 40k has hundreds of weapons and special abilities, while in WHFB there are only a dozen weapons used identically in each army and only a few special rules for certain units, while the majority of units either have no special rules or a special rule that is shared by the whole army.

And on a sidenote, in my personal opinion, Warhammer Fantasy is much easier then Warhammer 40k, and also easier to remember the rules for, with the exception of the magic spell information required to be memorized.

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 21:47
Im sorry, Im not making an argument; Im stating a fact. You really shouldn't be playing a game if you do not have all relevant rulebooks to hand.
The fact is: You shouldn't be playing a game if you do not have all the relevant RULES to hand.

Which also indirectly implies the ability to provide them relatively quickly on demand.


If you have an attention span that means you only have 1 second to look up a rule before you consider yourself bored then honestly this isn't the game for you.
Ash
As I clearly stated, it was a hypothetical situation, which you can't attack me on in this fashion.

Voltaire
07-01-2007, 21:48
What are you talking about? What utter piffle. The systems are fundamentally the same so if Fantasy people can use it without complaining I'm sure the simpler 40k players won't have much trouble working their way around something clearly designed in a better way - it makes more sense generally.

The last time I checked, armies have inventories, sometimes psychic powers (better known as Magic lores in fantasy) and units which are limited and identical. Hundreds? Thats a joke! Last time I checked, you can only give units a limited number of weapons, same as Fantasy. Hundreds indeed...


As I clearly stated, it was a hypothetical situation, which you can't attack me on in this fashion.

You post it, you should expect to pay for it...

Scorpion
07-01-2007, 21:51
Personally, I'm more favourable to the old Codex Layout, like exemplified in Codex: Tau Empire. All wargear condensed in a single place, unit descriptions according to Force Organization Charts, the works.

The problem with the new layout is that it's very, very poorly done. For starters, we have a rather anemic wargear section called "Weapons of the Eldar" that has statlines for some (but not all) Eldar weapons. In the meanwhile, some unit entries have their weapons' statlines in the entry itself! That isn't even duplicating information, it's fragmenting it! Either you put all weapons in the respective unit entry (often duplicating information) or yo put it all in the Wargear section, or both, but the way it currently is it's very confusing!

The army lists are a similar issue. One has unit fluff and rules, but no cost; the other has points cost, but no fluff and rules. Again, information is fragmented, not duplicated, making it harder to use the codex, with the agravating condition that the first army list doesn't use neither alphabetical order neither the FOC as an organic principle, an organization that ALL Codices have used since atleast 3rd Ed. Again, either your pour all information into one place (adding the FOC slot and points cost to the Fluff and Rules Army list and cutting the 2nd army list) or you duplicate it (adding points and FOC slot to the 1st army list and keeping the 2nd as a kind of "army list reference guide").

Either you cram it all into one place or you duplicate the information. With the way it is now, with rules and points cost scattered at the Four Winds, it's a no-go, Capt'n!

DoctorTom
07-01-2007, 21:54
BUZZZZZ! No it doesn't. There is... no index! :mad:

Okay, look at what I typed. List of units with page numbers on the first page. Now, go open up the front cover of your codex and look at the first page. Read below the "Eldar by Phil Kelly" and look below the Eldar symbol. There are lists of unit entries and page numbers.



I'm playing in two places. The game shop, which always has a few Codex of every army in stock, and at home. In the first case I can tell them to go fetch it and look at it if they don't trust me, and in the second case I can just "get" the whole rulebook as PDF pretty quickly.

You don't play at a GW store, do you? :-) If I were playing you I'd expect you to be able to produce an official version of your codex; anybody could reasonably expect that. You talked in other posts about not buying the codices in the future - if you're not willing to buy them for your armies, you shouldn't expect opponenets to play you if you don't have the rules.

DoctorTom
07-01-2007, 21:58
BUZZZZZ! And how would I just 'get' that? I don't NEED a full boxed set with two armies I don't play. There are also those old cardboard A4 sized cards with most of the rules summarized, but I never have been able to get my hands on that either.

Have you tried looking on Ebay for the small rulebook? Or some of the online stores like bwbits that will sell the book by itself without having to buy the rest of the boxed set? If you really wanted it, there's ways to get one.

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 22:03
What are you talking about? What utter piffle. The systems are fundamentally the same so if Fantasy people can use it without complaining I'm sure the simpler 40k players won't have much trouble working their way around something clearly designed in a better way - it makes more sense generally.

The last time I checked, armies have inventories,
And guess what... In the WHFB army books, Magic weapons and most special powers are listed in a seperate section, much like the 3rd edition Eldar Codex has, and which the 4th edition Eldar Codex does NOT have! Clearly designed in a better way, huh?


sometimes psychic powers (better known as Magic lores in fantasy)
Surprise, Magic Lores are in a seperate section, much like the 3rd edition codex. At least they are for the High Elves.


and units which are limited and identical. Hundreds? Thats a joke! Last time I checked, you can only give units a limited number of weapons, same as Fantasy. Hundreds indeed...
I see 33 ranged weapons in the Eldar reference sheet alone. If we start including the close combat weapons and all the stuff used by other armies, we end up with hundreds indeed.

Want to count weapons for WHFB? Let's see...
1h weapon
2h weapon
flail
morning star
halberd
spear
lance

javelin
sling
throwing axe
small throwing weapon
shortbow
bow
longbow
crossbow
repeater crossbow
pistol
handgun

which brings the grand-total of non-magical weapons at 18-or-so for WHFB. Out of these 18 weapons, let's say only half is actually a valid choice for the army played. No, you don't need a wargear section for 9 weapons. You do for 33+ weapons though!

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 22:07
Okay, look at what I typed. List of units with page numbers on the first page. Now, go open up the front cover of your codex and look at the first page. Read below the "Eldar by Phil Kelly" and look below the Eldar symbol. There are lists of unit entries and page numbers.
Aha, right. But... Vehicle upgrades are missing! Hahahaah....


You don't play at a GW store, do you? :-) If I were playing you I'd expect you to be able to produce an official version of your codex; anybody could reasonably expect that. You talked in other posts about not buying the codices in the future - if you're not willing to buy them for your armies, you shouldn't expect opponenets to play you if you don't have the rules.
In a GW store they ALSO have the codex for viewing, so why would that be a problem? And for anything at my house, a PDF is enough.

FarseerUshanti
07-01-2007, 22:08
Basically there is only problem I find with the new layout. That is the fact that the unit lists in the first section are not either in alphabetical order or by FoC. This would have helped although I have now mainly memorized th elayout of the codex to an extent so page flipping is minimal. Another thing that owuld have helped is had a reference page number within the army list unit that shows points for the models and upgrades Also the reference sheet is in the same spot as every other codex including the 3rd Edition Eldar Codex

DoctorTom
07-01-2007, 22:08
The fact is: You shouldn't be playing a game if you do not have all the relevant RULES to hand.

Which also indirectly implies the ability to provide them relatively quickly on demand.

'Relatively quickly' is subjective. You can't look at the first page or the reference page (which, btw, should be available from the GW website so you have it as a handly reference without taking the 0.8 seconds to flip to the last B&W page in the book) to find the page number and quickly look at the reference. That seems to fit your definition of 'relatively quickly'. If you can't handle that, you probably shouldn't be playing 40k, or in fact any game that would require you to look up things in a rulebook.

And as for your typed cout homemade codex? If I were the opponent I would keep asking you to show me the real codex to make sure you didn't accidentally mistype something like Shuriken Catapults are 24" Assult 3 Rending or something like they. Hand typed rules are open for criticism of abuse, even if you were completely honest and completely accurate when you typed it up.

ekister101
07-01-2007, 22:12
I took a look at the Eldar book and thought it looked atrocious. I was not planning to play Eldar anyway, just taking a peek, but the codex would drive me away in a second. I was looking for new things and trying to see what rules changes had been made and it took 20 minutes of looking just to get some idea of what was happening. Having to flick back and forth from entry to cost was annoying. I really like the current Marine, Guard, and WH codicies and wish they would find something and STICK with it. LOL

I will be sorely disappointed if the new Dark Angel Codex looks similar. I will adjust and not go too silly bitching about it, but I won't like it!

DoctorTom
07-01-2007, 22:14
Aha, right. But... Vehicle upgrades are missing! Hahahaah....

Okay, so they missed one thing in the index - just stick a bookmark in the one thing they missed. One exception does not shoot down the entire argument. Also, if that's your only problem, take time to memorize the small numbers of rules for the vehicle upgrades so you don't need to have to refer back to that page. Surely you've got enough attention span for that?

[QUOTE=Shakkara;1200787]In a GW store they ALSO have the codex for viewing, so why would that be a problem? And for anything at my house, a PDF is enough.

Why should it be a problem? GW expects you to buy their products. They've got a reasonable expcectation that you're going to own a proper codex for an army you play, and have every right to keep you from playing there if you come in with a version you typed up at home. If you tried using MageKnight or Starship Troopers figures for your armies they wouldn't let you; why would you expect any different from not having the rules for your army?

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 22:14
'Relatively quickly' is subjective. You can't look at the first page or the reference page (which, btw, should be available from the GW website so you have it as a handly reference without taking the 0.8 seconds to flip to the last B&W page in the book) to find the page number and quickly look at the reference. That seems to fit your definition of 'relatively quickly'. If you can't handle that, you probably shouldn't be playing 40k, or in fact any game that would require you to look up things in a rulebook.
The point is, once again, that there is a far more EFFICIENT means of organizing all the information. If I am able to look it up in 1 second with layout A, and the producer makes something in layout B, which requires me to search for 5 seconds, then I have every right to complain, not? User friendliness and such?


And as for your typed cout homemade codex? If I were the opponent I would keep asking you to show me the real codex to make sure you didn't accidentally mistype something like Shuriken Catapults are 24" Assult 3 Rending or something like they. Hand typed rules are open for criticism of abuse, even if you were completely honest and completely accurate when you typed it up.
Well then, 1) I wouldn't play against a person that would be so annoying and doesn't even trust me or 2) You can have a normal codex and look up all the crap by yourself, don't expect me to help you. :p

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 22:23
Okay, so they missed one thing in the index - just stick a bookmark in the one thing they missed. One exception does not shoot down the entire argument. Also, if that's your only problem, take time to memorize the small numbers of rules for the vehicle upgrades so you don't need to have to refer back to that page. Surely you've got enough attention span for that?
Yeah, but then there is another thing I have to look up, and another, and another. And all those extra 5 seconds I have to look quickly add up.


Why should it be a problem? GW expects you to buy their products. They've got a reasonable expcectation that you're going to own a proper codex for an army you play, and have every right to keep you from playing there if you come in with a version you typed up at home.
Interesting, because my friend always brings a hand-written stat/special rule list for WHFB when he plays, which is different each time because he only writes down the statline/powers of the unit he fields that battle. There was never a dispute.


If you tried using MageKnight or Starship Troopers figures for your armies they wouldn't let you; why would you expect any different from not having the rules for your army?
I use home made models from the Crusader game series as dark reapers, which only use heavily modified guardian leggings and the rest of them is so far converted that it isn't even recognizable as GW part anymore. There was never any problem with that either.

So quit your hypothetical situations at a GW store to bash me for using a re-written, much more EFFICIENT codex.

Karnesdorff
07-01-2007, 22:24
Ooh, Quotewar! Haven't done this for aaages!



The AMOUNT, aka QUANTITY of the background, not the QUALITY. If the new codex had the same layout, there would have been much MORE room for fluff!


No, As I said, since GW have made a (good, IMO) decision that the actual army list should be laid out so you can see all the units of one force org section at the same time, which would likely have been impossible under the old format, I doubt putting all the rules at the back would have freed up much space if they retained the better formatting of the army list section, and this would in fact have led to more flicking around between army entries and wargear section.



This is mostly caused by the fact that there are now more HQ choices and that special characters are now in the HQ section then anything else.


Yeah, the new layout with wargear lists in the entries and bigger font so it all actually fits on those pages is mere concidence...Of course. What about how the same is true of the Layout of Elites, Troops, etc?




Yeah right, so I'm looking at the points list and don't know what the exarch ability I might be interested in does, so I first have to find the horribly placed summary sheet which isn't even properly at the end or beginning of the book (this annoyance actually almost made me rip out the 8 pages with pictures at the end),


'I am on page 62, I need to go to page 68 for the summary. GAH! The Injustice of it all!'




...and then go find the appropriate page with the rule on it, and then find out that the rule isn't even in the codex, but in the main rulebook. Great.

Better than than ending up with 6 versions of the same rule all slightly different.



Or look up a psychic power. Go find the farseer entry. Hey, it's not here! It's two pages away in a LIST with all Eldar psychic powers, much like the 3rd edition codex but in the middle of all the fluffy entries of other units!


Oh come on, having the page progression Farseer(p.26), Warlock(p.27), Psychic Powers(p.28) is hardly in the middle of the entries for other units is it?



And the worst thing is, they could have fit it on the same page with the Farseer and Warlocks, but noooooo most of that page is filled with fluff instead!


Funnily enough GW probably wanted people to be able to know what a Farseer was rather than just what it could do.



Not to mention trying to search for a vehicle upgrade for a Vyper! Oh, it's in that shady corner which is part of the Warwalker entry!

Fair point, this is badly placed and should have gone elsewhere. but that hardly invalidates the entire layout.



I wouldn't need to go to the index, because fortunately the book is bonded in such a way that the appropriate page which contains all the nice special rules falls open almost automatically. (just take a look, the book is bonded in 3 parts, and the 3rd part is where the special equipment and abilities are. You ALWAYS have to look in one place, not somewhere in between the chaos of 47!!! pages with rules!


Fortuitious binding issues aside(I was doing this from the perspective of newbie buyer remember? They aren't going to know a codex opens at a certain place due to binding), my point still stands, in the 4th ed. book, you go to the summary, a maximum of 8 pages from any page in the army list, then to the entry in the Beastiary. They may well be 47!!! pages with rules, but since nearly all of the time only 1!!! has what your wanting the existence of the other 46 are irrelevant to you finding the rule you want. Certainly some entries refer to USR's in the BGB, but as I said before, I prefer one central place for the common special rules that's referred back to rather than a hundred and one slightly different variants in each book.



The summary is in an awkward place.


I still don't see how the end of the army list and opposite the colour section is an akward place. Slap a bookmark/post-it note there if you think it's difficult to find.



