The current system on phased releases does more harm than good. Not only is it far harder to combat power creep with a phased release but it leaves some armies at the end of the current edition, making so they have to play most of the edition with a huge handicap. It seems to me that to write and release all/most factions at edition release seems to be the best bet. Not to mention that some factions that need a update most are put on the back burner for more popular factions (thousand sons).
Im guessing it is about money. Not sure why else they would adopt a phased release of codex. Your opinions?
Time management - they write a codex, release it then move onto the next one. To release them all at the same time they'd either have to stockpile completed ones (so they'd be older & newer ones in the batch) or have a much larger team (that then has nothing to do once they're released).
It's about money, both on costs and revenues. If you have to design and create codexes for EVERYONE simultaneously, then you need to spend a lot on putting together at the same time. This means either more people, or the same people for longer, and no new releases for a long time whilst you design it all. Then you need to actually print and store all these items before shipping it all out.
That's a big commitment on the cost end.
Once all released, the "newness" factor on sales only happens the 1 time. Lots of folks get really excited and there's a big sales bump as everyone buys their 1 new codex, maybe 2. A bunch of people also buy their new models. But a lot of folks can't afford to dump on everything new all at once, so they hold off. This cap's the potential revenues from this model of release. Over time, GW has to design everything again for the next big release, so again there'll be a long drought between releases. In this time period, new players will still come and go, but likely only at the same level as normal between releases.
So, in effect, you likely spend 1000% more money to release in this style, while at best only getting 300% the revenue from a normal release. That's likely doing this whole thing below cost - which is not a sustainable business model.
I'm assuming you're not talking about what they did with indexes in the beginning of 8th edition. The reason is most likely because they like tying most codex releases to models and they don't want to oversaturate the market (nor can most stores stock it) if they were to release all the codexes and their planned models at the same time. As a public company they need to hit certain targets every quarter and releasing all the codices at once for them would mean that they are significantly limited beyond campaign books or new factions for them to sustain revenue throughout the year besides the one big all-out codex release even if they released all the books at once and not the models.
Sales. People spend more money if you spread out releases. Makes business sense.
Also, working on all books at once probably wouldn't be possible due to warehouse and stock limits. It's easier to stockpile a limited amount of new releases, than everything at once. If they released everything on one weekend, there would be a lot of issues with stock not being able to keep up with demand. Limiting what is related helps prevent that. GW warehouses are only so big, and they only have a few world wide.
Also plenty of logistics reasons. Distribution couldn't handle that many codex releases and stores definitely don't have the kinds of funds needed to purchase that much product in a single month.
Table wrote: The current system on phased releases does more harm than good. Not only is it far harder to combat power creep with a phased release but it leaves some armies at the end of the current edition, making so they have to play most of the edition with a huge handicap. It seems to me that to write and release all/most factions at edition release seems to be the best bet. Not to mention that some factions that need a update most are put on the back burner for more popular factions (thousand sons).
Im guessing it is about money. Not sure why else they would adopt a phased release of codex. Your opinions?
It isn't simple to write three dozen army books. They spent 8th edition finding themselves and finally landed on what looks to be the standard.
GW, however, does like to theme releases so the order may not be ideal. So, yes, money, but also good business acumen. Despite that most books do well so I only hope some of the weaker ones find their way to the top sooner.
Honestly - 40k sells no matter what they do. So all of their little shifty business practices can just be removed.
Want to make more money? Follow this strategy.
Release every codex right now (at the start of the eddition) then create a supplement exactly where you planned to release the offical codex in a delayed patern.
You will create twice the army buzz and everyone will be able to play their armies.
I think their idea is to bore you to hell so you buy a new army. Honestly...how many people can do that? Plenty of ways to do that also without making people really bored. So I think it really is just laziness at the top. If it were my company making my customers happy would be my top priority. If they wanted a product - I would facilitate them as quickly as I could and I think I'd make just as much money maybe more.
I think this is more a supply side problem than we realize though. They just can't keep up with the demand for the game.
If they kept a given edition current longer, they could work on getting all of the major codex books ready to launch with the release of a new edition. At that point - they can begin working on the codexes for the next edition on one track, and supplements/campaigns/etc. on a rolling basis for the current track.
Right now, in most tournies, 8th ed dexes are placing well- sisters, harlies, etc.
Right now, I think we're 3 dexes behind schedule due to Covid + Brexit; DG was supposed to be December, DA and DE were supposed to be January, Admech + ? (Knights I think) was supposed to be February.
If not for manufacturing/ shipping delays, I think every dex might have been out by the end of this year.
Now if you want a mass dex release- 20 or so books dropping in a month, I think that's a pretty tall order. Certainly, if they did it, they'd sell fewer books overall (flooding the market) and there is no way to support any of that with model releases. Maybe you wanted indexes; I think that would have sucked, since it would mean buying the index first and then replacing it with an actual dex later; not only that, they would have represented a tremendous loss of bespoke content from the 8th ed dexes in order to cram 20 factions into five books.
So maybe 4 dexes/ month for 5 months? This is more attainable- theoretically, there may even be the possibility to support this pace with models if they restrict it to 1 model per faction, which is pretty much all they've managed to hit since the SM + Crons splash (though DG also got terrain, so that was technically 2 kits). Any more than that and you're cutting model releases.
To me, the issue isn't the pace of codex releases; it's the edition reset business model itself. From where we are now, I don't think the game needs changes big enough to justify a new edition. I hope 9th is the last; I'm not naive enough to expect that- it's just a wish.
PenitentJake wrote: Right now, in most tournies, 8th ed dexes are placing well- sisters, harlies, etc.
Right now, I think we're 3 dexes behind schedule due to Covid + Brexit; DG was supposed to be December, DA and DE were supposed to be January, Admech + ? (Knights I think) was supposed to be February.
If not for manufacturing/ shipping delays, I think every dex might have been out by the end of this year.
Now if you want a mass dex release- 20 or so books dropping in a month, I think that's a pretty tall order. Certainly, if they did it, they'd sell fewer books overall (flooding the market) and there is no way to support any of that with model releases. Maybe you wanted indexes; I think that would have sucked, since it would mean buying the index first and then replacing it with an actual dex later; not only that, they would have represented a tremendous loss of bespoke content from the 8th ed dexes in order to cram 20 factions into five books.
So maybe 4 dexes/ month for 5 months? This is more attainable- theoretically, there may even be the possibility to support this pace with models if they restrict it to 1 model per faction, which is pretty much all they've managed to hit since the SM + Crons splash (though DG also got terrain, so that was technically 2 kits). Any more than that and you're cutting model releases.
If they decided to go all digital they could maybe pull it off, but people would quickly find they preferred this model ( even if they don't realize it ) as it keeps the buzz going. I prefer they take a bit more time and put the time and attention to all books like the ones we've seen so far.
They could easily do simultaneous codex releases. Just use digital. Model releases could still be spaced out -- just make datasheets free online like AoS.
It's easy peasy. Literally the only reason they don't do it is because they believe the current method maximizes profit. It's that simple.
I agree Daed- I think the new dexes are pretty darn good. They aren't 100% perfect- no dex ever can be. But I think they have a lot more to them than the 8th eds did.
Of course, I play Crusade almost exclusively, so my opinion comes through that lens. Also, so far, I only have SM + DW. Can't wait for DE tomorrow though- it looks pretty spectacular.
Grimskul wrote: I'm assuming you're not talking about what they did with indexes in the beginning of 8th edition.
One of the best decisions GW has made in a very long time. The beginning of 8th got me back into 40k after several years away primarily because GW released all of the main rules for all of the factions and models at the same time. Now with the bloat I like the new Apocalypse and older editions more.
Table wrote: The current system on phased releases does more harm than good. Not only is it far harder to combat power creep with a phased release but it leaves some armies at the end of the current edition, making so they have to play most of the edition with a huge handicap. It seems to me that to write and release all/most factions at edition release seems to be the best bet. Not to mention that some factions that need a update most are put on the back burner for more popular factions (thousand sons).
Im guessing it is about money. Not sure why else they would adopt a phased release of codex. Your opinions?
Its money. If you did mass releases at edition start, lots of people would balk at buying all the books at once because theyd get a stark reminder of how overpriced codexes are. To give you an example, I play IG, AM, Knights, CSM, two flavors of SM who both have supplements, and orks. I also have enough SST bugs to run a Nid army. Thats roughly $400 in books, and thats before we even get into supplements. If you trickle them out, people can stomach it easier and you keep hype up for the "whales". If you bring back indexes like at the start of 8th, I'm paying 100-150 for that same rules content. From that lens, why would GW want to make half to a 1/3rd the money?
Also keep in mind if they tried to do releases ala the 8th ed indexes, youre going to get one page of fluff, 2 pages of art maybe, and overall just the bare meat and potatoes. While the old players dont care and prefer this, the books stop being a good introduction for new players and hooking them. Im sure a lot of us remember the first time we cracked our favorite army's codex and was overwhelmed with all the cool pictures and lore. Of course, newer players probably dont feel that way since GW shrinkwraps the books to keep you from flipping through them, so I guess its not a big deal.
I feel like GW could avoid both these issues by just releasing campaign books after the initial codex drop at the start of an edition, but that would involve them being willing to let the average player save money and we cant have that and of course now you just introduce a new form of creep.
Sadly GW's model is here to stay. I really wish theyd adopt the DZC model of initial book with all armies, then a campaign once in a while that adds new units to everyone, tweaks balance, and maybe adds a new army, but thats also a lot easier with 4-5 armies in a new game as opposed to GW's two dozen or so cidexes and countless sub factions
The indexes did serve an important purpose, but they were crazy dull compared to the codex.
Index = Order of our Martyred Lady fights exactly like Argent shroud and only marines get subfaction variety, just like every other edition that went before.
Codex = It only took us 30 years, but at last OoOML are as different from Argent Shroud as Dark Angels are from Space Wolves.
I've been waiting for across the board subfaction variety since '89. We're all now one step closer to being treated like Marines; we just need the models now.
MrMoustaffa wrote: . Of course, newer players probably dont feel that way since GW shrinkwraps the books to keep you from flipping through them, so I guess its not a big deal.
I feel like GW could avoid both these issues by just releasing campaign books after the initial codex drop at the start of an edition, but that would involve them being willing to let the average player save money and we cant have that and of course now you just introduce a new form of creep.
Is that right, no store copy to be leafed through? Damn GW stores, you changed man.
Quasistellar wrote: They could easily do simultaneous codex releases. Just use digital. Model releases could still be spaced out -- just make datasheets free online like AoS.
It's easy peasy. Literally the only reason they don't do it is because they believe the current method maximizes profit. It's that simple.
I think you underestimate how many designers you'd need in order to simultaneously work on and then release codexes for all... 18? factions at the same time.
Nevermind how overwhelmed game stores would be at having to guess potential sales numbers for that many books at the same time.
Quasistellar wrote: They could easily do simultaneous codex releases. Just use digital. Model releases could still be spaced out -- just make datasheets free online like AoS.
It's easy peasy. Literally the only reason they don't do it is because they believe the current method maximizes profit. It's that simple.
This sounds like either sarcasm, in which case well done, or sounds like someone saying "Solving world hunger is easy; everyone should just run a personal garden!" which is just displaying such a gross inadequacy of understanding any of the issues involved.
PenitentJake wrote: The indexes did serve an important purpose, but they were crazy dull compared to the codex.
And it was a blessing. The game was (briefly) about the gameplay, not sorting through piles of special rules trivia.
There were too many issues for it to be that simple and your take on the current state is not true ( in my experience ) despite the large number of rules.
Table wrote: The current system on phased releases does more harm than good. Not only is it far harder to combat power creep with a phased release but it leaves some armies at the end of the current edition, making so they have to play most of the edition with a huge handicap. It seems to me that to write and release all/most factions at edition release seems to be the best bet. Not to mention that some factions that need a update most are put on the back burner for more popular factions (thousand sons).
Im guessing it is about money. Not sure why else they would adopt a phased release of codex. Your opinions?
Can you afford to buy every faction at once? No? There's your answer. They want more impulse army starts rather than competition.
Seeing gw isn't interested in balance to begin with but shifting imbalance so people replace armies they don't care that old books gets left behind. It's what they want...
I am not asking for 24 codexes in one month, I agree that is next to impossible for GW. I am asking for DG, Drukhari, AdMech and whatever other matched play content and CA all be released December 2021 instead of throughout the year. GW can still do campaign rules, just ban neo-Specialist Detachments from Matched Play, the ones that are balanced can be accepted into Matched Play on a house-rule basis. Beta datasheets available for all new units on the Community Website and 40k App when their models are released.
beast_gts wrote: Time management - they write a codex, release it then move onto the next one. To release them all at the same time they'd either have to stockpile completed ones (so they'd be older & newer ones in the batch) or have a much larger team (that then has nothing to do once they're released).
What's wrong with stockpiling? Okay, it costs money to stockpile actual books, but stockpiling PDFs? It means that all the PDFs can be polished together and all can live up to the same standard of balance, instead of one that is constantly changing across the year. Being the last codex before a big power spike, like BA before Necrons in 7th when the Decurion was introduced, has to suck.
Yarium wrote: It's about money, both on costs and revenues. If you have to design and create codexes for EVERYONE simultaneously, then you need to spend a lot on putting together at the same time. This means either more people, or the same people for longer, and no new releases for a long time whilst you design it all. Then you need to actually print and store all these items before shipping it all out.
Getting bigger deliveries of books is cheaper from what I understand. What's the problem with a matched play content drought? If the game is great then why would you want to change it every 3 months instead of every 12 months? Does constantly changing a bad game make it better? At best it is a distraction from how bad the game is and it lets GW apologists do their "next codex will magically balance the entire game" BS.
GW does not just sell books, there is no revenue drought, it would only be matched play books that have a drought. The meta would evolve and after 6 months people will discover "hey units XYZ are better than units ABC, let's all buy new models, new codexes, etc. etc." New models are going to get released, their beta rules are probably OP so that'll sell like hotcakes.
Also keep in mind if they tried to do releases ala the 8th ed indexes, youre going to get one page of fluff, 2 pages of art maybe, and overall just the bare meat and potatoes. While the old players dont care and prefer this, the books stop being a good introduction for new players and hooking them.
GW could have kept the Index model and supplemented with collector's guides containing crusade rules, lore, art, dioramas, painting, modelling, terrain-making tutorials and their release could be accompanied by White Dwarf campaign reports using new crusade rules. Some things should not be done piecemeal, like giving Astartes an extra wound, updating flamer range, updating the melta ability, Imperium-weapon profiles, giving everyone at least one Relic and Chapter Tactic, giving units Obsec, giving everyone faction-Objectives.
Quasistellar wrote: Literally the only reason they don't do it is because they believe the current method maximizes profit. It's that simple.
It's maximum engagement too. Which in turn also means profit, but the goal isn't purely $$$$.
Money is their one and only goal. They stagger releases to make more money, for the reasons already stated. It is a hype based model, not a “fair” model or a “consumer friendly” one.
They do this because they can and they are a profit maximizing public company owned by a bunch of investment funds.
Logistics is an issue, a really big issue, when it comes to releasing products. Releasing 24 Codexes at once means each step of the process from rules, lore, typesetting, editing, printing, and distribution has to be done concurrently.
For development, we are talking either more staff to do the work or a lot of time to get the work done. I don't think most players will be happy with a yearly release schedule for the game or an increase in cost to pay for the staff to do the work.
Then there is the production issue. If they want to send out all 24 Codexes at the same time, they have to either pay handsomely for producing them all in a short period of time or tie up substantial financial resources in warehousing product while they wait for a longer production time to get everything ready for the mass release.
So releasing all codexes at once means GW has to spend a whole lot more money to get a release completed before they get any income from that expenditure. Do you know who does that in gaming? Nobody. Not GW. Not Privateer Press. Not Covus Belli. Not CMON. Not Wizards of the Coast. Everybody who releases any game of any substantial scale does it in phased releases.
And then there is the matter of customer engagement. Gamers are fickle bunch. No one seems to be happy with a one off release. They want updates, expansions, or additions to their game. How is GW supposed to keep players engaged once they all have their brand new codexes? GW has already learned that putting rules in a codex without models on the near horizon is giving their competitors an opportunity to swoop in and make their own models. And I there are always complaints whenever GW puts out supplemental material (why weren't these rules in my codex?). The market demands regular content to keep the customers engaged. Given GWs successful use of the current roll-out scheme, why would they spend more money to less effect?
If GW went to only PDF-style codexes I would probably cry. The same reason I struggle with Kindle books is the same reason I don't want a game with only PDF rule books. Unless you want eye problems you'll need a big screen like an iPad so that's about £200 plus you need to keep it charged all the time. Also, how am I supposed to slam my codex closed in victory after proving someone wrong over a minor detail? Or hit them with it if they cheat?
Also, the indexes were god-awful. For a game that relies on background and subfactions within armies with their own rules/characters/special units, it was absolute trash to use them when months before nearly every army in 40k had subfaction rules. The indexes might have been perfect for a tournament setting but zero background, art, or images of models meant they got chucked as soon as my codexes were released. I gt rid of my 6/7th ed codexes because of the art/background/models only recently and only because I needed space for new codexes and books.
Interesting answers. I can only speak from the perspective of a chaos player (I am not making everything about my faction, I know other factions are hurting as well for a update). But as a 1ksons player I find it in bad taste to not release a updated codex or at least a mini-dex to bring the army up to 9th standards.
The new edition has gutted the faction and its probably at the near bottom of the heap. And knowing its going to be a long while before a update makes me just want to shelve it.
As I have said, I know other factions are hurting as well.
It just seems to me that at least doing a index at editions start seems to be something that should be done with the way they have chosen to release things.
Now im looking at three options. I either play it how it is (terrible), start a new army (which GW would love) or just give up on the hobby.
A index would have prevented this. Anyhow, great answers all. Thanks for replying!
It would be entirely possible to do this if desired. Complaints about generating money in a big glut ignore the fact that this is how a lot of retailers work; seasonal and generate a lot of money around Christmas for example. And while it may seem expensive at first glance to buy all the books in one go (who actually would do that?) it's probably counter-weighted by the amount of people who buy one book, get comfortable with an army, then don't switch because they have settled into "their guys". Releasing all the books together incentivises people to make multiple purchases early on in order to try out multiple factions. It also mitigates the problem of a book coming out with is subsequently found to be lacklustre. In a mass release, by the time the player base has figured this out it would likely be too late.
The logistics of it is pretty easy as well. Amazingly enough retailers are quite good at handling and managing stock levels. With modern analytics it's even easier to make predictable estimates of demand, e.g. you're probably not going to stock as many Tyranid books as you would SM. Or even just Blood Angels for that matter. If they sell out that's not as big of a deal as it might sound as it creates an artificial sense of demand which in turn does two things; i) it makes the product look more popular than it might actually be, and ii) it incentivises people to purchase the product quickly when back in stock, in order to avoid missing out. In turn this expectation of demand, both initially and in the long run, can generate significant pre-orders, which in turn helps with calculating order quantities.
As for development cycles, staff do not just sit around idley because something has been released. By the time the product is approaching its release date the staff involved in making it will have moved onto the next project, e.g. the next evolution of AoS.
Arguably the main reason not to do it like this is simple; the risk of failure. If you spend an enormous amount of time and money preparing for the next edition of a game, only for that game to drop like a lead ballon on release, then you're in trouble. You've poured an immense amount of resources, years of work, into something that people then turn their noses up at. Staggering the releases gives GW breathing space to figure out what went wrong and adapt, killing off bad ideas and incorporating newer, more viable ones. You lose the big "Hollywood blockbuster" effect by doing it staggered, but you gain the advantage of not producing a "Waterworld" style flop.
Xenomancers wrote: Honestly - 40k sells no matter what they do. So all of their little shifty business practices can just be removed.
Want to make more money? Follow this strategy.
Release every codex right now (at the start of the eddition) then create a supplement exactly where you planned to release the offical codex in a delayed patern.
You will create twice the army buzz and everyone will be able to play their armies.
Its a good thing you don't run GW because that would run the company into the ground. Even before COVID GW was struggling to produce enough product to fulfill its demand, now you want it to produce and release what, 30+ times its normal release volume, all at once? Even if you just say "we're only going to drop books, no minis", you're still talking 30+ times the number of books that need to be distributed and shipped all in one go. Its madness, not only would GW be unable to meet that demand, but stores wouldn't be able to absorb it. I don't know if you've ever worked at an LFS or talked to someone who owns one, but most stores are strapped for cash and even just covering GWs regular rapid-fire release volume can be financially strenuous, but now you want them to order and stock 30 different books all in one go?
And back to those minis for a sec - we already know GW isn't going to release a rulebook to the world with rules for minis that it isn't putting on sale within a few weeks of the books release. We know why they won't, and I can't say I blame them. So now you're going to release 30 bland codexes with no new content and listen to the community whinge and whine about it for 6 months until you release a new wave of models which you either then need to sell them all a new codex for - in which case its whinge and whine about how quickly their $50 purchase was invalidated - or release a $50 supplement book - in which case its whinge and whine about how expensive the book is and how heavy and cumbersome the library of books they need in order to play their game is.
There is no good solution here, really, but I think we can all suck it up and be patient grown-ass adults and wait for our turn. If it wasn't for COVID GW would have probably released around 16 9th ed. codexes by now (based on the pace of 8th edition - 16 codecies in 9 months), thats more than fast enough.
The logistics of it is pretty easy as well. Amazingly enough retailers are quite good at handling and managing stock levels. With modern analytics it's even easier to make predictable estimates of demand, e.g. you're probably not going to stock as many Tyranid books as you would SM. Or even just Blood Angels for that matter. If they sell out that's not as big of a deal as it might sound as it creates an artificial sense of demand which in turn does two things; i) it makes the product look more popular than it might actually be, and ii) it incentivises people to purchase the product quickly when back in stock, in order to avoid missing out. In turn this expectation of demand, both initially and in the long run, can generate significant pre-orders, which in turn helps with calculating order quantities.
Mom and pop brick and mortars ain't Amazon, chief. Most FLGS don't have any sort of data collection or analytics to speak of, and if they do its only very basic and their stuff has no idea how to read them or extract meaningful data outputs from them.
Not to mention, that isn't how customers operate in small stores.
Most don't do anything if a specific item they're looking for isn't in stock. They just leave.
It doesn't make an item seem more popular or 'create demand,' it makes them think the store is bad, and they'll just get it somewhere else (particularly online) or not at all. And the next time something they want comes out, they may not even bother to check.
What they could do though, is have the books all worked on around the same time for some parity of design and power between the factions. That takes no real space aside from drive space to store the work on the crunch of the books. They can trickle them out as they will but so long as they all end up making people feel good, don't dwarf each other and feed into power creep I don't think people would be nearly as annoyed as GW leads to them being quite often.
Saying gamers need constant new is wrong, new models sure, updated models sure, I for one would be happy as heck to not need bunches of books to play my one faction. So long as the stuff I have is good and feels good, I'm plenty engaged and can focus on other stuff they should want me doing, like new models, or army expansion, etc.
Edit: On small stores having analytics ? Lol, No. They have best guesses if anything. Lack of product equates to loss of sales. Not all customers care for ordering an item, even if it costs less to do so. Very few customers are informed and pre order even if I do. Fewer still can understand why small stores can't match the prices of say Amazon. Not having an item in stock because a place can't be bothered to make enough, is a bad thing for small stores and not a good thing.
AngryAngel80 wrote: What they could do though, is have the books all worked on around the same time for some parity of design and power between the factions. That takes no real space aside from drive space to store the work on the crunch of the books. They can trickle them out as they will but so long as they all end up making people feel good, don't dwarf each other and feed into power creep I don't think people would be nearly as annoyed as GW leads to them being quite often.
Controlling power creep and not one-upping each other is a basic part of their job.
The problem with the approach you're describing is... what, then, do the designers do for the lifetime of the edition? Rules are done. Army books are done. So... do you fire them for the next 3-4 years and then hire them back for the next edition, or do you have them sitting around doing effectively nothing for that period? Have them push out jank filler content that may or may not sell? All of these are pretty poor options (and most make the workplace pretty hostile for the designers- like its the computer game industry or something).
GW could have kept the Index model and supplemented with collector's guides containing crusade rules, lore, art, dioramas, painting, modelling, terrain-making tutorials and their release could be accompanied by White Dwarf campaign reports using new crusade rules.
Privateer Press tried this - the rules for the minis were free online or through War Room, and the books became lore, art, and painting only.
You know what happened?
People stopped buying the books because the important stuff - the rules - were already readily available without having to purchase a $40+ book. PP doesn't publish game books anymore.
GW does what makes GW the most money, not what's best for the game balance. The only way they would ever considering moving to a simultaneous release model was if people started boycotting their releases until they did, and we all know how realistic that is.
AngryAngel80 wrote: What they could do though, is have the books all worked on around the same time for some parity of design and power between the factions. That takes no real space aside from drive space to store the work on the crunch of the books. They can trickle them out as they will but so long as they all end up making people feel good, don't dwarf each other and feed into power creep I don't think people would be nearly as annoyed as GW leads to them being quite often.
Controlling power creep and not one-upping each other is a basic part of their job.
The problem with the approach you're describing is... what, then, do the designers do for the lifetime of the edition? Rules are done. Army books are done. So... do you fire them for the next 3-4 years and then hire them back for the next edition, or do you have them sitting around doing effectively nothing for that period? Have them push out jank filler content that may or may not sell? All of these are pretty poor options (and most make the workplace pretty hostile for the designers- like its the computer game industry or something).
Simple, they do what GW is going to do anyways, actually work on going over what they've made, see what works, and what doesn't to tweak the releases as they roll out or ideally before they are released in some cases. Also, be able to buff or alter things in their inevitable PA like books to stir up hype during an edition. That should all give them plenty of work to do. As well they can start work on the next edition and codex drops for that as I'm sure that starts well in advance of its announcement to us. There is plenty of work rules designers can do that isn't just slowly spoon feeding us codex drops.
GW's entire model is based on continually stirring the pot to keep people buying new things. The fact that the balance is upset by each new codex release is a feature, not a bug. That's the whole point of the model. Every few months something new comes out that will prompt people to chase whatever the new meta develops into. If you release all the books at once in a balanced state, you destroy your own business model.
Which is exactly why its bad for game health and good for their bottom line and why it won't change but should, at least for us, the players of the game.
There is no such thing as "game health" to GW that isn't simply a different way of saying "the bottom line." If GW is making lots of money, the health of the game is good. If it isn't, the health of the game is bad.
No amount of anger is going to change this. Gone are the days when GW was a company of gamers for gamers. It's now a multi-billion dollar multinational firm that has one focus and only one focus: making as much money as possible. As long as the way it currently operates - constant rules releases to stir the pot, regular price rises at every opportunity - continues to produce the spectacular results it has over the last 3ish years, there is not a snowball's chance in hell of them changing course. The only way you can register your disagreement that they care about is to stop buying GW products entirely, and to email them to let them know why you are doing it. They don't care about your unhappiness, they care about your money.
chaos0xomega wrote:Mom and pop brick and mortars ain't Amazon, chief. Most FLGS don't have any sort of data collection or analytics to speak of, and if they do its only very basic and their stuff has no idea how to read them or extract meaningful data outputs from them.
