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.

When Warhammer 40K and Warhammer Fantasy Battles have had their core rules refreshed, there have been two main ways GW has dealt with their existing line of codices/army books. One is to keep the codices/army books valid even though the core rules have changed, the other is to invalidate all the codices/army books and temporarily replace them a 'gets you by' set of army lists for all the races until a new version of their codex/army book can be produced.

Which of these methods do you prefer?

Two words... Ogre Kingdoms... oh, wait, Necrons too!

yeah,
I think that all codices should remain valid, but every codex should get a new edition FAQ containing errata to keep armies valid, keeping them honest and even boosting those that need it...

Panic...

Gut reaction is to keep them... because over a decade is way too long to wait for GW to get their act into gear. Not to mention skipping an edition. "Oh, you wanted to play DE in 4th? To bad, you don't have a valid codex."

I voted to have the rules reset, but I don't think that necessarily means get-you-by army lists. All GW has to do is reprint every codex simultaneously, at the same time as the main rulebook. Give every book a caption or something on the front, saying 'for 6th edition' or whatever. Don't change the art/background, don't add any new units.

Clarify the wording of all special rules to match the new core rules, replace or remove any completely useless rules (e.g. outnumbering-related rules from 4th to 5th edition) and rebalance the entire codex's points costs where necessary.

It'd be easy as anything. GW will never do it, but still.

I'd prefer the armies stay valid with the caveat that this should be followed by quick succession revisions of ALL army books to bring them up to the current rules revision.

Doesn't have to be a complete top to bottom redesign... just a quick revisit to fix any areas of the Codex broken/invalidated by the new rules and in the process perhaps tweak point costs and/or wargear options to suit the new Edition.

Why would you ever vote FOR allowing armies to fall out of balance? Seriously, I want an answer from the 'choice a' voters out there.

PDF armies for the win... maybe then Tau and Necrons can move away from being the blandest of armies. Also, we won't have Matt Ward codex releases that take an army from obscurity to DoC power levels overnight.

A get-you-by Codex would be the worst thing possible. We all know that the balance of these 'draft' armies would be rubbish anyway, and it would be the Space Marines who get their own codex first anyway, immediately making them better than all other 'get-you-by' armies. Hell, they probably wouldn't even finish updating all the armies with thier own codex before the decade was out. And as soon as they finished (or even sooner) they would come out with another(!) edition of the rules.


Keep the codexes.

Perhaps its the drafts that are reasonable and the final releases that are the things that get all the funny new kits tacked onto it *cough, all the 5th edition codices, cough*.

It's the way Privateer Press does things and that game seemed fairly balanced and well... loved, to put it frankly. Loved by the company that made it.

yakface wrote:
When Warhammer 40K and Warhammer Fantasy Battles have had their core rules refreshed, there have been two main ways GW has dealt with their existing line of codices/army books. One is to keep the codices/army books valid even though the core rules have changed, the other is to invalidate all the codices/army books and temporarily replace them a 'gets you by' set of army lists for all the races until a new version of their codex/army book can be produced.

Which of these methods do you prefer?

What is the difference? One gives you an excuse if you lose where as the other does not?

I like the fluff/meta game of a system that shifts in favor of different factions as time goes by. It lends to the idea that the battle is happening in time, not just as the dice roll.

Then again, I haven't been in the game very long. Can anyone tell me, do the rules shift in favor of the same 2 or 3 armies predominantly?

I think the first option needs to be split into two new options:

1) Keep the existing codices valid, but do a thorough FAQ/Errata of all the legacy codices to make sure that Tau can use their target locks (for example).

2) Keep the existing codices valid, but deny the existence of a new set of rules and just pretend that everything is working fine.

The Codeces should probably come bundled with the rulebook, and should all be updated for a new ruleset simultaneously.

Of course, we all know that this will never happen, as GW just loves to milk that extra cash out of you, but it would be the most efficient way to do things.

The majority of the rulebooks have been nothing but fluff. I say that this should be relegated to peripheral material as opposed to the codeces, as the rules for each individual army are much more important to keep the flow of the game intact.

Chrysaor686 wrote:The Codeces should probably come bundled with the rulebook, and should all be updated for a new ruleset simultaneously.

Of course, we all know that this will never happen, as GW just loves to milk that extra cash out of you, but it would be the most efficient way to do things.

The majority of the rulebooks have been nothing but fluff. I say that this should be relegated to peripheral material as opposed to the codeces, as the rules for each individual army are much more important to keep the flow of the game intact.

What I imagine to be both efficient and profitable would be if all the GW books (rules and codices) came in three ring binders. That way you could literally update your books with published errata downloaded either for free or at a small cost from the GW website. Once a brand spankin new codex or rulebook is distributed it invalidates the previous and starts anew. This is how I wish GW did it.

Slackermagee wrote:
It's the way Privateer Press does things and that game seemed fairly balanced and well... loved, to put it frankly. Loved by the company that made it.

A sinister reference to GW's eternal chant that there is no room for love in 40k?

I've been in Warhammer for about 20 years and went through the period where all the Army Books and Codex Books were invalid when the core rules were revised. Let me say that it was truly terrible playing with the "get you by" lists GW supplied until your Codex/Army Book was revised months or years down the road. Playing with a somewhat out-of-date Codex is still miles (or kilometers) better than playing with a stripped down colorless generic list. Having several hundred dollars worth of Army Books suddenly become invalid overnight was definitely not fun or practical and I promised myself I wouldn't buy any army books that weren't essential for me if that system remained in place. Thankfully it did not.

