Is the Codex an Endangered Species?

Hey everyone, Reecius here from Frontline Gaming to discuss the changing landscape of 40K.

Primary Detachment, Allied Detachment, Inquisition, Data Slates, Formations, Knights, Double Force Organization Chart, Supplements, Lords of War, Formations, etc.

We now play a game that is radically different than the one we played a little over a year ago. Old notions of limitations in list building are a thing of the past. We now have an open canvas upon which to create nearly any army we desire.

That sounds great, right? But my question is: how often do you see people actually use this freedom to do something purely creative and thematic and how often is it used to simply make powerful combos?

Gamers are gamers. They game systems by their nature. It should be expected that given the choice between multiple options and one is clearly better than another, most gamers will make the choice to take what they perceive to be better. That is understandable. These models are not cheap, they take a great deal of time and effort to build and paint, this game has a winner and a loser, and most gamers will make the choice to take what gives them the most bang for their buck, whether that be purely aesthetics or in-game power.

The other ironic effect of offering more and more options, is that we get less and less variety. The paradox of choice: when everything is available to everyone, you see the same “best” units popping up in every list, therefore making the game less varied. For example, I bet money that 90% of the Imperial armies at Adepticon will have Coteaz.

While all of this freedom of choice is fun, and exhilarating, is it what is best for the health of the game?

I believe limitations create more fun, more variety and more of what makes a game like 40K cool: all of the colorful army choices available to us! When they all dissolve into a kind of sameness, a soup of everything instead of a tapestry of differences, it loses some of its appeal. A codex may soon be nothing more than a loose collection of fluff whereas an army on the table is a grab bag of units from the entire length and breadth of the 40K universe chosen for their collection of stats and special rules.

As we move more towards micro codices and models built to be used in nearly any army we will see this happen. I understand that it makes sense from a business perspective to increase the potential market for each release, and to have more releases at a lower price point more frequently, but the game suffers as a result. GW leaves it to us to sort out the details while they continue to pump out content, heedless of the impact it has on game balance.

So what choice do we as a community make?

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

84 Responses to “Is the Codex an Endangered Species?”

  1. Fagerlund March 13, 2014 12:31 am
    #

    This is one reason why I prefer 1500p, because at this point level the limitations are still very real despite all allies and mini-dexes and what not.
    So from this perspective I really don’t mind this development from GW.

    However, for a balanced tournament scene it’s a bit nuts to put your trust in a company that has downright said it doesn’t care about competitive play. I’m not sure banning is the way to go though, because then there’s just this vicious circle where someone finds something new and since everything else that could beat it is all ready banned etc… And also we’d end up with list stagnation much like 5:th edition. It’s a tricky question.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 13, 2014 11:42 am
      #

      Yeah, the community is realizing more and more that any type of competitive scene is up to us.

      And I think 1500 is a great point limit for tournaments.

      • WarlordEXE March 16, 2014 8:57 am
        #

        Ya i use to think 1500 was to little to really allow players to open up the potential of they’re armies and allow for different builds (5th ed and early 6th). Now i feel 1500 is a good points limit cause it keeps players from being able to fully flesh out the best of both worlds when using allies and what not.

        But as usual people still gota realize that the competitive scene is about being competitive, and that more then ever people searching for friendly, thematic games NEED to express that these are the games they are looking for. As a player who likes to keep a good track record of being competitive, and perhap skilled (?), player if i hear some one ask to play a game, then my mind switches into “how am i best going to achieve victory”. But if its on the record that the game is just for funsies then i have no problems throwing something crazy out there.

  2. Bassface7 March 13, 2014 12:41 am
    #

    Great insight, and really hits the current problem on the head. I love the idea of allies and i’ve seen some really awesome conversion work as a direct result of the system, but it’s ruining the game. Allies are now basically “must take” for competitive armies (There will always be the odd exceptional player who proves the exception to that rule of course) and as you say, the variety is actually reducing the number of viable armies.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 14, 2014 10:46 am
      #

      Thanks, and yeah, that is the issue as I see it. When you have unlimited choice, everyone tends to make the same “best” choices.

  3. BADevastators March 13, 2014 1:32 am
    #

    Decrease the prize for best general and boost the best of prizes. It would make a lot more players think about taking their favorite army instead. It avoids changing the game and comp etc. Just change the incentives.