And since I have almost 12000 points of Eldar (no kidding) and thus able to field every unit, and thus having to make difficult choices and calculations very often, I have to remember much more then a casual player, who only has roughly half the units listed in the book at his disposal.

Not really, you have a lot of units, but it's still going to be at most remembering the rules for every unit in the codex, which would be a pretty big game indeed. Even then, you'd surely have the codex to hand to remind yourself rather than trying to do it all from memory, and since you've got a ref sheet that has their game stats and says where you can find their special rules, that's no problem.

K.

Delicious Soy
07-01-2007, 22:32
BUZZZZZ! No it doesn't. There is... no index! :mad: Errmmm.. what that on page 68 with page references for every unit? seem rather, how should I say this? Index like in its appearance? One bookmark. Thats all you need for this codex. I fail to see why this is such a dramatic four page issue.

Again. :rolleyes:

DoctorTom
07-01-2007, 22:39
The point is, once again, that there is a far more EFFICIENT means of organizing all the information. If I am able to look it up in 1 second with layout A, and the producer makes something in layout B, which requires me to search for 5 seconds, then I have every right to complain, not? User friendliness and such?

Sure, you have the right to complain, but if you're complaining about it taking 5 seconds to look up something vs. 1 second then we have the right to look at the complaint as baseless whining rather than being something that has any merit. ;) And your argument in another post about all those 5 second periods adding up is also baseless since you should be learning your army list at some point, and unless you have an extreme case of ADD it shouldn't be eating up that much time in a game. Sure, the book might be done more efficiently from your point of view, but the question is whether it's efficient enough for the majority of people using it. I've seen far more people comfortable enough with the new format after reading through their codex a few times than there are people who go into epileptic seizures from the strobing effect of constantly flipping through the pages too rapidly. :) :)



Well then, 1) I wouldn't play against a person that would be so annoying and doesn't even trust me or 2) You can have a normal codex and look up all the crap by yourself, don't expect me to help you. :p

I don't know you, so I don't know whether I can trust you - but I know what that what is written down in the codex and what is FAQ'd is what is appropriate for the armies. So, it's really a case of people refusing to play you because you can't be bothered to have a legal copy of the rules, which any person can reasonably expect. My point is you should still buy the army codex that you're playing with - it's fine if you let the other person look up the rules, but don't expect them to have to play you if you're too cheap or too bothered to be able to get the rules for your own army.

Voltaire
07-01-2007, 22:39
And guess what... In the WHFB army books, Magic weapons and most special powers are listed in a seperate section, much like the 3rd edition Eldar Codex has, and which the 4th edition Eldar Codex does NOT have! Clearly designed in a better way, huh?

Yes, of course, I mean, only seeing the powers bundled together to see the effects is rapidly different to the Lores of magic being seperate from the inventory.




I see 33 ranged weapons in the Eldar reference sheet alone. If we start including the close combat weapons and all the stuff used by other armies, we end up with hundreds indeed.

Want to count weapons for WHFB? Let's see...


which brings the grand-total of non-magical weapons at 18-or-so for WHFB. Out of these 18 weapons, let's say only half is actually a valid choice for the army played. No, you don't need a wargear section for 9 weapons. You do for 33+ weapons though!

Oh how naive indeed. Do you really think thats what matters? Of course it isnt. Look at the Fantasy books and you get a points allowance to see an inventory you get to look at to see the effects. This inventory takes up several pages rather than a list of generic stats for differing powers of weapons. Magical weapons still count because they are weapons. They have effects, just like a starcannon.

I'm leaving this thread now, as I feel that arguing with you is fruitless. You have made the wrong first impression on this forum...

Weregerbil
07-01-2007, 22:40
Arrggh four pages about this! The layout of the book is fine if you have BRAIN!

DoctorTom
07-01-2007, 22:45
Yeah, but then there is another thing I have to look up, and another, and another. And all those extra 5 seconds I have to look quickly add up.

Again, it doesn't add up if you actually take the time to learn some of the rules you keep having to refer back to. A little memory can go a long way...


Interesting, because my friend always brings a hand-written stat/special rule list for WHFB when he plays, which is different each time because he only writes down the statline/powers of the unit he fields that battle. There was never a dispute.

That's fine - I use a handwritten list myself. I have my codex to refer back to, though, if anyone ever has a question about that the specific rules are. Nothing wrong with handwritten sheets as long as you have the real codex to fall back on.



I use home made models from the Crusader game series as dark reapers, which only use heavily modified guardian leggings and the rest of them is so far converted that it isn't even recognizable as GW part anymore. There was never any problem with that either.

So quit your hypothetical situations at a GW store to bash me for using a re-written, much more EFFICIENT codex.[/QUOTE]

I've seen people not get allowed to use other company's models for 40k. As a matter of fact, take some time to look at the tournament rules sometime to see what's allowed - models produced by other companies are not there. So, it's not a hypothetical situation. And, I'm not bashing you for using a "re-written, much more EFFICIENT codex", I'm bashing your statements about thrwoing away the main book afterwards and about not buying any codexes in the future (which, if you change armies, means you won't have a legal codex to refer back to).

DoctorTom
07-01-2007, 22:50
Errmmm.. what that on page 68 with page references for every unit? seem rather, how should I say this? Index like in its appearance? One bookmark. Thats all you need for this codex. I fail to see why this is such a dramatic four page issue.

Again. :rolleyes:

Amazing how the thing on page 68 looks awfully similar to the printable Eldar Refference Sheet on the GW website that can be printed out and stuck in the book to whatever page it can be easily found at. :D

Voltaire
07-01-2007, 22:51
Arrggh four pages about this! The layout of the book is fine if you have BRAIN!

Here here!

scarletsquig
07-01-2007, 23:32
I grew up with fighting fantasy books, so keeping several fingers in the wargear page, unit entry, army list etc. to flick back to with ease comes totally naturally to me.

The only thing that bugs me with the new codex is the layout of the units being neither alphabetical, or following a logical progression of H.Q. > elites > troops > fast attack > heavy support. Gets a bit too flicky at times, but otherwise it's not that bad. I'll have it memorised within a few months anyway, so no worries.

Shakkara
07-01-2007, 23:40
I have put all the Eldar rules, weapons, powers, and such into nicely ordered word documents which are easy to read and print to use as a reference next to the point list in the army book. I have not spell checked the document as I don't have an English spell checker, if anyone would care to proof-read it it would be nice.

If anyone is interested, drop me a PM and I'll send you the link.

Rioghan Murchadha
07-01-2007, 23:50
Look at it this way. Compared to the old Eldar Codex, with this one, because everything is duplicated, you get more pages, and thus feel slightly less violated when forking over the ridiculous cost for the codex as you're getting more pages.

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 00:02
Ooh, Quotewar! Haven't done this for aaages!

No, As I said, since GW have made a (good, IMO) decision that the actual army list should be laid out so you can see all the units of one force org section at the same time, which would likely have been impossible under the old format,
Objection, speculation. :D


I doubt putting all the rules at the back would have freed up much space if they retained the better formatting of the army list section, and this would in fact have led to more flicking around between army entries and wargear section.
Care to explain why? Right now we have to be flickering back and forth from the point list to the useless list, which aren't even in the same order. Normally, we would only have to flicker from anywhere in the point list to the wargear section, the wargear section being static, and listing everything for all the units in the point list. What they did now was duplicate most of the information, yet still ending up with two incomplete lists. Hence they ended up with 47 pages of rules instead of 18.


Yeah, the new layout with wargear lists in the entries and bigger font so it all actually fits on those pages is mere concidence...Of course. What about how the same is true of the Layout of Elites, Troops, etc?
Take a look at the 3rd edition codex. If the HQ section would have been 1 pages, then the Warp Spider entry would have been moved to the next page. If that was the case, then the Elites would be nicely over two full pages, all in view. Then, the Ranger entry would have been moved to the next page, which would also be nicely filled, leaving a little bit of room for some picture, but all troops and the wave serpent would be on those two pages. The guardian jetbikes and the shining spears (or just the shining spears if you prefer), would have been moved to the next page, which makes all the fast attack choices fit on one page as well! The only thing would be that the Heavy units would be on two pages which arent adjacent to eachother. Which could be circumvented by swapping the heavy and fast entries if that was really essential.

So yes, the same is true for the layout of Elites, Troops, Fast Attack and Heavy support. :)



'I am on page 62, I need to go to page 68 for the summary. GAH! The Injustice of it all!'
Oh no, I'm playing a game right now and the book is closed and I need to be shocked that the Starcannon REALLY has 2 shots instead of 3! Where is that stupid table with weapons again? Oh right, I have to flick pages 8 times before I'm there! :mad:


Better than than ending up with 6 versions of the same rule all slightly different.
Now instead, they end up with 6 names of the same rule. Really clarifies things eh?


Oh come on, having the page progression Farseer(p.26), Warlock(p.27), Psychic Powers(p.28) is hardly in the middle of the entries for other units is it?
It's still not their standard. Their standard is that the rules are listed with the individual models, and that lists such as wargear lists are nonexistent. Instead, they once again scatter information allover the place and do not even keep to one standard but instead make an exception to their rule for the psychic powers (which doesn't even contain shadowseer powers, which is in the harlie section), and the infamous vehicle upgrade lists.



Funnily enough GW probably wanted people to be able to know what a Farseer was rather than just what it could do.
Yes. And there are FLUFF sections for that. Not rule sections.


Fortuitious binding issues aside(I was doing this from the perspective of newbie buyer remember? They aren't going to know a codex opens at a certain place due to binding), my point still stands, in the 4th ed. book, you go to the summary, a maximum of 8 pages from any page in the army list, then to the entry in the Beastiary. They may well be 47!!! pages with rules, but since nearly all of the time only 1!!! has what your wanting the existence of the other 46 are irrelevant to you finding the rule you want.

Which happens to be exactly my point. There are 46 pages of irrelevant stuff between me and the page I am looking for. Opposed to only having to look in one place for rules, it's all scattered in an unorganized jungle.


Certainly some entries refer to USR's in the BGB, but as I said before, I prefer one central place for the common special rules that's referred back to rather than a hundred and one slightly different variants in each book.
Now, if only they called the same rule by the same name...


I still don't see how the end of the army list and opposite the colour section is an akward place. Slap a bookmark/post-it note there if you think it's difficult to find.
"slap some ducttape on it and fix it if it's broken". I shouldn't be having to fix anything myself if there's a way to sell it to me unbroken.


Not really, you have a lot of units, but it's still going to be at most remembering the rules for every unit in the codex, which would be a pretty big game indeed. Even then, you'd surely have the codex to hand to remind yourself rather than trying to do it all from memory, and since you've got a ref sheet that has their game stats and says where you can find their special rules, that's no problem.

K.

Opposed to only being required to have the wargear section open on table all the time and no flickering necessary whenever I want to look up anything in the game.

Insta_AxE_Toast
08-01-2007, 00:02
I too think the new codex is absurd. Why didn't they just put the point costs on the same page as the rules for the unit entries? Now we have two entries when only one is needed. It takes more time to look up and it is a waste of paper.

Second the order they list the units is horrible. Why not stick to the regular force org listing? And the fact that they switch the listing order between the two listing is just plain stupid.

Alessander
08-01-2007, 00:02
The only change GW has done is to reverse the horrid early 3rd edition fad where each entry in the the entire army had a 2 sentence description stuffed to the sidebar. In this edition GW wants to really get into detail, and this involves fleshing out the descriptions. Having detailed descriptions followed by an army list has made 2nd ed 40K and EVERY EDITION of the WFB rulebooks successful. The 3rd edition rulebooks were oversimplified because GW wanted to re-aim 40K at younger players (very early teens) in the 90's. By the early 2000's they realized that wasn't a good idea (they couldn't complete with pokemon style card games - as admitted in 3 years in a row in the annual business reports) and refocused on their original demographic.

The reason army descriptions and army lists are kept apart is that you can release future army lists (2-3 page lists) and not have to override ( or reprint) the rest of the book's layout and rules. The descriptions give you everything you need to know except for points and FoC, which should be kept seperately in an army list section. If GW wants to release a new Ulthwe Strike Force list in WD, they can do it in 2 pages as opposed to 30. The things most likely to change in the future are points costs and FoC slots, after all.

This new eldar codex has the best indexing system ever. The table of contents (first page) actually tells you where the actual rules are, as opposed to the Marine codex where going to "dreadnought" from the table of contents leads you to nothing about the rules. Psyker powers are clearly labeled from the contents too.

Having the reference page use actual page numbers is brilliant too. After the fiasco of the useless index in the 4th edition 40K rulebook, GW finally has their act together. Some people complain that it's not on the last page of the book, but it's on the last page of the b&w section before the color plates (as it's been for 7 years now with every other rulebook), which is printed on a separate printing press than the color section. Moving that reference to the last page would have increased the cost of the book for GW and for us. Look at the top of the spine to see how the page signatures are nested. and you'll get an idea of what i'm talking about. You have an index on the ToC on the first page anyway...

I'm shocked that people are saying the unit descriptions has no order to it. I'm amazed that they didn't recognize that all the aspect warriors are grouped toghether, all the vehicles are grouped together, all the psyker units (and powers) are together, all the special characters are grouped together etc. See a pattern here?

I think it all boils down to some people just not liking change. The layout of the old eldar codex was poor. Some people just cant get away from what they are used to.

(scarletsquig: that's really ironic that you mentioned the FF books, you know that GW & WD were created by the authors of the FF series, right? and that the old editor of the FF books is the chief editor of the black library publications?)

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 00:05
Look at it this way. Compared to the old Eldar Codex, with this one, because everything is duplicated, you get more pages, and thus feel slightly less violated when forking over the ridiculous cost for the codex as you're getting more pages.

I know you didn't intend this to be serious but,

if I would buy perfume (not that I do), and pay a rediculous amount of money for a small bottle, I'd treasure it as it being something valuable. If I get a large bottle, and then find out that there is a double bottom in it, and it only being half-full, I'd be pretty pissed off.

Same thing with this codex. 47-18=29 useless pages!

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 00:05
I too think the new codex is absurd. Why didn't they just put the point costs on the same page as the rules for the unit entries? Now we have two entries when only one is needed. It takes more time to look up and it is a waste of paper.

Second the order they list the units is horrible. Why not stick to the regular force org listing? And the fact that they switch the listing order between the two listing is just plain stupid.

