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 reckon that, rather than combining codexes, GW should break down the codexes.
That way you can buy what you want and only what you want.
I like the Minidex and Fluffdex idea too.

"These numbers are loose and based on unsupported comments from talking with store managers as are all following numbers. If they are innacurrate please to correct me."

Problem is that GW has about a six month promotion and sales cycle on armies with new codex releases. People will tell you it is a 3 month window but GW only manages to average about 2 40K armies a year so in reality about 6 months per army. You then take 15-16 codices and you get about an 8 year cycle before everyone gets updated. That is in an ideal world where GW is trying to be balanced.

Problem is that GW releases a new BRB rule set on average every five years. This in itself isn't a problem because as long as GW follows a repeating release schedule it means that different armies get to reap the benefit of the full 5 years on a ruleset.

Now the bigger problem is that the last couple of times GW has immediately redone SM and IG immediately following a BRB release. This allowing the SM and IG to "cut in line" smacks of a definitive bias for these 2 armies and forces other armies to go as long as 10-11 years between updates.

GW claims that this bias is because 60% of the players out there play SM or at least SM are responsible for 60% of their sales.
Not that big of a deal when you factor in that:

1)People play multiple armies
2)That including Chaos 45-50% of the armies can and usually do field SM models
3)That SMs account for about 60% or more of GWs releases or promos. Think about it. When was the last time you saw an Ork vs Tau Battleset, or Necron vs Eldar battleset.

What I'm saying is that The SMs are tied to just about every other army release and if it is not then it is IG. GW explains this as using sales leaders to help promote but if you actually look SMs may actually be underperforming when compared to shelf space and percentage of promotion.

If GW actually invested as much into other armies or just spread the love around a bit more evenly then profits might go up. Both the Tau and the Eldar recieve less than 10% of promotion time but both have managed to maintain 10% or better sales outside of their 6 month promotion windows at some point(When they've had strong codices)

This is my argument for some consolodation of the codices. That doing so would actually allow for a bit of expansion in areas that will help drive interst in the game through storyline based rivalries.
A)Things like LatD and Genestealer cults make the Imperium intersting.
B)Write Tau codices with rule for traitor guard allies.
C)Eldar codices where they shelter and train witches(Non sanctioned psykers) for their own benefit. They've found thier souls reborn in humans. Or to get away from Imperium centric stories release an Eldar/Necron Main Battle force set and expand the Eldar Necron eternal enemy story-line a bit.
D)Have Genestealer cults be hidden in the Ork race trying to spread through the Ork Waagghhs. Rules for how the orks handle such and what the inquisition would do about such would be very interesting.

Doing things like this wouldn't be that difficult.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If GW could just be clear about which Codices would get updates every edition, every other edition, or never again, I could care less about Codices being updated / combined.

That may require a lot more advanced planning than they're really willing to do.

[Warning - long post ahead... ]

@focusedfire:

40k is now on a 4-year cycle, not a 5-year cycle. The 6 years of 40k3 to 40k4 were too long, as demonstrated by the TVR/TAR "40k3.5" period. The more recent 4 years of 40k4 is closer to the norm.

2 Codices-a-year understates reality. Since 2005, Codex releases have been:
2005 = Nids & BT
2006 = Tau & Eldar
2007 = DA, BA & CSM
2008 = Orks, Daemons & SM
2009 = IG (& SW)
So it's far more accurate to say 2 or 3 Codices per year.

Looking at the data, GW does (at least) one "major" Codex per year:
2000 = CWE
2001 = Nids
2002 = CSM
2003 = IG
2004 = SM
2005 = Nids (oldest major)
2006 = Eldar
2007 = CSM
2008 = Orks (& SM)
2009 = IG
Looking at this, there isn't really any problem with the major Codex releases. Every year, at least one of the 6 major armies (CSM, Eldar, IG, Orks, Nids) gets a Codex, following a major refresh cycle of 5 or 6 years, with the SM having the advantage of getting a "bonus" release tied to every new edition. Interestingly, with IG back in '03 and Nids rumored for '10, it looks like the cycle continues as established and we'll can project Eldar in '11, followed by CSM in '11... The sky isn't falling here.

