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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And?

Would decreasing the speed of these books be a bad thing?

You tell us.
We're 24 months & 22 army books (counting the DA/BA/SW/DW) in, KNOW we still have 2 completely knew books coming (World Eaters & Nu-Squats) & people are howling because the Guard & Demons still aren't out yet.
Ok, granted, 2020/2021 was a bit rough release schedule wise due to a global pandemic shuttering things & some global shipping problems....
Still though, 22 books (for 40k!) in 24 months.
Oh, and a lackluster FW volume.
And you want this to slow down?

I'd say "people are howling" because balance is bad. If balance was good while people waited for their new books, I imagine there would be less howling.

If IG were rocking the tournament wins, I think you'd be hearing a lot more howling from non IG players.

Yeah. When armies require players to re-balance 40k themselves to actually play it is understandable they want the situation to get better.

I'm sure those players are buying tons of models though /s

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Increasing the development time of a codex does not only effect the first book.

If a codex takes 3 months to develop, test and write then 3 writers working staggered can release a codex every month.
If a codex takes 4 months you need an extra writer to work on an extra codex or you get a months gap every 3e codex.

The problem here is that you're assuming that all the codexes HAVE to be developed one at a time, when it would be much better for the game and codexes if they were written and developed simultaneously. They don't have to be released as such, but they should be this way.

A key component to having a dominant game system is to constantly have new things for people to buy.

These rule sets like 9th Age stagnate and people eventually leave even if it might be well balanced ( yet their community does not have a consensus that the game is balanced or in a good place for various reasons ).

For this reason it would be pretty hard to develop them simultaneously. GW has to expand the factions available to keep new stuff coming down the line.

'New cool gak' sells. OP rules aren't the sales lever ( not your argument, but I added in due to other posts ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Increasing the development time of a codex does not only effect the first book.

If a codex takes 3 months to develop, test and write then 3 writers working staggered can release a codex every month.
If a codex takes 4 months you need an extra writer to work on an extra codex or you get a months gap every 3e codex.

The problem here is that you're assuming that all the codexes HAVE to be developed one at a time, when it would be much better for the game and codexes if they were written and developed simultaneously. They don't have to be released as such, but they should be this way.

A key component to having a dominant game system is to constantly have new things for people to buy.

These rule sets like 9th Age stagnate and people eventually leave even if it might be well balanced ( yet their community does not have a consensus that the game is balanced or in a good place for various reasons ).

For this reason it would be pretty hard to develop them simultaneously. GW has to expand the factions available to keep new stuff coming down the line.

'New cool gak' sells. OP rules aren't the sales lever ( not your argument, but I added in due to other posts ).

More interesting rules for older units is one of the only levers they really have for older kits. That and discount bundles. Note though, that they don't NEED to be OP, they just need to be better than the previous incarnation.

ERJAK wrote:
More interesting rules for older units is one of the only levers they really have for older kits. That and discount bundles. Note though, that they don't NEED to be OP, they just need to be better than the previous incarnation.

Until very recently GW didn't have the capacity to spin more than just new releases.

GW isn't making up models in advance not knowing whether or not they'll sell based on a new codex.

*GW sells out on box X*
*GW does another "run" and puts it on the shelf and goes back to the production schedule for all the kits that have to get to the brick and mortars every Tuesday*

"Yea, Bill. Print up loads of Centurions. Why? Because someone who plays Raven Guard will figure out how useful they are and people will go nuts."

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Increasing the development time of a codex does not only effect the first book.

If a codex takes 3 months to develop, test and write then 3 writers working staggered can release a codex every month.
If a codex takes 4 months you need an extra writer to work on an extra codex or you get a months gap every 3e codex.

The problem here is that you're assuming that all the codexes HAVE to be developed one at a time, when it would be much better for the game and codexes if they were written and developed simultaneously. They don't have to be released as such, but they should be this way.

A key component to having a dominant game system is to constantly have new things for people to buy.

These rule sets like 9th Age stagnate and people eventually leave even if it might be well balanced ( yet their community does not have a consensus that the game is balanced or in a good place for various reasons ).

For this reason it would be pretty hard to develop them simultaneously. GW has to expand the factions available to keep new stuff coming down the line.

'New cool gak' sells. OP rules aren't the sales lever ( not your argument, but I added in due to other posts ).

Where did I say they should stop new releases?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Increasing the development time of a codex does not only effect the first book.

