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.

Hey guys, if you dont mind I'm collating a bit of online research.


The question is quite simple.

Which of these two options (if either) will instill more hard feelings and bitterness from you towards Games Workshop, their products, and their policies...


Discuss.


Please select option 4 if you are not a BA/DA/BT player.


Many thanks,

Morticon.


Just a small note - if you post on multiple boards like I do, Ive set up the same thing in the B&C and Warseer, so if you vote here you dont need to vote there, and vice versa.

Thanks again.

Would either of the two voters care to explain why theyd be more peeved relying on a supplement? Seems counter intuitive from whats been said to date.

$20-$30 for me to level the playfield, when my codex was free in the first place? No problem! Where do I sign up? I'd really rather not end up playing "Red Space Marines" if I can clearly build a list thats better than anything out of the BA codex.

'The question is quite simple'

Actually, it isn't.

GW, their products and their policies - this is quite a can of worms! Also, its not really what you are asking.

Your question refers only to the single policy of having seperate Codices for BA/DA/SW/BT while lumping the rest into one Codex. This policy can be handled in one of two ways.

As changes occur with the most recent book, the older volumes can be left either better (BT) or worse (DA) depending on the circumstances. The discrepencies will then exist until the next round of updates.
The alternative is to publish fairly substantial changes to the older volumes in order to keep everything in line.

GW have chosen the cheaper option (surprise!) of not updating the existing books.


For myself, I would much prefer to have had an uber 'double-release' for marines (and CSM for that matter) of a basic codex and ONE extra 'options' book that listed all the chapter-specific stuff (a la Craftworld Eldar, only bigger and better!).

This is a poorly written poll, IMHO (no hard feelings, honest) because it is a tad bit confusing and the way the question/answers are written I believe will cause a biased result.


The question and answers should be:


Q) If you are a blood angels, dark angels or black templar player, which of the following policies would you most like to see Games Workshop implement regarding the release of the new Space Marine codex?


A1) I prefer that GW does not alter my specific codex in any way despite the release of the new Space Marine codex.


A2) I prefer that Games Workshop publishes an extensive FAQ that players have to print-out and carry around with them that updates all the rules in my codex to make them match with the new Space Marine codex. This FAQ would be quite a few pages but would not necessitate me purchasing the new SM codex to play with my army.


A3) I prefer that Games Workshop publishes a fairly simple FAQ that updates all the rules in my codex to make them match with the new Space Marine codex. Although the FAQ would be smaller, in many cases it would directly reference the new SM codex which would necessitate me to purchase the SM codex in order to play my army.


A4) I'd be happy with any choice.

None taken lad.

I'd consder rewording but that would mean starting from scratch >_<

And you're right- maybe this poll will suffer from experimenters effect but basically im looking for a little bit of evidence to counter GW designers who have written a reply to a mate stating that more players would be upset with using a secondary resource for their army than with an FAQ/Stealth update.

Im only really interested in the first 2 options - though im sure a few will comment for the 3rd.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:'The question is quite simple'

Actually, it isn't.

GW, their products and their policies - this is quite a can of worms! Also, its not really what you are asking.

Your question refers only to the single policy of having seperate Codices for BA/DA/SW/BT while lumping the rest into one Codex. T

I still think the question is fairly simple >_< The answers the tough part no ?? As for the question referring to various aspects of the company- and yeah, i should have worded it better- although the question only deals with one policy its a policy that can affect how a gamer views the entire company and its products (and of course policies) based on that one particular aspect.

Thanks for the feedback - please feel free to keep clicking and adding your thoughts and comments!

The poll should be closer to Yaks wording anywho, but I am really interested (as mentioned) to see which players would be more upset with given those two options, as it is in essence what the game designer wrote in reply to my friends letter.

Thanks again.

Morticon wrote:None taken lad.

I'd consder rewording but that would mean starting from scratch >_<

And you're right- maybe this poll will suffer from experimenters effect but basically im looking for a little bit of evidence to counter GW designers who have written a reply to a mate stating that more players would be upset with using a secondary resource for their army than with an FAQ/Stealth update.

Im only really interested in the first 2 options - though im sure a few will comment for the 3rd.

Here is the natural flaw in such a poll though:


All the players who come online to a forum are the type of player who doesn't mind printing out a big FAQ and carrying it around with them, and in many cases wouldn't mind buying the SM codex for reference if that's what it took to update their codex. So most, if not all of the people taking your poll fall into one category.

The people who aren't internet regulars, who wouldn't be aware of new online FAQs and who would be annoyed that they have to carry around a FAQ just to write their army lists are the people who aren't on our forums and who will not be voting.


I do know plenty of these type of people. They don't like FAQs because they'd prefer to stick with broken rules then half to check the internet every few weeks/months to see if something new has come out under the fear that 'the guy' in their club will spring the 'new FAQ ruling' on them in their next game.

These are the types of people that may be annoyed at having their codex suddenly changed to reference the new SM codex and they definitely won't vote online.

Granted I wouldn't mind carrying around printed out FAQ's, but I'd prefer the FAQ's to be just that, frequently asked questions, NOT ERATA to the rules and further more not erata to a codex. When FAQ's are used for erata this erks me to no end because it shows a failure in play testing.

