# Should GW Complete All Codices Before Doing A New Rules Edition?



## inquisitoryorei (Nov 25, 2007)

Does GW need to finish all codices before developing a new edition of the core rules?

If you think they should finish all codices before publishing sixth edition (i know its probably 4-6 years away) email them and let them know(politely please)


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I voted Yes although I dont agree totally- they should have a quick errata booklet released with each new rule book for each army... a quick look at each special rule saying if it stil exists and any changes to fit it into the new codex.
Playing 5th edition with 3rd ed codexes and trying to work out how the hell the differnt rules are now meant to work when RAW and RAI are both different (esp if neither is clear) is irritating beond belief.

I'm pretty much getting into WFB to avoid shreadding my SW codex before the new one later in the year (I hope and pray)


----------



## Rahmiel (Jan 3, 2009)

Yes they should because it just isn't fair for players dedicated to their armies for whatever reasons. DE, SW, Inquisitional forces, should all be updated before they release a new rule book. Its not fair to pay additional points for some units that may have special rules that no longer apply.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

It seems very unproffetional to release new rules editions with so many of the codex being so outdated. In many ways, it almost feels as if your army is not supported any longer, especially in the case of Daemonhunters and Witchunters who only got a brief mention in the new 5th edition codex. 

Making releases like that almost makes it seem like 5th edition was a ploy to sell more books since 4th edition wasn't even finished. I would say that they realized they needed to do better and wanted to push forward, but why then release IG and SM right off the bat when they already have perfectly good 4th edition codex? 

To add to that, there are the constant model updates to SM, IG and Orcs, in the form of battleforces and Apoc sets. This gives the impression that GW makes WarHammer40k focus on these and the rest get rather ignored... let's hope they can change that impression this year.


----------



## JokerGod (Jan 21, 2009)

I voted yes. However I don't think all armys need a full update for every edition. Some just need a thought out PDF file going over there wargear and special rules so we know how they work in the new edition.


Will it ever happen? Hell no. we all know that.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

I voted yes.
Two of my 4 armies are 3rd edition.
I'd really like to see them updated before 6th comes out in the next year or two.


----------



## thomas2 (Nov 4, 2007)

Yes.

Having armies like DE and SW so far behind everything else just isn't right. They deserve new models and rules as well.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

If your a Chaos, SM, IG or ork player, then 40k is brilliant. You know, with a new range of minatures out every year etc...

GW put alot of work in Warhammer fantasy, where all the ranges are getting constant additions. So maybe if they bother to place the same level of work into 40k, it may get somewhere.

I believe that GW should never of bother with the Chaos Daemons army, it was such a waste of time. It should of been an expansion within the Chaos Codex.

hmm, I dont know...

My 12 year old DE army only gets a new lord model occasionally. But now i have one i really like, and that means thats it. I have actually run out of DE to buy. I own 6000 points in total. And as DE players know...thats alot of DE.

I kinda feel like i deserve a new codex now yeh?


----------



## hells_fury (Apr 17, 2008)

it would be nice if the lagging codex's were brought up to date, i remember having a game of annihilation with my sisters, the other guy killed my living saint and she passed her leadership meaning she was coming back. the guy asked for my codex and he checked her rules and this is what he believed would happen.

because the codex said that she didnt count as VP when she is killed and passes her leadership and it says nothing about KP's, it meant that he would get a KP each time he killed her.

he literally argued black and blue about it even when a GW staff member pointed out how old my codex is and there is a reason why it doesnt mention KP's, because they didnt exist back then. 

second reason, we all know how cheap space marines get rhinos, 15 points less then us witch hunters and the worst part, from what i see their rhino is better then ours because it has more fire points. i see it as pretty unfair that we have to pay more for a model thats worse.

my point is we at least need to be brought up to date with the rest so we dont get those annoying people and are not paying more for less :3


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

hells_fury said:


> it would be nice if the lagging codex's were brought up to date, i remember having a game of annihilation with my sisters, the other guy killed my living saint and she passed her leadership meaning she was coming back. the guy asked for my codex and he checked her rules and this is what he believed would happen.
> 
> because the codex said that she didnt count as VP when she is killed and passes her leadership and it says nothing about KP's, it meant that he would get a KP each time he killed her.
> 
> ...


