PDA

View Full Version : The Codex Update Cycle



Wolf Lord Balrog
02-07-2010, 04:15
There are currently 16 valid Codices for Warhammer 40K (in order of their most recent printing): Blood Angels, Tyranids, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Space Marines, Daemons, Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Dark Angels, Eldar, Tau, Black Templar, Witch Hunters, Dark Eldar, Daemonhunters, and Necrons.

Too keep all of these codices on an update cycle that keeps them at least semi-current with the latest edition of the rules, they need to be updated at least once every 4 years. Simple math says 4 years (48 months) divided by 16 codices, equals a new codex every 3 months. Yet GW is about 20% behind this timeline. C:BA was only codex number 5 for 5th Ed, when it should have been number 6.

The alternative is consolidation of existing codices (as has been rumored for DH/WH) or leaving an army by the wayside (feared by some players to be the fate of their army, though there is no real evidence for this).

Every codex has its player base. Many of us play more than one army, further multiplying the potential interest. Add in the 'Ooh, look, shiny!' effect, and selling an updated codex and its associated models is rarely an issue.

So the question is, given that making money on a new codex is a given (with some smart forecasting work to determine approximate relative interest to avoid over-stocking), what is stopping Games Workshop from ramping up production to meet what could be a much greater demand for their product than they are exploiting?

Who knows, with more stuff being sold, and GW's cash flow increased, maybe they could avoid raising prices again for a few years. [Or maybe I'm dreaming and we'll just keep getting more of 'Take what we give you and like it!']

Preston
02-07-2010, 04:23
The only thing I can see stopping GW from updating the books more often is this idea that you *have* to have new models to go along with the new books. Lots of new models.

Its not like they have to write any new fluff ;)

Xyrex
02-07-2010, 04:28
I want my DA updated :( why was it so hard to wait a few months and give them a proper 5th ed codex? BTW: you're just dreaming, actually more like the opposite of what will happen. GW: "TAKE WHAT WE GIVE YOU, BUT PAY TWICE AS MUCH AS YOU DID LAST WEEK AND LIKE IT!"

Lothlanathorian
02-07-2010, 04:34
They need new models, someone has to have an idea for what to do with the new codex. There is a lot more to it than just grinding stuff out.

Deadly Buddah
02-07-2010, 04:36
My templar's have been in line longer then DA. Not to say that DA couldn't use the love more.

Occulto
02-07-2010, 04:39
The only thing I can see stopping GW from updating the books more often is this idea that you *have* to have new models to go along with the new books. Lots of new models.

Its not like they have to write any new fluff ;)

This.

If the model and book cycle were divorced from each other, we'd probably see more books out there.

Wolf Lord Balrog
02-07-2010, 04:39
They need new models, someone has to have an idea for what to do with the new codex. There is a lot more to it than just grinding stuff out.

Just because a process is orderly and consistant doesn't mean it can't be creative. If they need more sculptors, they should go ahead an hire them. If they need more writers (and some people actually conversant in gaming theory would be nice too), they should hire those too. Its not like its for nothing: you hire more producers, so you can produce more, so you can sell more. GW is already convinced that demand is a constant, or they wouldn't keep raising prices for no other reason than they think they can.

Preston
02-07-2010, 04:51
They need new models, someone has to have an idea for what to do with the new codex. There is a lot more to it than just grinding stuff out.

No they don't. Not every new codex release needs to come out with a 5 new plastic kits. Some armies could probably get a new book w/o getting any new kits (such as CSM) or with a few updated models (say, necrons - pariahs, immortals). A few armies need overhauls (WH, DE) but those are the exceptions and not the rule.

With the fluff being somewhat stagnant, the weapon rules being static as well, a good 50% of the work on each codex seems to be done.

Not every new codex has to have a new unit / model / special character / land raider variant in it.

Netfreakk
02-07-2010, 04:59
There's no monetary value in doing an update without models to sell. By just updating the codex they aren't forcing players that already have the existing range to purchase more models. They need to make us buy more stuff so they wait until they have models to sell along side the codex.

Preston
02-07-2010, 05:03
There's no monetary value in doing an update without models to sell. By just updating the codex they aren't forcing players that already have the existing range to purchase more models. They need to make us buy more stuff so they wait until they have models to sell along side the codex.

like they did with all the new orks? Oh wait there have been 2 waves of orks? and all the new demons that all came out with the codex...oh wait we have a new wave of those coming out soon.