Thank you, THANK YOU! :cool:

Creep
08-01-2007, 00:07
You have 12,000 points of Eldar and still don't know the special rules? That's sad.

Had you infact had 12,000 points, and had you actually known the rules, then you would appreciate the layout much more. It means you still have the backround of every unit to read up on, while having a seperate area to look at when you're building a list.

The new layout is better. You're just lazy.

Grimtuff
08-01-2007, 00:08
Same thing with this codex. 47-18=29 useless pages!

Funny that, this thread seems to possess the same qualities the Eldar dex apparently does. :rolleyes:

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 00:14
Yes, of course, I mean, only seeing the powers bundled together to see the effects is rapidly different to the Lores of magic being seperate from the inventory.

Oh how naive indeed. Do you really think thats what matters? Of course it isnt. Look at the Fantasy books and you get a points allowance to see an inventory you get to look at to see the effects. This inventory takes up several pages rather than a list of generic stats for differing powers of weapons. Magical weapons still count because they are weapons. They have effects, just like a starcannon.
And this is EXACTLY the point! Magical items are all in a nice magic item list! Starcannons are NOT in a list along with all the other wargear and weapons!

I want a wargear list where everything is listed from starcannons to mandiblasters to runes of warding, exactly like the magic item list in WHFB, and exactly like the wargear section in 3rd edition. And a similar list with Exarch powers and Psyker powers, just like the Lores of Magic are seperate in WHFB and not listed under the 'Mage' entry.

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 00:19
You have 12,000 points of Eldar and still don't know the special rules? That's sad.
It's called new codex and not playing 7 days a week.


Had you infact had 12,000 points, and had you actually known the rules, then you would appreciate the layout much more. It means you still have the backround of every unit to read up on, while having a seperate area to look at when you're building a list.
Like it has been said 200 times already, by me and several other people, layout has NOTHING to do with the quality of fluff. There's plenty of room for fluff. But not in the RULES section.


The new layout is better. You're just lazy.
PROOF. EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTS.

Strangely enough, there have been dozens of reasons why the new layout sucks and the old layout is better, and there are no sustainable arguments so far why the new layout is better. Thus the old layout is infinately better. Try again :p

Grimtuff
08-01-2007, 00:22
And this is EXACTLY the point! Magical items are all in a nice magic item list! Starcannons are NOT in a list along with all the other wargear and weapons!

But still you would have to spend some of those oh so precious seconds of your life looking for their stats, if you use the army enough you'll KNOW their stats off by heart, but apparently not. :rolleyes:



I want a wargear list where everything is listed from starcannons to mandiblasters to runes of warding, exactly like the magic item list in WHFB, and exactly like the wargear section in 3rd edition. And a similar list with Exarch powers and Psyker powers

Lets give you the Moon on a stick whilst we're at it too? Tell me in what situation exactly would you need to look up the stats for a Starcannon and Mandiblaster at the same time?



just like the Lores of Magic are seperate in WHFB and not listed under the 'Mage' entry.

Probably because said lores have a lot of flavour text to go with them, plus only from the Wood Elf book onwards have they actually put said Magic Lores in a "convinient" place, (i.e. near the back of the book) But telling you that may just encourage you on your little rant.

Alessander
08-01-2007, 00:25
I find it ironic that in a 5 page (83 post) thread you've only responded to the posts the support your argument. There have been more posts that oppose it. See my previous post for some points.

Master Jeridian
08-01-2007, 00:30
I have to agree with Shakara again, the theme of the 'pro- new layout' at best seems like poor excuses, at worst resorts to calling others idiots.

If you can't flip through the new Eldar Codex your to dumb to play.
You should memorise it.
It's superior because it's unneccesarily complicated.
No point moaning, just buy, buy, buy.

I'm sorry, but if I bought a novel and the author decided to shuffle the Chapters and renumber them- does that make me clever, superior etc for reading it rather than the normally structured version- no, it clearly doesn't.


All your new layout arguments I'd aplaud and agree with if this was the only layout that had ever been tried. But having seen more efficient layouts in the past I just don't get it- how is worse, better?

This has nothing to do with other issues about the Codex:

The new Eldar army in practice is far more interesting and refreshing- win to the new Codex.

Fluff- the new Codex does have more than 3rd Ed, but then a new Eldar Codex following the format of say Codex SM's would have just as much fluff. It is a 'strawman' argument (sorry couldn't resist)- frankly a Codex in either layout could have just as much fluff, it is simply sorted in the book differently.


I'm just staggered by the amount of 'Yes- men' following the GW lead with 'we did it, it must be superior to what has gone before'.

Why is the layout better than if it had been done similar to Codex SM's/ Nid's/ etc.?

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 00:31
But still you would have to spend some of those oh so precious seconds of your life looking for their stats, if you use the army enough you'll KNOW their stats off by heart, but apparently not. :rolleyes:

Lets give you the Moon on a stick whilst we're at it too? Tell me in what situation exactly would you need to look up the stats for a Starcannon and Mandiblaster at the same time?
The point is, that I'd only have to look in one place all time, every time, forever, when I want to look up any rule. Not somewhere in the mess of 47 pages (or being forced to first page to the index and then back again once I know the page number).

However, I might compare the stats of a Triskele with Chainsabres when I compare Striking Scorpions with Howling Banshees, for example. Or want to see what exactly all those special rules of both the Warp Spider Exarch and the Fire Dragon Exarch do when I have to choose between a unit of Warp Spiders and Fire Dragons.



Probably because said lores have a lot of flavour text to go with them, plus only from the Wood Elf book onwards have they actually put said Magic Lores in a "convinient" place, (i.e. near the back of the book) But telling you that may just encourage you on your little rant.

In the High Elf book they are right after the Magic Item list, which is a convenient place if you ask me.

Grimtuff
08-01-2007, 00:36
The point is, that I'd only have to look in one place all time, every time, forever, when I want to look up any rule. Not somewhere in the mess of 47 pages (or being forced to first page to the index and then back again once I know the page number).

However, I might compare the stats of a Triskele with Chainsabres when I compare Striking Scorpions with Howling Banshees, for example. Or want to see what exactly all those special rules of both the Warp Spider Exarch and the Fire Dragon Exarch do when I have to choose between a unit of Warp Spiders and Fire Dragons.


If you have such a large Eldar army as you claim you'll know all these things anyway.... But I digress.

Flogging. A. Dead. Horse. You can keep pushing your narrow-minded view about how terrible it must be on your little mind to figure out where stuff is in a bloody codex. Heaven forbid!!!!



I'm sorry, but if I bought a novel and the author decided to shuffle the Chapters and renumber them- does that make me clever, superior etc for reading it rather than the normally structured version- no, it clearly doesn't.


You've obviously never read Tristram Shandy then......

Alessander
08-01-2007, 00:39
Something people don't see yet is that this new codex uses far more artwork than the previous codex. The artwork of the individual units take up more than a quarter of a page on most pages, while in the old codex had a tiny thumbnail. The focus of this codex layout was aesthetics, which fits perfectly for the Eldar feel.

If the art was back to the same size as 3rd edition, the you would be able to, as Shakkara said, fit more units in a page and compare units that are (in the new codex) a page turn away from each other. But GW decided to go for detailing their world with a full page for nearly every unit.

Event the new detail on the individual runes for every unit is amazing. GW never had a rune for the Wave Serpent or Wraithlord before, until now. Such detail is wonderful in a GW publication.

Again, GW's new plan is to include more background information about the different units. They simply chose to have the background info (and images) on the same pages as the actual unit descriptions.

As a designer myself (that has done layout work for GW in the past), the codex was laid out flawlessly. People are just having trouble adjusting to change.

Alessander
08-01-2007, 00:44
I think, Shakkara, that you want a codex layout more like in Codex:Chaos Space Marines. GW has stated numerous that they want to get away from a confusing layout like C:CSM. That book had more page flipping that anyone ever wanted.

Grimtuff
08-01-2007, 00:45
I think, Shakkara, that you want a codex layout more like in Codex:Chaos Space Marines. GW has stated numerous that they want to get away from a confusing layout like C:CSM. That book had more page flipping that anyone ever wanted.

I believe the term "Ironic" is appropriate here.....

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 00:55
The only change GW has done is to reverse the horrid early 3rd edition fad where each entry in the the entire army had a 2 sentence description stuffed to the sidebar.
Moot argument, the 3rd edition codex was also dozens of pages smaller. So they could have added more fluff if they had wanted to. Again, you're redirecting the thread to the quality of the fluff, which is an irrelevant argument. Like I calculated on page 2 post 3, the 3rd edition codex had much more fluff in it percentagewise then the 4th edition codex.


In this edition GW wants to really get into detail, and this involves fleshing out the descriptions. Having detailed descriptions followed by an army list has made 2nd ed 40K and EVERY EDITION of the WFB rulebooks successful.
If we take the High Elf army book from 1993, we see first a huge section of fluff, and then the army lists, without fluff. Not fluff mixed with rules, and not the army list printed partially twice. They could have done this in 3rd edition, if only they made the codex a little bit bigger. The complaint not about the fluff, it's about three things.

1) Fluff mixed with rules
2) Unit lists being printed twice.
3) No wargear/powers/upgrades sections with all the rules centralized.


The 3rd edition rulebooks were oversimplified because GW wanted to re-aim 40K at younger players (very early teens) in the 90's. By the early 2000's they realized that wasn't a good idea (they couldn't complete with pokemon style card games - as admitted in 3 years in a row in the annual business reports) and refocused on their original demographic.
And this is relevant to the thread because...?


The reason army descriptions and army lists are kept apart is that you can release future army lists (2-3 page lists) and not have to override ( or reprint) the rest of the book's layout and rules. The descriptions give you everything you need to know except for points and FoC, which should be kept seperately in an army list section. If GW wants to release a new Ulthwe Strike Force list in WD, they can do it in 2 pages as opposed to 30. The things most likely to change in the future are points costs and FoC slots, after all.
They did it with Craftworld Eldar for 3rd edition, so your point was?


This new eldar codex has the best indexing system ever. The table of contents (first page) actually tells you where the actual rules are, as opposed to the Marine codex where going to "dreadnought" from the table of contents leads you to nothing about the rules. Psyker powers are clearly labeled from the contents too.
I'm not familiar with the marine codex, unfortunately.


Having the reference page use actual page numbers is brilliant too.
But completely unnecessairy if all the rules would be centralized.


After the fiasco of the useless index in the 4th edition 40K rulebook, GW finally has their act together. Some people complain that it's not on the last page of the book, but it's on the last page of the b&w section before the color plates (as it's been for 7 years now with every other rulebook),
The High Elf armybook of 2001 has it on the very last page. Because they were smart enough to put the color stuff in the middle of the book and not at the end. It's nice to have pages with pictures to seperate the fluff and the rules, I'd say.


which is printed on a separate printing press than the color section. Moving that reference to the last page would have increased the cost of the book for GW and for us. Look at the top of the spine to see how the page signatures are nested. and you'll get an idea of what i'm talking about. You have an index on the ToC on the first page anyway...
See above quote.


I'm shocked that people are saying the unit descriptions has no order to it. I'm amazed that they didn't recognize that all the aspect warriors are grouped toghether, all the vehicles are grouped together, all the psyker units (and powers) are together, all the special characters are grouped together etc. See a pattern here?
Yeah. Chaos. What reason is there to use two orders if there is one that does perfectly fine? Oh and how about the wraithguard/lords and harlies being in the middle of nowhere at the end right before the special characters? Or they could have started with the special characters (the cornerstone of the Eldar after all) so they would be grouped with the rest of the HQ.


I think it all boils down to some people just not liking change. The layout of the old eldar codex was poor. Some people just cant get away from what they are used to.
Yet another non-argument for the collection!

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 00:57
If you have such a large Eldar army as you claim you'll know all these things anyway.... But I digress.

Flogging. A. Dead. Horse. You can keep pushing your narrow-minded view about how terrible it must be on your little mind to figure out where stuff is in a bloody codex. Heaven forbid!!!!

Are you going to use rational arguments to support YOUR views or are you just sticking to insulting?

Cause I'm not going to bite to this nonsense.

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 01:04
Something people don't see yet is that this new codex uses far more artwork than the previous codex. The artwork of the individual units take up more than a quarter of a page on most pages, while in the old codex had a tiny thumbnail. The focus of this codex layout was aesthetics, which fits perfectly for the Eldar feel.
This is not what I'm compaining about.


If the art was back to the same size as 3rd edition, the you would be able to, as Shakkara said, fit more units in a page and compare units that are (in the new codex) a page turn away from each other. But GW decided to go for detailing their world with a full page for nearly every unit
It wouldn't have been a problem if only they spent the 1cm2 to list the points on that page. Or not list any rules on that page, but just spend one page per unit on fluff and nice pictures. Right now, as been said countless times before, they duplicate the rules, making two seperate entries, which are both incomplete, and having rules scattered allover the place, instead of in only one entry, or in one wargear list.


Event the new detail on the individual runes for every unit is amazing. GW never had a rune for the Wave Serpent or Wraithlord before, until now. Such detail is wonderful in a GW publication.

Again, GW's new plan is to include more background information about the different units. They simply chose to have the background info (and images) on the same pages as the actual unit descriptions.
And made the unit descriptions incomplete, as they lack point value, and then duplicate the information, making two entries per unit, both containing partial rules.


As a designer myself (that has done layout work for GW in the past), the codex was laid out flawlessly. People are just having trouble adjusting to change.
PROOF. EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTS.

Alessander
08-01-2007, 01:21
Stop trolling this thread you started, Shakkara. You started this thread with a comment and have been attacking anyone responding in disagreement with you. Such behaviour is not tolerated on these boards.

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 01:34
Interesting.


I find it ironic that in a 5 page (83 post) thread you've only responded to the posts the support your argument. There have been more posts that oppose it. See my previous post for some points.

"Only responded to the posts that SUPPORT your argument"


Stop trolling this thread you started, Shakkara. You started this thread with a comment and have been attacking anyone responding in disagreement with you. Such behaviour is not tolerated on these boards.

"been attacking anyone responding in DISAGREEMENT with you"

Leave the thread, now. Troll.

Master Jeridian
08-01-2007, 01:35
Sorry Alessander but:

The new Codex layout is perfect, it is the people reading who are at fault.