-- I think you have some remarkably outdated views about small retailers there, "chief". Analytics in this scenario would be more done at GW's end though, as they're the ones that have to know how many books of each type to print. As for the small stores themselves, it's actually quite easy to pull up transaction histories from a computer, not to mention a record of its order history. They're probably not going to get the numbers bang on, but they'll have a pretty good idea of "x sells well here, as does y, but z not so much."
Spoiler:
Voss wrote:It doesn't make an item seem more popular or 'create demand,' it makes them think the store is bad, and they'll just get it somewhere else (particularly online) or not at all. And the next time something they want comes out, they may not even bother to check.
-- It's pretty well proven that it does. And even small stores can hold a surprising amount of stock (boxes of books really don't take up much room). And if the stock is gone that's actually a good thing for the store. The point of stock is not to keep it on the shelves to look pretty, the point is to sell it. If you're selling out faster than you can restock, that's generally a positive.
Yep, the unfortunate thing about all these crappy marketing techniques - stirring the pot, creating the impression of shortages, etc - is that they absolutely work. Marketing techniques that treat customers like easily led sheep often produce surprisingly effective results.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Which is exactly why its bad for game health and good for their bottom line and why it won't change but should, at least for us, the players of the game.
A steady influx of new rules and models is not bad for game health. Badly balanced rules and models are. Change is good as it keeps the game from becoming stale. It is when the change is unbalancing that it become a problem.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Which is exactly why its bad for game health and good for their bottom line and why it won't change but should, at least for us, the players of the game.
A steady influx of new rules and models is not bad for game health. Badly balanced rules and models are. Change is good as it keeps the game from becoming stale. It is when the change is unbalancing that it become a problem.
Change is good is a real neat catch phrase, but no change is not always good. Badly balanced tends to be how they like to drop change as opposed to the balanced fresh air that people really want. Stale as well is a real catch phrase but sometimes things can be very good and people actually like it to stay the same for a longer period of time.
Voss wrote:It doesn't make an item seem more popular or 'create demand,' it makes them think the store is bad, and they'll just get it somewhere else (particularly online) or not at all. And the next time something they want comes out, they may not even bother to check.
-- It's pretty well proven that it does. And even small stores can hold a surprising amount of stock (boxes of books really don't take up much room). And if the stock is gone that's actually a good thing for the store. The point of stock is not to keep it on the shelves to look pretty, the point is to sell it. If you're selling out faster than you can restock, that's generally a positive.
Not for customers trying to find something it isn't.
The most common interaction I've seen over the years in retail environments is customers come in, browse around, and leave.
The second most common is they browse around, ask for what they're looking for, and get irritated when told its out of stock. If the store offers to order it, the usual response is 'no, never mind' (or ruder), and they leave.
The third is they'll come looking for something around the time its released. A couple weeks after that, bar the odd drop in, its shelf decoration.
And I don't know what indie stores are like where you are, but for the last decade, keeping lots of stock on hand hasn't been a priority for most of the game stores I've been in. Even the ones that go hard on GW products don't have 'boxes of books' laying around.
They don't have merchandise in the back room, and what's on the shelves is it. They don't want to hold a 'surprising amount of stock.' Its money tied up in things that aren't selling, and for a lot of game stores, they can't afford that. Its a very difficult balancing act for most game stores. Most don't manage it for more than a few years.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Which is exactly why its bad for game health and good for their bottom line and why it won't change but should, at least for us, the players of the game.
A steady influx of new rules and models is not bad for game health. Badly balanced rules and models are. Change is good as it keeps the game from becoming stale. It is when the change is unbalancing that it become a problem.
Models no. Rules, absolutely its a problem.
Its important to keep in mind 'game health' and 'company profits' are not the same thing.
chaos0xomega wrote:Mom and pop brick and mortars ain't Amazon, chief. Most FLGS don't have any sort of data collection or analytics to speak of, and if they do its only very basic and their stuff has no idea how to read them or extract meaningful data outputs from them.
-- I think you have some remarkably outdated views about small retailers there, "chief". Analytics in this scenario would be more done at GW's end though, as they're the ones that have to know how many books of each type to print. As for the small stores themselves, it's actually quite easy to pull up transaction histories from a computer, not to mention a record of its order history. They're probably not going to get the numbers bang on, but they'll have a pretty good idea of "x sells well here, as does y, but z not so much."
Considering I actually moonlight for a small retailer and am very close with multiple store owners and managers in the local area - no, no I really don't. You seem to have over-optimistic views of how small retailers operate. Most of the ones in this area are still operating the same computers and POS/inventory management systems they were running in the early 2000s - in one case its the same system they used in the mid/late 90s. Not everyone has a Square reader hooked up to an ipad or a Shopify POS terminal that can pump data, and many of those that do don't actually have their inventory configured and tagged properly in their databases in order to generate meaningful data outputs. Out of the 5-6 shops in the area that I'm on good enough terms with to "talk shop" and know first-hand how they manage their systems, only one is actually set up to take advantage of technology and analytics to its full potential, and go figure its the one that was opened 2-3 years ago by a dude with deep pockets who was able to hire the right consultants and experienced management staff needed to make all that possible. The others all have been kicking around for 15-30+ years and don't have the in-house knowledge or the financial ability to modernize tot he point needed to actually do what you propose.
The answer is that drip feed codex releases facilitate power creep, which facilitates people buying new armies to replace their old armies on the fly. AOS is starting to rotate models out of stock as the editions progress, this isn't an accident.
"There is no good solution here, really, but I think we can all suck it up and be patient grown-ass adults and wait for our turn."
Not sure where you meant to go with this. All I can say is it is easy to say something like this when your faction is popular and gets quick updates. I have no idea what factions you play so I am saying this in more of a general manner than directed at you.
Having to go an entire edition with a previous editions codex is neither fun or something one should "suck up". I understand that GW wants us to own multiple armies. But when they cant treat their mono army customers with respect and at very least release a index which fix's horrific problems...why should I care to own more? I guess it does not matter. Irate customers are the minority and the studio would get along just fine without us.
This edition it is Thousand Sons who got the shaft. Its always the case each edition that one or two armies do not translate. As I said. A mini-dex would have and will save their customers of these products a good bit of grief.
As with my faction, GW basically has said...Yea, your line does not sell as well. We know we broke you with the edition changes but we cant be bothered to fix it. That is not hyperbole, its exactly what has happened.
Ok I am fully in ranty-whine mode. Shutting it off. Apologies.
chaos0xomega wrote:Mom and pop brick and mortars ain't Amazon, chief. Most FLGS don't have any sort of data collection or analytics to speak of, and if they do its only very basic and their stuff has no idea how to read them or extract meaningful data outputs from them.
-- I think you have some remarkably outdated views about small retailers there, "chief". Analytics in this scenario would be more done at GW's end though, as they're the ones that have to know how many books of each type to print. As for the small stores themselves, it's actually quite easy to pull up transaction histories from a computer, not to mention a record of its order history. They're probably not going to get the numbers bang on, but they'll have a pretty good idea of "x sells well here, as does y, but z not so much."
Spoiler:
Voss wrote:It doesn't make an item seem more popular or 'create demand,' it makes them think the store is bad, and they'll just get it somewhere else (particularly online) or not at all. And the next time something they want comes out, they may not even bother to check.
-- It's pretty well proven that it does. And even small stores can hold a surprising amount of stock (boxes of books really don't take up much room). And if the stock is gone that's actually a good thing for the store. The point of stock is not to keep it on the shelves to look pretty, the point is to sell it. If you're selling out faster than you can restock, that's generally a positive.
You are just straight wrong on that. While I'm sure some places find that all amazing, actually working for a small business I can say it doesn't work that way and see the sales that go out the door when GW short stock us or someone comes in and can't get something and buy it online. Boxes of books can take up a lot of space when you carry lots of different kinds of products so I don't know if we are talking the same kinds of small stores. If people feel like they can't even get an item because it's far too rare, they will just stop looking for it in the store period that is a net loss for the store. Not every store has a sole selling point of warhammer products but I can say for sure product scarcity is a net loss for the store in general, patience isn't a virtue most people have these days. GW is one of those product lines the informed consumer can hopefully stay ahead of but for the casual buyer ? It can be off putting to not find items in stock because they just didn't send enough. That isn't at all raising value or quality for us.
Yarium wrote: It's about money, both on costs and revenues. If you have to design and create codexes for EVERYONE simultaneously, then you need to spend a lot on putting together at the same time. This means either more people, or the same people for longer, and no new releases for a long time whilst you design it all. Then you need to actually print and store all these items before shipping it all out.
That's a big commitment on the cost end.
Once all released, the "newness" factor on sales only happens the 1 time. Lots of folks get really excited and there's a big sales bump as everyone buys their 1 new codex, maybe 2. A bunch of people also buy their new models. But a lot of folks can't afford to dump on everything new all at once, so they hold off. This cap's the potential revenues from this model of release. Over time, GW has to design everything again for the next big release, so again there'll be a long drought between releases. In this time period, new players will still come and go, but likely only at the same level as normal between releases.
So, in effect, you likely spend 1000% more money to release in this style, while at best only getting 300% the revenue from a normal release. That's likely doing this whole thing below cost - which is not a sustainable business model.
I thought something similar to this. But then I thought a bit more and theorised that there is an additional to this, in that they could do this with the codexes, the one release, but everything else could just go on as normal.
They could still tease out the model release and use book-bloat for those that aren't in the one-dump codex release. They do this already, so it really wouldn't change much.
Although, they do seem to be changing for 9th (e.g. new sisters stuff teased before codex release).
Just Tony wrote: The answer is that drip feed codex releases facilitate power creep, which facilitates people buying new armies to replace their old armies on the fly. AOS is starting to rotate models out of stock as the editions progress, this isn't an accident.
It also facilitates leaving the hobby.
"I dropped the game because the game is in a healthy state and GW hasn't stirred the pot for 9 months" - nobody
"My army is crap, I want a new codex, SM are too good, Ynnari are unbeatable, etc. etc. so I'm quitting." - tonnes of people.
People did not stop playing in 6th and 7th more than in 5th because GW failed to stir the pot enough. Every new codex was more powerful than the last, that must be why everybody loved it and people kept buying and GW stock soared to record h... No, the game almost died. The pot getting stirred once every 12 months and then an emergency Errata released in March + drip feeding of new models with beta rules is not enough for people to get bored with the hobby if it is actually playtested. A new more unbalanced faction being released to beat the old unbalanced faction is not that interesting, the game is still mostly the same, you've got your armies, they are most likely still bad and they are still getting beat by the one or two most OP factions that people are band-wagoning.
I work for a company with over 50k employees, worldwide operations and a big corporate structure in an extremely heavy regulated sector.
For large companies getting anything done takes time. Like the imperium, the wheels grind slowly. Projects easy take 3+ years and nothing turns on a dime.
Gw is a tiny company by comparison. The core studio is what? 100 people. Maybe 200? (Been there, or rather been near there,to warhammer world). This is not just people writing codices. You've got artists, colourists, editors, it, qa, tech writers, regulatory, sales, marketing, accounting, proofreading, logistics let alone the management structure etc.
Why don't they do. 30 books at once? Workload. Bandwith. Simple as. Anything done at that level takes time. A colossal amount of hours goes into each individual codex. It's nowhere near as simple as some people think. Even.discussions about the layout, the fonts used, the art/pictures and down to the double entente on page 17 can take weeks to sort out.
Let's ignore that and consider the manufacturing/printing considerations, logistical condiderations, storage considerations etc.
That they do what they do and make an ip we love is commendable. Go work in the industry. Experience it. It'll open your eyes.
GW is a public company, meaning they have to show shareholders good results. If they release everything at once, they'll get a huge sales spike for 2-3 months and then basically nothing for the rest of the year. That's TERRIBLE for public companies.
It's much better for them to show smaller, but more spread numbers throughout the year. That signalizes a healthy business and attracts investiments.
Because of that, they'll never release everything together.
Vector Strike wrote: GW is a public company, meaning they have to show shareholders good results. If they release everything at once, they'll get a huge sales spike for 2-3 months and then basically nothing for the rest of the year. That's TERRIBLE for public companies.
It's much better for them to show smaller, but more spread numbers throughout the year. That signalizes a healthy business and attracts investiments.
Because of that, they'll never release everything together.
How is "everything but matched play rules" the same as "basically nothing"?
I find the premise that GW couldn’t handle printing and stocking 20 sets of new codexs at the same time very weird. This is a large corportation, publicly traded, making tons of profit due to their massive margins. They could absolutely handle the logistics and design effort, if they thought this would make them more money.
They don’t do it because it is less profitable. Rotating the spotlight and slowly feeding releases leads to people buying more, for the reasons stated in the thread.
Does the current model hurt game balance? Yes, codex creep is obvious.
Are they engaging in planned obsolescence practices to support this approach? Clearly, see primaris and AoS.
Is this likely to change? No, because lots of consumers favor hype over quality.
As long as we have consumers that willingly fall into marketing ploys and embrace dodgy marketing, we will have companies exploiting all the cognitive biases and limitations we have.
I have yet to meet a thoughtful adult who doesn’t recognize that GW is just abusing their market power and brand recognition in every way they can. It is not only minis, their hobby supplies are eye watering expensive and designed not to last (paint bottles?).
Something lost in all of this is that 9e is very well balanced with itself and another half dozen 8e books. Yeah, a few armies are trash but a lot of armies can be made to work well enough with a revamped list and some allies.
Why don't they? Because GW. And since it doesn't matter and the fanboys still eat up everything they publish, why would they do what's best for the game and profit?
I thought of a couple of great examples of why GW shouldn't do a mass rules dump.
1) D&D 5e. It launched with 3 core books and a premade adventure and they released it with a basic starter kit with the adventure, and then a book at a time over 3 months. This is the best-selling version of D&D ever, so in spite of my qualms about it, it did something right.
2) MtG. They release too many products in too short a span. It doesn't matter that most of these products aren't even for the formats you play or that you should always just draft or buy singles, people have FOMO and it feels bad when they can't at least afford a new release even if they probably wouldn't actually buy it.
Voss wrote:
And I don't know what indie stores are like where you are, but for the last decade, keeping lots of stock on hand hasn't been a priority for most of the game stores I've been in. Even the ones that go hard on GW products don't have 'boxes of books' laying around.
They don't have merchandise in the back room, and what's on the shelves is it. They don't want to hold a 'surprising amount of stock.' Its money tied up in things that aren't selling, and for a lot of game stores, they can't afford that. Its a very difficult balancing act for most game stores. Most don't manage it for more than a few years.
-- I'd be intrigued to know where you live. I suspect the name would be something like "convenient land". If your local store isn't carrying spare merchandise in its stock room it probably has bigger issues than whether or not GW is drip feeding its releases or doing them in bulk. You also seem to miss the point entirely in relation to the OP. He's suggesting that they (GW) do a big release with a new edition, including all the codexes at once. An indi store would not need to hold hundreds of books permanently. It would simply need to hold a reasonable amount of stock for its area for a short period of time around the release date of the new edition, kind of like how stores will hold large quantities of things like a new Playstation model ready for its release date.
Spoiler:
chaos0xomega wrote: You seem to have over-optimistic views of how small retailers operate. Most of the ones in this area are still operating the same computers and POS/inventory management systems they were running in the early 2000s - in one case its the same system they used in the mid/late 90s.... The others all have been kicking around for 15-30+ years and don't have the in-house knowledge or the financial ability to modernize tot he point needed to actually do what you propose.
-- Do you live in "convenient land" with the other dude? Tills from the 90s/early 2000s are mostly not compatible with modern card readers, so a store like that would have difficulty even functioning in the modern world, let alone be non-compliment with various law (depending on the jurisdiction) around how long they need to keep transaction histories for. Again, I would suggest stores set up as you suggest have much bigger problems than whether or not GW is releasing its products in drip feeds or in bulk.
Most normal stores outside of convenient land will have at a minimum a basic system that dumps till transaction data onto a PC hard drive, data which can be sorted quite easily. Modern till systems are actually quite cheap (except for the scanners) and have never been more easy to set up to work with even just a basic stock system. Again, if your local stores lack this, there problems are much bigger than GW sales strategy.
Spoiler:
Just Tony wrote:The answer is that drip feed codex releases facilitate power creep, which facilitates people buying new armies to replace their old armies on the fly. AOS is starting to rotate models out of stock as the editions progress, this isn't an accident.
-- The answer is more probable to just be a twist of fate. Back in the 90s they did updates to games like new magic packs and things like Dark Millenium, which were just supplements. Then came books for new races and sub factions, like the Angels of Death. It started the momentum and they went from there. They did do things like produce Ravening Hordes for 6th edition, which was kind of a get you buy set of army lists etc. but not really comparable to doing all the codexes in one blob. I suspect the big issue is just risk. The risk of trying something different when what they do now makes money.
Spoiler:
AngryAngel80 wrote:You are just straight wrong on that. While I'm sure some places find that all amazing, actually working for a small business I can say it doesn't work that way and see the sales that go out the door when GW short stock us or someone comes in and can't get something and buy it online. Boxes of books can take up a lot of space when you carry lots of different kinds of products so I don't know if we are talking the same kinds of small stores. If people feel like they can't even get an item because it's far too rare, they will just stop looking for it in the store period that is a net loss for the store. Not every store has a sole selling point of warhammer products but I can say for sure product scarcity is a net loss for the store in general, patience isn't a virtue most people have these days. GW is one of those product lines the informed consumer can hopefully stay ahead of but for the casual buyer ? It can be off putting to not find items in stock because they just didn't send enough. That isn't at all raising value or quality for us.
-- Again, you're not looking at the problem in the context of what the OP is suggesting. If all the codexes are being released in one big shot then it's going to be a big one off event, not an ongoing thing. The store has time to prepare and stock up. I've known store owners (not necessarily FLGS specifically) to keep extra stock at their house if needs be, once every last scrap of available space is gone at the store itself. They're not doing this permanently, they're prepping for a big event. And even without a digital system, a store owner will have a pretty good idea about how many customers they have and what those customers play (SM are more popular than x, Blood Angels and y are popular in particular).
As above, if they don't then their problems are much more significant than "What is GWs latest sales strategy and how does that affect us?"
Spoiler:
Deadnight wrote:Gw is a tiny company by comparison. The core studio is what? 100 people. Maybe 200? (Been there, or rather been near there,to warhammer world). This is not just people writing codices. You've got artists, colourists, editors, it, qa, tech writers, regulatory, sales, marketing, accounting, proofreading, logistics let alone the management structure etc. Why don't they do. 30 books at once? Workload. Bandwith. Simple as. Anything done at that level takes time. A colossal amount of hours goes into each individual codex. It's nowhere near as simple as some people think. Even.discussions about the layout, the fonts used, the art/pictures and down to the double entente on page 17 can take weeks to sort out.
-- Again, assuming GW adopted the approach prefered by the OP, then they would have more than just mere weeks to sort everything out. They would be doing one big multi-codex dump with each new edition, which would be years apart, probably several months itself after the actual edition release in order to give breathing space to pick up snags in the rules and give retailers time to shift stocks of boxed sets. They're not going to be releasing 30 new codexes every few weeks/month.
Spoiler:
Vector Strike wrote:GW is a public company, meaning they have to show shareholders good results. If they release everything at once, they'll get a huge sales spike for 2-3 months and then basically nothing for the rest of the year. That's TERRIBLE for public companies. It's much better for them to show smaller, but more spread numbers throughout the year. That signalizes a healthy business and attracts investiments.
-- As a shareholder in a number of companies, which until recently included GW, this is categorically not true. Remarkably enough shareholders tend to be a lot more savvy about the businesses they invest in than that, with the exception of day traders and students with 3 shares in Gamestop. What matters is the long term health of the company. Money generated in a big spike can be held and paid out in increments if necessary. As I mentioned earlier, most retailers generate bumper revenue in seasonal chunks, such as around Christmas, depending on their trade. Even companies like Cinema chains will generate their incomes often in fits and spurts, often based around the release schedules of big blockbusters.
It's also not clear why you think that a) GW could not still do special releases of certain additional units/characters throughout the year, and b) why you think that nobody would buy miniatures outside of the release window of the new edition? Indeed what the OP is suggesting, having all the codexes released in one blob, would probably facilitate addtional long run sales by making the game more even on the tabletop, increasing its long term appeal and its network utility.
Voss wrote:
And I don't know what indie stores are like where you are, but for the last decade, keeping lots of stock on hand hasn't been a priority for most of the game stores I've been in. Even the ones that go hard on GW products don't have 'boxes of books' laying around.
They don't have merchandise in the back room, and what's on the shelves is it. They don't want to hold a 'surprising amount of stock.' Its money tied up in things that aren't selling, and for a lot of game stores, they can't afford that. Its a very difficult balancing act for most game stores. Most don't manage it for more than a few years.
-- I'd be intrigued to know where you live. I suspect the name would be something like "convenient land". If your local store isn't carrying spare merchandise in its stock room it probably has bigger issues than whether or not GW is drip feeding its releases or doing them in bulk.
Hardly local. Its been consistent across multiple stores in multiple states, over the last decade. Having a lot of stock on hand is something that game stores and comic stores that carry games have consistently moved away from. They'll order a little extra for a big new thing (unless their regulars are really down on it, if they listen to their regulars), but they much prefer drip releases to bulk. Less risk, less problems with stuff that doesn't sell.
You also seem to miss the point entirely in relation to the OP. He's suggesting that they (GW) do a big release with a new edition, including all the codexes at once. An indi store would not need to hold hundreds of books permanently.
I wasn't responding to the OP. I responding to _you_, talking about shops having boxes of books lying around, specifically this:
you wrote:And even small stores can hold a surprising amount of stock (boxes of books really don't take up much room).
Stores here simply don't do that, even the rare ones that do carry a lot of GW products. Even when I worked retail in bookstores, we largely didn't do that- just for pre-orders of big stuff like the Harry Potter craze, knowing most of it would be gone that first week.
It would simply need to hold a reasonable amount of stock for its area for a short period of time around the release date of the new edition, kind of like how stores will hold large quantities of things like a new Playstation model ready for its release date.
Indie local game stores don't operate like big box stores around a Playstation console release. They can't afford to and wouldn't want to take the risk anyway. If they order a pile of $200 boxes, and are stuck with 10, that's about $1000 worth of investment that's just sitting around on the shelves. That isn't useful or good for the store.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW's entire model is based on continually stirring the pot to keep people buying new things. The fact that the balance is upset by each new codex release is a feature, not a bug. That's the whole point of the model. Every few months something new comes out that will prompt people to chase whatever the new meta develops into. If you release all the books at once in a balanced state, you destroy your own business model.
Has the balance been upset with the past four books? Are marines top dog?
The "Convenient Land" that Voss and others are explaining is "The US". FLGS here don't carry large backstocks of merchandise. Generally what's on the shelves is what they have. Once it's sold it's replaced by later shipments. That's how most stores here work, even big supermarkets. Stocks are sold during the day and restocked with shipments that come during the night or early the next day, because having large backstocks is a financial liability both for storage costs and the risk of having money tied up in merchandise that may or may not sell.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW's entire model is based on continually stirring the pot to keep people buying new things. The fact that the balance is upset by each new codex release is a feature, not a bug. That's the whole point of the model. Every few months something new comes out that will prompt people to chase whatever the new meta develops into. If you release all the books at once in a balanced state, you destroy your own business model.
Has the balance been upset with the past four books?
Absolutely. I'm not necessarily talking about balance between armies, and I'm not saying the newest book is always the best (though it's very clear by now that 9th books are on a level of power way above 8th, with 8th armies competitive only on points, not on rules). But the point is that each new release changes what stuff is good in each book (and for books without a wide bench, it can really destroy them - see how the Deathguard release has dumpstered Harlequins). The whole point of that model is to keep people swapping out units to counter the new stuff. Deathguard came out and the -1 damage armywide completely changed the value of 2D weapons, which had previously been top dog. This is great for GW, because all those people who teched into 2D weapons to kill marines are now second-guessing those decisions and (hopefully for GW) buying new stuff that will do better against the new releases.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW's entire model is based on continually stirring the pot to keep people buying new things. The fact that the balance is upset by each new codex release is a feature, not a bug. That's the whole point of the model. Every few months something new comes out that will prompt people to chase whatever the new meta develops into. If you release all the books at once in a balanced state, you destroy your own business model.
Has the balance been upset with the past four books?
Absolutely. I'm not necessarily talking about balance between armies, and I'm not saying the newest book is always the best (though it's very clear by now that 9th books are on a level of power way above 8th, with 8th armies competitive only on points, not on rules). But the point is that each new release changes what stuff is good in each book (and for books without a wide bench, it can really destroy them - see how the Deathguard release has dumpstered Harlequins). The whole point of that model is to keep people swapping out units to counter the new stuff. Deathguard came out and the -1 damage armywide completely changed the value of 2D weapons, which had previously been top dog. This is great for GW, because all those people who teched into 2W weapons to kill marines are now second-guessing those decisions and (hopefully for GW) buying new stuff that will do better against the new releases.
Everything is a matter of perspective.
DG isn't created to get other armies to buy other kits. It exists to give DG an interesting army and make it more difficult to solve for opponents you might face by doing one "thing".
It's literally a balancing mechanic as much as expanding availability of W1/W2/W3.
A new release doesn't mean marines went away and D2 is useless. That's a foolish approach.
Which is better? A meta where you take a variety of tools to deal with potential opponents or one where you tech one direction and hope for good matchups.
bouncingboredom wrote: I'd be intrigued to know where you live. I suspect the name would be something like "convenient land". If your local store isn't carrying spare merchandise in its stock room it probably has bigger issues than whether or not GW is drip feeding its releases or doing them in bulk. You also seem to miss the point entirely in relation to the OP. He's suggesting that they (GW) do a big release with a new edition, including all the codexes at once. An indi store would not need to hold hundreds of books permanently. It would simply need to hold a reasonable amount of stock for its area for a short period of time around the release date of the new edition, kind of like how stores will hold large quantities of things like a new Playstation model ready for its release date.
No retailer is holding a lot of inventory just waiting for launch unless it is red hot and will move 90% of its volume on launch day. This works for a new console, a new game, even a new novel from a best-selling author but it doesn't work for 23 codices and an equal number of new models or boxes of models. That's simply insanity. I work for a moderately sized general goods retailer, we hold, generously, 5% more stock than we display simply because floor space is expensive and onsite storage space doesn't generate revenue.
Do you live in "convenient land" with the other dude? Tills from the 90s/early 2000s are mostly not compatible with modern card readers, so a store like that would have difficulty even functioning in the modern world, let alone be non-compliment with various law (depending on the jurisdiction) around how long they need to keep transaction histories for. Again, I would suggest stores set up as you suggest have much bigger problems than whether or not GW is releasing its products in drip feeds or in bulk.
In the US chip and pin is only now reaching ubiquity and tap is being rolled out but is still years behind the UK, Canada, and Australia in terms of actually being used. The US banking sector is backwards owing to a lack of national banks creating a fractured landscape of varying standards.