TheOmiTsuki
02-07-2010, 05:49
In a perfect would yes things would work like that and everyone would get there fair turn but we all know that just isnt the case for whatever reason.


But in all honesty alot of what they do is done for a reason. To make money. Its sad to say that such a great game and rich world that is the 40k stuff is really all just being ran by greed.

They clearly dont do the smartest things to make the most money they could but they are after money more then anything else.


But hopefully once the DE comes out GW will see that even if a current army doesnt make them alot of money doesnt mean it cant make them bucket loads with a little work or else ill be sitting on my poor poor chaos marine dex for well ever.

Zingbaby
02-07-2010, 05:53
Well don't forget that the moment these guys stop making a profit - we stop getting codex/minis/anything...

I still believe they are gamers and hobbyists at heart. People do very little else but complain - though in the grand scheme the GW games have only continued to get better over the years.

TheOmiTsuki
02-07-2010, 06:21
Very true they have gotten alot better but also we all have to remeber that a very large part of the 40k pop doesnt touch forums. Which I really dont blame them since most people who play 40k are a bit older and have jobs and a family on top of playing 40k so alot of players lack time for forums haha.

ashc
02-07-2010, 07:40
GW sells models first, not rules.

Wolf Lord Balrog
02-07-2010, 16:57
GW sells models first, not rules.

But why not sell both, at the same time? As has been suggested above, partially divorce the codex release schedule from the model release schedule. Release a codex every 3 months, and instead of waiting for a related codex to release a bunch of models, just keep releasing a new kit or two for 40k every month, constantly. That way there are always shiny new toys to buy. Everybody wins.

Chem-Dog
02-07-2010, 18:17
Too keep all of these codices on an update cycle that keeps them at least semi-current with the latest edition of the rules, they need to be updated at least once every 4 years. Simple math says 4 years (48 months) divided by 16 codices, equals a new codex every 3 months. Yet GW is about 20% behind this timeline. C:BA was only codex number 5 for 5th Ed, when it should have been number 6.

This presupposes that the new game Edition _TOTALLY_ Invalidates those codexes released for the previous one, Codex: Chaos Daemons was released before the new Game edition BUT was totally written for 5th.


The alternative is consolidation of existing codices (as has been rumored for DH/WH) or leaving an army by the wayside (feared by some players to be the fate of their army, though there is no real evidence for this).

And even if proved to be true, hardly causes a blip on the release schedule you've suggested.


Every codex has its player base. Many of us play more than one army, further multiplying the potential interest. Add in the 'Ooh, look, shiny!' effect, and selling an updated codex and its associated models is rarely an issue.

There are several different key targets with a new Codex release, Veterans with existing armies who won't buy a whole new army are not one of them. They want people who're new to the game or who are starting a new army as a second or subsequent collection. Codex/Model release are linked for a good reason (in GW's mind, not saying I necessarily agree).


So the question is, given that making money on a new codex is a given (with some smart forecasting work to determine approximate relative interest to avoid over-stocking), what is stopping Games Workshop from ramping up production to meet what could be a much greater demand for their product than they are exploiting?

in short, it's effort/expediature. More staff = more money spent = less profit. GW is running lean at the moment as it's still hungover from the LotR binge.
You're also viewing GW's release schedule ENTIRELY ignoring the two other core games which each place their own demands on Games Developer & Miniature Designer time.




If the model and book cycle were divorced from each other, we'd probably see more books out there.

Consider the amount of bitching and moaning we already see when a model is detailed in a codex and no model is available to support it, Many people bemoan the lack of suitable models to represent the Thunderwolf Cavalry, I've heard moans about the lack of a Bombard/Medusa kit, already there are complaints about the absence of the Stormraven (and I won't even go into the viper's pit that is the Chaos Daemons Complaint department).
Now imagine that being magnified by at least 25% :o


Just because a process is orderly and consistant doesn't mean it can't be creative. If they need more sculptors, they should go ahead an hire them. If they need more writers (and some people actually conversant in gaming theory would be nice too), they should hire those too. Its not like its for nothing: you hire more producers, so you can produce more, so you can sell more. GW is already convinced that demand is a constant, or they wouldn't keep raising prices for no other reason than they think they can.

*inserts stock answer*
GW's board is legally obliged to protect their shareholders' investment and turn a profit on it.
For GW to absorb the increases in costs and materials they experience (above the ambient level they already do so) is irresponsible to the shareholders and, potentially, illegal. Capitolism :/


But why not sell both, at the same time? As has been suggested above, partially divorce the codex release schedule from the model release schedule. Release a codex every 3 months, and instead of waiting for a related codex to release a bunch of models, just keep releasing a new kit or two for 40k every month, constantly. That way there are always shiny new toys to buy. Everybody wins.