Has just topped my list of poor excuses. Another GW'ism- a 'we will tell you what you think'.

Frankly the only reasonable arguments I've seen for the new layout is that it allows for loads more fluff.....that is nothing to do with the layout.

Why is it better that people have to flick between 2-3 sections, have to intuitively know the Vehicle upgrades are below the War Walker section (of course, :eyebrows: ), have to intuitively know how and why the first army list is not organised in any intuitive way.
Rather than following a logical efficient method.

The fact the 'pro-new layout' side has provided little or no evidence to back it up other than 'suck it up' and resorted to slagging people off for daring to disagree kind of shows how weak their argument is.

Thoth62
08-01-2007, 01:37
Are you going to use rational arguments to support YOUR views or are you just sticking to insulting?

Cause I'm not going to bite to this nonsense.

I can understand where everybody is coming from in this arguement, but I would have to say that this statement seems a little hypocritical to me. By calling someone else's viewpoint nonesense, you are not only failing to use a rational arguement, but you are insulting someone else. Sorry for the off topic post, but this thread seems to be getting a little confrontational.

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 01:40
I can understand where everybody is coming from in this arguement, but I would have to say that this statement seems a little hypocritical to me. By calling someone else's viewpoint nonesense, you are not only failing to use a rational arguement, but you are insulting someone else. Sorry for the off topic post, but this thread seems to be getting a little confrontational.

Could you please point out where


If you have such a large Eldar army as you claim you'll know all these things anyway.... But I digress.

Flogging. A. Dead. Horse. You can keep pushing your narrow-minded view about how terrible it must be on your little mind to figure out where stuff is in a bloody codex. Heaven forbid!!!!

expresses a point of view in relation to the Codex layout?

And I apologize for being confrontational, but I'm getting a lot of insults thrown at me from all directions, and only few proper arguments. This does indeed degrade the thread quality.

Scorpion
08-01-2007, 01:46
Hear hear, Master Jeridian!

I'm particularly amused by the "you should know your army's stats by heart" argument. I mean, when a new army list comes out, how the hell are you supposed to "know the stats by heart"? By divine inspiration? No, to do that GW has come up with a nifty little thing called A CODEX!!! But, guess what? The new format they've tried out in Codex: Eldar is poorly organized and has dispersed and fragmented information, which makes it inneficient at teaching people what unit A does and costs in comparison to unit B, which is what a Codex is supposed to do in the first place!

Your point of view seems very selfish, as you take the veteran's side only and forget about the n00b. You were once n00bs too, you know?

Scorpion

Alessander
08-01-2007, 01:52
My comment on the codex layout was from a designer's perspective, which is lacking in this thread. I beleive it was obvious that I was a fan of the fluff and artwork presentation.

I have played numerous games with this codex, I have around 9,000 points of eldar models (not including character or vehicle upgrades) and have had few problems with the codex. My only concern with the book is the lack of the vehicle upgrade reference in the table of contents, which was indeed an oversight. But the book is much easier to flip through than, say, the Chaos codex, which was a nightmare to navigate (to find all the rules for a kitted out chaos marine squad, you have to look in at least 5 sections ). To find the rules for a kitted out aspect warrior squad, you look in 1 place).

I think this is the difference with the book. I believe the new eldar codex is built for referencing in-game (where quick reference for single units are needed), as opposed to when sitting down and building an army list (where you want to see everything on three pages). When you're playing a game, you won't be worrying about point compositions or FoC slots, you'll be wanting the stats and rules for units, which is in the first two thirds of the book.

You generally play the game one unit at a time. Having all the rules for a single unit on one page (including their weapons, wargear and character rules) makes the game a lot easier than older layouts (like eldar 3rd ed) where to get the rules for a warp spiders squad, you have to see the unit stats on one page, the guns stats on another, the WSG rules on yet another and the exarch ability rules on a fourth. With the new codex, all of those rules are on one page (p36 in this case).

The inclusion of the USR's doesn't help either mode of play (army building versus army playing) but that's another issue shared by all other codices.

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 02:05
My comment on the codex layout was from a designer's perspective, which is lacking in this thread. I beleive it was obvious that I was a fan of the fluff and artwork presentation.
Like I said, I have no problems with artwork or fluff, the more the better. However, I'd prefer fluff and rules in seperate sections.


I have played numerous games with this codex, I have around 9,000 points of eldar models (not including character or vehicle upgrades) and have had few problems with the codex. My only concern with the book is the lack of the vehicle upgrade reference in the table of contents, which was indeed an oversight. But the book is much easier to flip through than the Chaos codex, which was a nightmare to navigate (to find all the rules for a kitted out Chaos Lord, you have to look in at least 6 sections ). To find the rules for a kitted out Farseer or Autarch, you need only look at 1 or 2 places max.
I've not played with the Chaos codex, so I can't comment on that one, although I'm now interested to have a look at it to see what the differences are.

But for an Autarch, to fully kit him out and use all his rules, you'd have to goto pages...
29 (general rules)
31 (banshee mask)
33 (mandiblasters)
35 (hawk wings)
36 (jump generator/deathspinner)
37 (laser lance)
40 (jetbike)
60 (point costs)
68 (fusion gun, reaper launcher, avenger catapult, lasblaster)
AND the rulebook for movement of the Eldar Jetbike, where important things are listed which are easily overlooked, such as being allowed to fire a heavy weapon whilst moving.

Oh yes and the Shining Spears entry does not contain an entry for the Jetbike I just noticed.


I think this is the difference with the book. I believe the new eldar codex is built for referencing in-game (where quick reference for single units are needed), as opposed to when sitting down and building an army list (where you want to see everything on three pages). When you're playing a game, you won't be worrying about point compositions or FoC slots, you'll be wanting the stats and rules for units, which is in the first two thirds of the book.
Actually, when I'm playing a game I prefer short summaries uncluttered with fluff which I can quickly page through, and lists with gear/abilities sorted alphabetically. But that's just preference, I can see where you're coming from.


The inclusion of the USR's doesn't help either mode of play (army building versus army playing) but that's another issue shared by all other codices.
It was fine when they listed it in a seperate Exarch section though, like in the 3rd edition codex. Or if they would just stick to the USR name, instead of a meaningless name.

IJW
08-01-2007, 02:06
I'll agree that the layout of the new codex isn't brilliant, and could certainly be improved. But your tone seems almost designed to irritate people...


I want a wargear list where everything is listed from starcannons to mandiblasters to runes of warding, exactly like the magic item list in WHFB, and exactly like the wargear section in 3rd edition.
This would be the comprehensive wargear section that left out death spinners, flamers, reaper launchers, scatter lasers and all shuriken weapons? Or the summary page which didn't include all the weapon profiles?


Also, in the phoenix lord entries, they suddenly call the Exarch abilities by the USR name instead of their funky Eldar-ish name! (see Baharroth's 'hit and run' ability, which suddenly ISNT called 'withdraw' anymore, and there are several more).
It's the only one which has a different name elsewhere, presumably because it's not a power that can be given to SH Exarchs. This kind of exaggeration isn't helping your case...


The 3rd edition codex has MUCH MORE fluff then the 4th edition.
Now THAT is just plain wrong, because you counted the number of pages with any rules on them as being full of rules. It's actually something like 22 pages (even with duplication), spread out among 40+. The new version has at least twice as much space devoted to background material.


BUZZZZZ! No it doesn't. There is... no index! :mad:
Yep, as technically it's called a table of contents. The summary page, on the other hand, includes the page numbers for each individual troop type.


Take a look at the 3rd edition codex. If the HQ section would have been 1 pages, then the Warp Spider entry would have been moved to the next page. If that was the case, then the Elites would be nicely over two full pages, all in view.
[...]
So yes, the same is true for the layout of Elites, Troops, Fast Attack and Heavy support. :)
Shame they added a new Elites unit, as that would spread it out over more than a double-spread.


I came back to the hobby about six months ago, so can compare recent memories of learning the 3rd codex to recent memories of the 4th ed codex.

3rd ed codex cons:
- No proper descriptions of the units.
- Learning the army involved flicking back and forth between the unit entries, the wargear section and the summary section, so not much change there.
- The weapons summary is not only in %*&@ non-alphabetical order, it's incomplete! 'OK, I've got my Falcon painted, let's look up the Pulse Laser stats in the weapons summary - erm, OK, after looking through each line because it's in random order, I still can't find it.' 'OK, what about the Triskele on my Banshee Exarch? Nope.'
- Troop types summary is also in non-alphabetical order. :mad: 'Special character stats? Nope.'
- Weapon upgrade costs were in the unit but none of the vehicle upgrade costs. Rules were in the wargear section, apart from stuff like shuriken cannon (only on summary page), so you had to flip to the other end of the book again. In the case of vehicles, this meant you had to have the wargear/summary page open, the unit description open, the wargear pages open and the vehicle upgrades page open.
- Farseer equivalent was unit entry plus armoury page for costs of powers/gear plus wargear pages plus psychic powers page.

4th ed cons:
- Vehicle upgrades missing from table of contents.
- Not easy to compare special rules or equipment between troop types.
- Unit descriptions put in an order that only makes sense if you already know the background.
- Summary page is eight pages in, should be on inside front cover or inside back cover. The summary page in the old 'dex was as badly placed, though.
- Rules wording are even more wooly than the 3rd ed versions. :(

Overall - the 4th ed codex could be improved quite a bit, but the 3rd ed codex had it's fair share of WTF moments in layout. The edge in usefulness goes to the new 'dex as the army list section contains ALL the points costs for the units. One page later is the reference page, containing ALL the statlines (plus page references) and ALL ranged weapon profiles.
After a few weeks of playing once a week I could put together an army without having to leave the army list section, something never possible in the old 'dex.

Alessander
08-01-2007, 02:24
I now firmily believe think that GW's focus here was game playing over army building. If you want the stats for a unit, it's all there on one page - unit stats, unit weaponry, unit wargear, character wargear and upgrades. That's never been done before in a 40K codex. Points and FoC are not needed in-game. The army list section is a seperate section for (obviously) building armies. Which is a formula that WFB's been using since forever.

Yes, the Autarch is the only really exception, since if they listed all the available optional rules for him on one page it'd duplicate 20% of the book (only the Carnifex has more options than him). But for the rest of the models, most of the information is on a single page, as opposed to multiple pages in previous codex books.

FarseerUshanti
08-01-2007, 02:28
I must say IJW you summed it up perfectly.

Also the reason I feel oyu should have mos tof the things i nthe Codex memorised is because the changes (excluding additions to exarch wargear and the autarch) have been minimal. Most changes revolved around changing one stat in a profile of a unit, or the points cost per model. Other than that, everything is the same as it was in 3rd Edition Codex.

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 02:28
I'll agree that the layout of the new codex isn't brilliant, and could certainly be improved. But your tone seems almost designed to irritate people...
Sorry about that, I can't help it.



This would be the comprehensive wargear section that left out death spinners, flamers, reaper launchers, scatter lasers and all shuriken weapons? Or the summary page which didn't include all the weapon profiles?
This was a problem yes, but had to do with content, not layout.


It's the only one which has a different name elsewhere, presumably because it's not a power that can be given to SH Exarchs. This kind of exaggeration isn't helping your case...
Stealth, Fear No Pain, and Acute Senses are normal, non scrambled names for USRs. If they can do it right for the phoenix lords, why not do it right for the exarchs as well?


Now THAT is just plain wrong, because you counted the number of pages with any rules on them as being full of rules. It's actually something like 22 pages (even with duplication), spread out among 40+. The new version has at least twice as much space devoted to background material.
But like I said, both codex have parts of fluff/images in their rule sections, especially in the special character parts.


Yep, as technically it's called a table of contents. The summary page, on the other hand, includes the page numbers for each individual troop type.
Yes I know, but that would be unnecessairy if all special abilities and wargear was centralized.


Shame they added a new Elites unit, as that would spread it out over more than a double-spread.
But the Warp Spider is no longer Elite.


I came back to the hobby about six months ago, so can compare recent memories of learning the 3rd codex to recent memories of the 4th ed codex.

3rd ed codex cons:
- No proper descriptions of the units.
Also shorter codex. Could have put in 20 pages with detailed fluff about each unit.


- Learning the army involved flicking back and forth between the unit entries, the wargear section and the summary section, so not much change there.
Because the wargear and summary didn't contain all the weapons, like you said. Which isn't the fault of the layout, but the content.


- The weapons summary is not only in %*&@ non-alphabetical order, it's incomplete! 'OK, I've got my Falcon painted, let's look up the Pulse Laser stats in the weapons summary - erm, OK, after looking through each line because it's in random order, I still can't find it.' 'OK, what about the Triskele on my Banshee Exarch? Nope.'
I know that, very annoying yes. Oh and triskele in 3rd edition? They had a web of skulls in 2nd ed but...


- Troop types summary is also in non-alphabetical order. :mad: 'Special character stats? Nope.'
They used the order of appearance which was in the unit list. And special chars needed opponent approval at that time and weren't in any list as far as I know. I get your point though.


- Weapon upgrade costs were in the unit but none of the vehicle upgrade costs. Rules were in the wargear section, apart from stuff like shuriken cannon (only on summary page), so you had to flip to the other end of the book again. In the case of vehicles, this meant you had to have the wargear/summary page open, the unit description open, the wargear pages open and the vehicle upgrades page open.
- Farseer equivalent was unit entry plus armoury page for costs of powers/gear plus wargear pages plus psychic powers page.
Again content issues, which I agree with.



4th ed cons:
- Vehicle upgrades missing from table of contents.
- Not easy to compare special rules or equipment between troop types.
- Unit descriptions put in an order that only makes sense if you already know the background.
- Summary page is eight pages in, should be on inside front cover or inside back cover. The summary page in the old 'dex was as badly placed, though.
- Rules wording are even more wooly than the 3rd ed versions. :(

Overall - the 4th ed codex could be improved quite a bit, but the 3rd ed codex had it's fair share of WTF moments in layout. The edge in usefulness goes to the new 'dex as the army list section contains ALL the points costs for the units. One page later is the reference page, containing ALL the statlines (plus page references) and ALL ranged weapon profiles.
After a few weeks of playing once a week I could put together an army without having to leave the army list section, something never possible in the old 'dex.
I understand your points, but I'd say the old layout would be much more useful. The content had to be improved though, in the points you and I already mentioned. And they would have to work on the fluff/pics. But please, no fluff in the rules and vice versa.

