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 understand that GW has its hands full with 2 (okay, maybe 3) game systems, but in all honesty... only 2 releases in an entire year is far too scant for what is supposed to be the biggest company in tabletop games (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Rumours abound of rules and armies that have been finished for quite some time, i.e. supposedly Templars have been done for ages but have waited for a 'suitable release window.' What was wrong with a June release for Templars? No, instead we had to wait 7 months between Grey Knights and Necrons.

What do you guys think should be a realistic release schedule as far as the frequency of army updates? I think 3-4 times per year, with 3 being the more frequent, should be totally within the means of GW. Express your opinions.

2 Codexes, a WD Codex and a couple second waves came out for 40k.

I would like to see every codex updated at the start of each edition, but that's crazy talk.

GW are a monopoly company; inefficient, bureaucratic, probably toss dwarves in board meetings.

Just because something is old doesn't mean it needs to be updated. In a perfect world, GW would be able to make a rules and codex set that was so good that they'd never have to do any updates at all. The fact that GW is slowing down is, if anything, hopeful.

You will also notice that codecies are generally starting to change less over time. This seems to be more of the same thing.

Having lots of rules changes all the time creates instability, which is actually a bad thing.

No because it is unrealistic to make too many more at a time, have new models, balance(yes it would be worse), and all that comes with each new book. You would have so much left over product it would be insane. The problem with material fast pushed out is it becomes redundant. For example Call of Duty games come out so rapidly there isn't much change in the actual game. They just create new locations. I know not best example for a table top but it's reality.

More concerned about the quality of the codices than the quantity. They both sucked, and I don't mean performance wise.

Movac wrote:More concerned about the quality of the codices than the quantity. They both sucked, and I don't mean performance wise.

Pull the other one.

Could be worse. Warhammer Fantasy had one army book last year.

Depends on if it is true that they are getting ready to release 6th edition...

If they have a few codexes ready to go in the pipeline for the 6th edition release some of the rules changes might not work with what they want for those codexes.

perhaps grey knights and necrons were both simply able to be released because their rules worked in both 5th and 6th and other codexes they have finished or mostly done need new rules to be out to make use of their units.

Alas I agree with what has been said above, in an ideal tabletop there would be balance and all a new codex would do is introduce more units and update the fluff. there would be no power creep, no weak codexes and no powerhouse codexes... but we are playing 40k so we are at GW's mercy

I think the psy rating deal for gk and the emphasis on the heroes/courts etc is a hint at whats to come for 6th.

Let's face it, this year was a Fantasy year. 2 suppliment books, 4 (or 3) Army Books, and a revamp of an entire product line (Ogres). Not to mention they released Dreadfleet.

Yes GW decided to revamp Fantasy. This year got Dreadfleet, Blood in Badlands, Ogre Kingdoms, Tomb Kings, Orcs & Goblins, second wave Beastmen. 40K got DE Second Wave, Necrons, Grey Knights. I'm not going to criticize GW for it really as Fantasy needed some love and has a pretty solid background, even though I prefer 40k.

The true dead franchise is LOTR which they (understandably) aren't doing anything with. I don't even encounter them in FLGS' anymore and it just sort of rots away on GW's website.

This was a Fantasy year, that got stated pretty regularly by the rumor folks back in 2010. 2012 is gonna be a 40k year, what with the new edition and all. LotR is just coasting until The Hobbit comes out, then after that they'll probably drop the license once that sales rush dies down.

Draigo wrote: balance(yes it would be worse)

I'm just gonna nitpick this one, but wouldn't the opposite be true? if the Codexes were developed together, all at once, and playtested (preferably against each other) they would be much more balanced. The way I've seen things it looks like each codex is designed in a vacuum.

DarkDrgon wrote:

Draigo wrote: balance(yes it would be worse)

I'm just gonna nitpick this one, but wouldn't the opposite be true? if the Codexes were developed together, all at once, and playtested (preferably against each other) they would be much more balanced. The way I've seen things it looks like each codex is designed in a vacuum.

Depends how closely the teams work together. If they did it like a production pipeline of a video game or movie maybe. But that would be both teams sittin in each others developement meetings and being in constant communication. That may get those fews books in like but then youd see a trend that those codexes made together we be balanced to each other not the whole. Plus youd have a lot of competing sales if you put them out at the same time . They spread them out most likely to max out the sales of that army before releasing a new competitor. They don't look at that each person plays 1 or 2 armies. They look at it from the idea we must play all of them. lol

DarkDrgon wrote:
I'm just gonna nitpick this one, but wouldn't the opposite be true? if the Codexes were developed together, all at once, and playtested (preferably against each other) they would be much more balanced. The way I've seen things it looks like each codex is designed in a vacuum.

I am not sure how you arrived by that conclusion, but that seems pretty unlikely.

If a Codex is playtested, it is not playtested "in a vacuum" (how would you do that?). It is playtested against the established, well-known other Codexes already published! Thus, the only "unknown variable" is the currently tested new Codex.