For the Living saint go to the FAQ. It clears this issue up. And yes we need a new rhino. Cause right now it's just ridiculous.


----------



## Col. Schafer (Apr 15, 2008)

I vote yes, and I'm guard. Sure its fun having updates to my army, but when everyone else gets shafted its no fun. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A REAL DARK ELDAR MODEL IN MY LIFE!!! They need to update everyone before moving on. Ot at least, not let a codex fall two editions behind. 

And It would be nice if they didnt compleatly scrap whole armys. I know I'm not old enughf to complain about squats, but I feal like I missed out on a badass army.


----------



## marcch (Apr 1, 2008)

Yes! I believe that every army needs to be up to 5th ed now.


----------



## space cowboy (Apr 3, 2009)

I know it doesn't generate nearly as much money, but I thought it was a pretty good way to update armies or include army sub-factions into the game by releasing several in one book (such as the Index Astartes books, Craftworld Eldar book, Eye of Terror campaign book, Battle for Armageddon campaign book, etc.) These could be good ways to update armies such as the SM chapters, craftworld specific eldar, chaos space marine legions, etc.

I also think that they should have a single Inquisitor book with all of the separate Inquisitor armies contained within.

Thanks,
Howard


----------



## space cowboy (Apr 3, 2009)

Col. Schafer said:


> And It would be nice if they didnt compleatly scrap whole armys. I know I'm not old enughf to complain about squats, but I feal like I missed out on a badass army.


You really didn't. They were basically a hybrid Guard/Marine force (mostly guard-like, but with some elite, marine-quality troops) with bikes and tech. I mean, they were so Imperium-like that they could field Rhinos.

Thanks,
Howard


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

Yes they need to, Orks (needed a spell check in their codex), SM, and IG should not recieve any more work on them except for a few modlers working on the Special characters for the dex's that need to be released. Eldar do fine at the moment it's just that people go for the same army in tournies as it's most effective. CSM need to have a WDwarf update for all specialised armies in my opinion and daemons should be reunited with them with an FAQ saying that in normal games they may be allied together though must abide by a single FOC chart in under say 2000pt battles. The rest need an update due to certain rulings in their codex not existing or making units redudndant as they can no longer use their own rules to make them stand out in this new edition.


----------



## BlackApostleVilhelm (May 14, 2008)

i voted yes because i feel extremely bad for those who had invested in the Dark Eldar awhile ago seeing their promise, they really need some new models and some serious help in the rules section.


----------



## Duke Vorian (Jun 21, 2008)

You know what I found really funny within the first few replies was people grouping IG in the mix with Space Marines and Orks for armies that recieve constant updates. 

Guard have not had a new codex since before the begining of the 4th edition. Their codex is actually older then Deamon Hunter and Witch Hunters. 

Like others have said, GW is not going to actually apply this 'rule of thumb' but it would be really fair I agree. Dark Eldar, and previously IG, were really lacking in the updated Codices. No offense to SW but I don't count them as a full fledged Army Codex in themselves. GW personally shouldn't put out their own Codices for any chapter but additions in White Dwarves like the Blood Angeles were.

Even if GW does this though what about the last army to get updated? When that army gets updated and they have them all 'caught up' what happens to that army if they want to update the rules, aka a new rulebook? That last Codex to get 'caught up' is in the same spot we are frustrated at now, someone will be the odd man out...

Regardless I think GW has really dropped the ball on IG and Dark Eldar; especially Dark Eldar, atleast IG could still compete. They have really been waiting too long...


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

No all they need to do for a 6th Edition is minor changes to the 5th much like the 4th was to 3rd.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Duke Vorian said:


> Even if GW does this though what about the last army to get updated? When that army gets updated and they have them all 'caught up' what happens to that army if they want to update the rules, aka a new rulebook? That last Codex to get 'caught up' is in the same spot we are frustrated at now, someone will be the odd man out...


Not really since right now we have books that are 2 editions behind, meaning from 3rd edition. 

Orks were one of the last (if not the last) 4th ed codex and most people agree they are perfectly fine as is and in no serious need of updated at the moment. 

If that is how it was felt about the very last codex updated for them all, then it would be amazing.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

A new chaos codex for fifth edition? Yes please. I want some more variety.

I can't possibly imagine staying with an army with a codex like that for years. God do I feel for those dark eldar folk.

