Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

*generates bile*

Ok. Here we go...

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:Jervis kindly delivered a seminar in Bugman's on Saturday night, and after running through the new releases for January (and February?) he was open to questions. With regard to most 'further out than the next two months' questions he stated that it was impossible to say what would come out when.

Because they won't tell us, or they honestly don't know? And assuming they do know - which I do - why? What do they gain from keeping us in the dark?

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:That said, he would not confirm that Phil Kelly is working on the Guard book.

Anyone remember that song that goes "You say it best when you say nothing at all?". I think that must be Jervis' theme song.

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:He stated that the plan is to now work to a 4-6 year period of renewal for the codexes and army books. As in Canada a few months ago he reiterated that if they get ahead then new stuff can come in, but only if they are on course with the existing books. He sounded genuine in this to my mind.

So that sets an upper-limit on the new DE book at 16 years... we've had 10 so far right? So max of 6 more years guys. The US might have a new President by the time we get a new Archon. Hopefully we'll get it sooner though... the Archon that is, not the new President.

And by 'new stuff' I'm taking that to mean new armies and races. I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, what other sci-fi-mixed-with-fantasy archetypes are left to mine for content? Other than an AdMech army, what's left? Hrud (Space Skaven) and Demiurg (which they won't do). I'd also rather than keep working on the existing races to bring them into line. On the other hand it would be really sweet to get an AdMech army.

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:I asked about the rumoured combined/not combined Inquisition book. What he stated was that Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters will remain seperate army lists, that they remain part of the planned 4-6 year edition life cycle, and that the focus will shift towards the militant chambers for each rather than the emphasis being on the Inquisitors. He indicated that the emphasis came from the fact that they were working on Inquisitor at around the same time and basically got a bit carried away.

Fail. (/Stelek)

I love my Daemonhunter/Witch Hunter army. I don't use GKs or SoBs. I use nothing but the crap Inquisitor units and they're great fun. I guess they'll soon be joining my LatD army unless DD can come up with another great 'counts as' example.

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:I brought up the wargear/weapon discrepencies for identical wargear across different codexes. He may have misconstrued my question because he defended it by citing different points costings, but didn't offer any hope of resolution when I clarified my question as in essence they (GW) see it as too big an undertaking to create such consistency (I may be misquoting Jervis, and apologies if I am, but that felt like the gist of the response).

Assuming that is what Jervis said, or is the gist of what Jervis was saying, then I'm simply stunned. Too big an undertaking to have internal consistency between Codices? So it's too hard to ensure that a Storm Shield has the same rules in 4 different books, all of which are Marine armies?

I won't say any more on that particular comment both because it's not 100% accurate and we'd be here all day if I didn't stop...

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:Besides Griff Oberwald upcoming (SG I know, but bear with me) he indicated that there is no planned renewed support for Specialist Games at this time, which obviously has an impact on the 40K realted elements.

Just makes me laugh. No planned renewed support? Weren't they telling us not long ago that they'd continue to support it? So which is it? The same level of support or no support? Are are those two the same thing!

Actually, if this is true, then maybe getting Storm Shields to have the same rules across Codices is an impossible task for them. They can't get internal consistency within the company, so what chance do we have of getting it within their rules?

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:So a lot of what we know or believe we know, but the Inquisition bit of confirmation and allusion to direction shift interested me.

The Inquisition shift is insulting and demoralising. Say hello to Generic Henchmen in the next Codex - up to two may take one of the following weapons blah blah blah, may add a further 5 Henchmen for +X points and so on.

BYE

Are you that surprised by all of this: Customers kept in the dark? Consistency between codecies? Specialist Games support? More "counts as" armies as opposed to fleshed out codecies?

Nothing new here.... unfortunately.

Not shocked at all, here. By the closed-mouth business model or HMBC's tightly clenched rage.

Ah well, hopefully we'll see SW codex and an IG codex this year. I care naught for anythign else.

I think they should like, make a new Inquisition codex already. Yes, one exactly the same as what they have now.

I care naught for their Codices, but I want to see the new Space Wolf models. Cannot wait to see the SW sprue.

BYE

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:I asked about the rumoured combined/not combined Inquisition book. What he stated was that Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters will remain seperate army lists, that they remain part of the planned 4-6 year edition life cycle, and that the focus will shift towards the militant chambers for each rather than the emphasis being on the Inquisitors. He indicated that the emphasis came from the fact that they were working on Inquisitor at around the same time and basically got a bit carried away.