    • Helpless Will March 13, 2014 4:17 am
      #

      Prize support very seldom equals the costs associated with going to one of the big tournaments, to say nothing of the cost of the army one brings, etc.

      While it’s a step in the right direction, to changes the incentives, those who go to compete and win often do so because they enjoy the competition. I’m sure there’s a few examples of the stereotypical WAAC gamer out there, but in direct experience I find them to be the exception, rather than the rule.

      So, if you give the truly competitive set of the community tools to make the most competitive, cut throat, lists, they will do so, not because they stand to gain so much if they win, but rather because that’s how they enjoy playing the game, sometimes, in an environment that attracts that sort of gameplay.

      Min maxers exists, and many of them enjoy the mental process of creating a min / max sort of list.

      That’s not to slam the tournament set, or to describe all tournament players as WAAC. It is quite possible to enjoy the cut throat competition, and pure fluff sides of this hobby both, and many of the best tournament players I know, also field some of the fluffiest armies I’ve seen, depending on what environment they’re going to be playing in on any given day.

      I would instead posit that, the sheer variety we’ve been furnished with encourages more cut throat lists, simply because it is much more difficult to account for all the potential variations in opposing lists. There are going to be combos one hasn’t thought of. To compensate for that, you are almost forced to bring something as competitive as can be conceived of, should one have a serious chance at winning the overall tournament.

      I’m not sure what to do about the segment of the population that goes to tournaments to prove to themselves, or others, that they really are quite good at the game. Their incentive is driven by internal, not external, factors.

      I think the only realistic way to level the playing field is to restrict choices. Allies allow game breaking combos? Restrict the option to ally. That is a less than optimal choice though.

      Hopefully, as battle brothers seems to be the part of allies that allow the most game breaking combos, GW throws us a bone and moderates that category of ally a bit in the rumored rules release / consolidation this summer.

  4. 40kChris March 13, 2014 3:01 am
    #

    Limitations are a self-imposed variable that negates taking the “best” unit, aesthetics aside, and in a more competitive setting that is simply not going to happen. The “best” unit will always be taken to maximize army efficiency in the field, any competent commander will do that.

    Other people (across the Intertubez) have already stated that lowering the points limit will force real decisions in list building, and I would agree with that. Lower the points back to the old 1750 standard and/or impose a 0-2 limit army wide on any units beyond troops, or troop equivalent like Chosen from a FOC shift. So no 2 Heldrakes in the parent list, and 1 in the allied detachment, only 2 for the total army. If you can only take 2 Riptides, where else would you put the points? In this regard I think you’re on a good path of 1 parent codex and one other “book” to supplement with.

    I think the hardest part is finding something the (competitive) community can agree on, and in that regard I do not envy your position. If the TOs across the globe could agree on one set of house rules then the tournament community at large would probably be ok with it.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 14, 2014 10:47 am
      #

      Yeah, you said it. Finding something everyone can agree on is the hardest part. You have to get a feel for what the majority wants and just run with it.

  5. Bassface7 March 13, 2014 3:05 am
    #

    What about using a percentage points allocation the way Fantasy does? Forcing you to spend the bulk of points on troops and having only a certain allocation for each other slot would also reduce the viability of a lot of builds (Wave serpent spam and necron airforce notwithstanding.)

  6. scousematt March 13, 2014 3:34 am
    #

    GW’s just thrown everything at the wall this edition to see what sticks. Even basic codexes, no two are the same; DA can make lots of FOC changes within 1 book, Marines can self ally and have chapter tactics, the Tyranids Codex is really a ‘core’ ruleset with loads of data slates, then theres Titans, and the IG codex sounds like its going to have its own strange mercenaries gimmick. I really don’t think the dust will settle till they’ve redone every army and they release the 6.5ed / 7th ed rulebook.

    • scousematt March 13, 2014 3:35 am
      #

      That was a really long winded, incoherent way of agreeing with you Reece lol, yes I agree the codex is an endangered species.

  7. Novastar87 March 13, 2014 5:50 am
    #

    Recently I got to talk with a GW corporate employee at a store opening, I asked why crimson slaughter over about her traitor legion, his repos aw was because they belive crimson slaughter book would help sell models a legion book wouldn’t. Then I asked about rules and balance. He replied that the codexes are designed not to be balanced with each other and codex creep is very intentional and all rules they produce are simply so people buy more toys bottom line. He told me that gamers make up 20% of revinue and collectors do the other 80% and the reason they switched to the models first wave and rules second or third is to prove a point that people should buy the models they like and my just for rules, oh and they dropped the things from the tyranid codex as a big middle finger to chapter house( completely a vindictive move done very intentionally)

    • Gordon March 13, 2014 9:50 am
      #

      How does GW know the difference between a collector and a gamer? In their financial reports, they mention that they don’t use their sales figures for any future planning. And, frankly, most of their employees don’t know crap, that could be as much hearsay and rumor as anything a non-GW employee might tell you.