Can't really say too many bad things about space wolves, maybe we'll see good marines outside of templar and plague/zerk now?

Plus it gets old fighting the same high level lists, I would love to see the old codexes bumped up so I don't mentally discount them entirely from the game.


----------



## Col. Schafer (Apr 15, 2008)

Duke Vorian said:


> You know what I found really funny within the first few replies was people grouping IG in the mix with Space Marines and Orks for armies that recieve constant updates.


Yes our old codex might be geting a little old, but it worked verry well with 4th ed rules, it was one of those things like... we _could_ update the guard, but theyre doing fine. (I dont think we get as much love as the SMs, but we arent left out)

My sympathies go to the DE.

EDIT: I just notcied somthing about the poll "two or three editions behind everyone else" whos still in 2nd ed? :shok: (or is that a typo)


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

I agree with what Lord Waffles said that when GW don't do old armies it 1) gets boring playing the same 4 armies over and over again 2) trying to explain old armies rules as they don't believe they have those abilities you mentioned, though thirldy on the other hand it's great as they have no idea on how to counter it as they never see these armies but it is a sad thing at the same time.


----------



## BlackTemplar93 (Apr 9, 2009)

yeah i reckon they shouldn't update every codex for evry new ed of wh40k but the very old codexes( de and necrons) should be uptaded soon( i personaly find it a bit annoying when reading things such as "strategy rating, meatgrinder, character within 6" a friendly squad, can only transport the unit it was selected with")and things like that in the old codexes...


----------



## dtq (Feb 19, 2009)

Col. Schafer said:


> Yes our old codex might be geting a little old, but it worked verry well with 4th ed rules, it was one of those things like... we _could_ update the guard, but theyre doing fine. (I dont think we get as much love as the SMs, but we arent left out)
> 
> My sympathies go to the DE.
> 
> EDIT: I just notcied somthing about the poll "two or three editions behind everyone else" whos still in 2nd ed? :shok: (or is that a typo)


And WHAT? exactly is wrong with having the odd "old school" night? :biggrin: One of the benefits of mainly playing away from the local store, and having been in the hobby a long time is that I can play the hobby at any stage I want, We can play it any way we want to, whilst most games are using "current" rules we have no problems going back to older rules for the sake of using some dust gathering models \ books.

I love my space wolves codex as old as it might be, Im still happy playing with it. I dread the possibility of losing my "exceptionally" venerable dreadnought HQ, I never go to battle without my old bjorn model leading from the front. I love wolf guard, wulfen etc etc, Theres a lot of what I love about space wolves that could be lost in a codex rewrite.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

I agree that it is rather unfair that some codicies are left behind but I don't think everyone should have an update before 6th, it would cost GW too much. The best thing for them to do is bring the 3rd ed/early 4th codicies up to date and then bring out decent erratas and FaQs for all the books. Then they would only need to update each codex every other edition perhaps?

But regardless, GW are only ever going to do what is best for them, they are a business after all.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Chaos Players WILL get bored of their codex, as the it offer little deviation.

Orks and Space marines have ALWAYS had the ability to make such individual armies...

Chaos HAD that, but they took it away.

So theres *another* chaos codex update...but its needed

But im sure 'vanilla' Space Marines will get another 1 - 2 new codices before that happens


----------



## JokerGod (Jan 21, 2009)

As far as new books coming out before 6th we only need DE, Necrons, Nids, Tau and Eldar. SM, CSM, Orks and Daemons where written in 4th so they could be played in 5th, that was always the one good thing about GW, towards the end of an edition they would write out the codex so it could be played in the new Edition.

And DE are very close to 2nd, there current came out at the start of 3rd. And that stamp doesn't count as an update, all they did was give it a glorified re-print with a new shinny FAQ and a stamp on the cover.

And it would not be that hard to get all the armys updated for each edition, all they need to do is stop giving SMs 3 and possibly throw DH and WH together.


