PDA

View Full Version : Have GW stopped releasing physical copies of codexes?



Silent Surrender
13-06-2016, 14:13
Hello again all. The termination of WHFB put a huge dent in my inspiration for tabletop gaming, so I have been on a break since it happened. But I have been on breaks Before and still got news about upcoming codexes and army books. This hasnt happened this time.

So my question is: Have gw stopped doing the "army release" style where they release a codex along a bunch of minis? I have gotten alot of emails about new releases consisting of those golden warriors of failmar, but nothing about a new physical codex release.

Thanks!

A.T.
13-06-2016, 14:55
So my question is: Have gw stopped doing the "army release" style where they release a codex along a bunch of minis?I don't know about AoS but in 40k they've been releasing a whole new codex for just a single unit or a couple of models - the wulfen and death from the skies recently for instance, and rumours of the deathwatch.

Beppo1234
13-06-2016, 15:24
So my question is: Have gw stopped doing the "army release" style where they release a codex along a bunch of minis? I have gotten alot of emails about new releases consisting of those golden warriors of failmar, but nothing about a new physical codex release.

Thanks!

It's always been my opinion that 'army release style' of 'new' products was due to the 'era'. The Book + large number of mini releases were, IMO, a result of GW catching up a majority of its product lines to plastic... and much has now been done with the exception of a couple of factions still needing a little bit of love.

I suspect we will get more of what we are currently getting, small releases periodically, with a book every now and then (but seeing as most factions don't need much in the way of plastic catch-up updates) we'll be getting smaller, but more novel releases.

Abbadonsrighthand
13-06-2016, 16:59
Well if sad panda is to be believed we may be seeing a huge csm release next summer at long last

beanerboy
13-06-2016, 18:53
I find it much harder to keep up with this style of release. I always look at nids as the example. I have know idea what half their units do even though I know the codex well... Same as imperial guard... Have the astra militarum codex but don't have access to all these extra rules and formations people have been using. And don't get me started on space marines! Not a clue what any of it does!

Scammel
13-06-2016, 19:24
Well if sad panda is to be believed we may be seeing a huge csm release next summer at long last

Any chance of sauce?

Silent Surrender
13-06-2016, 21:43
I find it much harder to keep up with this style of release. I always look at nids as the example. I have know idea what half their units do even though I know the codex well... Same as imperial guard... Have the astra militarum codex but don't have access to all these extra rules and formations people have been using. And don't get me started on space marines! Not a clue what any of it does!

Yeah I agree, it was much easier when they released Everything in one batch. Now you gotta keep track and hope a new release dont sneak past you.

The positive thing is that they can change stuff easier.

And chaos next summer? One more whole year? Dam!

Azazyll
13-06-2016, 22:05
Have gw stopped doing the "army release" style where they release a codex along a bunch of minis? I have gotten alot of emails about new releases consisting of those golden warriors of failmar, but nothing about a new physical codex release.

For the moment, effectively yes. Instead of one major release a month GW aims to release something every week. Most weeks are filler - either boxed collections, often at no discount (only the "start collecting" sets are discounted) or models previously only found as part of a set. We have not had a new codex in quite some time.

What we occasionally get instead are even more ridiculously expensive "warzone" campaigns split into two releases separated by several months. Each contains (along with a generally lackluster vomit of fiction and mostly crappy art) a handful of new units and a slew of poorly conceived formations. Most of these seem to be showing up a year or so later either in online downloads or collected into new books like Angels of Death. Which is good because even after buying two warzone sets (each purchase is rulebook plus a background book) for three times the price of a codex you get less than a codex worth of new material spread out across the three or four armies covered in that campaign.

If you're just interested in one army it's an utter nightmare - keeping current is enormously more expensive with significantly less to show for it, and you have to collect a variety of different sources to have everything available, which is frustrating many as it is difficult to keep track of so many separate things during games even if you can afford them.

There was some talk during the breakneck pace of codices coming out over the past few years before the current trend started that these were meant to be the last codices for some time, which is unfortunate because they're generally quite rotten for a number of armies, even worse than in the past. However, every new release means the possibility of some new game-breaking formation that will severely change the meta for the army involved, as long as you adhere to an extremely rigid set of models and playstyle that are mandated in the crazy-overpowered rules. Unfortunately, not every army has one of these formations, and some armies instead have several.

