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.

GW now and then
These days codices are released at a pace that, compared to last I kept up in 5e, can only be described as dizzying. This along with their increasing usage of DLC type practices (splitting what in the past would have been 1 book into multiple releases, webstore exclusive formations etc), and the on again off again codex creep, has created a somewhat predatory feel. The latest example of this is the infamous web store exclusive skyhammer formation.

And yet for all their aping of the video gaming industry sales practices (dlc, region locking), we are in 2015 and gw barely has a twitter account!
Gw were not always so tech adverse and sales focused however, they once had a forum on their website, a website that had hobby advice, fluff and painting guides. They even had a yearly compendium of faqs, experimental rules and revisions called chapter approved.

At the time, I think it was quite an ambitious project. With a much less connected community, I imagine it would have been hard to gain sufficient tracking and spread so that just going by the brb was the easier option (caveat: i am not sure how successful CA was or why they stopped, this is just supposition).

In todays highly connected world however, a format like chapter approved is to my mind, worth revisiting! It would allow them to communicate without the instant feedback of social media (can be quite unpleasant), to put out faqs and revisions, to update the game without churning out new versions of the same rules ad naseum.

Updates are necessary to avoid stagnation, for all that we decry their greed when some codex gets what should have been a patch update and a full price increase.

This brings me to the real point of this post: formations as DLC.
At first i didn't like the formation format but now i actually think it has enormous potential and flexibility as long as it is handled correctly.

What is the most offensive part of the skyhammer formation? Imo that it is bundled in a way that:
1) offers no value to people who already own the models
2) is inherently indefensible vs piracy
3) has no appeal to non-marine players

If this formation was in a general supplement like chapter approved, it would be able to drive the sales of many different models simultaneously and be a justifiable purchase even if you already own the models.

The added value would also be an added defense against piracy, and not being focuses on just 1 faction would be a sale to almost anyone.

To summarize the complaints I've seen of GW lately:
1) codex discrepancies - codex red marines comes out and acts almost like a beta test for codex blue etc.
2) pay to win with webstore exclusives or unit taxes.
3) no communication

Now, for number 1, i think a certain window of the newest release having the new shiny toys is good, you do want to incentivize sales. The problem is when it becomes a 3 year window.

For 2, pay 2 win is definitely undesirable but we do want an ever evolving game or things will stagnate. Despite their insistence on not being a rules company, with the prices their rulebooks demand I don't buy that there's no money in rules.

And for 3, i think a 1 way street format such as this could allow them to open up and show some personality again without dealing with the often violently direct feedback inherent to social media.

Back in the day, chapter approved was quite the ambitious project imo, not easy to keep on top of and difficult to update.

With today's climate however, i think a quarterly or so compendium of errata, faq and new formations (edit: completely new, not a collection of what was in the last few codices could easily be sold as a digital only release for a pretty penny, with nobody feeling ripped off as long as some effort goes into it.

Alongside new rules (maybe experimental next edition rules) and new (exclusive) formations this could easily include behind the scenes insights into their modelling or art teams, interviews, golden demon etc features and what have you, offering value for all. It would also be an excellent medium for furthering the narrative (the theme of which you would then tie into new formations and what not).

Now even if one codex ends up behind, at least the wait until relief comes would be measured in months not years.

Tying the digital release to a games workshop account would also let them reward people who actually buy their rules with access to events, pre-orders etc. And if they ever went back to supporting tournaments, it would be a simple thing to confirm that the person running the latest formations from last month's compendium actually owns those rules.

I'm far from an expert on these matters but to me this just seems like it would please literally everyone. Gw could continue to push models via rules, but would not be forced into this rapid fire codex release rate and put more time into the actual codex and new editions.

They would still be selling mostly the same thing but packaged in a way where I don't feel like I'm walking through a hong kong street being asked by 10 consecutive gentlemen if perhaps I'd like to buy a watch, handbag or maybe some jewellery? In short it would feel like I was more than just a walking wallet and that they are interested in their own product.

It would also be way broader than the specificity of a codex.
mean, I like eldar and orks. So the amount of codices I'd buy would avg to what? 1 every 2 years? Yet if a compendium such ad this was well made, I'd gladly buy one every quarter or six months.

What do you all think, good idea or am I missing a major obstacle why this won't happen?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Added poll and cleaned up some sections. Writing it from my phone so there are quite a few mistakes, sorry about that.

