Why are codexes returning?

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.

**amazingturtles**

I would definitely prefer to wait, for the same reasons as Voss.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Melissia wrote:
GreaterGood? wrote:
Yeah, I was aware that codexs would be returning... but a fething month after the release?
Better that than no one gets to play at all except the new books.

Freaking marine players, literally whining about getting too much stuff, while everyone else sits here with not enough.

You're just hating Marine players for the sake of hating them at this point. Literally nobody complained about about getting too much. The complaints are about how soon the codex release is happening, which isn't just the marine players. Just please stop. Seriously. I'm telling you that as a Marine, Skitarii, Scion, and Necron player.

**agnosto**

Daedalus81 wrote:
agnosto wrote:

It's exaggerated but not entirely off. If you factor in personnel expenses, equipment, etc; GW makes (going off of memory here) in the neighborhood of 75-80% profit on each kit sold. I calculated it out several years ago, when I used to care, but now I just let my stock sit and generate dividends for me. They make about $100 bucks in profit off of a Knight if it's sold through a direct channel and about $60 if it's not (dollar amounts not pound for these two examples).

Here's a quick, dirty calculation, based off of the 1/2 year statement. Note, this won't be accurate as it includes all revenue but I'm too lazy to calculate it out to the Nth and would have to use the more detailed annual financial report to do so...anyway (I'm using dollar signs but mean pounds):
1. Revenue: 70,935,000
2. Cost of sales: 21,373,000
That's about 43% profit but it includes a great number of items that wouldn't count towards the actual cost required to make and ship a kit.

Also, other considerations include things like it's not necessary to buy new equipment with each new model and actually making an injection mold, in house, is really cheap if you already have equipment (pro-tip, GW owns equipment). GW's plant costs actually went down $476,000, year-on-year (which was down $33,000 from the previous year), as they need less new equipment (maintenance and breakage, etc). This increases a kit's profit margin as well.

There's a lot of nuance here that I won't go into but that's a quick, dirty rundown of some of the considerations involved.

Those other costs are considerable and cannot be ignored. They made 10.5 off 70.9 (before royalties) or 15%. Now add royalties and cash then pay dividends and taxes.

Now if you think they shouldn't have stores, a magazine, or a community website then their operation suddenly becomes a lot cheaper and the hobby a lot less robust. So, pick your poison.

That's not how you calculate margin on a product.

If you're interested, I could go into this further but don't want to drag this thread further off topic.

**Daedalus81**

Voss wrote:
Better. Much better. A solid year of relative balance and feedback would make me feel much better about the state of the game. Not as much as five years, but a wait before diving back into the gross imbalances of codex 'system' would have been a comfort. A headlong rush is deeply disturbing, ill-thought out and rather silly.

There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases. If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by a dart board.

That's why Chapter Approved will come out yearly. Codexes are not the balancing mechanism. They add the flavor.

**Selym**

Voss wrote:

There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases.
If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by ~~a dart board~~ the sales team.

**Arachnofiend**

I for one would rather codices sooner than later since I really want the Legion-specific stuff. Thousand Sons is having a hard time feeling like a Thousand Sons army given how expensive it is to field a bunch of smite bots without dipping into other armies; we need a second spell list, or the ability to take psyker cultists, or something not what we have now.

**SilverAlien**

Voss wrote:
Better. Much better. A solid year of relative balance and feedback would make me feel much better about the state of the game. Not as much as five years, but a wait before diving back into the gross imbalances of codex 'system' would have been a comfort. A headlong rush is deeply disturbing, ill-thought out and rather silly.

There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases. If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by a dart board.

That's not really what the codices are for? Point updates are going to come out as needed online. This is adding new stuff. It's also been tested, it isn't being added as a balance mechanism.

Vryce wrote:
Stormonu wrote:

...I don't think fluff alone will be enough to sell codexes...

It wont, but the fact that you need them if you want to continue playing your army will. They flat out say in the FAQ that once a specific codex is released, the relevant entries in the indexes will be obsolete, and they will expect that you are using the most up to date rules for your army(ies). So you could, in theory at least, ignore the codex and continue using the index for your army, but if you're a tourney player, you wont be allowed to play a tourney using out of date rules. And it may be difficult getting games in at your store/club/gaming-hub, if you're not using the current rules.