If you're not a "major" army (as above), then you're on a slower schedule that is driven by sales:
1998 = DE1, BA
1999 = DA1
2000 = Armag (BT), SW
2001 = Tau
2002 = Necrons
2003 = EoT (LatD), DE2 & DH
2004 = WH (ending 3rd Ed)
2005 = BT
2006 = Tau
2007 = BA, DA
2008 = Daemons
If you're not buying a major army, then one pretty much needs to accept that Codex updates are going to be of a lower priority. This isn't so bad, as as it means that GW isn't going to mess with the balance of your army list as often. With a 5-year gap for updates, BT & Tau seem to have moved into the big leagues, but their next Codices will confirm their status (or not)...

Now, look at the other non-Codex releases:
2006 = CoD
2007 = Apoc!
2008 = 40k5 & Apoc:R
2009 = PS & PE (& SH?)
GW has been releasing 1 or 2 40k scenario books for a total of 4 or 5 total 40k books per year, and these seem to be doing OK, given the big push here since 2007.

I would conclude that, starting around 2005/2006, GW has been deliberately slowing the Codex release cycle because they probably get more revenue (and profit) overall from non-Codex / cross-Codex releases like Apoc & Planetstrike. When something like Apoc generates large sales across the board, it's not as effective to spend the same effort on a single (non-SM) army that generates a small sliver of sales just for that particular army.

This is also consistent wtih GW's shift away from Tournament support (for which new Codices are important) toward casual play (for which scenario books like Apoc, PS, & PE drive revenue). Especially considering how GW has stopped publishing Touranment-oriented printed & bound FAQs like Warhmammer Chroncles / Chapter Approved.

And here I was thinking this thread was about combined codices. Silly me...

@ John- please clarify what makes a major codex. is it age or sales? Reason, I ask is that the info I have is that the Tau have out sold some of the majors outside of their promotion cycle. Nids and Eldar come to mind.

As I see it, a major Codex is one of the original RT armies.

It's entirely possible that Tau have moved into those ranks, but it's a bit early to know for sure.

Do you think that it is in the best interest of the company and customers to have the SM and IG cutting in line to receive the fastest updates?

Would you like to see some streamlining of the release structure?

What is this doing in here?

*puts up the Alpharius signal*

SM? Yes, which is why they're in every starter since GW's done starters, have among the first Codices out of the gate for any given edition, along with bonus Codices for when people decide what sort of SM they really are.

IG? The facts simply don't support them getting updates any faster than either of the other big competitors (CSM & Eldar).

Given that I'm currently playing 6 40k armies, I don't think much streamlining is required. A 5-6 year cycle for my major Codices (CSM, Eldar, & IG) with a 6-10 year cycle for my secondary Codices (BA, Inq, SoB) means I'm on hook for buying a Codex nearly every year. If the Codex release schedule accelerated, I'd be buying 1 or 2 Codices every year. As I prefer to buy models over Codices, having to buy more Codices is not helpful to me.

If anything, tweaking the release structure would be better. I would be all for folding DE into the Eldar Codex as an Elite (a la LotD / Harlequins) to make room for LatD.

Actually, you would be buying less often if the consolodated the codices to streamline the release schedule.

As to the SM. Maybe its time to get a different poster boy for an aging franchise.

As I've already pointed out. The SM are actually underperforming a bit when combined with the resources that are thrown their way. I think it has to do with a limited model line and market saturation.

I'd be happy if the just shifted to IG or the Inquisition. Use them in the starter sets and GW will be forced to write decent codices to sell the models. These armies have greater variety and shifting the focus would create greater demand.

I don't think SMs are as popular as it is that GW customers are brain washed into thinking that you have to start with them. IMO, any other 40K army would perform just as well, if not better, in sales if they had the same amout of promotional attention as the SMs.