      • Novastar87 March 13, 2014 11:19 am
        #

        I couldn’t tell how GW differentiates it’s customers, that’s just verbatim what was said to me when I asked the questions

        • Novastar87 March 13, 2014 11:31 am
          #

          I think they know a lot more then they let on, I showed him leaked pics of the new imperial guard and he got very upset they were online, no shock at all about the products, I will get the guys name but he was in charge of most store openings in the USA, take with salt if ya want just letting people know the answers I got.

          P.s. Out of respect for the store I did not show anyone else leake photos, I’m not a total Dbag( D is for destroyer melee weapon lol)

          • Gordon March 13, 2014 12:43 pm
            #

            I’ll just point out that I’ve read some of their yearly financial reports, in which they talk in great detail about what they’re selling, who they’re selling it to, what their current plans are, what their future plans are, and so on. There was plenty of interesting numbers thrown around, but nothing that would indicate that they have any clue how many people are collectors vs. customers. There’s no way for them to know that, anyways. They can only gauge how many people play by how many people show up to official GW events/stores, and that’s a massive under representation of the number of people who actually game. So, to that employee, I have to say bull. GW is pretty clear that they operate under the -assumption- that most people are gamers and not collectors, but that’s an assumption and little more.

            If he’s the guy in charge of store openings, maybe you can ask him WTF they’re opening and closing 30-40 stores across the USA every year. That’s a huge amount of overhead that simply doesn’t make sense, especially considering that they do track where their sales go, so they -should- know where their biggest local markets are, to open a store there to compete with the independent flgs. If they can’t do that, then don’t bother opening a store in the first place and just let the flgs do all the work of selling directly to customers for them.

  8. TneK March 13, 2014 5:52 am
    #

    Great post! There will always be power gaming unfortunately, its up to us to choose what we want out of the games we play.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 14, 2014 10:50 am
      #

      See, I don’t have a problem with power gaming within reasonable boundaries. It’s when you have unrestricted power gaming that you get problems. And that is where we are at now.

  9. stx March 13, 2014 6:24 am
    #

    How about applying formations to the force organization if they fit you get the special rules, if they don’t then you can’t use them. Also have individual characters like be’lakor or Cypher take up a primary or ally hq slot and just become an additional option as a special character. That may sort out min-maxing to a degree. Any thoughts?

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 14, 2014 10:53 am
      #

      Data slates are within the FoC, but Formations are not. We do limit the amount of sources in a book to 2, which helps a lot.

  10. Chuck March 13, 2014 6:53 am
    #

    I think the biggest thing you can do to limit the creep of all the mini-dexes and other things that GW has been throwing at us is to stick with the 2 “detachment / formation” rule. That means you don’t have every army adding Coteaz just because, since they have to consider if it’s worth it to lose their ally just for him.

    Also, as mentioned above, lowering the points limit may help as well, although in the current meta I’m not sure that will improve things, since typically deathstars do even better at smaller points.

    • Baal Viper March 14, 2014 6:45 am
      #

      Why does everyone cite Coteaz as the main allied offender? Out of 32 players in my local RTT there was exactly 1 Coteaz in the entire field. There are Eldar Farseers out there that are ML 3 for the same points with access to the Eldar powers and the deathstar enabling Fortune power.

      Coteaz is good no doubte, but not sure why people hate on him an leave Bel’akor alone. Every CD army I have seen in tournament play has included him since he came out… yet no one says a word, he is a much better unit becasue of his Telepathy powers alone, much less the fact that he is CHEAPER than an equivilant ML 3 DP with similar kit, has Shouded, EW, Fearless… and the list goes on.

      • Reecius
        Reecius March 14, 2014 10:51 am
        #

        Coteaz will be the primary offender in large tournaments because Imperial Armies are by far the most common. So, you will see him in damn near every list because why wouldn’t you take him? He is incredibly useful at only 100pts.

        • Baal Viper March 14, 2014 11:40 am
          #

          No doubt, just not sure why Bel’akor gets a pass.