If a codex takes 3 months to develop, test and write then 3 writers working staggered can release a codex every month.
If a codex takes 4 months you need an extra writer to work on an extra codex or you get a months gap every 3e codex.

The problem here is that you're assuming that all the codexes HAVE to be developed one at a time, when it would be much better for the game and codexes if they were written and developed simultaneously. They don't have to be released as such, but they should be this way.

A key component to having a dominant game system is to constantly have new things for people to buy.

These rule sets like 9th Age stagnate and people eventually leave even if it might be well balanced ( yet their community does not have a consensus that the game is balanced or in a good place for various reasons ).

For this reason it would be pretty hard to develop them simultaneously. GW has to expand the factions available to keep new stuff coming down the line.

'New cool gak' sells. OP rules aren't the sales lever ( not your argument, but I added in due to other posts ).

Where did I say they should stop new releases?

Where would the new rules for those new releases that aren't in the codex because they hadn't been designed 4 years out live?

 Sim-Life wrote:

Where would the new rules for those new releases that aren't in the codex because they hadn't been designed 4 years out live?

In the codexes....

GW is a miniature company, they should do the rules in one shot, then release missing models.

and halfway through the edition, add some PA-style book for all factions (then minis again after)

 Sim-Life wrote:
Where did I say they should stop new releases?

I'm not saying you did - I'm just commenting on a factor that makes it hard to juggle the opposing forces.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Where would the new rules for those new releases that aren't in the codex because they hadn't been designed 4 years out live?

In the codexes....

GW is a miniature company, they should do the rules in one shot, then release missing models.

and halfway through the edition, add some PA-style book for all factions (then minis again after)

And you're back to chapterhouse again. Plus plenty of people will be annoyed they can't field unit X because it won't be released for 3 years.

Dudeface wrote:
And you're back to chapterhouse again. Plus plenty of people will be annoyed they can't field unit X because it won't be released for 3 years.

Yea I don't think there's any way that it would be beneficial for GW to release rules without models. The secondary market is way too robust now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
And you're back to chapterhouse again. Plus plenty of people will be annoyed they can't field unit X because it won't be released for 3 years.

Yea I don't think there's any way that it would be beneficial for GW to release rules without models. The secondary market is way too robust now.

The best answer is to do more model releases alongside campaign books. Divorcing even just medium (i.e. 2-3 full kits and 1-2 character clampacks) model releases from the codexes would be great for the game and is something they already do...sometimes.

The two caveats to this is that A) The rules content of the campaign books has to be worth whatever the cost is and B) They need to get the App into a state where I can feel confident that it'll accurately cover at least the content of the campaign books, even if I don't trust it for my main codex rules or list making. Carrying around 2-4 campaign books isn't something anyone wants to do and I don't think it's unreasonable to assume players will use the App for at least those in a non-narrative setting.

This wouldn't be a problem if GW could finally switch over to a digital format of some sort for their rules distribution.

As it is right now, for a new unit in AoS they just drop the Warscroll/unit card for it, then the next codex cycle it gets added in to the book.

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
And you're back to chapterhouse again. Plus plenty of people will be annoyed they can't field unit X because it won't be released for 3 years.

Yea I don't think there's any way that it would be beneficial for GW to release rules without models. The secondary market is way too robust now.

The best answer is to do more model releases alongside campaign books. Divorcing even just medium (i.e. 2-3 full kits and 1-2 character clampacks) model releases from the codexes would be great for the game and is something they already do...sometimes.

The two caveats to this is that A) The rules content of the campaign books has to be worth whatever the cost is and B) They need to get the App into a state where I can feel confident that it'll accurately cover at least the content of the campaign books, even if I don't trust it for my main codex rules or list making. Carrying around 2-4 campaign books isn't something anyone wants to do and I don't think it's unreasonable to assume players will use the App for at least those in a non-narrative setting.

Seems reasonable, but we're back to the books not being balanced off against each other very well again due to staggered campaign releases. It works OK if you're splashing in a couple of units but a rework ala crons would be impossible without a 2.0 book.

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Where would the new rules for those new releases that aren't in the codex because they hadn't been designed 4 years out live?

In the codexes....

GW is a miniature company, they should do the rules in one shot, then release missing models.

and halfway through the edition, add some PA-style book for all factions (then minis again after)

And you're back to chapterhouse again. Plus plenty of people will be annoyed they can't field unit X because it won't be released for 3 years.

i'm not saying they would do it, but it probably would be the best way to do releases for them (along with finally accepting Proxies/count-as as part of the game)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Where did I say they should stop new releases?

