New Idea for Codices

[EpicWarGamer]

Or, OMG, they could do both?? God knows I love my Tablet as well.... but getting kicked out of a tourney or not being able to play a game because my screen cracked or my battery ran out... and like someone earlier said, we are not ready to give up on paper yet. I know many people who download the Pirate PDF's but always prefer the Book for the Armies they own.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

Or, OMG, they could do both??

I think you'll find that's what I said.

Plus, even in the unlikely event that they ditched paper codeces altogether there would be nothing to stop you from printing off the electronic version.

[Ventus]

While an interesting idea, it would take a complete mindset change in GW. Currently GW could use White Dwarf for rules/errata with either changes or proposed changes to get the players views and they could do substantial updates to a dex that has problems using their errata/FAQ if they cared that the game was balanced. Updating old dexes that will not be updated for a long while makes them more useable and purchasing models more desirable.

For example the 5th edition nid dex is a poor product but they were bound to make a lot of sales with many of the new kits because of modelers and those wanting to use new units/trying to make their army work again. I would say in the first year/year and a half after the dex release many nid players have slowed buying nid models and with all the hate some players that might have started them look elsewhere. This I'm sure happened with codex creep as well - that is making people tired of 5th edition because of such imbalances. IMO, that would be a sign, as with the pyrovore example someone mentioned earlier, to fix the unit with errata - players happy GW is trying to make all dexes/units workable - players buy more pyrovores and GW makes money off of it. No such luck.

I would like them to do something like your binder idea and/or using electronic methods for dexes/updates but there is no excuse why it hasn't happened yet. Maybe GW makes lots of money and there business plan works well for them because so many of us keep buying their stuff even though they clearly don't care whether the 'game' is any good. Hopefully 6th edition will bring a new mindset but I see no evidence yet of it.

[Chapters Unwritten]

There needs to be some revenue because the people who make these documents need to get paid, but it is worth noting that, from my previous background in publishing, I can tell you GW's biggest financial expenditure would be on the printing of these books. Making them able to be printed on demand or included in the model boxes would be huge (and would help justify GW's prices).

The thing is, you buy a box of Tactical Marines, and that's all it is. You buy a box of GKs, it has the info for literally almost every unit in the codex. So each player would have many extras (especially if you had to buy several extra boxes). Meaning their value would degrade significantly, while still needing to be printed at some point.

I really like the idea of building your own codex, if only for the fact that at events you could literally only have rules for what you brought, for example. A digital codex option is long overdue as well, but that is very tricky because it dries up everything. To be honest, it would be smarter - a GW-specific program where you get a pseudo PDF (i.e., a PDF in a different proprietary format) and can actually click the options to build a list would pretty much eliminate both their need for expensive printing and the money they lose from book piracy.

[Wishing]

I would like them to do something like your binder idea and/or using electronic methods for dexes/updates but there is no excuse why it hasn't happened yet. Maybe GW makes lots of money and there business plan works well for them because so many of us keep buying their stuff even though they clearly don't care whether the 'game' is any good. Hopefully 6th edition will bring a new mindset but I see no evidence yet of it.

This is certainly my view on the matter. GW's aims and the players' aims are fundamentally different. The players want a good game, but GW wants customers that keep buying. These aren't mutually exclusive, but they can occasionally conflict. GW don't want a game that feels finished, complete, and is in harmony. They want to keep changing it so there will always be something new and fresh to lure people to buy new armies. Issuing errata and trying to keep armies balanced with each other doesn't directly cause people to buy less, but it would require effort and attention, and I think that everything that isn't focused on selling the newest and shiniest GW product is essentially left behind and dealt with ad-hoc depending on the enthusiasm of the design studio.

Shifting to an electronic format of book releases isn't impossible, but I think we aren't quite there yet. I feel that GW would only change their current business model once it becomes totally clear that they have to change or go bust.

