PDA

View Full Version : Is having a "broken" (in a bad way) codex a marketable strategy?



jason_sation
10-09-2009, 04:12
I don't play Necrons, but there is a lot of complaint about them on here. Then I had my daily thought, (By the way I'm not implying this is GW's intention!) Is having an outdated Codex a way of forcing some people to spend money on another army? I mean I started and played Guard last Codex, despite it being a bit "underpowered" because I liked the models, fluff, and feel of the army. But if I was just "sort of into" Necrons last edition, and now found them not very fun to play with, I might be tempted to shelve them for the next Codex, and move onto a different army. And then when the next Codex comes out, continue buying and collecting the army. If the Codex is fine for too long, then some people will collect their army, and be happy with it while not moving on to other products.

What do you think. Could this insidious method cause players to move onto collecting other better performing armies, or would it be more likely to cause players to simply make do, or even worse give up on GW and move onto other hobbies?

Mannimarco
10-09-2009, 05:56
good call, are the newer codex more powerful than the older ones? a lot of them are, does this force people to buy the newer codex and army to have a winning force? yeah i suppose it can a little

lets look at some of the newer codexs:

orks: highly compettive and always ranks pretty well in touries

space marines: ok codex, full of neat little tricks and several powerful builds but istn really tearing up every tourny it enters

imperial guard: another very powerful codex that is doing very well

however there are a few older codex that can and do hold their own nowadays, a good one being the dark eldar: its the oldest codex still in use but is more than capaple against the newer books

necrons and inquisition books are pretty old and really do struggle, i believe GW did a FAQ pretty much saying you can use the stuff from the other imperium books to update the old inquisition stuff (eg 3++ stormshields and ap3 stormtroopers)

tau_caste
10-09-2009, 06:00
it could be a marketing strategy.. put out the more bought codex (ie SM and Nids) and let the other bubble and ferment, making DE and Necron players shelve their armies, go out and buy the nice shiny new army and subsequent releases, then 2 years later they do that shiny army again making you need their new stuff, then shortly after release the original one you wanted and BAM youve bought 3 lots of armies

wolf40k
10-09-2009, 06:35
I don't know, The dark eldar codex has some updated point costs and such that came out in 2002. So technically the oldest codex is Space Wolves and they are highly competitive.

I think that the new codex coming out next moth will probably scale them back quite a bit from some of the gross things that you can do now. Like ballistic skill 5 Heavy/special weapons. Your entire Wolf guard squad hitting on a 3 against everything in close combat. Master crafted Heavy/special weapons.

Any who back to the subject, I don't think they do it just so people buy new armies (even though they are a business and that would make sense.) But because they don't work as well as they used to in the last edition and they, being hobbyists too, want them to be playable again and those who have the "broken" army can again enjoy using their old models.

Putty
10-09-2009, 06:37
yes, its pretty much called "The New Shiny Syndrome".

some players eventually sell most of their armies and keep the ones they like best and usually one of them is a Space Marine army because its an army that will surely be supported by GW.

and... magnetize everything...

Orktavius
10-09-2009, 06:53
or it could be that it takes time to make a viable, balanced well tested codex and that all games experience a power creep over time and that some armies will get the short stick and that by the time GW is done updating the codexs that haven't been updated Eldar, ork and chaos players will all be screaming about how their codex is old.

Here's a suggestion folks, think for 10 seconds before writing down stupidity. If that doesn't stop you then think of answers for these questions: If GW updated every codex within 2-3 years of it's last release how big of a pile of crap would it be? Do you really think it would come with updated models? Would it actually be play tested enough to be relatively balanced ignoring older codexs in need of an update? Would you be bitching about how the quality of the codex's dropped? *I'll answer this one...yes you would*

The amount of time and effort that has to go into making a new codex for an army...especially ones that have not been updated in many years.... that is relatively balanced with those released recently while keeping the flavor of the army so as players of the older codex will not bitch and moan about how their codex sucks now *which they will anyway cause you can't please everyone* is a very time consuming process. If you think you can do a better job...then write up a codex yourself...I'll bet $1000 it's overpowered and lacks any "bad" units...infact everything in the codex will be playable because it's your beloved race and doesn't really need to be balanced at all. Hopefully this drowns out the stupid....but being the internet I seriously doubt this will be the case.

