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've been thinking about how GW release armies or expansions, it's totally down to them which can often leave people angry that a certain army hasn't been released.

So the question is: Would It be a good idea if on the GW website, every so often then you could choose between 3 armies of each game system, either 40k or Fanatasy, for example it would usually be between the 3 oldest armies of each game system. For 40k you could vote between Black Templars, Tau and Eldar as to which gets released in the near future first, leaving them to create expansions whenever. This would surely increase sales as they are releasing the army that people actually want and would satisfy us players. However I think that they shouldn't reveal the numbers of the poll leaving us wondering which army it would be.

Do you think it's a good idea?

So what happens when an army with few players is due a new book and they don't get it because everyone votes for their own army?

In a fair and balanced universe, then yes.

In this world? Not a chance. We'd just see the same thing we get now: Blood Angels on top of Grey Knights on top of Space Wolves on top of Guard with everyone else taking the role of "occasionally updated whipping boy".

I think GW should consult with gamers a lot more. They should commision more research and generally be more responsive. This is not the way to do it though.

Wait a second, need to make my own thread polling whether we should have world peace or not.

No- because then Sisters and Bretonnians would have even less of a shot at ever getting an update.

"Should GW actually ask us for the next releases"
Yes they should


"Should they ask us on what army to release next"
No they should not.

Nope. Should be updated chronologically, interspersed with addons, and THEN update the rulebook. How are you going to get a popular vote for old armies when 95% of players stick with brand new or overpowered codecies?

Rowboat Girlyman's minions do not need an update every 6 months.

They shouldn't ask anything, though they should announce an actual release schedule as opposed to this secrecy bs.

Working in live games, I've found that asking the public what they want in terms of releases is nothing short of awful. Features that are "widely asked for" have a large tendency to flop and have low monetization in general. Lesson: the vocal minority don't represent the general majority very well, and people really don't have a clue what they want.

I do agree that the opacity of the release schedule is dreadful. I can't really imagine a worse way to do it.

SavageRobby wrote:

Working in live games, I've found that asking the public what they want in terms of releases is nothing short of awful. Features that are "widely asked for" have a large tendency to flop and have low monetization in general. Lesson: the vocal minority don't represent the general majority very well, and people really don't have a clue what they want.

I do agree that the opacity of the release schedule is dreadful. I can't really imagine a worse way to do it.

The funny thing about it is, as they said, every time they shortened the preview window, they made more money. The fact is, marketing wise, it's actually pretty useful to make use of the Monkey Brain...

If you think asking the general gaming masses what they think is a good idea you obviously haven't been on these forums very long.

SavageRobby wrote:

I do agree that the opacity of the release schedule is dreadful. I can't really imagine a worse way to do it.

I know I saw a post somewhere claiming to comment on recent play testing. That's certainly one nice thing I would love to hear from GW. Of course they already seem scared of the internet so I'm not sure if us being able to comment on things would help or hurt our books

The poll and the released product would be 2 years apart or more, so it'd be entirely useless. It would just rile up the fanboy-rage that they weren't doing what they said (even though they still would be, it just wouldn't be visible, but you know how internet people are).

the thing about the short release window is to prevent people from adjusting their buying habits.

Say for example I know my codex is the next one coming out in 3 months. Knowing that GW will probably release new models for my army, I might as well wait to buy any new stuff. The problem being that I won't necessarily save that money for big purchases once my codex comes out, I'll more than likely spend it elsewhere. This leads to less long term sales.

As for the voting thing, I'm not sure. The problem is, as already stated, that the vocal few don't necessarily represent the wants of the many.

I'd much prefer if they just did them in order of oldest to newest, alternating between imperium and non imperium. My two cents.

IMO they should just start with the oldest out of date dex and release that one next. repeat cycle till indefinately.

@pwntallica: your right, for some reason GW wants people to spend less in short term or even save for units as such. Has to do with steady stream of profits I suppose (they want you to still need that elite choice you didnt buy this year to be bought next year)

 pwntallica wrote:
the thing about the short release window is to prevent people from adjusting their buying habits.

Say for example I know my codex is the next one coming out in 3 months. Knowing that GW will probably release new models for my army, I might as well wait to buy any new stuff. The problem being that I won't necessarily save that money for big purchases once my codex comes out, I'll more than likely spend it elsewhere. This leads to less long term sales.

As for the voting thing, I'm not sure. The problem is, as already stated, that the vocal few don't necessarily represent the wants of the many.

I'd much prefer if they just did them in order of oldest to newest, alternating between imperium and non imperium. My two cents.

While keeping an 'oldest ---> newest' for decided who gets new books seems logical, its actually a bad idea in practice due to how GW changes their design theories & overal game mechanics every edition.