[otakuzoku]

this is a very good idea. a few tweaks needed hear and there but all in all a very very good idea. they can sell proprietary binders and make money (your average player buying at least 2 binders one for fluff the other for the stats / rules maybe even another for paint guides. . and sell codex packs to start the player off. this would have the fluff with all the nice pics in it. and the starter model rules for units already out and coming soon. have new data sheets instore that you buy for a new model not in the codex. the option to fix any faults in the model stats and rules. these don't need to be in the box but on the codex stand.
armys will not fall out of favour like they do now. and will create a gate way in to players starting new army's with "battle force battles" with sheets just containing the stats for just the models in the box. i think players will be more likely to start a new army's with low cost gateways in to each creating more revenue for GW. (and help stop the dreaded yet another space marine player syndrome we have at the moment). introduce new speshal characters / hq choices. that can change the way the army works. espeshley usefull with games like planet strike and spearhead.

[otakuzoku]

plus if they dont do it other company's will.

[ehlijen]

Sure, pdfs of printed codices can be acquired, but the fact that they're not books instantly identifies them as pirated copies if you check a codex entry on an electronic device at a game. If GW also released pdf books, official tournament judges and store staff (ie the only ones who'd care, because they're paid to) would have trouble telling pirated from legit versions. Plus, while pdfs of printed documents are doable, it's still more effort than just sharing a digital file.

I'm not saying those are good reasons (or even bad ones) to stand against change, just that it could be a reason that makes them hesitate out of financial concerns. The video games industry is after all successfully signing the sad ballad of 'we're being robbed by pirates' for the whole world to hear.

[Ventus]

I feel that GW would only change their current business model once it becomes totally clear that they have to change or go bust.

Unfortunately I agree with this view. IMO, if GW tried to balance the game and update dexes properly through errata I think they would make more money. I understand the feeling about the 'new shiny thing' but if I have $150 to spend on GW product I might buy the new thing if it appeals, or I might buy kits for other armies that will not get a new dex for a while. However, when I see the lack of care/effort in trying to balance the game and update older dexes or poorly written rules I might only spend a small amount or nothing at all because of being dissatisfied with GW.

This is the boat I'm in. I started with Tau but shortly after built a nid army. After the new nid dex, which disappointed me both with its poor quality and the direction the army was taken, I also built a vanilla SM army (while still trying to play my nids - favourite). I like the idea of the pyrovore and would have bought some models if the rules were any good and its place in the dex a decent choice - but nope, no models purchased. If I thought that GW was serious about correcting their errors/updating outdated dexes with good errata I might have started DE and/or necrons as I liked both armies, but with 6th nearby I know that either/any army could get completely messed up and not get fixed with errata, or when a new dex would come out it could easily get the nid treatment. Since I am fed up with GW's practices I will not buy any of it, so GW loses money from me when with a little effort I would spend lots more. I cannot believe I am the only one out there that feels this way.

That's why I like the idea (or any idea) that has GW properly updating/fixing their product but the first thing is the GWs attitude to the players that must change. Any of the available methods for doing updates are fine if properly done.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

There needs to be some revenue because the people who make these documents need to get paid, but it is worth noting that, from my previous background in publishing, I can tell you GW's biggest financial expenditure would be on the printing of these books. Making them able to be printed on demand or included in the model boxes would be huge (and would help justify GW's prices).

The thing is, you buy a box of Tactical Marines, and that's all it is. You buy a box of GKs, it has the info for literally almost every unit in the codex. So each player would have many extras (especially if you had to buy several extra boxes). Meaning their value would degrade significantly, while still needing to be printed at some point.

I really like the idea of building your own codex, if only for the fact that at events you could literally only have rules for what you brought, for example. A digital codex option is long overdue as well, but that is very tricky because it dries up everything. To be honest, it would be smarter - a GW-specific program where you get a pseudo PDF (i.e., a PDF in a different proprietary format) and can actually click the options to build a list would pretty much eliminate both their need for expensive printing and the money they lose from book piracy.