On a side note the codices are tailored to an armies special rules that are not covered in the main rulebook, however there are certain things such as wargear that when shared among different races should be the same. This is an entirely different subject tho.

Just like every other place you have spammed this poll, it doesnt cover the bases adequately, so it is useless when all said and done.
Perhaps contact the mods and ask them to delete this one after you make a better poll?

Id have to do that in every place then and risk annoying people and getting less of a sample...>_< but..if i can..

What are your suggestions Hellfury?

yakface wrote:

Here is the natural flaw in such a poll though:


All the players who come online to a forum are the type of player who doesn't mind printing out a big FAQ and carrying it around with them, and in many cases wouldn't mind buying the SM codex for reference if that's what it took to update their codex. So most, if not all of the people taking your poll fall into one category.

The people who aren't internet regulars, who wouldn't be aware of new online FAQs and who would be annoyed that they have to carry around a FAQ just to write their army lists are the people who aren't on our forums and who will not be voting.


I do know plenty of these type of people. They don't like FAQs because they'd prefer to stick with broken rules then half to check the internet every few weeks/months to see if something new has come out under the fear that 'the guy' in their club will spring the 'new FAQ ruling' on them in their next game.

These are the types of people that may be annoyed at having their codex suddenly changed to reference the new SM codex and they definitely won't vote online.

I agree entirely and it was a concern too. But how to reach other people >_< Frustrating.

Yakface has a really good point. I play one of the affected armies. Even though there's not going to be a FAQ, or Errata, or an update, or whatever you want to call it, I'm going to buy the SM Codex anyway.

Here's an idea, if it's not happening already. GW sending out monthly newsletters to its stores to update its employees on new releases. In this newsletter would be a notification that certain FAQs have been updated. There's already a terminal in the two GW stores that I frequent to browse the online catalog. Expand this to also be able to pull up the FAQs and print them out for their customers perhaps? This solves the problem of those FEW people that don't have internet at home, or don't keep track of whats going on. GW store employees already ask what army people play by nature, so they should know...especially if the customer walks up to purchase the SM Codex.."Hey, did you hear about the new FAQs that were put out as well? No? Would you like me to print you a copy?"

The fax machine, which is already there for ordering purposes, doubles as the printer. Problem solved

There is nothing more enjoyable than ambushing a new opponent with a FAQ, right?

Either he thinks he knows what he's fighting against, or he thinks he knows what he's fighting with, because he actually bought the Codex with all the printed rules.

But you whip that FAQ out and now he's all confused. Fun for everyone!


Seriously, I really hated the whole Q&A and FAQ business towards the end of 3rd Edition. What a disaster.

In any case, my vote is:

5. I don't play BA/BT/DA/SW, but I would really prefer that you play according to the rules printed in your Codex, the same as what GW currently sells. If you're changing everything around, then you're not really playing your Codex and should just play Codex: SM.

JohnHwangDD wrote:There is nothing more enjoyable than ambushing a new opponent with a FAQ, right?

Either he thinks he knows what he's fighting against, or he thinks he knows what he's fighting with, because he actually bought the Codex with all the printed rules.

But you whip that FAQ out and now he's all confused. Fun for everyone!


Seriously, I really hated the whole Q&A and FAQ business towards the end of 3rd Edition. What a disaster.

In any case, my vote is:

5. I don't play BA/BT/DA/SW, but I would really prefer that you play according to the rules printed in your Codex, the same as what GW currently sells. If you're changing everything around, then you're not really playing your Codex and should just play Codex: SM.

So instead of ambushing my opponents with FAQs, I should ambush them with heavy 1 cyclones and 4+ storm shields? Cowabunga, dude!

MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy wrote:So instead of ambushing my opponents with FAQs, I should ambush them with heavy 1 cyclones and 4+ storm shields?

Yup.

Keep things simple: Play according to your Codex, as printed.

If you don't have the latest, shiniest toys, too bad. Buy the new book, or make do with what you already have. Don't expect your opponent to grant you Heavy 2 Cyclones and Sv3+ Storm Shields just because some other lists have them.

Besides, if you're any sort of decent General, the challenge only makes things more interesting.

Firstly thank you to the 33 people that voted and the others that offered some constructive criticism.

Yak or other mods...im busy re-writing this to make it a more neutral question (regardless of the bias sample base anyway).

If possible could you kindly kill/close this thread or otherwise let it die. But, i will be posting a new poll in a few days based on the feedback received in all forums. And a better explanation of where it comes from.

This was taken from Koyote at BnC just as a side note:

"Perhaps some background would help...

A few of us have been privy to correspondences between game designers at Game Workshop and players of the game. When the game designers were asked to update the weapon and wargear stats/rules in older codices to bring them in line with newer codices (out of a sense of consistency and fairness), the game designers answered that it is GW policy not to do so out of fear of creating disgruntled customers who, in order to play an army, would have to buy a codex and then have to refer to an online source for the core rules for that particular army.

After reading this response we asked ourselves, what would "disgruntle" us more, playing with an inconsistent army ruleset or being required to spend some time online downloading and printing a 'patch' for our army rulesets?

This poll grew out of this conversation among ourselves.

So the language, while not perfect, was intended as a cursory look into which circumstance would create more ill-will towards Games Workshop. The intention of the wording was not to create any hostility towards Games Workshop, but rather to test the game designers' theory."