Honestly I don't know why not, I guess it makes it hard to gauge interest...Sale of Books isn't a sufficient indicator as many people will buy a book with no intention

Wolf Lord Balrog
02-07-2010, 18:37
This presupposes that the new game Edition _TOTALLY_ Invalidates those codexes released for the previous one, Codex: Chaos Daemons was released before the new Game edition BUT was totally written for 5th.
I don't suppose that at all. But it can't be denied that codices designed under the assumptions of previous rulesets/design regimes are at a disadvantage compared to recently-updated books.


There are several different key targets with a new Codex release, Veterans with existing armies who won't buy a whole new army are not one of them. They want people who're new to the game or who are starting a new army as a second or subsequent collection. Codex/Model release are linked for a good reason (in GW's mind, not saying I necessarily agree).
Well of course they want people to buy whole new armies too. That's what I meant by the 'Ooh, look, shiny!' effect. People want whatever the new thing is. Whether its vets picking up a cool new model just so they can paint it, or new players starting into 40k because a new book/model caught their eye.


You're also viewing GW's release schedule ENTIRELY ignoring the two other core games which each place their own demands on Games Developer & Miniature Designer time.
If GW is a competent business, all 3 lines should be viewed separately. 40k shouldn't have to 'carry' Fantasy or LotR, or vice versa or any other configuration. They should each stand on their own, or they should be discontinued (or better yet, sold to a gaming company that can actually get the job done).



Consider the amount of bitching and moaning we already see when a model is detailed in a codex and no model is available to support it, Many people bemoan the lack of suitable models to represent the Thunderwolf Cavalry, I've heard moans about the lack of a Bombard/Medusa kit, already there are complaints about the absence of the Stormraven (and I won't even go into the viper's pit that is the Chaos Daemons Complaint department).
Now imagine that being magnified by at least 25% :o
Then you focus on the models most-needed by a new codex release, new units that don't have existing models. Then you move on to the re-vamped models in subsequent releases. Although, maybe I'm dreaming again, as GW can't seem to do that now...


*inserts stock answer*
GW's board is legally obliged to protect their shareholders' investment and turn a profit on it.
For GW to absorb the increases in costs and materials they experience (above the ambient level they already do so) is irresponsible to the shareholders and, potentially, illegal. Capitolism :/
I've given a capitalist framework for why GW should do this. They can make more money. Hiring more sculptors and writers is just like a manufacturer buying more machines to create a new production line. You aren't doing it for giggles, you are doing it to make more product to sell.

Vaktathi
02-07-2010, 18:43
If GW is a competent business, all 3 lines should be viewed separately. 40k shouldn't have to 'carry' Fantasy or LotR, or vice versa or any other configuration. They should each stand on their own, or they should be discontinued (or better yet, sold to a gaming company that can actually get the job done).
While true that they shouldn't have to "carry" another line, GW does try to ensure that releases do not conflict with each other. Each release is the only thing going on at that time and thus profits from the full force of GW's marketing efforts.

Now, whether this is more or less profitable than simply not having multiple releases of *each* system each month, I can't say, but I can see the logic behind the current system. However there have been months where there are no releases and thus the tempo slackens.

The Inevitable One
02-07-2010, 18:51
Rules influence what models you buy and how many. They are both intertwined regardless, therefore an increase in profit for Games Workshop.

I fail understand their logic in marketing. Raising the prices during a recession/depression is not going to make people buy it more, in fact it would only make them want it less.

Also with regards to supply and demand, I find it really hard to see how they can "run out" of a particular model. Battle Sisters and Grey Knights box sets are removed but their blister packs remain on the website and/or store. They are essentially the same, just split up into smaller packets and priced more expensively.

Sunfang
02-07-2010, 19:04
But why not sell both, at the same time? As has been suggested above, partially divorce the codex release schedule from the model release schedule. Release a codex every 3 months, and instead of waiting for a related codex to release a bunch of models, just keep releasing a new kit or two for 40k every month, constantly. That way there are always shiny new toys to buy. Everybody wins.

This I think is the best option. Production of the codex's would proceed nicely and several armies are in need of an overhaul quiet badly.

Also releasing new ranges provides excitement as you dont know what part of your army is going to get new toys every month and having to wait for a new codex for a new model range is depressing sometimes.

