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.

Like i said,do we really need them?Think what they are compiled of;hobby section,brief rules,regurgitated artwork.
Would it not make more sense to drop all that 'drivel' from the main rulebook and replace it with stuff we need?
Obviously the next 40k rulebook will probably cost the same as WFB (£45,ha!)and no doubt be comprised of the usual hobby,old artwork etc...
All in one rulebook,anybody?

If you dont like to buy the large hard bound rule books, wait for the soft cover version that comes with the editiond two player starter box.

GW need the codexes because it's a revenue stream and allows them to avoid updating everything all at the same time.

That drivel is important. How will a new player know what the whole game is about without it. The main rulebook is suppose to be the starting point for the GW hobby. All that stuff is important to a new player who doesn't know how to properly clean, assemble, and paint his models. He doesn't know anything about the decades of Warhammer lore. He has no idea how a game is played so those campaign examples are also worth wild. They should be written assuming that the reader is completely nieve to the hobby.

A veteran player may just be interested in the rules. In that case the soft cover they put out is more appropriate.

Me personally, I like to have all that in there. The illustrations and stories are the first thing I read when I buy a rulebook (GW or otherwise). It's what get's me jazzed about the game. If I wanted to play a game with no hobby element or narrative than I would just go play chess or backgammon or something like that.

I've always thought that they should have a summary in the back of the rule book, just like they do now, but make it staple (never changes unless it needs to), include points values and then have the codexes be nothing more than fluff, army specific rules and special characters; leaving out all of the info that would be staple in the back of the core book.

It's just a very minor deviation from what they already do, but makes the core rulebook a playable game without being forced into buying additional supplements.

Codexes are a good idea, although I think GW's implementation lacks.

Releasing an entire game with over 9 factions* each with a bunch of units and options would be a herculean task. 3rd edition 40k did so, but with very trimmed down rules in many cases.

Some sort of rulebooks to focus and expand the gameline are necessary to give players the depth they desire and to give the company an income stream.

To blatantly promote the guys I do work for, Heavy gear Blitz! L&L has the core rules and the equivalent of 4+ Codices included in it.

(I say equivalent, as each 'Army Book' section could be broken into anywhere from 1-5 sub-sections, maybe more.)

The follow up book, Return to Cat's Eye added a couple more, as do the other books for that game.

I think Warmachine/Hordes uses a similar system, although they have recently dabbled in books covering one faction in detail from what I hear.

I like this as it provides more incentive to pick up the books. When I was playing 40k the only reason to pick up Codex: Eldar was to see what they could do, and it was easy for me to resist.

I also feel combo books fight the tendency for 40k-style Codices to assume that the army being discussed needs to be massively overhyped. If a book covers the Red Dudes and the Blue Dudes and they hate each other, the text might take on a more neutral tone. Even if the Red Dudes and the Blue Dudes are allies, they're still likely to be competitive at some level.

If I ran GW (which I don't, and I have never run a multi-national company, so take my advice with a ton of salt) I'd reformat the release schedule so books would have two or more factions in them.

Pairing enemies works well.. Eldar and Dark Eldar make a natural pair, as could some Space Marine Chapters with Chaotic legions.

Some of the 'fringe' armies could have some very fun pairings, especially if there is a desire to expand the game a bit.For example, Grey Knights might be paired with a demon list, while SoB and a Genestealer Cultor traitor guard list would be awesome.

This would make miniatures releases a bit weird, I admit. Probably have to rely on the 'wave' system they are using.

It also makes moving the setting forward a bit easier.

* I said nine counting IG, Space Marines, Inquisition/Other Imperial, Orks, Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tyranid and Chaos. This, of course, ignores the various Space Marine chapters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

oni wrote:I've always thought that they should have a summary in the back of the rule book, just like they do now, but make it staple (never changes unless it needs to), include points values and then have the codexes be nothing more than fluff, army specific rules and special characters; leaving out all of the info that would be staple in the back of the core book.

It's just a very minor deviation from what they already do, but makes the core rulebook a playable game without being forced into buying additional supplements.