It's all a bit soulcrushing, to be honest.

Voss
14-06-2016, 00:16
It's always been my opinion that 'army release style' of 'new' products was due to the 'era'. The Book + large number of mini releases were, IMO, a result of GW catching up a majority of its product lines to plastic... and much has now been done with the exception of a couple of factions still needing a little bit of love.

GW's stated reason for it was that army books drove sales. It was a release model that served them very well for 20-odd years.

Theocracity
14-06-2016, 01:11
There's been chatter around the rumors that this could be due to a new edition in the works. The current lack of codices could be a result of them treading water, so to speak, while waiting for the new edition to hit and change how things work.

Of course, they're still in the business of selling things, so there are one-offs books to go along with every new model release.

Azazyll
14-06-2016, 03:46
GW's stated reason for it was that army books drove sales. It was a release model that served them very well for 20-odd years.

Indeed. The codex + army release has been around since the codex started, until now. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

dangerboyjim
15-06-2016, 00:00
Yeah, I've given up. It's a hot mess right now.

I used to buy every codex. Literally don't care now. I haven't even got the new Tau codex yet and that's my main army, I'll just wait until it actually warrants a new codex.

I'm just hanging on for AOS and woeful mismanagement to finally kill them off and someone who knows what they are doing to swing in buy them out and fix it.

Abbadonsrighthand
15-06-2016, 10:00
Any chance of sauce?
Well i happen to believe sad panda he hasn't been wrong yet

Beppo1234
15-06-2016, 12:24
GW's stated reason for it was that army books drove sales. It was a release model that served them very well for 20-odd years.

That's a bit of an exaggeration...

the large, book + 3-4 new kits releases was only a 10 year thing IMO, which only recently ended. Before that, it was a book with 1 major release and a couple of blisters

Azazyll
15-06-2016, 16:45
That's a bit of an exaggeration...

the large, book + 3-4 new kits releases was only a 10 year thing IMO, which only recently ended. Before that, it was a book with 1 major release and a couple of blisters

It goes back to before I started playing in 1995, so yes, 20 years. Keep in mind that at that point there was little in the way of plastic kits, so most models were released in blisters, but it was not "a couple" of them, it was comparable to a multi-kit release today.

Scammel
15-06-2016, 17:20
Well i happen to believe sad panda he hasn't been wrong yet

I trust you're not referring to this?


If you think of a full new CSM Codex 7th Ed. with a full overhaul of rules and/or models, you're probably right

in response to this


I'm willing to bet that we won't see a CSM release in 2016.

It's not worded fantastically, but he is in fact rejecting the very notion.

Daenerys Targaryen
16-06-2016, 00:36
I trust you're not referring to this?



in response to this



It's not worded fantastically, but he is in fact rejecting the very notion.
No, Panda was referring to a bet that there would be absolutely no CSM anything at all this year... To which he basically said, "if you mean full on overhaul of the entire range + new codex, then you're absolutely right!", but "if you think nothing at all, you're entirely wrong."

Both Sad Panda & Lady Atia have hinted at next year finally being a big pay-off for long suffering Chaos fans who've felt the very real mistreatment by GW over the past 10+ years of near-complete neglect. What form it'll take, and how much we actually do get, who knows.
But the hints have been dropped, and it's only another 10-12 months of waiting, which is really nothing for a fanbase that's been waiting in some cases, for nearly 18 years for certain plastic kits. (or even just an actual kit for certain units!)

Personally, I only really care about a model line overhaul...
Chaos Marines currently have the worst model range (Sisters accepted), and besides the very real lack of most of our basic options still missing, the army is now visibly a hot mess of early 90's characters & ham-fisted 'Zerkers, 2001-'05 comedic 'squatters', and the current DV super mutated looks.

Scammel
16-06-2016, 06:58
No, Panda was referring to a bet that there would be absolutely no CSM anything at all this year... To which he basically said, "if you mean full on overhaul of the entire range + new codex, then you're absolutely right!", but "if you think nothing at all, you're entirely wrong."

So... my entire point exactly, then?