So a little while ago GW said there would not be codexes in 8th edition
Now we have indexes which are simple, relatively cheap and combine multiple armies in one book (a bit like the old 3rd ed rulebook)
So why are GW releasing codexes? I cant think of anything these codexes will add other than potentially bringing back the old gak from 7th ed- fractured rulesets and faction specific formations.
They never said Codexes weren't returning, just that'd be a little while till they would start coming. As far as I know, no, formations aren't coming back, the new books will have different ways of building your armies, like in the current rulebook/indexes. It'll have some other stuff return to that's missing... Chapter Tactics, Legion Tactics, etc., most likely.
No, they didn't say there would be no more codexes, that's total nonsense.
Codexes are required because the indexes are just a stop gap between having 7th and 8th.
Codexes will include
- New stratagems
- Relics
- Unique psychic powers
- New formations/detachments that reflect the fluff of the force
- Tons of fluff
- Painting guides.
If you want to see what the new SM codex will look like, go and look at the new AOS Stormcast Eternals Battletome
What's weird is that the primaris character rules refer to codex: space marine, while the WD hints at index: astartes.
Do you think index:astartes will be a book that contain multiple codex? It seems a bit strange, especially since Index: imperium 1 is basically index: astartes
The Index Astartes always has been a different book and not a codex and it's an old thing that used to be in the White Dwarfs of old to. (It usually was all about info on certain spacemarine chapters.)
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: The Index Astartes always has been a different book and not a codex and it's an old thing that used to be in the White Dwarfs of old to. (It usually was all about info on certain spacemarine chapters.)
Now that you mention it, I remember reading that in WD a long time ago (it's been a while since I've read a WD).
You're most certainly right, index astartes must be completely unrelated to the rules.
Ah ok my mistake, perhaps it was part of the rumour mill.
So it seems to me codexes are bringing back all the gak from 7th. What a shame
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Silentz wrote: No, they didn't say there would be no more codexes, that's total nonsense.
Codexes are required because the indexes are just a stop gap between having 7th and 8th.
Codexes will include
- New stratagems
- Relics
- Unique psychic powers
- New formations/detachments that reflect the fluff of the force
- Tons of fluff
- Painting guides.
If you want to see what the new SM codex will look like, go and look at the new AOS Stormcast Eternals Battletome
They've actually said there'll be no Formations at all and it was mentioned there'd be no new Detachments. Of course they might change their mind... but for now they aren't going to be a thing.
New Stratagems are going to be in them.
Unique psychic powers are already a thing, and there's no reason to not reprint them in the codexes (or expand them to being 6 powers long like in AoS).
Given AoS has its own version of Relics, I'd imagine 40k will continue to have them.
The recent AoS tomes have had fluff and even painting guides (in the case of the Sky Dwarves).
The rulebook also hints there'll be unqiue Warlord Traits.
Mordian2016 wrote: Psychic bloat was one of the worst and most time consuming elements to 7th. I really hope they keep it simple.
Given that 7ths Warp Charge Dice system is thankfully dead and buried I don't think thats going to be a problem, even a Tzeenth army would be able to get through it's powers much quicker now.
If "Formations" do return in any form, I'm just hoping it's not in the rather open-ended way that some of them were.
For example, small bonuses for taking fluffy force organizations, such as a proper Space Marine strike force, with strict unit requirements. Something like NEEDING two ten-man devastators two ten-man tacticals, two ten-man assault squads and a specfic captain to get a "Company bonus." Equivalents could be found in other factions.
Best case scenario, no new Detatchments or special 'formations' to avoid starting the nonsense from 7th. Keep it down to Chapter/Regiment/Warband/Dynasty rules.
I really hope that Codices don't change anything at all from the Indexes (aside from maybe points adjustments) I really like having all the rules for my armies in 1-2 books only for only $25 each. Even better that all my enemies rules are in 4-5 books only.
There are enough detachment choices, no need for more There are enough Psychic powers. Expanding each existing table to 6 powers would be fine, but hardly necessary. Building an army to be Psychic heavy shouldn't be a thing (and this is coming from an Eldar/Daemon player) The only thing Codices should be adding are Relics, army specific Strategems (like max of 2-3 only) and "Chapter Tactics/Legion rules" Given that all armies now have <keyword> faction names, it would be really easy to add a simple rule for taking a specific Chapter/Legion. And not just for Marines, but <Craftworlds>, <Hive Fleets>, <T'au Sept>, <Ork Clans>, etc
Again though, a SIMPLE rule. If GW goes overboard on this point, 8E may turn into just as complicated a mess as 7E.
Mordian2016 wrote: Psychic bloat was one of the worst and most time consuming elements to 7th. I really hope they keep it simple.
Given that 7ths Warp Charge Dice system is thankfully dead and buried I don't think thats going to be a problem, even a Tzeenth army would be able to get through it's powers much quicker now.
Takes me less time to smite 15 times than someone to shoot all their guns.
Mordian2016 wrote: So a little while ago GW said there would not be codexes in 8th edition
Sauce? Also, GW have lied to us many times before.
Now we have indexes which are simple, relatively cheap and combine multiple armies in one book (a bit like the old 3rd ed rulebook) So why are GW releasing codexes? I cant think of anything these codexes will add other than potentially bringing back the old gak from 7th ed- fractured rulesets and faction specific formations. Or will they just be fluff and pretty pictures
I would prefer it if GW took the time to update the armies at the same time via Index, and then release fluff-dexes.
Despite the greater expense this would likely be to me, I'd damn well pay for it.
But GW is shortsighted and impulsive. I cannot see a reason they wouldn't bend to shareholder pressure and make short-term money grabs like all of last ed.
Galef wrote: I really hope that Codices don't change anything at all from the Indexes (aside from maybe points adjustments) I really like having all the rules for my armies in 1-2 books only for only $25 each. Even better that all my enemies rules are in 4-5 books only.
There are enough detachment choices, no need for more There are enough Psychic powers. Expanding each existing table to 6 powers would be fine, but hardly necessary. Building an army to be Psychic heavy shouldn't be a thing (and this is coming from an Eldar/Daemon player) The only thing Codices should be adding are Relics, army specific Strategems (like max of 2-3 only) and "Chapter Tactics/Legion rules" Given that all armies now have <keyword> faction names, it would be really easy to add a simple rule for taking a specific Chapter/Legion. And not just for Marines, but <Craftworlds>, <Hive Fleets>, <T'au Sept>, <Ork Clans>, etc
Again though, a SIMPLE rule. If GW goes overboard on this point, 8E may turn into just as complicated a mess as 7E.
-
I can tell you never played 3rd ed when it came out. This is literally the same situation we are in now, except GW are cheeky enough to charge for the rules they included free at the back of the BRB in 3rd. I mean, yeah we get actual special rules this time around instead of just statlines, but still.
The indexes are a slapdash "Please don't quit because we are too lazy to actually release all the rules at once" solution, nothing more.
I am not looking forward to the codex releases, at all. One of the best things they did for 8th was simplify the faction rules and put them all out at the same time, in books that are actually affordable and contain rules for a ton of models. Since I'm 100% sure they will do it anyway, I am hoping they at least decouple point costs from the codex releases.
After playing GW games since the 90s, I can't think of a time aside from a few years in WFB after 6th dropped that they handled armbook releases well. It's always such a mess, and the system means once it drops, you're stuck for years and years (sometimes forever) with a book that could be 100% better with just a few little tweaks.
The key question is: when the first Codex comes out, will it massively overpower the beneficiary? That will set the precedent for future codexes to break / not break game balance...
dosiere wrote: I am not looking forward to the codex releases, at all. One of the best things they did for 8th was simplify the faction rules and put them all out at the same time, in books that are actually affordable and contain rules for a ton of models. Since I'm 100% sure they will do it anyway, I am hoping they at least decouple point costs from the codex releases.
After playing GW games since the 90s, I can't think of a time aside from a few years in WFB after 6th dropped that they handled armbook releases well. It's always such a mess, and the system means once it drops, you're stuck for years and years (sometimes forever) with a book that could be 100% better with just a few little tweaks.
GW apparently promised faster errata/points balancing changes this time around. Let's see if they keep their word.
Codex was never leaving. That was another bit of garbage rumor mongering.
What I do expect is that codex will be much more powerful than index list. And that means those factions that never receive a codex are going to quickly get pwned.
I would actually be fine with it if 40k used formations the same way Age of Sigmar does.
As an example: a Sylvaneth Household battalion consists of one treelord, one unit of tree revenants, and one branchwych. You pay the points costs of those units per normal, and you get a little bonus in that enemies in combat with them can't retreat. You pay an additional 20 points on top of the costs of the units in order to take them in this formation.
A Gnarlroot Wargrove battalion is a formation of formations, at its core is one household battalion (except with a treelord ancient instead of regular treelord), it costs 80 points on top of the costs of the units and the household battalion and confers a little casting buff and a regeneration spell.
So all-in-all I've spent 100 points on a nice buff to certain spellcasters and a useful but situational spell, and the opportunity to take an additional relic (which confers a less extravagant bonus than the 7th Ed 40k relics)
Because: 1) They don't sell PDFs, they sell epubs. 2) The indexes don't have fluff or other extra bits. 3) They want to not repeat as much as possible the total clusterfeth of 7th where you needed 73 books and a literal library of index cards to get though a Psychic phase. 4) Selling books is profitable and they need to nickle and dime us as much as they can because more people are realising that buying 50p worth of plastic for £50 is a rip off.
As someone who's just getting back into 40k, I am really not into the idea of going back to Codex books for existing factions. For new ranges like a full Death Guard offering, sure, but for existing armies the Index books are such a better solution. Adding Codex books back in and having to stay on top of where the latest version of your rules are and losing the convenience of the consolidated Index books only a month after their release is not at all appealing to a new player. They JUST managed to make the game streamlined and manageable, there is no need to bloat it back up so quickly.
Because the only thing GW loves more than power creep is more money.
But seriously, the indexes were always only meant to be a placeholder. It even says somewhere in the rulebook or in the indexes that codexes will add relics and warlord traits and the like.
Kheirn wrote: I really hope Aeldari gets a single codex now, or Ynnari will be a pain in the ass to play again... Four goddamn codexes for one army.
CSM from 7th edition tended to consist of...
Codex CSM IA 13
Traitor Legions
Be'lakor epub.
Helbrute epub
Codex KDK Traitor's Hate (if you wanted to use the Black Crusade detachment or a Renegade Knight).
Your 4 books were nothing to my small library that still performed sub-par
Hopefully, the Codices only add optional stuff. Needing 5+ publications for a single army is just ridiculous
Unfortunately, the added Warlord Traits, Relics, Stratagems & <Chapter Tactic> equivalents will all be too necessary to be "optional"
It was nice to have my 2 armies in 2 books for once. Hopefully Aeldari and Chaos get updated later rather than sooner so that it lasts a bit longer.
Kheirn wrote: I really hope Aeldari gets a single codex now, or Ynnari will be a pain in the ass to play again... Four goddamn codexes for one army.
I predict we will see this:
Release Group 1: Codex: Space Marines Codex: Chaos Marines Codex: Grey Knights Codex: Death Guard Codex: Blood Angels Codex: Dark Angels Codex: Thousand Sons Codex: Space Wolves Codex: Space Marines 2, Game-Rigging Boogaloo
Release Group 2: Codex: Imperial Guard Codex: Renegades and Heretics (guardsmen -1) Codex: Inquisition Codex: Daemons Codex: Adeptus Sororitas Codex: Khorne Daemons Codex: Tzeentch Daemons Codex: Imperial Knights Codex: Chaos Knights Codex: Space Marines 3, We Need More Guillimarines
Release Group 3: Codex: Orks Codex: T'au Codex: Deathwatch Codex: We Forgot The Iron Hands Codex: Necrons Codex: Tyranids Codex: Genestealer Cult Codex: Tyranids, But Now They're On A Space Hulk Codex: Aeldari Codex: Drukhari Codex: Harlequins Codex: Ynnari Codex: Primaris Marines
amazingturtles wrote: Hmm.. looking at the faq, codexes are definitely meant to replace indexes, completely.