Good post. The point about getting an extra profile sheet every time you buy a duplicate boxed set is a valid one. I had three falcon datafaxes back in 2nd edition. I kept the second as a backup (never needed it though) and chucked the third.

The idea of a GW specific program is exactly what I was getting at. They could have a 'free' version that would essentially allow you to access info/articles available on their website through the program, a subscription version with White Dwarf articles (essentially a digital version of WD) and then a one off fee for each codex/army book/supplement. I don't see how this wouldn't fit in with GW's business model. Ignoring the privacy issues, it would actually allow them to used targeted advertising.

The 'regular codex updates' idea wouldn't necessarily go hand in hand with this but I think it would make it much easier particularly once the majority of customers have signed up to the e-format. I think the main reason GW are so dead against regular updates at the moment is that it overrides existing written material. This isn't an issue if you are using an electronic codex as the rules would be updated for free.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

I think the main reason GW are so dead against regular updates at the moment is that it overrides existing written material. This isn't an issue if you are using an electronic codex as the rules would be updated for free.

Mainly it's to avoid fragmentation. By far GWs biggest competitive advantage is that there are just so many players playing their games. If people are playing miniature games you are far more likely to find someone who play a GW game than anything else. By rolling out update after update you risk fragment the player community as suddenly there are many different versions of the rules and it might not be nearly as easy to turn up somewhere and get a game. Also, as far as possible they want to avoid changing things on people. They don't want people to rock up to a game only to find out that X unit have changed.

Some of those issues can be mitigated somewhat with digital distribution, but unlike a MMO there is no way to push a "patch" to everybody and there is no requirement that said patch get's implemented.

[Spider-pope]

I like the idea but (particularly in this day and age) do we need hard copies of all the rules? With tablets and other i-readers becoming mainstream gadgets I think it may be time for GW try and move its codeces into the digital age again.
.

And will you be the one who buys everyone a tablet/kindle/i-whatever? Not everyone has a £90+ plus gadget to read rules on, especially the 10-15 year olds that GW targets for sales.

[Beppo1234]

And will you be the one who buys everyone a tablet/kindle/i-whatever? Not everyone has a £90+ plus gadget to read rules on, especially the 10-15 year olds that GW targets for sales.

they said the same thing about cell phones 15 years ago. as I stated earlier, my grade 6s are getting ipads for free from school, and I work at a rural elementary school in the middle of nowhere SK. Tablets will be serious in a few years. I wouldn't worry about the demographic of 10-15 year olds that GW caters too. Those kids that can't afford a 100$ dollar tablet, also can't afford GW (how much for 2 tactical squads and a commander?), so that point is pretty moot.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

And will you be the one who buys everyone a tablet/kindle/i-whatever? Not everyone has a £90+ plus gadget to read rules on, especially the 10-15 year olds that GW targets for sales.

If you had actually read what I posted you would know that I didn't suggest that a tablet would be needed to use the digital version of the codex. I don't actually own a tablet myself yet (well, I do own a Kindle). Anyone with a computer would be able to download the codeces and could then print out the sections they want for personal use.

The reason I mention tablets is that this technology is becoming increasingly common. Therefore it's not difficult to envisage most people having one in around 10-15 years time. My point being that with the gradual transition of traditionally paper media to electronic format it would be a good time for GW to start exploring this.

[Carnage]

GW seems to be waging a campaign against common sense and seems to be of the mind set that "The internet is a passing fad and has nothing to do with us, so to hell with it!". Clearly this is not exactly a wise business setup. Why they don't embrace the internet completely is odd to me.

GW claims that the rules are just a vehicle to sell models. Okay fine, by why not take that to the next step?