I think releasing a 'starter' would be nice, but I can completely understand developers not wanting to be tied to stat lines/point values published in a book years down the road.

Releasing an entire game with over 9 factions* each with a bunch of units and options would be a herculean task. 3rd edition 40k did so, but with very trimmed down rules in many cases.

WM/H managed to pull it off. Two books for the core rules and base armies, then another 10 over the course of about a year. Not to say it's not a metric fethton of work, but it IS possible to do, and do well.

Really, I'd love to see GW do something like this. Not only would every army have up-to-date rules, but they'd be able to actually balance armies properly off one another. In theory, anyway.

Oh come on, the idea is easy enough, they've done it before.

Pare down every codex to the basic information - abilities, stat block, etc., and post it online as a PDF codex. This gives them huge advantages.

1) Every army has its basic units and abilities online. This makes it SO MUCH easier to learn the game. If you read 'Feel no Pain' on a Dark Eldar's Army builder sheet, do you REALLY expect it to function that way? If there's a LGB online, then at least you're not super-surprised.

2) New Codices - people can look at them and have a good idea of what they're getting into.

3) Patching - every 6 months, you can 'balance patch' the system. It's hardly a huge surprise, and you're just talking small number tweaks or editing abilities that don't work properly - and they're already making moves towards it (WFB has a 'balance errata' already).

Then make the codex itself full of fluffy descriptions, long stories, painting tips, etc. etc. etc.

I mean lets face it, many people already downloads PDF codices, even if we're not supposed to admit they do. This just lets them to benefit from this fact, rather than suffer from it.

For games like 40k, wfb and also warmachine/hordes where each faction is so different, yes. It's not just rules and stats but fluff, pictures and modeling tips, etc. It would be great if they could have all the rules in one place, and then have different fluffy sourcebooks for each faction, but hardly anyone would buy them if they didn't have to, and that would mean much higher prices for those books, or cheapier production if any at all.

I like the idea of having codexes and army books, they're fun to read or even just flip through for modeling ideas. when I start a new army I my start with a list in mind but I still am a collector, I want to buy the models that I like the best and I use the codex for inspiration and ideas for what to do next. And I just like how the book shelf looks when I have 2 or 3 different editions of the same book all lined up

I love having the codex. I like to read them, enjoy the art, and think they add a lot to the game.

Keep them I say.

I buy every dex that comes out.

For games like 40k, wfb and also warmachine/hordes where each faction is so different, yes. It's not just rules and stats but fluff, pictures and modeling tips, etc. It would be great if they could have all the rules in one place, and then have different fluffy sourcebooks for each faction, but hardly anyone would buy them if they didn't have to, and that would mean much higher prices for those books, or cheapier production if any at all.

You know you just described Privateer's business model to a tee, right? The faction books they just released are an anomaly due to the new edition. All previous books (and future books, if Wrath has anything to say about it) are for every faction (or half of them, anyway, due to the WM/H split), just with new models. Less expensive than the BRB/BBB as well, albeit somewhat thinner.

Not saying there's anything inherently wrong with GW's way, mind you. Just saying that the other option isn't necessarily more expensive.

GW'd have to do it a bit differently, of course, due to sheer model count, but you could probably fit all the armies into a BBB sized tome relatively easy, assuming you're trimming the fluff, maximising universal rules, and using layouts with three or four entries to a page. Of course, since they do this in their codexes already...

I think a Warmahordes approach would work; put the basics of each army in the core rules so that players can work out what they want to play, then have the codicies as expansions on the minimalistic rules and fluff.

Meh I DO like the codexes but having so many at a high cost sucks

I am also spoiled with Historical games like WAB and FoW which mixes in many lists specific to a time period. Also there FW (while VERY EXPENSIVE) which has 1-2 full army lists and a few misc rules in a similar format to historicals.

And then of course, theres the problem of the SPACE MARINES

I don't mind the multitudes of Space Marines for two reasons:

1.) Most people play marines, better to have lots of different kinds of them to mix it up.