          • Reecius
            Reecius March 15, 2014 8:16 am
            #

            Be’Lakor will be popping up all over the place, too, no doubt.

  11. bigpig March 13, 2014 7:06 am
    #

    You are spot on. Well said! More choice definitely means less variety on the table.

  12. Dr.insanotron March 13, 2014 7:19 am
    #

    I believe it will be more accurate to say Limited selection out of a huge variety would be the best way to go and create large diversity

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 14, 2014 10:52 am
      #

      I agree 100%. So long as there are multiple, viable choices, you get a lot of variety.

  13. Novastar87 March 13, 2014 7:25 am
    #

    I remember when codexes had things like 0-1 or 1+, bad for sales but great for balance

  14. Jason Brown March 13, 2014 7:32 am
    #

    I hear ya, I love to play a tight and hard list, but am unable to do cheese. I run an almost all wraith army with a shadow council. Total theme, and I always play this way. Oh and no wave serpents either, nary a one at this point.

    A few things to make it less of a cheese D-weapon enviroment is to do a few things:
    1)Make Best painted a big deal (included sweet display boards, I mean come on when you see one of these effort laden gems it makes your pants tight.)
    2)Make a few catagories for prizes like the afore mentioned Best of, also make a Themed best of.
    3)Limit spam on some units (though I am less inclined to go here)
    4)Limit number of Army sources (like a formation takes a source/counts as an ally and only two root sources)

    I mean really giving big props for a sweet themed, or unique list is going to go super far. I played an almost all kroot army once. F’ing great game. Maybe give the biggest prize to the guy/gal voted most fun to play or something.

    I do HEMA and a big discusion is on tournament rules. I bring this up because folks will game a system, and I and others are stressing that you cant change that. So what do you do? You make a system that means yo have to “game” the way you think it should be played. You want more varity, game it that way. Allow spam but impose some kind of Boo Points or something. Some things you kinda cant help from spamming, like venoms…but six wave serpents…your a douche….unless you have done something fun with them, like have banshees in them.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 14, 2014 10:54 am
      #

      I agree with your point of view. Gamers will game the system. They will look for advantage because that is a fun game in and of itself. You must create a better system in order to limit that.

  15. Novastar87 March 13, 2014 7:48 am
    #

    You don’t have to spam venoms, DE also have raiders :p

  16. Agrius March 13, 2014 8:00 am
    #

    Why is banning when powerful combos are found looked at as a bad thing? Just look at Magic The Gathering which is considered by most to be very competitive. How many cards over the years have been banned once powerful combos were found? Same thing can be used in 40k. …

    • Hotsauceman1 March 13, 2014 8:16 am
      #

      40k and wargames are a different beast. We spend time, effort and alot of blood on this hobby. We want to use the fruit of our labor

      • Baal Viper March 14, 2014 6:47 am
        #

        At the expense of other people. I support a ban list. It is the only way we can combat the clear GW game embalance.

  17. Clover362 March 13, 2014 8:05 am
    #

    I used to be a big advocate of smaller point games for balance reasons in 5th edition, but the current state of things i think 1500 pts would give an even bigger advantage to Tau, Eldar, and Daemons (and to a lesser extent necrons). The 2 source rule is a good rule so you see more variety.

    An interesting idea that has started to float around is to get rid of battle brothers. If you do not allow allies to join units or cast powers on each other DE/Eldar and taudar and tau/tau lose a lot of the things that people point to as unfun (it doesn’t bother screamerstar however).

    It might also be kind of fun to play a single codex only tournament though I’d expect eldar tau and daemons to still dominate.

  18. Hotsauceman1 March 13, 2014 8:15 am
    #

    In the early 1900’s the movies has somethiing called the production code. It limited what movies could show. This made movie creaters think creatively when adding sex, alchohol or violence. When you give someone the ability to NOT do something, they find ways around something. If someone said I couldnt put my Commander in with a riptide. Ok, I take Ovessa and put him in a brodside unit with the commander. BOOM.

  19. jadedknight March 13, 2014 8:37 am
    #

    In general it is constraint that leads to creativity in all areas of life.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 14, 2014 10:54 am
      #

      Exactly. That is a common truism in art.

  20. Eldarain March 13, 2014 8:47 am
    #

    Definitely stick to the “army may only be created from two sources” rule.