*sighs*
Where did you see that in the FAQ?
I may be wrong but it seems like it, from these answers:
What’s the difference between a codex and an index book?
The indexes let you play with your Warhammer 40,000 army until the codex for your faction is released. The idea being that the rules for units in codexes eventually supersede the rules for them presented in the index books.
Are the rules changing?
Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.
Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army?
The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.
Galef wrote: Hopefully, the Codices only add optional stuff. Needing 5+ publications for a single army is just ridiculous
Unfortunately, the added Warlord Traits, Relics, Stratagems & <Chapter Tactic> equivalents will all be too necessary to be "optional"
It was nice to have my 2 armies in 2 books for once. Hopefully Aeldari and Chaos get updated later rather than sooner so that it lasts a bit longer.
Galef wrote: I really hope that Codices don't change anything at all from the Indexes (aside from maybe points adjustments)-
I hope they change a ton. Because there's a lot of factions that NEED changing, that NEED additional unit types, that NEED more and better rules.
What are you talking about? All existing models have rules. The only things that "might" need adjusting are points values
-
Inquisition is an army that really needs to be fixed. It has things like the Jokaero that can buff... almost nothing at all, because it can only buff inquisition troops, and inquisition has nothing worth buffing.
But it could all be fixed with a rule that allowed the inq to put their keyword on things they bring in from other armies. Which is my guess as to how it will be done.
But it's true that there are things that really needs to be fixed, and Inquisition is the poster child. Not to say you can't play it, it's just really lazy at the moment.
Codex creep was one of the biggest reasons I left 40k back in 5th Ed. I knew this was coming, but still disappointing to say the least to see it come to fruition in 8th (all Marines by no coincidence, as well).
Mutter wrote: GW will make money with them?
What more reason do they need?
GW would arguably make more money just releasing yearly Indexes. Even if you double their size for fluff, additional faction rules, etc and charge $50, every player will still need to buy them.
Dr. Cheesesteak wrote: Codex creep was one of the biggest reasons I left 40k back in 5th Ed. I knew this was coming, but still disappointing to say the least to see it come to fruition in 8th (all Marines by no coincidence, as well).
Mutter wrote: GW will make money with them?
What more reason do they need?
GW would arguably make more money just releasing yearly Indexes. Even if you double their size for fluff, additional faction rules, etc and charge $50, every player will still need to buy them.
Codex creep is when each codex is better than the previous one for sales. While this was clearly the case in the past, there is nothing here to say that's gonna be the case now. Everything GW has said so far is in line with them at least trying to balance each codex. That's a huge difference from the previous intentional unbalance they created with codex creep.
What's funny is that even with codex creep, GW still made mid-creep releases just to gak on certain armies. Like CSM, where every release was increasingly mediocre and half-hearted, while being written by the same people that orchestrated the WK and Triptide.
Galef wrote: Hopefully, the Codices only add optional stuff. Needing 5+ publications for a single army is just ridiculous Unfortunately, the added Warlord Traits, Relics, Stratagems & <Chapter Tactic> equivalents will all be too necessary to be "optional"
It was nice to have my 2 armies in 2 books for once. Hopefully Aeldari and Chaos get updated later rather than sooner so that it lasts a bit longer.
Galef wrote: I really hope that Codices don't change anything at all from the Indexes (aside from maybe points adjustments)-
I hope they change a ton. Because there's a lot of factions that NEED changing, that NEED additional unit types, that NEED more and better rules.
What are you talking about? All existing models have rules. The only things that "might" need adjusting are points values
-
Inquisition is an army that really needs to be fixed. It has things like the Jokaero that can buff... almost nothing at all, because it can only buff inquisition troops, and inquisition has nothing worth buffing. But it could all be fixed with a rule that allowed the inq to put their keyword on things they bring in from other armies. Which is my guess as to how it will be done.
But it's true that there are things that really needs to be fixed, and Inquisition is the poster child. Not to say you can't play it, it's just really lazy at the moment.
These are issues that NEED to be addressed as FAQ/Erratas. I am not saying that this edition is perfect, far from it, but I will take a simplified imperfect system over an overly complicated, argument inducing imperfect system any day. Introducing individual faction Codices increases the chances of the later. It also raises the "buy-in" cost for new players, which we should all be against.
Purifier wrote: Codex creep is when each codex is better than the previous one for sales. While this was clearly the case in the past, there is nothing here to say that's gonna be the case now. Everything GW has said so far is in line with them at least trying to balance each codex. That's a huge difference from the previous intentional unbalance they created with codex creep.
Well, by definition, having access to other Strategems, Warlord Traits, and Relics (whatever those will be) than any other army makes it more powerful, no? edit: or at least gives it some sort of advantage.
It kills the balanced playing field of everyone have the same Stratgems, Warlord Traits, etc. It's hard to add more to one thing and not the other thing, and still make both things equal in effectiveness/balance.
Galef wrote: Hopefully, the Codices only add optional stuff. Needing 5+ publications for a single army is just ridiculous
Unfortunately, the added Warlord Traits, Relics, Stratagems & <Chapter Tactic> equivalents will all be too necessary to be "optional"
It was nice to have my 2 armies in 2 books for once. Hopefully Aeldari and Chaos get updated later rather than sooner so that it lasts a bit longer.
Galef wrote: I really hope that Codices don't change anything at all from the Indexes (aside from maybe points adjustments)-
I hope they change a ton. Because there's a lot of factions that NEED changing, that NEED additional unit types, that NEED more and better rules.
What are you talking about? All existing models have rules. The only things that "might" need adjusting are points values
-
Inquisition is an army that really needs to be fixed. It has things like the Jokaero that can buff... almost nothing at all, because it can only buff inquisition troops, and inquisition has nothing worth buffing.
But it could all be fixed with a rule that allowed the inq to put their keyword on things they bring in from other armies. Which is my guess as to how it will be done.
But it's true that there are things that really needs to be fixed, and Inquisition is the poster child. Not to say you can't play it, it's just really lazy at the moment.
These are issues that NEED to be addressed as FAQ/Erratas. I am not saying that this edition is perfect, far from it, but I will take a simplified imperfect system over an overly complicated, argument inducing imperfect system any day.
Introducing individual faction Codices encourages the later.
-
Oh absolutely. But there is a lot that can be done with some nicer fleshed out codexes as compared to a hastily thrown together index, without it becoming overly complicated.
And I think terrain cover rules need to be rewritten. Not because of the "you can only see me through the window, how do I get no cover?"-complaints which I see as no problem at all. I'm fine with things ending up a little silly sometimes in order to keep rules simple and intuitive. My problem is that the current rules are bad, and not at all intuitive. Why do woods work so fundamentally different from ruins? Why is a hill completely unable to confer cover just because it didn't used to be a house that fell down?
I think they should make a consistent ruleset for terrain. I'd recommend looking at Malifaux for ideas on how to do it right.
Purifier wrote: Codex creep is when each codex is better than the previous one for sales. While this was clearly the case in the past, there is nothing here to say that's gonna be the case now. Everything GW has said so far is in line with them at least trying to balance each codex. That's a huge difference from the previous intentional unbalance they created with codex creep.
Well, by definition, having access to other Strategems, Warlord Traits, and Relics (whatever those will be) than any other army makes it more powerful, no?
It kills the balanced playing field of everyone have the same Stratgems, Warlord Traits, etc. It's hard to add more to one thing and not the other thing, and still make both things equal in effectiveness/balance.
In the interim before every army has a codex, yes, this will technically be the case. Ideally, its more of a flavour addition and some tweaks to underperforming units, but going off of GW's track record, there will likely be a minimum of one or two new items/units/stratagems that are overpowered/broken.
While in a perfect world, they'd release all the new codices together at a date further down the road, rolling them out in quick succession isn't the worst thing either. It is a bit of annoyance for those who play armies getting the first few codices as they just bought the relevant index(es) that are now superseded.
Really, they should have just waited longer to release 8th and let the Indexes be the final version of the army lists/rules for each faction with all the special rules and flavour bits already in, then release faction books later with fluff and art, and a reprint of the latest rules for just that faction. Then they can update all the electronic versions automatically whenever they want and FAQ/Errata the paper versions to match.
Purifier wrote: Codex creep is when each codex is better than the previous one for sales. While this was clearly the case in the past, there is nothing here to say that's gonna be the case now. Everything GW has said so far is in line with them at least trying to balance each codex. That's a huge difference from the previous intentional unbalance they created with codex creep.
Well, by definition, having access to other Strategems, Warlord Traits, and Relics (whatever those will be) than any other army makes it more powerful, no? edit: or at least gives it some sort of advantage.
It kills the balanced playing field of everyone have the same Stratgems, Warlord Traits, etc. It's hard to add more to one thing and not the other thing, and still make both things equal in effectiveness/balance.
Everyone is getting a codex. The growing pains before everyone has one are hardly worth mentioning. Codex creep was with everyone already having a codex, they made the next one stronger than all the rest... and the next one stronger than that.
This is not the same thing.
auticus wrote: Codex was never leaving. That was another bit of garbage rumor mongering.
What I do expect is that codex will be much more powerful than index list. And that means those factions that never receive a codex are going to quickly get pwned.
If the codex offers more options it will increase power - this much is clear.
Purifier wrote: Codex creep is when each codex is better than the previous one for sales. While this was clearly the case in the past, there is nothing here to say that's gonna be the case now. Everything GW has said so far is in line with them at least trying to balance each codex. That's a huge difference from the previous intentional unbalance they created with codex creep.
Well, by definition, having access to other Strategems, Warlord Traits, and Relics (whatever those will be) than any other army makes it more powerful, no? edit: or at least gives it some sort of advantage.
It kills the balanced playing field of everyone have the same Stratgems, Warlord Traits, etc. It's hard to add more to one thing and not the other thing, and still make both things equal in effectiveness/balance.
Everyone is getting a codex. The growing pains before everyone has one are hardly worth mentioning. Codex creep was with everyone already having a codex, they made the next one stronger than all the rest... and the next one stronger than that.
This is not the same thing.
Purifier wrote: Codex creep is when each codex is better than the previous one for sales. While this was clearly the case in the past, there is nothing here to say that's gonna be the case now. Everything GW has said so far is in line with them at least trying to balance each codex. That's a huge difference from the previous intentional unbalance they created with codex creep.
Well, by definition, having access to other Strategems, Warlord Traits, and Relics (whatever those will be) than any other army makes it more powerful, no?
It kills the balanced playing field of everyone have the same Stratgems, Warlord Traits, etc. It's hard to add more to one thing and not the other thing, and still make both things equal in effectiveness/balance.
In the interim before every army has a codex, yes, this will technically be the case. Ideally, its more of a flavour addition and some tweaks to underperforming units, but going off of GW's track record, there will likely be a minimum of one or two new items/units/stratagems that are overpowered/broken.
While in a perfect world, they'd release all the new codices together at a date further down the road, rolling them out in quick succession isn't the worst thing either. It is a bit of annoyance for those who play armies getting the first few codices as they just bought the relevant index(es) that are now superseded.
Really, they should have just waited longer to release 8th and let the Indexes be the final version of the army lists/rules for each faction with all the special rules and flavour bits already in, then release faction books later with fluff and art, and a reprint of the latest rules for just that faction. Then they can update all the electronic versions automatically whenever they want and FAQ/Errata the paper versions to match.
For you gamers out there, one very exciting addition are new rules representing specific sub-groups in many of the major factions; these range from old classics like the Space Marine Chapters or Chaos Space Marine Legions to returning rules for individual craftworlds, as well as previously unexplored groupings like Necron dynasties and Adeptus Mechanicus forge worlds. These will be included in each codex.