Condottiere
10-09-2009, 06:56
The "New Shiny Syndrome" is alright, since either you grow to appreciate it or you dispose of it and get the next one.

Since I'm in Fantasy, the phenomenon we're getting is power creep in each new book. While this seems to have peaked in Daemons, all subsequent books tend to end up in top tier of armies.

Some obvious finangling of unit costs usually happens to make them attractive and push sales, one example being the Hydra.

Putty
10-09-2009, 07:14
...Since I'm in Fantasy, the phenomenon we're getting is power creep in each new book. While this seems to have peaked in Daemons, all subsequent books tend to end up in top tier of armies...

tbh, i'm no real supporter of fluff but the power of the WHF Daemon armybook is somewhat justified. In the Fantasy world, Daemons ARE that powerful but the issue about game play and balance is somewhat skewed because of fluff reasons.

As for that army, its so ridiculously easy to play, more so than DE or VC. Any novice can just play a WHFB Daemons army and have a hard time not losing even with a "Battalion" army type set up.

I am very jealous of the Daemon armybook because as a WoC player and seeing an army that doesn't give a crap about Psychology, negative combat resolution before combat, movement and flank charges in action is very disheartening when you are stuck with 5000 points of an army that gives too much a crap about those things.

The Daemons army book is so good you don't need to spam anything. You can even build a fluff list and get a good trashing out.

stonehorse
10-09-2009, 12:38
In all honesty I think that what we are seeing at the moment is not GW's aim when they update their codexs/army books, what has happened is that we are seeing people's reactions, which would seem to point at this being the case.

Ebay is always awash with miniatures from the last Codex/Army book when the new one is released, using Ebay as an point of referrence may not be the best example... but it does provide an interesting insight.

zedeyejoe
10-09-2009, 15:27
Yes, all the rules and army supplements are produced to sell figures. Figures are the big bucks.

Corrode
10-09-2009, 15:31
Imbalances in the game are very rarely down to malice and very often down to the changing philosophy of the design studio (as well as the fact that some codices have now gone between two editions without an update). Simply put, it takes a span of about a decade for GW to produce enough books to cover all the 40k armies. The first immediate problem, of course, is that they don't simply update them in a logical order i.e. first in first out. Naturally some codices end up being a little further behind or ahead in the update schedule (Space Marines and Dark Eldar are the most extreme examples).

With that span of ten years or so taken into account, you're naturally going to get some different ideas emerging over how to treat the game. 3rd edition saw the very simple, limited codices, and was marked by 'variant' army lists which were often highly imbalanced (Blood Angels, Craftworld Eldar) and/or very restrictive (the various Chaos Legion lists I like to characterise as 'NOT A BERZERKER? GTFO'). 4th edition was marked by bigger books but with inadequate internal balance; a lot of complaints about Eldar and CSM centre around the fact that while their books are very powerful, they're also quite limited in terms of variety. The end of 4th saw a transition to what you might now call the 5th Edition mentality; that is to say that there should be lots of variation, a great number of usable builds, and so on. One of the easiest ways to track the differences between editions is to look at the price of a Rhino in the Witch Hunters Codex (3rd edition, 2003 I think?) and in the current Space Marine Codex (2008). The more recent one is cheaper, with a great number of in-built options. The philosophy between editions has changed from 'transports should be an expensive luxury' to 'transports should be pretty much standard for everyone'.

Given these things then, it's easy to see how imbalances creep in. A codex designed under the mentality that transports should be expensive and rare doesn't perform optimally in an environment where transports are supposed to be cheap and plentiful, whereas a codex designed with 'cheap and plentiful' in mind will.

It also works the other way, of course - Dark Eldar were pretty terrible in 3rd, but with the updated skimmer rules in 5th they're rather nasty for MEQ to handle. Similarly, Sister-heavy Witch Hunters have only gotten better with the recent changes to templates.

