PDA

View Full Version : splash release vs revised codexs?



Festablo
03-06-2008, 04:02
Simply put, would you rather see GW continue on its course of action releasing a total redo of the codexs every 3 or 4 months or would u rather see them release books that contain new rules/units for every race, similar to what war machine does. Thoughts, Opinions?

Eldramesha
03-06-2008, 04:05
I'd honestly rather have them do a splash release for two reasons. Firstly it gives me a know thine enemy type of thing, as I would have the rules to every unit which means I could dispute things less as I would have less room for not knowing what my opponent was capable of. Secondly it would be a more consistent revenue model for GW as everyone would have to buy the same books rather than coming in uneven waves.

==Me==
03-06-2008, 04:56
I can see the benefits of both. Splash releases keep everyone involved and nobody suffers from DE syndrome, while redos are a fully functional, brand-spanking new incarnation of an army.

I can also see the downsides of both. Splash releases suffer from trying to cater to too many different groups at once, and with rules it leads to confusion and carrying around all your rules, erratas, new rules, newer rules, instead of 1 Codex equivalent. 1 at a times suffer from the afore-mentioned DE syndrome.

I would say I'd prefer the current way of doing things, if only because it allows ==My== bank account to recuperate when armies that aren't all that appealing come out.

RunicKid
03-06-2008, 05:24
I think I would enjoy splash releases better than the current redos they do now, but it also seems far harder to do it for War hammer than War Machine. War hammer simply has far too many armies to do a full splash release, and if they only did a splash release of maybe a fourth of the armies at once its really no better than just taking the time to redo whole codexes at once.

And I really agree with ==Me==. Splash releases sounds like a really big money dump since i'd feel more inclined to start collecting every army that interested me, instead of just the ones with interesting codexes. Of course thats just my poor wallet speaking...

Lord Cook
03-06-2008, 06:13
I prefer the current method of releasing one full codex every few months. If they used the other method, I'd constantly be having to buy new material in dribs and drabs, when most of it catered to armies I don't even collect.

Hicks
03-06-2008, 06:51
I am all for splash releases. It would be the best way to keep the game balanced and interresting for everyone. I think that things like the landraider being present in like 6 codices and each one having different rules is appaling for a serious game system.

TheNZer
03-06-2008, 06:58
Redoing dex's every 3-4 months, for exactly the same reason as ==Me==.

BrainFireBob
03-06-2008, 09:44
So, in conclusion, there's a reason that there's friction between 40K players and "those who have seen the light of Warmachine," for any Warmachine converts reading. It's a stylisitic preference.

Reaver83
03-06-2008, 11:21
I think logistically it would be too hard to do, think of fantasy there's so many armys, do redo all the books to come out at once would be a massive effort and what would we do in the mean time, twiddle our thumbs?

The rolling redo is not perfect, but it means every race gets it's time in the sun, and from a business sense you get new codex + new models.

Tonberry
03-06-2008, 11:26
Whilst splash releases are more exciting, it's a pain in the **** to have to carry around folders of different rule books to be able to play with new units. However, when 40k does splash releases, they do seem to do it well * nods towards EoT book *.

leonmallett
03-06-2008, 11:39
In miniatures terms alone, splash releases would be nice. But in context of the question, I am in favour of complete standalone codexes for individual armies every 3-4 months (or whatever frequency) and don't want rules scattered across more than one book (core rules and generic expansions aside).

Equally, I want background and rules in the same book for clarity and ease of access, so the current situation is my preferred option.

IJW
03-06-2008, 11:39
or would u rather see them release books that contain new rules/units for every race
As others have pointed out there are drawbacks to redoing codices on a rolling basis, but 40k simply has too many factions for combined books to work. Even if you lump all the Marines together and witch-hunters/deamon-hunters together you still have a dozen distinct factions.

Then there's the problem of game age. At 20+ years old, 40k is by now a mature gaming universe - 'new' units are few and far between because the playable factions of the universe are largely mapped out. In comparison, Warmachine etc. are still expanding backgrounds with comparatively small numbers of factions and are therefore suited to combined books.

EDIT - it's also worth mentioning that 1st ed. pretty much worked by having combined books and WD articles and it ended up as a total mess... ;)

Griefbringer
03-06-2008, 11:52
There is also the issue of entry level to the game: the more books you need to buy to get all the necessary material for your force, the more complex it is to get started.

Templar Ben
03-06-2008, 13:16
I have spoken of this before but what the heck I will rehash it.

GW has far more armies then Warmachine. I think the Warmachine model is better but it is not feasible for a game with 16 armies instead of 5 (9 with Hordes). Instead what I have suggested is to have "Segmentum" releases. These would be releases tied to ongoing campaigns and the campaign book would have new units and rules for the armies in the Segmentum.