YES!
Fear not, chapters and legions are coming back. I can't for the life of me imagine how codex books won't just be a straight up improvement over what we're currently seeing in the indexes. I doubt SM will suddenly become the top dog just because they get some special rules (which I assume will be free as they have in the past), but there's a fair chance they will rise in the stacks until other armies get their releases too. I hope they properly balance these new rules - I'd not be too disappointed to see points costs attached if the fluffy special rules don't stack well against each other.
Interesting there was also a comment int the Codex FAQ article about models receiving rules in the box, but the Matched Play points being available online. Perhaps this is a hint at a centralised points database? Maybe we will actually see balance changes between codex releases, as GW have promised, but it's far too early to tell.
lolman1c wrote: I have a feeling they might update points depending on what sold more and crap... (and they will say it's player feedback)
I would expect the opposite.
gw sells umpteen thousand boxes of ___ *insert undertcosted unit name here*
gw "due to community feedback we have increased the points of ___ (listed above) unit and adjusted the point of unit ___ (which was previously less competitive and a different kit) to balance them with the rest of the game after much playesting this adjustment was determined to be needed"
gw already sold the original models now people will need the less popular kit to have a slightly undercosted unit. rinse and repeat until you are back at the original kit as people will ahev sold those on ebay or to casual players and they can sell more of the original again! welcome to the new gw same as the old gw, but with a social media presence and better pr department
"This is codex creep!"
"No, it's not."
"Semantics."
... ok.
You're defining codex creep by the basis that each of the codices creep over the previous. Obviously that's not the case since this is the first wave of codices. It's still the same principle - a codex will put an army at an advantage over the other (edit: in case I need to explain it. SM/DG/GK/CSM will have the advantage over DE/Nids/etc simply by having codices while the others don't).
My biggest hope is that they find a balance and that the Indexes are still valid.
For example, I play Eldar but I sometimes add Dark Eldar or Harlequin units to my lists to portray a Corsairs theme (without having to get the FW book). Hopefully, I can still use the rules printed in my Xenos 1 Index for those few DE units even after DE get there own Codex.
As I primarily play Eldar, getting the Eldar Codex is a given (sadly), but I'd like to still take 1-2 DE units without needing yet another expensive hard-cover book
The same is true of my Daemon army. I occasionally add 1-2 CSM units and even though CSM are getting their own codex soon, I hope it does not invalidate the rules that were JUST PRINTED in a book I just bought.
TL,DR: Codex additions are fine, Invalidating rules in the Indexes that were just released is horrible customer service.
Codex's are great. I really hope they are used to expand the various factions. I'd really like to see books come out detailing smaller factions. With some data-slates for new units, lots of fluff etc detailing their place in the universe (similar in some ways to what has been seen in AOS)
Keep an annual GH type book to adjust the rules and point costs.
Would really like to see books for new things, rather than just 8th edition Codex's for the same factions.
Well, if codex creep is inevitable I welcome all the space marine codexes being first.
But seriously folks, even a codex a month is remarkable compared to the old pace. Hopefully they take actual feedback into account and in the first six months we see something, anything, but space marines.
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: Well, if codex creep is inevitable I welcome all the space marine codexes being first.
But seriously folks, even a codex a month is remarkable compared to the old pace. Hopefully they take actual feedback into account and in the first six months we see something, anything, but space marines.
There is zero possibility that the first few take feedback into account. Publishing just doesn't happen that fast. Something published for July (as we are told about the SM codex) would have been finalized back in April or maybe early may. And that's a really big maybe.
Packing 10 into the second half of the year is a crazy pace. Balance is going to be dubious at best, as is editing and overall quality.
Mordian2016 wrote: So a little while ago GW said there would not be codexes in 8th edition
Now we have indexes which are simple, relatively cheap and combine multiple armies in one book (a bit like the old 3rd ed rulebook)
So why are GW releasing codexes? I cant think of anything these codexes will add other than potentially bringing back the old gak from 7th ed- fractured rulesets and faction specific formations.
Or will they just be fluff and pretty pictures
Because: Money The Indexes are cool, and a good way to go...but a Codex is a proven formula for putting Fluff, art, and special rules (like Strategems) in one package.
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: Well, if codex creep is inevitable I welcome all the space marine codexes being first.
But seriously folks, even a codex a month is remarkable compared to the old pace. Hopefully they take actual feedback into account and in the first six months we see something, anything, but space marines.
There is zero possibility that the first few take feedback into account. Publishing just doesn't happen that fast. Something published for July (as we are told about the SM codex) would have been finalized back in April or maybe early may. And that's a really big maybe.
Packing 10 into the second half of the year is a crazy pace. Balance is going to be dubious at best, as is editing and overall quality.
I mean no disrespect when I ask this, but how much experience do you have in publishing?
I am part of a group who worked on a kickstarter RPG. obviously we were smaller scale but we did manage to secure just over 500 backers at the physical book level to make and print our game (bound hardback)
I called around to find good places to print our book and used a relatively small print shop. we had to pay a deposit for the time of printing 500+ copies 2 months in advance in most places I called (including the one I used) but they only needed our final completed book a few days before it went to the bulk print and even then they had it done in a few days( unsure how long it actually took for them to print and bind) I don't know if GW uses their own print shop which seems like they might. but assuming they did not I can't imagine that an industrial scale shop would have a hard time making thousands upon thousands a day. The longest part was formatting pages and as GW had the fluff and art done that means only the finalization of adding points would need to be finished.
I can imagine they took feedback and at least had time to implement some if they intended to do so
Galef wrote: What are you talking about? All existing models have rules. The only things that "might" need adjusting are points values
Says the fething Eldar player who has a billion different options to choose from-- you have no room to speak, here, you already have tons of options to play around with. Not all armies are so lucky. And actually, NOT all models have rules. A lot of models were rendered illegal by the current rules. And on top of that, plenty of armies could use expansions because they're so very limited. Sisters have less choices total to choose from than you have elites choices. Orks desperately need new stuff to play around with to represent different styles of fluffy Ork armies. Chaos needs new rules at the very least to differentiate different Chaos Gods' cults. Imperial Guard could use some differentiation between the various regiment fighting styles. And so on and so forth. And let's not even get started on Inquisition...
Galef wrote: What are you talking about? All existing models have rules. The only things that "might" need adjusting are points values
Says the fething Eldar player who has a billion different options to choose from-- you have no room to speak, here, you already have tons of options to play around with. Not all armies are so lucky. And actually, NOT all models have rules. A lot of models were rendered illegal by the current rules. And on top of that, plenty of armies could use expansions because they're so very limited. Sisters have less choices total to choose from than you have elites choices. Orks desperately need new stuff to play around with to represent different styles of fluffy Ork armies. Chaos needs new rules at the very least to differentiate different Chaos Gods' cults. Imperial Guard could use some differentiation between the various regiment fighting styles. And so on and so forth. And let's not even get started on Inquisition...
This is all true, but the argument kind of falls apart when GW's not pumping out Codices for the armies that 'need' them. I'm a Blood Angels player, and I'm perfectly content with my current spread of options, but I'm sure we'll be on the sooner end of Codex releases along with the other colored Marines. If they were going to use the Codex books to flesh out some of the armies that got the short end, it'd be Primaris to flesh out the new releases, then something like Orks that obviously needs it, followed by DG for another new line release, then another of the busted armies, and so on.
Prometheum5 wrote: This is all true, but the argument kind of falls apart when GW's not pumping out Codices for the armies that 'need' them.
No it doesn't. If GW is pumping out codices, at least there's a possibility that an army that needs it will get one. If GW isn't making any additions or changes, there is no chance.
Without new books, the armies with tons of options will flourish as they always have, and everyone else will fething stagnate like Sisters have done for the past two decades. With new books, at the armies with tons of options will flourish as they always have, and everyone else at least stands a chance of getting something new to play with. Sisters of Battle haven't gotten a new unit since third edition-- many people play armies that have gotten new things every single edition, and so aren't impacted by this stagnation. I'd like every faction to get a codex so maybe, JUST FOR fething ONCE, they as an army have something new to play with, an experience so many apparently take for granted.
Galef wrote: My biggest hope is that they find a balance and that the Indexes are still valid.
For example, I play Eldar but I sometimes add Dark Eldar or Harlequin units to my lists to portray a Corsairs theme (without having to get the FW book). Hopefully, I can still use the rules printed in my Xenos 1 Index for those few DE units even after DE get there own Codex.
As I primarily play Eldar, getting the Eldar Codex is a given (sadly), but I'd like to still take 1-2 DE units without needing yet another expensive hard-cover book
The same is true of my Daemon army. I occasionally add 1-2 CSM units and even though CSM are getting their own codex soon, I hope it does not invalidate the rules that were JUST PRINTED in a book I just bought.
TL,DR: Codex additions are fine, Invalidating rules in the Indexes that were just released is horrible customer service.
-
The Codex FAQ clearly says that the new codex will supersede the corresponding parts of the Index.
And apparently it's more than just adjusting point costs for balance, as some units will have different rules.
Off of that original list, new models for each faction with the codex was left off.
GW will have to do something to make the codexes more appealing than the indexes, so expect creep over the indexes to be coming, excused as "errata" or "fine-tuning". I don't think fluff alone will be enough to sell codexes, it didn't prove to be a successful experiments with Imperial Knights back in 6th.
As others have stated, I'm worried the forthcoming codexes will be at a pace that they can't be playtested, or after 6 months of dribbling out balanced codexes that don't overturn index purchases, Marketing changes gears to slam the creep into high gear.
I'm hoping any new interesting models come with their rules (the current Primaris Librarian/Captain seem to indicate this will be the case), and I can just keep using the indexes and the single datasheets for the new models.
Mordian2016 wrote: Psychic bloat was one of the worst and most time consuming elements to 7th. I really hope they keep it simple.
7th Edition actually reduced Psychic Bloat (a little). It was way worse in the end of 6th. And in fact it began already in 5th, when Space Wolves came out.
I hope with codexes returning they will start to release datasheets online for free like they do with Warscrolls. You'll need the codex of course to run a mono-faction army, but for players that like to add little sections of allies (or build an Imperial Soup) list it gives them an the means to do it.
Mordian2016 wrote: So a little while ago GW said there would not be codexes in 8th edition
Did they? I don't recall reading that - Where was it said?
This is something they call "A lie". You see, GW said from the very beginning that there WOULD be codexes and this poster said the opposite so he is creating a falsehood.
Looking back at 4th edition Dark Angels codex is almost comical - there were grand total of two (2) Psychic Powers to choose from, and Ezekiel was special and knew a third. All of them were quite weak and nobody could cast more than one power per turn. Same story with Blood Angels, even Mephiston was weaksauce as a Psycher by later standards.
It's not even correct to talk about power creep when it comes to evolution of Psychic Powers, it was more like power tsunami.
Bottle wrote: I hope with codexes returning they will start to release datasheets online for free like they do with Warscrolls. You'll need the codex of course to run a mono-faction army, but for players that like to add little sections of allies (or build an Imperial Soup) list it gives them an the means to do it.
I agree.
I'll need Codexes for 4 factions, but I have individual/few models from another 6.
I'm having flashbacks just hearing that, please don't make me relive that horrible time. That was not a fun time to be a new IG player especially when 50% of your meta is space wolf players
I'm torn on these codexes, on the one hand everything they promise sounds nice but it was a really dick move to charge us for the indexes when some of them are getting replaced in less than a months time from the release. They should have released the indexes as free PDF's or something, that would've made this a lot more palatable compared to how they actually did it.
There's no way they've had time to listen to feedback on these initial indexes either. To print them at the scale necessary and ship them across the globe, it is simply not possible. We're talking tens of thousands of books that needed to have been started from the ground up, edited, sent to printer, printed, and shipped in about a month's time. If they really did wait till 8th dropped for a couple of weeks to tweak points and stuff in the codexes dropping first then they will have been on such a quick timetable that we'll be lucky if the thing is even readable and laid out correctly.