Now, if they test two new Codexes simultaniously, you already have two "unknown variables" with an exponentially greater number of untested, unknown new rules, unfamiliar unit dynamics, synergies, etc.. . The numbers of "mistakes" and "errors" can only increase.

Now up it from two new Codexes to .. say .. 7 or 8 new Codexes tested simultaniously, you introduce a new problem on top of it. Not only are there literally millions of cross-rule interactions/effects/synergies between unknown rules and units. The unknown stuff is also a greater part of the game than the known stuff, thus setting the basic famework as opposed to the established and known rules. In effect, you'd be playtesting how some old books/rules behave in a more or less new game.

Finally, playtesting everything simultaniously by updating everything, you have not only no established benchmark and the greatest possible number of unknown variables, rules and units, you literally re-invent a new game "from scratch" with each "update" with no continuity towards what was before.. no guidance, no established frame of "what works and what doesn't". You literally roll the dice entirely new.

How that would systemically less mistakes than the current version is beyond me.

Joey wrote:GW are a monopoly company; inefficient, bureaucratic, probably toss dwarves in board meetings.

They're not a monopoly. There's plenty of other miniature wargaming companies out there.

Can't say that I'm terribly bothered by it, no.

Zweischneid wrote:

DarkDrgon wrote:
I'm just gonna nitpick this one, but wouldn't the opposite be true? if the Codexes were developed together, all at once, and playtested (preferably against each other) they would be much more balanced. The way I've seen things it looks like each codex is designed in a vacuum.

I am not sure how you arrived by that conclusion, but that seems pretty unlikely.

If a Codex is playtested, it is not playtested "in a vacuum" (how would you do that?). It is playtested against the established, well-known other Codexes already published! Thus, the only "unknown variable" is the currently tested new Codex.

What I meant is, it seems like each codex is designed completely on its own, with no regard to its place in the metagame or how it interacts with the other codexes.

Now, if they test two new Codexes simultaniously, you already have two "unknown variables" with an exponentially greater number of untested, unknown new rules, unfamiliar unit dynamics, synergies, etc.. . The numbers of "mistakes" and "errors" can only increase.

There are no mistakes when you are in the design phase, everything is malleable. Thats the reason you playtest, to find the things that don't work or corner cases in the rules, and fix them. Variables are a good thing. If something is printed with an error, your doing it wrong.

Now up it from two new Codexes to .. say .. 7 or 8 new Codexes tested simultaniously, you introduce a new problem on top of it. Not only are there literally millions of cross-rule interactions/effects/synergies between unknown rules and units. The unknown stuff is also a greater part of the game than the known stuff, thus setting the basic famework as opposed to the established and known rules. In effect, you'd be playtesting how some old books/rules behave in a more or less new game.

Finally, playtesting everything simultaniously by updating everything, you have not only no established benchmark and the greatest possible number of unknown variables, rules and units, you literally re-invent a new game "from scratch" with each "update" with no continuity towards what was before.. no guidance, no established frame of "what works and what doesn't". You literally roll the dice entirely new.

How that would systemically less mistakes than the current version is beyond me.

This is exactly my point. if you are playtesting 7, 8, 9 codexes at once you can set that benchmark. All those codexes will be balanced against eachother, You are talking like writing a codex for an established set of rules means changing the whole system, which is completely not the case.

Maybe this is me coming from my Card Game and RPG background, but if you can accurately judge the interactions between several hundred gameplay components at once and end up with things mostly how you want it, I don't see why its so hard for a Wargame, with a couple dozen units at most, has so much trouble.

daveNYC wrote:There's plenty of other miniature wargaming companies out there.

As much as GW likes to deny it, this is true. But they're doubtless a monopoly company (for Christ's sake, they threatened to take legal action against RH over a Lamassu head) and doubtless the largest miniatures company out there.

No, I'm not upset because Fantasy got some much needed Attention, enough to get me to start it.

I'd say alternating 3 Codexes/3 Army books every other year would be Alright, as long as they continue with second wave models.

We will probably see 3 new Codexes and a New edition, along with some second waves. It'll be a good year for 40K next year.

Here's hoping for some Tyranid love in 2012.

Not gonna happen, tyranids won't have a new codex for a while yet.

Hornifex wrote:Not gonna happen, tyranids won't have a new codex for a while yet.

It should, because they still haven't gotten the second wave they so desperately need. I have no hope for it happening though. GW seems to have just left the Nids swaying in the breeze.

Brother SRM wrote:

Hornifex wrote:Not gonna happen, tyranids won't have a new codex for a while yet.

It should, because they still haven't gotten the second wave they so desperately need. I have no hope for it happening though. GW seems to have just left the Nids swaying in the breeze.

Because of poor Nid sales. But Nid sales are poor because people don't want to convert.... Vicious cycle.

Any source on that? I don't doubt it, but I'm curious if there's any evidence of such.

Joey wrote:GW are a monopoly company; inefficient, bureaucratic, probably toss dwarves in board meetings.

Toss of dwarves, or throw them around?