The first could be Tau, Ultramarines and Tyranids. There would be a campaign to signify how the Tau have developed some sort of Nid Attractor that they can use to redirect a hive fleet. The Imperials are natually wanting to destroy it because they know how bad it would be for the Tau to push a hive fleet around the galaxy.

What about Necron and Dark Eldar players? Why are they left in the dark? Well the next one will take place in a different part of the galaxy. The Dark Eldar are seeking a crone world artifact but the power of so many eldar and this weapon awaken a Necron world as they seek to destroy this weapon. Sadly for the Imperials their planet is a very convenient battlefield so the IG is going to need to use those jump pack IG (some of you old guys remember those).

This would rotate around and mix it up so you don't always have armies A, B, and C together. Some may bemoan the fact that I included Imperial forces in each example. Well this is GW and the Imperial Armies make up half of all armies.

As far as marketing, this is how I would handle the release.

January- Release the first book and the models. The website will have conversion ideas using the just released bits pack. The website will also have the developer's notes on why they went with the new units and what role they think they will fill. Players can go online and record battles and results. The internet will burn as Fanbois and Haterz rumble.

February- WD has a battle report that shows the new units. Painting article on how to convert and paint the new speeder. Some of the battle reports that are very interesting will be exerpted as Intelligence Reports or After Action Reports depending on the armies involved.

March - Campaign starts to wind down. GW has a good sense on how the new units fared. If broken then they can be removed with a story of "STC was lost", Nid's reject the biomorph due to adverse reaction, Necron spider lord was destroyed, etc. If it needs some tweeks as a few points dropped or added then that can happen. The new and improved units are then available online as a download and are completely legal and GW will sanction their use in all GW tournaments with other organizers free to use whatever rules they want.

April - Start new campaign.

This will allow GW to slowly release new units. The world will playtest them for a few months so you get that feedback. There is a build in system to correct if they are "too good" or "too bad" and they are by and large conversions of existing models (with the occasional new release) which means limited new SKUs but increased sales.

The same models could be used for WHFB if so desired but I see this as truly fitting 40K. This can even allow for slowly advancing the universe as you can have the clock ticking as in real time. The truly wonderful battles can even become official accounts so that everyone knows that in 42003 the Dark Eldar destroyed the PDF of Licudamus VI and took over a million slaves when they left.

I am pretty sure it could work. I even wrote it up and sent it to Jervis. Never heard back so take of that what you will.

Mr. Smuckles
03-06-2008, 16:20
Templar Ben's idea is certainly the best of both worlds and something I'd like to see them pursue, however does releasing fluff and new models every few months outstrip GW's capacity for production?

TheDarkDuke
03-06-2008, 17:33
Templar Ben's idea is certainly the best of both worlds and something I'd like to see them pursue, however does releasing fluff and new models every few months outstrip GW's capacity for production?

I am not sure how... the complete removal of a model if it didn't work right... after how many people sink how many $ into them? Causes you to still buy that new released book for a single unit. Its a Storm of Chaos all over again, look at these cool new units you need to A) Buy or B) Convert (lets not mention it will not be cheap) and then say these lists are not useable in tournies (not everyone plays tournies but people do). Then pull the book and models and not be able to purchase them anywhere. Add in the if you missed out on the book or models your SOL... also the fact this would still require the full fledged codex.

Really there is no way for even release. Either someone has to wait there full turn of years like it is now, or you release a bunch at once, but then lets say they release half the armies at once year 1, the other year 2.... what the heck do they do year 3????? Redo a 2 year old bunch of books?

The best they can do at this point is with the new edition coming out, get all armies that need to be brought into line done first and foremost. They have really fixed things up on the fantasy side, and 40k is going through the same upgrade.... but is further behind with:

DE
Necron
IG
DH
WH
SW

All terribly far behind. They we still have armies that will need more attention down the line as they probably were not designed for the new rules like soem of the later codex releases:

BT
BA
Nids

Bregalad
03-06-2008, 21:50
Imagine a small kid (main target customer) starting a new army.
Then it asks the redshirt:"When will I get new stuff for my army?"
Answer: "Come back when you are married."

This is just ridiculous, customer unfriendly and uneconomic.
Privateer can do it. Rackham can do it. Infinity can do it. Customers are now used to be treated better!
GW, please do it or watch your stock value go through the floor.

Kelderaith
03-06-2008, 22:02
I think both systems are flawed so I didn't vote for any (I played confrontation, which was a "splash release" system and 40k so I know both).

