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.

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.

I certainly wouldn't mind if this edition lasted for the next four or even five years. Three years between editions is pushing it hard.

Editions should last 3 years after everyone has a codex, not 3 years, but only 6 months after everyone has a codex.

[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.



-- 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.

Deadnight wrote:


The simple truth is it's an astronomical amount of work, for very little, if any payback.

Which is another reason why codexes should last 5ish years, not 1.5 to 3 years.

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.

bouncingboredom wrote:


[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.

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.

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.

yukishiro1 wrote:

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?

How the hell is the current cycle good for game design? You're not serious are you?

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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

-- 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.

-- 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.

-- 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:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

ccs wrote:

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.