IMO, it has less to do with pure profit as it has to do with just getting as much profit as you can while doing the least work.(This is GW) Uh Oh, New SM Variant Codex coming out. Time to repackage all of the old Rhino and LandRaiders in different boxes. Don't forget to add the specialty sprue for themed shoulder pads and access doors.

GW could make more money switching to a different poster child but it would require more work than they want to do.

focusedfire wrote:(This is GW) Uh Oh, New SM Variant Codex coming out. Time to repackage all of the old Rhino and LandRaiders in different boxes. Don't forget to raise the prise as well.

Fixed your post.

When i saw this thread, i thought it was about

How would I be buying less often? Eldar, CSM, BA, IG, and Sisters don't overlap very much, so at best, I buy 5 instead of 6 Codices.

The problem with replacing SM is that they are *the* irreplaceable icons of 40k.

When reports are that SM generate over half of *all* GW sales, I doubt you can really say that they underperform relative to resources - even if they were taking up all of the 40k releases, they'd still be less than half of GW's stuff. At best, SM are taking 10-20% of GW's resources (50% 40k v 50% WFB & WotR; 1/3 of 40k vs everything else = 10-20% net), and overdelivering on that.

Shifting to IG would be horrible, because now, they look just like any other Moderns game, which undoes the whole Future bit. OTOH, if it became IG vs CSM, I guess it might work...

Actually, the start with SM strategy is pretty sound. SM are the basic core. They're easy to expand into a variant such as BA, DA, BT, or SW (even CSM to a lesser extent). Then you have Xenos to take the next step or contrast. Right now, SM vs Orks is a great intro because of how much the Orks are NOT SM.

I think it takes relatively little effort to make a "new" SM Codex. Most of the pictures, Fluff, and rules are already written. Just tweak a bit, and presto! New Codex!

@Luna: I lol'd.

Not to be too on-topic here, but I would not support a super-sized Inquisitorial Codex. I like the idea of them being separate to emphasize how separate they are in (i.e., think, plan, and operate) the fluff. That said, I'd like to see an Ordo Xenos book sometime but that's a different thread. Moving on: while it may sound cool to have an "Armies of Chaos" or "Craftworlds" dex, I think that for a ruleset to be meaningful it ought to have a dex of its own. Isn't that the complaint (or one of them) about CSM as they are? You can't have a Thousand Son army that's is really a Thousand Son army? Maybe the best way to try out which should make it to the "their own dex" stage is to go the BA route: publish the beginnings of a ruleset in WD (which I know is implausible because that would give WD a purpose, for a change) and see how it catches on. What "catches on" means these days may be different than before, as John pointed out (pure sales over tourney use). But I think that would give us the best material eventually.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

focusedfire wrote:(This is GW) Uh Oh, New SM Variant Codex coming out. Time to repackage all of the old Rhino and LandRaiders in different boxes. Don't forget to raise the prise as well.

Fixed your post.

Thank you. It IS much more accurate and funny that way.



John, You are a genius. I can see where easing away from the SMs would be better than the cold turkey approach. IG vs CSM Starter sets would rock. Then in five years it could be a Traitor Gaurd vs Inquisition or Inquisition vs Eldar.

I'm just asking you to think about it. Drop all of the GW pre-programming and just consider a 40K with a Different poster child army.

I think your numbers are a bit skewed on the *all* of GW sales. I will say that the past six GWs I've been in that OVER half of their sale space was occupied by SM products. Even back when they were launching Orks. If over half of your sales space and marketing go into a product and it returns only half then maybe it is time to reconsider the strategy.

It's not that I'm pre-programmed, it's that Power Armor is iconic to the 40k universe. It's one of Jes' better designs, and very well-refined over the years. Nothing else in any other game universe is like this.