Also, anyone else incredibly annoyed these stupid codexes are going to be hardback? What happened to the softback codexes? Keep them softback and sell them at $25 like the indexes and people would've been perfectly happy with it. But instead they insist on "premium" hardbacks and odds are they're going to charge us around $40 per book. I was hoping we'd see consolidated books at least but if even deathguard is getting their own codex that pretty much kills any hope we have of something like a combined mechanicum codex for example.
As a new 40K player who purchased the rule book and two of the indexes I really don't mind the fact new army books are coming.
I get a good overview of each armies fluff, what units they have and there playstyle. It also means I can know many of my enemies without having to buy their individual books.
When individual army books are released I now know which ones I will be interested in and it will save we worrying about making the wrong decision. Yes rules will change and new things will be added however I hope it will provide more information and options for the faction I decide to build an army for.
Balance is always an issue however it has nothing to do with how quickly books are released and everything to do with the publishers decision on how powerful they want it to be relative to the ones before it. They have all the information to balance a new book, however making it more powerful means people are in many cases forced to buy new things...it is also safer from a sales perspective to make new things above average in power level.
Bottle wrote: I hope with codexes returning they will start to release datasheets online for free like they do with Warscrolls. You'll need the codex of course to run a mono-faction army, but for players that like to add little sections of allies (or build an Imperial Soup) list it gives them an the means to do it.
Yes, this would be wonderful. The free warscrolls and the ability to play a game with all of the rules i needed in one single place did a lot to help me get into AoS, and it would be nice here.
We knew Codexes were coming. Everyone in my gaming group bought the necessary index books to field our armies. And all of us have agreed to limit ourselves to the index builds until everyone has a Dex for their army or 9ed happens. If amazingly the new Dex releases aren't blowing up any semblence of balance we will consider opening this stance up.
Until then we will reserve the right to self FAQ the things we don't like. Like Daemons not being fieldable in unit sizes that adhere to their Gods sacred numbers. Our games after all, our rules. Go to a tourney or event outside our group and you just might get to enjoy whatever the new Dex releases bring. Don't like it and you can come back.
My money is that we will see AoS battalion like formations that let you drop a bunch of units as a single drop and blow up first turn shenanigans. I don't have to face it until I want too though.
4) Selling books is profitable and they need to nickle and dime us as much as they can because more people are realising that buying 50p worth of plastic for £50 is a rip off.
Wow, way to use hyperbole to make yourself look really dumb.
Do you have any idea how much plastic injection moulds, machine, concept design and digital sculpting cost, as well as designing and engineering the sprue and packaging cost, not accounting for logistics and transport? Putting a price tag alone on the raw plastic and then pretend GW somehow transform plastic goo to the finished product with a flicker of their wand of evil sorcery, with no effort what so ever, is simply a very stupid statement. So bad that it even made me white knight for GW. *shudders*
Why are people upset about this? The indexes clearly lack enough depth and distinct mechanics to be suitable long term. They are a stop gap.
Relics, more than three psychic powers per faction and three warlord traits total are all excellent and honestly I'd be upset if they weren't planning to introduce them. New detachments, stratagems, and objectives are less essential but still fun. Not to mention chapter tactic equivalents are some of the best bits for adding unique flavor to an army. Do some people really not want these back? Why? Balance? 8th isn't balanced perfectly as is, this won't change that. Only solid responsive point updates might offer real balance.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: Quite excited to see that others than Chaos Marines and Loyalist Marines are getting they version of chapter tactics/sub faction rules.
agreed, but it makes sense, of all the ideas that came out of 6th and 7th edition chapter tactics easily met with the most acclaim. the only complaints where, regularily "we want them too!"
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: Well, if codex creep is inevitable I welcome all the space marine codexes being first.
But seriously folks, even a codex a month is remarkable compared to the old pace. Hopefully they take actual feedback into account and in the first six months we see something, anything, but space marines.
There is zero possibility that the first few take feedback into account. Publishing just doesn't happen that fast. Something published for July (as we are told about the SM codex) would have been finalized back in April or maybe early may. And that's a really big maybe.
Packing 10 into the second half of the year is a crazy pace. Balance is going to be dubious at best, as is editing and overall quality.
I mean no disrespect when I ask this, but how much experience do you have in publishing?
A fair bit. I also follow companies in this and related industries that talk a lot about their printing experiences. What you describe below is... not what they're dealing with.
I am part of a group who worked on a kickstarter RPG. obviously we were smaller scale but we did manage to secure just over 500 backers at the physical book level to make and print our game (bound hardback)
I called around to find good places to print our book and used a relatively small print shop. we had to pay a deposit for the time of printing 500+ copies 2 months in advance in most places I called (including the one I used) but they only needed our final completed book a few days before it went to the bulk print and even then they had it done in a few days( unsure how long it actually took for them to print and bind) I don't know if GW uses their own print shop which seems like they might. but assuming they did not I can't imagine that an industrial scale shop would have a hard time making thousands upon thousands a day. The longest part was formatting pages and as GW had the fluff and art done that means only the finalization of adding points would need to be finished.
GW's problem is they aren't at the micro scale (500 odd copies is micro), and not on the big publisher scale (not many game companies are, especially not in the minis or RPG industry). So they basically have to rent time with their Chinese contractor [all GW game books are done in China] to get the books done [and they are doing thousands per day, just not of solely GW books- you reserve/rent free time on the presses months in advance], then shipped (by boat) back to various places around the world and manage the distribution with the regional branches of their own company and companies like Alliance and whomever. None of those steps are 'a few days.' Collectively, they add up to weeks, and the final version has to be there at the beginning of that process, before they're finished, printed, boxed, shipped, hit at customs*, unboxed, resorted, and re-distributed.
At no point is the book done and just 'adding points' a tiny step needing to be finished. That's glossing over a lot of testing and editing steps. And it certainly isn't true if they're trying to squeeze out 10 books in six months. GW writing and editing staff just isn't that big, and there is always the next deadline.
*yep. There was a rather infamous example of a privateer press book that got stuck at a customs warehouse for weeks under suspicion of being terrorist propaganda. Despite the aliens and kaiju...
I know I might sound crazy, but I hate that DG are getting a codex. I hate that to play different flavors of marines or chaos marines there are going to be many different books. I wish every legion/chapter just got some pages in the back as sub faction rules instead of multiple books
TheLumberJack wrote: I know I might sound crazy, but I hate that DG are getting a codex. I hate that to play different flavors of marines or chaos marines there are going to be many different books. I wish every legion/chapter just got some pages in the back as sub faction rules instead of multiple books
Death Guard get their own codex because Death Guard is getting a lot of new models; we know Mortarion and Death Guard Terminators are on the way, possibly some more things too. I doubt that the other traitor legions will get the same treatment.
TheLumberJack wrote: I know I might sound crazy, but I hate that DG are getting a codex. I hate that to play different flavors of marines or chaos marines there are going to be many different books. I wish every legion/chapter just got some pages in the back as sub faction rules instead of multiple books
Death Guard get their own codex because Death Guard is getting a lot of new models; we know Mortarion and Death Guard Terminators are on the way, possibly some more things too. I doubt that the other traitor legions will get the same treatment.
Space Wolves, Blood angels etc have long proven a popular thing, I think GW is going to be giving chaos a similer treatment
TheLumberJack wrote: I know I might sound crazy, but I hate that DG are getting a codex. I hate that to play different flavors of marines or chaos marines there are going to be many different books. I wish every legion/chapter just got some pages in the back as sub faction rules instead of multiple books
Death Guard get their own codex because Death Guard is getting a lot of new models; we know Mortarion and Death Guard Terminators are on the way, possibly some more things too. I doubt that the other traitor legions will get the same treatment.
Space Wolves, Blood angels etc have long proven a popular thing, I think GW is going to be giving chaos a similer treatment
For sure, especially given that the GW has suddenly decided Death Guard lack 1/2 the Chaos Space Marine units and instead get a lot of unique ones on their own that no one else can use.
Did that need to happen? No - I'm sure most DG players would rather have just gotten some unique Terminators and the Poxwalkers and maybe an HQ alongside Mortarion like the TSons did back in 7th.
And I'm sure both DG and TSon players a like would love to get their missing units back, and not be forced to run them as a different Legion to use them (and miss out on synergy bonuses).
TheLumberJack wrote: I know I might sound crazy, but I hate that DG are getting a codex. I hate that to play different flavors of marines or chaos marines there are going to be many different books. I wish every legion/chapter just got some pages in the back as sub faction rules instead of multiple books
Death Guard get their own codex because Death Guard is getting a lot of new models; we know Mortarion and Death Guard Terminators are on the way, possibly some more things too. I doubt that the other traitor legions will get the same treatment.
Space Wolves, Blood angels etc have long proven a popular thing, I think GW is going to be giving chaos a similer treatment
For sure, especially given that the GW has suddenly decided Death Guard lack 1/2 the Chaos Space Marine units and instead get a lot of unique ones on their own that no one else can use.
Did that need to happen? No - I'm sure most DG players would rather have just gotten some unique Terminators and the Poxwalkers and maybe an HQ alongside Mortarion like the TSons did back in 7th.
And I'm sure both DG and TSon players a like would love to get their missing units back, and not be forced to run them as a different Legion to use them (and miss out on synergy bonuses).
But, GW is what GW is, and they do what they do.
And you're making assumptions as to what the DG codex will contain months before its release. Dakka posters are what Dakka posters are, and they do what they do.
New game essentially, place holder rules for all your models.
New codex's trickle out, and will be stronger then any old "legacy" models
Carbon copy except entirely different. Codexes will have old "legacy" models, while AoS is running a completely different warscrolls system.
At least make claims that aren't just factually wrong already.
TheLumberJack wrote: I know I might sound crazy, but I hate that DG are getting a codex. I hate that to play different flavors of marines or chaos marines there are going to be many different books. I wish every legion/chapter just got some pages in the back as sub faction rules instead of multiple books
Death Guard get their own codex because Death Guard is getting a lot of new models; we know Mortarion and Death Guard Terminators are on the way, possibly some more things too. I doubt that the other traitor legions will get the same treatment.
Space Wolves, Blood angels etc have long proven a popular thing, I think GW is going to be giving chaos a similer treatment
For sure, especially given that the GW has suddenly decided Death Guard lack 1/2 the Chaos Space Marine units and instead get a lot of unique ones on their own that no one else can use.
Did that need to happen? No - I'm sure most DG players would rather have just gotten some unique Terminators and the Poxwalkers and maybe an HQ alongside Mortarion like the TSons did back in 7th.
And I'm sure both DG and TSon players a like would love to get their missing units back, and not be forced to run them as a different Legion to use them (and miss out on synergy bonuses).
But, GW is what GW is, and they do what they do.
And you're making assumptions as to what the DG codex will contain months before its release. Dakka posters are what Dakka posters are, and they do what they do.
I made 0 assumptions as to what the actual release will contain - unless of course you mean safe assumption the DG will keep the arbitrary limits they have in the Index in terms if crossover units.
TheLumberJack wrote: I know I might sound crazy, but I hate that DG are getting a codex. I hate that to play different flavors of marines or chaos marines there are going to be many different books. I wish every legion/chapter just got some pages in the back as sub faction rules instead of multiple books
Death Guard get their own codex because Death Guard is getting a lot of new models; we know Mortarion and Death Guard Terminators are on the way, possibly some more things too. I doubt that the other traitor legions will get the same treatment.
Space Wolves, Blood angels etc have long proven a popular thing, I think GW is going to be giving chaos a similer treatment
For sure, especially given that the GW has suddenly decided Death Guard lack 1/2 the Chaos Space Marine units and instead get a lot of unique ones on their own that no one else can use.
Did that need to happen? No - I'm sure most DG players would rather have just gotten some unique Terminators and the Poxwalkers and maybe an HQ alongside Mortarion like the TSons did back in 7th.