Arse! I have no other word for it, save perhaps 'bunch' and 'of'.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I care naught for their Codices, but I want to see the new Space Wolf models. Cannot wait to see the SW sprue.

BYE

I'm pretty sure we've already seen the majority of it.

The re-cut sprue will be nice, but probably not mind-blowing.

And all the stuff about the apparent death of the Inquisition army as we know it?

Depressing.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Because they won't tell us, or they honestly don't know? And assuming they do know - which I do - why? What do they gain from keeping us in the dark?

I had a friend, who I've unfortunately lost contact with, who used to work in the US sales team for GW in Baltimore. He had an interesting story as to why GW is so close lipped about release dates. I was on an extended break from the hobby at the time so I don't remember these events but apparently when the Falcon Grav Tank was originally being released GW had spent months hyping it up proclaiming the release date etc. There was a slight problem with a large portion of the initial supply for the US being washed overboard in heavy seas crossing the Atlantic. Release date came with hardly any models being available in the US causing a massive outcry from retailers and gamers thinking they were being neglected, slighted, whatever. Ever since then GW doesn't officially announce anything until a few months prior to prevent something like this from happening again.

True? I have no idea... My friend was the consumate salesman (i.e. slimy) so he might have been feeding me a line. It's a nice story though and does make some kind of slowed GW sense.

As for Specialist Games, they really haven't supported them for many years. As much as I love them they're not profitable. I have heard Jervis say that 50% of ALL sales are Space Marines, they basically fuel the rest of the hobby. Specialist games were barely on the radar and losing sales at a steady rate. Then for a few years when Jervis was running Fanatic and they were getting a decent amount of support sales stopped dropping but they never increased. So all those resources that could be dedicated to space marines which are profitable could only make specialist game tread water. I'm not at all surprised at the current attitude towards Specialist Games.

Swoop!

Bottom line on Specialist Games (and I love SG) is that the situation is a heckuva lot better than it was when I first entered the hobby (mid-nineties). Back then, new games were introduced, supported for a few months, and then dropped. Specialist Games are still available, along with their minis. With the exception of Epic, the ranges are more or less complete. Do we really NEED more Necromunda gangs, or a new fleet for BFG, or whatever, to play those games? No.

Obviously things were supergood for SG during the LotR bubble, but those days are long-gone. I'd like to see some more Chaos and Nids for Epic, and maybe a Tau infantry sprue, but I'm in no hurry.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Hrud (Space Skaven)

Not to derail the thread, but Hrud are a bit more like a cross between Chimpanzees and the creature from Alien.

Besides that, most of this info is good news, if it can be believed anyway.

How are they going to flesh out all those army selections for grey knights when you basically have power armour, terminator armour, dreads and land raiders.

SOB I can see working as a fully fleshed out list but GKs? Nope. Not with what they have ATM.

Everything can go except the assassins. They rule.

Here's an idea... why doesn't GW sell off the rulebook section? They can concentrate of selling models whilst another company can sort the rules out. Who knows, if this company just does the rules then we can get a faster turnaround, which then means GW can produce more models. Job done, both companies are happy and we the gamer get better rules.

IMO, Grey Knight armies are ALREADY a bad idea! The few options they have are already too much. GK Termies? Well those are bad-a$$. GK Marines? Cool minis, would make sense fluff-wise if they needed more flexibilty. I always thought that Grey Knight Landraiders were one the worst ideas ever. Plus, in 9 out of 10 cases it looks dumb and(or horrible.

Sisters are a nice army, but they really should keep the Inquisitor stuff. I don't care much for the Death Cult Assassins, but the classic imperial assassins, the henchmen and Arco-Flagelants or whatever they're called are all really cool and fluffy units.

And were is my Ordo-Xenos list gork damnit

H.B.M.C. wrote:*generates bile*

H.B.M.C patent power ups!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:I asked about the rumoured combined/not combined Inquisition book. What he stated was that Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters will remain seperate army lists, that they remain part of the planned 4-6 year edition life cycle, and that the focus will shift towards the militant chambers for each rather than the emphasis being on the Inquisitors. He indicated that the emphasis came from the fact that they were working on Inquisitor at around the same time and basically got a bit carried away.

I love my Daemonhunter/Witch Hunter army. I don't use GKs or SoBs. I use nothing but the crap Inquisitor units and they're great fun. I guess they'll soon be joining my LatD army unless DD can come up with another great 'counts as' example.