TLDR:

Would you be interested in a bi-annual or quarterly digitial supplement release containing new formations for old codices and potentially erratas and faqs, alongside hobby content, experimental rules, and the like?

That was a lot of writing to ask a fairly simple question.

In short, no, I will never pay for a FAQ/Errata. I will pay for additional content, given that's its a quality product and the price matches said quality.

Paying for FAQ/Errata is categorically, absolutely, 100% stupid and insane. The entire purpose of a FAQ/Errata is to fix and clarify the rules you've already paid money for. If anything, the company should be paying you or rewarding you if they have to fix something that frankly shouldn't even have made it to publishing with some of GW's products.

Paying for additional content would work. However, GW would have to dump the archaic codex system and launch all codices at time of edition release, then a rolling release schedule of a new unit or two every quarter for each faction and campaign/mission books would continue to drive sales and keep the game moving along.

I think the only way I would pay for errata/FAQ is if it's a "living" file, continually updated with new FAQ/errata, with a one-time purchase cost and an unlimited lifetime.

I would not pay for an errata or FAQ.

I would pay for a combined "Chapter Approved" physical book (preferred) or electronic copy of all of the formation/dataslates/whatever that GW has released either on the Black Library or in White Dwarf.

If the price is right I'll gladly pay for a formation book. In addition, such a thing would be a must-buy for a tournament organizer.

@Blacksails
The poll isnt really central to this thread, I added it as an afterthought.

And I guess i wasnt as clear as i thought i was: the primary content of such a compendium would be new formations and new rules. The errata and faq would just be there because it's a convenient place of distribution.

I envision something g fairly all encompassing -- like a mix between a codex or supplement and old school white dwarf.

@Kanluwen

The faq/errata wouldn't be the selling point and could indeee be available freely elsewhere, their inclusion would be for ease of reference and convenience in conjunction with the new rules or formations they are introducing.

I think i should edit the poll question since it seems i was less clear than i would have liked.

The poll question isn't really the issue, IMO, it's the wall of rambling text that accompanies it.

I will attempt to edit it for brevity.

Then keep the FAQ/Errata out of said theoretical compendium of new releases.

There's nothing complicated or inconvenient or hard about having a link to a PDF for free on their website that's updated as often as it needs to be. We should be expecting that from any company, and expecting no less.

If GW publishes something that doesn't work, they should be fixing it for free and as soon as the problem is noticed.

Skyhammer pissed me off big time. Not because of its' mere existence, mind you, like it did some people. Because of the price. Now, I have 2 Devastator squads worth of Marines (not with grav cannons, obviously) and I have an Assault squad, and I have drop pods.

So, why do I want to pay $800-odd Cdn for this bundle of a bunch of stuff I have with some shiny new rules? Would I like to give the formation a go? Absolutely! Would I have paid 5 or 10 bucks to download the file? Probably.

I edited it, i think it reads slightly less poorly now.

Im sorry for the rambly nature, I went all over the place.

Lord Corellia wrote:
Skyhammer pissed me off big time. Not because of its' mere existence, mind you, like it did some people. Because of the price. Now, I have 2 Devastator squads worth of Marines (not with grav cannons, obviously) and I have an Assault squad, and I have drop pods.

So, why do I want to pay $800-odd Cdn for this bundle of a bunch of stuff I have with some shiny new rules? Would I like to give the formation a go? Absolutely! Would I have paid 5 or 10 bucks to download the file? Probably.

That's exactly the point i was trying to make

Instead of releasing them piece meal with no value to anyone who owns the models, a compendium of new ones along with other supplement type content could be sold on a regular basis, keeping things fresh, allowing them to address weaknesses in older codex that might not be up for a remake just yet and so on.

Codices.

The plural is codices.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I think the only way I would pay for errata/FAQ is if it's a "living" file, continually updated with new FAQ/errata, with a one-time purchase cost and an unlimited lifetime.

YES! If this is what it took to guarantee cogent, frequent FAQs, I would absolutely pay.

 Jambles wrote:
Codices.

The plural is codices.

Ah. I thought it looked strange Thanks for the correction.

Given the quality of GW's rules and "errata", I would not pay for them.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I think the only way I would pay for errata/FAQ is if it's a "living" file, continually updated with new FAQ/errata, with a one-time purchase cost and an unlimited lifetime.

This is what I was hoping for by getting an ebook.
GW does update the document and I can download it again.

I would charge 5$ more for the physical book with a code in it to download the ebook as well and then the codex can have new formations and units updated as the models are released. They can retcon change and add as they see fit.