And am I one of the few who doesn't see a problem with this? I am absolutely looking forward to the codeci for my armies. Everything is just... so... bland... It's like if the color beige was a rule set. And I know I'm not the only one, we've seen the posts here on Dakka about the bland, boring feeling most peoples armies have now, whether or not the army in question is powerful. There are no daemon weapons in the Chaos index. No special items, no real Chaos wargear, cursed items, etc. Just as there are no Chapter Relics, holy items, etc., in the SM index. ALL armies now have this problem. It's like you're just eating a slab of steak that hasn't been seasoned, marinated, or spiced, in any way whatsoever. Just a charred piece of meat. Which is great to sustain you, but doesn't satisfy your craving for flavor. For taste. For enjoyment.

I'm ready to have some variation back in my armies. Some fluff to read about. I want my Legion Rules back. I want Daemon Weapons. Something to add some real personalization for the armies. And I want the other people I play against to have those things in their armies, too.

Same for me. I don't know why people are so bothered by this.

**Arandmoor**

I'm less worried about who is getting codexes first, and more worried about the armies that might not be getting new codexes at all.

On the bright side, if they're releasing them this fast, and in this number, there's a good chance that we'll all be getting a lot of attention compared to previous editions.

The only thing that worries me is the chance at a repeat of the 4th and 5th edition necron or dark eldar codexes.

When they finally got them, they were awesome. But playing either army before then was pure hell for almost 4 straight years.

Meanwhile, freaking Tau were on their third codex by the time Necrons got their second.

...don't get me started on the marine release schedule.

**SilverAlien**

Assuming the 10 before Christmas rate keeps up after, we'd expect to have codices out for every army by Christmas of next year. Sooner if we assume certain armies (sisters of silence and custodes) might get put into some equivalent of imperial allies. They could even squeeze a few new codices in (such as world eaters/emperor's children most of us assume are coming).

No guarantees, but it shouldn't be an issue if they want to support every army.

**Selym**

I reckon we'll see a Squats codex before we finally see the end of codex creep...

New factions > Old factions, Rigged game > Fair game, all because it means that GW customers will not be able to rely on a pre-existing stockpile to play 40k. Thus forcing sales.

**Purifier**

Selym wrote:
I reckon we'll see a Squats codex before we finally see the end of codex creep...

New factions > Old factions, Rigged game > Fair game, all because it means that GW customers will not be able to rely on a pre-existing stockpile to play 40k. Thus forcing sales.

I reckon the people with comments as bitter as this that aren't ready to give even the slightest benefit of the doubt would claim they were right all along even if GW miraculously managed perfect balance, because they refuse to see anything but their own bias.

Rebalancing of every army is going to happen all the time and be collected in chapter approved once a year. So codex creep simply shouldn't be a problem. Doesn't mean it's gonna be perfectly balanced, but it does mean at least one of your cynicisms is simply wrong.

**Selym**

Purifier wrote:
Selym wrote:
I reckon we'll see a Squats codex before we finally see the end of codex creep...

New factions > Old factions, Rigged game > Fair game, all because it means that GW customers will not be able to rely on a pre-existing stockpile to play 40k. Thus forcing sales.

I reckon the people with comments as bitter as this that aren't ready to give even the slightest benefit of the doubt would claim they were right all along even if GW miraculously managed perfect balance, because they refuse to see anything but their own bias.

Rebalancing of every army is going to happen all the time and be collected in chapter approved once a year. So codex creep simply shouldn't be a problem. Doesn't mean it's gonna be perfectly balanced, but it does mean at least one of your cynicisms is simply wrong.

Well thank you for the unfounded assertion based on your own biases. If GW actually made a working game, I would admit it. I have done so with the 8e core rules, but there is no evidence yet to support the notion that GW will actually stop with the codex creep bs. Do note that there is plenty of evidence to support my assertion - GW has already announced new factions, and their history of codex issues is an old and consistent one.

**fresus**

I'm not familiar with AoS's meta, but I heard that the factions that received their codex got a pretty significant power boost. And the ones that didn't tend to fall behind.
However, they're about to release GH2, which aims at rebalancing things.
If the GH2 indeed restores a decent balance that counters the codex creep, then there's hope for 8th future, as GW is going to use the same strategy (a once a year chapter approved). We'll still get some power creep, but it wouldn't blow out of proportion like it did in 7th.