The Inquisition shift is insulting and demoralising. Say hello to Generic Henchmen in the next Codex - up to two may take one of the following weapons blah blah blah, may add a further 5 Henchmen for +X points and so on.

Now this would not be too bad an idea if handled correctly, which is technically possible but likely only if the studio monkeys accidentally lean on the wrong keys while typing.

I can see the value of seperate Inquisitor, Grey Knight, Sisters of Battle and Deathwatch army lists. the question is how many codex will be needed for this. One? - Very packed and therefore unlikely. Four? - One of each army, possible but not likely especially with the combined Chaos codex.

I would like to see the Sisters of Battle - which is a fighting arm of the clergy, not the Inquisition, get their own book. The Daemonhunters codex should be Grey Knights with the possible inclusion of an Inquisitor, maybe maybe not.
A third Codex Inquisition including all the standard Inquisitor units, and seperate benefits for Ordo Malleus Zenos and Hereticus Inquisitors. Deathwatch are independent units, not armies so they can fit in with a Xenos Inquisitor.

Handled correctly it would work, but GW oversimplifying things as usual will blur the lines in their moronic quest to standardised. Just as you get Blood Dragon Necrachs of Von Carstein and Sorcerer daemon princes of Khorne you will all too likely get generic =I= with Xenos, Malleus & Hereticus multi-membership cards, with non-radical daemonhosts, and Deathwatch bodyguard as standard builds. Just watch it happen.

Ah, reporting to us with your own opinion stated as fact. How very Fox News!

Overall, not exactly a great deal of information in the quoted thread.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah, reporting to us with your own opinion stated as fact. How very Fox News!

Overall, not exactly a great deal of information in the quoted thread.

lol that cracked me up...



The story about the falcons is true- there is about a 3 month period of time that staff are allowed to talk about- this is to avoid issues arising from weird sitatuons that make things change- like the falcons in the sea problem. Its no good telling everyone now that the guard codex is coming out in xyz, if it ends up delayed because the new plastic kit is delayed 5 months due to someone dropping the mold.


Following that knowledge that GW has the 3 month period their allowed to talk about- getting annoyed at the lack of support for specialist games in that short time or an idea for inquisition troops seems abit silly and abit of a knee jerk reaction.

There is nothing planned for SG in the next 3 months- does that mean they are forgotten- nope- are they still supported- yep- and may get new stuff if it fits into the release scheduel
Who knows what shape the inquisiton will take? Are some people going to be unhappy with the direction it takes- maybe- but i'm sure there will be people who are happy with whatever direction they go for.

They could put all the Inquisition/SoB armies into one big codex the size of the new SM codex.

It is not acceptable to work to a 4-6 TAT for codexes when that is the TAT for rules as well.

Some armies have been unupgraded for years. Others (e.g. Tau) get a codex that is only good for 2 years out of the rule cycle.

This could of course be fixed by proper FAQ publication.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah, reporting to us with your own opinion stated as fact. How very Fox News!

Overall, not exactly a great deal of information in the quoted thread.

Thats not very fair, besides who is it aimed at?

The whole thread is not a 'news article' but a review of a 'news article'. Opinioned commentary is therefore acceptable, in fact normal. If it involves the latest studio platitudes and half statements H.B.M.C. is going to put his slant on it, I would like to see you try stop him. And if he doesn't comment I usually very shortly do, and am not afraid to put my views forward either.

This is the downside of handing a bunch of "standalone" codexes, with non-existent FAQ support. it really is shocking that they can't keep it together. Do these people not have Word/Excel? Keep the items and key terms on an excel sheet/database. Insert as needed. If there is a change for tactical reasons then FAQ it and make the change in future printings of the impacted codexes. They make some good minis but they really suck at everything else.

I know it wouldn't make economic sense for GW, but wouldn't it be nice if they just developed all of the codices, got them right and then said "There you go, there's the rules for the armies. Now go have fun"? The rules for Monopoly have stayed the same since the game was invented, why can't 40k or whfb? I know it's a way of generating more cash blah blah blah, but it would be nice.....

Just out of interest is there anybody out there on the board who has experience of writing GW rulebooks and codexes? Do they really need to take that long to write? Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but surely 4 people working a normal working week can sort out a codex in a month or two (this is me being really generous here time wise). These 4 people get the rules sorted out, pass them onto the design team, who add all the nice pretty stuff. Whilst this is happening the same group moves on to the next set of rules. Surely modifiying pre-existing rules can't be that hard?