Which is better? A meta where you take a variety of tools to deal with potential opponents or one where you tech one direction and hope for good matchups.
This is an argument in favor of concurrent releases. You get all the rules all at once, so people have to build to handle everything and can plan out their army for the whole edition accordingly.
This is very much not better for GW, which is why they don't do it. GW doesn't want you to plan out one balanced TAC list and use it all edition, they want you to chase whatever the counter is to the latest hotness, and then do the same thing again a few months later when they shake things up again with new rules that change the relative values of your existing options. That's the whole point of the stir the pot model. It's not even necessarily bad - things eventually do get stable when the pot isn't stirred, this is why all online games have frequent updates - the problem comes when it's done on a faction-by-faction basis, like GW does, at the expense of overall game balance. Though again, that's only a problem for people who want a good, balanced game, it's not a problem for GW since it delivers excellent returns.
Which is better? A meta where you take a variety of tools to deal with potential opponents or one where you tech one direction and hope for good matchups.
This is an argument in favor of concurrent releases. You get all the rules all at once, so people have to build to handle everything and can plan out their army for the whole edition accordingly.
This is very much not better for GW, which is why they don't do it. GW doesn't want you to plan out one balanced TAC list and use it all edition, they want you to chase whatever the counter is to the latest hotness, and then do the same thing again a few months later when they shake things up again with new rules that change the relative values of your existing options. That's the whole point of the stir the pot model. It's not even necessarily bad - things eventually do get stable when the pot isn't stirred, this is why all online games have frequent updates - the problem comes when it's done on a faction-by-faction basis, like GW does, at the expense of overall game balance. Though again, that's only a problem for people who want a good, balanced game, it's not a problem for GW since it delivers excellent returns.
You do realize that the meta will still shift and 'force' players to change armies even with a mass release, right? This doesn't fix the issues of people not wanting to add to their collection and them having to change armies in response to new lists emerging.
Voss wrote:
And I don't know what indie stores are like where you are, but for the last decade, keeping lots of stock on hand hasn't been a priority for most of the game stores I've been in. Even the ones that go hard on GW products don't have 'boxes of books' laying around.
They don't have merchandise in the back room, and what's on the shelves is it. They don't want to hold a 'surprising amount of stock.' Its money tied up in things that aren't selling, and for a lot of game stores, they can't afford that. Its a very difficult balancing act for most game stores. Most don't manage it for more than a few years.
-- I'd be intrigued to know where you live. I suspect the name would be something like "convenient land". If your local store isn't carrying spare merchandise in its stock room it probably has bigger issues than whether or not GW is drip feeding its releases or doing them in bulk. You also seem to miss the point entirely in relation to the OP. He's suggesting that they (GW) do a big release with a new edition, including all the codexes at once. An indi store would not need to hold hundreds of books permanently. It would simply need to hold a reasonable amount of stock for its area for a short period of time around the release date of the new edition, kind of like how stores will hold large quantities of things like a new Playstation model ready for its release date.
Spoiler:
chaos0xomega wrote: You seem to have over-optimistic views of how small retailers operate. Most of the ones in this area are still operating the same computers and POS/inventory management systems they were running in the early 2000s - in one case its the same system they used in the mid/late 90s.... The others all have been kicking around for 15-30+ years and don't have the in-house knowledge or the financial ability to modernize tot he point needed to actually do what you propose.
-- Do you live in "convenient land" with the other dude? Tills from the 90s/early 2000s are mostly not compatible with modern card readers, so a store like that would have difficulty even functioning in the modern world, let alone be non-compliment with various law (depending on the jurisdiction) around how long they need to keep transaction histories for. Again, I would suggest stores set up as you suggest have much bigger problems than whether or not GW is releasing its products in drip feeds or in bulk.
Most normal stores outside of convenient land will have at a minimum a basic system that dumps till transaction data onto a PC hard drive, data which can be sorted quite easily. Modern till systems are actually quite cheap (except for the scanners) and have never been more easy to set up to work with even just a basic stock system. Again, if your local stores lack this, there problems are much bigger than GW sales strategy.
Spoiler:
Just Tony wrote:The answer is that drip feed codex releases facilitate power creep, which facilitates people buying new armies to replace their old armies on the fly. AOS is starting to rotate models out of stock as the editions progress, this isn't an accident.
-- The answer is more probable to just be a twist of fate. Back in the 90s they did updates to games like new magic packs and things like Dark Millenium, which were just supplements. Then came books for new races and sub factions, like the Angels of Death. It started the momentum and they went from there. They did do things like produce Ravening Hordes for 6th edition, which was kind of a get you buy set of army lists etc. but not really comparable to doing all the codexes in one blob. I suspect the big issue is just risk. The risk of trying something different when what they do now makes money.
Spoiler:
AngryAngel80 wrote:You are just straight wrong on that. While I'm sure some places find that all amazing, actually working for a small business I can say it doesn't work that way and see the sales that go out the door when GW short stock us or someone comes in and can't get something and buy it online. Boxes of books can take up a lot of space when you carry lots of different kinds of products so I don't know if we are talking the same kinds of small stores. If people feel like they can't even get an item because it's far too rare, they will just stop looking for it in the store period that is a net loss for the store. Not every store has a sole selling point of warhammer products but I can say for sure product scarcity is a net loss for the store in general, patience isn't a virtue most people have these days. GW is one of those product lines the informed consumer can hopefully stay ahead of but for the casual buyer ? It can be off putting to not find items in stock because they just didn't send enough. That isn't at all raising value or quality for us.
-- Again, you're not looking at the problem in the context of what the OP is suggesting. If all the codexes are being released in one big shot then it's going to be a big one off event, not an ongoing thing. The store has time to prepare and stock up. I've known store owners (not necessarily FLGS specifically) to keep extra stock at their house if needs be, once every last scrap of available space is gone at the store itself. They're not doing this permanently, they're prepping for a big event. And even without a digital system, a store owner will have a pretty good idea about how many customers they have and what those customers play (SM are more popular than x, Blood Angels and y are popular in particular).
As above, if they don't then their problems are much more significant than "What is GWs latest sales strategy and how does that affect us?"
Spoiler:
Deadnight wrote:Gw is a tiny company by comparison. The core studio is what? 100 people. Maybe 200? (Been there, or rather been near there,to warhammer world). This is not just people writing codices. You've got artists, colourists, editors, it, qa, tech writers, regulatory, sales, marketing, accounting, proofreading, logistics let alone the management structure etc. Why don't they do. 30 books at once? Workload. Bandwith. Simple as. Anything done at that level takes time. A colossal amount of hours goes into each individual codex. It's nowhere near as simple as some people think. Even.discussions about the layout, the fonts used, the art/pictures and down to the double entente on page 17 can take weeks to sort out.
-- Again, assuming GW adopted the approach prefered by the OP, then they would have more than just mere weeks to sort everything out. They would be doing one big multi-codex dump with each new edition, which would be years apart, probably several months itself after the actual edition release in order to give breathing space to pick up snags in the rules and give retailers time to shift stocks of boxed sets. They're not going to be releasing 30 new codexes every few weeks/month.
Spoiler:
Vector Strike wrote:GW is a public company, meaning they have to show shareholders good results. If they release everything at once, they'll get a huge sales spike for 2-3 months and then basically nothing for the rest of the year. That's TERRIBLE for public companies. It's much better for them to show smaller, but more spread numbers throughout the year. That signalizes a healthy business and attracts investiments.
-- As a shareholder in a number of companies, which until recently included GW, this is categorically not true. Remarkably enough shareholders tend to be a lot more savvy about the businesses they invest in than that, with the exception of day traders and students with 3 shares in Gamestop. What matters is the long term health of the company. Money generated in a big spike can be held and paid out in increments if necessary. As I mentioned earlier, most retailers generate bumper revenue in seasonal chunks, such as around Christmas, depending on their trade. Even companies like Cinema chains will generate their incomes often in fits and spurts, often based around the release schedules of big blockbusters.
It's also not clear why you think that a) GW could not still do special releases of certain additional units/characters throughout the year, and b) why you think that nobody would buy miniatures outside of the release window of the new edition? Indeed what the OP is suggesting, having all the codexes released in one blob, would probably facilitate addtional long run sales by making the game more even on the tabletop, increasing its long term appeal and its network utility.
I think maybe you live in fantasy land where small stores can afford to carry tons of extra stock to handle every eventuality and can promise to get all of their ordered product from a company that delights in short changing stock either willfully or beyond their control or every small store has vast analytic networks with deep enough pockets to cover any amount of over stock. I say fantasy land as your view of small stores seems crazy out of touch with what that actually means for the stores that carry these kinds of products regularly.
Which is better? A meta where you take a variety of tools to deal with potential opponents or one where you tech one direction and hope for good matchups.
This is an argument in favor of concurrent releases. You get all the rules all at once, so people have to build to handle everything and can plan out their army for the whole edition accordingly.
This is very much not better for GW, which is why they don't do it. GW doesn't want you to plan out one balanced TAC list and use it all edition, they want you to chase whatever the counter is to the latest hotness, and then do the same thing again a few months later when they shake things up again with new rules that change the relative values of your existing options. That's the whole point of the stir the pot model. It's not even necessarily bad - things eventually do get stable when the pot isn't stirred, this is why all online games have frequent updates - the problem comes when it's done on a faction-by-faction basis, like GW does, at the expense of overall game balance. Though again, that's only a problem for people who want a good, balanced game, it's not a problem for GW since it delivers excellent returns.
I still think that just reads into it too much.
GW wants to sell models. Themed releases help them sell those new models ( 60% of sales are new releases ). They're not thinking at all about other armies adjusting. The only direction I see is the setup to provide tiers of units that interact with each other in interesting ways and in that sense offering a more diverse field of options.
When most things are balanced then the meta becomes whatever people decide, which can keep itself interesting. But that isn't directly possible so we'll still see point adjustments on things that stick too much and new/expanded armies ( Renegades, Exodites, Thousand Sons, Ynnari, Orks ) that offer other "problems" for people to face.
Rules sell models. Claiming that GW is not aware of that is odd. We have the famous wraith knight leak to prove it, but we don’t need it, as it is obvious anyway.
GW has many bad incentives (to make models obsolete, to create imbalanced armies, to constantly switch rules, to price super high). The only think that would keep them honest would be a player base that keeps a cool head and strongly punishes bad rules.
I do not see this at all; new releases are full of people posting and acting like in that take my money meme. And our acceptance of bad rules is similar to that of gamers accepting shifting metas.
Luckily, some of the most brutal sales strategies get punished. For example, the terrain rbooks and rules, don’t even know where that went (the trash can?). For our collective tolerance for BS is still very high.
Deadnight wrote:Gw is a tiny company by comparison. The core studio is what? 100 people. Maybe 200? (Been there, or rather been near there,to warhammer world). This is not just people writing codices. You've got artists, colourists, editors, it, qa, tech writers, regulatory, sales, marketing, accounting, proofreading, logistics let alone the management structure etc. Why don't they do. 30 books at once? Workload. Bandwith. Simple as. Anything done at that level takes time. A colossal amount of hours goes into each individual codex. It's nowhere near as simple as some people think. Even.discussions about the layout, the fonts used, the art/pictures and down to the double entente on page 17 can take weeks to sort out.
-- Again, assuming GW adopted the approach prefered by the OP, then they would have more than just mere weeks to sort everything out. They would be doing one big multi-codex dump with each new edition, which would be years apart, probably several months itself after the actual edition release in order to give breathing space to pick up snags in the rules and give retailers time to shift stocks of boxed sets. They're not going to be releasing 30 new codexes every few weeks/month. .
Cool story bruh. Also besides the point. You're still.talking about repeated thirty codex drop cycles, also coinciding with the work that's requires for a new edition. And my point stands. Bandwidth. Resouce.
Youre being very... optimistic about things, and your posts indicates an unawareness of what actually goes on in these kinds of companies, the colossal.amount of hours that goes into everything etc. Bandwidth and resource is Still an issue.
There's a million things to be worked on at any one time in these companies and people have time for three of them. That's corporate life. Gw probably barely has the time to.manage their current 'one at a time' model, you're talking about thirty.
They (a) won't have the time, and resources to do a thirty codex drop once, let alone every edition. (B) thr logistical headaches associated with this approach would be huge and genuinely not worth it and (c) they wouldn't come our ahead in terms of bank.
Grey40k wrote: Do you honestly believe GW cannot handle more than one codex at a time? We are not talking about some indie garage based company.
Yes. They really aren't that big.
No they're not an indie garage-based company, but equally they don't have a tower on Canary Wharf, and offices worldwide. Their head office is only about 1000 employees (according to their own LinkedIn page), and a lot of that will be in manufacturing and supply chain. I'd be honestly surprised if they had much more than a dozen people working on the codexes.
Or, alternatively, they are simply fine keeping a small rules / game design team because they have no intention to update more rules at a time. Not only this saves them labour costs, but also it is (scummy) but profit maximizing to create an ever rotating meta through slow codex releases.
Grey40k wrote: Do you honestly believe GW cannot handle more than one codex at a time? We are not talking about some indie garage based company.
Do you know how backed up printing companies tend to be for books?
Them not being "some indie garage based company" means nothing when the printers cannot fit them into the schedule.
It's always astonishing the sheer amount of business acumen that comes up on Dakka when it's to complain about GW, and inevitably it always points to their financial reports...which AFAIK, no other companies publish due to them not being publicly traded.
Grey40k wrote: Do you honestly believe GW cannot handle more than one codex at a time? We are not talking about some indie garage based company.
Do you honestly believe that doing more than one book at a time is the same thing as doing 25 at a time?
Two books at a time? Sure, it's what they'd be doing if not for Covid + Brexit.
Four books at a time? Probably.
Six at a time? Unlikely.
Ten plus? Has any games company in the world EVER done that?
Furthermore, this forum, being skewed to an audience of competitive players, isn't typically great at recognizing the diversity of play styles out there, and some people do like releases linked to story content. We need time between story events to play the games that the story sets up. So far this edition, Codex releases have been grouped according to the campaign cycle; the first campaign book included four armies, and what do you know, those were the dexes we got (though it does remain to be seen whether Knights comes before the second Charadon Release cycle; my theory is that it would have come in this cycle, but the Brexit + Covid situation is going to force them to bump it to later in the release schedule in order to keep the campaign on track- Admech is already 2 months late).
Next wave is shaping up to include Orks, Sisters, Daemons... And probably CSM.
Grey40k wrote: Rules sell models. Claiming that GW is not aware of that is odd. We have the famous wraith knight leak to prove it, but we don’t need it, as it is obvious anyway.
Trotting to this tired old chestnut again? We all know rules sell models. We all know of this one specific case where the rules were 'allegedly' left too good to sell the model. Now do you need me to point out how many model releases since the Wraith Knight have sold badly due to crap rules? Just because something happens once doesn't mean it is a pattern.
Grey40k wrote: Do you honestly believe GW cannot handle more than one codex at a time? We are not talking about some indie garage based company.
Honestly?
If there was absolutely nothing else to do, and you had infinite staff, and infinite printers, infinite storage capacity that didn't cost anything for storage, and absolutely no external pressures requiring releases now, sure, why not.
That's not the reality. And it never will be.
Gw isn't a massive company. Most of the staff count is retail. Gwhq isn't massive. I've been to Nottingham/Lenton. Its a three story building, including the ground floor. Hardly near the scale of the imperial Palace.and for a company with worldwide operations, a lot of things are always going on. There's always twenty things needing done and time to do three.
And in the corporate world, getting anything done takes time. I had a project to bring in some new equipment.by the time engineering had time for them and the validations etc were conpleted, its been over a year.
I work for a company of 50k people under the umbrella.
My site is about 100, the direct company itself is about a thousand people across several sites, with about 500 at the main one.
And I've seen the things I write literally take months to get through the full review process, when factoring in reviews, redraft, changes, client communications etc etc across multiple sites. Heck even the initial proposals for projects have gone back and forth for months at a time. Christ, imagine trying to push dozens throughout not just one or two. I'd literally need my own site and three digit staff count just to support my work, let alone the daily grind that encompasses what everyone else is working on. This is normal for corporations. It's not as simple as hammer a nail into a board.
There's loads of people/departments involved in each. Each codex gw writes takes a huge amount of man hours across multiple departments as well as very significant logistical considerations.
In the real world, do I think gw can handle it? I think its fairer to say that in the real world, gw probsblt have better, more productive things to do with their time than indulge this fantasy.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The "Convenient Land" that Voss and others are explaining is "The US". FLGS here don't carry large backstocks of merchandise. Generally what's on the shelves is what they have. Once it's sold it's replaced by later shipments. That's how most stores here work, even big supermarkets. Stocks are sold during the day and restocked with shipments that come during the night or early the next day, because having large backstocks is a financial liability both for storage costs and the risk of having money tied up in merchandise that may or may not sell.
Absolutely. My FLGS is fairly large and seems to be doing really well, but even they don't have "a back room full of extra stock", much less the kind of extra stock that would be required in a release of all codexes for all factions at the same time. That also seems to be overlooking the fact that said retailer needs to purchase all of that stock and then hope to sell it to recoup costs and make a profit. That's in addition to however many other game lines the store carries.
When a shipment comes in, it generally gets put on the shelves immediately. If there's any "extra", it might be a unit box or four, but certainly not boxes upon boxes of extra stock.
If GW releases all the codex at the same time, people will buy the ones they need or buy them in the span of a couple of months if they don't have the disposable income at the moment.
If GW releases codex one at a time they can generate hype for each one and each one they release is a will test for all of those "Damm I always wanted to start that army!" consumers that could end up buying into the army because look at how exciting those rules look!
On top of all the logistical reasons others have mentioned, of course.
bouncingboredom wrote: I'd be intrigued to know where you live. I suspect the name would be something like "convenient land". If your local store isn't carrying spare merchandise in its stock room it probably has bigger issues than whether or not GW is drip feeding its releases or doing them in bulk. You also seem to miss the point entirely in relation to the OP. He's suggesting that they (GW) do a big release with a new edition, including all the codexes at once. An indi store would not need to hold hundreds of books permanently. It would simply need to hold a reasonable amount of stock for its area for a short period of time around the release date of the new edition, kind of like how stores will hold large quantities of things like a new Playstation model ready for its release date.
Holy gak, talk about convenient land. Most of the stores around here don't HAVE a stock room. The one that I moonlight at has a stock basement - but its filled with 30 years of detritus and unsold crap, they aren't carrying spare merchandise of stuff on the shop floor down there. You seem to have a completely fanciful understanding of how small hobby retailers operate and what their financial situation looks like. Its embarrassing how confident you seem to be in something you clearly have zero comprehension of.
Do you live in "convenient land" with the other dude? Tills from the 90s/early 2000s are mostly not compatible with modern card readers, so a store like that would have difficulty even functioning in the modern world, let alone be non-compliment with various law (depending on the jurisdiction) around how long they need to keep transaction histories for. Again, I would suggest stores set up as you suggest have much bigger problems than whether or not GW is releasing its products in drip feeds or in bulk.
They are very much still compatible with modern card reader tech, and you'd be amazed by how much transaction history you can keep in boxes full of rolled receipts. As for hard drives - sure, but that assumes the data is stored in a format thats readable or export/importable into a system that can be used to analyze that. The amount of work involved with making that happen, is not so "convenient".
Voss wrote:I wasn't responding to the OP. I responding to _you_, talking about shops having boxes of books lying around...
Stores here simply don't do that...
just for pre-orders of big stuff like the Harry Potter craze, knowing most of it would be gone that first week.
-- That is literally what the OP is suggesting. By releasing all the books in one go you're building up to one big release day. You're not storing huge quantities of boxes for six months. Your storing a number that's about right for your store, for a very limited period of time.
Spoiler:
Gadzilla666 wrote:The "Convenient Land" that Voss and others are explaining is "The US". FLGS here don't carry large backstocks of merchandise. Generally what's on the shelves is what they have. Once it's sold it's replaced by later shipments. That's how most stores here work, even big supermarkets. Stocks are sold during the day and restocked with shipments that come during the night or early the next day, because having large backstocks is a financial liability both for storage costs and the risk of having money tied up in merchandise that may or may not sell.
-- Stores in the UK don't operate much differently. But even a store set up from a converted residential property will have a space out the back somewhere that you can clear a corner and store a stack of boxes for a short period, even if it means budging other things about a bit. Honestly, some of you are making this sound like we're talking about stacking pallets upon pallets of boxes somewhere, when that's not the case. And unless your FLGS is set up in a dumpster in the street, it absolutely will have a bit of space you can cram a few boxes into.
Spoiler:
Canadian 5th wrote:... but it doesn't work for 23 codices and an equal number of new models or boxes of models....
In the US chip and pin is only now reaching ubiquity and tap is being rolled out but is still years behind the UK, Canada, and Australia in terms of actually being used. The US banking sector is backwards owing to a lack of national banks creating a fractured landscape of varying standards.
-- You're not going to store 23 different codices or an equal number of models. GW are not stupid. If they were hypothetcally going to do this then the game release would come in advance, with a set of "get you by" lists in the boxed set. The codices would come later, and potentially themselves might be slightly staggered such as SM one week, some Xenos the next. Even if they dropped them all in one lump, your store is only going to order stuff it thinks it can sell. If it has virtually no Tyranid players, it's not going to order 8 boxes of Tyranid codexes.
Spoiler:
yukishiro1 wrote:GW doesn't want you to plan out one balanced TAC list and use it all edition, they want you to chase whatever the counter is to the latest hotness, and then do the same thing again a few months later when they shake things up again with new rules that change the relative values of your existing options. That's the whole point of the stir the pot model.
-- It's interesting to me that this has become accepted fact, despite there being no evidence of it. Even among ex-employees who speak out and are less than happy with GW, there's no hint of any kind of organised scheme to deliberately unbalance the game with each set of releases in order to force people to buy a counter to it. GW makes most of its money off of "whales", people who are generally not tournament players seeking the ultimate combo but people who will spend enormous amounts of money on models they like the look of, and will frequently have multiple large armies.
Spoiler:
AngryAngel80 wrote:I think maybe you live in fantasy land where small stores can afford to carry tons of extra stock to handle every eventuality...
... or every small store has vast analytic networks .
-- I don't think once have I suggested they carry tons of extra stock to handle every eventuality. Indeed I'm specifically suggesting stores would tailor their orders modestly to their regular customer base and hold - for a short time only - that stock which they thought they could sell.
The analytics issue seems to stem from people not understanding what analytics is. We're not talking about hiring an MIT graduate to analyse 10 seasons worth of football games. We're talking about opening a folder on a PC where your transaction history is kept and running a search for different product codes to get a more data based idea about just how many of some of the different lines you sell, so you can make a slightly more educated assessment of say how many Drukhari books you might need. Again, if your FLGS can't do this, then GW's release strategy is the last of is concerns.
Spoiler:
Grey40k wrote:GW has many bad incentives (to make models obsolete, to create imbalanced armies, to constantly switch rules, to price super high).
-- None of those are actually incentives to GW. These are all things that can hurt their player base, which was why they changed strategy a little when they appointed a new CEO, because they realised they needed to try and win back players trust. There are lots of people that make cheaper models for example that are close enough to be used as proxies. People don't presumably because they like the actual models from GW and are willing to pay the extra to have them.
Spoiler:
Deadnight wrote:Cool story bruh.... etc
-- I don't think you're giving this proper thought. If they're going to do a codex dump in the manner suggested by the OP, then you're talking years between editions. Not months. Years. Plural. Most of the books GW produce contain artwork and photo's rehashed from previous editions, along with a lot of text rehashed from previous editions. You're not actually writing 23 books or whatever completely from scratch. You essentially have probably four years or so to produce what are in essence 20-odd new editions of an old book, with some new bits added into them.
Spoiler:
PenitentJake wrote:Do you honestly believe that doing more than one book at a time is the same thing as doing 25 at a time?
....
Ten plus? Has any games company in the world EVER done that?
-- Yes. GW. Two years after the release of 3rd edition 40K they produced 6th edition Fantasy, which involved a massive rework of how the game played (putting more emphasis on troops vs characters). They produced a Ravening Hordes book that had updated army lists (including points, stats, special rules, and magic items) for every faction. The army books that followed were basically just the old army books with the new points etc, some new art, and some minor lore updates etc.
Spoiler:
chaos0xomega wrote:Holy gak, talk about convenient land. Most of the stores around here don't HAVE a stock room...
... Its embarrassing how confident you seem to be in something you clearly have zero comprehension of.
... They are very much still compatible with modern card reader tech, and you'd be amazed by how much transaction history you can keep in boxes full of rolled receipts.
.... As for hard drives - sure, but that assumes the data is stored in a format thats readable or export/importable into a system that can be used to analyze that. The amount of work involved with making that happen, is not so "convenient".
-- Then your original argument is moot. If you seriously expect me to believe they have no stock room at all, then they have no capacity to hold spare stock of any kind, and thus are already losing customers because they cannot fulfil their orders when they come in. On a slightly harsher note, this is also not GW's problem.
Second point, my confidence stems from the fact that I've worked for and with retailers for many years, most of them small to medium size. I have yet to come across a store that has no stock room whatsoever. Even small shops converted out of old residential properties have some kind of storage space in which an area can be cleared away to make room for boxes.
Third, I'd be very surprised if this is true, unless we have vastly different ideas of what constitutes a 'modern' card reader, given that software updates alone would render most card readers (even pre-chip and pin) incompatible with tills as old as you're talking about. Though I did find it amusing that you think stores don't have room for boxes of sellable stock, but they do have room for boxes of old receipts.
Fourth, a till from even ten years ago will be able to dump its data on a PC hard drive in an easily searchable/exportable format. Funnily enough, till manufacturers thought about this problem. In this day and age it really is quite convenient, and again I would posit that a store that can't handle some of these basic problems has much bigger issues than what GW is up to with its release schedule.
bouncingboredom wrote: I'd be intrigued to know where you live. I suspect the name would be something like "convenient land". If your local store isn't carrying spare merchandise in its stock room it probably has bigger issues than whether or not GW is drip feeding its releases or doing them in bulk. You also seem to miss the point entirely in relation to the OP. He's suggesting that they (GW) do a big release with a new edition, including all the codexes at once. An indi store would not need to hold hundreds of books permanently. It would simply need to hold a reasonable amount of stock for its area for a short period of time around the release date of the new edition, kind of like how stores will hold large quantities of things like a new Playstation model ready for its release date.
Holy gak, talk about convenient land. Most of the stores around here don't HAVE a stock room. The one that I moonlight at has a stock basement - but its filled with 30 years of detritus and unsold crap, they aren't carrying spare merchandise of stuff on the shop floor down there. You seem to have a completely fanciful understanding of how small hobby retailers operate and what their financial situation looks like. Its embarrassing how confident you seem to be in something you clearly have zero comprehension of.
Do you live in "convenient land" with the other dude? Tills from the 90s/early 2000s are mostly not compatible with modern card readers, so a store like that would have difficulty even functioning in the modern world, let alone be non-compliment with various law (depending on the jurisdiction) around how long they need to keep transaction histories for. Again, I would suggest stores set up as you suggest have much bigger problems than whether or not GW is releasing its products in drip feeds or in bulk.