----------



## harrytheschmuck (Nov 4, 2008)

i voted yes but really i think it should be 50/50 maybe have the 2 codexs ready for the 2 armys that are done with the game (plus dont always let it be marines and orks, maybe have 3 different types of game boxies you can pick from like marines vs necrons, chaos vs guard and dark eldar vs orks etc etc) if your doing say 3 boxs have mini rules books for them that are basic but they work. 

then have the others who didnt get into one of the boxies have their codexs done, with a new army book coming out every 3/4months then go back to the others or even update or expand the box game armys in white dwarf (at leat it mite make it worth getting white dwarf). it should all be done so all the books are out and finished at least a year before any impending new editions of the game so you have time to use the army.

i know some people who get the 1st new army of a new edition so they can get maxium life out the army between editions. theres nothing worse than starting an army near the end of the life span of an edition only for it to be made worthless in the new game.


----------



## harrytheschmuck (Nov 4, 2008)

plus ive been waiting ages for a squat codex!!!


----------



## bishop5 (Jan 28, 2008)

Yes, definately. I hate seeing old rules & models. 
Unfortunately, if GW rush things, they turn out shit so i'd rather wait longer and get a decent army list than have them rush 10 in two years and break the game.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I have a love hate relationship with codexes,Being one of those people who remember a time when codexes didn't exist and army lists were printed in white dwarf and citadel journals and in compendiums, i knida get annoyed reading the same rehashed fluff from way back when intermingled with rehashed artwork and fancy rules for what is basicly the same army from the last codex edition.
I would like to see GW adopt a different style of codex,basically an open ended codex.
Something that has everything the currect codexes have now ,but in a binder form, then when a new model is released it could come with a "data card" or some what ever telling you how it works and such and it can simply be added to your codex,plus if something is broken or needs up dating,they could release a cheap mini dex that replaces pages in your open ended codex.

BUT as always it boils down to money,if you go the binder route,people will photo copy or print their own and GW will loose out.

All codex should be kept upto date, but the codex is only the tip of the iceberg,ork players had to wait ages to get a revamp and by god was it worth it, the current range of Orks is stunning but that shouldnt take away from the fact it was an awful long time comming for one of the popular armies in 40k. But several other armies are very dated or lacking, I can hardly believe how poor the dark eldar range is,but then again i thought it was poor when it was released, even back then the warriors were not a patch on the aspect warrior eldar range.


----------



## Aktar09 (Apr 4, 2009)

not only do GW seem to only update the populararmies, they also only update about 8-9codexes a year - they can do better thatn thta, surely
also, why is it that they never seem to update any of the armys im interested in?


----------



## inquisitoryorei (Nov 25, 2007)

imm0rtal reaper said:


> I agree that it is rather unfair that some codicies are left behind but I don't think everyone should have an update before 6th, it would cost GW too much. The best thing for them to do is bring the 3rd ed/early 4th codicies up to date and then bring out decent erratas and FaQs for all the books. Then they would only need to update each codex every other edition perhaps?
> 
> But regardless, GW are only ever going to do what is best for them, they are a business after all.


it IS best for them to update codices before doing new editions of the core rules and then waiting a while after the last codex to do said core rules. then we spend more money on models instead of having to keep buying the books. models almost certainly get them a higher profit then the books, right?


----------



## inquisitoryorei (Nov 25, 2007)

Aktar09 said:


> not only do GW seem to only update the populararmies, they also only update about 8-9codexes a year - they can do better thatn thta, surely
> also, why is it that they never seem to update any of the armys im interested in?


they do only 3-4 codices per year not 8-9. they also have to release fantasy and lord of the rings books, so codices are not that frequent.


----------



## Captain Galus (Jan 2, 2008)

I play SPESS MAHRINES, so I don't give a sheeeeeit!


----------



## Pandorav3 (Jan 30, 2009)

Well here's the thing regardless of how much it sucks for us, GW is not a friendly company that's just looking to produce a great game. they are like any other corporation, they want the $$. So therefore we can easily see the rhyme for it. Take a look in your local gaming store sometimes, and i guarantee you in most stores the ratio plays out like this. at least 50% of them play sm, another 20% of them play with chaos marine armies, then 10% play elder, while another 10% are orks. Now take a look at the other 10% they're pretty equally playing all the other armies (sans DE). So from GWs perspective which would make them more money? releasing another SM codex that 50% of all players have to buy, or a DE, or WH codex that youd be lucky to scrape 1-2% of the total player base to buy it. Following that math they make about 25-50 times the amount of money just releasing another SM codex rather then keeping all their armies up to date. Sad but that's pretty much how they make money, if more of the player base played other armies we'd see more miniatures, and codex's for them. But for now, it looks like GW is willing to sacrifice some player satisfaction for profits.