2.) Marines sell more than the rest of GW's games combined (40K and Fantasy). By having a great deal of product for MEQ's you ensure maximum sales for the company which means greater fiscal health. That means more money to make cool new models for all the races, and a company that won't be gong out of business anytime soon.

Reecius wrote:I don't mind the multitudes of Space Marines for two reasons:

1.) Most people play marines, better to have lots of different kinds of them to mix it up.

2.) Marines sell more than the rest of GW's games combined (40K and Fantasy). By having a great deal of product for MEQ's you ensure maximum sales for the company which means greater fiscal health. That means more money to make cool new models for all the races, and a company that won't be gong out of business anytime soon.

Yea I know its a necessary evil. in fact I am guilty of loving the heck out of the new BA and SW lines

Me as well, me as well.

In a perfect world, we'd have as much variety for every army. I wish it were so, but I'd rather have a game I know will be around for the long haul.

What i'm saying is that all of the codex rules could easily be exchanged for all the filler stuff in the main rulebook .
Like other people have mentioned,i like reading the fluff also;i bought the Blood Angels codex not to use but to read!
Some have mentioned that new players need the hobby section,why?White Dwarf is probably a good as any resource as any and GW also do numerous books on the hobby.So i ask again,does it have to be included in the rulebook?
Very few companies have such extended hobby sections in their rulebooks yet new players still buy them.
It would not be the end of the world if the rulebook only had rules in it surely?

If anything GW should when new rulebooks are being considered,at least include updated points and stats so at least the playing field will be level,and then add extra rules/updates in codexes at some point.

It's interesting. I just bought a BA codex to use for my marines. Not because they're the newest flavor but because they are the only marine chapter that has Dreads as Heavy Support like in the old days. Now I can use lots of termies and dreads without violating the FOC and I can even get dread troops as well. I'm a heavy type player- I enjoy using the bigger gun infantry type things and tanks. I don't give a flying fig about Drop troops or rapidly falling land raiders. I don't even like those Fru-fru angel things. I just want be Ork like without the green paint or poor spelling.
In answer to the OP question- Do I need codices? No, I don't need them but, I like them and want as many different options as I can get.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:It's interesting. I just bought a BA codex to use for my marines. Not because they're the newest flavor but because they are the only marine chapter that has Dreads as Heavy Support like in the old days. Now I can use lots of termies and dreads without violating the FOC and I can even get dread troops as well.

well you could have fielded a Master of the Forge but then again not everyone likes to tug around a character JUST for a FoC sake I suppose. plus yes troop DC Dreads are pretty cool (if not deadly!)

To be honest I never even noticed him in the rules. I just put him down to being someone in the support staff ala IG command squad personel.

I say again no. It's not just worthless information.

The main rulebook should include all that fluff, playthroughs and hobby stuff. It should give a newbie a great indication of what the hobby is all about. He shouldn't need to get a WD subcription and a bunch of extra books to get that information. That's an extra barrier of entry. I mean look at all the people on the board who get confused on what books they need to play hordes/warmachine or FoW.

The GW stuff is usually pretty straight foreward. You know there is one main rulebook. It explains everything you need to know about the game and then there is one book for your army explaining all your seperate rules for your army. It's a clean design.

I think there is a reason Hordes/Warmachine mimicked GW this go around. It's less confusing.

With that said I would like it if they at least updated all the codex/army books once a new edition is release like they did for Hordes/Warmachine. they don't need to produce all the new models, but at least keep every army up to date with the rules. The out of data rulebook stuff is what causes most of the rules arguments I see.

I think I know why they do it this way. The rolling releases keep each edition of the game fresh longer since each new army codex basically change the way the game needs to play. Either the army that changed is altered directly or other armies change indirectly to counter the new armies rules. Also staggering out the releases like this shines a spotlight on the "army of the month" so to speak, which probably drives sales up for those armys more than if all the armies were released all together.

I think there is a reason Hordes/Warmachine mimicked GW this go around. It's less confusing.