Creep
08-01-2007, 02:28
Ah, man! You have got to be joking.

They posted all the rules in the beginning of the book for those who do not know them. They put them with the units particular stats so a player who does not have a grasp of the rules has them all there so they don't need to flip through 10 pages to look how high the strength of a scorpion gets with mandiblasters.

Then, the second list is for those who know the rules and don't need to see them listed under the stats. It also has the points values so you can make a list without all the cluttered rules and whatnot.

Both lists follow very LOGICAL patterns. The first has the Avatar, then the Farseers, Warlocks, and their respective powers. Next come the aspect warriors, etc etc. I don't think there could be a more logical way to order them. If you did order them according to their positions in the army list it would be hell to find something. I won't even go into how the actual list is ordered, because if you don't understand that by now, then you shouldn't even be here.

You complain that you can't find the wargear the Autarch can take? Where do you think they would stick the mandiblaster? Or the banshee mask? In their respective aspect warrior entries! Again, NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! Once you decide to actually apply yourself, you will notice this is a better design than the old codex.

But the again I can see you respond "NEEDS MORE EVIDENCE." because you have obviously made up your mind, and no amount of logic can change that.

Man, I feel like I'm arguing with a brick wall here :o

Shakkara
08-01-2007, 02:40
Ah, man! You have got to be joking.

They posted all the rules in the beginning of the book for those who do not know them. They put them with the units particular stats so a player who does not have a grasp of the rules has them all there so they don't need to flip through 10 pages to look how high the strength of a scorpion gets with mandiblasters.
Nor would they have to look through 10 pages in my example...
Oh and why couldn't they include the points of the units in the first list, eh? Why make two incomplete lists? Why not just put the fluff in a seperate section, and the rules in lists?


Then, the second list is for those who know the rules and don't need to see them listed under the stats. It also has the points values so you can make a list without all the cluttered rules and whatnot.
No problems with this section.


Both lists follow very LOGICAL patterns. The first has the Avatar, then the Farseers, Warlocks, and their respective powers. Next come the aspect warriors, etc etc. I don't think there could be a more logical way to order them. If you did order them according to their positions in the army list it would be hell to find something. I won't even go into how the actual list is ordered, because if you don't understand that by now, then you shouldn't even be here.
Logical, yet DIFFERENT patterns, henche CONFUSING.


You complain that you can't find the wargear the Autarch can take? Where do you think they would stick the mandiblaster? Or the banshee mask?
And a new players knows that?


In their respective aspect warrior entries! Again, NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! Once you decide to actually apply yourself, you will notice this is a better design than the old codex.

But the again I can see you respond "NEEDS MORE EVIDENCE." because you have obviously made up your mind, and no amount of logic can change that.

Man, I feel like I'm arguing with a brick wall here :o

It's not just the Autarch. It's also the psychic powers put in a LIST which is what I have been asking for yes, but is NOT consistent with the rest of the codex. And again the vehicle upgrade LIST, being put in a strange spot. And the Farseer and Warlock and Shining Spears not having a Jetbike entry in their rules section. And the Farseer not having witchblade/spear entries, but these are just in the Warlock section instead. And there are a few more things like that. Inconsistency, inconsistency.

Alessander
08-01-2007, 02:50
Just out of curiosity, how many of the 40K rule books have you read in the past 20 years that 40K has been out? You mentioned you havn't seen the Chaos Codex, what books are you comparing to?

Prince Facestab
08-01-2007, 03:09
You know, I remember this one math book that I had. Boy, that was a bad book. Every time that there was a proof, it changed the variables that it was using as it went through the proof. Eventually I managed to learn the proofs (or my test scores reflected my inability), but it sure was a pain.

I feel similarly about parts of the Eldar codex, especially the initial unit descriptions. Other posters have mentioned that the units are in a logical order; that may be so, but it is not a logic that is reproduced elsewhere. Once I have read it a sufficient number of times, I can say: "Ah, wraithguard. I know that these are contained in the wraithconstruct section, which is just after vehicles (and support weapons), and just before harlequins." Before I am sufficiently familiar with the book, however, I can not use prior knowledge of the alphabet or the FOC to locate anything. No matter how logical this new system is, it is still a new system, and therefore takes time to learn.

Likewise, upgrades are not listed consistantly. Farseer and warlock powers are listed at the end of their mini-section. Aspect warrior powers are listed on each of their pages. Vehicle upgrades are listed after the vehicles... except for the wave serpent.

My ability to memorize rules is irrelevant. If every word was written backwards and in .1 size font, I could probably memorize the rules eventually, using some combination of a mirror and a magnifying glass. I don't think anyone would argue that the book would probably be better if these tools were not required. Likewise, I feel that parts of the book could be better organized, and currently inhibit understanding, rather than encourage it.

Overall, I prefer this organization to the last one, but feel that it could be better. In the end, it is a question of taste. The original poster does not like the organization of the codex, for certain reasons. Other posters have liked the organization of the codex, also for certain reasons. Is this something that can be argued about? I seriously doubt that people's minds are going to be changed. This is a matter of opinion, not of fact. To use a similar example, I don't think that any arguement could convince me that strawberry ice cream is superior to chocolate ice cream; it is an entirely subjective experience, so reasons that matter very much to you do not matter at all to me.

Finally, I'd like to share something. Besides my math and ice cream experiences. Whenever engaging in an online argument, I always limit myself to a single post, unless someone asks for clarification, or I am certain that they are not disagreeing with me, but have simply misunderstood me. Also, I suppose, if the topic changes to something entirely different. If my single post is insufficient, than I either write it off to a difference of opinion, or that the other person is trying to "win the internet", and isn't really interested in what I have to say.

Just some food for thought.

Master Jeridian
08-01-2007, 03:14
I have all the books from the Orks upwards. Even Codex Assassins.

I still think the old layout is better, more fluff could be added to it just as easily.

But I could live with the new layout if they had put the points cost in the first 'fluffy' army list. Then we could both have our lists.

These 'vet's' who somehow know the Harlequin rules, the changed rules for Vehicle upgrades, etc intuitively without having to read them and think memorising their Codex is a badge of honour- can use the second concise army list.

Those who want a larger army list with descriptions, background and rules could use the first army list- except they can't, because there are no points value.

And it would be organised under the Force Organisation Chart-
"Of course someone new to Eldar or the game knows the Harlequins always come after the Wraithlords, duh!" :rolleyes:

The first 'fluffy' army list in a proper FOC order and with points cost- would actually be the old layout (by which I mean Codex SM's, Tau, etc.)

ss_cherubael
08-01-2007, 03:36
How come this discussion keeps cropping up? it never endsm oh the humanity....

The new dex has its pros and the old dex has its pros, both have different pros and you seem to prefer the pros and cons of the last dex to this one, more power to you. The problem is the fact that the old dex is now out of date and with it went its lay out. Now we have a new dex with a new set of rules and a new lay out that the developers believe is the best way to set everything out. Now some people agree with this and some people dont. As such this is a debate that will never end as there is no objectivity and it is all subjective. And on top of that GW aint going to change the layout of a book for you because it takes a bit longer for YOU to find a rule, when they believe it actually takes less time and is less confusing, sorry.

Just on some other points, im really surprised this hasnt been locked and booted due to some of the stuff thats been said and the fact that it is going around in a circular fashion (argument wise).
Also if you have the dedication and the money and time to buy 12000pts of eldar and rewrite the whole dex, why not spend some of that time memorising the universal special rules and what they translate into in the eldar dex?
And just one more thing, i think this has got to be one of the only threads i have ever seen where a person who has such a large interest in the hobby (as Shakkara obviously does) is not familiar with the space marine codex? not sure how you managed to stay away from SM players for so long but please tell me your secret as i really need to get away from the power armour!

btw there is a small button next to the quote buttons on the bottome of your posts that should read along the lines of EDIT, i dont care if you dont want to learn the universal special rules, but please learn how to use the fething edit button on this forum as it is a fething pain in the rear when people start posting three replies in one go that could easily be put in as one post. SO yeah have a look at the edit button in future.

Hellebore
08-01-2007, 04:02
Fluff should be in the fluff section, and no-where near rules of any kind.


And the only army list that should be in the book.



No, it's an INCOMPLETE list that has no right to exist. Can't use it to build the army, and can't use it during play as most of the rules aren't even discribed there. Just said "hey this works like said in the rulebook". Which would be fine, if they wouldn't call things "withdraw" and "masters of stealth" and "surprise assault", which makes you look in the useless-list only to find out that they actually mean "hit and run", "move through cover + stealth" and "deep strike". If they'd bloody say so in the normal army list, so I wouldn't have to look at the useless-list first for nothing, then it'd be a lot better. However, when they do, they put in the useless-list things as: "Special rules - Fearless: This means this unit is fearless!" and "Special rules - Monstrous Creature: This means this unit is a monstrous creature!". Sheesh, it's like listening to talking politicians. I can fill pages with non-information, and duplicate useful information over and over again, making sure that each duplication contains only 75% of the total information, filling page after page, it's not that difficult! And it probably sells great!



I never use the useless-list during game play if I didn't have to go through that godforsaken thing. Information is allover the place. If I build a list and I want all data about my falcon, I have to look in FOUR places: First, find the falcon entry in the point-list to look up the point costs for it and upgrades which are possible, secondly, find the falcon entry in the horrid mess that is the useless-list, as there's no logical order in it, then go search the horrid mess again for the table with vehicle upgrades that's hidden in a corner which appears to be part of the warwalker entry at first glance, and then at the weapon table, which is "conveniently" placed 8 pages before the end of the book, because shuriken cannon stats and all the other stuff you'd like as secondary weapon aren't listed in the falcon entry.

Compare this with the beauty of the third ed codex: I'd goto the one and only army list in the book which lists all points and essential things, and THEN I go to my nice wonderful wargear section where I can find everything I want about each weapon and upgrade on two pairs of pages!

The useless-list in the new codex is completely inconsistent. It gives some rules for the units, but often it doesn't. It appears it doesn't have lists anymore, but the farseer/lock psychic powers and the vehicle upgrades are hidden in small lists on a completely different pages then the unit rules are. Yes I know where to find mandiblasters, swooping hawk wings, jump generators, fusion guns, laserlances and so on, but there is no reference at all to them in the list for the Autarch. The Phoenix Lords also require to to page back and forth to the entries for their aspects (and sometimes different aspects, or sometimes it isn't listed in the aspect entry at all and you find out that you have to look it up in the weapon table 8 pages from the end of the book, see Maugan Ra's executioner and shuriken cannon) to find the special rules for their equipment and abilities.

Again, this wouldn't be so bad if only the useless-list was in the same order as the point-list, which it isn't. Also, in the phoenix lord entries, they suddenly call the Exarch abilities by the USR name instead of their funky Eldar-ish name! (see Baharroth's 'hit and run' ability, which suddenly ISNT called 'withdraw' anymore, and there are several more).


Ah I see, my mistake.

You are a GAMER, and have no interest in the story.

Cool, fine.

Your loss, and a great topic for you to cry over.

More power to you.

Hellebore

adreal
08-01-2007, 04:09
Moot argument, the 3rd edition codex was also dozens of pages smaller. So they could have added more fluff if they had wanted to. Again, you're redirecting the thread to the quality of the fluff, which is an irrelevant argument. Like I calculated on page 2 post 3, the 3rd edition codex had much more fluff in it percentagewise then the 4th edition codex.


If we take the High Elf army book from 1993, we see first a huge section of fluff, and then the army lists, without fluff. Not fluff mixed with rules, and not the army list printed partially twice. They could have done this in 3rd edition, if only they made the codex a little bit bigger. The complaint not about the fluff, it's about three things.



who still uses the high elf book from 1993?

Anyways, as I'm sure you realise, as you have used the high elf book in your arguements, the the 'elven warhost' section has a little fluff and rules all jammed together right? It's almost like the eldsar dex, except all units got thier own page. The new Orc and Gobbo book also uses this system (fluff and rules) and guess what no freaking points cost in the useless section, as it's the same as the new eldar book (okay, some units share pages)

You also bring up the wargear section or lack thier of in the new eldar dex. instead (with the exception of the witchblade IIRC) all the unit specific wargear is described in that units section. Much the same as in the new orc and gobbo book (see choppa, tusker charge, armed to da teef, netters).

You also bring up magic item sections of the fantasy book, magic items are one off items (as in one per army) in a section that isn't included with what can take it (hero's or in the case of banners units) making much flicking in making the lists, and during the game. The only unit in the game where this is simular (for eldar mind you) is the Autarch. One freaking HQ choice that isn't manditory to take doesn't justify a two to three page spread of wargear. If farseers, warlocks and autarchs all could take a wide variety of wargear (read aspect gear), then yeah a seperate section would make more sense.

So in short, the new dex layout is for the most part better, us simple fantasy players can manage (look at the wood elf book, much fliping if you want kindreds in your army) I'm pretyt sure 40K players can learn to adapt, seeing as your books are going to change. To the ones that don't, well ytou can just make pdf's in the old style and bring the new style dex's to back you up (shrugs) that just seems like alot more work the getting used to the new dex

Delicious Soy
08-01-2007, 04:47
Shakkarra seeing as how you missed the point while delivering serveral sermons from the mount, bookmark p68 and its problem solved. Really. You'll know where everything is. Crisis averted.

DoctorTom
08-01-2007, 04:48
It's called new codex and not playing 7 days a week.

And yet, if you had spent 1/10 of the time actually reading the codex that you've spent posting in this thread, you'd understand many of the rules that you now frantically flip pages for... :p

Seriously, it might be a new codex, but it's been out a couple of months now - certainly you should have learned one or two of the special rules by now?


Like it has been said 200 times already, by me and several other people, layout has NOTHING to do with the quality of fluff. There's plenty of room for fluff. But not in the RULES section.

Some of us feel there's plenty of room for fluff in the section dealing with the units. You might see layout having nothing to do with the quality of fluff, but the amount of fluff and placement has plenty to do with layout. GW felt that it would be good to have it included unit-by-unit. Some people like it, some people don't. GW has also liked having fluff in the rules section before, it's just a question of the amount.

IncrediSteve
08-01-2007, 04:48
Fluff should be in the fluff section, and no-where near rules of any kind.