Tl;dr: never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity (or, in this case, lack of prescience).

Orktavius
10-09-2009, 15:33
Corrode....you are my hero and far more eloquent or friendly then I am :)

Condottiere
10-09-2009, 15:42
Do they make money on the Codexes or are they loss leaders?

Orktavius
10-09-2009, 15:53
on individual items lord knows what the profit margins are. However I can tell you after looking at GW's financial statements that their profit margin in this business is razor thin, they aren't making money but they aren't really losing it either. In regards costs of goods sold....the cost to make what they sell is about 30 cents on the dollar...IE 30 cents of $1 on the price tag goes to production costs. Now I'm sure your thinking well they are making a 70 cent profit per dollar....*think of the sound those loud annoying buzzers make to tell you that your wrong* the problem here is that GW's operating costs take up almost another 70% of their revenue before taxes and anything else. I doubt anyone from the pricing thread is really reading this but I'll post it here. GW came in at a loss last year, not much of one and not one to worry about but a loss nonetheless (either 46k or 460k not sure how many zero's they ignoring at the ends of their numbers like most accounting practices do which is a drop in the bucket either way based on their sales which was either 11 mil or 110 mil respectively)

Rick Blaine
10-09-2009, 16:29
or it could be that it takes time to make a viable, balanced well tested codex and that all games experience a power creep over time and that some armies will get the short stick and that by the time GW is done updating the codexs that haven't been updated Eldar, ork and chaos players will all be screaming about how their codex is old.

Here's a suggestion folks, think for 10 seconds before writing down stupidity. If that doesn't stop you then think of answers for these questions: If GW updated every codex within 2-3 years of it's last release how big of a pile of crap would it be? Do you really think it would come with updated models? Would it actually be play tested enough to be relatively balanced ignoring older codexs in need of an update? Would you be bitching about how the quality of the codex's dropped? *I'll answer this one...yes you would*

The amount of time and effort that has to go into making a new codex for an army...especially ones that have not been updated in many years.... that is relatively balanced with those released recently while keeping the flavor of the army so as players of the older codex will not bitch and moan about how their codex sucks now *which they will anyway cause you can't please everyone* is a very time consuming process. If you think you can do a better job...then write up a codex yourself...I'll bet $1000 it's overpowered and lacks any "bad" units...infact everything in the codex will be playable because it's your beloved race and doesn't really need to be balanced at all. Hopefully this drowns out the stupid....but being the internet I seriously doubt this will be the case.

You seem to incorrectly assume that GW staff are somehow smarter than the average gamer. Everything you've just said about homebrew rules applies to official GW rules just as much. Although I'm unsure why you think having unplayable units in the Codex is a good thing and signifies game balance :eyebrows:

In any case, GW's slow release schedule has nothing to do with quality control (as easily proven by the glaring lack thereof) but with waiting for our wallets to recuperate before each new release.

Orktavius
10-09-2009, 16:42
Rick, I can't find the article anymore, but a few years ago one of the writers for magic the gatherings offical site wrote a brilliant article on why every card in every set couldn't be as awesome and competitive as the others. For the most part it applies to units in codexs as well. Not every unit is designed to be competitive, the game isn't designed around the concept of everyone being ultra competitive tourny players hence why not every unit option is 100% *or even 10%* competitively viable. Many of these terrible units are in fact fluffy or in some cases just a damn hoot to have. My love of Shokk attack guns and weirdboyz for instance...totally hated competitively but I love the little buggers and that's why they are in the codex, for people like me who play to have fun. There's many units I loathe as unusable or pointless but others love *vanguard for instance I have a friend that started Space marines just cause of them* but they need to be there. Of course one difference is that in Magic they tend to playtest the bejesus out of sets to try and avoid super broken combo's and the like whereas I don't think GW cares all that heavily about the super competitive scene. Still, like I said the principal is pretty much the same, not every unit can be greatest thing since sliced bread.