And I'm sure both DG and TSon players a like would love to get their missing units back, and not be forced to run them as a different Legion to use them (and miss out on synergy bonuses).
But, GW is what GW is, and they do what they do.
And you're making assumptions as to what the DG codex will contain months before its release. Dakka posters are what Dakka posters are, and they do what they do.
I think over all it's a decent assumption. GW seems to be wanting to take the 4 cult legions and make them the chaos answer to space wolves etc.
TheLumberJack wrote: I know I might sound crazy, but I hate that DG are getting a codex. I hate that to play different flavors of marines or chaos marines there are going to be many different books. I wish every legion/chapter just got some pages in the back as sub faction rules instead of multiple books
Death Guard get their own codex because Death Guard is getting a lot of new models; we know Mortarion and Death Guard Terminators are on the way, possibly some more things too. I doubt that the other traitor legions will get the same treatment.
Space Wolves, Blood angels etc have long proven a popular thing, I think GW is going to be giving chaos a similer treatment
For sure, especially given that the GW has suddenly decided Death Guard lack 1/2 the Chaos Space Marine units and instead get a lot of unique ones on their own that no one else can use.
Did that need to happen? No - I'm sure most DG players would rather have just gotten some unique Terminators and the Poxwalkers and maybe an HQ alongside Mortarion like the TSons did back in 7th.
And I'm sure both DG and TSon players a like would love to get their missing units back, and not be forced to run them as a different Legion to use them (and miss out on synergy bonuses).
But, GW is what GW is, and they do what they do.
And you're making assumptions as to what the DG codex will contain months before its release. Dakka posters are what Dakka posters are, and they do what they do.
I think over all it's a decent assumption. GW seems to be wanting to take the 4 cult legions and make them the chaos answer to space wolves etc.
I made 0 assumptions as to what the actual release will contain - unless of course you mean safe assumption the DG will keep the arbitrary limits they have in the Index in terms if crossover units.
Except for the one singular one I made, and even that isn't much of an assumption at all.
I never assumed what the release would give DG at all, just that the new limits that suddenly appeared in 8th from the Index will carry along to the codex.
4) Selling books is profitable and they need to nickle and dime us as much as they can because more people are realising that buying 50p worth of plastic for £50 is a rip off.
Wow, way to use hyperbole to make yourself look really dumb.
Do you have any idea how much plastic injection moulds, machine, concept design and digital sculpting cost, as well as designing and engineering the sprue and packaging cost, not accounting for logistics and transport? Putting a price tag alone on the raw plastic and then pretend GW somehow transform plastic goo to the finished product with a flicker of their wand of evil sorcery, with no effort what so ever, is simply a very stupid statement. So bad that it even made me white knight for GW. *shudders*
Split that cost across how many kits each mould makes. So yeah, it was 51p of plastic, my bad.
4) Selling books is profitable and they need to nickle and dime us as much as they can because more people are realising that buying 50p worth of plastic for £50 is a rip off.
Wow, way to use hyperbole to make yourself look really dumb.
Do you have any idea how much plastic injection moulds, machine, concept design and digital sculpting cost, as well as designing and engineering the sprue and packaging cost, not accounting for logistics and transport? Putting a price tag alone on the raw plastic and then pretend GW somehow transform plastic goo to the finished product with a flicker of their wand of evil sorcery, with no effort what so ever, is simply a very stupid statement. So bad that it even made me white knight for GW. *shudders*
Split that cost across how many kits each mould makes. So yeah, it was 51p of plastic, my bad.
As long as armies stuck with the index don't become severly under-powered as it is in AoS with the legacy armies, I'm all for it. Gives them an opportunity to fix some of the points imbalances in the indexes.
4) Selling books is profitable and they need to nickle and dime us as much as they can because more people are realising that buying 50p worth of plastic for £50 is a rip off.
Wow, way to use hyperbole to make yourself look really dumb.
Do you have any idea how much plastic injection moulds, machine, concept design and digital sculpting cost, as well as designing and engineering the sprue and packaging cost, not accounting for logistics and transport? Putting a price tag alone on the raw plastic and then pretend GW somehow transform plastic goo to the finished product with a flicker of their wand of evil sorcery, with no effort what so ever, is simply a very stupid statement. So bad that it even made me white knight for GW. *shudders*
Split that cost across how many kits each mould makes. So yeah, it was 51p of plastic, my bad.
It's exaggerated but not entirely off. If you factor in personnel expenses, equipment, etc; GW makes (going off of memory here) in the neighborhood of 75-80% profit on each kit sold. I calculated it out several years ago, when I used to care, but now I just let my stock sit and generate dividends for me. They make about $100 bucks in profit off of a Knight if it's sold through a direct channel and about $60 if it's not (dollar amounts not pound for these two examples).
Here's a quick, dirty calculation, based off of the 1/2 year statement. Note, this won't be accurate as it includes all revenue but I'm too lazy to calculate it out to the Nth and would have to use the more detailed annual financial report to do so...anyway (I'm using dollar signs but mean pounds):
1. Revenue: 70,935,000
2. Cost of sales: 21,373,000
That's about 43% profit but it includes a great number of items that wouldn't count towards the actual cost required to make and ship a kit.
Also, other considerations include things like it's not necessary to buy new equipment with each new model and actually making an injection mold, in house, is really cheap if you already have equipment (pro-tip, GW owns equipment). GW's plant costs actually went down $476,000, year-on-year (which was down $33,000 from the previous year), as they need less new equipment (maintenance and breakage, etc). This increases a kit's profit margin as well.
There's a lot of nuance here that I won't go into but that's a quick, dirty rundown of some of the considerations involved.
On topic and completely just my opinion on the matter.
Books are bad for a model company and I'd hate for them to take a step back into a failed business approach when the index approach was such a good idea. A $60-$70 rulebook and a $50 codex represents a barrier to entry for new players. The assumption they should be making, as a model company, is that the more money spent on books, which are NOT generally high margin, means less money spent on models. Privateer Press figured this out (ironic since the "press" company pushes books less than the "game" company) and created a model whereby they provide a large number of ways to get the rules into people's hands so that they can spend their money on the models/game.
Another funny thing, and a bit interesting. As protective as they are about their IP, you'd think they'd care less about the rules since, by law, the rules of games are not subject to copyright protections. Sure, they can trademark names, proper titles, pictures, etc but the rules themselves are not protected; so why spend so much time and effort restricting their distribution and customer access by creating an artificial price barrier?
...I don't think fluff alone will be enough to sell codexes...
It wont, but the fact that you need them if you want to continue playing your army will. They flat out say in the FAQ that once a specific codex is released, the relevant entries in the indexes will be obsolete, and they will expect that you are using the most up to date rules for your army(ies). So you could, in theory at least, ignore the codex and continue using the index for your army, but if you're a tourney player, you wont be allowed to play a tourney using out of date rules. And it may be difficult getting games in at your store/club/gaming-hub, if you're not using the current rules.
And am I one of the few who doesn't see a problem with this? I am absolutely looking forward to the codeci for my armies. Everything is just... so... bland... It's like if the color beige was a rule set. And I know I'm not the only one, we've seen the posts here on Dakka about the bland, boring feeling most peoples armies have now, whether or not the army in question is powerful. There are no daemon weapons in the Chaos index. No special items, no real Chaos wargear, cursed items, etc. Just as there are no Chapter Relics, holy items, etc., in the SM index. ALL armies now have this problem. It's like you're just eating a slab of steak that hasn't been seasoned, marinated, or spiced, in any way whatsoever. Just a charred piece of meat. Which is great to sustain you, but doesn't satisfy your craving for flavor. For taste. For enjoyment.
I'm ready to have some variation back in my armies. Some fluff to read about. I want my Legion Rules back. I want Daemon Weapons. Something to add some real personalization for the armies. And I want the other people I play against to have those things in their armies, too.
I don't see the codex release as bad in itself, but coming so close on the release of the indexes, invalidating them, and costing more money? That's a little frustrating.
amazingturtles wrote: I don't see the codex release as bad in itself, but coming so close on the release of the indexes, invalidating them, and costing more money? That's a little frustrating.
Yeah, I was aware that codexs would be returning... but a fething month after the release? why even bother with the index for those armies? They obviously knew what the rules were since these had to be at printers months ago...
amazingturtles wrote: I don't see the codex release as bad in itself, but coming so close on the release of the indexes, invalidating them, and costing more money? That's a little frustrating.
I agree it was a wee bit soon.
I suppose I have a nice baseline in case these codex books make things pear-shaped but oh-well.
amazingturtles wrote: I don't see the codex release as bad in itself, but coming so close on the release of the indexes, invalidating them, and costing more money? That's a little frustrating.
Yeah, I was aware that codexs would be returning... but a fething month after the release? why even bother with the index for those armies? They obviously knew what the rules were since these had to be at printers months ago...
fwlr wrote: Please let TS and WE just be in the chaos codex. I don't wanna have to wait a year
I'd rather TS be their own book. GW is separating them, because they can make them sufficiently distinct from CSM. DG won't have Havocs - they'll have Putrid Devastators. They won't have Terminators - they'll have Phgleminators.
To clarify what i was saying, my frustration isn't with the indexes. I like the indexes. i like that i could play with basically everything i had right off the bat. My frustration is with the speed they're being invalidated.
It's exaggerated but not entirely off. If you factor in personnel expenses, equipment, etc; GW makes (going off of memory here) in the neighborhood of 75-80% profit on each kit sold. I calculated it out several years ago, when I used to care, but now I just let my stock sit and generate dividends for me. They make about $100 bucks in profit off of a Knight if it's sold through a direct channel and about $60 if it's not (dollar amounts not pound for these two examples).
Here's a quick, dirty calculation, based off of the 1/2 year statement. Note, this won't be accurate as it includes all revenue but I'm too lazy to calculate it out to the Nth and would have to use the more detailed annual financial report to do so...anyway (I'm using dollar signs but mean pounds):
1. Revenue: 70,935,000
2. Cost of sales: 21,373,000
That's about 43% profit but it includes a great number of items that wouldn't count towards the actual cost required to make and ship a kit.
Also, other considerations include things like it's not necessary to buy new equipment with each new model and actually making an injection mold, in house, is really cheap if you already have equipment (pro-tip, GW owns equipment). GW's plant costs actually went down $476,000, year-on-year (which was down $33,000 from the previous year), as they need less new equipment (maintenance and breakage, etc). This increases a kit's profit margin as well.
There's a lot of nuance here that I won't go into but that's a quick, dirty rundown of some of the considerations involved.
Those other costs are considerable and cannot be ignored. They made 10.5 off 70.9 (before royalties) or 15%. Now add royalties and cash then pay dividends and taxes.
Now if you think they shouldn't have stores, a magazine, or a community website then their operation suddenly becomes a lot cheaper and the hobby a lot less robust. So, pick your poison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
amazingturtles wrote: To clarify what i was saying, my frustration isn't with the indexes. I like the indexes. i like that i could play with basically everything i had right off the bat. My frustration is with the speed they're being invalidated.
This is frustrating, but would you prefer to wait a long time for a proper codex?
"First codex will be out in a year and we'll release 6 a year." Would that make you feel better or worse about the overall game itself?
Better. Much better. A solid year of relative balance and feedback would make me feel much better about the state of the game. Not as much as five years, but a wait before diving back into the gross imbalances of codex 'system' would have been a comfort. A headlong rush is deeply disturbing, ill-thought out and rather silly.
There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases. If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by a dart board.
GreaterGood? wrote: Yeah, I was aware that codexs would be returning... but a fething month after the release?
Better that than no one gets to play at all except the new books.
Freaking marine players, literally whining about getting too much stuff, while everyone else sits here with not enough.