----------



## Lord of Rebirth (Jun 7, 2008)

I would like to specifically -not- see a new edition of rules for a good 5 years. I mean likely this edition isn't perfect but major changes are quite annoying and if they aren't spending all the time making a new $50-100 rule book I gotta buy they could do newer models and update codexes more I think.


----------



## inquisitoryorei (Nov 25, 2007)

Pandorav3 said:


> Well here's the thing regardless of how much it sucks for us, GW is not a friendly company that's just looking to produce a great game. they are like any other corporation, they want the $$. So therefore we can easily see the rhyme for it. Take a look in your local gaming store sometimes, and i guarantee you in most stores the ratio plays out like this. at least 50% of them play sm, another 20% of them play with chaos marine armies, then 10% play elder, while another 10% are orks. Now take a look at the other 10% they're pretty equally playing all the other armies (sans DE). So from GWs perspective which would make them more money? releasing another SM codex that 50% of all players have to buy, or a DE, or WH codex that youd be lucky to scrape 1-2% of the total player base to buy it. Following that math they make about 25-50 times the amount of money just releasing another SM codex rather then keeping all their armies up to date. Sad but that's pretty much how they make money, if more of the player base played other armies we'd see more miniatures, and codex's for them. But for now, it looks like GW is willing to sacrifice some player satisfaction for profits.



we dont have a store where i live. we gotta travel about 1.5 hours to the nearest one, but out of all the players i know here, we play the following armies. some play more than one.

marines=4
BA=1(me if u didnt guess)
guard=2
eldar=3
dark eldar=3
tau=2
WH=1
DH=2
Tyranids=4
Necrons=3
chaos marines=2
chaos deamons=1
orks=2

as you can see, we play 10 imperium armies and 17 alien armies and 3 lonely chaos armies.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

I completely agree that it would cost GW way too much money to make books that everyone would buy and would obviously sell very well since the market is clamoring for them. :wink:

Pandrav, did you ever think that people play those codex less because they are old, outdated, with models that look like they came out of Heavy Metal the Movie and have no exciting box sets like Blackreach?


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Arcane said:


> I completely agree that it would cost GW way too much money to make books that everyone would buy and would obviously sell very well since the market is clamoring for them. :wink:
> 
> Pandrav, did you ever think that people play those codex less because they are old, outdated, with models that look like they came out of Heavy Metal the Movie and have no exciting box sets like Blackreach?


The models and being outdated are due to lack of interest, as both were more or less up to par with what was released at the same time. The biggest issue with the more out of date codices is that they were poorly concieved. When you compare necrons with tomb kings ( the fantasy equivalent), necrons look like less imagination saw used. The same holds true for dark eldar when compared to dark elves. both dark elves and tomb kings have interesting, original units that make their respective armies distinct from the other fantasy armies. The 40k equivalents do not have the same feel. 
Lack of diversity in units hurts the necrons, as you really have little more than larger versions of the same unit, with a couple of relatively impractical units as the other options. Further focus on other parts of the "space undead" theme would make for a more interesting force. Dark eldar seem more like a stripped down version of craftworld eldar, and not like a seperate entity of their own. Both armies' problems are made worse by the dated rules and models, but not caused by them.


----------



## Pandorav3 (Jan 30, 2009)

Arcane said:


> I completely agree that it would cost GW way too much money to make books that everyone would buy and would obviously sell very well since the market is clamoring for them. :wink:
> 
> Pandrav, did you ever think that people play those codex less because they are old, outdated, with models that look like they came out of Heavy Metal the Movie and have no exciting box sets like Blackreach?


