I’m old. I remember the good old days, when our cars chugged gas like it was going out of style. Back in the golden days when you could eat a Jell-O Pudding Pop advertised by Bill Cosby without fear that you would wake up with a bad taste in your mouth and memory loss. I remember when codex and army book updates were sufficiently infrequent that an army could miss an update for an edition. I’m not going to tell you those days were great… they weren’t any better than the state of many bikini lines in the 1970s or 1980’s: untidy and difficult to manage.
When GW unveiled 4th edition and killed the rhino rush tactic loved by more neck beards than waifu pillows, the decisive nature of assault was turned down significantly. The powers that be added a target priority rule that required you to pass a characteristics test to fire at a unit that was not the closest enemy unit in range (I think this was the way it worked, I’m old, cranky and can’t find my rule book from my present position). This rule upset some, much like all new game play mechanics tend to do, but I think it allowed for assault oriented armies to retain some measure of usefulness because an assault oriented army could present multiple targets and use the priority rules to present multiple “bad” options for the shooty player to try to take out. I remember when the tau codex came out in fourth edition; their book incorporated multiple ways to get around target priority. At the time I dabbled in the fish-headed commies and thought the various items the tau could use to have greater control of their target selection was awesome.
Shortly thereafter, however, when the fifth edition rules came out, GW staff decided that TP was no longer an applicable thing and jettisoned the rule. While a newer character wouldn’t be able to tell the
difference, the players who used tau, with all its target priority and selection shenanigans, lost effective use of a LOT of items in their codex. The codices released during fifth edition were much more permissive with regard to what was allowed units wise. For example, the space marines in 4th edition had a wonderful create a chapter trait chart that allowed you to select benefits, with attendant drawbacks, that caused certain global effects to your army. In fifth edition this was replaced by the “chapter tactics (X chapter) rules”, which did a great deal of the same things the trait system from fourth did. However; where the fourth edition book had drawbacks that went along with the boons, fifth just kept the boons. Compare this, for instance, with the black templar book that emerged in 2004-2006, which seemed a weak, pale codex by comparison, with overpriced units, outdated, in some cases inapplicable rules, and items that no longer served a purpose due to a fundamental change in the game’s core rule set.
I don’t really miss those days, guys. I may have not been a regular tau player, or a black templar player, but I thought it particularly terrible that the “draws” to their codex had dumped ceremoniously on the soiled ground the way I would expect to see when Rosie O’Donnell slips in a puddle of Crisco. It’s not a majestic, violent fall, just a listless, boneless flop. Your dudesmen rules have suffered ejaculatory failure. I really don’t want to go back to those times any more than the polish want to back to 1941. The current trend of frequent codex release similarly bothers me but for different reasons. I think that the rapid release of various books resulted in significant downturn in the amount of thought that went into the rules development. Don’t get me wrong, I love seeing new releases, new people getting into the game; but at what point are we just buying a 50 dollar FAQ update every two years? I realize that the development staff changed little things here and there in my eldar book, slapped in a Decurion like formation, a few rules for taking multiples of a model, and told my knights they could be trans-gargantuan creatures… but you are telling me this wasn’t something that could be done with an FAQ? I think if this was ten, even five years ago, this could have been fixed with ten bullet points in an errata/FAQ page.
I’ve heard the rumor that the “7.0 codices” significantly lag behind the “7.5 codices” because of a staff hesitant to include overly powerful rules or units. I read the rumors that these codices were stopgaps allowing GW to copyright their new unit names during their ham-fisted scramble leading up to the Chapter House lawsuit verdict. I’m not really sure that I buy the latter though. I can’t really see Tom Kirby and Gav running into the design studio after ritually beheading Matt Ward, yelling “Quickly make up a bunch of names and throw in some skub unit characteristic profiles, we’ve gotta run this down to the patent office! No, don’t figure points, just roll 4D6 and pick any combination of the dice results to figure points and stats! By Jove, man, if we don’t take this down to the patent office, someone may take out novel and totally original idea of space elves with wheel-less flying carriages!” I think a lot of the lackluster codices that followed the seventh edition rule-set come from a company in transition, unsure of its direction after a relatively flat sixth edition release that incorporated too many new things too quickly. They tossed out seventh with little to no announcement, akin to Bill O’Reilly doing it live.
The end of 6th edition and early 7th edition releases has several common features: the disappearance of characters and units in the book that do not have a currently existing model. Rule references and wording that clearly indicate the rule design process occurred, or at the very least, started, while the 6th edition rule set was the current set. Psychic power related rules that do not fit well with the “psychic phase” that 7th edition introduced, and a lack of specific authors, rather using the term “design staff” or something similar. The earlier books seem to be indicative of a company confused about how to deal with a not entirely favorable judicial ruling in the court system and bad press surrounding their over litigious behavior. Case in point, the Spot the Space Marine debacle. There was no reason to pursue a cease and desist in that situation, and any corporate counsel worth his salt would have at least looked into the content of the book to determine if it is, in fact, related to their specific product or derivative of. I think someone simply typed “space marine” into the Amazon search engine and decided whatever came up that was not company related merchandise must run afoul of the law.
The Necron’s most recent release and subsequent codices follow a uniform formula for page design, nearly all include some sort of a formation bonus, army wide special rules, and color photographs of models as opposed to artist rendered illustration. What am I saying here? My pork-free side wishes GW could get crap right the first time, or at least provide the changes on a FAQ, and keep the codex release cycle tied to new editions. Don’t get me wrong now, I love new books, and I generally don’t mind paying for them. I would just rather use my hobby money for models, rather than rehashes of rules that should come out right the first time. How does this tie back to our favorite pelt wearing bad-asses? Well, there’s rumor that the wolves are getting ANOTHER book. Maybe having kids and work made it go faster than usual, but we just GOT one in June 2014. Recycling the book, when it is less than two years old, considering the various books that are from 2012, seems like a poor use of resources, regardless of the “best sellers.”
I’ve played some games with my wolves’ books, and while it is not as powerful as the fifth edition book from 2008, it is by no means a weak codex. Yes. I would like my wolf tail talisman and tooth necklace back. I’d love mark of wulfen or other wulfen related things in game, but I’m not really sure I want that more than I’d like a chaos space marine book that is well thought out, or a Tyranid codex that is well executed. There are those that would argue that the wolves don’t have a “Decurion” with formations- I agree, the army could use multiple vehicle squadrons, updated dreadnaught profiles, and an increase of stat/differentiating factor for the wolf scouts to remain a worthwhile elite choice. Even if they incorporated grav or the frost ray for long fangs, I cannot say that I would go out of my way to buy a new box of them because in my army plasma and laser cannon/missiles take care of power armor, terminator armor and medium vehicles pretty handily. With exception of the flyers and as a gimmick gun on dreadnaughts, I can’t see the frost ray filling a niche that my long fangs don’t already do on their own.
These aren’t things that need a new book. These can be solved with a single page, double spaced FAQ page, and called a day. Move onto chaos space marines, regardless if it’s a reimagining of the faction and units, or an amalgamation of the prior editions, bringing together the best of what was, and a retooling the mediocrity that currently rests in that book. I for one would prefer that such a major faction not end up in the shoes of the 4th edition tau… essentially the gaming equivalent of a trilobite. Paying for poor editing and rule design, at least to me, is akin to paying for a steak at a restaurant, only to get the gristle and bone part of a porterhouse, next to a note from the chef saying he wants to you pay for a new steak because he felt the need to clean himself with the one he cooked for you.
I don’t want anyone sitting on my steak, though the tyranids could use a trilobite.
Alfred "El Lobo Cubano"