Rick Blaine
10-09-2009, 17:03
Oh, there's a huge difference between units that are genuinely inferior in every single way to another unit, and units that just got left out of the Internet-Standard Copy/Paste Tournament Build(TM) for one reason or another. The reason often being that people who write those lists (often heralded as tactical geniuses on the forums) couldn't figure out how to use them properly.

zedeyejoe
10-09-2009, 17:08
Do they make money on the Codexes or are they loss leaders?

Everything (GW) makes money - at least on the cost of sale - but just think of the difference in cost of a set of rules + army book and a standard army. The value is in the figures but what you choose for the army comes out of the rules and the army book. So the 'push' for the figures comes from the books. If you really want to win, then buying from a new codex where you get more bang per point, makes sense.

Corrode
10-09-2009, 17:09
You seem to incorrectly assume that GW staff are somehow smarter than the average gamer. Everything you've just said about homebrew rules applies to official GW rules just as much. Although I'm unsure why you think having unplayable units in the Codex is a good thing and signifies game balance :eyebrows:

In any case, GW's slow release schedule has nothing to do with quality control (as easily proven by the glaring lack thereof) but with waiting for our wallets to recuperate before each new release.

Having unplayable units isn't a good thing. The truth is that quite often units aren't all that 'unplayable', particularly considered in context.

That's not always the case - I'm pretty sure that a large part of the Dark Eldar codex has sucked huge salty balls since its inception, Chaos Spawn are a poorly-conceived mess, and Necrons are a truly boring army and appear to be that way by design. Very often, though, 'unplayable' units are ones which fall into the realms of being cool rather than efficient, or which worked in their edition but, in later editions, have turned out to be non-optimal. Vanguard aren't a terrible unit. They're extremely cool. They radiate ass-kicking ability, and they have a neat, thematic deep striking rule that emphasises the whole 'precision strike' deal. Unfortunately they also cost way too many points for what they do and explode in gribbly fashion as soon as a plasma cannon glances their way. This isn't a problem unique to the Vanguard, though - quite a few small, expensive, elite units have suffered in this edition. They're just an extreme example.

It's easy to see why they ended up this way, though - they originate cheaper and better, perform incredibly well in test games, and are toned down. They get hit a little too hard with the nerf bat, perform well but not exceptionally in the next few test games, and get shipped in that state. The uber-competitive side gets hold of them and declares them worthless.

Should GW be testing this stuff better? Yes. Should they be playing games with tournament gamers, playing more than the apparently rather limited number of games they play? Yes. Should they be prepared to errata and FAQ things post-release if they appear to be unclear or broken? Yes. The expectations of some gamers are a little out of whack, though. To pick up on another prominent example, Blizzard pours more money into WoW than GW makes in a year. They have an extremely dedicated independent forum analysing their game in a way that makes DakkaDakka look like HappySuperFunFluffGamers.com. They have test realms up for months at a time with thousands of people playing, and they have millions of players they can track to see what's happening with what.

They still ship patches with horrible class balance, they still ship raids with unkillable or ridiculously easy bosses, they still ship an interface where a single player can crash an entire server at will. Poor balance isn't GW's sole domain, and their products aren't as bad as people like to make out.

As for waiting for wallets to recuperate, of course that's tree. That's just good business sense - if you release something big one month, then everyone interested will buy in. If you release another thing that they want the next month, they're all broke. If you wait two or three months, they have cash again. It's not EVIL GW, it's just how business works. Sure, they could do with a good deal more QC (hi thunder hammer assault sergeant who isn't in the box, hi Slann Magwe Priests, hi Sternguard Assault Veterans) but anyone who's tried writing the mass of text that goes into the production of a book like that will tell you it's not always as easy as hindsight would make you think.

wolf40k
10-09-2009, 18:07
Corrode, you just make sense.

Condottiere
10-09-2009, 18:30
Blizzard has to correct complicated computer code, GW only needs to type a few lines and publish it as a PDF.

Corrode
10-09-2009, 21:21
Blizzard has to correct complicated computer code, GW only needs to type a few lines and publish it as a PDF.