They are very much still compatible with modern card reader tech, and you'd be amazed by how much transaction history you can keep in boxes full of rolled receipts. As for hard drives - sure, but that assumes the data is stored in a format thats readable or export/importable into a system that can be used to analyze that. The amount of work involved with making that happen, is not so "convenient".
You're fighting the good fight but he won't listen to reason, is lost in the sauce and I fear suffering from a " reality should be this " mentality. Good luck to you on your continued battle for how things are but I fear you are setting yourself up for a headache in which he will never back down. Some battles are foolish to engage in, this seems one of them apparently he's living in a different world from the one we've seen and work in with this topic of small hobby stores.I wish you the best with the fight as long as you maintain it but don't let it get under your skin, some of us do know the actual reality and not the wished for reality.
-- I don't think you're giving this proper thought. If they're going to do a codex dump in the manner suggested by the OP, then you're talking years between editions. Not months. Years. Plural.
.
Indeed. I'm pretty sure the project timeline for any codex is about 6 months to a year. Times thirty, now. You also need to have the planned edition in place/draft and ready to go, four years in advance so.as to.align your codices. That's an astronomical.amount of work.
Most of the books GW produce contain artwork and photo's rehashed from previous editions, along with a lot of text rehashed from previous editions.
.
All of which requires, formatting, editing,layout and massive back and forth regarding which artwork, which photos,or new ones, where they will be placed etc etc. Then there's the text updates. You don't just copy/paste these things.
-You're not actually writing 23 books or whatever completely from scratch.
.
Youte formatting,editing, laying out and organising 23 or whatever books from.scratch, so while yes you may have old text you can use, you are still building all these books from scratxh. Last thing you need on a worldwide release is a typo on page 32 because you couldn't be bothered and just did a lazy copy paste job.
You essentially have probably four years or so to produce what are in essence 20-odd new editions of an old book, with some new bits added into them.
.
Yeah, its not me 'not giving this proper thought'.
My company cannot crab out a minor report in 6 months hence GW cannot work on multiple codexes at once.
Printers are too busy.
GW has limited resources.
GW has a very small team to write rules.
Many companies and organizations do far more complex things than rehashing some not so complicated rules for a game. This is not rocket science or some complex engineering operation, it is not unfeasible, and would just require more human and physical resources devoted to it. The company had high margins and record profit, they could afford to triple or quadruple the rules team and still be very viable.
I find the stated claims astonishing, if someone believes that GW rules and publication schedules are pushing the limits of human capacity you are in for a big surprise once you get to see what is being done atm out there.
Last thing you need on a worldwide release is a typo on page 32 because you couldn't be bothered and just did a lazy copy paste job.
Somebody'd better let GW know that ASAP.....
That's my main worry about doing a Codex dump, the number of typos in them when they are only concentrating on a handful at a time is bad enough, they would be nigh on unreadable if the Codex team was working on them all simultaneously.
"The Blod Angles faught harde aganst the Chaoss horrds, chanswards and belters unlessahing deth upn th herticks."
Last thing you need on a worldwide release is a typo on page 32 because you couldn't be bothered and just did a lazy copy paste job.
Somebody'd better let GW know that ASAP.....
That's my main worry about doing a Codex dump, the number of typos in them when they are only concentrating on a handful at a time is bad enough, they would be nigh on unreadable if the Codex team was working on them all simultaneously.
"The Blod Angles faught harde aganst the Chaoss horrds, chanswards and belters unlessahing deth upn th herticks."
I'm all for equipping my marines with belters though.
Is the claim now that they cannot find the necessary people to do the job? And thus we cannot overwork a few poor rule writers?
I find that extrapolating from small and familiar examples to large corporations and professional environments is hardly informative.
GW could have hired more rule writers at any time, had they decided they wanted to work on balancing all (or most) factions early in an edition. They have the resources to do so. Claiming that there are many factions and rule interactions and thus this is extremely complex and requires months, if not years, is simply outrageous. Yes, it isn't trivial. No, it is not, by any means, comparable to the difficulties involved in many other contexts and operations. I am referring to the scientific-engineering-technical tasks by companies and other organizations, and the far more complex logistic issues handled routinely by such groups.
Simply put, releasing factions separately, over the course of years, is a deliverate choice made by the company and it is most likely very directly informed by marketing / sales concerns. It certainly isn't a feasibility problem, as some around here would have us believe. The feasibility of printing a couple dozen books for a game, let that sink, is what is being questioned.
Deadnight wrote:All of which requires, formatting, editing,layout and massive back and forth regarding which artwork, which photos,or new ones, where they will be placed etc etc. Then there's the text updates. You don't just copy/paste these things.
-- I think part of the problem is you're assuming that because your company is bad at it, everyone is bad at it. I've worked for companies like that before, that struggled to execute even very simple things without an enormous amount of messing about and tripping over themselves. Equally I've worked for companies that execute things that on paper seem quite complicated, but they made them look easy. E.g. the company I used to work for, the boss wanted to produce a new promotional leaflet for the companies services. Granted not a huge task. He hired another small company whose owner he knew. He wrote all of his blurb, sent it off, they formatted it all and laid it out for him. The format process took maybe a week.
The point being that a lot of the issues you're referring to are caused by culture, such as having too many cooks involved in making the broth. One of the reasons GW keeps its staff down is precisely because it allows them to be a bit more agile with this kind of thing, and they have their own in house team to do things like book formatting. Part of that will be having a company "style", e.g. they'll have their own preferred method for laying out their materials that doesn't change a huge amount between editions. If you look at most of the rulebooks throughout the ages, they actually have a pretty similar layout in terms of the order for example in which different topics are addressed. You're taking the problem and you're a) trying to make it as difficult as hypothetically possible and b) you're imposing upon it your own companies problems with work flow.
Deadnight wrote:I'm all for equipping my marines with belters though.
-- On this I think we can all agree.
Grey40k wrote:GW could have hired more rule writers at any time, had they decided they wanted to work on balancing all (or most) factions early in an edition. They have the resources to do so. Claiming that there are many factions and rule interactions and thus this is extremely complex and requires months, if not years, is simply outrageous.
-- The problem is not so much writing rules, it's testing. Other game designers of other systems have emphasised this point. There are only so many hours in the day for testing different combinations and armies against one another, which is why most game designers don't try and shoehorn an RPG style rule set and attribute profile into what is essentially a company scale (some would even argue battalion scale) game. Part of the issue is tournament organisers; they could ban named characters and allies in a heartbeat and solve quite a lot of the common complaints around balance, while still allowing players to bring Gulliman for their game against their friends.
And - to be frank - most GW rulesets are considered subpar when compared to the wider world of wargaming. There's a reason very few serious historical gamers try and use an adaptation of GW rules for their own systems/time frames.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" - Hanlon's razor.
Let's face it, GW could but does not want to balance the game better. Releasing updates closer in time so that no army is left in the dust for years is part of it, but there is more.
Deadnight wrote:All of which requires, formatting, editing,layout and massive back and forth regarding which artwork, which photos,or new ones, where they will be placed etc etc. Then there's the text updates. You don't just copy/paste these things.
-- I think part of the problem is you're assuming that because your company is bad at it, everyone is bad at it. I've worked for companies like that before, that struggled to execute even very simple things without an enormous amount of messing about and tripping over themselves. Equally I've worked for companies that execute things that on paper seem quite complicated, but they made them look easy. E.g. the company I used to work for, the boss wanted to produce a new promotional leaflet for the companies services. Granted not a huge task. He hired another small company whose owner he knew. He wrote all of his blurb, sent it off, they formatted it all and laid it out for him. The format process took maybe a week.
How is that in any way comparable to writing, testing, laying out and typesetting a Codex? Everything you're saying in this thread is coming off as seriously naïve about the process you're criticising, both in terms of production at GW's end and at the retail end of the chain. Even in the first batch of 9th edition Codexes we've seen GW experimenting with new layouts and design ideas so it's not even the case that they have a fixed template they can just drop their content into. The production pipeline for new models and artwork also needs t be taken into account.
You could wait until all that's ready for every army, but then you're sitting on a huge amount of work that the company has paid for but isn't generating any income from. We know a lot of GW's profits come from their new releases. If they didn't have that stream of new releases bringing in constant good revenue from month to month they'd quickly find themselves having to dip into their cash reserves while they wait for the work to be completed so they can release everything all at once. Then you need to persuade all the FLGS to drop a huge amount of cash on this massive release in the hope they recoup it quickly, or extend your credit line to those FLGS to a ridiculous degree, thereby increasing the risk to GW. You also reduce the likelihood of players spending the same amount on your products if everything releases at once. I own multiple armies but I wouldn't be keen to shell out for 4-5 new books in the space of a month, along with a bunch of new models as well. The most likely outcome is I'd concentrate on 1 or 2 and GW loses money again. I don't think I'm alone in that.
If they release codexes with new models or units in them, they have to release the models at the same time, or lose out to 3rd-parties who beat them to it.
GW learned the hard way about that a few years ago, and it is a huge part of why codexes and suppliments are released at the same time as models.
Either they release models with the rules in the box, before the entry hits the codex, or the book comes out and there is no model for it.
Option 1 has been tried, and works to an extent.
Option 2 fails every time. People complain about the lack of models to buy, and kitbashes or proxies instead.
But, as with the AoS Elves released this week, their updated codex turns up less than a year after the first book was released. People who bought that are short £25, since last years book is now obsolete.
GW's best option is to keep the non-Marine codexes coming out. I gave up on Marines entirely when 2 codexes were released in the same edition.
-- I think part of the problem is you're assuming that because your company is bad at it, everyone is bad at it. I've worked for companies like that before, that struggled to execute even very simple things without an enormous amount of messing about and tripping over themselves.
Be very careful.who you judge as 'bad' before you know the full picture. mine (pharma) is one of the most heavily regulated industries out there and everything is checked and triple checked. There's whole departments in places dedicated to checking the spelling of each word in patient information leaflets for example. One typo, one coma out of place and the whole thing is in trouble.
My point stands. For any product you see, there are hundreds if not thousands of man hours across multiple departments that have gone into it, either directly or indirectly. Trying to multiply this effort thirty times for a simultaneous mega codex release is an astronomical investment of time and productivity, for very little gain.
Table wrote: The current system on phased releases does more harm than good. Not only is it far harder to combat power creep with a phased release but it leaves some armies at the end of the current edition, making so they have to play most of the edition with a huge handicap. It seems to me that to write and release all/most factions at edition release seems to be the best bet. Not to mention that some factions that need a update most are put on the back burner for more popular factions (thousand sons).
Im guessing it is about money. Not sure why else they would adopt a phased release of codex. Your opinions?
Because they are greedy donkey-caves thats why.
Most of the codexes are already written at this time. its wrong for people to assume they write one codex, then release it, then on to the next. They dont. Most are already written. They just want more money, they are greedy.
Table wrote: The current system on phased releases does more harm than good. Not only is it far harder to combat power creep with a phased release but it leaves some armies at the end of the current edition, making so they have to play most of the edition with a huge handicap. It seems to me that to write and release all/most factions at edition release seems to be the best bet. Not to mention that some factions that need a update most are put on the back burner for more popular factions (thousand sons).
Im guessing it is about money. Not sure why else they would adopt a phased release of codex. Your opinions?
Because they are greedy donkey-caves thats why.
Most of the codexes are already written at this time. its wrong for people to assume they write one codex, then release it, then on to the next. They dont. Most are already written. They just want more money, they are greedy.
Not sure why you believe they're 'already written.'
It isn't a simple matter of 'write book, release book.' There are a lot of steps to the production of any book, writing is only part of it (layout, art, photographs, revision, editing, more revision, etc, getting the final document ready for publication, then printing, then shipping). Yes, multiple books will be in process at the same time, but they'll be a different stages of that process, and involve different people at those various stages. They aren't sitting on a hard drive of finished works, and nefariously scheming ways of... not... publishing them, for 'greedy money' reasons.
Have there been any real rumors about when the rest of CSM getting their codex? Being half as good as loyalists with a 1 point discount is beginning to be a bit frustrating. It was already an uphill battle back when the "2.0" books came out (around when I took a break), but that gap has only widened. It's disheartening knowing i have to be twice as good, twice as lucky with units that are half what my opponents have.
Most of the codexes are already written at this time. its wrong for people to assume they write one codex, then release it, then on to the next. They dont. Most are already written. They just want more money, they are greedy.
Most of the codexes are already written at this time. its wrong for people to assume they write one codex, then release it, then on to the next. They dont. Most are already written. They just want more money, they are greedy.
Surely you have evidence for this claim.
Well - the 9th edd update for points (back near the eddition start) has the same obvious errors for reaver jet bikes points - revers are not a 10 point model. Id say the only way such an obvious error is made is the documents were written at the same time or one copied the other. We are talking about what? A 9 month difference in print? I think it's clear at least the draft for the DE codex was already written up at the point all those armies updates were made.
Table wrote: The current system on phased releases does more harm than good. Not only is it far harder to combat power creep with a phased release but it leaves some armies at the end of the current edition, making so they have to play most of the edition with a huge handicap. It seems to me that to write and release all/most factions at edition release seems to be the best bet. Not to mention that some factions that need a update most are put on the back burner for more popular factions (thousand sons).
Im guessing it is about money. Not sure why else they would adopt a phased release of codex. Your opinions?
Because they are greedy donkey-caves thats why.
Most of the codexes are already written at this time. its wrong for people to assume they write one codex, then release it, then on to the next. They dont. Most are already written. They just want more money, they are greedy.
Not sure why you believe they're 'already written.'
It isn't a simple matter of 'write book, release book.' There are a lot of steps to the production of any book, writing is only part of it (layout, art, photographs, revision, editing, more revision, etc, getting the final document ready for publication, then printing, then shipping). Yes, multiple books will be in process at the same time, but they'll be a different stages of that process, and involve different people at those various stages. They aren't sitting on a hard drive of finished works, and nefariously scheming ways of... not... publishing them, for 'greedy money' reasons.
Mate.. to make the codexes they do not write one book at a time. They write several to put them somewhat in line with each other. Its not like star wars episode 7 8 and 9 where they just made one movie after the other with no visible path of where they were going.
They write several at a time. By the time the DG codex was done, so was the drukhari one. There have been people working for GW who has stated as much, that they actually do write several books at once, not one book at a time.
Grey40k wrote: they could afford to triple or quadruple the rules team and still be very viable.
That's honestly and truly a terrible idea for any business, because now you need to occupy three to four times the salary the rest of the year(s).
And despite the memes GW does playtest and it seems they're at least somewhat more effective at it of late.
Eh, hard disagree (to the first part at least). Yes, okay, say GW added 1M GBP worth of headcount for these gigs next year. From what we've heard, GW doesn't actually pay very well, and salaries in the UK are generally not super high. So say all in, you're talking 50k per person. Or hell, maybe you're GW and you realize you need to add quality, not quantity, and you add 100k per person. That's 1M Pounds per year. Yeah, that's a not insignificant sum. But if that took us from GW's current rules level to top of the market where it belongs, I think it would be worth it. Even if GW used that as an excuse to raise prices somewhat, I could bear an increase for that purpose. I don't get why this is a terrible idea; you think Apple skimps on engineers/developers/testers/marketers? If GW wants to be the Apple of tabletop, they need to equal that on the rules side.
And honestly, GW wouldn't even need to raise prices. The margins they make are already *filthy*. They could easily justify another million in labor for the long-term health of the game.
StarHunter25 wrote: Have there been any real rumors about when the rest of CSM getting their codex? Being half as good as loyalists with a 1 point discount is beginning to be a bit frustrating. It was already an uphill battle back when the "2.0" books came out (around when I took a break), but that gap has only widened. It's disheartening knowing i have to be twice as good, twice as lucky with units that are half what my opponents have.
4 point discount ( 6 against Intercessors ). Sisters are 11. 3 points more than a sister isn't a huge gap for +1WS, +1A ( on the charge ), +1T. The problem is CSM just have no good traits and other rules ( other than some PA ) to help enough to make them as viable. If you look around so much of what hits will kill you Primaris or otherwise. W1 models are overly stigmatized even if the concerns are valid.
Deamon engines love eating MM shots. Backed up with a core of CSM you could probably have a mediocre list that doesn't fold.
StarHunter25 wrote: Have there been any real rumors about when the rest of CSM getting their codex? Being half as good as loyalists with a 1 point discount is beginning to be a bit frustrating. It was already an uphill battle back when the "2.0" books came out (around when I took a break), but that gap has only widened. It's disheartening knowing i have to be twice as good, twice as lucky with units that are half what my opponents have.
4 point discount ( 6 against Intercessors ). Sisters are 11. 3 points more than a sister isn't a huge gap for +1WS, +1A ( on the charge ), +1T. The problem is CSM just have no good traits and other rules ( other than some PA ) to help enough to make them as viable. If you look around so much of what hits will kill you Primaris or otherwise. W1 models are overly stigmatized even if the concerns are valid.
Deamon engines love eating MM shots. Backed up with a core of CSM you could probably have a mediocre list that doesn't fold.
No word on the book. Perhaps in the next batch.
Might just be that you and I have decent local metas, but on my experience when my maulerfiends or venomcrawlers get shot by multimeltas or heavy meltarifles, they die. Unfortunately I play WE, so no psykers for me to buff my things. That my zerks get bodied by assault intercessors 8 times out of 10 is annoying to say the least. I'm going to have to agree with OP, at least having a proper "9e index" would have been an acceptable stopgap instead of 2/3 of the factions being DoA because they lacked either a new codex or the right 8e rules. Then this be the status quo for 18 months because GW decided to axe digital books.
StarHunter25 wrote: Have there been any real rumors about when the rest of CSM getting their codex? Being half as good as loyalists with a 1 point discount is beginning to be a bit frustrating. It was already an uphill battle back when the "2.0" books came out (around when I took a break), but that gap has only widened. It's disheartening knowing i have to be twice as good, twice as lucky with units that are half what my opponents have.
4 point discount ( 6 against Intercessors ). Sisters are 11. 3 points more than a sister isn't a huge gap for +1WS, +1A ( on the charge ), +1T. The problem is CSM just have no good traits and other rules ( other than some PA ) to help enough to make them as viable. If you look around so much of what hits will kill you Primaris or otherwise. W1 models are overly stigmatized even if the concerns are valid.
Deamon engines love eating MM shots. Backed up with a core of CSM you could probably have a mediocre list that doesn't fold.
No word on the book. Perhaps in the next batch.
Might just be that you and I have decent local metas, but on my experience when my maulerfiends or venomcrawlers get shot by multimeltas or heavy meltarifles, they die. Unfortunately I play WE, so no psykers for me to buff my things. That my zerks get bodied by assault intercessors 8 times out of 10 is annoying to say the least. I'm going to have to agree with OP, at least having a proper "9e index" would have been an acceptable stopgap instead of 2/3 of the factions being DoA because they lacked either a new codex or the right 8e rules. Then this be the status quo for 18 months because GW decided to axe digital books.
Yea, as always YMMV. 3 Eradicators with MM ( equivalent of 4 attack bikes ) should be incapable on average of killing a daemon engine unless they're w/i 12", but with terrain and decent speed you should get to choose the time and place more often. Heavy melta rifles are a different story, but few people seem to take those due to their limitations.
You should go ham apoplectic frenzy and chainswords on Zerkers ( chainaxe doesn't offer as much when they're S5 and the CS is AP1 now ).
+D3 attacks and Gorefather is great for going through terminators. The 5+++ glaive and half damage in melee is nice, too. Get a priest in there for +1 to wound.
This is very much the edition for World Eaters. With CS they're 5A on the charge. ((26 * .167 * .666) + (26 * .666)) * .666 * .5 = 6.7 to marines ( 134 points ) with 85 points and then you get to fight again.
Quasistellar wrote: They could easily do simultaneous codex releases. Just use digital. Model releases could still be spaced out -- just make datasheets free online like AoS.
It's easy peasy. Literally the only reason they don't do it is because they believe the current method maximizes profit. It's that simple.
I think you underestimate how many designers you'd need in order to simultaneously work on and then release codexes for all... 18? factions at the same time.
Nevermind how overwhelmed game stores would be at having to guess potential sales numbers for that many books at the same time.
Say what? They don't have to work on them all at once--just release them all at once. Do you think, for example, that the Tau codex hasn't been written yet? That's pretty naive. I'm not 100% certain, but from the what playtesters have said (in a round-about "can't break NDA" way), all the codexes were being tested before 9th release. And regarding books: I specifically stated digital. Of course physical copies are held up by production limitations and store space, etc. But if it was all digital they wouldn't need to print so many books.
Again, it's very easily doable. This isn't even really a question or in doubt. They could digitally release the core rules and all codexes at the start of every new edition. Datasheets free online (like AoS). Datasheets being tied to the codexes is an arbitrary thing -- there's no need if you go digital. They simply choose not to because they believe (probably correctly) that their current method maximizes profit, for both them and retailers.
It's really that simple. People can be angry about it all they want, but unless the money stops flowing, or they have data that says otherwise, they'll continue this way. I think the only thing that might bring a change to this cycle is if the app takes off in a big way, but the way they are badly botching it makes me have doubts.
Say what? They don't have to work on them all at once--just release them all at once. Do you think, for example, that the Tau codex hasn't been written yet? That's pretty naive. I'm not 100% certain, but from the what playtesters have said (in a round-about "can't break NDA" way), all the codexes were being tested before 9th release. And regarding books: I specifically stated digital. Of course physical copies are held up by production limitations and store space, etc. But if it was all digital they wouldn't need to print so many books.
Again, it's very easily doable. This isn't even really a question or in doubt. They could digitally release the core rules and all codexes at the start of every new edition. Datasheets free online (like AoS). Datasheets being tied to the codexes is an arbitrary thing -- there's no need if you go digital. They simply choose not to because they believe (probably correctly) that their current method maximizes profit, for both them and retailers.
It's really that simple. People can be angry about it all they want, but unless the money stops flowing, or they have data that says otherwise, they'll continue this way. I think the only thing that might bring a change to this cycle is if the app takes off in a big way, but the way they are badly botching it makes me have doubts.
When would they have done that? Between the marine codexes they pushed out something like 25 books or more.
Table wrote: The current system on phased releases does more harm than good. Not only is it far harder to combat power creep with a phased release but it leaves some armies at the end of the current edition, making so they have to play most of the edition with a huge handicap. It seems to me that to write and release all/most factions at edition release seems to be the best bet. Not to mention that some factions that need a update most are put on the back burner for more popular factions (thousand sons).
Im guessing it is about money. Not sure why else they would adopt a phased release of codex. Your opinions?
Because they are greedy donkey-caves thats why.
Most of the codexes are already written at this time. its wrong for people to assume they write one codex, then release it, then on to the next. They dont. Most are already written. They just want more money, they are greedy.
Not sure why you believe they're 'already written.'
It isn't a simple matter of 'write book, release book.' There are a lot of steps to the production of any book, writing is only part of it (layout, art, photographs, revision, editing, more revision, etc, getting the final document ready for publication, then printing, then shipping). Yes, multiple books will be in process at the same time, but they'll be a different stages of that process, and involve different people at those various stages. They aren't sitting on a hard drive of finished works, and nefariously scheming ways of... not... publishing them, for 'greedy money' reasons.
Mate.. to make the codexes they do not write one book at a time. They write several to put them somewhat in line with each other. Its not like star wars episode 7 8 and 9 where they just made one movie after the other with no visible path of where they were going.
They write several at a time. By the time the DG codex was done, so was the drukhari one. There have been people working for GW who has stated as much, that they actually do write several books at once, not one book at a time.
I know. I said that they work on several at once there are different writers and different stages to book production. But that's completely different from you're original assertion that _most_ are already written.
Having two or three in development simultaneously is an order of magnitude different than wanting to believe that the majority of books for this edition are already _finished_.
And playtest rules for a codex are also different than the whole book being finished- obviously playtesting (even limited playtesting) generates feedback and revision- that's a repeated process from the midpoint of the book, not the end.
Say what? They don't have to work on them all at once--just release them all at once. Do you think, for example, that the Tau codex hasn't been written yet? That's pretty naive. I'm not 100% certain, but from the what playtesters have said (in a round-about "can't break NDA" way), all the codexes were being tested before 9th release. And regarding books: I specifically stated digital. Of course physical copies are held up by production limitations and store space, etc. But if it was all digital they wouldn't need to print so many books.
Again, it's very easily doable. This isn't even really a question or in doubt. They could digitally release the core rules and all codexes at the start of every new edition. Datasheets free online (like AoS). Datasheets being tied to the codexes is an arbitrary thing -- there's no need if you go digital. They simply choose not to because they believe (probably correctly) that their current method maximizes profit, for both them and retailers.
It's really that simple. People can be angry about it all they want, but unless the money stops flowing, or they have data that says otherwise, they'll continue this way. I think the only thing that might bring a change to this cycle is if the app takes off in a big way, but the way they are badly botching it makes me have doubts.
When would they have done that? Between the marine codexes they pushed out something like 25 books or more.
Weird assumptions all around this thread in regards to relating release dates to the development.
I'm not sure I understand your question. When would they have written the 9th ed codexes? Same time they already did it. Just wait until they're all done then drop them all at once.
The question isnt when "would" they (in the past), it's when "could" they. The answer is : next edition. That's when they "could". I highly doubt they will though.
Still, I continue to be baffled by people thinking GW "couldn't" do this. They clearly could, but they haven't and won't for the foreseeable future. Because money.
GW sends books to the printer 6 months in advance of the anticipated release date. If they were releasing one every two weeks, that'd be 12 that are already done and sent off, with another probably 4-5 still in process. Even if they were only planning on releasing one a month, that'd still be 6 done and another 4-5 in varying stages of being finished. If they had waited on putting out 9th edition till this summer, they could absolutely have released all the codexes at the same time as the edition dropped. They don't because it's bad business, not because it's impossible.
I think GW’s release cycle is a large part of the reason Warhammer products have remained the dominant fantasy / sci fi games for around 30 years. They manage to keep their fans continuously engaged and buying more products, multiple armies, multiple books, etc.
Weird assumptions all around this thread in regards to relating release dates to the development.
I'm not sure I understand your question. When would they have written the 9th ed codexes? Same time they already did it. Just wait until they're all done then drop them all at once.
The question isnt when "would" they (in the past), it's when "could" they. The answer is : next edition. That's when they "could". I highly doubt they will though.
Still, I continue to be baffled by people thinking GW "couldn't" do this. They clearly could, but they haven't and won't for the foreseeable future. Because money.
So instead of writing the 23 books they worked on the past ~14 months you think they could produce an additional 29 books at quality? That's 52 books or 3 to 5 books a month done months before 9th would release.
People wonder why GW has so many typos. This would make it so, so much worse.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think GW’s release cycle is a large part of the reason Warhammer products have remained the dominant fantasy / sci fi games for around 30 years. They manage to keep their fans continuously engaged and buying more products, multiple armies, multiple books, etc.
Correlation doesn't equal causation - I'd argue - people will buy GW products because they are really good quality in a game that people know is going to stick around.