But if GW were to shift gears, where could they go? It has to be human & "good" of some sort, so it's Imperials. Bugs / bots / fix / fungi just wouldn't work as well. And Elves? Look at WM Retribution for how much that's polarizing things. So given that we're Imperials, you have Knights, grunts, and spooks. Grunts are meh, so it's Knights or spies, and ninjas are so last century. So SM it is.

My closest GW is the LA Bunker. There is no way that half of their product is SM. 40k is perhaps 40-50% of the shelf space, and SM are less than half of that. Methinks you overexaggerate a touch.

Hollismason wrote:Id actually like Codexes that had all fluff removed completely and were the size of the Rule book from AOBR. I love that rulebook so handy.

I agree. Cheap codexes encourages people to buy more/all of them.

Plus, the fluff can go in White Dwarf and it might actually be worth reading.

They tried the whole Codex w/no Fluff thing. It was called 3rd Ed Marines, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Blood Angels, Craftworld Eldar, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Chaos, Orks and Imperial Guard. Thin little booklets with no substance and an army list starting on page 3 usually.

It didn't really work.

I think Certain Codices should be split and certain ones merged

Codex: CSM and Codex: CD should be merged

Codex: Different colored space marines should be merged.

Codex: LaTD should be re-created

Codex: Ultramarines should not exist. New rule: 1 Special character per chapter. Bring back the traits/flaws system, and remove the 84 Ultramarine special characters FFS.

Codex: Tau and Codex: Kroot should be split. Maybe a Codex: Tau and Codex: Xenos for vespid, kroot, demiurg, etc.

Codices: Inquisition should be either 4 codices, or a single Codex, not split into 2 and sharing some options.

focusedfire wrote:IMO, any other 40K army would perform just as well, if not better, in sales if they had the same amout of promotional attention as the SMs.

Case-in-point, Orks. They were the least popular, lowest selling army around. Games Workshop gave them a fraction of the attention normally reserved for Space Marines and now look at them. The number of Ork players around almost fits the fluff! They are a highly popular army that have probably become one of the better sellers for Games Workshop, what with you needing a dozen Boyz boxes, each at the cost of the two Tactical Squads you need for Space Marines. The sooner Games Workshop wises up to the fact that promoting all their armies means they can push more stock, the better it will be for all of us.

For what it is worth, HBMC, fourth edition was not much better than third, when it comes to fluff. Very, very lame. The abundance of fluff is, for me, one of the best parts of the modern codices.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's not that I'm pre-programmed, it's that Power Armor is iconic to the 40k universe. It's one of Jes' better designs, and very well-refined over the years. Nothing else in any other game universe is like this.

But if GW were to shift gears, where could they go? It has to be human & "good" of some sort, so it's Imperials. Bugs / bots / fix / fungi just wouldn't work as well. And Elves? Look at WM Retribution for how much that's polarizing things. So given that we're Imperials, you have Knights, grunts, and spooks. Grunts are meh, so it's Knights or spies, and ninjas are so last century. So SM it is.

My closest GW is the LA Bunker. There is no way that half of their product is SM. 40k is perhaps 40-50% of the shelf space, and SM are less than half of that. Methinks you overexaggerate a touch.

I will politely disagree on the uniqueness and look of the SMs. The old ones looked like Knights in space which was kinda cool but the new ones look like NFL in space and is exceedingly MEH, IMO. So many games and movies have better versions of power armor these days. Iron man, Gears of War, HALO and GI Joes rip off of Sarge just to name a few.

Your analogy of the Imperium is a little flawed. The inquistion is more gestapo than spies and the gestapo always sell well. We have made a demonized Icon out of them. Put a single Gestapo uniform in a movie promo and the box office is gonna go through the roof. I'll avoid getting into the reasons behind this because I don't want to de-rail my own thread. Lets just say that if they (GW) tweeked the story line and played off of the grim dark inquisition being a neccessary evil but that there is a possibilty a chance for a prophesy to be fullfilled that will elevate humanity out of its hellish existance. Might be a bit more compelling than the oh so 1980's Humans vs aliens scenario.