For instance, I was rather shocked to see a new Fire prism and heavy weapon squad for Eldar without a new dex and than I realized that this means I wont be getting a new dex until 6th edition. Also I was watching my roomate put his marines together and I wanted to cry as nearly everything in his army is plastic and I am sitting here trying to put aspect warriors together which are of course tin.

Erwos
02-07-2010, 19:13
I've given a capitalist framework for why GW should do this. They can make more money. Hiring more sculptors and writers is just like a manufacturer buying more machines to create a new production line. You aren't doing it for giggles, you are doing it to make more product to sell.
I agree. Sometimes, it feels like GW is operating under the assumption that we'll spend a fixed amount on GW products across all their lines every month, regardless of what comes out. I cannot fathom how this could be true for most people.

They're under-investing in R&D, plain and simple. I understand that sculptors and writers familiar with the subject matter don't grow on trees, but there's got to be more of them they could hire and train.

Bunnahabhain
02-07-2010, 22:59
GW seem to believe that models and rules have to be released together.

They don't believe better ( ie better balanced, better, more clearly written) rules will sell more models.

I believe they are wrong...

scarletsquig
02-07-2010, 23:09
The problem lies with the constant refreshing of the rules every 4 years for the sake of it.

I mean, I was quite happy playing 4th edition. It was pretty good, and I'm indifferent to 5th.. it's not really a worse or better ruleset overall, it's simply "different".

When 6th edition is released in 2-3 years time it will probably give us yet more change for change's sake.

The codex release schedule can't keep up with the overly-rapid revamps of the core rules, which never stay still for long enough to allow the codexes to take into account the ruleset.

Most of the time, games are played against armies that had their book released in the previous edition. Gaps of at least 5 years between editions would be much more stable.

Fantasy was much more stable with it's 5 years of 6th edition followed by 4 years of 7th edition which was basically 6.1, only a few minor changes for the better were made.

tacoo
03-07-2010, 00:00
it would be nice if each other adition was just a a tweak on the previous, Example would be 6th edition of 40k tweaking 5th adittion, and then when 7th comes out it would be a big overhaul, and 8th would then fine tune the changes to 7th. would slow down the invaldiation somewhat, with perhaps once all codexs were up dated for 5th/6th, there would be a 6 month free period where jjust plastic sets were updated. perhaps also give the last couple codexs some options that would be good in 7th addition

susu.exp
03-07-2010, 20:51
Just because a process is orderly and consistant doesn't mean it can't be creative. If they need more sculptors, they should go ahead an hire them. If they need more writers (and some people actually conversant in gaming theory would be nice too), they should hire those too. Its not like its for nothing: you hire more producers, so you can produce more, so you can sell more. GW is already convinced that demand is a constant, or they wouldn't keep raising prices for no other reason than they think they can.

a) Itīs game theory, not gaming theory and expertize in that area wonīt help with rules development at all. To apply GT you need to know not only the rules, but also the state of the game. 40k has an enormous ammount of possible states even before the game has started, simply because army composition is so variable. Then thereīs terrain... Checkers has recently been solved (i.e. a complete GT analysis has been performed). Thatīs the cutting edge. Itīs unlikely chess will be solved in the next century and it comes with a single starting set up and rather simple moves. While I donīt think any math qualification is completely useless anywhere, it doesnīt make a big difference for 40k.
b) You accuse GW of being convinced demand is constant, but you appear to assume that demand follows production. Iīm not quite convinced GW should try to work in a Leninist fashion...
c) You are ignoring that publishing a new codex means the old one wonīt sell any more. GW sold out their Inquisition books and put them up as Pdfs. That they havenīt done that with other Codices suggests they usually have to shred some backstock. Increasing the product turnover rate would increase the ammount of books to shred.
d) You also ignore that fast product cycles can hurt your relationship with consumers. Playing 40k is not a cheap hobby and to keep up to speed a gamer has to buy a new Rulebook every couple of years and a new dex. Do this too often and you might disencourage gamers.
e) Generally speaking you can at best have 2 of these 3: quality, price, rate. You can do it fast, cheap or good. Speeding up the production cycle would either mean increasing prices or lowering quality, because
d) the main quality part of codices is the playtesting. Because of a) above, the way to balance is to have lots of games and aim for a 50-50 win-loss ratio against all armies. This is hard enough as it is (and some things do slip by). A higher rate of release means that more than one codex is in play-testing at any given time, which in turn also means that you are now playtesting a codex against other rules that are not fixed. Playtesting to the same extend for two books simultaneously does not create twice the work as a single book, but substantially more. Thus you either cut the additional work (and lose quality) or hire additional playtesters (and have higher costs) or stretch the playtesting out (in which case you donīt speed up your release schedule, more likely youīre slowing it down).