    Also simply adding in no army may be better allies than “Allies of Convenience” would singlehandedly fix a lot of problems in one shift as mentioned.

    I really hope we get a proper Psychic Phase with the rumored 6.5-7th update. If they want Psychic powers to be so integral we should have a chance to dispel them as someone other than Space Wolves.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 14, 2014 10:55 am
      #

      A lot of people are talking about no Battle Brothers right now, too.

      • Rawrgyle March 14, 2014 11:04 am
        #

        while I get where no battle bros comes from, it seems a step too far. Would SM allied with themselves be considered not battle bros? That doesn’t make any sense to me.

        • Eldarain March 14, 2014 4:15 pm
          #

          What would really change though? Each Chapter is an autonomous fighting force with it’s own doctrines and tactical preferences.

          Why would characters be intermingled between the two just because they are fighting in the same engagement?

          Removing the Battle Brothers level of alliance still allows for Fluff based armies of Guardsmen holding the line while Marines descend in Drop Pods. Or an army of Traitor Marines and Cultists summoning a horde of Daemons to sweep away the last vestiges of resistance.

          The only thing it stops is the abusive stacking of Special Rules and Psychic buffs.

          • Eldarain March 15, 2014 8:59 am
            #

            Having reviewed rhe “Allies of Convenience” rules again I’d like to amend my suggestion. I forgot about the “treats allied units as enemies” part.

            So keep Battle Brothers but alter the statements to read “May not join/May not cast”

          • Reecius
            Reecius March 15, 2014 10:48 am
            #

            That may very well be a solution.

  21. Chaos Reigns March 13, 2014 8:51 am
    #

    While the idea of shifting some incentive to the modeling/theme bit is a nice sentiment and definitely not a bad idea, that will have no effect on the meta. It’s not the prizes the competitive seek, it’s the recognition. They want to be able to see where they stack up, in a measurable sense, with the best. People who take great pride in their modeling and painting skills dont go to tournaments, they go to Golden Daemons and other such competitions. While I do not mean to undermine the value of such skills, it just won’t make a lick or difference. Worst case scenario, people will be turned off of certain events for favoring paint over game skill.

    I really do enjoy the idea of only two source materials. I feel that is a great way to balance the field for the armies that don’t get all these places to draw some of the best units in the game at no actual loss or limitation to their army composition *cough cough* Imperium *cough* Even this won’t change a whole lot by itself, though. Some of the strongest list compositions won’t even blink at this as most Tau and Eldar power lists only draw from two books anyway. Then there’s Screamerstar, which will also go unaffected.

    Imposing a source limitation, coupled with a 0-2 limitation on non troop units seems to be a good idea to me. I feel that it will only hurt some of the most ridiculous spam lists, but still allow a lot of flexibility in list composition. On top of the already tested 2++ rerollable nerf and we may have a seemingly balanced competitive meta yet.

    • Tron March 13, 2014 9:10 am
      #

      I like your ideas, I honestly think comp is the only answer. GW obviously does not care about game balance. But I also understand that some players dont care about game balance either, we need event variety. Variety is the spice of life!

      • Chaos Reigns March 13, 2014 9:49 am
        #

        Something I say often. I like playing a lot of different things; I feel that is the best way to test real world list composition. Sadly the variety in my area is quite low; lots of guard and loyalist Marines. Going to GTs was always fun for me just to actually play against the other codices. However I have been discouraged as of late as what I’ve seen from 6th ed meta does not make me want to shell out money to go to a tournament where the lists I’d play against would enrage me. I don’t like to power game, I like a fluffy army that is also capable; and I’d like to return to a tournament scene where I can perform moderately with such a list. To me, it’s all about playing a cool army well, not building a power list from the internet and patting myself on the back for it later.

    • Chuck March 13, 2014 10:12 am
      #

      The only problem with the whole 0-2 limitation on non-troop units is it really doesn’t affect the best lists.

      The only list that made the top 8 at LVO that would actually have to change under that restriction is Gareth’s Thudd Gun list. None of the other 7 took more than 2 of anything except Troops.

  22. BeefNerd March 13, 2014 9:49 am
    #

    I really feel like the only thing that there is to do about this is to rely on tournament coordinators for balancing, but also a big issue is standardizing the gameplay to where the point amount may be different but there is still limitations to the amount of allies/dataslates and so on. I honestly feel like just taking away all our ability for battle brothers, just takes away a lot that is and always has been 6th ed. We are no longer in 5th, we have allies now, and some allies work together better than others, battle brothers is not the issue, there will always be a “meta” no matter what and telling people they cant use their models that they worked hard and crafted an army for is not “balance” its stealing oportunity. While we all agree we hate taudar, its not impossible to beat, just saying.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 13, 2014 3:17 pm
      #

      You make good points, in time we always adjust.