**Purifier**

Selym wrote:
Purifier wrote:
Selym wrote:
I reckon we'll see a Squats codex before we finally see the end of codex creep...

New factions > Old factions, Rigged game > Fair game, all because it means that GW customers will not be able to rely on a pre-existing stockpile to play 40k. Thus forcing sales.

I reckon the people with comments as bitter as this that aren't ready to give even the slightest benefit of the doubt would claim they were right all along even if GW miraculously managed perfect balance, because they refuse to see anything but their own bias.

Rebalancing of every army is going to happen all the time and be collected in chapter approved once a year. So codex creep simply shouldn't be a problem. Doesn't mean it's gonna be perfectly balanced, but it does mean at least one of your cynicisms is simply wrong.
Well thank you for the unfounded assertion based on your own biases. If GW actually made a working game, I would admit it. I have done so with the 8e core rules, but there is no evidence yet to support the notion that GW will actually stop with the codex creep bs. Do note that there is plenty of evidence to support my assertion - GW has already announced new factions, and their history of codex issues is an old and consistent one.

I'm keeping an open mind that it could go either way, giving GW the benefit of the doubt. This is the first time ever they've ever claimed that they were trying to create balance. You're stating as fact that it's going to be like it was before. There's a big difference between our standpoints, and yours is the one that's really putting this forum into the dumps, and making people that were looking to potentially get back into the game think it's the same it always was. Which it isn't, you're just claiming it is.

fresus wrote:
I'm not familiar with AoS's meta, but I heard that the factions that received their codex got a pretty significant power boost.

There's no such thing as Codex or Army Book in AoS, so you've been misinformed. It's all warscrolls. Essentially each unit is a stand alone document.
Now people on here have been saying that the "legacy" units are underpowered and getting outmatched by new warscrolls, yet at the same time things like legacy Skryre Skaven keep being mentioned as parts of winning tournament armies, so as with everything here on Dakka, it's a grain of truth (yes, new units tend to be on the stronger side of the spectrum so far) covered in hyperbole (no, most of the old units aren't suddenly useless.)

**fresus**

Purifier wrote:
fresus wrote:
I'm not familiar with AoS's meta, but I heard that the factions that received their codex got a pretty significant power boost.

There's no such thing as Codex or Army Book in AoS, so you've been misinformed. It's all warscrolls. Essentially each unit is a stand alone document.
Now people on here have been saying that the "legacy" units are underpowered and getting outmatched by new warscrolls, yet at the same time things like legacy Skryre Skaven keep being mentioned as parts of winning tournament armies, so as with everything here on Dakka, it's a grain of truth (yes, new units tend to be on the stronger side of the spectrum so far) covered in hyperbole (no, most of the old units aren't suddenly useless.)

I'm talking about the Battletomes, that contain artefacts, command traits, spells and battallions. That seem pretty close to what 8th codex will be (minus the battallions?).

**Purifier**

fresus wrote:
Purifier wrote:
fresus wrote:
I'm not familiar with AoS's meta, but I heard that the factions that received their codex got a pretty significant power boost.

There's no such thing as Codex or Army Book in AoS, so you've been misinformed. It's all warscrolls. Essentially each unit is a stand alone document.
Now people on here have been saying that the "legacy" units are underpowered and getting outmatched by new warscrolls, yet at the same time things like legacy Skryre Skaven keep being mentioned as parts of winning tournament armies, so as with everything here on Dakka, it's a grain of truth (yes, new units tend to be on the stronger side of the spectrum so far) covered in hyperbole (no, most of the old units aren't suddenly useless.)

I'm talking about the Battletomes, that contain artefacts, command traits, spells and battallions. That seem pretty close to what 8th codex will be (minus the battallions?).

That's true, and I didn't think about that comparison, although the battalion part is really what makes those things. Hopefully, like you said, we'll be seeing them balanced once the yearly balancing comes around, as that would be a good sign for 40k. Somehow it doesn't feel like GW has enough people hired for balance to balance two large games like this though, and if balancing 40k is at the cost of AoS, I for one am happy with that trade

**Matt.Kingsley**

There's little power creep with the Battletomes really. Aside from Kunning Rukk Battalion in the Bonesplitterz tome or a few individual units (which are still problematic if you just use the warscroll and not the other abilities)

The Battletomes do give more options - and because of the relics, unique spells and army rules it gives it's always better to buy one for your army than just using the free warscrolls - it doesn't make them astronomically powerful, they just tend to synergise with the units in the army better.