No, it's because they just needed to get all the existing rules out there as fast as humanly possible. Thus why they 12 books released over slightly more than a year. Wrath and all subsequent books are going to be in the standard Warmahordes format.

Another thing about codices is that there are easily 10+ Armies in 40k. While Warmachine has rules for units in Prime, they only list some of those units. At least with a Codex, you get every unit in the army, without random new releases, which I don't like about PP. However, their Forces books are quite meatier than codices, and are in full color...

Reecius wrote:I love having the codex. I like to read them, enjoy the art, and think they add a lot to the game.

Keep them I say.

I buy every dex that comes out.

+1

It revitalizes the game for me to read about the latest faction I have to grind into dust/learn to play with.

Play a game of 3rd edition with just the BRB and it's "counts as a power fist" or "counts as a Melta Gun" for everything... how fething BORING!

Laughing Man wrote:

I think there is a reason Hordes/Warmachine mimicked GW this go around. It's less confusing.

No, it's because they just needed to get all the existing rules out there as fast as humanly possible. Thus why they 12 books released over slightly more than a year. Wrath and all subsequent books are going to be in the standard Warmahordes format.

...and it's less confusing to buy your force book for your faction. They could have packaged that information in any way they wanted to, but they chose this format. The force books are nice because they put everything together in a logic place for a given faction. I know they are going back to the standard format after this wave of releases. That's irrelevant to what I was talking about, which is why I qualified it with "this go around". The old format works better for the way that company likes to do wave releases for all their factions together. Though it does get messy after a while. I don't know how many times I've gotten asked what book does a person need to play a given faction, and I had to reply well it depends on what models for that faction you want to field. This always leads to frustration because nine times out of ten that person has no idea what models they want to field.

I don't see the problem, and I play multiple armies.

phillosmaster wrote:Though it does get messy after a while. I don't know how many times I've gotten asked what book does a person need to play a given faction, and I had to reply well it depends on what models for that faction you want to field. This always leads to frustration because nine times out of ten that person has no idea what models they want to field.

That situation also arises in other game systems' armies with a sizeable model loadout and many valid options. To be honest, I think it works better than "Yessir, to build an effective Nomad Neverborn Khador Guard army, you need this loadout: (insert cookie cutter list)"...at least for long-term interest in the game.

I am very interested to see where the WM/H model growth no model invalidation system will lead, in the end. As they add more factions to each game, the expansion books will either have to grow (I'd prefer them not to) or each faction will have to get fewer models each release (yes please). But there are new choice types on the horizon (the Battle Engine rumour) and so far I have not been very disappointed by their choices.

As for the original question, if GW was to step away from their current release model, it sure would be a radical change from their last 20 years as a company. I don't see it happening anytime soon. We don't "need" codices or Forces of books - a number of people I know play several different game systems without having purchased any books at all (they tend to leech a bit on their friends or get VERY active on the web when the meta shifts, though). These people are also not very interested in the fluff itself, devoting themselves solely to the game.

We've seen pretty clearly that WM/H is dong Codexes, just like their big brother.

Were you around during 3rd ed? When that came out, every army had an army list in the rulebook. They were all very generic with little in the way of options or variants. I'd rather have each army get the amount of attention they deserve with their army list, and I like the fluff and modeling sections a lot. Even so, if they released a big book with multiple army lists, I don't think I'd want to pay for something I'm not going to use. If I only play 4 armies I don't need the rules for 12.

Brother SRM wrote:Were you around during 3rd ed? When that came out, every army had an army list in the rulebook. They were all very generic with little in the way of options or variants.

Even so, if they released a big book with multiple army lists, I don't think I'd want to pay for something I'm not going to use. If I only play 4 armies I don't need the rules for 12.

I was, and I'm OK with the simple lists. In many ways, those simplified rulebook lists play better than Codices because you focus more on the actual play, than minutiate tied to special rules.

I don't much want my next 40k rulebook to be sold by the pound like GW did with WFB. If they're doing that, at least make it into a multi-volume set: Rulebook, Armies, Fluff, and Hobby. That way, I don't need to carry as much stuff around.