  23. jy2
    jy2 March 13, 2014 11:18 am
    #

    I believe this will be the return of Compzilla.

    As GW gives us more freedom, it is up to the TO’s and community to sort through all these new toys to create an environment that is balanced and fun for “most” to participate in. Unlimited power is never all that fun.

    • Novastar87 March 13, 2014 11:37 am
      #

      Oh, no, thy say he’s got to go
      Go go Compzilla
      Oh, no there goes Tokyo
      Go go Compzilla

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 13, 2014 3:16 pm
      #

      My thoughts exactly.

  24. Nuln-Oil March 13, 2014 1:46 pm
    #

    It would be nice to see more tournaments where you are only allowed to take one unit in each FOC slot, until they are all accounted for at least once and then no duplicates. Of course, this wouldn’t apply to troops, just to everything else. There might need to be some tweaking here and there, maybe an exception that you can take two in one slot, or something like that. It just seems that the game would be more fun, while still allowing for people to be creative (arguably you have to be more creative). This is opposed to lists with 4 riptides, seercouncil, 3 heldrakes, 9 thudders, etc., etc. I understand the tendency to make the best list you can by spamming your strongest units or units that when massed create an advantage, but nothing is equal and as this article suggests everyone just starts doing the same thing. The only way to fix the problem is to say we aren’t going to play this way anymore, even though we can.

    I don’t have an army that is considered top-tier, and I am still rather new. But, the tournament scene doesn’t look like it’s about skill or creativity; it’s about list building. You have to wonder how much skill you have if you are completely dependent on the perfect list…

    • jy2
      jy2 March 13, 2014 2:01 pm
      #

      There’s got to be a restriction on the troop choices as well. One of the reasons why the top armies keep on doing so well is because of the spamming of their troops as well:

      Eldar – jetbike-spam to win games on Turn 5.

      Necrons – warriors in night scythes dropping on objectives Turn 5 as well.

      Eldar – mechdar wave serpent-spam.

      However, on the flip side, it’ll invalidate some armies that rely primarily on its troops. An example would be White Scars Space Marines, which rely on bike troops as the primary workhorse.

      In a comped environment such as the tournament you are talking about, I would add the caveat of no 2 identical units no matter the FOC and no more than 2 of the same dedicated transports in any FOC slot.

      • Gordon March 13, 2014 2:43 pm
        #

        White Scars spams its troops for victory. They have plenty of alternative options. Sisters are a better example of an army that can’t deal with a restriction like that.

        • Nuln-Oil March 13, 2014 2:48 pm
          #

          Perhaps a requirement that troop choice be alternated between at least two types of troops.

          • Agrius March 13, 2014 3:16 pm
            #

            why would you have to limit every army to just 2 types of troop choices? Could you not make a limit different depending on the army?

          • Nuln-Oil March 13, 2014 3:24 pm
            #

            No one is limiting the troop choices to two. Just limiting to at least two.

  25. Halfricanking March 13, 2014 2:54 pm
    #

    Sorry if this is a repeat there’s a huge wall of text and I’m short on time. With change comes a new “normal”. This would make the old system retro, therefore useable for nostalgia. If you ran a “Throwback” tourney where you had one source, one force org it’s possible people would play for the simplicity, challenge, and old memories.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 13, 2014 3:17 pm
      #

      We’ve thought about that or the Highlander format we’ve heard about it.

  26. Oadius(6th edition) March 13, 2014 3:59 pm
    #

    I never liked the codex anyways….all those complicated rules and waaaaay too many choices. A fellow might find a way to be original amidst the sundry. Now we can all thank GW for simplifying things for us…. Just look at the new Codex: Imperial Knights, 2 units and no wargear options. I’d much rather pay $40 for fluff I’ll read once. Emperor knows the data slates will be out in a week or so and I’ll need them too. I say we make a move back to 5th edition and stay there until Roboute Guillman comes back from near death stasis and balances out the 6th edition shenanigans by writing the Codes Banstartes.

  27. Oadius(6th edition) March 13, 2014 4:01 pm
    #

    Tzeentch is laughing at all of us…..