Also fun fact: one of the most powerful armies in Age of Sigmar are Tome Kings... you know, the model line they dropped right after that don't have a Battletome.

**BrianDavion**

I just checked the price of Battle tomes for AOS, and yeah they're expensive, dissappointing. on the other hand, I'd say buying a codex for your primary army, and making due with the Index for stuff you care less about might be a thing.

**Purifier**

BrianDavion wrote:
I just checked the price of Battle tomes for AOS, and yeah they're expensive, dissappointing.

They're also supposed to contain all the rules for the game though. I don't have one so I can't say if that's all the different levels of rules or if it's just the basic rules?

**Matt.Kingsley**

Just the core rules - you still need the Generals Handbook for the 3 Ways to Play and the points (except for Disciples of Tzeentch & Kharadon Overlord, which have all the points for the warscrolls contained in them at the back).

Also price-wise they're all over the places - though the newer tomes are all universally cheaper than the older ones.
It shocks me that the Sylvaneth Softback is almost as much as the recent Hardback releases for the Stormcast, Kharadon Overlords and Blades of Khorne though.

**Marfuzzo**

I think codexes are a must have, also GW claimed they will correct "on the way" points value and OP or underpowered units, and as ulthwe player I must say that this edition has a lack of factions focus, maybe with the new craftworlds codex I will again play a conclave....

**Claas**

I bought indices that were advertised as stop gap rules until the codices came out, now I am bitter that GW did what they said all along.

I also complained for years how space marine models are too short, so I am extra mad that the new primaris marines are too tall.

**AaronWilson**

Bring on the thousand sons codex!

**Selym**

Claas wrote:
I bought indices that were advertised as stop gap rules until the codices came out, now I am bitter that GW did what they said all along.

I also complained for years how space marine models are too short, so I am extra mad that the new primaris marines are too tall.

The modelling issue wasn't that marines were too short, it was that they were always out of proportion and the IG ones were too big.
And this is not tru-scale marines, it's nu-marines. There's a difference.

**Voss**

SilverAlien wrote:
Voss wrote:
Better. Much better. A solid year of relative balance and feedback would make me feel much better about the state of the game. Not as much as five years, but a wait before diving back into the gross imbalances of codex 'system' would have been a comfort. A headlong rush is deeply disturbing, ill-thought out and rather silly.

There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases. If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by a dart board.

That's not really what the codices are for? Point updates are going to come out as needed online. This is adding new stuff. It's also been tested, it isn't being added as a balance mechanism.

Well, clearly not as a balance mechanism- they have no info to balance with. But if points are going to come out online, [as opposed as a yearly tax in the form of Chapter Approved, same as AoS' General's Handbook, which is what they've announced] I have no idea what they're for.
Beyond apparently re-bloating the rules with several of the awful 'features' of 7th.

It certainly isn't for 'adding new stuff,' as they've already said [officially and everything] that many of these initial codex releases won't HAVE new stuff.

Is every army getting new models too?
Some of them. Certain armies will get new miniatures alongside their new codex, and others won’t. Don’t worry though, our miniatures designers are working hard and we’ll get to all of you eventually – we’re well aware you all want new models for your chosen army.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

**Purifier**

Voss wrote:
SilverAlien wrote:
Voss wrote:
Better. Much better. A solid year of relative balance and feedback would make me feel much better about the state of the game. Not as much as five years, but a wait before diving back into the gross imbalances of codex 'system' would have been a comfort. A headlong rush is deeply disturbing, ill-thought out and rather silly.

There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases. If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by a dart board.

That's not really what the codices are for? Point updates are going to come out as needed online. This is adding new stuff. It's also been tested, it isn't being added as a balance mechanism.

Well, clearly not as a balance mechanism- they have no info to balance with. But if points are going to come out online, [as opposed as a yearly tax in the form of Chapter Approved, same as AoS' General's Handbook, which is what they've announced] I have no idea what they're for.
Beyond apparently re-bloating the rules with several of the awful 'features' of 7th.