While reading through this thread I simply had to stop when I got to this statement. [Edit: And it seems I picked up on just the right note]

This game is played for enjoyment of the imagination, and an extremely important part of that is the background. Rules are simply there to keep things free flowing, simple, and balanced. Without background it is nothing more than overcomplicated and expensive tic-tac-toe.

40k is not a card game, it is not a board game, it is not an action figure, it is not some cute pre-assembled pre-painted tabletop game for prepubescents, it is a HOBBY. Detailed miniatures must be assembled, sanded, gaps filled with epoxy putty, primed in the right conditions, skillfully painted using multiple techniques, and based. There is a sweeping universe to become absorbed in the infinite labyrinths of story-arcs, stretching 10,000 years plus of story. Heroics, heraldry, deviants, saints and demons alike abound. The rules let you recreate some of those famous battles, or create your own in a universe that has more than enough room for growth in story. It is not an angry bar fight to root over and leer at the competition in some primal urge for dominance, it is a way for friends and individuals to enjoy their spare time.

This hobby, as one can gather then, takes some maturity. How on one level can it require drills, precision razor blades, chemical adhesives, and years worth of practice and skill, and various other adult abilities, and then be expected to jump through hoops so Jr. McWhinesalot doesn't have to remember so many scary rules?


I should probably restate points of agreement from other posters, but just like a codex my post assumes you've read them and have them in mind. I suppose to please you I should copy/paste the entire thread here, so that you don't have to click between pages? :rolleyes:

Master Jeridian
08-01-2007, 05:00
And on top of that GW aint going to change the layout of a book for you because it takes a bit longer for YOU to find a rule, when they believe it actually takes less time and is less confusing, sorry.

GW also believe they should concentrate solely on the 10-13yr old market and the hard sale. Check their profits.

Shocking news- GW is not always right.


I'm a little insulted at the implying that anyone who wants to use a more logical, efficient system being inherently too dumb to use a more complicated one.

Using a more complicated system, when a less complicated one performs the job better really doesn't make you clever for doing so.

DoctorTom
08-01-2007, 05:03
I now firmily believe think that GW's focus here was game playing over army building. If you want the stats for a unit, it's all there on one page - unit stats, unit weaponry, unit wargear, character wargear and upgrades. That's never been done before in a 40K codex. Points and FoC are not needed in-game. The army list section is a seperate section for (obviously) building armies. Which is a formula that WFB's been using since forever.

Yes, the Autarch is the only really exception, since if they listed all the available optional rules for him on one page it'd duplicate 20% of the book (only the Carnifex has more options than him). But for the rest of the models, most of the information is on a single page, as opposed to multiple pages in previous codex books.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. They made it so you can easily look up the relevant unit that you're playing (except for having to find certain bits of wargear for the Autarch) while you're playing, rather than have to bounce between the unit description, the Exarch Powers section and the Wargear section in order to find out what the unit does.

As an added bonus, unlike 3rd edition, they actually show some pictures of what the different heavy weapons look like now, so someone can tell a brightlance from a scatter laser!:D

NightLord
08-01-2007, 05:07
The codex isnt bad. For that matter it isnt worth 6 pages of disscusion. The main complaint is it is hard to find things. (In the old codex you only had to look at one page)... does it really take that much time out of your day to look over 6 pages as opposed to one? Plus, in the new codex you know where to find it and dont need to remember where an item is in a certain list. You just need to know what unit to look for. So in my opinion this is fairly stupid to keep arguing about and im sure that is people would take the time to read the book over again instead of writing posts about how bad it is all day. Things would be much clearer.

DoctorTom
08-01-2007, 05:20
GW also believe they should concentrate solely on the 10-13yr old market and the hard sale. Check their profits.

Shocking news- GW is not always right.


I'm a little insulted at the implying that anyone who wants to use a more logical, efficient system being inherently too dumb to use a more complicated one.

Using a more complicated system, when a less complicated one performs the job better really doesn't make you clever for doing so.

More logical, efficient system for what? In the old system if you wanted to find out what a unit was capable of, you had to read the unit entry, the wargear section, the Armory section if it was a Farseer or Warlock, the Exarch Powers section if it was an Aspect Warrior Unit, the summary table to find out what the weapons did (since a lot weren't included in the wargear section). The new layout, with rare exceptions, you just have to go to the unit description to find out how everything works, and the point cost section if you're building your army (which you won't need to use in the middle of a game). Granted, if it were in alphabetical order it might be a little easier flipping the pagers rather than looking at the table of contents or the reference page to find out exactly what page to go to (something that the earlier edition completely lacked), but overall I would say that the current layout is a more "logical, efficient" system for referencing while actually playing the game.

Master Jeridian
08-01-2007, 05:39
This may be confusing but by 'old layout' I mean Codex SM's, Codex Tau- since it is likely that Codex Eldar is the 'new layout' for future Codex's.

I don't mean the old Eldar Codex, but the previous style/layout of the most recent Codex's.


does it really take that much time out of your day to look over 6 pages as opposed to one?

Should I have to buy a product that is inferior to it's previous model?
Just because I can use a poorer system does not mean I should have too- if a better system is already in existence.


Plus, in the new codex you know where to find it

Right, okay? Is this some quasi-psychic ability you inherit when you buy the Codex?


dont need to remember where an item is in a certain list

Aye, remembering that the Weapons are in a Weapons List alphabetically placed, that the Wargear is in a Wargear List alphabetically...etc.
Is a far worse system than having to flick to various random pages to find an Autarch's wargear choices, to have to instinctively know that Vehicle Upgrades are always on the War Walker page (of course they are, :rolleyes: ).

It's like ripping the Contents Page out of a Textbook, handing it to me then saying:
"There you go, much better, no pesky organised system."


Things would be much clearer.

They'd be clearer with a better layout- ;)

DoctorTom
08-01-2007, 05:53
This may be confusing but by 'old layout' I mean Codex SM's, Codex Tau- since it is likely that Codex Eldar is the 'new layout' for future Codex's.

I don't mean the old Eldar Codex, but the previous style/layout of the most recent Codex's.

Fair enough. I imagine we'll be seeing a refinement in a couple of months with the Dark Angels Codex, probably with the Armory section reinstated. For the Eldar the Armory section was pretty much a joke in the old version and could have easily been accomodated in the unit descriptions themselves. The Exarchs had specific Wargear that would have been more easily accomodated with the unit entries than in a separate section, hence the changes they made now. It will be more complicated for Marine types and will probably have some reference like that. I imagine that they'll try to put as much info as they can in the individual unit entries though, like they did with the Eldar Codex, but I don't see them putting all of the Wargear options for Sergeants into each unit entry with a Sergeant (though that would definitely be a way for them to pad the book out to lots of pages and charge more :-) )


Should I have to buy a product that is inferior to it's previous model?
Just because I can use a poorer system does not mean I should have too- if a better system is already in existence.

Yes you should, if you want to use the right army list for the army. You can't use the older model now that the newer model's out. It doesn't mean you can't complain about how the product used to be better though. :-)

UrbanFarmer
08-01-2007, 06:44
you do have to agree that the background they give for every unit is fantastic

Griffin
08-01-2007, 07:03
I love the new Layout - More fluff, and stuff is easier to find.

Draco Argentum
08-01-2007, 09:07
The only advantage of the new layout is that is actually has fluff. The 3rd ed 'dex was anemic.

The new layout is bad at actually conveying the rules efficiently. The rules are in two places. (Points are rules too.) Also the stats of each unit are printed twice, this space could be used for even more fluff. Weapons are listed haphazardly.

Really, these complaints have been made. They're reasonable and noone has given a good reason why the 4e layout shouldn't be improved. Instead people want to pick on the schoolkid. Sure hes slinging about words like angry and hate while talking about a game. But responding with insults is not cool.

Warseer is normally better than that.

Master Jeridian
08-01-2007, 10:40
Aye, I agree that the fluff is a great improvement on the previous Codex.

But the layout and the fluff are two completely separate things!

It is entirely possible to use the SM or Tau layout and have the same amount of fluff as the new Eldar Codex.

So the only plausible argument 'for' the new Eldar Codex about there being more fluff is a moot point- a new Eldar Codex with the SM/Tau layout would have the same amount and be better organised!


Yes you should, if you want to use the right army list for the army. You can't use the older model now that the newer model's out. It doesn't mean you can't complain about how the product used to be better though. :-)

Aye, GW does have that trick- "If you don't buy this inferior product you can't use your models- bwah, ha, ha!"

This is the only other argument 'for' the new Codex Eldar though. That this is how it is, suck it up, learn to deal with it, etc. Why are people (not you DoctorTom) so blindly accepting an inferior product layout wise and even trumpeting it as better- with no explanation.

Rioghan Murchadha
08-01-2007, 12:32
I know you didn't intend this to be serious but,

if I would buy perfume (not that I do), and pay a rediculous amount of money for a small bottle, I'd treasure it as it being something valuable. If I get a large bottle, and then find out that there is a double bottom in it, and it only being half-full, I'd be pretty pissed off.

Same thing with this codex. 47-18=29 useless pages!

As you said.. not really serious, but useless or not.. I'd rather fork 32 bucks for a 47 page book than pay 25 bucks for something the size of a promo leaflet. It just feels more solid.

Ultimately, what I'd like to see is a return to the glory days, where there were a few big books with multiple armies in them.. Say, Armies of the Imperium, Xenos, and maybe The Ruinous Powers. Have them as pretty much nothing but rules. Very fluff lite, and then release more books like the old WAAAAAGH!: The Orks fluff book from the late 80s, so that people can have detailed, in depth background on their chosen forces. The current codex formats try to do a little bit of everything, and do it less well than they could.

(and yes, my avatar is a Warmachine mini. Somehow Privateer manages to cram several hundred full colour gloss pages into a book which contains not only a full page entry for each unit type containing both large amounts of fluff, stats, points costs, and wicked art, but also has a crapload of other fluff, stories, rules etc, and can do so for just a couple dollars more than a measly less than 50 page codex.)

(note: Please don't turn this into a Warmachine sux, 40k rox debate. Both are good games, both are very different, and attempt to do different things. I happen to enjoy both, but PP books are FAR more reasonably priced than GW books.)

Hellebore
08-01-2007, 13:23
I find the layout great.

I work out my army list using the points given in the army list section, and during games I only use the Forces section to check up on special rules.

Hellebore

Master Jeridian
08-01-2007, 13:27
I find the layout great.

I work out my army list using the points given in the army list section, and during games I only use the Forces section to check up on special rules.


Maybe, but how do you intrinsically know what every piece of wargear and unit ability does whilst writing your army list?
Or does this information not factor into army list writing for you? A bit too much of a 'lucky dip' approach for me.

Karnesdorff
08-01-2007, 13:29
7 pages of this now? Good lord...

I can't really be bothered putting a long reply up, since as other have said the argument seems pretty circular now. All I'll do is reitereate that I like the new layout, I find it easier to find rules in, and still cannot comprehend why going to a ref sheet at the end of the army list and either finding the details you want or being told which page their on is such a horrendous trial. When the difference in time is 5 seconds compared to 1, it really does just seem like baseless whining.

K.

IJW
08-01-2007, 14:07
Maybe, but how do you intrinsically know what every piece of wargear and unit ability does whilst writing your army list?
Read the codex a couple of times and play a few games. ;)

Master Jeridian
08-01-2007, 14:56
Read the codex a couple of times and play a few games.

Believe it or not I could read Codex SM's a couple of times and play a few games- only it would be much easier.
Why are people so complacent, I'm beginning to understand why GW treats its customers like junkies- they'll take whatever crap is shovelled out.

Can someone post a reason why the new layout is better (not the new fluff, that is a mute point) compared to Codex SM, Tau etc? Other than 'because GW says it is'.

The_Outsider
08-01-2007, 15:55
Regardless of my opinion on the subject (I find the new layout different, haven't read it enough to say superior or not) have you read the Ork and Dark eldar codexes?

They are a mess even by 3rd ed standards.

While such codexes as Codex SM have a very clean and (for want fo a better term) gameplay effeceint layout, they heavily comprimise if the fluuf on a unit by unit basis.

While SM can get away with it (since at the end of the day a space marine is a space marine) Eldar cannot and most gamers do like to have something worth reading after they have memorised the list.

gitburna
08-01-2007, 16:07
i think the one thing i'd say or change, is that they might as well put the whole thing in one entry. A full page detailing the points, stats, artwork and options of the unit. The pages saved on the "army list" section could be used for more artwork, more story bits or something like that.

While i'll admit that once you're familiar with a codex that having those bits in a brief form is good, i think that having EVERYTHING pertaining to that unit in one place has to better than a split of an armoury, exarch powers or anything like the old 3rd codexes. The current codexes work fine to a certain extent, but if they're going to go down the Eldar route, then i think they ought to just pop points costs in there as well and then free up the other pages for something else.

I'd also like to say that I preferred the sort of "Graphics" they featured around the page edges for the 3rd edition codexes than the plain white pages of the eldar codex. Little details like that really help to make a codex great.

Alessander
08-01-2007, 16:10
I'd also like to say that I preferred the sort of "Graphics" they featured around the page edges for the 3rd edition codexes than the plain white pages of the eldar codex. Little details like that really help to make a codex great.

They still have that, but it's more subtle (to go with today's trend in design). Look at the corner graphics and the screened runes behind each of the aspect warrior entries, and the eldar text behind the headers.

THE KAPPTIN
08-01-2007, 16:34
Believe it or not I could read Codex SM's a couple of times and play a few games- only it would be much easier.
Why are people so complacent, I'm beginning to understand why GW treats its customers like junkies- they'll take whatever crap is shovelled out.

Can someone post a reason why the new layout is better (not the new fluff, that is a mute point) compared to Codex SM, Tau etc? Other than 'because GW says it is'.

People aren't complacent, we genuinely like the new codex style. This is something you have to understand. The codex itself may not actually be as bad as you think.

No one here thinks the layout is better "because GW says it is." Many think it's better because it is actually easier to use. I really like writing an army list using just a few pages of the book. It's so easy! It's all in one place! Sometimes you forget what a piece of wargear does, but it doesn't take long to find it and the time saved flipping through to armoury and different unit entries makes up for it.
Also it's easier to enjoy reading about units this way. Before, reading the list was like reading a math textbook. Now, you can focus on the fluff and character, and still think about stats and rules while you read through for the first time.