-Release the big rule book as it is now, and keep it updated via the internet via FAQs and clarifications. Particularly silly/poorly worded rules could be straight re-written.
-Release the codex as they are now, and after 6ish months release them online with the FAQ and integrated rule changes.
-Use the internet to update terrible units. Lets face it, 5+ years between codex updates is stupid. Some units just suck and probably hurt sales for the models. Pyrovores, Carnifexes, Tyranid Warriors, Whirlwinds, Scout bikes, Noise marines, Raptors, Tactical terminators, Blood Claws, Chaplains, Captains, Swooping Hawks, Mandrakes...etc. Every codex has a handful of units that are either straight bad, or pale in comparison to it's other units that almost never see play. GW could boost sales for these poor units by bringing them into line via web updates. Some units beg for even the tiniest update or tweak they would make them better. This doesn't even have to be all upwards, there's a ton of stuff that needs to be made worse; Hive Guard, Grey Hunters, Psy-bolt ammo for GK dreads, Vanilla assault termies, chimeras...etc.

The reason they don't do this is because they don't believe that the average gamer will read the updates and will find themselves quickly out of date and lost when it comes to the rules changing. They need to get with the times, people DO read the internet, people DO look for rules online, and the people they are afraid of falling behind wouldn't even mind, as they are the people that will be playing for fun and don't care about being on the competitive edge. A quarterly update would be fine and give plenty of time for feedback and play testing.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

They need to get with the times, people DO read the internet, people DO look for rules online, and the people they are afraid of falling behind wouldn't even mind, as they are the people that will be playing for fun and don't care about being on the competitive edge. A quarterly update would be fine and give plenty of time for feedback and play testing.

Good post. Even half-yearly/annually would be a big improvement on the current set up.

And I think it's also a mistake for them to focus on pushing new releases at the expense of other armies in the range particularly given that there's no reason doing otherwise would hurt new releases. I have a good income and can afford to spend money on GW stuff but if I don't find it rewarding to play my favourite armies I'll spend the cash on something else (i.e. not a GW product).

[vladsimpaler]

Thanks for the virus OP, gonna have to go have some nerd check it out from my local computer shop.

posted from my hurbagurba via tapatalk

[Spider-pope]

they said the same thing about cell phones 15 years ago. as I stated earlier, my grade 6s are getting ipads for free from school, and I work at a rural elementary school in the middle of nowhere SK. Tablets will be serious in a few years. I wouldn't worry about the demographic of 10-15 year olds that GW caters too. Those kids that can't afford a 100$ dollar tablet, also can't afford GW (how much for 2 tactical squads and a commander?), so that point is pretty moot.

Good for your school. But that is far from standard, at least in UK schools anyway.

And the point on cost is far from moot. Ask a parent whether they would rather fork out £90+ for say the cheapest Kindle, for an 11 year old, or give them £20 for a codex and they will pick the latter. GW stuff may be the more expensive part in the long term, but short term wise its a far more appealing option.

Tablets may be serious in a few years, they may even be as affordable as basic mobile phones are now, but they are far from standard right now.

-Release the big rule book as it is now, and keep it updated via the internet via FAQs and clarifications. Particularly silly/poorly worded rules could be straight re-written.
-Release the codex as they are now, and after 6ish months release them online with the FAQ and integrated rule changes.
-Use the internet to update terrible units. Lets face it, 5+ years between codex updates is stupid. Some units just suck and probably hurt sales for the models. Pyrovores, Carnifexes, Tyranid Warriors, Whirlwinds, Scout bikes, Noise marines, Raptors, Tactical terminators, Blood Claws, Chaplains, Captains, Swooping Hawks, Mandrakes...etc. Every codex has a handful of units that are either straight bad, or pale in comparison to it's other units that almost never see play. GW could boost sales for these poor units by bringing them into line via web updates. Some units beg for even the tiniest update or tweak they would make them better. This doesn't even have to be all upwards, there's a ton of stuff that needs to be made worse; Hive Guard, Grey Hunters, Psy-bolt ammo for GK dreads, Vanilla assault termies, chimeras...etc.