Wolf Lord Balrog
03-07-2010, 21:13
a) Itīs game theory, not gaming theory and expertize in that area wonīt help with rules development at all. To apply GT you need to know not only the rules, but also the state of the game. 40k has an enormous ammount of possible states even before the game has started, simply because army composition is so variable. Then thereīs terrain... Checkers has recently been solved (i.e. a complete GT analysis has been performed). Thatīs the cutting edge. Itīs unlikely chess will be solved in the next century and it comes with a single starting set up and rather simple moves. While I donīt think any math qualification is completely useless anywhere, it doesnīt make a big difference for 40k.
I make a distinction between game theory and 'gaming theory' for most of the reasons you provide. You can't 'solve' RPGs or wargames, they are too complex, just like you said. But also like you said, some familiarity with the scientific theories that are applicable couldn't hurt.


b) You accuse GW of being convinced demand is constant, but you appear to assume that demand follows production. Iīm not quite convinced GW should try to work in a Leninist fashion...
I am not assuming demand follows production, if you read all of my posts, you would see that I am assuming there is untapped demand. When there is untapped demand, a smart producer produces more. GW has not been a smart producer.


c) You are ignoring that publishing a new codex means the old one wonīt sell any more. GW sold out their Inquisition books and put them up as Pdfs. That they havenīt done that with other Codices suggests they usually have to shred some backstock. Increasing the product turnover rate would increase the ammount of books to shred.
I'm talking about decreasing the product turnover period to 4 years. If GW can't plan product cycles of that length, they are incompetent.


d) You also ignore that fast product cycles can hurt your relationship with consumers. Playing 40k is not a cheap hobby and to keep up to speed a gamer has to buy a new Rulebook every couple of years and a new dex. Do this too often and you might disencourage gamers.
4 years is not too short a product cycle for 40k gamers. All the complaining on this forum about how many years it has been since Codex: X has been updated is ample proof of that.


e) Generally speaking you can at best have 2 of these 3: quality, price, rate. You can do it fast, cheap or good. Speeding up the production cycle would either mean increasing prices or lowering quality, because
I choose quality and rate. GW has already decided we can't have good prices. How is this different from the current situation, except that you could argue we aren't getting quality or rate right now either?


d) the main quality part of codices is the playtesting. Because of a) above, the way to balance is to have lots of games and aim for a 50-50 win-loss ratio against all armies. This is hard enough as it is (and some things do slip by). A higher rate of release means that more than one codex is in play-testing at any given time, which in turn also means that you are now playtesting a codex against other rules that are not fixed. Playtesting to the same extend for two books simultaneously does not create twice the work as a single book, but substantially more. Thus you either cut the additional work (and lose quality) or hire additional playtesters (and have higher costs) or stretch the playtesting out (in which case you donīt speed up your release schedule, more likely youīre slowing it down).

You don't hire playtesters. If GW is paying people to do the bulk of their playtesting, that is among the many things they are doing wrong. You do it the way Wizards of the Coast does it, you farm out the playtesting work to actual gamers. You give them a set of guidelines for how you want it done, what data you need reported, and you make them sign confidentiality agreements. The only people you need in-house are playtest group coordinators, and you have the designers do some playtesting of their own just to check the data from the outside playtesters.

For a well-run gaming company, none of these things should even be difficult, let alone impossible.

FashaTheDog
03-07-2010, 21:36
I don't suppose that at all. But it can't be denied that codices designed under the assumptions of previous rulesets/design regimes are at a disadvantage compared to recently-updated books.

My Dark Eldar would like to have a word with your pups about that...


I agree. Sometimes, it feels like GW is operating under the assumption that we'll spend a fixed amount on GW products across all their lines every month, regardless of what comes out. I cannot fathom how this could be true for most people.