What matters is that the codexes are released in chunks of grups, so that all codexes would be released after maybe 2 or 3 times. So they would release 1/3 of their codexes the first time, then another 1/3 and the last 1/3 by the end.
At least that would make more sense than this.
I would prefer them all to be in order before they go but anything really, is better than this.
A new edition comes out maybe once every 3 or so years. Thats 3 years to start making new codexes. GW is, as far as im aware, not just a small company its massive these days, they earn a ton of millions. Lets not pretend its too much work to prepare all the codexes for the next 10th edition release so it can be released at the same time, or at least over 2 halves.
I think current release of codexes is already massive. A codex every 2-3 years at most, or even one every 18 months considering supplements, is something I don't like at all, especially in an era of frequent rounds of FAQs and points changes. A codex every 5 years should be the standard. No supplements.
Slipspace wrote:How is that in any way comparable to writing, testing, laying out and typesetting a Codex? [1]
Everything you're saying in this thread is coming off as seriously naïve about the process you're criticising... and at the retail end of the chain. [2]
The production pipeline for new models and artwork also needs t be taken into account. [3]
[1] I literally said that it wasn't the same. The general point remains true though. A lot of the issues being bandied around about the complexity of the codex layout etc would be a function of how many people are involved and what power you give them to make changes. Some people are presenting this as if it's a fixed process that always takes the same length of time, company to company, which is palpably not true. There are Hollywood studios that are able to take a starting script for a multi-million dollar movie and go from pre-production to release in under a year. It's a question of how many people you put to a task and who you give authority to to make changes. GW has its own people. It can assign a person and say "this person will be ultimately responsible for the layout, no arguments," as I suspect they do already. People are confusing what happens at their company with what happens at every company.
[2] As I said, I work with retailers, mainly small and medium sized. Some of the comments I've heard from people, that they have absolutely zero space for storing anything, even a few boxes for at most a few weeks, smacks of nonsense that is just convenient to their arguments. Though again, if indeed some of these horror stories are true, then a) GWs release schedule is the last of their worries and b) they're probably already losing customers from being understocked, rendering their initial argument moot.
[3] You could release the codexes in one dump and still release new models in batches at later dates. We know this because this GW used to do pretty much exactly this. A new model range would come along (like the White Lions of Chrace) and the rules for them would appear in White Dwarf, though of course now you could do it digitally or with a datasheet in the box. It's actually interesting to me how many of the things that people are complaining are impossible have actually not only been done before, but done by GW themselves. I'm not neccesarily convinced it's a good idea per se (has its strengths and weaknesses) but it is quite ridiculous on closer analysis to suggest GW couldn't do if they wanted.
Spoiler:
Deadnight wrote: mine (pharma) is one of the most heavily regulated industries out there and everything is checked and triple checked.
-- Given that knowledge, why on earth are you trying to compare your company vs GW? GW is not going to suffer a lawsuit if it makes a grammatical error in one of its rules. As long as it doesn't mistakenly print "it is safe to ingest models" or words to that effect, then it has nowhere near the requirement of such pedantic scrutiny as you're suggesting. See above for more detail about the specifics.
bouncingboredom wrote: [spoiler][
-- Given that knowledge, why on earth are you trying to compare your company vs GW? GW is not going to suffer a lawsuit if it makes a grammatical error in one of its rules. As long as it doesn't mistakenly print "it is safe to ingest models" or words to that effect, then it has nowhere near the requirement of such pedantic scrutiny as you're suggesting. See above for more detail about the specifics.
Woth respect,Maybe you should try reading what I wrote and extrapolating them to gw instead of dismissing them right out of hand. First I'm.working for a bad company and now it's irrelevant? Maybe consider some of the things that apply to my industry might also apply to gw and that there will always be considerations for these kinds of things.
Agreed, despite our jokes of plastic crack, space marines are not a pharma product going into someone but there are still.legalities and regulations, esprcially in the materials/production and distribution spheres, contracts to write and sign etc and it's still still a corporate entity. There will.still be multiple writers, artists, reviewers, editors, regs, qa, legal, sales, marketing, production, worldwode distribution, storage etc etc. The smallest part of writing a codex is, well,writing the codex. There's a lot of people involved in all aspects of getting a codex into your hands.
There's thousands of work hours that go into each codex. It's not just as simple as 'do thirty of them for a simultaneous release'. Which was my point from the very beginning.
The simple truth is it's an astronomical amount of work, for very little, if any payback.and that's ignoring the thousand other things that soak up.your time every day.
Could other approaches work for smaller companies? Sure. For years privateer press did an annual kind-of-themed expsnsion where each faction got a simultaneous release - mercenaries, epic casters and cavalry all the way back in mk1, colossals and battle engines more recently. And it was governed by a single book (well, one for hordes, one for warmachine) It works for a small game but eventually pp stepped away from this approach for a variety of reasons and ultimately it wasn't sustainable for them. And for the record I don't think this approach would work for gw, not at the scale they operate on.
And by the way, some movies get done in a year. But it's actually very frequently thr case that movies go through a development cycle of a decade before the films start rolling. It's annoying for sure, but there are a lot of reasons and happenstance that feed into this.
The problem is that codices/ the game do not drive the release schedule. Model releases drive the schedule, codices/supplements/everything else just has to follow.
[2] As I said, I work with retailers, mainly small and medium sized. Some of the comments I've heard from people, that they have absolutely zero space for storing anything, even a few boxes for at most a few weeks, smacks of nonsense that is just convenient to their arguments. Though again, if indeed some of these horror stories are true, then a) GWs release schedule is the last of their worries and b) they're probably already losing customers from being understocked, rendering their initial argument moot.
Do you work with FLGS? I'm thinking of the half dozen stores in my area and, of those, two have what could charitably be described as a stock room. One is literally a cupboard in the basement and the other is an alcove towards the back of the shop. These are normally overflowing with stock already. When a big new release comes in one of those retailers literally puts the pre-orders out on a sofa in the gaming area and another commandeers the tables in the main shop area and that's for the small number of pre-orders for a single week's release. There just isn't space to store 20 different boxes of books. Nor is there usually cashflow to pay for it all at once. These are successful stores that have been around for years, they just don't operate how you think they do. For every Dark Sphere with multiple sites and a warehouse to put their stock there are literally hundreds of small, local FLGS.
[3] You could release the codexes in one dump and still release new models in batches at later dates. We know this because this GW used to do pretty much exactly this. A new model range would come along (like the White Lions of Chrace) and the rules for them would appear in White Dwarf, though of course now you could do it digitally or with a datasheet in the box. It's actually interesting to me how many of the things that people are complaining are impossible have actually not only been done before, but done by GW themselves. I'm not neccesarily convinced it's a good idea per se (has its strengths and weaknesses) but it is quite ridiculous on closer analysis to suggest GW couldn't do if they wanted.
You've heard of Chapterhouse I assume? GW will never go back to that release model after that court case. Hence everyone here pointing out why GW will not adopt a massive Codex release all at once. Books and models would all have to be ready at the same time, which is not going to happen without one or the other sitting around for years waiting for release.
I feel like most of these complaints could be solved by not buying from GW. I mean it seems pretty simple to me that if you hate the way they operate and have all your old rules then why not just play those instead?
Of course, this is the internet and as I have not crucified GW for daring to make boatloads of money under capitalism, I must be a paid shill.
bouncingboredom wrote: [3] You could release the codexes in one dump and still release new models in batches at later dates. We know this because this GW used to do pretty much exactly this. A new model range would come along (like the White Lions of Chrace) and the rules for them would appear in White Dwarf, though of course now you could do it digitally or with a datasheet in the box. It's actually interesting to me how many of the things that people are complaining are impossible have actually not only been done before, but done by GW themselves. I'm not neccesarily convinced it's a good idea per se (has its strengths and weaknesses) but it is quite ridiculous on closer analysis to suggest GW couldn't do if they wanted.
This is from my post a page ago, explaining why that won't happen, as Slipspace said:
If they release codexes with new models or units in them, they have to release the models at the same time, or lose out to 3rd-parties who beat them to it.
GW learned the hard way about that a few years ago, and it is a huge part of why codexes and suppliments are released at the same time as models.
Either they release models with the rules in the box, before the entry hits the codex, or the book comes out and there is no model for it.
Option 1 has been tried, and works to an extent.
Option 2 fails every time. People complain about the lack of models to buy, and kitbashes or proxies instead.
Earth127 wrote: The problem is that codices/ the game do not drive the release schedule. Model releases drive the schedule, codices/supplements/everything else just has to follow.
If Codices and models come out at the same time, does it matter which one is driving?
Lelith came with DE, Skitarri Marshal is coming with Admech, up to 4 previewed Sisters units are likely to come with their Dex, at least one Ork is coming with his dex. Space Marine and Necrons had releases before, during and after their dexes because they were the starter armies for the edition; the constant Marine models were supported by supplements as well.
I can say the models are coming with dexes, and you can say the dexes are coming with the models, but the phenomenon we're discussing doesn't change based on the words we use to describe it. Models and dexes, so far this edition, have come together.
I do suspect model releases will still continue to happen even once dexes are all out- it just hasn't happened yet. Once there are no Codex books to pair with model releases, they will be release to pair with campaign books. GW is actually tying campaign books together with both model and Codex releases for the time being- a trend I imagine will continue with Charadon Act 2, though it does remain to be seen whether or not the pattern will hold.
All that shows is how out of date their rules release model is. If they just released rules digitally in a competent way, all they'd need to do when releasing a new model is to release an update for the codex that would have the new model.
They release things the way they do because it's best for their profits, and for no other reason. If it was best for their profits to release codexes all at once, they would absolutely do so, and any logistical barriers to that system would be quickly overcome.
yukishiro1 wrote: All that shows is how out of date their rules release model is. If they just released rules digitally in a competent way, all they'd need to do when releasing a new model is to release an update for the codex that would have the new model.
They release things the way they do because it's best for their profits, and for no other reason. If it was best for their profits to release codexes all at once, they would absolutely do so, and any logistical barriers to that system would be quickly overcome.
Right, but those logistical barriers are not simple or easily cast aside.
But they would be overcome if releasing all at once made them more money. That's the point. The reason they do things the way they do is not because they have no choice, but because this makes them more money. I'm puzzled by all the attempts in this thread to justify this on anything other than profit grounds, and the strange way that such defenses actually end up treating GW like some incompetent child incapable of solving even the most basic of problems.
If you're still working with an out of date 8th edition codex, it's not because poor little GW just can't help but leave some people behind for years when a new edition drops despite how much it hurts their heart to do so. It's because it makes GW more money to leave your faction in the dust while they promote other ones, because you or people like you are more likely that way to jump to something else and spend money on that as well.
That doesn't mean GW is evil incarnate or anything like it. But it's silly for people to twist themselves into knots trying to come up with reasons why GW isn't just a profit-oriented company pursuing its profits.
yukishiro1 wrote: But they would be overcome if releasing all at once made them more money. That's the point. The reason they do things the way they do is not because they have no choice, but because this makes them more money. I'm puzzled by all the attempts in this thread to justify this on anything other than profit grounds, and the strange way that such defenses actually end up treating GW like some incompetent child incapable of solving even the most basic of problems.
If you're still working with an out of date 8th edition codex, it's not because poor little GW just can't help but leave some people behind for years when a new edition drops despite how much it hurts their heart to do so. It's because it makes GW more money to leave your faction in the dust while they promote other ones, because you or people like you are more likely that way to jump to something else and spend money on that as well.
That doesn't mean GW is evil incarnate or anything like it. But it's silly for people to twist themselves into knots trying to come up with reasons why GW isn't just a profit-oriented company pursuing its profits.
You're kind of arguing my point. GW doesn't do it, because it wouldn't be more profitable -- because the overhead is so much greater.
So that leaves indexes. The 8th edition indexes were bone dry. They could put something out, but it likely isn't going to improve your quality of life in the way you think it might.
No, it's got little to do with overhead, and everything to do with sales. GW's model is based on stirring the pot constantly to prompt people to make new purchases. You don't do that by releasing all the rules at once, you drip them out bit by bit to serve as constant prompts to adapt and try new stuff. Having to languish for a long period of time is a feature, not a bug, because it prompts you to go and spend more money on something that isn't languishing.
It's not even necessarily bad from a game design point of view. It's certainly bad for game *balance*, but there's a decent argument that many players aren't actually looking for balance, and that shaking things up every couple months - even at the expense of balance - produces more player engagement and satisfaction because many players value novelty over balance. The success of games like League of Legends that depend on constantly generating profits through selling intentionally overpowered new characters shows that a lot of players are indeed not only willing to put up with intentionally engineered imbalance, but seem to actually enjoy the variety - and the chance to buy their way to advantage - that such a system allows.
yukishiro1 wrote: No, it's got little to do with overhead, and everything to do with sales. GW's model is based on stirring the pot constantly to prompt people to make new purchases. You don't do that by releasing all the rules at once, you drip them out bit by bit to serve as constant prompts to adapt and try new stuff. Having to languish for a long period of time is a feature, not a bug, because it prompts you to go and spend more money on something that isn't languishing.
It's not even necessarily bad from a game design point of view. It's certainly bad for game *balance*, but there's a decent argument that many players aren't actually looking for balance, and that shaking things up every couple months - even at the expense of balance - produces more player engagement and satisfaction because many players value novelty over balance. The success of games like League of Legends that depend on constantly generating profits through selling intentionally overpowered new characters shows that a lot of players are indeed not only willing to put up with intentionally engineered imbalance, but seem to actually enjoy the variety - and the chance to buy their way to advantage - that such a system allows.
Well, yes, but both things are true in a chicken and egg sort of scenario.
Often I find myself not buying anything when there's nothing for my armies. I don't know how prototypical of a buyer I am. I did jump into Necrons, because I've always loved them and the box was a pretty good value. So, I guess they won that round, but because of the models as well as a codex that was interesting.
What dripping releases does do is create constant buzz and conversation. People are always thinking about GW. GW doesn't necessarily need you to be buying other armies, but they sure would like to tickle your fancy with a new specialist game, video game, or merch. They need you engaged so you are aware when the next thing comes around.
For what it's worth, I agree with the sentiment; I understand that if your book is last in the cycle, you don't get anywhere the amount of play time out of the edition as the lucky ones whose dexes dropped first. And certainly, GW should have released the update with the SM dex which also bumped CSM and GK to W2 and fixed weapon profiles for all armies.
But I don't actually want them to release all the Codexes in one drop; I don't think that's the optimal solution to the problem. I think it would be a confusing mess as those who play multiple armies become blinded by choices or end up studying five dexes at a time. The Codex release cycle spreads the learning out over a year or two, which also provides time for campaign events which influence model updates and dex releases.
I think the dumping of all the dexes on day one leads to an edition that is entirely denouement- like the edition peaks on day one and it's all down hill from there- over on the same day it begins.
I understand the problem- it's a legit complaint. Releasing all the dexes day one is about the worst way to solve that problem- or at least it feels that way to me. So as far as I'm concerned, all the back and forth about whether or not it is possible, and the logistics... None of that matters, because at the core, it's a bad idea. Which is probably why GW doesn't do it.
Any of the FAQ's we've received so far this edition could have solved the Marine wounds issue and the cross faction Melta discrepancy issue. That would have been ideal.
And please remember that under the original schedule, DG would have dropped in December, DA and DE in January, Admech + ? in February, ? + ? in March, and we would be looking at two more books for April.
Now without the update, it's true, you might still be waiting for your CSM or GK to get W2, or your Fire Dragons to get melta, and that would still suck. But the pace would be so fast, you also wouldn't feel like it was going to take forever. And then disaster hits, and here we are.
This weekend's Cursed City release marks the third big release weekend in a row. That seems to be an indicator that some of the manufacturing/ shipping issues are getting worked out. It's still too early to tell, but there is a chance that they will be able to return to the original release schedule some time in Q2.
If so, it will be better for all of us; it may not solve a dex problem immediately, but it would allow us to start thinking about the light at the end of the tunnel, rather than leaving us with the impression that it's going to take forever to get what we need.
It's not even necessarily bad from a game design point of view. It's certainly bad for game *balance*, but there's a decent argument that many players aren't actually looking for balance, and that shaking things up every couple months - even at the expense of balance - produces more player engagement and satisfaction because many players value novelty over balance. The success of games like League of Legends that depend on constantly generating profits through selling intentionally overpowered new characters shows that a lot of players are indeed not only willing to put up with intentionally engineered imbalance, but seem to actually enjoy the variety - and the chance to buy their way to advantage - that such a system allows.
GW's big success lately has come from having something new in one of their products every single week. It keeps people invested in the brand and constantly at the forefront of the social aspects of the genre. It's actually pretty noticeable how much engagement has dropped off in games that are more stabile these days.
yukishiro1 wrote: No, it's got little to do with overhead, and everything to do with sales. GW's model is based on stirring the pot constantly to prompt people to make new purchases. You don't do that by releasing all the rules at once, you drip them out bit by bit to serve as constant prompts to adapt and try new stuff. Having to languish for a long period of time is a feature, not a bug, because it prompts you to go and spend more money on something that isn't languishing.
It's not even necessarily bad from a game design point of view. It's certainly bad for game *balance*, but there's a decent argument that many players aren't actually looking for balance, and that shaking things up every couple months - even at the expense of balance - produces more player engagement and satisfaction because many players value novelty over balance. The success of games like League of Legends that depend on constantly generating profits through selling intentionally overpowered new characters shows that a lot of players are indeed not only willing to put up with intentionally engineered imbalance, but seem to actually enjoy the variety - and the chance to buy their way to advantage - that such a system allows.
So the current cycle is good for sales, good for game design, and good for marketing? Why the hell would GW change?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How the hell is the current cycle good for game design? You're not serious are you?
Well, 8th releases were fast - too fast, because GW wasn't able to be consistent and it showed. His point, I think, is that this pace will produce more consistent books over releasing everything all at once.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How the hell is the current cycle good for game design? You're not serious are you?
Well, 8th releases were fast - too fast, because GW wasn't able to be consistent and it showed. His point, I think, is that this pace will produce more consistent books over releasing everything all at once.
LOL they're still not consistent with design, so please don't pretend they're doing better. Wargear options limited by box? Clear inconsistencies with subfaction traits, keeping in mind we're barely into the edition as well? GW still not figuring out core problems that were complained about like with Dark Eldar auras and yet y'all lap it up anyway? You're just thinking adding some more rules = GW good at this point to be honest. Adding Trueborn and Bloodbrides made y'all forget to look at the big picture because you're distracted by that fan service.
Deadnight wrote:There will.still be multiple writers, artists, reviewers, editors, regs, qa, legal, sales, marketing, production, worldwode distribution, storage etc etc. The smallest part of writing a codex is, well,writing the codex. There's a lot of people involved in all aspects of getting a codex into your hands. There's thousands of work hours that go into each codex.
-- These people are not working in sequence though, they're working concurrently. The artists can work without having to wait for the writers to finish. You can standardise the format/typeset etc of the books and thus you're really only doing that work once. And for some numbers; 50 people doing 7 hours of quality work per day can generate 1,750 hours of work per week. That's 7,000 hours per month. You're turning this into an engineers kettle, e.g. you're taking something that isn't actually that difficult for the companies that do it for a living and you're trying to make it sound like it's building and launching a space shuttle. Oddly enough, companies like GW will hire people who now how to do these things. They hire professionals who know how to format a book, who know how to edit it etc, professionals who can take responsibility without spending three years arguing over where to put a comma.
Spoiler:
And by the way, some movies get done in a year. But it's actually very frequently thr case that movies go through a development cycle of a decade before the films start rolling. It's annoying for sure, but there are a lot of reasons and happenstance that feed into this.
-- This is actually a myth, driven by high profile cases where an IP languishes in development hell. I believe someone did a reddit post on this once and worked out that the average since 2000 was actually around 1.5 years, skewed in large part by some of the more onerous cases.
Spoiler:
Slipspace wrote:... two have what could charitably be described as a stock room....
....There just isn't space to store 20 different boxes of books.
... Books and models would all have to be ready at the same time, which is not going to happen without one or the other sitting around for years waiting for release.
-- It's quite common for small stores to have very small stock rooms. My local GW store literally has what used to be a small back office, but now contains stacks of product piled up against the walls. But I would describe your experience generously as an "exaggeration" of how little actual space all these multiple stores in your vicinity just happen to have. For example, any kind of reasonably sized commercial property will be legally bound to have certain amenities like a toilet (at least for staff) and meet certain fire code regulations like a secondary exit. To find such a property you're likely going through an agent, and the property will almost certainly come with some kind of small space to use as an office/stockroom. What your describing is a property big enough to be a games store, but not big enough to accomodate even a small stock space beyond an alcove. To put it charitably this sounds like complete and utter nonsense, manufactured for the sake on an argument on the Internet.
To your second point, again, you're not storing twenty different boxes of books. And again, if these stores really exist in the manner you describe, chances are they're already losing customers because of an inability to hold sufficinet stock levels, so your argument is basically moot. You're arguing pretty much for the sake of arguing at his point.
To your final point, you can release a model later that isn't in the book. That's why you release it with the rules included. Again, GW have done this themselves. This is literally something they do and have been doing in various guises for years. The issue is having rules in place without a model to go with it, which you just don't do. Again, like others, you're making this sound like it's the most difficult thing in the world, like somehow GW are this dysfunctional group of weirdos who can barely tie their shoes in the morning, rather than a medium sized corporate entitiy with a lot of money and decades of experience in their field.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How the hell is the current cycle good for game design? You're not serious are you?
Well, 8th releases were fast - too fast, because GW wasn't able to be consistent and it showed. His point, I think, is that this pace will produce more consistent books over releasing everything all at once.
LOL they're still not consistent with design, so please don't pretend they're doing better. Wargear options limited by box? Clear inconsistencies with subfaction traits, keeping in mind we're barely into the edition as well? GW still not figuring out core problems that were complained about like with Dark Eldar auras and yet y'all lap it up anyway? You're just thinking adding some more rules = GW good at this point to be honest. Adding Trueborn and Bloodbrides made y'all forget to look at the big picture because you're distracted by that fan service.
Sure. Auras from transports most important thing. Nothing else matters. Got it.
bouncingboredom wrote: The issue is having rules in place without a model to go with it, which you just don't do.
Well, except for Heavy Intercessors, & Necron Chronomancers. Eventually, 6(?) months later, bundled into another game....
There's likely other examples just from 8th & 9th.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How the hell is the current cycle good for game design? You're not serious are you?
Well, 8th releases were fast - too fast, because GW wasn't able to be consistent and it showed. His point, I think, is that this pace will produce more consistent books over releasing everything all at once.
LOL they're still not consistent with design, so please don't pretend they're doing better. Wargear options limited by box? Clear inconsistencies with subfaction traits, keeping in mind we're barely into the edition as well? GW still not figuring out core problems that were complained about like with Dark Eldar auras and yet y'all lap it up anyway? You're just thinking adding some more rules = GW good at this point to be honest. Adding Trueborn and Bloodbrides made y'all forget to look at the big picture because you're distracted by that fan service.
Just because GW didn't give you your wishlist doesn't mean they are doing a bad job with rules.
Are there misfires within each Codex? Definitely.
Are their codexes getting better? Yes, they are.
bouncingboredom wrote: The issue is having rules in place without a model to go with it, which you just don't do.
Well, except for Heavy Intercessors, & Necron Chronomancers. Eventually, 6(?) months later, bundled into another game....
There's likely other examples just from 8th & 9th.
Or as has been pointed out many, many times Celestians and Dominions.
More recently, Trueborn, Blood Brides and Haemoxicytes, but they are virtual units, so they may not be as strong an example.
Blackie wrote:I think current release of codexes is already massive. A codex every 2-3 years at most, or even one every 18 months considering supplements, is something I don't like at all, especially in an era of frequent rounds of FAQs and points changes. A codex every 5 years should be the standard. No supplements.
A codex every 5 years? That's means we would be getting the first Codex: Space Marines with Chapter Traits this year (the one where you can pick 1-2 changes, but if you choose 2, you take a deficit). People would literally think the game is dead with that much time between releases.
Or did you mean that the codex of an army should be every 5 years? Because that is not what you were saying.
Earth127 wrote:The problem is that codices/ the game do not drive the release schedule. Model releases drive the schedule, codices/supplements/everything else just has to follow.
Pretty much. To say that a codex is an advertisement of new models is not hyperbole. For a long time Games Workshop has claimed to be a modeling company, not a game company. The books are just reasons for people to get new models or buy more of them. It only got worse since a certain decision was handed down.
I just think it's sad how they've divorced Codices from significant miniature releases.
In 8th it made sense. It was a completely new set of rules, and the previous books were not backwards compatible, so they had to get through and release them all simply so people could play the game (this is also the reason Indices existed, despite people clamouring for them at the start of 9th as well, which made no sense).
But the books are out now. Everyone has an 8th compatible and 9th backwards compatible Codex. Yet still we get releases like the Dark Eldar one, which came with a whole new model, and a remake of a special character at that. They could have used the release to give us updated Grotesques/Mandrakes/Beastmaster/Court to move the remnants of the old FineCost into a 100% plastic range. Or, even failing that, they could have introduced new units. Imagine that.
But no, here's another Lilith, a Lilith you can't even buy yet because she was locked behind a battlebox paywall FFS.
Gert wrote: I feel like most of these complaints could be solved by not buying from GW. I mean it seems pretty simple to me that if you hate the way they operate and have all your old rules then why not just play those instead?
Of course, this is the internet and as I have not crucified GW for daring to make boatloads of money under capitalism, I must be a paid shill.
I already did. With the exception of some model that I simply can't live without, of which that list is mercilessly short, I either scour resale sites or 3p minis. The only problem is that when they lose people like me, they jack the prices up even higher and the whales continue to sink bank in. I honestly think some of these people would pay $300 for a 10 person squad of literally any army.
H.B.M.C. wrote: In 8th it made sense. It was a completely new set of rules, and the previous books were not backwards compatible, so they had to get through and release them all simply so people could play the game (this is also the reason Indices existed, despite people clamouring for them at the start of 9th as well, which made no sense).
Eh, Start of Edition Indices makes some sense as a starting balance point, allowing for point updates, etc, especially for the older codices but that could be handled with a quick PDF errata that you don't buy.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But the books are out now. Everyone has an 8th compatible and 9th backwards compatible Codex. Yet still we get releases like the Dark Eldar one, which came with a whole new model, and a remake of a special character at that. They could have used the release to give us updated Grotesques/Mandrakes/Beastmaster/Court to move the remnants of the old FineCost into a 100% plastic range. Or, even failing that, they could have introduced new units. Imagine that.
But no, here's another Lilith, a Lilith you can't even buy yet because she was locked behind a battlebox paywall FFS.