Imho, the best thing they could do (but won't since rule making = 2nd to producing miniatures to them) is take 6 to 12 months "off" after the release of 5th edition and remake ALL CODEXES with internal and external balance working out (would require enormous amount of playtest and all that jazz though). This being done, every codex are "up to date" and thus they can "splash release" all the armies for about 2-3 years (if not more) before they can further try to improve the current overall system. Since every codex will be release simultanously, no codex will suffer from being the old broken (negative way) dex. It will offer enormous possibilities for convertions since the miniatures will miss for a while (since they release all the codexes without necessarily the models for it) while still offering some new minis as splash release (to eventually complete the unit's choices of every codexes).

Templar Ben
03-06-2008, 23:43
I am not sure how... the complete removal of a model if it didn't work right... after how many people sink how many $ into them? Causes you to still buy that new released book for a single unit. Its a Storm of Chaos all over again, look at these cool new units you need to A) Buy or B) Convert (lets not mention it will not be cheap) and then say these lists are not useable in tournies (not everyone plays tournies but people do). Then pull the book and models and not be able to purchase them anywhere. Add in the if you missed out on the book or models your SOL... also the fact this would still require the full fledged codex.

Well perhaps I wasn't clear. Most models in each release will be something that is either the combination of existing models (like the Land Raider Terminus) or an existing model that will be used going forward (like the Ork Trukk that can now be a basis for new vehicles). The big focus will be to sell as many existing SKUs as possible and to again support conversion with targeted bitz packs.

I am pretty sure I said that GW would make most legal for their tournaments. They can't tell anyone else how to run their tournaments. I mearly pointed out that if they create a clearly broken model after the 3 months they know to drop it. Most would be a simple adjustment of a few points.

As to not being able to get the book, well I fully support GW putting the units online in PDF form with all needed information.

As to everyone needing a Codex, the smart move would be to make a base Codex for all armies and release that. I would actually create an Armies book that would contain all armies in one book complete with the points formula so that you know why an Ork boy costs X and a Space Marine Scout costs Y. That is outside the scope of the splash release though as I see that happening when you have a new version. That would also be available online without the fluff if you only want rules.


Really there is no way for even release. Either someone has to wait there full turn of years like it is now, or you release a bunch at once, but then lets say they release half the armies at once year 1, the other year 2.... what the heck do they do year 3????? Redo a 2 year old bunch of books?

Actually doing 3-4 armies every quarter they could quickly go though all of them. As to redoing books, well you would redo the armies sure. This time the Eldar got a new bike unit. In a year or two we will have a special Heavy Support that was not seen before.

Templar Ben
03-06-2008, 23:46
Templar Ben's idea is certainly the best of both worlds and something I'd like to see them pursue, however does releasing fluff and new models every few months outstrip GW's capacity for production?

That is what they do with their current release schedule. I would just change it so that instead of it being one army, it is for several but just one unit each.

txamil
04-06-2008, 00:26
Damn I voted wrong. I like splash releases.

I suspect they would be more revenue too.

Torga_DW
04-06-2008, 00:31
I prefer revised codexes. I don't want to be forced to buy rules for armies i'm not interested in. I don't want to hunt through 8 books to find the rules for 1 particular unit.

The_Outsider
04-06-2008, 00:57
Do people not remember the 3rd ed rulebook? GW tried to cover all the bases there and basically made useless forces. While true they were stop gap lists, the point stands.

hush88
04-06-2008, 07:58
Pretty much what ==ME==, i like to be able to recover (monetary) when i skip a codex whose army i do not like.

Templar Ben
04-06-2008, 17:57
I prefer revised codexes. I don't want to be forced to buy rules for armies i'm not interested in. I don't want to hunt through 8 books to find the rules for 1 particular unit.

Which is why they should put them on the website. Easy to download exactly what you need. I would actually go further and say GW should allow you to put in your army and then print out an army list complete with all of the rules and stats relevant to your army.


Do people not remember the 3rd ed rulebook? GW tried to cover all the bases there and basically made useless forces. While true they were stop gap lists, the point stands.

GW could definitely mess up anything. The army should be able to be listed with what the stats for each unit including cost. This would be similar to the download sheet you can get now but include point costs and any special rules for the units. Three pages per army would suffice as this is simply giving you what you need to play and not modeling, painting, or fluff.

philbrad2
04-06-2008, 18:14
Splash release are seen as short term and spawn good revenue for GW. The amount of gamer slavering at the re-release of APOC sets this summer is testament to this.