Well heres the thing regardless of weather people are clamoring for them or not (I myself play a small WH army, and REALLY want a new dex for them.) The simple fact is that all GW sees is a chart of how many WH models they've sold, and how many SM models they've sold, and voila, they see where the cash cow is. GW has officially stated that their core armies are SM, CSM, eldar, and orks, with space marines being the poster boys. So even though alot of people would buy the dexs, there's still more money elsewhere. The reason why the models are outdated is because however much of a clamor there is for them, there's a bigger clamor for other armies, and GW simply follows the cash flow, its a vicious cycle (they models aren't as much wanted as the more popular ones, so they don't release new ones, so more peaple are turned off by their outdatedness). I don't like it one bit either, but regardless to them warhammer isnt a game, its a business.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Son of mortarion said:


> The models and being outdated are due to lack of interest, as both were more or less up to par with what was released at the same time. The biggest issue with the more out of date codices is that they were poorly concieved. When you compare necrons with tomb kings ( the fantasy equivalent), necrons look like less imagination saw used. The same holds true for dark eldar when compared to dark elves. both dark elves and tomb kings have interesting, original units that make their respective armies distinct from the other fantasy armies. The 40k equivalents do not have the same feel.
> Lack of diversity in units hurts the necrons, as you really have little more than larger versions of the same unit, with a couple of relatively impractical units as the other options. Further focus on other parts of the "space undead" theme would make for a more interesting force. Dark eldar seem more like a stripped down version of craftworld eldar, and not like a seperate entity of their own. Both armies' problems are made worse by the dated rules and models, but not caused by them.


How would any of that not be solved by releasing new and more interesting codex/models? GW needs to suck it up and invest some money back to get return. Their fantasy line has proved that, while their 40k line is going the way of the "safe" and sure. Keep releasing Marines and at least someone will buy right? 

In the end they will only end up alienating their old player base while offering a more watered down product to a new audience that neither appreciates nor supports in the long term a very old hobby. This new audience will be off to the next fad game when they get bored of 40k. It happened to Wizards when they invested tons of money into Pokemon cards, which they made millions on subsequently lost millions on when it wasn't popular anymore. 

In the states, many Wizards of the Coast stores have become Gamesworkshop stores... who is to say what will take the space after that?


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Sometimes, Codecies don't -need- to be redone, and sometimes, they're redone with a new edition in mind. For example, the current Chaos Space Marine Codex was written with 5th Edition rules in mind, but came out on the tail end of 4th Edition, just as the previous version came out on the tail end of 3rd but was written with 4th Edition in mind. 

Things like Codex: Witch Hunters and Codex: Daemon Hunters don't particularly -need- an update for the current edition. It'd be a waste of time for Games Workshop to focus on printing new rules for them prior to releasing a new edition of the game when they work fine with what they've published for the new edition. 

I think Games Workshop learned their lesson about letting a "core" army in the range go for a decade-- I doubt very seriously they're going to let an army like Orks sit with the same book over two full editions of the game. Say what you will, Dark Eldar never were part of the "core" range of armies that we've had since Rogue Trader-- Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Orks, and to a lesser degree, Tyranids-- with the exception of the models being horrible, the Codex actually still works well. Sure, they could use a new Codex, but I can see why Games Workshop hasn't bothered for two full editions.


----------



## seandb (Sep 28, 2008)

Yes, for sure. I feel every army should have a new book for each addition (and each edition could last longer and the books produced cheaper).


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Arcane said:


> How would any of that not be solved by releasing new and more interesting codex/models? GW needs to suck it up and invest some money back to get return. Their fantasy line has proved that, while their 40k line is going the way of the "safe" and sure. Keep releasing Marines and at least someone will buy right?
> 
> In the end they will only end up alienating their old player base while offering a more watered down product to a new audience that neither appreciates nor supports in the long term a very old hobby. This new audience will be off to the next fad game when they get bored of 40k. It happened to Wizards when they invested tons of money into Pokemon cards, which they made millions on subsequently lost millions on when it wasn't popular anymore.
> 
> In the states, many Wizards of the Coast stores have become Gamesworkshop stores... who is to say what will take the space after that?


you missed the ppoint entirely, the fact that GW went with what you suggest is exactly why both necrons and dark eldar suck hind tit. Neither was well thought out, nor were they distinct enough from other armies to give them significant appeal. you cannot force people to buy crappy armies that haven't been fleshed out as well as the others, no matter who likes them. What I was saying was that both need a LOT of work before they ccan enjoy the opoularity that the other armies enjoy. nrcrons need to be something more than a lesser version of plague marines ( compare statlines. wargear, too similar to each other), dark eldar need to be more then emo-eldar.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Son of mortarion said:


> you missed the ppoint entirely, the fact that GW went with what you suggest is exactly why both necrons and dark eldar suck hind tit. Neither was well thought out, nor were they distinct enough from other armies to give them significant appeal. you cannot force people to buy crappy armies that haven't been fleshed out as well as the others, no matter who likes them. What I was saying was that both need a LOT of work before they ccan enjoy the opoularity that the other armies enjoy. nrcrons need to be something more than a lesser version of plague marines ( compare statlines. wargear, too similar to each other), dark eldar need to be more then emo-eldar.