Ooops, sorry just realised I'm being too sensible here, forgot that the usual GW approach is to have just 1 person do the rules and only allow them 2 hours per week to work on them. Stupid, silly gamer you're old enough to know that the equation, logic + GW is an unworkable formula!

They need to write new codices so that they can force line churn.

100% true Frazz.

But to answer Wolfstan's question - if you're just looking at the rules side of it (ignoring fluff and graphical layout/design), then no, it doesn't take to get through the physical act of writing a Codex. Usually takes me a weekend.

But actually sitting down and writing it is not the hard part. It's everything that goes with it - conceptualising things, crunching numbers, running scenarios and hypthetical lists, actual playtesting once things are done. GW does two of the things I just said, and one of them quite badly. Guess which two they are? Here's a hint - none of the ones in the middle.

Writing a Codex is easy. Getting it right is the hard part. GW's track record with the second part is quite telling and, if Jervis' comment on keeping records of things is true, it is something they are incapable of doing.

Grotsnik - The Tireless Threadstarter wrote:Ah, reporting to us with your own opinion stated as fact. How very Fox News!

Ah, starting a post with an ad hominem attack that neither rebuts anything I said nor adds anything to the conversation. How very JohnHwangDD of you.

Listen Grotsnik, how many times did I say 'If this is true' or 'If this is to believed' or words to that effect? How many times did I said "I guess" or "I believe" or "I think". All of these statements amount to two things:

1. I don't regard the information I posted as 100% accurate (as the person who originally posted it didn't think it was 100% accurate) so I am quite willing to be proven wrong.
2. I'm stating opinion as opinion.

The only two things I've stated as fact so far are:

A). I'm looking forward to the Space Wolf sprue.
B). My comments and opinions of JWDD, although if I continue to call a spade a spade in that area I'll get banned again, so I'll leave that one alone. For now.

Swoop wrote: There was a slight problem with a large portion of the initial supply for the US being washed overboard in heavy seas crossing the Atlantic. Release date came with hardly any models being available in the US causing a massive outcry from retailers and gamers thinking they were being neglected, slighted, whatever. Ever since then GW doesn't officially announce anything until a few months prior to prevent something like this from happening again.

So because something out of their control happened, and a bunch of people whined, they've shut everyone out?

Nope.

Sorry.

Don't buy that.

If the reason Jervis says they can't speak about the release schedule beyond 3 months is because they honestly haven't got it set in stone yet, then that's fine. I don't mind if they really haven't got a 100% concrete release schedule done beyond three months, but at least say that you don't rather than sticking us behind the Bland Curtain.

Plus they don't have to give release dates, simply give us an idea of what they're doing. It's not a case of "The plastic Valkyrie will be released on the X-Day of Y-Month". It's simply a case of saying "Yes, there is a plastic Valkyrie".

How close to the release date of the Ork 2nd Wave did we get before we had actual confirmation of what was in it? I think keeping us in the dark about release dates is fine - chances are they're something you can't know well in advance because of all the outside factors that go into getting a product onto shelves - but to not even tell us what's in it? What benefit is there?

There's a massive difference between:

"We're planning on doing this, and we're going to have a [new unit X] and a [new unit Y] and [re-do unit Z]. And [member of studio] will be writing the book."

... and ...

"[Member of studio] is writing [new product] that will be released on the X-Day of Y-Month. On the same day [new unit X] and [new unit Y] will also be released. Two weeks later, on the Z-Day of Y-Month, the [re-do unit Z] will be released."

Whereas right now it's a case of:

"We aim to cycle things through every 4 to 6 years but we won't ever tell you what's coming until it's just about to hit shelves."

BYE

Just to play devil's advocate, couldn't the three month window also be a defense against them changing their mind? I mean, sure, perhaps RIGHT NOW the plastic valkyrie is on. Then they work production molds, crunch he $ numbers, and it's way too much. So they can it. If they start showing us pre-production models and telling us it's coming out, then pull it, we'd be pissed. Better to say "Surprise!" when it does come out than say "Sorry" when it doesn't.

I suppose that's a corralary of the "easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission" assertion.

Regardless, it's part of their business model now, and it doesn't seem to adversely effect the amount of speculation, substantiated news, or ranting on the interwebs, so I can't see any incentive on their part to change it.

They work on plastic models for over a year before we even see them (or, they did - don't know how the rapid prototyping machine changes that - anyone who knows please correct me), so it's not like they would can a model a few months before the Codex is due out.