You're just hating Marine players for the sake of hating them at this point. Literally nobody complained about about getting too much. The complaints are about how soon the codex release is happening, which isn't just the marine players. Just please stop. Seriously. I'm telling you that as a Marine, Skitarii, Scion, and Necron player.
It's exaggerated but not entirely off. If you factor in personnel expenses, equipment, etc; GW makes (going off of memory here) in the neighborhood of 75-80% profit on each kit sold. I calculated it out several years ago, when I used to care, but now I just let my stock sit and generate dividends for me. They make about $100 bucks in profit off of a Knight if it's sold through a direct channel and about $60 if it's not (dollar amounts not pound for these two examples).
Here's a quick, dirty calculation, based off of the 1/2 year statement. Note, this won't be accurate as it includes all revenue but I'm too lazy to calculate it out to the Nth and would have to use the more detailed annual financial report to do so...anyway (I'm using dollar signs but mean pounds):
1. Revenue: 70,935,000
2. Cost of sales: 21,373,000
That's about 43% profit but it includes a great number of items that wouldn't count towards the actual cost required to make and ship a kit.
Also, other considerations include things like it's not necessary to buy new equipment with each new model and actually making an injection mold, in house, is really cheap if you already have equipment (pro-tip, GW owns equipment). GW's plant costs actually went down $476,000, year-on-year (which was down $33,000 from the previous year), as they need less new equipment (maintenance and breakage, etc). This increases a kit's profit margin as well.
There's a lot of nuance here that I won't go into but that's a quick, dirty rundown of some of the considerations involved.
Those other costs are considerable and cannot be ignored. They made 10.5 off 70.9 (before royalties) or 15%. Now add royalties and cash then pay dividends and taxes.
Now if you think they shouldn't have stores, a magazine, or a community website then their operation suddenly becomes a lot cheaper and the hobby a lot less robust. So, pick your poison.
That's not how you calculate margin on a product.
If you're interested, I could go into this further but don't want to drag this thread further off topic.
Voss wrote: Better. Much better. A solid year of relative balance and feedback would make me feel much better about the state of the game. Not as much as five years, but a wait before diving back into the gross imbalances of codex 'system' would have been a comfort. A headlong rush is deeply disturbing, ill-thought out and rather silly.
There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases. If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by a dart board.
That's why Chapter Approved will come out yearly. Codexes are not the balancing mechanism. They add the flavor.
There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases. If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by a dart boardthe sales team.
I for one would rather codices sooner than later since I really want the Legion-specific stuff. Thousand Sons is having a hard time feeling like a Thousand Sons army given how expensive it is to field a bunch of smite bots without dipping into other armies; we need a second spell list, or the ability to take psyker cultists, or something not what we have now.
Voss wrote: Better. Much better. A solid year of relative balance and feedback would make me feel much better about the state of the game. Not as much as five years, but a wait before diving back into the gross imbalances of codex 'system' would have been a comfort. A headlong rush is deeply disturbing, ill-thought out and rather silly.
There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases. If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by a dart board.
That's not really what the codices are for? Point updates are going to come out as needed online. This is adding new stuff. It's also been tested, it isn't being added as a balance mechanism.
...I don't think fluff alone will be enough to sell codexes...
It wont, but the fact that you need them if you want to continue playing your army will. They flat out say in the FAQ that once a specific codex is released, the relevant entries in the indexes will be obsolete, and they will expect that you are using the most up to date rules for your army(ies). So you could, in theory at least, ignore the codex and continue using the index for your army, but if you're a tourney player, you wont be allowed to play a tourney using out of date rules. And it may be difficult getting games in at your store/club/gaming-hub, if you're not using the current rules.
And am I one of the few who doesn't see a problem with this? I am absolutely looking forward to the codeci for my armies. Everything is just... so... bland... It's like if the color beige was a rule set. And I know I'm not the only one, we've seen the posts here on Dakka about the bland, boring feeling most peoples armies have now, whether or not the army in question is powerful. There are no daemon weapons in the Chaos index. No special items, no real Chaos wargear, cursed items, etc. Just as there are no Chapter Relics, holy items, etc., in the SM index. ALL armies now have this problem. It's like you're just eating a slab of steak that hasn't been seasoned, marinated, or spiced, in any way whatsoever. Just a charred piece of meat. Which is great to sustain you, but doesn't satisfy your craving for flavor. For taste. For enjoyment.
I'm ready to have some variation back in my armies. Some fluff to read about. I want my Legion Rules back. I want Daemon Weapons. Something to add some real personalization for the armies. And I want the other people I play against to have those things in their armies, too.
Same for me. I don't know why people are so bothered by this.
I'm less worried about who is getting codexes first, and more worried about the armies that might not be getting new codexes at all.
On the bright side, if they're releasing them this fast, and in this number, there's a good chance that we'll all be getting a lot of attention compared to previous editions.
The only thing that worries me is the chance at a repeat of the 4th and 5th edition necron or dark eldar codexes.
When they finally got them, they were awesome. But playing either army before then was pure hell for almost 4 straight years.
Meanwhile, freaking Tau were on their third codex by the time Necrons got their second.
...don't get me started on the marine release schedule.
Assuming the 10 before Christmas rate keeps up after, we'd expect to have codices out for every army by Christmas of next year. Sooner if we assume certain armies (sisters of silence and custodes) might get put into some equivalent of imperial allies. They could even squeeze a few new codices in (such as world eaters/emperor's children most of us assume are coming).
No guarantees, but it shouldn't be an issue if they want to support every army.
I reckon we'll see a Squats codex before we finally see the end of codex creep...
New factions > Old factions, Rigged game > Fair game, all because it means that GW customers will not be able to rely on a pre-existing stockpile to play 40k. Thus forcing sales.
Selym wrote: I reckon we'll see a Squats codex before we finally see the end of codex creep...
New factions > Old factions, Rigged game > Fair game, all because it means that GW customers will not be able to rely on a pre-existing stockpile to play 40k. Thus forcing sales.
I reckon the people with comments as bitter as this that aren't ready to give even the slightest benefit of the doubt would claim they were right all along even if GW miraculously managed perfect balance, because they refuse to see anything but their own bias.
Rebalancing of every army is going to happen all the time and be collected in chapter approved once a year. So codex creep simply shouldn't be a problem. Doesn't mean it's gonna be perfectly balanced, but it does mean at least one of your cynicisms is simply wrong.
Selym wrote: I reckon we'll see a Squats codex before we finally see the end of codex creep...
New factions > Old factions, Rigged game > Fair game, all because it means that GW customers will not be able to rely on a pre-existing stockpile to play 40k. Thus forcing sales.
I reckon the people with comments as bitter as this that aren't ready to give even the slightest benefit of the doubt would claim they were right all along even if GW miraculously managed perfect balance, because they refuse to see anything but their own bias.
Rebalancing of every army is going to happen all the time and be collected in chapter approved once a year. So codex creep simply shouldn't be a problem. Doesn't mean it's gonna be perfectly balanced, but it does mean at least one of your cynicisms is simply wrong.
Well thank you for the unfounded assertion based on your own biases. If GW actually made a working game, I would admit it. I have done so with the 8e core rules, but there is no evidence yet to support the notion that GW will actually stop with the codex creep bs. Do note that there is plenty of evidence to support my assertion - GW has already announced new factions, and their history of codex issues is an old and consistent one.
I'm not familiar with AoS's meta, but I heard that the factions that received their codex got a pretty significant power boost. And the ones that didn't tend to fall behind.
However, they're about to release GH2, which aims at rebalancing things.
If the GH2 indeed restores a decent balance that counters the codex creep, then there's hope for 8th future, as GW is going to use the same strategy (a once a year chapter approved). We'll still get some power creep, but it wouldn't blow out of proportion like it did in 7th.
Selym wrote: I reckon we'll see a Squats codex before we finally see the end of codex creep...
New factions > Old factions, Rigged game > Fair game, all because it means that GW customers will not be able to rely on a pre-existing stockpile to play 40k. Thus forcing sales.
I reckon the people with comments as bitter as this that aren't ready to give even the slightest benefit of the doubt would claim they were right all along even if GW miraculously managed perfect balance, because they refuse to see anything but their own bias.
Rebalancing of every army is going to happen all the time and be collected in chapter approved once a year. So codex creep simply shouldn't be a problem. Doesn't mean it's gonna be perfectly balanced, but it does mean at least one of your cynicisms is simply wrong.
Well thank you for the unfounded assertion based on your own biases. If GW actually made a working game, I would admit it. I have done so with the 8e core rules, but there is no evidence yet to support the notion that GW will actually stop with the codex creep bs. Do note that there is plenty of evidence to support my assertion - GW has already announced new factions, and their history of codex issues is an old and consistent one.
I'm keeping an open mind that it could go either way, giving GW the benefit of the doubt. This is the first time ever they've ever claimed that they were trying to create balance. You're stating as fact that it's going to be like it was before. There's a big difference between our standpoints, and yours is the one that's really putting this forum into the dumps, and making people that were looking to potentially get back into the game think it's the same it always was. Which it isn't, you're just claiming it is.
fresus wrote: I'm not familiar with AoS's meta, but I heard that the factions that received their codex got a pretty significant power boost.
There's no such thing as Codex or Army Book in AoS, so you've been misinformed. It's all warscrolls. Essentially each unit is a stand alone document.
Now people on here have been saying that the "legacy" units are underpowered and getting outmatched by new warscrolls, yet at the same time things like legacy Skryre Skaven keep being mentioned as parts of winning tournament armies, so as with everything here on Dakka, it's a grain of truth (yes, new units tend to be on the stronger side of the spectrum so far) covered in hyperbole (no, most of the old units aren't suddenly useless.)
fresus wrote: I'm not familiar with AoS's meta, but I heard that the factions that received their codex got a pretty significant power boost.
There's no such thing as Codex or Army Book in AoS, so you've been misinformed. It's all warscrolls. Essentially each unit is a stand alone document.
Now people on here have been saying that the "legacy" units are underpowered and getting outmatched by new warscrolls, yet at the same time things like legacy Skryre Skaven keep being mentioned as parts of winning tournament armies, so as with everything here on Dakka, it's a grain of truth (yes, new units tend to be on the stronger side of the spectrum so far) covered in hyperbole (no, most of the old units aren't suddenly useless.)
I'm talking about the Battletomes, that contain artefacts, command traits, spells and battallions. That seem pretty close to what 8th codex will be (minus the battallions?).
fresus wrote: I'm not familiar with AoS's meta, but I heard that the factions that received their codex got a pretty significant power boost.
There's no such thing as Codex or Army Book in AoS, so you've been misinformed. It's all warscrolls. Essentially each unit is a stand alone document.
Now people on here have been saying that the "legacy" units are underpowered and getting outmatched by new warscrolls, yet at the same time things like legacy Skryre Skaven keep being mentioned as parts of winning tournament armies, so as with everything here on Dakka, it's a grain of truth (yes, new units tend to be on the stronger side of the spectrum so far) covered in hyperbole (no, most of the old units aren't suddenly useless.)
I'm talking about the Battletomes, that contain artefacts, command traits, spells and battallions. That seem pretty close to what 8th codex will be (minus the battallions?).
That's true, and I didn't think about that comparison, although the battalion part is really what makes those things. Hopefully, like you said, we'll be seeing them balanced once the yearly balancing comes around, as that would be a good sign for 40k. Somehow it doesn't feel like GW has enough people hired for balance to balance two large games like this though, and if balancing 40k is at the cost of AoS, I for one am happy with that trade
There's little power creep with the Battletomes really. Aside from Kunning Rukk Battalion in the Bonesplitterz tome or a few individual units (which are still problematic if you just use the warscroll and not the other abilities)
The Battletomes do give more options - and because of the relics, unique spells and army rules it gives it's always better to buy one for your army than just using the free warscrolls - it doesn't make them astronomically powerful, they just tend to synergise with the units in the army better.