Calling them Emo Eldar doesn't really substanciate why you feel they are not unique. They have many special abilities which are different from other groups. 

I didn't miss the point because the point is made mute in the face facts like it takes GW almost 8 years sometimes to write a Codex. People can get a Doctorate in that time and preform surgery on people, but GW cannot publish a 50 page book with a handful of models? 

Now, do not get me wrong, I am not trying to critisize them entirely because we all know that they probably have their reasons or business plans or whatever... I would love to see an edition every 6 years with the interim being filled with box sets like Blackreach for every army, Apoc models etc, but instead, when they want a boost of cash they release a new edition because they know everyone will have to go out and buy it. In essence THAT is more guilty of rushing a product than anything else. 6 years to get to second edition, 5 years from second to third, 6 years from third to fourth and only 4 to get to 5th. 

You cannot sit there and tell me that coming out with a codex in 6-8 years is an effort to not rush an army.

6 years between editions should be plenty of time to get all the armies worked out and enough time for GW's employees kids to get an MBA.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

but I can see why Games Workshop hasn't bothered for two full editions.[/QUOTE said:


> Um SOH, not to be other but we have units in our codex that can't be used effectively at all anymore and units which can no longer take vital wargear, that made the army such a threat, eg Hellions and Scourge, giving us now really 1 FA choice I mean for a Fast army having 1 FA choice is crap, and then having 2 main Heavy Support now you either go Talos or Ravager heavy.
> 
> And having rules in a codex that don't work in the current ed is a problem especially if it's more than about 10 things.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Exactly Blue Liger, not to mention the point values on those units do not drop. 

So for example, my Callidus's gun which used to always roll on the glancing table against vehicles and could roll a 6 and destroy a vehicle now rolls at a -4 which at best is going to stun the same vehicle. The Eversor assassin no longer can fire two shots with it's pistol because they got rid of Fast Shot but the models still cost the same amount of points. Not to mention there is war gear that no longer even does anything at all like the Liber Heresius.

GW does a good job and I understand they are just a business, but some of the discisions leave you scratching your head and frustrated... almost pigeonholed into playing Marines if you want to have stuff that works half the time.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Scrap the codex system and just include all army books in the rulebook. Personally i'm sick of paying a ridiculous amount for the rulebook, and then having to buy a new codex every 6 months. Not only is it annoying to see armies like SM get a new codex every 5 mins it hurts the diversity of the game. I see so few DE and Necron players, and it's not cause ppl don't like them, it's just cause they are so hard to play in the current edition. Releasing everything at once and then starting a new edition in my oppinion would make the game so much better.

printing all books together:
1) Simplifies everything, as all u need is in one book and not 3 separate ones (assuming a two army battle).
2) Makes it fairer as all army books come out at the same time (and not the most used 1st).
3) Stops certain older rules from becoming useless, while still having to be payed for.
4) Gives the players time between each edition to enjoy playing the game without changes occuring every couple of weeks (that's not saying that things that are a uneven can't be tweaked during the edition in errata).

And as a side note, anyone remember when a codex cost around $20... those were the times. Now I'm paying an extra $15 for 10 extra pages of background stories i could have got off the internet.

That's my opinion if anyone cares, and if they don't... fair enough.


----------



## inquisitoryorei (Nov 25, 2007)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> Scrap the codex system and just include all army books in the rulebook. Personally i'm sick of paying a ridiculous amount for the rulebook, and then having to buy a new codex every 6 months. Not only is it annoying to see armies like SM get a new codex every 5 mins it hurts the diversity of the game. I see so few DE and Necron players, and it's not cause ppl don't like them, it's just cause they are so hard to play in the current edition. Releasing everything at once and then starting a new edition in my oppinion would make the game so much better.
> 
> printing all books together:
> 1) Simplifies everything, as all u need is in one book and not 3 separate ones (assuming a two army battle).
> ...


whoever is charging you $35 for a codex should be beat. the SM codex is $30, whille all others are either $22 or $25.