I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to learn what all the wargear does, either. There's not that much of it, you probably use the same things frequently, it hasn't changed much from 3rd ed, and it all makes sense given what unit it's on. Are you really unable to remember what pieces of wargear do? Really? Well.... if you are, that is unfortunate, as you will be stuck looking things up while the rest of us happily make our lists from the back of the book. :P


Edit: Forgot to mention, I would make at least one change to the format: I'd like it to show points values in the forces section. That way, when I read through the rules, I don't have to wonder how much things cost etc., and it wouldn't take up any more space on the page (just list the points cost of each unit or upgrade on the line with its name).

IronNerd
08-01-2007, 16:49
That layout is great... for Fantasy army books. It just doesn't sit well with me for the 40k books. 40k has too much specific stuff to set the codex up this way.

Phyros
08-01-2007, 16:54
PWB

People Will Bitch.

No matter how it's written, someone, somewhere will find fault with it and moan about it.

If you don't like the layout of the Codex, then change it! All you need is a knife and a stapler! Separate the pages from the binding and rearrange to suit your needs!

ChrisLS
08-01-2007, 17:25
I'm not going to pay for a torture-device. I'll just borrow it from someone else next time and type over all the rules. Just like I'm doing now to made the hell-spawned thing USABLE! And once I'm done the codex will either be sold or end up on a shelf, or be cut up for the nice pictures, never to be touched again.

It sounds more like you've just developed a block against it because it wasn't the same format as the old codex, which you were used to. I play Fantasy as well as 40K, and Empire is my army. I've gotten to the point where I pretty much never look at the long entries with the specifics on the rules when I'm making my list - I have everything I need in the short list. But when I play, if I need to refer to something, I never look at the short list - I already have everything I need from there. Instead I look at the entry in the extended area, where all of their stats and special rules are located. The point was made earlier about the Tau Empire codex needing the "Fantasy" layout and I couldn't agree more. I have to use all 24 pages of the rules in that book when I want to make a list instead of just 8 or 9, and I have to use all 24 pages when I'm playing instead of 15-16.

As regards your desire to have everything in one book and not have to carry a rulebook with you - you sound just like the kids who play at the local store in my area who are constantly asking the staff what the rules are because they can't be bothered to get a rulebook and actually learn the rules themselves. The system makes FAR more sense, keeping the game cleaner (remember all the different versions of True Grit and veteran skills out there?). Just bring your rulebook and learn what the special rules are.

ChrisLS
08-01-2007, 17:36
Yes you should, if you want to use the right army list for the army. You can't use the older model now that the newer model's out. It doesn't mean you can't complain about how the product used to be better though. :-)

Nonsense - if you want to play with the old rules, no one is holding a gun to your head and telling you YOU MUST USE THE NEW CODEX! I know people who still insist 2nd Ed was the single best version of 40K EVER and refuse to play anything newer. They'll actually get the new models and then play 2nd Ed with them (for 6 or so hours a game). Yeah, I think they're crazy blighters, but that's what they dig. If you and your like-minded friends want to play using the 3rd Ed codex for Eldar, no one will tell you otherwise. If you want to participate in the current version, that's also OK.

buzzin_yoof
08-01-2007, 17:42
To give a different example- how do you find out what Mandiblasters do?

OLD CODEX: Flick to the armoury where the rules are and trawl through stuff that has nothin to do with Striking Scorpions.

NEW CODEX: Flick to the page about Striking Scorpions. Whilst you're at it, see what Shadowstrike does- rather than having to flick back to the armies list and THEN realise that the Scorpions can have that Exarch Power.

The new layout rocks, and I hope GW decides to keep it

Fantastic example. Quoted for truth - the new layout is very easy to use.

One section to buy the army (points wise) and one to play with the rules in.

UrbanFarmer
14-01-2007, 17:14
I agree with the layout it is difficult to find what your looking for in a game atmosphere but if you sit down and read the book just to learn the army then its rather inviting

Grimtuff
14-01-2007, 17:36
I agree with the layout it is difficult to find what your looking for in a game atmosphere but if you sit down and read the book just to learn the army then its rather inviting

Just when you think a thread has died...... :rolleyes:

Please, don't encourage him. This thread's been going round in circles.

Captain Micha
14-01-2007, 18:01
It was not that hard for me to figure out the new dar codex. and I have Tau.... and crons as my two previous armies....

I also have Ig's codex... but still. Even though it was different layout wise I have not had that much trouble. Not worth hating on at least..

BrainFireBob
15-01-2007, 03:10
Personally, I think the Chief hit it- people who dislike the new codex are probably still learning the game.

Once you know the basic rules, it's far easier to use the new style codex. If you didn't, well, learn. Because you're going to anyway.

The OP seems to not know the wargear yet, and is confusing list design with playing, and is irritated because he does not yet know the content of the main rulebook.

BrainFireBob
15-01-2007, 03:32
Your problem, Shakkara, is you have not figured out WHY the dex is like it is.

You are supposed to READ it. THEN use the points list for army construction.

You are indeed flipping madly- if you didn't READ the book AS a book initially. If you DID, you'd not NEED to flip back and forth. You would KNOW what the various powers were.

Putting the wargear in one place is beneficial if you never READ the book, but try just to USE the book- and once you know what the rules and wargear ARE, it's MORE of a pain in the ass.

If you want a book with everything in one place? BUY THE WARGEAR BOOK, THAT'S WHAT IT'S FOR.

Shadowfax
15-01-2007, 03:40
It's an idiotic layout. There isn't a single valid defense for it, beyond "all codexes used to be that way!"

This is how the book should have been designed:

X pages devoted to fluff, one page per unit
X pages with complete rules, one page per unit


Your problem, Shakkara, is you have not figured out WHY the dex is like it is.

You are supposed to READ it. THEN use the points list for army construction.

You are indeed flipping madly- if you didn't READ the book AS a book initially. If you DID, you'd not NEED to flip back and forth. You would KNOW what the various powers were.

Putting the wargear in one place is beneficial if you never READ the book, but try just to USE the book- and once you know what the rules and wargear ARE, it's MORE of a pain in the ass.

If you want a book with everything in one place? BUY THE WARGEAR BOOK, THAT'S WHAT IT'S FOR.
This is an entirely bogus explanation. If you read the book wouldn't you remember points values as well as rules? It's a hell of a lot easier to retain the information that a Harlequin costs X points than it is to recall a rule like Veil of Tears, that has a complicated function/unclear language.

I'm not picking on you, BFB, but you're the most recent person to use this justification in this thread.

BrainFireBob
15-01-2007, 03:40
[QUOTE=Alessander;1201288]I now firmily believe think that GW's focus here was game playing over army building. If you want the stats for a unit, it's all there on one page - unit stats, unit weaponry, unit wargear, character wargear and upgrades. That's never been done before in a 40K codex. Points and FoC are not needed in-game. The army list section is a seperate section for (obviously) building armies. Which is a formula that WFB's been using since forever.
QUOTE]


Yes. Also cuts down on errors in wording, and you waste less time gaming.

BrainFireBob
15-01-2007, 03:42
That's not thinking, Shadowfax.

The layout is simple: When playing, you refer to the unit's page for its rules. All its rules. Since- as I quoted Alessander saying above- you use one unit at a time, that makes it convenient. Your list is already built when gaming, the points and option rules are irrelevent.

It's harder to learn, because you can't at a glance compare equipment and such, but it's a hell of a lot easier to use once you're no longer looking everything up.

BrainFireBob
15-01-2007, 03:53
Believe it or not I could read Codex SM's a couple of times and play a few games- only it would be much easier.
Why are people so complacent, I'm beginning to understand why GW treats its customers like junkies- they'll take whatever crap is shovelled out.

Can someone post a reason why the new layout is better (not the new fluff, that is a mute point) compared to Codex SM, Tau etc? Other than 'because GW says it is'.

This thread is driving me nuts, so sorry for going post happy.

I want to know what unit A does.

Old 'dex: I need to lookup unit entry, wargear page, weapon summary page, army special rules, at a minimum.

New 'dex: Unit page. Only the unit page. Maybe the weapon summary page. Maybe. Probably not.

WAY less flipping. I need to add an extra page if list building, true, which I don't in the old 'dex, but I'm STILL using less pages and flipping LESS. Less is good.

Shadowfax
15-01-2007, 03:57
This debate infuriates me way more than it should, because there is absolutely no reasonable defense for separating the points info from the game effects.

The fluff should have its own section. Points costs AND in-game effects are both a part of the rules. They should appear on the same page for each unit. In the points section at the back, no unit takes up more than a few square inches of space... less space than is taken up by the fluff in the rules section for each unit.

There isn't a single thing anyone can say to convince me otherwise. Anyone who is in love with this format is a GW automaton. There are two things that you may want to look up before/during a game. The primary one is rules. The secondary one is points. Who EVER looks up fluff in the middle of a game?

I feel like tearing apart my Eldar codex pdf and reassembling it to make my point, but I wouldn't be allowed to show it to anyone. ;)


Edit: Please note that I'm not saying that the 3rd edition format is superior to this, 'cause it's not. It's just as much of a pain in the ass. But I'm so fed up with GW blowing opportunities to actually IMPROVE things, instead of just making them crappy in a different way.

BrainFireBob
15-01-2007, 04:02
Oh, I'd have no problem with the points being in the unit descriptions as well. That would improve things.

And your rules are concentrated in the new version. The rules were MORE dissimilated in the old 'dex. This was a definite step in the right direction.

The only real mis-step to my mind is not having points on the unit pages as well- but it doesn't take too long to figure out what most of what *you* normally use does, at which point it becomes moot.

EDIT: The automaton remark is a load of cr&^. You yourself are an automaton by your own definition, since you recognize this dex as an improvement on the last.

Those of us defending it are doing so *relative to the old dex!*

Shadowfax
15-01-2007, 04:08
Oh, I'd have no problem with the points being in the unit descriptions as well. That would improve things.

And your rules are concentrated in the new version. The rules were MORE dissimilated in the old 'dex. This was a definite step in the right direction.

The only real mis-step to my mind is not having points on the unit pages as well- but it doesn't take too long to figure out what most of what *you* normally use does, at which point it becomes moot.

EDIT: The automaton remark is a load of cr&^. You yourself are an automaton by your own definition, since you recognize this dex as an improvement on the last.

Those of us defending it are doing so *relative to the old dex!*
Maybe. But most of the praise I have seen has been the fawning, "best layour EVER!" type, not the "better, but still not there" variety.

I edited my post to be more clear, though. :)

AventineCrusader
15-01-2007, 04:14
There are two things that you may want to look up before/during a game. The primary one is rules. The secondary one is points. Who EVER looks up fluff in the middle of a game?

Why would you ever look up points during a game? Your army list should have all your points in one handy place already. Really rules are the only thing to look up during a game, and this is quite easy with the new book...

Crusader

Shadowfax
15-01-2007, 04:25
Why would you ever look up points during a game? Your army list should have all your points in one handy place already. Really rules are the only thing to look up during a game, and this is quite easy with the new book...

Crusader
You've never had an opponent ask, "How much does _______ cost?"

All that really matters is the simple, undeniable fact that POINTS and RULES have a direct connection to each other, are intrinsically linked, and should appear together. Put the fluff somewhere else.

Shadowfax
15-01-2007, 04:51
Here's the format I'm advocating, in case anyone doesn't understand:

http://i14.tinypic.com/2f0gkl4.jpg

I challenge anyone to find a flaw with that layout. Everything is in one convenient place.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
15-01-2007, 04:52
maybe they chose to mix the fluff in with the rules (and thereby forcing the unit selection/points cost into their own section) in order to tempt "players" into actually reading some fluff. rather than seeing just stats and rules, and skipping the rest of the book, we have art and background. maybe a piece of art inspires them, or a phrase from the unit's description/fluff catches their eye and gets them to read something that doesnt relate directly to the game itself (:eek:). and once theyve done that, not only might it prompt them to read some of the other parts of the book (that they normally wouldnt touch), but it gives them more of a feel for a unit, a better understanding of what the rules/stats are trying to represent.

maybe - just maybe - it was an attempt to create more rounded players, that dont just see the game as a list of rules and stats. :)

or maybe they just felt that by putting all the rules in the army list bit, all the points costs/options would make things too cluttered. ;)
so we have 2 sections for when building a list, and one for when actually playing a game.

~ Tim

adreal
15-01-2007, 05:53
I challenge anyone to find a flaw with that layout. Everything is in one convenient place.

erm, there would be little to no fluff with that layout, just a pretty picture, totally alienating people who want to know what said unit is, yes I know you'll say "but there is a seperate section for the fluff" but it would feel disjionted and would suck you right in


You've never had an opponent ask, "How much does _______ cost?"

All that really matters is the simple, undeniable fact that POINTS and RULES have a direct connection to each other, are intrinsically linked, and should appear together. Put the fluff somewhere else.

well, don't you have a army list with points costs of stuff set out
i.e.
dire avenger squad -x pts
exarch-+x pts
bladestorm-=xpts

if you don't then maybe you could write your lists up, using the points only section of the codex.....as that is what it's there for


This debate infuriates me way more than it should, because there is absolutely no reasonable defense for separating the points info from the game effects.

The fluff should have its own section. Points costs AND in-game effects are both a part of the rules. They should appear on the same page for each unit. In the points section at the back, no unit takes up more than a few square inches of space... less space than is taken up by the fluff in the rules section for each unit.

There isn't a single thing anyone can say to convince me otherwise. Anyone who is in love with this format is a GW automaton. There are two things that you may want to look up before/during a game. The primary one is rules. The secondary one is points. Who EVER looks up fluff in the middle of a game?

I feel like tearing apart my Eldar codex pdf and reassembling it to make my point, but I wouldn't be allowed to show it to anyone. ;)


Edit: Please note that I'm not saying that the 3rd edition format is superior to this, 'cause it's not. It's just as much of a pain in the ass. But I'm so fed up with GW blowing opportunities to actually IMPROVE things, instead of just making them crappy in a different way.

I am not a GW automation, i just play fantasy, and all the army book I've ever owned have used that very same format, the 40K codexs of 3rd were strange and confusing for someone from fantasy

Shadowfax
15-01-2007, 06:00
erm, there would be little to no fluff with that layout, just a pretty picture, totally alienating people who want to know what said unit is, yes I know you'll say "but there is a seperate section for the fluff" but it would feel disjionted and would suck you right in

What if it's supposed to feel disjointed.