I'm not saying you did - I'm just commenting on a factor that makes it hard to juggle the opposing forces.

Not really. Design the codexes and planned new units, release units in a campaign book later down the line after the codex release for everyone like Privateer Press used to do. I actually don't think people are generally opposed to extra books in theory, it's just that GW releases so many at once and they don't have a lot of useful content.

If you designed all the codexes at once including new models, while the codex cycle is ongoing our 4 plucky guys design a grand campaign book. The rules for the planned new models were all written and balanced at the start of the edition so they're free to focus on things like new missions, Crusade stuff, fluff etc.

 Thadin wrote:
This wouldn't be a problem if GW could finally switch over to a digital format of some sort for their rules distribution.

As it is right now, for a new unit in AoS they just drop the Warscroll/unit card for it, then the next codex cycle it gets added in to the book.

This is the point when you wonder if GW will ever decide their 40K Strategy (no rules unless you buy the book) isn't making them more money than the AOS Strategy (unit rules on the website, army rules in the book). It would certainly make dropping the occasional unit without worrying about a book (Codex or Campaign book) to support their rules.

They no longer do the free unit rules for AoS on the website :( can get through the app, I think...?

 alextroy wrote:

 Thadin wrote:
This wouldn't be a problem if GW could finally switch over to a digital format of some sort for their rules distribution.

As it is right now, for a new unit in AoS they just drop the Warscroll/unit card for it, then the next codex cycle it gets added in to the book.

This is the point when you wonder if GW will ever decide their 40K Strategy (no rules unless you buy the book) isn't making them more money than the AOS Strategy (unit rules on the website, army rules in the book). It would certainly make dropping the occasional unit without worrying about a book (Codex or Campaign book) to support their rules.

They need to hire Mr. Maltsev (wahapedia)
and include all their beautiful art there.

 Just_Breathe wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Thadin wrote:
This wouldn't be a problem if GW could finally switch over to a digital format of some sort for their rules distribution.

As it is right now, for a new unit in AoS they just drop the Warscroll/unit card for it, then the next codex cycle it gets added in to the book.

This is the point when you wonder if GW will ever decide their 40K Strategy (no rules unless you buy the book) isn't making them more money than the AOS Strategy (unit rules on the website, army rules in the book). It would certainly make dropping the occasional unit without worrying about a book (Codex or Campaign book) to support their rules.

They need to hire Mr. Maltsev (wahapedia)
and include all their beautiful art there.

Kinda hard with the economic sanctions on Russia (Wahapedia is hosted on Russian IIRC, great for evading lawyers, not so great for business).

 Tyran wrote:

Kinda hard with the economic sanctions on Russia (Wahapedia is hosted on Russian IIRC, great for evading lawyers, not so great for business).

Given the situation in Russia I bet he'd be down to move to the UK.

 Just_Breathe wrote:
They need to hire Mr. Maltsev (wahapedia)
and include all their beautiful art there.

The lack of art is half the appeal. Remove the rules from the codexes and boost the amount of art and lore and you have two great products instead of one product that is bad at rules and bad at lore.

 Just_Breathe wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Thadin wrote:
This wouldn't be a problem if GW could finally switch over to a digital format of some sort for their rules distribution.

As it is right now, for a new unit in AoS they just drop the Warscroll/unit card for it, then the next codex cycle it gets added in to the book.

This is the point when you wonder if GW will ever decide their 40K Strategy (no rules unless you buy the book) isn't making them more money than the AOS Strategy (unit rules on the website, army rules in the book). It would certainly make dropping the occasional unit without worrying about a book (Codex or Campaign book) to support their rules.

They need to hire Mr. Maltsev (wahapedia)
and include all their beautiful art there.

Nah, hire some "security experts" and eliminate it instead.

That sort of behaviour should not be rewarded.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Where did I say they should stop new releases?

I'm not saying you did - I'm just commenting on a factor that makes it hard to juggle the opposing forces.

Not really. Design the codexes and planned new units, release units in a campaign book later down the line after the codex release for everyone like Privateer Press used to do. I actually don't think people are generally opposed to extra books in theory, it's just that GW releases so many at once and they don't have a lot of useful content.