And even if we go with what you say Scotty - which is perfectly resonable - it isn't much to say "If it proves technical viable, we are planning a Valkyrie for the next Guard revisions, whenever that revision may be". It's a simple way of saying what they're doing without having to commit to a time-frame (or commit to anything really - just giving us a statement of intent rather than a blank wall).

BYE

Because they won't tell us, or they honestly don't know? And assuming they do know - which I do - why? What do they gain from keeping us in the dark?

Because announcing it to you means announcing it to stores, suppliers, and other business related interests. If a release date that they announce early is cancelled or pushed back it can have further ramifications then just annoyed gamers. Expectations come into play in business, and you want to control those expectations.

Assuming that is what Jervis said, or is the gist of what Jervis was saying, then I'm simply stunned. Too big an undertaking to have internal consistency between Codices? So it's too hard to ensure that a Storm Shield has the same rules in 4 different books, all of which are Marine armies?

When those books are often times spaced several years and editions apart yeah, its too big an undertaking. They could either have wargear equivalent and stagnant in all books, leaving it either overpowered forever or underpowered forever. Or they could introduce change per codex then update the others when they get renewed. I don't like having to have lengthy FAQ documents for every codex altering vast swathes of rules, if I wanted that I would be playing WARMACHINE.

Just accept the fact that your storm shields have a 4+ instead of a 3+, move on.

I love my Daemonhunter/Witch Hunter army. I don't use GKs or SoBs. I use nothing but the crap Inquisitor units and they're great fun. I guess they'll soon be joining my LatD army unless DD can come up with another great 'counts as' example.

Considering the fact that the inquisition is not a militant organization and only takes command of armies when dire need arises I don't really mind the witch hunters and daemonhunters going back to what they should have been before. That being the militant branch of the ecclesiarchy and ordo malleus. Keep in mind, a shift in focus doesn't mean removal from the (clearly broken and dysfunctional) books. While you may dislike it I bet the SoB players are delighted by the shifted focus.

The Inquisition shift is insulting and demoralising. Say hello to Generic Henchmen in the next Codex - up to two may take one of the following weapons blah blah blah, may add a further 5 Henchmen for +X points and so on.

Say goodbye to the ridiculous and confusing inquisitor retinues and say hello to expanded and interesting possibilities within an ecclesiarchy based force! The inquisitor retinue was interesting and fluffy, but it didn't function well in the game and didn't make sense. Why does having a guy with a sword make your inquisitor better? And how is your opponent supposed to keep track of it all, especially if they have little experience with the unpopular and rare army that you're playing? The henchman squads were very poorly implemented and overcomplicated, as was the initial focus of that entire book.

Great OPED peice HMBC.

To the poster who said that GW should outsource their codex creation, BRAVO!. Most of us assume (I think) that GW only makes new codex to push modes, as they have frequently stated. Well since they cannot, or refuse, to do a good job at thatm why not outsource it and put stipulations on it, such as:
1. Unit x in new C:GOATFARMER must be better than unit z because we are releasing a new model.
2. Units a,b,c must remain almost entirely unchanged.

And then after the stipulation let the other comapny check for accuracy, layout usefullness, etc...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:I brought up the wargear/weapon discrepencies for identical wargear across different codexes. He may have misconstrued my question because he defended it by citing different points costings, but didn't offer any hope of resolution when I clarified my question as in essence they (GW) see it as too big an undertaking to create such consistency (I may be misquoting Jervis, and apologies if I am, but that felt like the gist of the response).

I've said it many times before and I've pretty much given up on saying it. But for old time's sake (like twenty plus years of arguing this point with GW staff and gamers)...

Items should cost the same in all Codexes. Doesn't matter if it's a Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, Extra Armour, Powerfist, whatever. If the statline of the item is the same, it should cost the same. End of story.

Items that are identical should not cost different amounts in different Codexes. They certainly should not cost different amounts within the same Codex. And they should never have their cost changed because of which unit they are assigned to. And they should never, ever, ever be made cheaper for more powerful units and dearer for weaker units in the name of 'army balance'. That's not balance. That's stupidity.

But hey, no one's listening at GW, so why am I bothering?

i think im banning new GW products in my house until they get there gak together.

Items should cost the same in all Codexes. Doesn't matter if it's a Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, Extra Armour, Powerfist, whatever. If the statline of the item is the same, it should cost the same. End of story.

So a guardsmans lascanon should cost the same as a space marines. Good to know that you get to pay the same points for a model that will miss twice as often with a third the survivability.

Yeah, that makes so much god damn sense.