  28. Brodrick March 13, 2014 5:47 pm
    #

    Limit to one force org chart and every unit taken counts against it. And 1500 pts is awesome. I even heard it from hood players in my area that they can’t take all there toys at 1500. Which means amount of cheese is less and power combos are much lessened.

  29. Wayshuba March 14, 2014 3:29 am
    #

    “I understand that it makes sense from a business perspective to increase the potential market for each release, and to have more releases at a lower price point more frequently, but the game suffers as a result.”

    Actually, it makes absolutely terrible business sense. This was tried by another company with a much more dominant brand than GW. It worked so well, they had to be acquired because of the financial train wreck it caused the company.

    Here’s why it stinks:
    1.) For veteran 40k gamers, too many rules coming too fast, with almost all of them breaking the structure of the rules, will cause the system to become so convoluted people will simply move to other systems.

    2.) For any company to grow, they need new customers. This is not happening much now because the game looks like an utter mess to a potential new customer. In fact, as I was recently exposed to at my FLGS from a 19-year old, it looks like a company that doesn’t know what it is doing (as he then proceeded to buy about $350 worth of Infinity).

    Don’t look at this in terms of today. Look at where this path will lead over the next twelve months.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 14, 2014 10:58 am
      #

      What company are you talking about Wayshuba? Might be apples and oranges because other game companies are making an absolute killing with micro-transactions.

  30. Leth March 14, 2014 7:17 am
    #

    GW is all about providing options and giving people rules to play the game they want to play. Could we have allied before with a social contract? Sure, but it almost never happened. Now there are rules that allow us to do it on a regular basis.

    If the tournament/community wants to limit the options that is up to them.

    I like the fact that I can now bring the deathwatch army that I always wanted to. By bringing in a xenos inquisitor(not coteaz) and some grey hunters to use as deathwatch infantry(slightly more elite) and then white scars bikes(also more elite versions) I can make an army that plays and works how I imagine the army operating on the table. I cant wait to paint up my two knights that are dedicated knights that have been seconded to the deathwatch. If the storm trooper book lets me ally in storm troopers I will probably use them instead of the grey hunters and have inquisitional storm troopers.

    I like that I can bring a HUGE variety of different army lists and they all fit into the theme that I want to play. Personally I think I am the target demographic for rules like these. I could max these things out, but I like the versatility that I get in playing the army I want to play.

    Now will I win top tables with these forces? Nope, but I will get to have fun role-playing out the battles, writing up fluff for armies that I will actually get to play. It makes me excited to try and figureout the fluff. I loved the new knight codex for this reason it gave me a lot of information to work with to make my models my own and that is something I think was missing.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 14, 2014 11:10 am
      #

      From a fluff perspective I agree 100% that this is a great edition of the game, no doubt. The game is wide open.

      From a gaming perspective though, it is too wide open as it invites abuse.

  31. Ness Monster March 14, 2014 11:44 am
    #

    Remember Chapter Apporved armies from White Dwarf?
    They allowed players to create unique and fluffy armies that were not possible in the codices. My favorite was the Kroot Mercenary army. I’ve always loved the models and dove head first into a 2000 point Kroot army. Every model had a conversion of some sort. The paint jobs were intricate for a horde army. I won about every other game. It was a fun army and my opponents enjoyed it too, win or lose.

    Unfortunately, the chapter approved army could not compete with newly released codices or the mechanics of the new rule book. The army was shelved and all of my blood sweat and tears with it.

    Honestly I still resent GW for abandoning my Kroot. These data slates and formations seem like the same trap as chapter approved just accelerated.

    For example, I was excited to get back into gaming with the Tyranids codex. Then I read it.
    Holding my breath I waited for the data slates. They did improve, but for how long. I don’t want to go buy everything I need for a sky swarm. Only to find the formation nerfed a year later.
    Look at the LOTD. It was possible to field an entire army, then that changed to ally only. (I’d love to convert an entire lotd army) That took about two weeks to change. How pissed would I have been if I had already started that project.

    I get it. They will make more money this way. But they are totally fucking us and we let them!
    Well my ass is too sore for this shit. I’m out.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 15, 2014 8:19 am
      #

      I too miss my Savage Orks!