No, they don't. 99% of Blizzard's balance changes involve changing a number from X to Y. Rogues are doing too much damage, so rather than getting 50% more damage on crits they get 25% more. Paladins have infinite mana after raiding the first instance of the game, so they only get 50% mana back per spell crit rather than 100%. This goes down, this goes up. That isn't time-consuming. What often is time-consuming is testing what effects that has as a whole - does making Paladin healers weaker mean that encounters are now impossible to beat (since the paladins were carrying everyone else)? Does making this Rogue talent more effective synergise too well with other things? In some ways Blizzard have it easier than GW - a great deal of the DPS classes at least can have their testing done with an Excel spreadsheet.

That's not to say that there aren't greater complexities involved in making WoW than making 40k, but to dismiss the changes GW would have to make as 'just a few lines in a pdf' is lunacy. To achieve the balance people seem to expect with the ease they want it done just doesn't work. You have to consider the wider effects on the game, whether or not the perceived power/lack of power of a unit/army is because people are quite simply doing it wrong (OMG MY TAU DON'T WORK - try not running them as a gunline? OMG MY SPESS MEHREENS GET KILLED BY ORKS - try not running las/plas?), and whether or not there's a single factor, two factors, three factors, so on. This is why books get rewritten as a whole package rather than piecemeal. Blizzard can afford to do their balancing in increments - they have the time and inclination and most importantly the money. GW don't - if they spent their time testing and re-testing old books to try and find the perfect price for an Ork Boy they' d never get anything new done. It might seem simple to you in your internets wisdom as you declare 'OMG LASH IS BROKEN', but to the people who then have to figure out which part of the lash/PM/oblits combo is broken (hint: none of it is on its own, the synergy is the problem) and whether nerfing one or more parts will break them in a wider context, its a lot more complex than that.

Condottiere
10-09-2009, 21:56
I don't know who thinks up these testing models.

PDF version O&G 7.01 alpha - all animosity tests are removed
(company designers deem it a good alteration)

PDF version O&G 7.01 beta - all animosity tests are removed
(released into the wild - O&G players ecstatic; win ratio jumps to 90%; DoC players bellyache)

PDF version O&G 7.02 alpha - some animosity tests are removed
(game designers feel it's a good compromise)

PDF version O&G 7.02 beta - some animosity tests are removed
(O&G players satisfied, win ratio stabilizes at 40%; other factions decide they can live with it)

PDF version O&G 7.02 - some animosity tests are removed
(rule alteration becomes official)

Corrode
10-09-2009, 22:53
I don't know who thinks up these testing models.

PDF version O&G 7.01 alpha - all animosity tests are removed
(company designers deem it a good alteration)

PDF version O&G 7.01 beta - all animosity tests are removed
(released into the wild - O&G players ecstatic; win ratio jumps to 90%; DoC players bellyache)

PDF version O&G 7.02 alpha - some animosity tests are removed
(game designers feel it's a good compromise)

PDF version O&G 7.02 beta - some animosity tests are removed
(O&G players satisfied, win ratio stabilizes at 40%; other factions decide they can live with it)

PDF version O&G 7.02 - some animosity tests are removed
(rule alteration becomes official)

It's a good job that GW have such accurate statistical tracking that they can determine win ratios with enough precision that they can change rules based upon them. It's also handy that Animosity is the only thing wrong with the OnG book which makes it relatively weaker than other books.

No wait, neither of those things are true.

stroller
10-09-2009, 23:41
I DO play necrons..and dark eldar.. and others.

It's a codex. It's only "broken" if the spine snaps. Sure I can buy the shiny new toys, but I am still learning how to use my old ones better. Noone is forcing me to buy anything. But I do anyway from time to time.

Ravenous
11-09-2009, 00:24
Dark Angels and Blood Angels are fine examples, I havent see them at all outside the occassional deathwing army.

Broken Sells, Its why there is so many Chronus and Sicarius's sitting on shelves. Its also why Njal for space wolves is going to sell like mad because he is just that busted.