Which actually holds some water when one looks at the customer base as a whole as people only have a limited amount of money to spend on the game. For many people, the place they play is also the place they buy and so they will tend to make a purchase no and then be it the latest shiny new models or an expansion of an older army. Whether or not they are losing out on sales due to new releases is not something I could guess, but if you have a range that grows too fast you tend to lose sales as people have less time to jump on the new codex bandwagon and buy up those minis before the next codex and mini set is released. As each product added increases the total cost and thereby decreased total profit, GW does need time between releases to get as much profit from each new product before they release their next one.

susu.exp
03-07-2010, 22:10
I make a distinction between game theory and 'gaming theory' for most of the reasons you provide. You can't 'solve' RPGs or wargames, they are too complex, just like you said. But also like you said, some familiarity with the scientific theories that are applicable couldn't hurt.

There arenīt any applicable scientific theories. There are some maths you can apply, mainly some probability theory. But the main thing is doing statistics on playtests.


I am not assuming demand follows production, if you read all of my posts, you would see that I am assuming there is untapped demand. When there is untapped demand, a smart producer produces more. GW has not been a smart producer.

I disagree. For the most part GW is a brilliant producer, because they offer a range of products that are amazingly customizable. Iīm not so sure thereīs a lot of untapped demand, at least in terms of 40k (thereīs a lot of untapped demand for some of their other game systems).


I'm talking about decreasing the product turnover period to 4 years. If GW can't plan product cycles of that length, they are incompetent.

IIRC products have a run up time of 2 years. I donīt think it makes a lot of sense to plan much beyond that - if you get stuck in a rigid structure you can not respond to changes.


4 years is not too short a product cycle for 40k gamers. All the complaining on this forum about how many years it has been since Codex: X has been updated is ample proof of that.

There is a difference between what people want and what people say they want. If you want to check how disconnected emotional responses by 40k players are to what GW does, check the threads appearing when the Ork Codex came out. Prices for basic Ork boys went down, prices per gaming point for basic Ork boys went down and people complained about rising prices... Not to mention that most Codices are met with a lot of nerd rage...


I choose quality and rate. GW has already decided we can't have good prices. How is this different from the current situation, except that you could argue we aren't getting quality or rate right now either?

What we have now is a compromise. We are getting some of each.


You don't hire playtesters. If GW is paying people to do the bulk of their playtesting, that is among the many things they are doing wrong. You do it the way Wizards of the Coast does it, you farm out the playtesting work to actual gamers.

GW do that with the specialist games. They donīt for their core games and I think for good reasons - the core games attract kids who want their army to be the toughest and hardest out there. Thereīs also a tough as nails tournament scene which lives from loopholes. In other words: There are a lot of interested parties who donīt neccessarily want balance.

Wolf Lord Balrog
04-07-2010, 08:32
There arenīt any applicable scientific theories. There are some maths you can apply, mainly some probability theory. But the main thing is doing statistics on playtests.
You can also do decision analysis to figure out which units people are likely to favor at different point costs. And as that data aggregates across multiple codices, you can begin to predict the outlines of the dominant meta-game scenarios that will emerge and incorporate that into your design scheme. That is, assuming GW gives a crap about such things.


IIRC products have a run up time of 2 years. I donīt think it makes a lot of sense to plan much beyond that - if you get stuck in a rigid structure you can not respond to changes.
Since when is long-range planning a bad idea? And nobody said the plan had to be chiseled on a tablet and inviolate. Businesses adjust their plans all the time, but you have to have a plan first. I don't think GW has any long-term planning. If anybody at the company has any idea what is going to happen more than 2 years down the line, I'd be surprised.


Not to mention that most Codices are met with a lot of nerd rage...
Unavoidable, its gonna happen anytime a new codex comes out. That's not an argument for slowing down codex production.


What we have now is a compromise. We are getting some of each.
What we have now is none of the above. Prices are ridiculous, codices are riddled with poorly written rules, the playtesting is next to non-existent, and the development and publishing cycle is glacial.


GW do that with the specialist games. They donīt for their core games and I think for good reasons - the core games attract kids who want their army to be the toughest and hardest out there. Thereīs also a tough as nails tournament scene which lives from loopholes. In other words: There are a lot of interested parties who donīt neccessarily want balance.

Another example of GW's incompetence. Allowing the product to be faulty to satisfy the short-term desires of its customers instead of producing a better product for a more robust hobby.

I don't care that GW is run by bean counters. I love bean counters, I am one in my own professional career. I dislike that GW is run by incompetent bean counters.

Gutted
04-07-2010, 13:47
Much like the Video Game industry GW tries to maximise sales by using hype. To do this they need to time their releases to generate the maximum amount of discussion and excitement. Staggering Codex releases and tieing it to miniatures releases and marketing blitzes is probably the most effective means of doing this. As it means people are talking about the rules and the miniatures at the same time.