  32. Shane March 14, 2014 12:16 pm
    #

    I hate to say it but someone mentioned reducing points to 1500 might help reduce the “cheese” earlier. I’m inclined to disagree, sure lower points means less of these overpowered units but it also means less ways to deal with them. I actually think they have a larger effect per choice at lower points values.
    In saying that I’m used to playing 1750pts I don’t know what points limits you guys are playing as standard? If your playing 1999pts or over then yes dropping the points a little will likely help because it that points level it starts to become like apocalypse where the “normal” units don’t matter.

    As far as stemming the flow to keep the game playable I personally think limiting an army to a single primary detachment plus only one of the other choices from the list of possible allies, formations, inquisition, knights, secondary detachments, supplements etc is the way to go.
    It still allows some scope to try interesting combos but forces you to a choice of which combo you want to take rather than just taking them all at the same time.

    I challenge every one to go back to basics for a couple of games. Try playing with a single primary detachment with no allies, no supplements etc. Remember what the game used to be.

    I’m sure most will discover that the game in its most basic state is still good which will prove the point that we need to alter the way we build lists to get back to that. We are almost certainly going to have to impose some sort of community imposed restrictions to list building or the game is going to degrade to the point where it is pointless to play competitively, if it isn’t already there.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 15, 2014 8:18 am
      #

      We play 1750pts standard, Shane.

  33. bonesaww666 March 14, 2014 2:04 pm
    #

    Most data slates are not preposterously OP though, and can help out units that have this far under performed- I’m looking at you Helbrute! (Which will be quite interesting and a viable choice with the ability to join cultists and Deepstrike)

    I honestly think the handicapping of BB’s being able to join other units may be all that is required to make a huge change.

    • bonesaww666 March 14, 2014 2:06 pm
      #

      Start small, see what happens. (Sorry, no edit button!)

      Then resort to altering rules and messing with Dataslates…

      • Reecius
        Reecius March 15, 2014 8:20 am
        #

        Wait what, Helbrutes will be able to join Cultists and/or Deepstrike? Pray tell where you heard that little tidbit.

        • bonesaww666 March 15, 2014 11:03 am
          #

          I believe the Helbrutes must be put into a unit to be deep strikers “Mayhem Packs”

          The formation for the Cultist Version is called a Helcult.

          I have reason to believe these actually are coming to a slate near you, as of today it’s actually on the BL site…

          Also, a gentlemen never tells.

          • Reecius
            Reecius March 15, 2014 11:20 am
            #

            Right on! That makes them playable…sort of! Haha, a unit of them gets destroyed in one interceptor Tau volley. I wonder how they work in a unit of Cultists? Like a character?

          • Eldarain March 15, 2014 11:52 am
            #

            This sounds both awesome and effective. Therefore due to my constantly crushed hopes and expectations when it comes to Chaos Marines I will assume this is false until I hold such rules in my hand.

          • bonesaww666 March 15, 2014 12:19 pm
            #

            Hahaha, well hopefully I was not led astray, keep the faith!

            In the Dark Gods we must trust!

            It is the hope that Dataslates bring that I have found a new and reinvigorating love of the hobby.

            Once apon a time we would have been left to wallow for 6 years before the hope of changes/new units came forth, now it’s like being the hottest chick at an orgy, there’s more then any one person can handle!

  34. bonesaww666 March 15, 2014 12:14 pm
    #

    Well, 3 of them Deepstriking anywhere should be good for a laugh, plus the new kit is just too beautiful to say “no”!

    Also, armed with MM’s they could be CSM’s answer to Imperial Knights.

    It’s almost like having more Obliterators!

    I know AV 12 is nothing to write home about, but if you bring enough…

  35. SacTownBri March 15, 2014 7:26 pm
    #

    Great article. We really do have need of TO control for tournaments. I see this as two games these days. I love the furious release schedule and almost anything goes nature of the game these days. But I think it’s place is in casual games. Where you get together with your friends and you forge a narrative experience. Tournaments need tight control and an even and level playing field where gamer skill is the most important piece of the puzzle, not wallet size or unbalanced min/maxed lists.

  36. Egge March 16, 2014 4:00 am
    #

    I have been away from one month and feel that the game has changed so much it is a pain to keep track of everything. I play nids and doesn’t even know what kind of money I should spend just to get all the rules to field all available units and special versions of them.

    And that is one unit. If the codex is a dying breed – in that sense that codex actually fulfill the part of having the army’s rules within them and not only part of them, then I feel it would really suck. But as it stands now the codex are not doing their thing of showing me of what I can field. Only part of them.