Corrode
11-09-2009, 01:45
Dark Angels and Blood Angels are fine examples, I havent see them at all outside the occassional deathwing army.

Broken Sells, Its why there is so many Chronus and Sicarius's sitting on shelves. Its also why Njal for space wolves is going to sell like mad because he is just that busted.

Are there actually 'so many Chronus and Sicarius's sitting on shelves'? Do you have any evidence of that or is it just conjecture?

Orktavius
11-09-2009, 01:57
See this is the mistake everyone is making....assuming GW is making the game and keeping the competitive players in mind. They are not....this is not wizards of the coast, GW does not have a massive competitive tourny structure, the soft scores make that obvious. GW DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU TOURNAMENT PLAYERS! They don't make this to be a competitive cutthroat table top wargame. They make the game to be fun and enjoyable and so test units probably on the basis of coolness not how competitive they are while making sure that some units aren't an auto I win button but sometimesamazing synergy's like lash/oblit/PM are gonna get through...hell Wizards test magic to no freaking end and they still missed the giant elephant in the room back in mirroden block when that ridiculous artifact deck was crushing everything.

GW isn't making a game for hard core tourny players, they are making a fun game you can play with your buddies round a table, this is where people keep making this silly errors of thought in assuming competitive warhammer is all that matters.

Wintertooth
11-09-2009, 01:59
Dark Angels and Blood Angels are fine examples, I havent see them at all outside the occassional deathwing army.

Broken Sells, Its why there is so many Chronus and Sicarius's sitting on shelves. Its also why Njal for space wolves is going to sell like mad because he is just that busted.

It might be true - though I doubt it, as there are plenty of gamers out there who are completely clueless when it comes to recognising what is and isn't powerful, or just plain don't care - but it doesn't make the remotest bit of sense as a marketing strategy. There's no point investing development time in models that won't sell.

Games dev are incompetent, or at best not interested in balance, but not evil.

Orktavius
11-09-2009, 02:09
No game devs for the most part admit they focus on what they think will be more often then not, more fun and cooler with some game balance thrown in...and once again to the warp with tourny players, your not who they cater to, live with it you are by FAR the minority of GW customers. Seriously......competitive players are barely a few percentage points on their customer base and probably just as low on the tree of who spends more money with them.

Bob Arctor
11-09-2009, 02:19
I agree with what Corrode has said. Glad to see someone making a well-reasoned point for once. Orktavius makes a good point too.

I don't agree that PDF's are the way forwards - how would non-internet using gamers get to hear about them and get access to them? (Not as many people use the internet as regularly as you might think.) Yes, you could put them in White Dwarf too, but a lot of veteran gamers I know don't bother with WD anymore, and thats one of the reasons official rules aren't printed in there anymore. Could you imagine a situation where you are playing a game of WFB or 40k and you know rules about his army that have changed months ago but he doesn't because he never checks for PDF updates? I can't imagine it would be a good situation to be in.

Also I know plenty of gamers who use Dark Angels and some of them are very succeeful at it.

Joewrightgm
11-09-2009, 02:20
Are there actually 'so many Chronus and Sicarius's sitting on shelves'? Do you have any evidence of that or is it just conjecture?

Corrode speaks well and truly. The only thing GW could conceivably do is track sales of models, but even then that can be and very often is inaccurate (Hey, Chronus looks like a bad ass tank commander; I'll use the model in my tank and not take him in game!)

The problem with many 'internet win-button builds' is that it isn't just one unit, but a combination. If the studio only plays point match games with an under construction codex, instead of trying to 'break' the codex, then that may be a gap in their play testing.

Another side of it, is that the studio may think that most games are played between friends or acquaintances and not at tournaments. I have no proof of this, but in friendly play, I would never have conceived of a duel lash prince/oblit build.