Also fun fact: one of the most powerful armies in Age of Sigmar are Tome Kings... you know, the model line they dropped right after that don't have a Battletome.
I just checked the price of Battle tomes for AOS, and yeah they're expensive, dissappointing. on the other hand, I'd say buying a codex for your primary army, and making due with the Index for stuff you care less about might be a thing.
BrianDavion wrote: I just checked the price of Battle tomes for AOS, and yeah they're expensive, dissappointing.
They're also supposed to contain all the rules for the game though. I don't have one so I can't say if that's all the different levels of rules or if it's just the basic rules?
Just the core rules - you still need the Generals Handbook for the 3 Ways to Play and the points (except for Disciples of Tzeentch & Kharadon Overlord, which have all the points for the warscrolls contained in them at the back).
Also price-wise they're all over the places - though the newer tomes are all universally cheaper than the older ones. It shocks me that the Sylvaneth Softback is almost as much as the recent Hardback releases for the Stormcast, Kharadon Overlords and Blades of Khorne though.
I think codexes are a must have, also GW claimed they will correct "on the way" points value and OP or underpowered units, and as ulthwe player I must say that this edition has a lack of factions focus, maybe with the new craftworlds codex I will again play a conclave....
Claas wrote: I bought indices that were advertised as stop gap rules until the codices came out, now I am bitter that GW did what they said all along.
I also complained for years how space marine models are too short, so I am extra mad that the new primaris marines are too tall.
The modelling issue wasn't that marines were too short, it was that they were always out of proportion and the IG ones were too big.
And this is not tru-scale marines, it's nu-marines. There's a difference.
Voss wrote: Better. Much better. A solid year of relative balance and feedback would make me feel much better about the state of the game. Not as much as five years, but a wait before diving back into the gross imbalances of codex 'system' would have been a comfort. A headlong rush is deeply disturbing, ill-thought out and rather silly.
There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases. If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by a dart board.
That's not really what the codices are for? Point updates are going to come out as needed online. This is adding new stuff. It's also been tested, it isn't being added as a balance mechanism.
Well, clearly not as a balance mechanism- they have no info to balance with. But if points are going to come out online, [as opposed as a yearly tax in the form of Chapter Approved, same as AoS' General's Handbook, which is what they've announced] I have no idea what they're for.
Beyond apparently re-bloating the rules with several of the awful 'features' of 7th.
It certainly isn't for 'adding new stuff,' as they've already said [officially and everything] that many of these initial codex releases won't HAVE new stuff.
Is every army getting new models too?
Some of them. Certain armies will get new miniatures alongside their new codex, and others won’t. Don’t worry though, our miniatures designers are working hard and we’ll get to all of you eventually – we’re well aware you all want new models for your chosen army.
Voss wrote: Better. Much better. A solid year of relative balance and feedback would make me feel much better about the state of the game. Not as much as five years, but a wait before diving back into the gross imbalances of codex 'system' would have been a comfort. A headlong rush is deeply disturbing, ill-thought out and rather silly.
There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases. If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by a dart board.
That's not really what the codices are for? Point updates are going to come out as needed online. This is adding new stuff. It's also been tested, it isn't being added as a balance mechanism.
Well, clearly not as a balance mechanism- they have no info to balance with. But if points are going to come out online, [as opposed as a yearly tax in the form of Chapter Approved, same as AoS' General's Handbook, which is what they've announced] I have no idea what they're for.
Beyond apparently re-bloating the rules with several of the awful 'features' of 7th.
It certainly isn't for 'adding new stuff,' as they've already said [officially and everything] that many of these initial codex releases won't HAVE new stuff.
Is every army getting new models too?
Some of them. Certain armies will get new miniatures alongside their new codex, and others won’t. Don’t worry though, our miniatures designers are working hard and we’ll get to all of you eventually – we’re well aware you all want new models for your chosen army.
Voss wrote: Better. Much better. A solid year of relative balance and feedback would make me feel much better about the state of the game. Not as much as five years, but a wait before diving back into the gross imbalances of codex 'system' would have been a comfort. A headlong rush is deeply disturbing, ill-thought out and rather silly.
There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases. If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by a dart board.
That's not really what the codices are for? Point updates are going to come out as needed online. This is adding new stuff. It's also been tested, it isn't being added as a balance mechanism.
Well, clearly not as a balance mechanism- they have no info to balance with. But if points are going to come out online, [as opposed as a yearly tax in the form of Chapter Approved, same as AoS' General's Handbook, which is what they've announced] I have no idea what they're for.
Beyond apparently re-bloating the rules with several of the awful 'features' of 7th.
It certainly isn't for 'adding new stuff,' as they've already said [officially and everything] that many of these initial codex releases won't HAVE new stuff.
Is every army getting new models too?
Some of them. Certain armies will get new miniatures alongside their new codex, and others won’t. Don’t worry though, our miniatures designers are working hard and we’ll get to all of you eventually – we’re well aware you all want new models for your chosen army.
Except I didn't mean new models, I meant new rules. Relics, psychic powers, detachments, chapter tactics, stratagems, etc. That's the new stuff they are adding to make the armies more interesting. All the things that actually give our armies some flavor and save them from being bland and dull.
They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.
It is to me. That stuff doesn't add 'flavour.' Special interactions is definitely bloat, and <whatever> tactics encourages pointless and insane forms of 'armies' that clash horribly with the background.
Every special snowflake rule is a pointless way to introduce yet more imbalances and problems.
The codex/army book has consistently been a method of causing problem armies. The game would be much better if they stuck with the index structure.
Fundamentally, GW has never been able to stick to a design paradigm long enough to go through a whole cycle of codex or army books. Someone inevitably takes their 'pet' faction too far.
They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.
It is to me. That stuff doesn't add 'flavour.' Special interactions is definitely bloat, and <whatever> tactics encourages pointless and insane forms of 'armies' that clash horribly with the background.
Every special snowflake rule is a pointless way to introduce yet more imbalances and problems.
The codex/army book has consistently been a method of causing problem armies. The game would be much better if they stuck with the index structure.
Fundamentally, GW has never been able to stick to a design paradigm long enough to go through a whole cycle of codex or army books. Someone inevitably takes their 'pet' faction too far.
Are you sure you're playing the right game? Because it seems like you'd be a lot more happy with something where everyone has the same army, and a small amount of different units.
They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.
It is to me. That stuff doesn't add 'flavour.' Special interactions is definitely bloat, and <whatever> tactics encourages pointless and insane forms of 'armies' that clash horribly with the background.
Every special snowflake rule is a pointless way to introduce yet more imbalances and problems.
The codex/army book has consistently been a method of causing problem armies. The game would be much better if they stuck with the index structure.
Fundamentally, GW has never been able to stick to a design paradigm long enough to go through a whole cycle of codex or army books. Someone inevitably takes their 'pet' faction too far.
A lot of us would probably lose interest. I mean, the index is fine for a bit, but I can't see myself playing my CSM without a codex for more than a couple more months. My admech are better, but I'd still like one eventually.
It's not even like balance is actually that great right now. Many units and armies are outright garbage. So it's weird to see people want to preserve that balance.
Because the indexes make the gameplayable... barely..youre beyond saving if you honestly think the indexes we have now are any better than the codexes before
They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.
It is to me. That stuff doesn't add 'flavour.' Special interactions is definitely bloat, and <whatever> tactics encourages pointless and insane forms of 'armies' that clash horribly with the background.
Every special snowflake rule is a pointless way to introduce yet more imbalances and problems.
The codex/army book has consistently been a method of causing problem armies. The game would be much better if they stuck with the index structure.
Fundamentally, GW has never been able to stick to a design paradigm long enough to go through a whole cycle of codex or army books. Someone inevitably takes their 'pet' faction too far.
Are you sure you're playing the right game? Because it seems like you'd be a lot more happy with something where everyone has the same army, and a small amount of different units.
Yep. Flavour comes from background and the army. It doesn't come from a pile of random crap dripped on everything. A game is like a pizza, if you want some of everything, it just isn't going to bake right.
But a small amount of different units is in fact what we have. You've basically got a single statline with +/- 16% applied on the various dice rolls. The default is 4+, and some armies get to hit, wound and/or save on 3+ or 5+ instead.
Mesokhornee wrote: Because the indexes make the gameplayable... barely..youre beyond saving if you honestly think the indexes we have now are any better than the codexes before
I find them quite better. Not perfect, but much more coherent and consistent, and designed to work with the base rules, which is often not true of various codexes.
The game for this one month is functional, which is more than I can say about various editions. If they're immediately going back to the old system, without even pausing to see how things really play, I doubt it will stay that way for long.
I think I agree, the most "correct" way to do it would be release the Indexes onto the web as free content (Black library?) then charge for a Codex. That would grow the game, by lowering the gateway cost, and allow the cool "fuff" sell the game once people get into it.
They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.
It is to me. That stuff doesn't add 'flavour.' Special interactions is definitely bloat, and <whatever> tactics encourages pointless and insane forms of 'armies' that clash horribly with the background.
Every special snowflake rule is a pointless way to introduce yet more imbalances and problems.
The codex/army book has consistently been a method of causing problem armies. The game would be much better if they stuck with the index structure.
Fundamentally, GW has never been able to stick to a design paradigm long enough to go through a whole cycle of codex or army books. Someone inevitably takes their 'pet' faction too far.
Are you sure you're playing the right game? Because it seems like you'd be a lot more happy with something where everyone has the same army, and a small amount of different units.
Yep. Flavour comes from background and the army. It doesn't come from a pile of random crap dripped on everything. A game is like a pizza, if you want some of everything, it just isn't going to bake right.
But a small amount of different units is in fact what we have. You've basically got a single statline with +/- 16% applied on the various dice rolls. The default is 4+, and some armies get to hit, wound and/or save on 3+ or 5+ instead.
Mesokhornee wrote: Because the indexes make the gameplayable... barely..youre beyond saving if you honestly think the indexes we have now are any better than the codexes before
I find them quite better. Not perfect, but much more coherent and consistent, and designed to work with the base rules, which is often not true of various codexes.
The game for this one month is functional, which is more than I can say about various editions. If they're immediately going back to the old system, without even pausing to see how things really play, I doubt it will stay that way for long.
Never heard of Combination Pizza I guess? Or a Meat Lovers? Or any pizza with more than 5 toppings? The GAME is the pizzeria, not the pizza.
I like codexes, but why did i just spend $50 on 2 indexes if I have to go and spend another $100 on 2 codexes that will be required to play my armies?
I really like warhammer, but I also need money for food.
When the indices came out, people complained about the lack of psychic powers, chapter tactics, and how bland the armies were.
They announce the codices, and now people complain about rules bloat and codex creep.
SideshowLucifer wrote: When the indices came out, people complained about the lack of psychic powers, chapter tactics, and how bland the armies were.
They announce the codices, and now people complain about rules bloat and codex creep.
In fairness, most of the people complaining now were the ones telling those of us unhappy with the indices to stop complaining before.
They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.
It is to me. That stuff doesn't add 'flavour.' Special interactions is definitely bloat, and <whatever> tactics encourages pointless and insane forms of 'armies' that clash horribly with the background.
Every special snowflake rule is a pointless way to introduce yet more imbalances and problems.
The codex/army book has consistently been a method of causing problem armies. The game would be much better if they stuck with the index structure.
Fundamentally, GW has never been able to stick to a design paradigm long enough to go through a whole cycle of codex or army books. Someone inevitably takes their 'pet' faction too far.
What do you mean "clash horribly with the background"? Ideally this stuff should be encouraging more flavorful armies: Thousand Sons with very powerful psykers, White Scars with a bunch of bikes, etc. etc.
BaconCatBug wrote: Anyone who bought the indexes should rightly feel ripped off. They are being punished for not being pirates.
I bought the index with the understanding and expectation that a codex would be coming sometime soon after. I bought a stopgap, I got a stopgap, exactly as advertised.
valen2258 wrote: I like codexes, but why did i just spend $50 on 2 indexes if I have to go and spend another $100 on 2 codexes that will be required to play my armies?