And the new model isn't the most well-received model either. A lot of Whiskey Tangoing with the Foxtrot is definitely felt here. In cases where there aren't a few new units (like Squig Riders) or rebuilding of old units (like Necron Warriors), it does feel like a cash grab.
bouncingboredom wrote: [spoiler] These people are not working in sequence though, they're working concurrently. The artists can work without having to wait for the writers to finish. You can standardise the format/typeset etc of the books and thus you're really only doing that work once. And for some numbers; 50 people doing 7 hours of quality work per day can generate 1,750 hours of work per week. That's 7,000 hours per month. You're turning this into an engineers kettle, e.g. you're taking something that isn't actually that difficult for the companies that do it for a living and you're trying to make it sound like it's building and launching a space shuttle. Oddly enough, companies like GW will hire people who now how to do these things. They hire professionals who know how to format a book, who know how to edit it etc, professionals who can take responsibility without spending three years arguing over where to put a comma.
And you are still missing the point and willfully ignoring the logistics and daily grind.
They're already doing all of that. of course they'll hire professionals. They've been hiring professionals since the early 90s. And those 'professional' editors and formatters who've spent years editing and formatting don't just glance at a stack of papers, sign it off and magic it done. They'll painstakingly go through it all and check. Because that's what that kind of job involves. In other words, these things take time.
Here's the thing. They're already doing that example 7000 hours of work on the current model.with different teams doing different things and at slightly different stages in the pipeline. All aimed at 1 codex released at a time and the other various thousand things a day that need to be dealt with. And I guarantee you the staff will complain about both the release schedules, their workloads and all the damned deadlines.
Now multiply it by twenty or thirty for a simultaneous release. And consider how workload spawns workload (ever hear the phrase 'the project grew arms and legs'?). Consider the logistics and other requirements. Because That's the issue. Again, it's an astronomical amount of work for absolutely no benefit at the other end.
Blackie wrote:I think current release of codexes is already massive. A codex every 2-3 years at most, or even one every 18 months considering supplements, is something I don't like at all, especially in an era of frequent rounds of FAQs and points changes. A codex every 5 years should be the standard. No supplements.
A codex every 5 years? That's means we would be getting the first Codex: Space Marines with Chapter Traits this year (the one where you can pick 1-2 changes, but if you choose 2, you take a deficit). People would literally think the game is dead with that much time between releases.
Or did you mean that the codex of an army should be every 5 years? Because that is not what you were saying.
Yes sorry, I though it was clear but probably it was not. I meant each codex should last 5 years before being updated with a new one. Not only 2-3, or even 18 months.
Several codex are perfectly fine even if they belong to a previous edition. There's really no need to update everything as soon as possible with a new book, especially now because as I said before GW frequently releases FAQs and points changes.
If GW didn't try to shake up the game with new editions, additions(PA, Campaign books etc) and unbalanced rules all the time a codex could last for a long time and still work well. They could then just release a new codex whenever there were new miniatures for that range and/or the additions/changes over multiple years of campaign books have become unwieldy and need consolidation again. Be it 18 months or 54 months between a factions codex releases without a faction feeling left behind
But since they don't want to improve the game over the editions but instead are content with changing the game, be it for good or bad, factions being left behind is a feature. They could release all the rules, at least online, if they wanted to buy there wouldn't be much of a point in doing that with their vision of the game.
In a perfect world GW would want to improve the game over the years and slowly have 40k become a perfect game with well balanced rules. All the changes to drive sells would be done carefully and mostly done through rotating missions, small additions/replacement of new models and not through sweeping changes that turn the game upside down ever 3 years due to edition changes and each faction every 2 years due to new books. They could if they wanted to.
You don't have to do much to change the meta of a game to drive sales. You don't even have to change core rules or codex rules that invalidate parts of a book. By changing missions, be it turn length, deployment, scoring methods, objectives etc you can completely change how the game is played without invalidating a single line in codexes or main rule book.
I haven't bought a 40k book since I came back because they just aren't worth the money. GW could release books at the same pace as they are doing but just make them good and I would have bought a few. Don't have books invalidate other books and you immediately raised the value of each book. Have the books have a better focus and not rely on as many other books and they also become better value. A supplement slightly cheaper than a codex for a faction 12-24 months after a codex release that gives a ton of new options and playstyles, and incorporates any new models released, but isn't a requirement for your faction to even function outside of narrative play is a good supplement. A more expensive book that is released a long side or just right after that only have a few pages at most of rules but for multiple factions and is filled with very varied content is a bad book.
bouncingboredom wrote: The issue is having rules in place without a model to go with it, which you just don't do.
Well, except for Heavy Intercessors, & Necron Chronomancers. Eventually, 6(?) months later, bundled into another game....
There's likely other examples just from 8th & 9th.
Or as has been pointed out many, many times Celestians and Dominions.
Celestians and Dominions exist. They're in one of the first kits for the sisters revamp, with their full range of options right out of the box (except multimelta for Celestians, but that's lacking for basic battle sisters too).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How the hell is the current cycle good for game design? You're not serious are you?
Well, 8th releases were fast - too fast, because GW wasn't able to be consistent and it showed. His point, I think, is that this pace will produce more consistent books over releasing everything all at once.
LOL they're still not consistent with design, so please don't pretend they're doing better. Wargear options limited by box? Clear inconsistencies with subfaction traits, keeping in mind we're barely into the edition as well? GW still not figuring out core problems that were complained about like with Dark Eldar auras and yet y'all lap it up anyway? You're just thinking adding some more rules = GW good at this point to be honest. Adding Trueborn and Bloodbrides made y'all forget to look at the big picture because you're distracted by that fan service.
Sure. Auras from transports most important thing. Nothing else matters. Got it.
There's already other problems I pointed out, but there ya go being distracted by the fan service that makes you think GW is doing any good LOL
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How the hell is the current cycle good for game design? You're not serious are you?
Well, 8th releases were fast - too fast, because GW wasn't able to be consistent and it showed. His point, I think, is that this pace will produce more consistent books over releasing everything all at once.
LOL they're still not consistent with design, so please don't pretend they're doing better. Wargear options limited by box? Clear inconsistencies with subfaction traits, keeping in mind we're barely into the edition as well? GW still not figuring out core problems that were complained about like with Dark Eldar auras and yet y'all lap it up anyway? You're just thinking adding some more rules = GW good at this point to be honest. Adding Trueborn and Bloodbrides made y'all forget to look at the big picture because you're distracted by that fan service.
Just because GW didn't give you your wishlist doesn't mean they are doing a bad job with rules.
Are there misfires within each Codex? Definitely.
Are their codexes getting better? Yes, they are.
Getting better means nothing when you look at previous atrocities to overall game design. "It could be worse" is literally never an argument in your favor.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: There's already other problems I pointed out, but there ya go being distracted by the fan service that makes you think GW is doing any good LOL
If you say so. You can be upset while everyone else has fun, I guess.
Blackie wrote:Several codex are perfectly fine even if they belong to a previous edition. There's really no need to update everything as soon as possible with a new book, especially now because as I said before GW frequently releases FAQs and points changes.
Some do, some don't. It is important when new models come out, because of their need for basic information. I mean sure, they could do the Warscroll method of AoS, but sometimes changes to stats or special rules is needed to get a model line to sell due to the "competitive or nothing" crowd.
However as has been pointed out, their model line is what drives the codex development, over all. It is very rare for them to release a new model without a codex. A replacement model has happened, but say something like Noise Terminators has never come out without a codex having it at the same time or first (in case of the Chronomancer).
Celestians and Dominions exist. They're in one of the first kits for the sisters revamp, with their full range of options right out of the box (except multimelta for Celestians, but that's lacking for basic battle sisters too).
The point is that since Celestians and Doms are represented by the same models which represent Battle Sisters, there technically are no models for those two data cards. I was responding to someone who dropped the whole "No model, no rules" argument in order to demonstrate that yes, in fact there are rules that do not have models, and to demonstrate that GW has always been selective about their enforcement of this policy.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: There's already other problems I pointed out, but there ya go being distracted by the fan service that makes you think GW is doing any good LOL
If you say so. You can be upset while everyone else has fun, I guess.
People were having fun in 7th too. What's your point?
Celestians and Dominions exist. They're in one of the first kits for the sisters revamp, with their full range of options right out of the box (except multimelta for Celestians, but that's lacking for basic battle sisters too).
The point is that since Celestians and Doms are represented by the same models which represent Battle Sisters, there technically are no models for those two data cards. I was responding to someone who dropped the whole "No model, no rules" argument in order to demonstrate that yes, in fact there are rules that do not have models, and to demonstrate that GW has always been selective about their enforcement of this policy.
There are technically models for Celestians & Doms.
They're represented by different heads on the sprue.
It's a multi kit in the same way a SM Repulsor x/y/z is. X= one gun set up, y = another. & x a third. Just here your choosing wich head to use....
Celestians and Dominions exist. They're in one of the first kits for the sisters revamp, with their full range of options right out of the box (except multimelta for Celestians, but that's lacking for basic battle sisters too).
The point is that since Celestians and Doms are represented by the same models which represent Battle Sisters, there technically are no models for those two data cards. I was responding to someone who dropped the whole "No model, no rules" argument in order to demonstrate that yes, in fact there are rules that do not have models, and to demonstrate that GW has always been selective about their enforcement of this policy.
You're trying for a very bizarre 'but technically' gotcha, but the facts prove _you_ wrong.
You might as well argue that venomthropes and burna-boyz don't exist, because they come out of dual kits and use the same bodies as lootas and zoanthropes.
It is factually wrong that people were having as fun in 7th as in 9th. Many, many people stopped playing thanks to 7th. Much more people is playing both 8th and now 9th (With the exception of covid related problems of course).
Celestians and Dominions exist. They're in one of the first kits for the sisters revamp, with their full range of options right out of the box (except multimelta for Celestians, but that's lacking for basic battle sisters too).
The point is that since Celestians and Doms are represented by the same models which represent Battle Sisters, there technically are no models for those two data cards. I was responding to someone who dropped the whole "No model, no rules" argument in order to demonstrate that yes, in fact there are rules that do not have models, and to demonstrate that GW has always been selective about their enforcement of this policy.
You're trying for a very bizarre 'but technically' gotcha, but the facts prove _you_ wrong.
You might as well argue that venomthropes and burna-boyz don't exist, because they come out of dual kits and use the same bodies as lootas and zoanthropes.
The thing about Venomthropes is that all the models in the unit look different from all the models in a Zoanthrope unit.
And yes, I was wrong about Celestians- you are correct, GW did officially say in print that the Fleur de Lis helmets are Celestian helmets, so yes, that puts them in the same category as venom/ zoathropes.
Doms, on the other hand, are models without a kit in that a Dom armed with a Storm Bolter is physically identical to a Battle Sister armed with a Storm Bolter.
I don't know anything about Orks- I've never had enough of an interest in the faction to buy a dex- so I can't say for sure if they are in the same boat as Doms; it hinges on how their load out is written- are the Burnas they use also available to a unit of Boyz in a lesser concentration, is the Burna the default weapon for a Burna-Boy, or do basic Burna Boyz come with Shootas by default, etc. But it seems like the argument could be made that they are a unit without a model.
A true dual build box would provide the ability to build models that look different from each other- your example of Zoanthropes/ Venomthropes is a great example of an actual dual kit- no Zoathrope looks like any of the Venomthropes, despite sharing many of the same components. And you are right that this applies to Celestians vs Battle Sisters, because yes, if you build according to GW's guidance, none of the Celestians will look like the Battle Sisters. And so yes, regarding Celestians, I stand corrected- there are models which represent their distinctiveness. I was wrong.
I still contend that Doms are a grey area at best. If you look at a single Dom and a single Battle Sister, there is no visible difference between the two. Even when you see two full squads side by side, you can't tell the difference, since a squad of Doms toting nothing but bolters is a legal choice.
Interestingly enough though, before I responded, I took a look over the last two pages to make sure I was aware of context, and it became clear that the "no model, no rules" issue found its way into this thread as a justification for NOT releasing all the dexes at once. Personally, I think releasing all the dexes day one would be a bad idea that would significantly diminish engagement and novelty. I feel like it would suck all the life out of the hobby. As I said in a previous post, releasing all the dexes at once would make it feel like the edition was already over on the day it began.
As such, I probably should have jumped on the "Yeah, they can't do that because "no model, no rules" train," or at the very least, avoided posting against an idea that supports my overall position on the larger issue, even if I do disagree with the idea itself.
It honestly isn't better than 7th in the same way 8th wasn't better than 7th. We're barely into the edition and there's already DLC for the codices released, which was a primary complaint of 7th to begin with and why many people quit (on top of Power Creep, which already happened quickly in 8th and we are gonna see in 9th, looking at how the Dark Angels and Dark Eldar were written).
But no, GW has social media so therefore change LOL
Galas wrote:It is factually wrong that people were having as fun in 7th as in 9th. Many, many people stopped playing thanks to 7th. Much more people is playing both 8th and now 9th (With the exception of covid related problems of course).
Well, I think the pandemic scare has definitely contributed to it, but consider this one thing. At this point in 9th Edition, we're roughly at about the same point as Necron's release in 7th Edition. There was no Gladius at this point and people were just starting to explore the Decurion, just a hodge podge of Formations that had been coming out, with some of the worst being tail-ends of 6th Edition combined with the poor writing of the rules. Honestly, the only complaint I heard about the Decurion was the fact that no one else had one. Then the Gladius came out and people really started flying the coop.
A lot of people dropped during 7th, but not all at the same time, so not all for the same reason. For some it was the explosion of Special Rules. For others it was the army building shenanigans, particularly the Gladius Detachment. I know of one guy who left everything he had been playing because he could play X-Wing without worrying about the hobby side of the game and the rules were relatively tight. For myself, it was the Grand FAQ that caused me to drop 40K. I took a break for a few years, but I've been popping back in because people are playing this and not so much with WarmaHordes.
A lot of people dropped during 7th, but not all at the same time, so not all for the same reason. For some it was the explosion of Special Rules. For others it was the army building shenanigans, particularly the Gladius Detachment.
Mostly it was just for rebuying an edition for a few pages of minimal errata to the 6th edition book, and shoehorning the most broken and exploitative magic system WFB ever used in as the returned 'psychic phase.'
The ridiculous stuff in the various army books were just crap layered on an already bad sandwich.
A lot of people dropped during 7th, but not all at the same time, so not all for the same reason. For some it was the explosion of Special Rules. For others it was the army building shenanigans, particularly the Gladius Detachment.
Mostly it was just for rebuying an edition for a few pages of minimal errata to the 6th edition book, and shoehorning the most broken and exploitative magic system WFB ever used in as the returned 'psychic phase.'
The ridiculous stuff in the various army books were just crap layered on an already bad sandwich.
That may have been for you and your group, but I talked to a lot of people around this time, particularly since I was still trying to sell of some Crusader-style Marines, and there was a lot of discussion here about people leaving and why, and it wasn't a small amount that left later rather than earlier which Edition jank would signify.
It honestly isn't better than 7th in the same way 8th wasn't better than 7th. We're barely into the edition and there's already DLC for the codices released, which was a primary complaint of 7th to begin with and why many people quit (on top of Power Creep, which already happened quickly in 8th and we are gonna see in 9th, looking at how the Dark Angels and Dark Eldar were written).
But no, GW has social media so therefore change LOL
i.e. You just hate everything. "LOL"
People did not quit 7th over having to get DLC. They quit, because that DLC was poorly thought out. I guess we'll see how DA and DE do soon enough.
You know someone is detached from reality when they use the 'all GW did was add social media and people started liking them again' argument. If someone is willing to give voice to something so clearly, objectively wrong then it certainly does not give much confidence in anything else they have to say.
ccs wrote:Well, except for Heavy Intercessors, & Necron Chronomancers. Eventually, 6(?) months later, bundled into another game....
There's likely other examples just from 8th & 9th.
-- So your complaint is that something you think is happening already might also happen with a different release model? That doesn't make any sense.
Spoiler:
Deadnight wrote:... And those 'professional' editors and formatters who've spent years editing and formatting don't just glance at a stack of papers, sign it off and magic it done. They'll painstakingly go through it all and check. Because that's what that kind of job involves. In other words, these things take time. Here's the thing. They're already doing that example 7000 hours of work on the current model.with different teams doing different things and at slightly different stages in the pipeline. All aimed at 1 codex released at a time and the other various thousand things a day that need to be dealt with. And I guarantee you the staff will complain about both the release schedules, their workloads and all the damned deadlines.
-- Which is why, as has been explained many, many, many, many times now, you would neither want nor need to release 20+ codexes every month. To achieve what the OP is suggesting you would have a set of codexes that came out shortly after the release of a new edition and then you wouldn't have to touch them again for several years. YEARS. Plural. You would have years to work on them. Or do you really think professional editors are so incompetent that a small team of say three couldn't handle editing material over that kind of time span, even with around 80% of the material just being recycled? Again we come back to the engineers kettle; you're trying to take a problem that is fairly routine for the people that do it for a living and turning it into some kind of monumental task that would require all of NASA's energy devoted to it for a decade.
And I think it's foolish to suggest the OP's suggestion has absolutely no merits. It does. The question is whether they are worth the risks that accompany any change of approach. Fundamentally GW is not overly concerned with balance. Despite the amusing caricatures of GW as Saturday morning cartoon villians whose nerfarious scheme is to rob you of your money by progressively upping the power level and rendering your old army obsolete so you have to go out and buy a brand new one to keep up, the reality is that they likely just don't care about tournament lists and which army is achieveing what % in some given tournament ruleset. Those players probably make up a tiny fraction of the total player base and instead they're just expecting players to be sensible when playing with their friends. If you're smashing your mate down the street to oblivion every time, just take less points, or let him/her take more. Or both. As such codex balance is of a minor, passing interest to them, beyond the base requirment to at least attempt to keep things moderately aligned power rise.
ccs wrote:Well, except for Heavy Intercessors, & Necron Chronomancers. Eventually, 6(?) months later, bundled into another game....
There's likely other examples just from 8th & 9th.
-- So your complaint is that something you think is happening already might also happen with a different release model? That doesn't make any sense.
As you've misconstrued it as a complaint of course it doesn't make sense.
It's an observation of fact. GW has (very recently!) indeed released stats for units with no models for sale. And I'm 100% certain they'll do it again.
Oh, wait, they're doing it right now: https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-US/Imperial-Armour-Compendium-2020-FW I'm certain this also applies to the Horus Heresy books as well.
*Though in the case of the FW books it's because they're discontinuing models vs not having made them yet.... Either way, same result: Rules but no models.
[spoiler]
Which is why, as has been explained many, many, many, many times now, you would neither want nor need to release 20+ codexes every month. To achieve what the OP is suggesting you would have a set of codexes that came out shortly after the release of a new edition and then you wouldn't have to touch them again for several years. YEARS. Plural. You would have years to work on them. Or do you really think professional editors are so incompetent that a small team of say three couldn't handle editing material over that kind of time span, even with around 80% of the material just being recycled? Again we come back to the engineers kettle; you're trying to take a problem that is fairly routine for the people that do it for a living and turning it into some kind of monumental task that would require all of NASA's energy devoted to it for a decade.
Point where I said every month. I'm getting tired of you constantly misrepresenting me.
Im all for people explaining things, especidlly stuff I don't know, but dont appreciate people trying to sell me a bogus idea based on a worse plan and being unwilling to listen in turn.
This has got a lot less to do with an engineers kettle and a lot more to it just plainly being a really bad idea.
Do I think the editors are incompetent? I think that's a poorly phrased and loaded question. I think its a detail focused job made incredibly difficult by boyh high workload and tight deadlines. I think currently things slip through anyway. I think overloading them with 30 times as much work for a release in a tiny window would lead to a lot more things slipping through.
it's nothing to do with engineering and everything to do with bandwidth and logistics.theres a hell of a lot of questions you are just shrugging off and magically wishing answers into being. Ot just plain outright ignoring.
Youre talking about working on a new edition while simultaneously working on having 30 codices ready to with it. In a 4 year time frame. Simultaneous unless you want one yo have 4 years development time and one to have 3 months. OK are we printing them all at the end?. Can the printers actually even accommodate this? Can gw store this prior to moving it Getting? Getting that much material out around thr world and managing it is incredibly challenging right now both for gw, for their distribution chain and for the retailers at the other end. Or Are we printing these thirty codices bit by bit and storing them.somewhere for 4 years? What's to stop leaks? Imagine the storage costs. Also, One nerd with a camera finding this horde and your whole 4 year plan is ruined. What happens if people leave or project parameters and priorities change? They can't, you've committed to a 4 year project with defined milestones. What about model release? Are we holding off on all new models for 4 years? Again, are we going to overload the manufacturing department right at the end, with this unworkable glut of new kits for thirty new codices or are we just manufacturing the kits and storing them somewhere? Are you dropping 30x codices worth of kits, somehow promoting them all to the level you'd get if you released them individually, and matching the sales youd get from an individual.release? It's laughable. And again, storage costs if you're just holding them until release date. gw makes its money on release of a new kit. Thr vast majority of the sales of a new kit are within the first few months. Are we not releasing anything for 4 years until the big codex drop? Or are we just releasing new models anyway and just releasing new rules in white dwarf and just skipping the lore? And if we are doing this anyway why not release the codex with it as holding a codex for years whilst the models are released anyway is kind of pointless. Are we doing development work on these rules concurrently to the work on 40 codices? Thats a serious amount of extra work right there. What's the point in a codex then? Pp tried this route and ended up shooting themselves in the foot.
And ultimately, let's say you do drop 30 codices right after a new release. Can you guarantee this approach will not affect the sales. We sell know the sales model gw has. Dumps like this aren't particularly viable.
I will repeat what I've said earlier. Accommodation of this approach is incredibly logistically challenging for no payback. Financially it makes no sense. Logistically it's an absolute bloody nightmare.
And you're wrong about one other thing.
achieve what the OP is suggesting you would have a set of codexes that came out shortly after the release of a new edition and then you wouldn't have to touch them again for several years. YEARS.
You'd be on the next wave of codices right after these ones dropped. With a new 4 year plan. Everyone tied up in work that won't see any £££ for four years. And no guarantee if the financial returns are worth the investment (hint: theyre probably not).
Logistics aside, having all codizes release at the same time would probably yield significantly lower earnings compared to a staggered release. Building anticipation with faction specific themed weeks/months allows people to "fall" for every new release while having all of them at the same time will likely result in them buying just one or two.
GW wanting to fix issues like power creep and handicapped factions is not very likely tbh. These factors are useful in incentivising purchases and, even if they were to be addressed, will not be high enough on their list of priorities to have them overhaul their entire production and release schedule.
Blackie wrote:Several codex are perfectly fine even if they belong to a previous edition. There's really no need to update everything as soon as possible with a new book, especially now because as I said before GW frequently releases FAQs and points changes.
Some do, some don't. It is important when new models come out, because of their need for basic information. I mean sure, they could do the Warscroll method of AoS, but sometimes changes to stats or special rules is needed to get a model line to sell due to the "competitive or nothing" crowd.
However as has been pointed out, their model line is what drives the codex development, over all. It is very rare for them to release a new model without a codex. A replacement model has happened, but say something like Noise Terminators has never come out without a codex having it at the same time or first (in case of the Chronomancer).
And it's very common to see a codex without a single release. Let alone several new releases. So what's the point of constantly upgrading the rules if models are basically the same for years, if not decades? The only reason behind that is that GW wants to sell more books in the short period. New models aren't mandatory for players, new books are.
It's not about selling more books really, it's mainly about selling more models by hyping the faction and changing the rules for them so people go out and buy different stuff. Look at the way online MOBAs work, it's very similar. Every few months you shake things up, making stuff that's bad good, good stuff bad, releasing a new overpowered hero that people will buy en masse only to then nerf it a few months later and replace it with another, etc.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's not about selling more books really, it's mainly about selling more models by hyping the faction and changing the rules for them so people go out and buy different stuff. Look at the way online MOBAs work, it's very similar. Every few months you shake things up, making stuff that's bad good, good stuff bad, releasing a new overpowered hero that people will buy en masse only to then nerf it a few months later and replace it with another, etc.
And this is why chasing the dragon is bad.....if you're dumb enuff to do it, you have zero right to complain(unless it's about how moronic you are). Cuz NO ONE is holding a gun to your head and if they are...you are in a pretty tough spot.
Not directed at anyone in particular, just wish more people would understand it.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's not about selling more books really, it's mainly about selling more models by hyping the faction and changing the rules for them so people go out and buy different stuff. Look at the way online MOBAs work, it's very similar. Every few months you shake things up, making stuff that's bad good, good stuff bad, releasing a new overpowered hero that people will buy en masse only to then nerf it a few months later and replace it with another, etc.
What is it that GW is selling to people when they increased the capacities of venoms and raiders - things that most veteran DE players own? How many times do people reference their hellions that they never put on the table, because they weren't great?
The only new model they have they put behind a box and they didn't make her decisively better than the other options.
GW just needs engagement. Models will follow. An interesting book creates just as much buzz and a busted one ( in my estimation ).
The venom and raider thing is actually a perfect example of MOBA design. You didn't see raiders in 8th, it was all venoms; now it's all raiders. Sure, some people have both - but you can't get those people to buy more period, obviously, because they already have everything. So they're a lost cause. Plenty of people had 6 venoms but no raiders or maybe only one, though, or maybe they had 6 raiders back in the day but sold them so now they have zero...you get the idea.
Additionally, and GW is well aware of this, the average 40k player started in 8th (or returned after a long hiatus). They don't have a full collection of multiples of every kit in even one range, not by a long shot.
I don't think GW is really even competent enough to specifcally overtune or undertune things (aside from infamous stuff like the wraithknight), but it doesn't need to - the normal process of stirring the pot naturally causes certain things to rise to the top and certain things to sink down, they don't need to specifically push something down or pull something up.
yukishiro1 wrote: It seems to be what's wanted, though. In game after game, it produces solid financial results.
"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your "perfect world". But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from." - Agent Smith
yukishiro1 wrote: The venom and raider thing is actually a perfect example of MOBA design. You didn't see raiders in 8th, it was all venoms; now it's all raiders. Sure, some people have both - but you can't get those people to buy more period, obviously, because they already have everything. So they're a lost cause. Plenty of people had 6 venoms but no raiders or maybe only one, though, or maybe they had 6 raiders back in the day but sold them so now they have zero...you get the idea.
Additionally, and GW is well aware of this, the average 40k player started in 8th (or returned after a long hiatus). They don't have a full collection of multiples of every kit in even one range, not by a long shot.
I don't think GW is really even competent enough to specifcally overtune or undertune things (aside from infamous stuff like the wraithknight), but it doesn't need to - the normal process of stirring the pot naturally causes certain things to rise to the top and certain things to sink down, they don't need to specifically push something down or pull something up.
What sunk to the bottom?
The things that were popular are still popular and now everything else outside of beasts are popular. People that really like wyches, reavers, and hellions will run wyches, reavers, and hellions. People that really like boats with do that. People that love covens will use those.