EDIT: after seeing Bob's point, I agree. In fact, I asked staff at a Games Day seminar about PDF codices, and they said it would be a mess; the reason they gave is that "Ok, we release the PDF. We find some things that we feel or need changing, and we do it. If we make a codex a 'living document', then you risk have the same two people with the same army having different capabilities,'

I'm paraphrasing, and the response was to my question as to whether the forth coming Blood Angels codex online was going to be a 'living document'.

Orktavius
11-09-2009, 02:26
you would probably also not consider the chimera spam list, the nob biker list *okay maybe that one cause a bunch of rowdy ork nobz buzzing around the table on those new freaking kick **** hogs is just freaking cool* Like I said, I doubt GW tries to break their lists as I am under no illusion that they consider tourny players to be just a tiny minority. An angry loud vocal minority that will NEVER be pleased and always sending them nasty emails...but a minority nonetheless. It's not the casual players who want errata pdf's and rule updates....it's freaking tourny players that want em, casual players do what the rulebook says in moments of ambiguous rule disputes ask someone else or just bugger off and roll on it.

Joewrightgm
11-09-2009, 02:29
I'm sure its been said a million times, but I reiterate "The object of the game is to win; the point is to have fun. Never confuse the two."

Ravenous
11-09-2009, 04:48
Are there actually 'so many Chronus and Sicarius's sitting on shelves'? Do you have any evidence of that or is it just conjecture?

Go into any store and Im sure you'll find them there over any other character. Or go and find Baddrukk, the primis psyker (even though I think he rocks) etc etc.

They dont sell well because they have terrible rules, the only people that buy them are collectors and FAACers

Orktavius
11-09-2009, 05:02
I bought a baddruck.....in fact a lot of people I know playing orks bought one and use him, yeah flash gits are trash....but they are fun. everyone has their own taste in characters I know 6-7 players in my area using chronos.....don't think any have actually BOUGHT the model and just made their own...but still

Condottiere
11-09-2009, 07:41
I may have missed word patch in my post.

I don't propose they PDF their entire collection of Codices (but they probably will, once Readers become cheaper and more mainstream, give it five years), but issue corrections to the rules once it's clear it's highly abusable, non-usable or not excusable.

Archaon
11-09-2009, 07:48
To the original question:

Definitely yes.

Friends and me regularly attend a big Warhammer Fantasy tournament once a year in Germany (120+ players) and last year the unbelievably broken Demon armybook was all the rage.

As it was out a bit before (2-3 months i think) people had time to buy and paint it up and Demons were one of the most heavily fielded army and almost all of them new miniatures.

So.. tournament (prime objective is to win or do as good as possible) + broken army (hard to to really bad if you have a decent powerbuild and roll average dice) means tons of new miniatures bought which leads to good profits for GW.

Now the downside.. people were really, and i mean really, angry with GW to release such a bad product and this has led to many discussions and for some it was the proverbial last drop when they realized that GW will never improve (i was one of those).

So it's GW as usual.. short term gain but long term damage to the game and customer base. I don't know if those short term gains make up for lost faith and lost veterans.

zedeyejoe
11-09-2009, 08:19
See this is the mistake everyone is making....assuming GW is making the game and keeping the competitive players in mind. They are not....this is not wizards of the coast, GW does not have a massive competitive tourny structure, the soft scores make that obvious. GW DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!

Well they might not care about tourny players (and I play for a highly competitive club, the Northern Warlords) but certainly we notice the system and work with it to maximise the effect of our armies. Fluff be damned. But I have seen children also picking the hardest armies they can buy.

Condottiere
11-09-2009, 08:32
That's also a focussed marketing tool.

lanrak
11-09-2009, 10:37
Hi all.
I think the state of the codexes is made up of several factors.

Primarily GW PLC is a minatures company first and formost and as such ALL efforts are focused on selling the latest releases.(Usualy in the most direct way possible.)
'...the games are just the icing on the cake...' as Jervis Johnson said.

The GW dev team develop 40k as a game most suited to co-operative narrative play.(Rule of cool.)
The dev team are only allowed limited time and resources to dedicate to resolve game play issues.(Fitted around final asthetic development.)