One section contains colourful descriptions of unbelievably puissant entities from a fictional, war-racked universe.

One section contains practical, but internally unrealistic, rules for representing these entities in a tabletop wargame.

adreal
15-01-2007, 06:31
but there are two sections to the fluff, there is the history, and then the unit descriptions, plus the little rules and brief bits of fluff about the rules

philbrad2
15-01-2007, 08:29
BrainFireBob - I find your comments to other posters and a number of your replies inflammatory.

Please think before you reply to posts. There is no need to post in CAPS which would indicate your 'shouting' to get your point over.

PhilB
:chrome:
+ WarSeer =I= +

Carlos
15-01-2007, 09:13
What sort of a 40K player doesnt read his codex/rulebook a thousand times over so he knows the rules liek the back of his hand and can quite pts values off the top if his/her head?

Lightweight.

Master Jeridian
15-01-2007, 10:40
One new to the game- probably in the 12-13 bracket. They will get tired of the frankly more confusing layout and find an easier game.

It's GW job to make the layout as easy to use as possible, because then they can attract as many customers as possible.

Making it complex, so that fanboys can proclaim they've memorised it, will not help them retain new gamers.

I'll resummarise my stance on the new layout:

I prefer the old layout- by which I mean Codex SM, Tau, etc not Codex Eldar.
I would be fine with the new layout if the pts cost where also included in the 'fluff and rules' section and the weapons and wargear descriptions where summarised in a table alphabetically.

Even the 'weapons table' decides to miss out a huge chunk of Eldar weapons.

Having the Eldar vehicle upgrades hidden away on a random page is also criminal.

Yes, I agree that the fluff is important- but we don't need to be force fed it. You don't get people appreciative of the Eldar background, by making it a hassle for them to connect pts to rules.

Consider the scenario where you've never seen Eldar before, and you want to write an army list...
And remember, you don't instinctively know the absurd organisation of units, or instinctively know what the rules for Fire Dragons, etc, are.

It's a real ballache to keep flipping back and forth trying to figure out what everything does.

Now try the same with Codex SM's.

Draco Argentum
15-01-2007, 10:42
erm, there would be little to no fluff with that layout, just a pretty picture, totally alienating people who want to know what said unit is, yes I know you'll say "but there is a seperate section for the fluff" but it would feel disjionted and would suck you right in

Go to your Eldar dex and open up the Dire Avengers page. Are you honestly telling me the point costs wouldn't fit on that page?

Second point. Do you honestly believe that listing the harlies fluff/rules at the end of the list instead of with the rest of the elites is the best option?

Theres two very easily fixable flaws with the current layout.

Rlyehable
15-01-2007, 12:13
The most frustrating thing in the new Eldar codex for me is ... The horrible layout.
... they list the whole armylist twice! Once without points but with very limited special rules (which you then need to look up in the main rulebook if you want to know what it does, most of the time!), and then ANOTHER time but this time without rules but with the point cost. ... They could just list the point costs of everything in the first section, and leave out the second copy of the army list alltogether!

I like the new layout. But I agree, they did not need to print the army list twice.

They could have just added the points for the unit and options to the first (fluff) list and put it in order by force organization (HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast Attack and Heavy Support). This would have eliminated the need for the 2nd list. We could have used the summary if we needed a quick reference on stats.

lord_blackfang
15-01-2007, 15:07
What if it's supposed to feel disjointed.

One section contains colourful descriptions of unbelievably puissant entities from a fictional, war-racked universe.

One section contains practical, but internally unrealistic, rules for representing these entities in a tabletop wargame.


I'd certainly prefer fluff in one place and rules+points in another (like the current C:SM, for example) than fluff+rules here, points there like in Eldar.

Montford981
15-01-2007, 18:55
I cannot agree with Shakkara.

The new Codex makes Eldar useful now.;)

-981

Rip
15-01-2007, 19:36
I had no problems with the layout. It's closer to the 2nd Ed Codex in my view.

Scorpion
15-01-2007, 19:37
One new to the game- probably in the 12-13 bracket. They will get tired of the frankly more confusing layout and find an easier game.

It's GW job to make the layout as easy to use as possible, because then they can attract as many customers as possible.

Making it complex, so that fanboys can proclaim they've memorised it, will not help them retain new gamers.

I'll resummarise my stance on the new layout:

I prefer the old layout- by which I mean Codex SM, Tau, etc not Codex Eldar.
I would be fine with the new layout if the pts cost where also included in the 'fluff and rules' section and the weapons and wargear descriptions where summarised in a table alphabetically.

Even the 'weapons table' decides to miss out a huge chunk of Eldar weapons.

Having the Eldar vehicle upgrades hidden away on a random page is also criminal.

Yes, I agree that the fluff is important- but we don't need to be force fed it. You don't get people appreciative of the Eldar background, by making it a hassle for them to connect pts to rules.

Consider the scenario where you've never seen Eldar before, and you want to write an army list...
And remember, you don't instinctively know the absurd organisation of units, or instinctively know what the rules for Fire Dragons, etc, are.

It's a real ballache to keep flipping back and forth trying to figure out what everything does.

Now try the same with Codex SM's.

QFT, Master Jeridian!

The current eldar Codex would be perfect if:

- Units were organized according to FOC
- The Fluff & Rules section included points cost
- The Wargear lists actually included all wargear!

MarikLaw
16-01-2007, 02:14
First and foremost, some Tournaments require you to have both your armies rules and a copy of the Rulebook.

As for the new Codex layout, I love it, more unit fluff in addition to army fluff, no more paragraph long posts to determine what wargear options a squad has, among other things. As for length, the new Codex's are around the size of the last batch of 3rd Edition Codecies (Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and Daemon Hunters), the new book wasnt "clogged with the unnessicary", if anything that added length has come from not double posting of rules, but more fluff. Thats right, more fluff.

Personally I find the new Codex layout nice, streamlined, and easy to follow. If you want difficult to follow, try any 2nd Edition Codex, the new Codecies are like well oiled, well refined version of the 2nd Edition ones, which had rules, wargear cards, and fluff scattered here, there, and everywhere.

As for the Starcannon comment, I wont get into it past saying that the nerf was needed as, before the new Codex, the weapon, regardless of its points cost, was a "no brainer" weapon that overshadowed a great deal of the other ranged Eldar weaponry. Its pretty sad when every Eldar army I've seen up until the release of the new Eldar Codex is tooled out with nothing but Starcannons.

adreal
16-01-2007, 11:56
Go to your Eldar dex and open up the Dire Avengers page. Are you honestly telling me the point costs wouldn't fit on that page?

Second point. Do you honestly believe that listing the harlies fluff/rules at the end of the list instead of with the rest of the elites is the best option?

Theres two very easily fixable flaws with the current layout.

Could the points costs fit on that page, yes, but are they, no. Fantasy books are the same. Tell me, how many fantasy players do you hear bitching that thier army lists are printed twice? None.....yeah I kinda thought so

IIRC All the troops are put into catagorys, tell me since when were harliquins an aspect troop, maybe that is why they arn't listed with the other aspect troops (who I might add are not all crammed into elites).

Now yes GW could have, I repeat could have listed all the points into the fluff/rules section everyone seems so keen on getting rid off, or changing. But fantasy (IIRC 2nd ed as well) sets a pressedent within the company for the (so called) horror of re-printing army lists. Fantasy players have lived with 4 editions of army books like that (never played before forth so), never complained about the layout (lack of fluff sure). When GW had the brainfart idea of the 3rd ed codexes fantasy players were happy atleast thier army books weren't pamphlets. GW noticed less bitching about the fantasy army books over thier oh so revolutionary 40K 3rd ed codexes, they decided to bring back the old days of 40k, fittingly using Eldar to do it with (personal note, hah Eldar get something from GW space marines (basic) wont have for years).

Griffin
16-01-2007, 12:16
Personally the More fluff I get with units the better - That little bit with the WraithGuard gave me the shivers when I read it.

Mos
16-01-2007, 13:35
From the sounds of things, those firmly established into the hobby have little problem navigating the new layout, whereas those more recent arrivals to the hobby are having a hard time.

It's an interesting dilema for GW- are the veterans happier with the new layout because they have more familiarity with it due to 2nd Ed or Fantasy? Or newbies only thrown off by it because it is different to recent codexes and that the layout is not that bad?

The actual look of the book is fine for me, I like those swirly corner things, and the line bits all look very Eldary, if a little simple. But The structure is a little off IMHO. I think I'd be happier if the reference pages were a little clearer and easy to flip to, and if the bestiary section order mirrored the army list order, just for easy point of refernce when flicking between the two.

Master Jeridian
16-01-2007, 14:59
I'm a newbie for not liking the Eldar layout? I've been playing for 8yrs.

And we've been through the Warhammer players love it argument. Warhammer armies do not usually have the sheer variety of unit upgrades and options. 90% of the time, a unit in a Warhammer army will be equipped with a generic weapon (listed in the rulebook) with everyone having identical weapons, with only the generic Sergeant, Musician, Standard Bearer as upgrades (rules listed in rulebook).

On the other hand, a 40k unit- could have a Sgt/Exarch with different weapon options, wargear, abilities, 1 or more different special/heavy weapon upgrades, grenades, transport options, special ability/skills to choose, etc.
Many with specific rules to that type of unit (like Veil of Tears for Harlequins).

jfrazell
16-01-2007, 15:37
What sort of a 40K player doesnt read his codex/rulebook a thousand times over so he knows the rules liek the back of his hand and can quite pts values off the top if his/her head?

Lightweight.

One who isn't OCD?:wtf:

jfrazell
16-01-2007, 15:41
I like the new layout. But I agree, they did not need to print the army list twice.

They could have just added the points for the unit and options to the first (fluff) list and put it in order by force organization (HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast Attack and Heavy Support). This would have eliminated the need for the 2nd list. We could have used the summary if we needed a quick reference on stats.

Exactly. Whats the difficulty with combining the two. You have the fluff and pictures for the fluffites, then connect the costs and (cleanely and clearly) put the USR's and special rules that they use.

I can understand the point of having a fluffy section and clean points section, but to me the advantages of that are outweighed by the disadvantages. It also increases the page length without adding material. Additionally, by banging items in two different sections it iuncreases the frequency of mistakes in the rules themselves.

DoctorTom
17-01-2007, 01:06
I challenge anyone to find a flaw with that layout. Everything is in one convenient place.

Except for the fluff which goes with the particular unit. Some of us actually like having the fluff where it is in the new codex layout. Sure, there can be some improvements, but I prefer the new codex layout to the old codex layout.

And your criticism (I believe it was yours, but there was a criticism) of people saying 'best layout ever' as opposed to saying 'better layout, but still needs improvement' - there are a few comments to say about that. First, if you read through the thread, there of plenty of people who have preferred the new codex but have pointed out things that could be improved. Also, the thread was about comparing the new layout to the old layout, and most people are expressing a preference for one over the other. Don't assume that because people say they prefer one or the other means that they think that's the best layout possible.

Alessander
17-01-2007, 01:59
Why is this post still around?

GW build this current codex to support game-playing over army-building.

The reason the army list (the part with points) is separate from the main unit descriptions is to allow for greater flexibility later. Keeping the points to one small section of the book will make rebalancing a lot easier if they decide it's needed in the future - a simple 4 page no-photo PDF instead of the nightmare "cut out the sized boxes and paste them all over the codex" from 3rd edition. It allows for new army lists to be made in 1 or 2 pages, as opposed to redoing a full codex. This is a formula that Warhammer Fantasy has been doing for a long time, and it serves GW well.

The table of contents lists everything with the exception of the vehicle upgrades, the only admitted big problem with the book.

Take a unit of Warp Spiders and all of their rules - what you need during the game - are in one place. Much better than 3rd edition, where you had to look in five places.The point of this argument is the the original poster liked the 3rd edition layout better where exarch powers, weapons, wargear, stats and points were all on different pages. Even codex space marines has you looking in multiple places for a unit.

You don't need points during the game. Your army list that you wrote out during the armybuilding state will tell you the point totals if you need to look up points for victory points of curiosity.

adreal
17-01-2007, 08:21
I'm a newbie for not liking the Eldar layout? I've been playing for 8yrs.

And we've been through the Warhammer players love it argument. Warhammer armies do not usually have the sheer variety of unit upgrades and options. 90% of the time, a unit in a Warhammer army will be equipped with a generic weapon (listed in the rulebook) with everyone having identical weapons, with only the generic Sergeant, Musician, Standard Bearer as upgrades (rules listed in rulebook).

On the other hand, a 40k unit- could have a Sgt/Exarch with different weapon options, wargear, abilities, 1 or more different special/heavy weapon upgrades, grenades, transport options, special ability/skills to choose, etc.
Many with specific rules to that type of unit (like Veil of Tears for Harlequins).

True that the warhammer books don't have rules for great weapons in the army books, but the indivuadual weapon options are listen with the unit type (ie Avenger Catapult, or the Reaper launchers) all of which can be easily found in game (table of contents) or remembered (harder if in large battles or change your list every game)

High Elf unit champs can have magic weapons in thier units, which isn't listed with the unit options, now granted this isnt always used, but it isn't that hard to either remember or look up. Space Marine players (who tool up Sgt's from the wargear section) usually only take certain types of wargear, making it easy to remeber

Draco Argentum
17-01-2007, 10:49
Could the points costs fit on that page, yes, but are they, no. Fantasy books are the same. Tell me, how many fantasy players do you hear bitching that thier army lists are printed twice? None.....yeah I kinda thought so

I think its bad in fantasy too. Theres a whole bunch of pages at the back of my Tomb Kings army book that are filled with the same stuff as the front but with points costs added. I'd rather more fluff.

More relevent to the thread, your post has no logical arguements. Look at the bit I quoted. The only way that explains why the Eldar codex is half way to a great layout is that fantasy players need to be more vocal about the wasted ink that they're fed.

adreal
18-01-2007, 07:05
or that most fantasy players are heepy with the inc that is wasted

anyway alot of people have come back to this thread and bitched about why it's still around, so hey you win. The new Eldar dex is a waste of paper

Warwolt the skaven
18-01-2007, 07:21
They got one part for the whole rules for them, and one summery of pts costs and upgrades and stuff. Id rather have this than look around 20 pages to build my army instead of just 4.