Re-do of codices every few months is a) impractical b) I would expect in an organisation of GW's sature impossible to do with co-ordination between designers, marketing, sculptors, production etc... as with any mass produced product. However 10 years between codicies is shocking, revisit codices on a period of 5 years would be more realistic. But of course GW is only revising rules/codices/miniatures to keep going it is a business after all and we make it pretty much self-perpetuating.

PhilB
:chrome:

spaint2k
04-06-2008, 18:19
I've also commented on this issue before. Templar Ben's idea is one of the best around, and we should be so lucky for GW to approach 40k in such a fashion.

Steve

Galatan
04-06-2008, 18:25
revised codexes....hands down. I like it when: the majority of the background is simply in 1 book, All my units is in 1 book, I don't have to carry tons of books around, can fully dedicate myself to an army without getting distracted by other miniatures for a few months.

The PP methode is just unwiely IMO for GW. 40k fluff is huge and spread out already, imagine if there weren't any codex's. That would mean it would be even harder to find a good dedicated piece of fluff for one army, and that army only. GW had small rule slash releases before in the past and while it was cool and all in the short term, it sucked long term. Every time I wanted to play Ulthwe strike force I had to bring 3 codex's along (which were thankfully small, but you get the point).

Army's with small selection of units it would be great or small number of factions it would be great. PP warmachine, who does slash releases, has only 4 factions with a small (granted growing) selection of units. These 4 factions can easily be updated once every few months. 40k has 11 factions. Imagine that every faction (or at least a majority) has an update every few months with full background and you still want to keep the same selection of units. We'll be carry around huge tomes in no time.

That why I say --> for PP en rackham: slash release = ok. For GW: slash release=no go.

EDIT: forgot to say, but Templar Ben's idea is also pretty good. You could say that Eye of Terror campaign is such a slash release and it was a HUGE success (in contrast with GW's other campaign attempts...Why would I ever want to save an already dying planet?). I don't know if it would stay successful in the long term, but heck the idea is still cool.

Earthbeard
04-06-2008, 18:39
In miniatures terms alone, splash releases would be nice. But in context of the question, I am in favour of complete standalone codexes for individual armies every 3-4 months (or whatever frequency) and don't want rules scattered across more than one book (core rules and generic expansions aside).

Equally, I want background and rules in the same book for clarity and ease of access, so the current situation is my preferred option.

Sums it up pretty much for me.

Also what if you missed a key critical unit from one of the splash releases......Would be pretty annoying.

Necros
04-06-2008, 18:52
I like a little of both. I want to see armies redone like with the codexes, but I really would like to see new models for other armies come out "just because".. like for instance the baneblade, ogryns and comissars we got when Apocalypse came out. Even if they don't make all new units that aren't in the codex, just new models of already existing stuff. Maybe an updated commander, or a new kind of falcon turret, or a new kroot shaper model.. whatever.. just throw in new stuff here and there to keep older lines from stagnating.

leonmallett
04-06-2008, 19:42
Splash release are seen as short term and spawn good revenue for GW. The amount of gamer slavering at the re-release of APOC sets this summer is testament to this.

Re-do of codices every few months is a) impractical b) I would expect in an organisation of GW's sature impossible to do with co-ordination between designers, marketing, sculptors, production etc... as with any mass produced product. However 10 years between codicies is shocking, revisit codices on a period of 5 years would be more realistic. But of course GW is only revising rules/codices/miniatures to keep going it is a business after all and we make it pretty much self-perpetuating.

PhilB
:chrome:

I don't think the OP's idea is to re-do all codexes every 3-4 months, but one codex (presumably in an ongoing cycle) at that frequency - I could well be wrong though.

Templar Ben
04-06-2008, 21:15
That is how I took it as well.

Current of developing a Codex every quarter and releasing 4-6 plastic sprues and some metal models.

Splash of developing a small release for all every quarter.

And then mine was,

Splash of developing a Campaign book every quarter and releasing 4-6 plastic sprues and metal models and bits packs for conversions.

Dexter099
05-06-2008, 02:47
[QUOTE===Me==;2666928]I can see the benefits of both. Splash releases keep everyone involved and nobody suffers from DE syndrome, while redos are a fully functional, brand-spanking new incarnation of an army.
QUOTE]

In fantasy, this would be called the Chaos Dwarf Syndrome. ;)

==Me==
05-06-2008, 04:53
In fantasy, this would be called the Chaos Dwarf Syndrome. ;)

Chaos Dwarfs? Are they a new army? I thought they were releasing Fishmen next.

Torga_DW
05-06-2008, 05:19
Little known fact, but chaos dwarfs are actually just disgruntled squats. :)

Templar Ben
05-06-2008, 15:27
It was a fun exercise but I think we are all sure GW will not change anythign.