I completely agree, especially with the bolded part. Having the bulk of each army set up in an initial release, with further releases throughout the life of the edition would be great. The problem with GW's non-Codex releases is they're almost always terrible value for each individual army. You might get a 2-page Army of Renown or 1-page new character datasheet, or you might get what amounts to a mini-supplement fleshing out an entire sub-faction. There doesn't seem to be any overall plan for what gets released and when.

If we had more for a given army in each of these books it might encourage more people to buy them. GW should probably also have more faith in their "3 ways to play" (which is actually 2) and separate out the Crusade and Matched play stuff completely in their supplements. They can keep the basic Crusade rules for each faction in their respective Codex (or Index under this new proposal, I guess) but thereafter it should be in its own line of books exclusively. Also, for the love of God, can we not have the Crusade rules right in the middle of all the other rules for an army in their Codex? I have no idea who decides on the layout for each book, but GW have an amazing ability to somehow put every section in the wrong place, so you can't find anything when flipping through your Codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Just_Breathe wrote:


They need to hire Mr. Maltsev (wahapedia)
and include all their beautiful art there.

Nah, hire some "security experts" and eliminate it instead.

That sort of behaviour should not be rewarded.

While I'm not in favour of piracy or copyright infringement, I do think Waha is very well thought out in terms of how it presents and organises information. Miles ahead of GW's approach. GW could actually learn a lot from that aspect of it.

Yeah, Wahapedia should be held up as a good standard for Wh40k digital rules presentation.

It can also be decried as piracy, but I actually think shutting it down will lose many many players. I don't know of any who don't compensate for the absurdity of the rules right now by just using Wahapedia.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, Wahapedia should be held up as a good standard for Wh40k digital rules presentation.

It can also be decried as piracy, but I actually think shutting it down will lose many many players. I don't know of any who don't compensate for the absurdity of the rules right now by just using Wahapedia.

I use it as a frame of reference as the presentation is well laid out as you mention, I do however own everything I use to play so I'm not using it as anything beyond a reference function since its better than the app.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, Wahapedia should be held up as a good standard for Wh40k digital rules presentation.

It can also be decried as piracy, but I actually think shutting it down will lose many many players. I don't know of any who don't compensate for the absurdity of the rules right now by just using Wahapedia.

I use it as a frame of reference as the presentation is well laid out as you mention, I do however own everything I use to play so I'm not using it as anything beyond a reference function since its better than the app.

Same for me, but I do also use it to sneak references to my opponent's rules that I don't own sometimes. Of course, the player in our group that refuses to even acknowledge Wahapedia exists also complains endlessly about how the books are laid out so poorly and the app is "mostly wrong" (their words). They also tend to know about 6% of their rules so playing with Wahapedia open to their army to verify their every move is mandatory if you want anything close to a clean game.

 Dysartes wrote:

Nah, hire some "security experts" and eliminate it instead.

That sort of behaviour should not be rewarded.

hmm poor daddy GW, must eliminate all threats even at the expense of players

 Dysartes wrote:
Nah, hire some "security experts" and eliminate it instead.

That sort of behaviour should not be rewarded.

I think, but can't prove that Wahapedia is a net positive for GW.

At certain times in history piracy informs the path the consumer wishes to take and in this case it is an accessible digital tool. I would gladly pay GW for their own Wahapedia.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Nah, hire some "security experts" and eliminate it instead.

That sort of behaviour should not be rewarded.

I think, but can't prove that Wahapedia is a net positive for GW.

At certain times in history piracy informs the path the consumer wishes to take and in this case it is an accessible digital tool. I would gladly pay GW for their own Wahapedia.

It'd be interesting to find out, I'd also wager that the vast majority of gnashing over points updates being in the MFM were from people who only ever used battlescribe/wahapedia/PDFs, given that they were free in the app if you owned the legitimate product.

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Nah, hire some "security experts" and eliminate it instead.

That sort of behaviour should not be rewarded.

I think, but can't prove that Wahapedia is a net positive for GW.

At certain times in history piracy informs the path the consumer wishes to take and in this case it is an accessible digital tool. I would gladly pay GW for their own Wahapedia.

It'd be interesting to find out, I'd also wager that the vast majority of gnashing over points updates being in the MFM were from people who only ever used battlescribe/wahapedia/PDFs, given that they were free in the app if you owned the legitimate product.

LOL, they're free on BS and Waha as well, people just don't like GW's silly app.