I really like warhammer, but I also need money for food.
Well...two blocks from my GW shop is a place that buys Plasma...
valen2258 wrote: I like codexes, but why did i just spend $50 on 2 indexes if I have to go and spend another $100 on 2 codexes that will be required to play my armies?
I really like warhammer, but I also need money for food.
Well...two blocks from my GW shop is a place that buys Plasma...
Unfortunately in my country I cannot exchange blood for plastic OR money.
I do prefer getting codecies, but I hope that it doesn't drown out AoS. I consider the lack of attention fantasy got was part of the cause 8th ed and fantasy in general died. Balance is required.
PS and what do I need to do the show the proper flag. I have not in Australia. Its like showing the US flag if your Mexican or Canadian.
Profile Editor wrote:
Country Flag: (displayed next to each post)
The flag displayed next to your posts is set automatically based on your IP address. Sometimes this is detected incorrectly, so if you want it to be reset to a fixed override, PM a moderator or admin and they can lock your flag to a specific country.
I don't feel ripped off. Without the index for my army, I wouldn't be able to play until a codex was released. Who knows when that will happen. If I get 5 games with the index, I would consider that money well spent, and I've gotten way more than that.
Well, I'd would consider the entire hobby too expensive for that few games. Honestly, at that few games, why not just wait and find the codex on sale when you need it rather than buying it when its released. It isn't as though the vast majority of needed info is known when the books are released.
I'm not buying anything atm, and almost never give money directly to GW. This lack of gaming is enforced by where I live, and I'll be heading off to uni soon, so this should rectify itself.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Well, I'd would consider the entire hobby too expensive for that few games. Honestly, at that few games, why not just wait and find the codex on sale when you need it rather than buying it when its released. It isn't as though the vast majority of needed info is known when the books are released.
I did that with two indices; went to play a game and picked up the indices for the units I was playing (GK army with an IK) so that's $50 down the drain because they'll both likely have a full codex release by the time I play again.
Yep. Flavour comes from background and the army. It doesn't come from a pile of random crap dripped on everything. A game is like a pizza, if you want some of everything, it just isn't going to bake right.
But a small amount of different units is in fact what we have. You've basically got a single statline with +/- 16% applied on the various dice rolls. The default is 4+, and some armies get to hit, wound and/or save on 3+ or 5+ instead.
-Emphasis mine-
Of which we have none currently in the indexes. There is almost no fluff in the indexes. 1, maybe 2 pages before each army list. That's not flavor, that's barely an aroma. There's no individuality for the armies. Every selection has the same options. Other than a jump pack or terminator armor, I can put the same exact load out on an Aspiring Champion that I can on a Chaos Lord. Yay..? And to the pizza analogy, that's just a weird statement. Supreme pizza's 'bake' just fine.
Stat-lines have always been just a variation of numbers. That's nothing new. But most armies have very few deviations from that stat-line. With the exception of Terminators and Scouts, every standard infantry unit in the SM codex has a virtual identical stat-line. Always has. Most of the units in the AM codex are fairly similar, and so-on. That is simply a differentiation of the armies on a macro level. What makes individual armies unique within the same armies owned by different people are the choices available to them, out of the book. Different wargear options for characters, customization for various units and especially characters. No one has this now, and it feels bland. My Thousand Sons army is quite literally -identical- to another persons in the store I generally play at. Why? We have nothing else to set them apart. Many people like the "random crap dripped on everything". There's a reason good steak houses offer mushrooms, onions, horseradish and au juous for your prime rib. Not everyone likes the same thing, and some, or all, of those additions add too, and accentuate the flavors of the meat. Otherwise, it's just a piece of rare steak. Some people like that, obviously, but options are a good thing. I don't necessarily want a bunch of special rules, I feel the ones we currently have are sufficient. But I most definitely want more OPTIONS. So do most others I've spoken to at the store I play at.
Yep. Flavour comes from background and the army. It doesn't come from a pile of random crap dripped on everything. A game is like a pizza, if you want some of everything, it just isn't going to bake right.
But a small amount of different units is in fact what we have. You've basically got a single statline with +/- 16% applied on the various dice rolls. The default is 4+, and some armies get to hit, wound and/or save on 3+ or 5+ instead.
-Emphasis mine-
Of which we have none currently in the indexes. There is almost no fluff in the indexes. 1, maybe 2 pages before each army list. That's not flavor, that's barely an aroma. There's no individuality for the armies. Every selection has the same options. Other than a jump pack or terminator armor, I can put the same exact load out on an Aspiring Champion that I can on a Chaos Lord. Yay..? And to the pizza analogy, that's just a weird statement. Supreme pizza's 'bake' just fine.
I was actually thinking about this the other day when I realized I don't even have a description for my new DG weapons yet. I wanted to start planning some conversions, and realized I was lacking information about some equipment still. Are blight grenades still heads, and does the blight launcher fire them? What about the plaguespitter, presumably it fires liquid by the name, but am I sure it isn't some sort of aerosol substance?
Why are Codexs returning? Because people want special rules for their armies that are currently missing. SM players want chapter tactics, Eldar Players want Craftworld Rules, CSM want Legion rules, Necrons want Dynasty rules and Orkz want Klan Rules.
Add to that, the game is horribly imbalanced and for some armies, whole swathes of their current "Codex" are unusable.
Anecdotal but for Orkz we basically field Boyz, things that buff Boyz, things that transport boyz and maybe a Gorkanaut if you are feeling squirrely. Kanz, Dreadz, Morkanaut, Stompa, Flash Gitz, Burnas, Nobz, Warbikers, Nob Bikers, Meganobz, Wartraks, Skorchas, Warbuggies are all basically sub par at what they do and are so situational or just plain garbage that they aren't being used in any meaningful way. For a number of those units its a bit disheartening because they were trash last edition as well, for some its been over a decade since they were usable.
So why are they releasing codexs? Hopefully to fix the HUGE problems with the game atm.
I'm keeping an open mind that it could go either way, giving GW the benefit of the doubt. This is the first time ever they've ever claimed that they were trying to create balance. You're stating as fact that it's going to be like it was before. There's a big difference between our standpoints, and yours is the one that's really putting this forum into the dumps, and making people that were looking to potentially get back into the game think it's the same it always was. Which it isn't, you're just claiming it is.
As someone back to the game from 3rd edition.. GW basicly feels the same. Sure they got crazy bad in the last decade, but now they seem to be back to "normal" which is still bad, just not quite as abusive. 40k is still a very poorly balanced wargame. There are obvious "never take" and "always take" options in every index. I mean, 40k is a fun game, kinda.. but it's laughable to call it balanced.
I guess to a degree it all depends on how invested in 40K you are and how much you will play this ed. It's not a complaint, but we won't be using the codex books. We'll stick with the Indexes and be perfectly happy with them. If 40K was my primary gaming passion, where I spend the majority of my limited gaming budget, I'd probably get the codex's.
But we play 40K, Napoleonic's, Colonials, Warhammer Ancient Battles, King's of War, Necromunda, Bloodbowl, Rules of Engagement WW2, American Civil War, and a few more I'm forgetting..
For a group interested is so many different wargaming periods, the Indexes are the ONLY reason my group are playing 40K again. The ability to affordably get army lists for all the old armies in the game .... well it has us playing 40K again. It might not be perfect but it works just fine.
pessa wrote: I guess to a degree it all depends on how invested in 40K you are and how much you will play this ed. It's not a complaint, but we won't be using the codex books. We'll stick with the Indexes and be perfectly happy with them. If 40K was my primary gaming passion, where I spend the majority of my limited gaming budget, I'd probably get the codex's.
But we play 40K, Napoleonic's, Colonials, Warhammer Ancient Battles, King's of War, Necromunda, Bloodbowl, Rules of Engagement WW2, American Civil War, and a few more I'm forgetting..
For a group interested is so many different wargaming periods, the Indexes are the ONLY reason my group are playing 40K again. The ability to affordably get army lists for all the old armies in the game .... well it has us playing 40K again. It might not be perfect but it works just fine.
yeah the indexes are great for that. and if you happen to be playing a army with a codex and want a bit more depth to your rules they're optional.
pessa wrote: I guess to a degree it all depends on how invested in 40K you are and how much you will play this ed. It's not a complaint, but we won't be using the codex books. We'll stick with the Indexes and be perfectly happy with them
So if someone's army is expanded in a codex and they want to use that, you'll tell them no, grab the index instead-- even if it meant their army was invalid?
pessa wrote: I guess to a degree it all depends on how invested in 40K you are and how much you will play this ed. It's not a complaint, but we won't be using the codex books. We'll stick with the Indexes and be perfectly happy with them
So if someone's army is expanded in a codex and they want to use that, you'll tell them no, grab the index instead-- even if it meant their army was invalid?
Me and my group are gonna buy the codex, because we're looking forward to them. But we have a few people that come and go sporadically, and I could see at least one of them going "don't wanna do that, can I just use the index forever?" and there wouldn't be a single turned head. Everyone would happily let him do that. But if he started to try and mix and match the codex and the index... nah, that's a hard no. I also would never think it was a good idea for tournaments. If GW are actually trying to do balance as things go along here, let's actually help them do that instead of complaining they don't balance and then actively refuse to let them. It's like people that open all the windows and complain the AC isn't working.
Purifier wrote: It's like people that open all the windows and complain the AC isn't working.
But what if it's too hot and that AC actually is broken?
I've had this argument at my workplace with people that are convinced that the AC is broken, so they open all the windows. Funnily, it's never too hot when I'm alone and I just let the AC work for half an hour before opening every window. Mostly people that do this are people that don't understand how an AC works and why opening the windows renders it useless.
So yeah, the analogy keeps giving and giving. And if it actually is broken... well then it's broken, but you can't just stroll in at minute one and go "IT'S HOT AC MUST BE BROKEN" and slam open all the windows, then point to the fact that it's still hot and say that proves the AC is broken.
So from the community leaks so far it looks like the SM Codex is not a return to the old game breaking system. The Chapter tactics whilst giving an obvious advantage over non-codex armies should be pretty balanced when the other codexes come out. This is for hoping
Mordian2016 wrote: So from the community leaks so far it looks like the SM Codex is not a return to the old game breaking system. The Chapter tactics whilst giving an obvious advantage over non-codex armies should be pretty balanced when the other codexes come out. This is for hoping
Maybe, maybe not. We still do not know a number of things:
How powerful are the stratagems and Relics,
Can you have multiple detachments with different Chapter Tactics in your army - how powerful that will or not be.
As you say the main issue is going to be with the balance between the Codex haves and haves not, some will not get them until 2018 at the earliest and then only "major" factions are getting them - so there will def e the Codex blessed and everyone else for many months.
GW have said that there will be about 10 codexes released before Christmas - 3 of these have already been confirmed Grey Knights, Chaos Space Marines, Death Guard
Then its likely to be Space Wolves, Thousand Sons, Blood and Dark Angels
Might be room for a couple of non marine codexes - I would think Daemons, Orks and Eldar, plus maybe Necrons might squeeze in - Unless any other Marine dexes slip in. I would be shocked if there was no Primus Codex as well. They have kept saying the focus is on Imperium vs Chaos (well Marines vs Chaos)
Anyone else likely 2018 at the earliest - So Tau, Ad Mech, Tyranids, Guard, Agents, Dark Eldar, Harelquins, Genestealers,.
A long time.
Eventually there will be for the Guard (and all the other Codex blessed) Regimental Tactics, a relic for each regiment and strategms. Same with Orks and Clans, Taus and Septs, Necrons and Dynasties etc.
I really hate the idea of multiple chapter tactics due to different chapter detachments. It was an annoyance in 7th and would be a shame if it returned in 8th
Or you should lose CPs or something
There needs to be a cost to not having a single chapter battle forged army