Last edition, covens were the strongest part of DE. Now they're the weakest. Last edition, Venom was the strongest transport, now it's the weakest. The fact that they aren't as weak as their counterparts in 8th doesn't mean there haven't been winners and losers, there are always winners and losers from a new codex and it is part of what makes the system tick. GW is neither capable of nor has any interest in perfect balance, a certain amount of imbalance is what drives a significant % of its sales and they're not dumb enough not to know that.
yukishiro1 wrote: Last edition, covens were the strongest part of DE. Now they're the weakest. Last edition, Venom was the strongest transport, now it's the weakest. The fact that they aren't as weak as their counterparts in 8th doesn't mean there haven't been winners and losers, there are always winners and losers from a new codex and it is part of what makes the system tick. GW is neither capable of nor has any interest in perfect balance, a certain amount of imbalance is what drives a significant % of its sales and they're not dumb enough not to know that.
Then they sure haven't been very consistent at it if they're smart enough to realize it.
This whole string of logic presupposes that GW deliberately made DE transports bad so they could then sell them again 3 years later. That sounds quite stupid if you ask me.
ccs wrote:As you've misconstrued it as a complaint of course it doesn't make sense.
-- Someone (I'm presuming now not you) complained that releasing the dexes in one dump would lead to rules without models. If it is occurring already then it renders that argument moot. (The general GW practice, as has been told by a number of ex-employees, is that the model comes first, then the lore, then finally someone is asked to make rules for it).
Spoiler:
Deadnight wrote:You're talking about working on a new edition while simultaneously working on having 30 codices ready to with it. In a 4 year time frame...
What about model release? Are we holding off on all new models for 4 years?....
You'd be on the next wave of codices right after these ones dropped. With a new 4 year plan. Everyone tied up in work that won't see any £££ for four years...
-- You realise the people that write the rules and the people that do the lore etc are often not the same people? (outside of the specialist games) GW has in the past produced entirely new editions of a game, along with entirely new "get you by" lists in as little as two years, with a smaller team than it has now. Again, you're complaining about something being impossible that has not only been done before, but done by GW. Honestly a lot of your complaints can be solved by just not looking at each problem in the stupidest and most ridiculous manner possible. Many of the answers have already been given, multiple times, so you can go back and read those rather than me repeating them here. Again. For example your second question in the quote above.
As for your last comment, complaining about people working on things that won't produce income for a while, that seems an extremely odd thing to moan about for someone that works for a pharmaceutical company.
yukishiro1 wrote: Last edition, covens were the strongest part of DE. Now they're the weakest. Last edition, Venom was the strongest transport, now it's the weakest. The fact that they aren't as weak as their counterparts in 8th doesn't mean there haven't been winners and losers, there are always winners and losers from a new codex and it is part of what makes the system tick. GW is neither capable of nor has any interest in perfect balance, a certain amount of imbalance is what drives a significant % of its sales and they're not dumb enough not to know that.
Then they sure haven't been very consistent at it if they're smart enough to realize it.
This whole string of logic presupposes that GW deliberately made DE transports bad so they could then sell them again 3 years later. That sounds quite stupid if you ask me.
Aye, sounds like the same "logic" that leads to the theory "gw doesn't make fw models too good because they don't want to sell them". Obviously the model company doesn't want to sell its models......
yukishiro1 wrote: Last edition, covens were the strongest part of DE. Now they're the weakest. Last edition, Venom was the strongest transport, now it's the weakest. The fact that they aren't as weak as their counterparts in 8th doesn't mean there haven't been winners and losers, there are always winners and losers from a new codex and it is part of what makes the system tick. GW is neither capable of nor has any interest in perfect balance, a certain amount of imbalance is what drives a significant % of its sales and they're not dumb enough not to know that.
Then they sure haven't been very consistent at it if they're smart enough to realize it.
This whole string of logic presupposes that GW deliberately made DE transports bad so they could then sell them again 3 years later. That sounds quite stupid if you ask me.
No, it doesn't, and I specifically said the opposite in my prior post. Please read what's written instead of creating straw men to beat on. The beauty of the system is GW doesn't even really have to try, its own natural inability to balance well inevitably leads to the winners and losers that help keep the cycle going.
Cmon, 5 minutes and a calculator and anyone can find the clear outliers every codex update.
It didn’t take much to realize that aggressors were busted, it doesn’t take a genius to notice that certain melta units are outperforming other options by a large margin, anyone could see that plasma inceptors were really point efficient shooting (prior to DG), or how good ponies are right now.
I do not believe, for a second, that GW is not aware that there are outliers. There are millions on the line, GW knows. They might fail at more nuanced balance, but that’s because they don’t care about that, most likely.
A changing meta results on more sales and everyone knows that. Sadly, we careless consumers fuel that. But at least let’s not pretend we don’t know we are being milked by the owners of the hype machine.
I've always felt that it's sheer luck/incompetence why things shift constantly. Sometimes it seems like it's deliberate but other times it feels more like random crap that just so happens to shake things up.
I'm not convinced GW's designers are smart enough with real probability and game design to deliberately do some of these things.
I'm not convinced GW's designers are smart enough with real probability and game design to deliberately do some of these things.
It's really not that complicated to gauge the average damage output of a given unit against a range of plausible T and Sv. values.
My math skills are well below average and I can put that equation together without much hassle.
I don't believe it's incompetence, indifference maybe.
In my opinion, the real problem is not the phased releases but the point that in recent years they have released quite a lot of codex versions hence without having time to stabilize any army.
The problem is not the temporary phased releases but the permanent and constant phased release periods without any reasonable time in between. At least it has been this transition between 8th edition and 9th edition.
I personally won't mind waiting for an extra year for the codex of my armies to arrive if I knew that If after that everybody got their own codex and won't need to worry about new codex train releases for some years and the only updates were more point updates and small tweaks - FAQ's. And I say that I who plays GK and I expect that we will get the shortest end of the stick in the codexes releases by been the first codex in 8th edition and most likely the last one in 9th edition.
No, it doesn't, and I specifically said the opposite in my prior post. Please read what's written instead of creating straw men to beat on. The beauty of the system is GW doesn't even really have to try, its own natural inability to balance well inevitably leads to the winners and losers that help keep the cycle going.
You assigned intent originally. Now they don't have to try.
So basically people will just label every nerf and every buff as some sort of sales ploy. It literally doesn't matter if that change was correctly applied.
GW brings out new unit with overly strong rules = Evil, unscrupulous sales ploy.
GW brings out new unit with underwhelming rules = Evil, unscrupulous sales ploy.
GW rules buff established common unit = Evil, unscrupulous sales ploy.
GW rules nerf established common unit = Evil, unscrupulous sales ploy.
GW rules buff a previously unused unit = Evil, unscrupulous sales ploy.
GW rules nerf a previously unused unit = Evil, unscrupulous sales ploy.
GW's flagship game has been successful for more than three decades and currently outsells every other tabletop miniature game on the market at least 2:1 and has generated more than 500 novels = GW is stupid and incompetent
No, it doesn't, and I specifically said the opposite in my prior post. Please read what's written instead of creating straw men to beat on. The beauty of the system is GW doesn't even really have to try, its own natural inability to balance well inevitably leads to the winners and losers that help keep the cycle going.
You assigned intent originally. Now they don't have to try.
So basically people will just label every nerf and every buff as some sort of sales ploy. It literally doesn't matter if that change was correctly applied.
No, I didn't. Please read what's written instead of creating straw men to beat on. This is the second time I'm asking.
Aside from the most egregious stuff (the wraithknight fiasco, the iron hands debacle), I don't think most of GW's balance errors are caused by some evil mastermind (if they actually had one of those, they might make better rules overall!). It's just run of the mill lack of attention, and, more specifically, a lack of any real incentive to pay attention, because again it's better for sales to err on the side of imbalance than on the side of balance, unless it's so egregious that it's game-breaking. And even then, as long as you fix it within a few months, you can hit the sweet spot of getting some sales out of it without driving people away. This is the primary lesson GW has learned re: balance since the bad old days of 7th - these days, the most egregiously broken stuff gets fixed within a couple months, which is a short enough time span that people don't quit over it. Short of that, imbalance actually powers sales, rather than depressing them.
No, it doesn't, and I specifically said the opposite in my prior post. Please read what's written instead of creating straw men to beat on. The beauty of the system is GW doesn't even really have to try, its own natural inability to balance well inevitably leads to the winners and losers that help keep the cycle going.
You assigned intent originally. Now they don't have to try.
So basically people will just label every nerf and every buff as some sort of sales ploy. It literally doesn't matter if that change was correctly applied.
No, I didn't. Please read what's written instead of creating straw men to beat on. This is the second time I'm asking.
Aside from the most egregious stuff (the wraithknight fiasco, the iron hands debacle), I don't think most of GW's balance errors are caused by some evil mastermind (if they actually had one of those, they might make better rules overall!). It's just run of the mill lack of attention, and, more specifically, a lack of any real incentive to pay attention, because again it's better for sales to err on the side of imbalance than on the side of balance, unless it's so egregious that it's game-breaking. And even then, as long as you fix it within a few months, you can hit the sweet spot of getting some sales out of it without driving people away. This is the primary lesson GW has learned re: balance since the bad old days of 7th - these days, the most egregiously broken stuff gets fixed within a couple months, which is a short enough time span that people don't quit over it. Short of that, imbalance actually powers sales, rather than depressing them.
You did, well let me rephrase, as I interpreted your phrasing. They intend to "stir the pot" to achieve a goal with no direct goal when it's more like they're actively trying to improve things and can get it wrong sometimes ( see crazy succubus that needs FAQ ). What happens with sales is just a consequence, but no one really has any grasp on what moves within the secondary market for stuff like that. GW makes a majority of its sales on new releases.
I feel like 9th has been less "Eh, we'll fix it in post" than 8th. And yet 9th is still young so there's plenty of time to get it wrong - knights will be interesting. Either way we have a bigger say in the outcome than ever and we should use it when necessary.
Perception of issues also plays a big role in how things shape up. How many people went out and jumped on Outriders and Eradicators because they thought they were going to be game breaking units? Even before the minor point nerf they hadn't seem much air time globally ( though I'm sure some meta somewhere is full of them ).
You did, well let me rephrase, as I interpreted your phrasing.
"You said it, based on my interpretation" is exactly what I was talking about when I asked you to stop beating on straw men. Please read what people actually write, not what you hope they wrote because it would be easier to attack it.
You did, well let me rephrase, as I interpreted your phrasing.
"You said it, based on my interpretation" is exactly what I was talking about when I asked you to stop beating on straw men. Please read what people actually write, not what you hope they wrote because it would be easier to attack it.
My intention wasn't to strawman, but I am sure my interpretation colored the discussion. I'll try to be more careful.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to derail the conversation. And I'm not suggesting that GW isn't trying at all to make a better balanced game, just that it isn't a very high priority, and some amount of stir-the-pot is absolutely part of their model, so they wouldn't want a perfectly balanced game even if they could achieve it (which very little in 40k's history leads us to believe they could).
Here's another example: Thunderfire cannons. These were oppressively good in 8th, and are now total junk in 9th. Now I don't doubt that the changes they made were intended to improve the situation. But I also don't think they were still trying to keep them good, because the changes are so overboard that it would have been totally obvious in playtesting that they are unusably bad now. This is another instance of "flip the script." I have no idea if it was intentional, or just the result of a lazy balance pass, but they sold a huge number of thunderfire cannons in 8th based on at best lazy balancing that are now just gathering dust in 9th, based again upon at best lazy balancing. You can find examples of this all over the game. 9th edition codexes seem to have a significantly better level of internal balance than 8th edition ones, but there's still all sorts of stuff that you can't explain if you really think GW is out to make the best balanced game possible.
GW wants a game that's just balanced enough to keep people playing, and just unbalanced enough to keep people chasing the meta.
When it comes to balancing any specific unit, getting to just right is rather hard. It is easy to under adjust (remember the long reign of the Castellan?) or to over adjust (like say Centurions). Sometimes it a matter of making too many small adjustments all at the same time. Aggressors were great in the 8.5 codex, but the 9.0 Codex killed them competitively between the lack of Core and increased points values. Would only one of those changes been enough to remove them from overpowered without removing them from consideration?
All that said, I do agree that a highly balanced game does not appear to be GW's top concern. They seem to want a reasonably balanced game. At that, they seem to be doing better in the pass of codexes.
alextroy wrote: When it comes to balancing any specific unit, getting to just right is rather hard. It is easy to under adjust (remember the long reign of the Castellan?) or to over adjust (like say Centurions). Sometimes it a matter of making too many small adjustments all at the same time. Aggressors were great in the 8.5 codex, but the 9.0 Codex killed them competitively between the lack of Core and increased points values. Would only one of those changes been enough to remove them from overpowered without removing them from consideration?
All that said, I do agree that a highly balanced game does not appear to be GW's top concern. They seem to want a reasonably balanced game. At that, they seem to be doing better in the pass of codexes.
Aggressors still have Core. What "killed" them was the removal of Double Shooting when remaining stationary with the 9th Ed Codex. Did you mean Centurions instead of Aggressors?
I think with the Space Marines over the last four years we can see how the Design Studio and the Rules Team are not always synchronized. The Primaris units were all pretty under-powered when they came out, and several seemed to lack a role. I recall one interview where Jes Goodwin says how popular the Reivers are. The Rules Team then tried various approaches. Some ended up being bonkers by the time of 8.5 Supplements (Salamander Flame Aggressors). It is now somewhat stabilized. Still don't see Reivers on the tabletop. But perhaps they are popular on shelves?
alextroy wrote: When it comes to balancing any specific unit, getting to just right is rather hard. It is easy to under adjust (remember the long reign of the Castellan?) or to over adjust (like say Centurions). Sometimes it a matter of making too many small adjustments all at the same time. Aggressors were great in the 8.5 codex, but the 9.0 Codex killed them competitively between the lack of Core and increased points values. Would only one of those changes been enough to remove them from overpowered without removing them from consideration?
All that said, I do agree that a highly balanced game does not appear to be GW's top concern. They seem to want a reasonably balanced game. At that, they seem to be doing better in the pass of codexes.
Aggressors still have Core. What "killed" them was the removal of Double Shooting when remaining stationary with the 9th Ed Codex. Did you mean Centurions instead of Aggressors?
I think with the Space Marines over the last four years we can see how the Design Studio and the Rules Team are not always synchronized. The Primaris units were all pretty under-powered when they came out, and several seemed to lack a role. I recall one interview where Jes Goodwin says how popular the Reivers are. The Rules Team then tried various approaches. Some ended up being bonkers by the time of 8.5 Supplements (Salamander Flame Aggressors). It is now somewhat stabilized. Still don't see Reivers on the tabletop. But perhaps they are popular on shelves?
That's probably what he meant; they probably did/do sell very well since the vast majority of 40k consumers are not focused on competitive or hyper-optimized play.
But some CoD looking tacticool Space Marines? That's a popular idea.
I'm weird in that really like the reivers far and above the other 2 variants of Phobos armour.
Personally I have 20ish currently and am looking to grab some infil/incurs to have a wider variety of poses for them. I am probably the target market for them as I like to have the same marines represented in the varying marks of armour and don't care about rules when I make hobby choices.
I do enjoy 40k but only with similarly minded players.
yukishiro1 wrote: Sorry, I wasn't trying to derail the conversation. And I'm not suggesting that GW isn't trying at all to make a better balanced game, just that it isn't a very high priority, and some amount of stir-the-pot is absolutely part of their model, so they wouldn't want a perfectly balanced game even if they could achieve it (which very little in 40k's history leads us to believe they could).
Here's another example: Thunderfire cannons. These were oppressively good in 8th, and are now total junk in 9th. Now I don't doubt that the changes they made were intended to improve the situation. But I also don't think they were still trying to keep them good, because the changes are so overboard that it would have been totally obvious in playtesting that they are unusably bad now. This is another instance of "flip the script." I have no idea if it was intentional, or just the result of a lazy balance pass, but they sold a huge number of thunderfire cannons in 8th based on at best lazy balancing that are now just gathering dust in 9th, based again upon at best lazy balancing. You can find examples of this all over the game. 9th edition codexes seem to have a significantly better level of internal balance than 8th edition ones, but there's still all sorts of stuff that you can't explain if you really think GW is out to make the best balanced game possible.
GW wants a game that's just balanced enough to keep people playing, and just unbalanced enough to keep people chasing the meta.
Oddly enough I think TFCs are underrated. People running around with servitors and murder buckets to score secondaries need to be shut down.
The idea of what is balanced can be largely determined by perception. Castellans were an exception where it was plain to see but stuff now is a little more hazy depending how you might approach the game.
Racerguy180 wrote: I'm weird in that really like the reivers far and above the other 2 variants of Phobos armour.
Personally I have 20ish currently and am looking to grab some infil/incurs to have a wider variety of poses for them. I am probably the target market for them as I like to have the same marines represented in the varying marks of armour and don't care about rules when I make hobby choices.
I do enjoy 40k but only with similarly minded players.
I like the models too. I'm toying with the idea of adding a Spectrus Kill Team to my Deathwatch... Then I'd have one of each.
alextroy wrote: When it comes to balancing any specific unit, getting to just right is rather hard. It is easy to under adjust (remember the long reign of the Castellan?) or to over adjust (like say Centurions). Sometimes it a matter of making too many small adjustments all at the same time. Aggressors were great in the 8.5 codex, but the 9.0 Codex killed them competitively between the lack of Core and increased points values. Would only one of those changes been enough to remove them from overpowered without removing them from consideration?
All that said, I do agree that a highly balanced game does not appear to be GW's top concern. They seem to want a reasonably balanced game. At that, they seem to be doing better in the pass of codexes.
Aggressors still have Core. What "killed" them was the removal of Double Shooting when remaining stationary with the 9th Ed Codex. Did you mean Centurions instead of Aggressors?
I think with the Space Marines over the last four years we can see how the Design Studio and the Rules Team are not always synchronized. The Primaris units were all pretty under-powered when they came out, and several seemed to lack a role. I recall one interview where Jes Goodwin says how popular the Reivers are. The Rules Team then tried various approaches. Some ended up being bonkers by the time of 8.5 Supplements (Salamander Flame Aggressors). It is now somewhat stabilized. Still don't see Reivers on the tabletop. But perhaps they are popular on shelves?
That's probably what he meant; they probably did/do sell very well since the vast majority of 40k consumers are not focused on competitive or hyper-optimized play.
But some CoD looking tacticool Space Marines? That's a popular idea.
Well they might've meant Aggressors, but the adjustment done for Centurions themselves from 7th to 8th was pretty ludicrous for killing the unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Aggressors losing double shooting but the Melta dudes keeping it is fething bs design from GW and y'all know it.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?
I personally don't care what they do with their current rules edition. They pushed me out of modern 40K years ago. I'm stupidly optimistic enough to hope a balanced ruleset will come out, but 9th sure as hell isn't it.
There is really only two reasons GW consistently under bake or over nerf things. Either they are, 1 very incompetent and lack general understanding that most who play this game have for their game.
Or, 2 they keep their fingers on winners and losers and keep the lines going up and down in efforts to skew the meta or lightly press sales back or forth now and then.
I don't think its evil, just incompetent or an intelligent design for sales, as a company does like to do.
Which none of this is a problem until you see the trends and follow the hamster wheel churn.
Which none of this is a problem until you see the trends and follow the hamster wheel churn.
A fool and their money are soon parted ways.
If you're dumb enuff to go down that rabbit hole....
If balance would make them more $€£¥ 40k would be balanced to a T. They seem to be doing something right in the balance sheet department, so can't fault them for milking the morons.
Which none of this is a problem until you see the trends and follow the hamster wheel churn.
A fool and their money are soon parted ways.
If you're dumb enuff to go down that rabbit hole....
If balance would make them more $€£¥ 40k would be balanced to a T. They seem to be doing something right in the balance sheet department, so can't fault them for milking the morons.
Yea I don't get people riding trends. I'm way happy just collecting stuff I love and making the best of it.
Which none of this is a problem until you see the trends and follow the hamster wheel churn.
A fool and their money are soon parted ways.
If you're dumb enuff to go down that rabbit hole....
If balance would make them more $€£¥ 40k would be balanced to a T. They seem to be doing something right in the balance sheet department, so can't fault them for milking the morons.
Yea I don't get people riding trends. I'm way happy just collecting stuff I love and making the best of it.
Always worked for me. Everything is good eventually. I mean, who would have thought all those Warp Talons I built over the years would suddenly be awesome?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?
It'd still be pretty BS. At a single shot it's still a super Meltagun. 2 Shots makes it a compact Assault Multimelta.
And the heavy meltas are even more ridiculous. It's a man portable weapon that can out damage guns mounted on heavy (and some super heavy) tanks.
I'm ok with that. That's originally how dangerous they were way back in RT and 2nd. They had a 4" diameter blast and ridiculous (the highest in the game) Armour penetration. A crazy man-portable heat ray is ok by me. I like 40k as a universe where even the infantry can have excellent anti-armor firepower. What do you do for vehicles then? This is actually one of the reasons D weapons never really bothered me. Some bigger weapons may as well be FU-level guns.
Which none of this is a problem until you see the trends and follow the hamster wheel churn.
A fool and their money are soon parted ways.
If you're dumb enuff to go down that rabbit hole....
If balance would make them more $€£¥ 40k would be balanced to a T. They seem to be doing something right in the balance sheet department, so can't fault them for milking the morons.
Yea I don't get people riding trends. I'm way happy just collecting stuff I love and making the best of it.
Always worked for me. Everything is good eventually. I mean, who would have thought all those Warp Talons I built over the years would suddenly be awesome?
I'd rather have a cohesive force that I can learn how to actually general rather than "learning" something that works for 6 months.
Maybe one day Reivers will wipe the floor with everything...a boy can dream now can't he?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?
It'd still be pretty BS. At a single shot it's still a super Meltagun. 2 Shots makes it a compact Assault Multimelta.
And the heavy meltas are even more ridiculous. It's a man portable weapon that can out damage guns mounted on heavy (and some super heavy) tanks.
I'm ok with that. That's originally how dangerous they were way back in RT and 2nd. They had a 4" diameter blast and ridiculous (the highest in the game) Armour penetration. A crazy man-portable heat ray is ok by me. I like 40k as a universe where even the infantry can have excellent anti-armor firepower. What do you do for vehicles then? This is actually one of the reasons D weapons never really bothered me. Some bigger weapons may as well be FU-level guns.
But should a 57% increase in average damage only cost an extra 11% in points?
Which none of this is a problem until you see the trends and follow the hamster wheel churn.
A fool and their money are soon parted ways.
If you're dumb enuff to go down that rabbit hole....
If balance would make them more $€£¥ 40k would be balanced to a T. They seem to be doing something right in the balance sheet department, so can't fault them for milking the morons.
Yea I don't get people riding trends. I'm way happy just collecting stuff I love and making the best of it.
Always worked for me. Everything is good eventually. I mean, who would have thought all those Warp Talons I built over the years would suddenly be awesome?
I'd rather have a cohesive force that I can learn how to actually general rather than "learning" something that works for 6 months.
Maybe one day Reivers will wipe the floor with everything...a boy can dream now can't he?
Um, yeah, that's what I was saying. I've been playing Night Lords for two decades because I love the army, not because of whether they were good at any given time. But the pendelum always swings, so the stuff you like will eventually be good.
Oddly enough I think TFCs are underrated. People running around with servitors and murder buckets to score secondaries need to be shut down.
The idea of what is balanced can be largely determined by perception. Castellans were an exception where it was plain to see but stuff now is a little more hazy depending how you might approach the game.
For 5pts extra you get a whirlwind instead. Sure, you lose 1 shot, 1 BS and 1 save but get +2 STR, +1T, +7W, +9M, an awesome stratagem and don't give away 2 different kill secondaries which hampers your list building.
Removing their strats, removing 1 STR, 1 AP and massive point increase made them crap. Wouldn't surprise me at all if they actually nerfed it so bad by intent because they don't want to sell it and it isn't one of those random units that suddenly became bad due to incompetence. It is a resin kit when almost everything in the marine line is plastic. They probably just wanted it playable in 8th but it ended up too good and its massive popularity lead to an increase in demand they couldn't supply due to it not being an easy to produce kit. Most Thunderfire cannons I know of have been recast or conversions since they were out of stock for quite a while and are expensive little machines. So they by intent made it crap so they don't have to spend resources on making more of them when they could sell any other marine kit. Wouldn't surprise me if they even wanted to legend it but didn't want the backlash from such a decision now that everyone bought one.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?
It'd still be pretty BS. At a single shot it's still a super Meltagun. 2 Shots makes it a compact Assault Multimelta.
And the heavy meltas are even more ridiculous. It's a man portable weapon that can out damage guns mounted on heavy (and some super heavy) tanks.
I'm ok with that. That's originally how dangerous they were way back in RT and 2nd. They had a 4" diameter blast and ridiculous (the highest in the game) Armour penetration. A crazy man-portable heat ray is ok by me. I like 40k as a universe where even the infantry can have excellent anti-armor firepower. What do you do for vehicles then? This is actually one of the reasons D weapons never really bothered me. Some bigger weapons may as well be FU-level guns.
But should a 57% increase in average damage only cost an extra 11% in points?
The range difference should be more important than it currently tends to be, imo. In the right setting I think the points vs. Damage is acceptable.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?
It'd still be pretty BS. At a single shot it's still a super Meltagun. 2 Shots makes it a compact Assault Multimelta.
And the heavy meltas are even more ridiculous. It's a man portable weapon that can out damage guns mounted on heavy (and some super heavy) tanks.
I'm ok with that. That's originally how dangerous they were way back in RT and 2nd. They had a 4" diameter blast and ridiculous (the highest in the game) Armour penetration. A crazy man-portable heat ray is ok by me. I like 40k as a universe where even the infantry can have excellent anti-armor firepower. What do you do for vehicles then? This is actually one of the reasons D weapons never really bothered me. Some bigger weapons may as well be FU-level guns.
But should a 57% increase in average damage only cost an extra 11% in points?
The range difference should be more important than it currently tends to be, imo. In the right setting I think the points vs. Damage is acceptable.
What range difference? The standard melta rifles and heavy meltas have the same range. The only difference besides the damage is the standard guns are Assault and the heavys are Heavy, and loyalists have a stratagem that gets around the disadvantage of Heavy weapons.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: We're well off topic, but would you be just as upset if Eradicators were ROF2 with their Melta Rifles instead of shooting twice?
It'd still be pretty BS. At a single shot it's still a super Meltagun. 2 Shots makes it a compact Assault Multimelta.
And the heavy meltas are even more ridiculous. It's a man portable weapon that can out damage guns mounted on heavy (and some super heavy) tanks.
I'm ok with that. That's originally how dangerous they were way back in RT and 2nd. They had a 4" diameter blast and ridiculous (the highest in the game) Armour penetration. A crazy man-portable heat ray is ok by me. I like 40k as a universe where even the infantry can have excellent anti-armor firepower. What do you do for vehicles then? This is actually one of the reasons D weapons never really bothered me. Some bigger weapons may as well be FU-level guns.
But should a 57% increase in average damage only cost an extra 11% in points?
The range difference should be more important than it currently tends to be, imo. In the right setting I think the points vs. Damage is acceptable.
What range difference? The standard melta rifles and heavy meltas have the same range. The only difference besides the damage is the standard guns are Assault and the heavys are Heavy, and loyalists have a stratagem that gets around the disadvantage of Heavy weapons.
