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.

 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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

PenitentJake wrote:

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.

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).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:

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.

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).

Voss wrote:


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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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?

PenitentJake wrote:

Voss wrote:


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....

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
People were having fun in 7th too. What's your point?

Oh, so 7th is just as good as 9th?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
People were having fun in 7th too. What's your point?

Oh, so 7th is just as good as 9th?

not much worse if you ignore the stupid gak like Gladius and Decurion

Wayniac wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
People were having fun in 7th too. What's your point?

Oh, so 7th is just as good as 9th?

not much worse if you ignore the stupid gak like Gladius and Decurion

So no invisible death stars?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
People were having fun in 7th too. What's your point?

Oh, so 7th is just as good as 9th?

not much worse if you ignore the stupid gak like Gladius and Decurion

So no invisible death stars?

Falls under the "like" category.

PenitentJake wrote:

Voss wrote:


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.

Yeah, but that's... just factually wrong. Celestians have distinct helmets and dominions are a loadout. There are definitely models for those datasheets.
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Adepta-Sororitas-Dominions-Celestians-2020

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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Falls under the "like" category.

'

So if we ignore all of how 7th played it is totally the same as 9th?

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).

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.

Lesson learned.
Lurk Moar.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
People were having fun in 7th too. What's your point?

Oh, so 7th is just as good as 9th?

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.

Voss wrote:

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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

-- 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.

-- 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.

bouncingboredom wrote:

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.

bouncingboredom wrote:

[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.