Frankly, I was more than a bit suprised to even see this question and poll here. If you've been through the situation I described above you'll understand. Believe me, the current system is a HUGE improvement over the previous system of invalidating every army book every time core rules were revised. In fact, I wouldn't buy half the army books I've been buying the past couple years if they went back to that system and probably less models too.

Panic wrote:yeah,
I think that all codices should remain valid, but every codex should get a new edition FAQ containing errata to keep armies valid, keeping them honest and even boosting those that need it...

Panic...

QFT.

Dark Eldar, while some of THE least updated, are still extremely powerful if played right due to some crazy weapon costs.

Dark Eldar, while some of THE least updated, are still extremely powerful if played right due to some crazy weapon costs.

And way more powerful and colorful than if they were being played with a "get you by" list. Trust me, those lists were horrible. An older army book is still full of wonderful stuff that is NOT in a "get you by" list. I would venture to say that anyone voting for the "get you by" list solution never played with those and really has no idea just how lacking they were when GW used that solution. Even the worst Codex/Army Book ever produced had more going for it than a short, bland, "get you by" list.

I would be ok with it if they just put out the current edition (insert army here) Codex when the new edition came out. Not a new codex, no new models, just a simple rule fix-up to make it mesh with the current edition. I would love to see this in conjunction with the current new codex and new model patterns we are getting now.

yakface wrote:
When Warhammer 40K and Warhammer Fantasy Battles have had their core rules refreshed, there have been two main ways GW has dealt with their existing line of codices/army books. One is to keep the codices/army books valid even though the core rules have changed, the other is to invalidate all the codices/army books and temporarily replace them a 'gets you by' set of army lists for all the races until a new version of their codex/army book can be produced.

Which of these methods do you prefer?

To be fair, they only took the second option when they shifted from 2nd to 3rd, and it wasn't so much an option as an unavoidable consequence of a complete rules overhaul.

Why not a combination of both, where they keep all the books but release a FAQ that updates any funky rules/problems that creep up with the new edition.

I think you're missing an option of:

I prefer the codices/army books remain valid even if some armies become unbalanced by the new rules. However there are extensive FAQs (each written by the writer of the original codex or new rulebook) for each codex released so that they work with the new rules and so that no army is entirely written off by rules changes.

4. They should FAQ/PDF older codices when a new Rulebook comes out.

GW knows full well which Codices are designed for which Edition, and releasing a digital update shouldn't be a problem.

It seems most of use would prefer the option of keeping the codexes but having blanket FAQs/Updates so they remain balanced as part of GWs new rules design process...

I would not expect GW to ever release new versions of all Codices after a core rules edition.

"Rolling" Codex releases (1 revised Codex every few months) is a key part of their business and marketing models.

The best we can hope is for GW to release a comprehensive set of FAQs and revisions to keep each supported army up to date with the new edition. Ideally this includes both clarifying or rewriting Codex rules that are effected by the core rules updates as well as simple adjustments to points costs, etc. to keep the armies reasonably balanced (both intra- and inter-Codex).

Is this what the poll means as a "get you by" list? I think that implies a much reduced army list. I think a more reasonable approach is for the existing Codices, as modified by the FAQs/addendum/errata/etc., to be legal.

Unfortunately, GW does not particularly take Game Design very seriously, nor does it believe in actively maintaining intra- and inter-Codex balance. So this is probably asking for too much.

However, if they were to release some form of army updates with new core rules editions, there are plenty of options for how they could do so, from free downloadable PDFs, incorporation with the main rulebook, as a secondary book, or as separate (perhaps bundled) pamphlet-sized books.

LMoE

If the game was ever balanced properly people would not need to buy new units or codexes. Why would GW ever wanna do that ??

FlingitNow wrote:I think you're missing an option of:

I prefer the codices/army books remain valid even if some armies become unbalanced by the new rules. However there are extensive FAQs (each written by the writer of the original codex or new rulebook) for each codex released so that they work with the new rules and so that no army is entirely written off by rules changes.

This poll wan't designed as 'pick the best possible way for 40K/WHFB to be updated' but rather a simple way to gather data on this particular question. GW has previously used both methods when updating their game systems and often people throw around statements about how many (or how few) people prefer one way or the other, so I figured it would be interesting to actually see what the ratio really is (at least based on online players).


I'm sure there are many, many ways that the system of refreshing their games could be improved from an individual player's perspective, but without us being actually able to see the costs and time involved with production and development and other limitations imposed on the designers/writers by being part of a publicly traded company, such a poll would ultimately be a little pointless.


Hell, I'd like 10 new races for 40K and I'd like all the codices to be instantly all updated, but at the end of the day there are production realities involved with making such things possible that we can't necessarily quantify from someone not working for the company.

The first option can work well, but only if they actually do a fairly balanced update cycle, and if they release FAQs/addendums to ensure that all the codecies remain up to date with the rules. GW's just too lazy to do it properly.

@Fafnir: Maybe so, but if this poll had the options "as it is now" or "the ideal way" one might question its value.

Well, there are plenty of realistically ideal answers, but the problem is that GW is simply too stubborn and too lazy to do any of them properly.

Well, back in the days of Chapter Approved, GW updated specific entries in existing Codices, including points cost changes for balance.

So this option isn't entirely unheard of.

LMoE