I brainfarted, for some reason I thought it was a comparison between Multimeltas and lascannons. What are we doing here? Lol
Where is the damage increase coming from? Melta Rifles firing twice and Multimeltas are the same except one is Heavy and the otherwise assault, no?
Edit: oh Heavy Melta Rifles. My bad. Yeah that's BS, not sure why that weapon exists other than "buy the kit and replace your Indomitus kit".
Yeah, I thought that might have been what you were thinking. Don't worry, there's so many weapons with practically the same name nowadays its easy to get them mixed up.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeah, I thought that might have been what you were thinking. Don't worry, there's so many weapons with practically the same name nowadays its easy to get them mixed up.
I honestly didn't know they existed until just now. My codex must be stuck in a canal or something. . . not that I pay much attention to the Primaris units anyways. But yeah, another weapons bloat Primaris-something. Pretty eye rolling.
The Multimelta is still the better weapon though, since it's natively two shots. (Therefore 4 shots in an Eradicators hands).
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeah, I thought that might have been what you were thinking. Don't worry, there's so many weapons with practically the same name nowadays its easy to get them mixed up.
I honestly didn't know they existed until just now. My codex must be stuck in a canal or something. . . not that I pay much attention to the Primaris units anyways. But yeah, another weapons bloat Primaris-something. Pretty eye rolling.
The Multimelta is still the better weapon though, since it's natively two shots. (Therefore 4 shots in an Eradicators hands).
Except you only get 1 multi-melta per every 3 models, while the entire squad gets the heavy melta rifles, and can throw in the multi-meltas to boot.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeah, I thought that might have been what you were thinking. Don't worry, there's so many weapons with practically the same name nowadays its easy to get them mixed up.
I honestly didn't know they existed until just now. My codex must be stuck in a canal or something. . . not that I pay much attention to the Primaris units anyways. But yeah, another weapons bloat Primaris-something. Pretty eye rolling.
The Multimelta is still the better weapon though, since it's natively two shots. (Therefore 4 shots in an Eradicators hands).
Except you only get 1 multi-melta per every 3 models, while the entire squad gets the heavy melta rifles, and can throw in the multi-meltas to boot.
Well you gotta be sure the new Primaris unit can put out more firepower than Devastators and only cost marginally more while being better in nearly every way, right?
I think this thread has helped me curb some of my anger and just accept things for how they are. I have three armies. I should not expect them all to viable at any given time. GW plays the meta for sales, we all know it. And thats what most companies would and do, do. So, I guess I will be starting to fill out my fledgling DG that I never got around to painting/building and put the sons and chaos marines on the shelf until the pendulum swing.
Table wrote: ...I should not expect them all to viable at any given time...
Ehhhhh...
Expecting every single playstyle in every single army to be equally viable would be absurd, yes. So would expecting an army to be super competitive every single edition. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that each army in general be viable in every edition. That just shows some basic care on GW's part (granted, this would require that GW have a solid idea of how they want the game to be each edition and then communicate that with all of the codex writers...).
That said, I do think that "Rules are temporary, models are forever" is a healthier and more fulfilling mindset than meta-chasing, so good on you for getting there.
They do disrupt metas on a regular basis (often by dropping in a hard counter codex to a previous codex), and if they handled it better that could even be considered an attempt at game balance.
But they're kind of terrible at predicting metas or even creating them. New units (even flagship marine units) have reasonable chance of being utterly terrible on launch (primaris took at least three adjustments before they were even vaguely competitive in 'the meta'). And the SM supplements were followed by weird apology FAQs where they 'didn't think players would use the rules that way,' which marked them as shockingly out of touch with how people play the game (Even though they've long been considered princes of Ivory Tower game design).
GW does try for sales, but a lot of its FOMO, limited availability and relying on the player base to convince themselves that they need <New Thing> all the time.
Let’s face it, table top warhammer is a terrible platform for competitive gaming. Every single modern game I know goes through seasons or metas. This is a way to increase replay value cheaply, as you get to re use old assets. GW has adopted that mentality with their products, but not only is warhammer shockingly expensive, it also takes far more time to field a new painted army.
Pointing out that some new models are bad in game as evidence that they are designing for sales is shortsighted, in my opinion. In every release there are good and bad option, much in the style of ivory tower design. But here is the beauty, every bad option is just an overpriced good option, or a data sheet change away from being meta. So having bad releases is not bad business, it is just a matter of optimizing product management.
Companies like GW have terrible incentives, inherently. They want to dominate the market to impose high prices, they will generally do all they can to increase profit at the expense of consumer. Planned obsolescence, bad pots for paint, overpriced glue, rules for sales, codex and supplement spam, you name it. They will do all they can to dominate the market, and then squeeze it. What is the only thing keeping them honest? Competition. Do they have much, currently? No. So that’s why they are terrible to us.
The thing is, the majority of people won’t be taking life ruining decisions over warhammer purchases. So they are happy to let GW entertain them with hype and exciting new releases every week!, and do not understand the fuss over rules and prices and what not. I guess we all choose our battles and, for many, being rational in entertainment isn’t worth it.
If the competition authorities do not save us from GW, I don’t think we will. Sure, buy recast all you want, scout 2nd hand stores for cheap models, print them yourself. GW does not care that much since you are contributing to their hype train for free anyway. You still post in GW related websites, post your paint jobs in Instagram, bring them to play in the store or in a tournament. In being so anal about WYSIWYG you are doing them a favor, even if you print the options yourself.
So, find your joy in the game or the modeling, but do expect GW to treat you nicely. If you want a well balanced affordable and consumer friendly game, this is not it. If you still want to indulge in whatever remains of the quirky counter cultural satiric universe some nerdy folks created in the late 80s, indulge away but mind the shark in the pool (GW) trying to eat your wallet.
Table wrote: I think this thread has helped me curb some of my anger and just accept things for how they are. I have three armies. I should not expect them all to viable at any given time. GW plays the meta for sales, we all know it. And thats what most companies would and do, do. So, I guess I will be starting to fill out my fledgling DG that I never got around to painting/building and put the sons and chaos marines on the shelf until the pendulum swing.
This is a more healthy way to view it. I'm used to the power ups and downs what I don't like is the squad set ups being all jerked around. That i will never be ok with. No one should have to worry on a new book drop that what was perfectly viable one edition is a total no no now for no actual reason and no " what's in the one box " isn't a reason and never was. We've been expected for decades to understand if we wanted more of a weapon to buy more boxes, or bits, etc. This edition is the only one where I've had to re equip or rebuy models and units because a perfectly legal load out for multiple editions is now for some dubious reason illegal. I don't power game, never have, so the excesses of choices never hit me. These lazy design choices are hitting me though.
Power is one thing, unit invalidation for no legit reason is entirely another thing. Especially when it isn't even about power as no one was stomping the yard with Plague marines alone, Wyches weren't wasting all with 2 of the same wych weapons, skittari MSU plasma groups weren't winning every big game, etc. It's just punitive changes in the cause of lawful stupid.
People should expect, every edition , that their army is at least viable played to its strength. This game should never be a " Well you need three or more armies to hope one of them is strong any given edition " If we start settling for that we really are rolling over for greedy sod GW.
So, find your joy in the game or the modeling, but do expect GW to treat you nicely. If you want a well balanced affordable and consumer friendly game, this is not it. If you still want to indulge in whatever remains of the quirky counter cultural satiric universe some nerdy folks created in the late 80s, indulge away but mind the shark in the pool (GW) trying to eat your wallet.
I agree with most of what you say Grey.
However, I would add the caveat that I expect gw to be polite, but when I walk out the door, they don't care what I do with their stuff, and I dont care that they dont care. I actually mean that nicely, gw and I don't have an emotional relationship, the hobby is my own, and how I interact with it and how I enjoy it is up to me.
Gw gaming, and tabletop gaming itself can be frighteningly expensive and also surprisingly affordable and with great value. It depends on how you approach it. I was stripping some iron fang pikemen the other day for repainting (I know, pp models but the principles are the same). Metal tab said 2003, and I've had those dudes since the mid naughties. And I'm still planning uses for them. I can't say my fancy trainers will be in use 18 years from now.
Regarding the shark pool, you have to realise gw wanting our cash for their products is only one side of the coin. The players are just as ruthless if not more so. If there are sharks, in my mind a lot of them are our peers, not just evil.corporate gw and swimming with the sharks, or not, is our choice.
Yeah. Chasing the meta does make things more expensive than it needs to be.
Right now? It seems each 9th Ed Codex is pretty decent when it comes to internal balance.
Yes there are of course Super Units in each. But importantly, you can still sling a list together from whatever you have and not massively struggle as a result. And for Necrons at least, only the Canoptek Reanimator is an out and out head scratcher of a choice.
Certainly from what I’ve read, the Dark Eldar have gone from maligned to perfectly functional, and not being tied to a single build.
Time will tell as more updated books come out. It could all go to pot, but it might turn out dandy.
As for why not just release them altogether? Finite resources are finite. And you need to release new stuff to drive sales. In general, a business looks to exceed its sale on a like for like basis, because it’s not enough to just be profitable year on year. You need to be more profitable year on year.
Mass releasing would certainly make for a strong quarter. But....what happens next? How do you top that the next quarter or the next year?
We can also see an arguably more interesting approach to that in AoS, where each book released ties into the ongoing narrative. When an army is released, there’s a reason given in the background as to where they’ve been previously.
However, I would add the caveat that I expect gw to be polite, but when I walk out the door, they don't care what I do with their stuff, and I dont care that they dont care. I actually mean that nicely, gw and I don't have an emotional relationship, the hobby is my own, and how I interact with it and how I enjoy it is up to me.
Yep, by "nice" I meant in a business decisions sense, not the interaction with their employees. Which, by the way, was been abysmal during the pandemic. I have simply stopped ordering from them because not only you pay a premium on the product (not even considering 3rd party or recasts, official product), but their webstore simply sucks (lost deliveries, delays, etc.).
Gw gaming, and tabletop gaming itself can be frighteningly expensive and also surprisingly affordable and with great value. It depends on how you approach it. I was stripping some iron fang pikemen the other day for repainting (I know, pp models but the principles are the same). Metal tab said 2003, and I've had those dudes since the mid naughties. And I'm still planning uses for them. I can't say my fancy trainers will be in use 18 years from now.
Oh, I also have lots of old models. Still, when I say expensive, I mash together cost per model and the fact that GW are making out like bandits, their margins are gross. All products could be discounted 50% overnight and it would still be viable.
Regarding the shark pool, you have to realise gw wanting our cash for their products is only one side of the coin. The players are just as ruthless if not more so. If there are sharks, in my mind a lot of them are our peers, not just evil.corporate gw and swimming with the sharks, or not, is our choice.
Consumers, shark-like? Possibly, but they are far less organized and scary than a large corporation. I have no sympathy for them over us.
Deadnight wrote: Gw gaming, and tabletop gaming itself can be frighteningly expensive and also surprisingly affordable and with great value. It depends on how you approach it. I was stripping some iron fang pikemen the other day for repainting (I know, pp models but the principles are the same). Metal tab said 2003, and I've had those dudes since the mid naughties. And I'm still planning uses for them. I can't say my fancy trainers will be in use 18 years from now.
Oh, I also have lots of old models. Still, when I say expensive, I mash together cost per model and the fact that GW are making out like bandits, their margins are gross. All products could be discounted 50% overnight and it would still be viable.
While I have no doubt that GW's prices could be lower and the company still be viable - and without having access to their financials - I doubt a 50% reduction is realistic.
That retail network costs a pretty penny, for one thing.
Dysartes wrote: While I have no doubt that GW's prices could be lower and the company still be viable - and without having access to their financials - I doubt a 50% reduction is realistic.
That retail network costs a pretty penny, for one thing.
Their shareholder reports have consistently shown them making money hand over fist despite the costs of the retail network. The non-R&D production and transportation costs of raw product are comparatively minimal (especially when so much isn't carried in stores and ships directly from the warehouse), so their income is largely a function of volume and price.
The report doesn't distinguish between revenue from different sources, but even if model sales account for 100% of it and they're not getting income from anywhere else, they could cut prices to 75% of current value- with no increase in sales, and no reduction of operating costs- and still turn a profit. If they cut prices in half and increased volume of sale by 40%, they'd still remain profitable. It's more plausible than you might think.
GW's prices aren't based on what they need to keep the lights on; they're based on being a publicly traded company with a goal to grow year-after-year by maximizing profit. It's more profitable to keep high prices and sell to a smaller customer base of whales than it is to price towards accessibility and optimize for volume of sale. How sustainable this is in the long run remains to be seen, and if market forces dictate that the loss from driving customers out with higher prices becomes greater than the gain from higher per-sale revenue, they'll readjust.
catbarf wrote: GW's prices aren't based on what they need to keep the lights on; they're based on being a publicly traded company with a goal to grow year-after-year by maximizing profit. It's more profitable to keep high prices and sell to a smaller customer base of whales than it is to price towards accessibility and optimize for volume of sale. How sustainable this is in the long run remains to be seen.
I'd say GW has been "overpriced" for at least 2 decades, so it seems pretty viable. Is it getting worse, in inflation adjusted prices? I have seen all kinds of examples one way or another, I'd love to get a recent reference.
In any case, this is just the plain truth. GW is owned by a bunch of investment funds and is committed to "market domination", with the "high margins" that brings. Which, for the consumer, is pretty bad.
And yes, astonishingly high margins, just compare across industries.
Radical thought;
1) Stop producing codexes in their current format. You don't need about 75% of the stuff in them anyway, or do you need paintings and regurgitated info to play the game?
2) Compile the rules into booklets and release them in White Dwarf. I reckon that with all the non-relevant information codexes contain removed you could have all the booklets done in three months.
3) How many codexes do you need anyway? Basically they are just released to compile faqs for their errors which they expect us to pay for and them to make more money.
Simplistic? Maybe. But I've been searching for missing bits from my Darkshroud for the past week and I haven't found them. I'm on a mission! And I'm not happy about it!
Capitalism? Welcome to market power 101. No economist I know who defends market based approaches defends market power (as in the quasi-monopoly GW has).
Slipstream wrote: Radical thought;
1) Stop producing codexes in their current format. You don't need about 75% of the stuff in them anyway, or do you need paintings and regurgitated info to play the game?
2) Compile the rules into booklets
Welcome to Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition!
Seriously though, the lack of lore, art and painting examples would be a big turn off for me. Not everyone has stacks of previous editions to draw on. Last time I played the Great Rift was only a glimmer in the Eye of Terror and the Necrons had just become an army as opposed to a trio of Androids in Space Crusade. Having it all in the Codex is the obvious place for all the lore/art to live.
Slipstream wrote: Radical thought;
1) Stop producing codexes in their current format. You don't need about 75% of the stuff in them anyway, or do you need paintings and regurgitated info to play the game?
2) Compile the rules into booklets
Welcome to Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition!
Seriously though, the lack of lore, art and painting examples would be a big turn off for me. Not everyone has stacks of previous editions to draw on. Last time I played the Great Rift was only a glimmer in the Eye of Terror and the Necrons had just become an army as opposed to a trio of Androids in Space Crusade. Having it all in the Codex is the obvious place for all the lore/art to live.
The better way to go about codexes would be to have a nice glossy background book per faction which would remain in print across multiple editions (rather than most current codex background being copy-pasted from previous books), and then a cheap/free rules document which could be updated as required.
Dysartes wrote: While I have no doubt that GW's prices could be lower and the company still be viable - and without having access to their financials - I doubt a 50% reduction is realistic.
That retail network costs a pretty penny, for one thing.
Their shareholder reports have consistently shown them making money hand over fist despite the costs of the retail network. The non-R&D production and transportation costs of raw product are comparatively minimal (especially when so much isn't carried in stores and ships directly from the warehouse), so their income is largely a function of volume and price.
The report doesn't distinguish between revenue from different sources, but even if model sales account for 100% of it and they're not getting income from anywhere else, they could cut prices to 75% of current value- with no increase in sales, and no reduction of operating costs- and still turn a profit. If they cut prices in half and increased volume of sale by 40%, they'd still remain profitable. It's more plausible than you might think.
GW's prices aren't based on what they need to keep the lights on; they're based on being a publicly traded company with a goal to grow year-after-year by maximizing profit. It's more profitable to keep high prices and sell to a smaller customer base of whales than it is to price towards accessibility and optimize for volume of sale. How sustainable this is in the long run remains to be seen, and if market forces dictate that the loss from driving customers out with higher prices becomes greater than the gain from higher per-sale revenue, they'll readjust.
Selling more increases overhead. Not sure I understand the 75% point, either.
Last yearly they pulled in 269.7 of which 16.8 was royalties, so 252.9. If they made 75% of that ( 63.2 ) and with overhead costs of 179.7 that would make them in the red by 116.5.
Slipstream wrote: Radical thought;
1) Stop producing codexes in their current format. You don't need about 75% of the stuff in them anyway, or do you need paintings and regurgitated info to play the game?
2) Compile the rules into booklets and release them in White Dwarf. I reckon that with all the non-relevant information codexes contain removed you could have all the booklets done in three months.
3) How many codexes do you need anyway? Basically they are just released to compile faqs for their errors which they expect us to pay for and them to make more money.
Simplistic? Maybe. But I've been searching for missing bits from my Darkshroud for the past week and I haven't found them. I'm on a mission!
That is a radical thought, and also one of absolutely no benefit/attraction to GW.
The better way to go about codexes would be to have a nice glossy background book per faction which would remain in print across multiple editions (rather than most current codex background being copy-pasted from previous books), and then a cheap/free rules document which could be updated as required.
The problem is that the man-hours spent working on rules are the expensive part. The fluff and art provide GW with the opportunity to sell the product for a higher price because of 'production values', but it actually makes very little difference to the costs.
With plastic injection molding, especially for product being stored in a warehouse on-site and sold online, it's basically irrelevant. The overhead comes from R&D, game designers, the massive retail business, and corporate costs, while the actual per-unit cost of manufacture and sale is negligible. It's very different from resin casting, which being a labor-intensive process with expensive raw materials has a significant cost of manufacture that sets a price floor.
Last yearly they pulled in 269.7 of which 16.8 was royalties, so 252.9. If they made 75% of that ( 63.2 ) and with overhead costs of 179.7 that would make them in the red by 116.5.
Am I missing something?
I was going by some older figures. It now seems that in the six months prior to Nov 2020, they had a total revenue of 188.2 million, and a reported operating profit of 93.2 million. So I take it back: The most recent numbers indicate that GW could, at present, cut their revenue exactly in half, and still be profitable. I doubt the current situation will sustain long-term, but it is what it is.
I am not arguing that GW 'should' be slashing prices across the board, only that the idea that their prices reflect somewhere near the minimum to sustain their business does not track with their wild profitability over the last few years. There's just no objective way to say what a product like this 'should' cost; the same goes for movie DVDs, music MP3s, or any other product where the cost of manufacture is minimal but has to offset large fixed costs.
Edit: Also you just calculated them making 25% revenue. 75% of 252.9 is 189.7, putting them ahead of the operating costs by exactly 10 mil, plus the 16.8 for royalties.
catbarf wrote: Edit: Also you just calculated them making 25% revenue. 75% of 252.9 is 189.7, putting them ahead of the operating costs by exactly 10 mil, plus the 16.8 for royalties.
Ah, ok that's where I screwed up. So reduce prices by 25%, effectively.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: 75% of 252.9 is 189.7, putting them ahead of the operating costs by exactly 10 mil, plus the 16.8 for royalties.
That's razor thin and leaves little room for re-investment, salary increases, material / shipping increases, etc. Royalties you never count on having.
catbarf wrote: Edit: Also you just calculated them making 25% revenue. 75% of 252.9 is 189.7, putting them ahead of the operating costs by exactly 10 mil, plus the 16.8 for royalties.
Ah, ok that's where I screwed up. So reduce prices by 25%, effectively.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: 75% of 252.9 is 189.7, putting them ahead of the operating costs by exactly 10 mil, plus the 16.8 for royalties.
That's razor thin and leaves little room for re-investment, salary increases, material / shipping increases, etc. Royalties you never count on having.
Check the income statement, page 9. There is no "razon thin" margin for price cuts, nice profits from selling plastic crack from the pandemic.
As catbarf said, they could slash prices in half (sort of assuming all revenue is from sales), and even if that didn't lead to more sales, they would just break even.
Obviously these are silly theoretical exercises, it is just meant to illustrate that high pricing is reflective of market dominance, not high production and distribution costs.
Daedalus81 wrote: That's razor thin and leaves little room for re-investment, salary increases, material / shipping increases, etc. Royalties you never count on having.
Razor thin? That's a 13% profit margin. Even without royalties (and you don't just ignore those, it's still revenue), it's about 6%. The average profit margin in the US is under 8%, and 5% is usually what's considered 'thin'.
If GW were showing a 13% profit year-after-year, they'd be considered a successful company, beyond the 10% figure considered healthy. The 33% for last year is, by all accounts, astronomical success.
They're not riding the margins. They could cut their revenue to 3/4 of its current value and they still wouldn't be riding the margins. They're doing great. The prices are set where they are because they can and we keep buying it, not because it's what they (currently) need to stay in business.
Check the income statement, page 9. There is no "razon thin" margin for price cuts, nice profits from selling plastic crack from the pandemic.
As catbarf said, they could slash prices in half (sort of assuming all revenue is from sales), and even if that didn't lead to more sales, they would just break even.
Obviously these are silly theoretical exercises, it is just meant to illustrate that high pricing is reflective of market dominance, not high production and distribution costs.
I'll preface this by saying that GW can certainly cut prices but, but a 25% cut basically means they can't grow the business. 50% isn't even remotely feasible. I'm NOT stating that GW is in any sort of difficult financial position.
Bear in mind that 52% of revenue is through Trade. Trade is already 50% off. GW doesn't pocket the portion that the FLGS keeps. That means GW sells two thirds of its kits through Trade. This is why you see them pushing those limited keys and such online to drive some sales to the highest profit business ( retail is really low ).
Daedalus81 wrote: That's razor thin and leaves little room for re-investment, salary increases, material / shipping increases, etc. Royalties you never count on having.
Razor thin? That's a 13% profit margin. Even without royalties (and you don't just ignore those, it's still revenue), it's about 6%. The average profit margin in the US is under 8%, and 5% is usually what's considered 'thin'.
If GW were showing a 13% profit year-after-year, they'd be considered a successful company, beyond the 10% figure considered healthy. The 33% for last year is, by all accounts, astronomical success.
They're not riding the margins. They could cut their revenue to 3/4 of its current value and they still wouldn't be riding the margins. They're doing great. The prices are set where they are because they can and we keep buying it, not because it's what they (currently) need to stay in business.
??
Their costs were 197.5M. 75% of 269.7 in revenue is 202M. That means 4.5M profit or 2.2%. A 2% increase in costs would almost put them in the red.
Cutting prices by 25% is not practical in the least. Unless I've done some math wrong again?
Their costs were 197.5M. 75% of 269.7 in revenue is 202M. That means 4.5M profit or 2.2%. A 2% increase in costs would almost put them in the red.
Cutting prices by 25% is not practical in the least. Unless I've done some math wrong again?
The figures you gave for last year a few posts ago were 269.7 mil in revenue, of which 16.8 million is royalties, with overhead costs of 179.7 mil. So that's 252.9 mil in non-royalty revenue. Cut that to 3/4 (I specifically said non-royalty revenue, since we're talking about model costs), and it's 189.7 mil. Add back in the royalties, hypothetical revenue is 206.5 mil. Over 179.7 mil costs, that's 26.8 mil profit. 26.8 / 206.5 = 13% profit margin.
In the latest report, the one I and Grey40k were referring to, they show 188.2 mil in revenue over the last six months, of which 93.2 mil is profit. That's a straight up 50% profit margin. That's nuts. At 3/4 current revenue they'd still have a 33% profit margin.
Their costs were 197.5M. 75% of 269.7 in revenue is 202M. That means 4.5M profit or 2.2%. A 2% increase in costs would almost put them in the red.
Cutting prices by 25% is not practical in the least. Unless I've done some math wrong again?
The figures you gave for last year a few posts ago were 269.7 mil in revenue, of which 16.8 million is royalties, with overhead costs of 179.7 mil. So that's 252.9 mil in non-royalty revenue. Cut that to 3/4 (I specifically said non-royalty revenue, since we're talking about model costs), and it's 189.7 mil. Add back in the royalties, hypothetical revenue is 206.5 mil. Over 179.7 mil costs, that's 26.8 mil profit. 26.8 / 206.5 = 13% profit margin.
In the latest report, the one I and Grey40k were referring to, they show 188.2 mil in revenue over the last six months, of which 93.2 mil is profit. That's a straight up 50% profit margin. That's nuts. At 3/4 current revenue they'd still have a 33% profit margin.
Where does the 197.5 come from?
The 269.7 is excluding royalties. 73.2 is operating profit. That gives us 197.5 in expenses.
The half year you guys are looking at is pretty exceptional given they got 25% of their revenue from online due to COVID. It was 16% previously. That's their highest margin business. Cost to sales also went from 36% to 28% likely due to not having to pay stores to be open.
What you're looking at is a pretty exceptional sales outcome that isn't likely to stay as is.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: There’d also be peeps understandably pissed they paid the old price immediately before the lower one kicked in.
GW’s prices are what they are.
We have this problem in Magic: The Gathering. There are players who have expressed anger when cards they spent large amounts of money are reprinted, and sell for significantly less. I have seen some of them express their dislike in such away that it is clear they possess a feeling of entitlement.
People have no right to complain if something they purchased becomes cheaper. They chose to pay that amount.
Blastaar wrote: ...People have no right to complain if something they purchased becomes cheaper. They chose to pay that amount.
While you're not wrong, there is an issue of incomplete information here. If the price change isn't telegraphed or announced ahead of time, I don't think it's unreasonable to be upset - had the buyer known of the change, they would have been able to make an informed decision (buy now at a known price, or wait to see what the new price is). Outside of designated announcement dates (think "Patch Tuesday") I don't think there would be a way to effectively avoid that (and I'm not sure it would be worth trying to avoid anyways), but I don't think it's entirely fair to say that people have no right to complain of price changes.
Happens in the computer games industry all the time.
Sales happen, permanent price drops happen.
Very few people get bent out of shape about it- its simply expected that the price will drop after the first several months of sales surpass costs and start garnering a profit.
That GW models actually go up with irregular price rises is frankly ridiculous. Its long after the cost of the moulds are paid, and the materials are peanuts. They can happily rake in profit even if they slashed a few percent off each year after the kit has paid for itself.
GW as an investment can be pretty good. Take care of it, paint it well, have half a brain when assembling it all and you could make out from the point you bought it , used it, at least break even by the time you sell it. You could even profit from cashing out of the hobby. I can say I wouldn't mind at all if they lowered prices.
That said, I have seen the glory, we are actually agreeing GW could lower prices and still stay good. Another sign of hope for us all. Way to go Dakka community, bringing the good stuff. You all earn a gold star today and a cookie.
and of course now you just introduce a new form of creep.
Is that right, no store copy to be leafed through? Damn 
You've heard of Chapterhouse I assume? 