As to shelf space. Store over here has practcally nothing for LotR and when combined with WHFB they don't even occupy 20% of shelf space but the SMs are everywhere(Including a Giant Toscale Life size 7 ft tall SM statue).

As we saw in the ComiCon cosplay thread, the Marine stands out. The Battle Sister stands out. The Commissar and Inquisitor look like a couple of generic dorks in longcoats.

Then maybe it is Time for GW to invest in making them look good so they will stand out. Did you consider that the Marine and Battlesisters stood out "Because" of their favored children status.

How long would the Commisar and Inquisitor be generic if GW moved the emphasis onto them. Seriously, GW must be intentionally downplaying them if the Line Backer with a cartoon pistol upstages a Colonial, Baroque, Animesque, Vampire Hunter Looking, Inquisitor.

The Battle Sisters stands out because (a) she borrowed Madonna's bra, (b) `AAHH, GIRLS!!', and (c) `I have never seen them before; they must be a new army'.

No, the Marine and Sister stand out because they're not generic-looking mooks in pseudo-Nazi-inspired longcoats.

The one guy might as well be Doogie Howser in Starship Troopers and the other might as well be a cop from Demolition Man.

Consider the cover of the =Inquisitor= rulebook. Even here, GW had the good sense to put the Inquisitor in power armor / terminator armor, rather than as a longcoat.

The Commissar is a non-starter, and if the Inquisitor needs to be armored, you might as well go whole hog with an 8-foot tall fully-armored Space Marine.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Consider the cover of the =Inquisitor= rulebook. Even here, GW had the good sense to put the Inquisitor in power armor / terminator armor, rather than as a longcoat.

And yet look at the Witch Hunters cover and the DH covers . . . I agree, however, that power armor is much more of a stand out than the pseudo-Dickensian duds that Inquisitors go about in. It even stands out in the fiction. Abnett sold a lot of copies of Esienhorn and Ravenor but I'd say you get a lot more traction, at least short-term, off of a comparatively silly book like Heroes of the Space Marines.

Elric of Grans wrote:For what it is worth, HBMC, fourth edition was not much better than third, when it comes to fluff. Very, very lame. The abundance of fluff is, for me, one of the best parts of the modern codices.

There was more to them though. Look at the Daemonhunter, Witch Hunter, Marine 4th, Black Templar, the second 3rd Ed Chaos, the second 3rd Ed Guard. Tau and Necrons even. These books had large sections before the wargear/army lists that went over quite a few details. Those Codex Booklets we got at the start of 3rd Ed had nothing, with the army list started often by the 5th page if not sooner.

JohnHwangDD wrote:No, the Marine and Sister stand out because they're not generic-looking mooks in pseudo-Nazi-inspired longcoats.

The one guy might as well be Doogie Howser in Starship Troopers and the other might as well be a cop from Demolition Man.

Consider the cover of the =Inquisitor= rulebook. Even here, GW had the good sense to put the Inquisitor in power armor / terminator armor, rather than as a longcoat.

The Commissar is a non-starter, and if the Inquisitor needs to be armored, you might as well go whole hog with an 8-foot tall fully-armored Space Marine.

This supports my point. Inquisitors by their art work do not run around in Nazi trench coats. By their Artwork they are supposed to be in a Curiass with a colonial Buff coat with all sorts of Baroque bionic equipment. If GW is promoting them as generic looking mooks in psuedo-Nazi-inspired logcoats then GW is putting absolutely no effort into promoting the army.
Seriously, power armor isn't as interesting as some of the new motocross protective gear.

IMO, SMs are around so that kids and jocks can win a game with an army that they don't have to develope tactical or hobby skills to play. Just my opinion though.

SM are easy to play, but hard to win with. Everybody guns against SMs, so they lose big in the metagame.

Point of fact, I have never lost a game to a SM army when playing a non-SM army.

BTW, bike armor-wise, what's really cool is this motorcycle set!