Unfortunatley , GW coperate managment do NOT want to openly admit that 40k is not the most suitable game for competative play.(Shhhh, they may loose sales to more competativley minded gamers....)

And as long as the new codex is out in time to support the latest minature release, they do not care about the clarity of instruction ,quality of grammar or spelling , let alone game ballance!

BUT GW PLC realise that the more competative players can identify the most cost effective units , and that monetary value of minatures can be influenced by 'in game PV vs in game effect'.

Minature makers that dont write thier own rules sell minatures based on development-material cost.All minatures of the same detail and weight of material cost the same.

GW realise that 'special rules ' can increase PV and incresed PV can justify increses mark up on minatures.
(Thats why 40k is such a cluster£uck of special rules.)

As a marketing excersise 40k has quite good game balance!:evilgrin:

Its just when people expect 40k to be a 'well defined game system developed for ballanced competatve play', 40k fails to meet expectations.

I mean ,its not like GW charge you lots of money for thier marketing pamphlets, I mean codexes....Oh thats right they do dont they.:cries:

If you want to play games developed for ballanced competative play,40k is probably not the best game to choose.;)

TTFN
Lanrak

Corrode
11-09-2009, 13:10
Jesus lanrak change the record already.

lanrak
11-09-2009, 19:47
Hi Corode.
Well if you want to ignore my posts you are free to do so.

But if people KEEP asking the same questions about 40k, they are going to get the same answers.

Its not my fault GW PLC are the way they are, and 'develop' 40k they way they do.

Or ar you saying that my informed oppinion is not as valid as yours?

I am sure if I post any thing that is not factual, the 'fanbois' will jump in and point it out.

Or is my post not relevant in some way?

TTFN
lanrak.

Corrode
11-09-2009, 20:44
I don't mind the dissenting opinion - a lot of what you write is valid, too. What gets my goat a little is that 99% of your posts are copied verbatim, and often inserted into a discussion without any pretense of responding to anyone else in the thread. We might as well just end every OP in a thread like this with the 'lanrak post' and spare you the effort of logging on at all.

zedeyejoe
12-09-2009, 21:29
lanrak, nice post. New to me anyway.

Reinholt
16-09-2009, 02:51
My thoughts:

1 - Probably not a good marketing strategy; for every person who starts a new army in this manner, there will be another customer who quits the game. Not good.

2 - I agree, to a point, with Lanrak, but I would say it ultimately comes down to poor corporate decisions. Why not make a balanced game with good background instead and sell even more models?

Just saying.

ivrg
17-09-2009, 19:00
It could be a marketable strategy, yes. I belive it is going on as well. Maybe its not thier only goal when creating an armybook, but its certainly in thier minds to sell more products.
Giving a new army a boost isnt a bad way to sell more. Specially considering that there are many miscontent players who wants something "stronger". Everybody is talking about DE, DEamons and VC. But do you remeber Brettonia? And i saw many players starting that army instead of continuing ith thier old ones when the new book came.

Although they are also alienating players by this strategy. And who is the largest consumer group? I dont know..

Another thing is that in this day and age you could very well release erratas on the web.
Anyone can check it up at work, library or internet cafe.

Lord Inquisitor
17-09-2009, 19:29
I don't think there's anything sinister going on. Indeed, I think that ascribes a little too much cunning to the marketing department.

No, I really believe the design studio genuinely attempts to make the game as balanced as possible. I mean, Codex Creep happens, but its not as constant or consistent to be a deliberate strategy. Really, I think GW understood long ago that making the games alive and balanced is the best strategy. Then again, look at the yo-yo that is (was?) Specialist Games.

If there were any kind of sinister money-making strategy behind it, one might think that they looked at the armies at the beginning of 5th ed and decided to delay revamping the armies that most need it (e.g. Necrons) so that these players move on to other armies.

But I don't believe this. You're likely to lose players if they don't enjoy playing rather than them shelling out for a new army. Not to mention that if they sell their stuff that's new players that aren't buying the models from you. Surely it would be better to revamp Necrons quickly and get everyone with a dusty Necron army buying the new toys?