Also, could we please not exaggerate on this thread? SM getting a new codex every 5 mins is ridiculous.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

Over in Aus we pay $50 Aus Dollars for the new SM codex, and for the DE old dex we pay $33-35 Aus Dollars


----------



## Iraqiel (May 21, 2008)

In Aus, most codexes are $42, some older ones are $33, and I think the new SM is higher again.


----------



## inquisitoryorei (Nov 25, 2007)

Blue Liger said:


> Over in Aus we pay $50 Aus Dollars for the new SM codex, and for the DE old dex we pay $33-35 Aus Dollars


i apologize. i didnt see your flag to see that you were talking AUS dollars. im in USA and the codices only went up $3 USD from the fourth ed codices excepts SM dex which was 28 pages longer. that one increased by $5.


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

Voted Yes, GW doesn't have to bring out a new codex for each army but they should at least have someone go over the old codexs/codici and do an update to the rules (maybe put them in WD instead of some advertisements).


----------



## Sinioth (Feb 10, 2008)

Absolutely. It's a joke how some armies get the shaft for so long.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

The errata do help but they are online I mean younger players have no clue about them half the time, and they need the GW guys who do the codex's to do updates in WD so we know it's concrete - as ItsPug said.


----------



## inquisitoryorei (Nov 25, 2007)

wow. i like the comments. good points all. so in general, erratas would even be acceptable?


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Blue Liger said:


> The errata do help but they are online I mean younger players have no clue about them half the time, and they need the GW guys who do the codex's to do updates in WD so we know it's concrete - as ItsPug said.




I very definately agree.
I'd like all of my armies to be playable and current, not just the "GW Favourites".
My Dark Eldar and Space Wolves have been languishing for years...


----------



## Xan'du Lagos (Apr 22, 2009)

I vote yes, please update my Necrons before 6th edition

Not to mention Dark Eldar, when was their last book? mid 90's?


----------



## Crimson_Chin (Feb 20, 2009)

It's really sad, my younger brother started necrons a while back, but he's become completely disillusioned with them. Part of it is the fact that he hasn't bought enough destroyers and immortals perhaps (lol), but he just keeps running into models that he thought were cool and turned out to be ultimately useless.

Pariahs, tomb spiders, flayed ones. Fluffwise, cooler models than the typical shooty units you see in a necron force, but it means he doesn't win very much, and doesn't enjoy losing every game. GW NEEDS TO UPDATE CODECES TO GET MY BRO BACK IN THE HOBBY.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

I love that GW don't realise how far they left DE behind and that many players have no idea when they came out, how they play and how to counter them yes it's good for a while, but I like to enjoy and promote my DE at my GW, alot of players (almost all actually) would love to play them but don't like either the models or the outdated codex and limited options due to this.


----------



## JokerGod (Jan 21, 2009)

Blue Liger said:


> I love that GW don't realise how far they left DE behind and that many players have no idea when they came out, how they play and how to counter them yes it's good for a while, but I like to enjoy and promote my DE at my GW, alot of players (almost all actually) would love to play them but don't like either the models or the outdated codex and limited options due to this.


The last local RT that was held some one brought DE, and (I'm not exaggerating) one of the people there asked the guys in charge if it was a legal army, he thought the guy just converted Eldar and made crap up the hole game. It was incredibly funny, but also very sad that DE have bin so forgotten, most people still thing there just "Chaos Eldar"


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Crimson_Chin said:


> It's really sad, my younger brother started necrons a while back, but he's become completely disillusioned with them. Part of it is the fact that he hasn't bought enough destroyers and immortals perhaps (lol), but he just keeps running into models that he thought were cool and turned out to be ultimately useless.
> 
> Pariahs, tomb spiders, flayed ones. Fluffwise, cooler models than the typical shooty units you see in a necron force, but it means he doesn't win very much, and doesn't enjoy losing every game. GW NEEDS TO UPDATE CODECES TO GET MY BRO BACK IN THE HOBBY.



Strange, before I sold my Necrons for being boring, I found my Pariahs to be very useful.
Other players were somewhat afraid of them, and when they die they don't count against your phase out. Flayed ones are also useful.
Maybe it's just in how I used them?


----------