Look at Fantasy for example: 8th edition's changes were harshest on Undead, while the magic system was totally overhauled and the combat phase was turned on it's head. Combine that, and despite Vampire Counts having a book that was barely 3 years old, they were 100% unplayable outside of 1 shoe-horned build hat was mind-numbingly boring for both the VC player & their opponent.
It would have been highly unfair to tell all the VC players that, "well you just got a book 3 years ago, so you'll have shelve your armies until after Ogres, Tomb Kings, Brets, Woodies, Dwarfs, O&G's, Empire & HE's get their updates"
Even worse, when TK's get updated first and brought into line, VC's players get left kicked to the curb knowing just how badly broken their book is, yet with no hope of seeing any fixes for another 6 updates!

While 40k doesn't have quite the same lop-sided power scale or balance problem Fantasy is currently dealing with, it's still there and throws a wrench into the idea of 'just update oldest to newest'.
Look at Daemons, they were again all but unplayable due to borked mechanics AND the existance of an another book that was designed to 100% curbstomp them into the ground. They were nowhere near the oldest book either, (Templars, Tau, Eldar, Orks and 'technically' Sisters are all older), but Daemons needed re-working much more than those other books in order to bring them in line and clear-up their main issues. (Proper deployment to avoid auto-loss vs GK's, psychic protection, balance Flamers/Screamers and re-point what was the game's most hienously over-costed army!)

By that same idea, you could easily make a case for potentially jumping IG, GK's & Necrons up towards the front of new codex line since all three armies are highly abusive of the new edition and/or simply an outright step above most other books thus creating a large imbalance in the overall system.



It might currently suck for certain armies the way GW does their update system, but in terms of overall game balance, keeping to a highly flexible and non-standarised list of who gets updated next is overall the best way of doing things.

That argument makes no sense when it comes to Daemons in 40k. Flamers and Screamers were tearing up tournaments left and right, they were hardly "bad". In need of an overhaul? Sure, but not for the reasons you stated (in fact, quite the opposite).

Marine updates every update.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That argument makes no sense when it comes to Daemons in 40k. Flamers and Screamers were tearing up tournaments left and right, they were hardly "bad". In need of an overhaul? Sure, but not for the reasons you stated (in fact, quite the opposite).

Okay granted I should have added, 'outside of 1 very abusive list, Daemons were borked'.

But it's still the same senario as VC's were under in 8th prior to getting jumped ahead in the release line-up.
Unless you played that 1 grossly abusive list, Daemons sucked and struggled to compete - anyone still running even decent amounts of mech would make life misserable for Daemons unless they went and played the army as Codex: Breath of Chaos.
Plus, even their 'uber list could still be turn 1 wiped by GK's if they went first. (and it was more likely to happen in 6th since Strikes have improved compared to Purifyers/Pallies who got slightly more balanced)

Actually, seeing an entire army rendered down to being pretty much just a "One List to Rule them All" is a pretty sure sign that said army needs to a re-do, even if they're not that old.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Actually, seeing an entire army rendered down to being pretty much just a "One List to Rule them All" is a pretty sure sign that said army needs to a re-do, even if they're not that old.

Yes, but how is that different from any of the older Codices and why does it merit remaking that Codex ahead of all the other Old Ones?

EDIT: Wow, autocorrect editing "old ones" to "Old Ones"... that's kinda creepy...

lol.

Not every old codex is broken or shattered though. Witch Hunters weren't awful, just not top-tier.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Actually, seeing an entire army rendered down to being pretty much just a "One List to Rule them All" is a pretty sure sign that said army needs to a re-do, even if they're not that old.

Yes, but how is that different from any of the older Codices and why does it merit remaking that Codex ahead of all the other Old Ones?

Because not all older books are nessessarily 'bad' just because of their age. Look at Orks - they're still a 4th edition book but they continue to compete fairly well and still have very few overall balance issues. Tyranids have bigger problems & screwier mechanics overall than the greenies, so I'd honestly expect GW to re-do the bugs before the angry-space-fungus.
As long as a book isn't outright breaking a key overall element of the game or is shoe-horned into a set formula/build, it's age is pretty irrelevent.

It also comes down to what GW thinks they can make more money off of. One of the main reasons DE waited so long was because it had a tiny player base which made it a very risky release financially. So GW is better off re-making more popular, (re: marine), codices first to build-up more profit in order to help re-launch what was essentially an entirely new army. (same deal for Oldcrons)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
EDIT: Wow, autocorrect editing "old ones" to "Old Ones"... that's kinda creepy...

Apparently their power hasn't entirely faded away yet? (or just blame the magic frogs!)

Prefer surprises each month from them, this makes it more interesting

I think this system would be dramatically unfair. I wouldn't do it.