It certainly isn't for 'adding new stuff,' as they've already said [officially and everything] that many of these initial codex releases won't HAVE new stuff.

Is every army getting new models too?
Some of them. Certain armies will get new miniatures alongside their new codex, and others won’t. Don’t worry though, our miniatures designers are working hard and we’ll get to all of you eventually – we’re well aware you all want new models for your chosen army.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.

**SilverAlien**

Voss wrote:
SilverAlien wrote:
Voss wrote:
Better. Much better. A solid year of relative balance and feedback would make me feel much better about the state of the game. Not as much as five years, but a wait before diving back into the gross imbalances of codex 'system' would have been a comfort. A headlong rush is deeply disturbing, ill-thought out and rather silly.

There is no chance to apply rational, well thought alterations backed by evidence to the first batch of codex releases. If they're changed at all from the index list it will be essentially random over and underpowered changes, fueled by a dart board.

That's not really what the codices are for? Point updates are going to come out as needed online. This is adding new stuff. It's also been tested, it isn't being added as a balance mechanism.

Well, clearly not as a balance mechanism- they have no info to balance with. But if points are going to come out online, [as opposed as a yearly tax in the form of Chapter Approved, same as AoS' General's Handbook, which is what they've announced] I have no idea what they're for.
Beyond apparently re-bloating the rules with several of the awful 'features' of 7th.

It certainly isn't for 'adding new stuff,' as they've already said [officially and everything] that many of these initial codex releases won't HAVE new stuff.

Is every army getting new models too?
Some of them. Certain armies will get new miniatures alongside their new codex, and others won’t. Don’t worry though, our miniatures designers are working hard and we’ll get to all of you eventually – we’re well aware you all want new models for your chosen army.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

Except I didn't mean new models, I meant new rules. Relics, psychic powers, detachments, chapter tactics, stratagems, etc. That's the new stuff they are adding to make the armies more interesting. All the things that actually give our armies some flavor and save them from being bland and dull.

**Voss**

Purifier wrote:

They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.

It is to me. That stuff doesn't add 'flavour.' Special interactions is definitely bloat, and <whatever> tactics encourages pointless and insane forms of 'armies' that clash horribly with the background.
Every special snowflake rule is a pointless way to introduce yet more imbalances and problems.

The codex/army book has consistently been a method of causing problem armies. The game would be much better if they stuck with the index structure.
Fundamentally, GW has never been able to stick to a design paradigm long enough to go through a whole cycle of codex or army books. Someone inevitably takes their 'pet' faction too far.

**Purifier**

Voss wrote:
Purifier wrote:

They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.

It is to me. That stuff doesn't add 'flavour.' Special interactions is definitely bloat, and <whatever> tactics encourages pointless and insane forms of 'armies' that clash horribly with the background.
Every special snowflake rule is a pointless way to introduce yet more imbalances and problems.

The codex/army book has consistently been a method of causing problem armies. The game would be much better if they stuck with the index structure.
Fundamentally, GW has never been able to stick to a design paradigm long enough to go through a whole cycle of codex or army books. Someone inevitably takes their 'pet' faction too far.

Are you sure you're playing the right game? Because it seems like you'd be a lot more happy with something where everyone has the same army, and a small amount of different units.

**SilverAlien**

Voss wrote:
Purifier wrote:

They're going to bring back the flavour of the armies. Having your own spells, warlord traits and special interactions isn't really bloat.

It is to me. That stuff doesn't add 'flavour.' Special interactions is definitely bloat, and <whatever> tactics encourages pointless and insane forms of 'armies' that clash horribly with the background.
Every special snowflake rule is a pointless way to introduce yet more imbalances and problems.

The codex/army book has consistently been a method of causing problem armies. The game would be much better if they stuck with the index structure.
Fundamentally, GW has never been able to stick to a design paradigm long enough to go through a whole cycle of codex or army books. Someone inevitably takes their 'pet' faction too far.

A lot of us would probably lose interest. I mean, the index is fine for a bit, but I can't see myself playing my CSM without a codex for more than a couple more months. My admech are better, but I'd still like one eventually.

It's not even like balance is actually that great right now. Many units and armies are outright garbage. So it's weird to see people want to preserve that balance.