By "never see play" you of course mean "don't turn up in net lists". Tournament players make up a fraction of GW's total sales. The average player couldn't care less whether or not a Carnifex is more or less efficient than a zoanthrope, they are going to buy the models they deem coolest.

The reason they don't do this is because they don't believe that the average gamer will read the updates and will find themselves quickly out of date and lost when it comes to the rules changing. They need to get with the times, people DO read the internet, people DO look for rules online, and the people they are afraid of falling behind wouldn't even mind, as they are the people that will be playing for fun and don't care about being on the competitive edge. A quarterly update would be fine and give plenty of time for feedback and play testing.

The average gamer won't. You make the mistake of assuming the internet savvy Warseer poster is the same as the 11 year old Timmy who's just starting out in the hobby. We may know that FAQ's are there for the various Codexes, but the average youngling that makes up the core of GW's business doesn't in my experience. Which then leads to the issue of people having rulesets at different points in their errata cycle.


And thats without bringing in the added cost to GW of a much more efficient web support team, plus technical support team for the inevitable "my armies .pdf doesnt work on my pocket calculator, OMG i want my money back!"

If you had actually read what I posted you would know that I didn't suggest that a tablet would be needed to use the digital version of the codex. I don't actually own a tablet myself yet (well, I do own a Kindle). Anyone with a computer would be able to download the codeces and could then print out the sections they want for personal use.

The reason I mention tablets is that this technology is becoming increasingly common. Therefore it's not difficult to envisage most people having one in around 10-15 years time. My point being that with the gradual transition of traditionally paper media to electronic format it would be a good time for GW to start exploring this.

Again, are you going to subsidise the cost of the computer, net access,paper, printer and ruddy-stupidly-expensive-for-what-it-is ink?

Switching to online dexs that you print yourself now would be adding an unnecessary barrier in entering the game. Again you make assumptions that what is easy for you, is easy for everyone else.

The time when it will be a good idea for GW to make such a transition is when everyone can and does have a compatible gadget. I've no doubt you are right that in 10-15 years time everyone will have such a device and it'll be cheap. But that's not where things stand right at this moment.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

A quarterly update would be fine and give plenty of time for feedback and play testing.

So we are going to need multiple design teams then? One that keeps on top of the main rules, tinker with them, analyse feedback/playtesting, etc. and then one that produce the army specific rules? And by the way, what version of the main rules are they suppose to make the army specific rules for? Having everything in constant flux leads to a rapidly increasing workload and uncertainty. If you are only dealing with one document it's not too bad, if you are dealing with 20 different documents that's all suppose to work together but constantly changing I'm not at all convinced that the results would actually be better balance at all, but I'm reasonably confident it would be more confusion.

And as I said before, I think GW would be loosing their biggest advantage if they start making it harder for people to play the game with others. And having multiple different versions of the game will do that. Certainly there will be some groups that will keep up just fine, but there will also be others that won't keep up at all and others where some do and some don't. And then you start getting tensions and arguments over what the rules are, what version to use, someone not knowing X, Y or Z had changed, etc.

While I certainly think GW can update their approach and their rules distribution I'm not sure a constant revision of everything would generate any real benefits.

[ehlijen]

GW seems to be waging a campaign against common sense and seems to be of the mind set that "The internet is a passing fad and has nothing to do with us, so to hell with it!". Clearly this is not exactly a wise business setup. Why they don't embrace the internet completely is odd to me.

Given that GW primarily deal in real life objects that can't be digitalised (ie models), piracy of what products could be digitalised does exist and would likely become more widespread if they sold pdfs and that the internet has seen a fair few bubbles based on brand new ideas burst, I don't begrudge any company a certain waryness towards the net.

No, I don't think GW is taking the right lessons from what we can see happening on the net, but I also don't think caution is just generally as bad a call as your statement seems to say it is.