GW of the future.... (combined)

[Hellfury]

This was very recently posted by Dakka dakka Moderator Yakface after he attended the 2007 Adepticon in which Jervis Johnson was the GW special Guest.

Here is the original thread



__________________________________________________ _____________

"I attended both of Jervis's seminars at Adepticon and both were fairly disappointing. He was on full 3 month 'lockdown' mode at wouldn't commit to revealing absolutely anything, even as a tongue-in-cheek reference.

That said, what he could talk about was his role in games workshop and the overall direction the company is moving with regards to its games.

Jervis is now the product and hobby strategist for GW. While this doesn't mean he runs any of the rules design teams for any of the 3 core games, it does mean he is responsible for making sure the overall design of the games stays on a specific course.

This new focus imposed by Jervis on the teams means that the core rulebook and the codices/army books are now specifically targeted for pickup games of 1,500/2,000 points (for 40K/Warhammer respectively.

That means sub-army lists and any other wacky rules (like Kill Team) will no longer be found in the core rules/codices. Any interesting sub-divisions of the game instead will be brought out as an 'expansion' (such as Cities of Death).

While Jervis naturally wouldn't go into any details about future expansions, this is the catch-all term for any and all ways that GW will present different ways to play the core games. If GW wants to release campaign rules for their games, they'll put it in a campaign expansion book. If they want to release a small battle game (like 'Kill Team') they'll put those rules into an expansion, etc.

Basically they want to make it clear to the consumer that the core rules are written and balanced for a specific style of game, and while expansions can alter this formula it would be clear that you were using the expansion set/rules in that case.

Another fairly big change (IMO) is the decision that all current armies that have a codex/army book will be supported by the company on timely basis indefinitely. That means no current armies will go away (inlcuding Dark Eldar and Chaos Dwarves, according to Jervis) and they will all start recieving much more regular releases (no more 8 year gap between Ork codices in the future).

The downside of this new mantra is that GW will be much more careful about releasing new armies, as when they do so they are committing to supporting those armies indefinitely. That also means that we will no longer see army sub-lists (like Eldar Craftworld lists, etc) as they have become to numerous for GW to continue to support.

So as for the future of Kroot Mercs, LatD, Feral Orks, etc, while Jervis DID NOT say anything specific about these army types, I am pretty darn certain that you won't be seeing any updated rules ever for these armies.

The only real hope for these armies is either: They include some of the units in the updated version of the parent codex (like the possibility of adding some Feral Ork units into the next Ork codex) or GW decides to make these armies into a full codex release that will then be supported indefinitely. You will definitely not see a 'Feral Ork' sub-army list included in the new Ork codex; those days are now gone.

GW is trying to get to a point where all the codices/army books are fairly balanced at their base point levels (1,500 points for 40k, 2,000 points for Warhammer) and part of that process is eliminating some of the fringe choices that allow players to make wacky powerful armies.

The Dark Angel codex was, to paraphrase Jervis, a way to show the games designers the principles he was trying to hold them to. In many ways the Dark Angels codex is the blueprint for the future of 40k.


I also asked him if a trait/doctrine system was still in the games designers 'toolboxes' (specifically in relation to a possible Chaos codex revision). He responded that the goal of a new Chaos codex would be to incorporate everything into a single army list and, if that wasn't possible, other options (such as traits/doctrines) would then be explored. I then asked if seperate codices were a possibility for a Chaos update, and he said that if they did decide to split them into seperate codices the company would be committing to keeping those armies around as a seperate entity indefinitely, meaning it would be a decision they would only do after very, very careful consideration.


Finally, he also commented that the SM codex was considered a failure within the company because as the codex most commonly purchased by new players, it fails to properly introduce them into the hobby (as it doesn't have the weapon diagrams like the new DA codex does). That gives GW a reason to 'fast track' a new version of the codex into production. When and if this new SM codex is released Jervis said that it will likely incorporate many of the new concepts found within the DA codex.

Now, exactly what a 'fast track' is for a codex is anyones guess. . ."

[Reinnon]

sounds, deeply interesting.... seems to confirm the idea of a SM redo in the future

[mattieice]

Is this really such a bad thing? I love the DA format. It cuts the time it takes to make an army in half. Having everything in multiples of 5 was such a good idea I'm ashamed I didn't think of it myself. While it's disappointing that they're putting forth everything in a book (I thought White Dwarf was for experimental rules and expansions) I feel that it means they will receive the attention they deserve.

[Dr. Who]

Thanks for sharing this. It is an interesting read.

Not sure I like what Jervis is saying (implying?) though. The 8 years (or whatever long time we wait) between different codexes/armybooks won't go away anytime soon, if at all, if GW continues its releases at what seems like a snail's pace. I don't seem altering that. I may mean though that miniature releases will be more frequent for each army.

Fast tracking an SM codex? C:SM Redux here we come..... more smurfs!
- Dr.

[shutupSHUTUP!!!]

I'm not opposed to this approach either. A steady flow of 40k and WhFB model releases and army books properly balanced for 1500-2000 points is all I want from GW really.

[Ddraiglais]

I am not sure if I will continue to play 40K if they make everything vanilla, and I've been playing since just before 2nd ed. I really think that the game would suffer if they took away Iron Warriors, Feral Orks, Dark Angels, World Eaters, Space Pups, Ulthwe, etc. I am sure there are many others who play these armies that would agree. I do not like the idea of each new codex being more powerful than the last, but I also don't want to see all the colorful armies taken out of 40K.

[Ravenous]

Dark angels is the vision of the future?

I guess its true what they say then "In the grim darkness of the future there is only war."

and by war I guess they mean bland, boring and soulless armies.

[75hastings69]

Originally Posted by shutupSHUTUP!!!

I'm not opposed to this approach either. A steady flow of 40k and WhFB model releases and army books properly balanced for 1500-2000 points is all I want from GW really.

I agree, it would definately suit me. Not so much of the "shiny new" syndrome if there is regular support for the armies you are most interested in. However this could be a double edged sword for GW as they must generate a large amount of revenue of people with shiny new syndrome, I mean I know for a fact that there are many more people than me that buy a new army just because it is new/updated and don't ever really finish anything, some of these potential sales could be lost if people were to gradualy update/upgrade their favourite armies with this "steady flow" of model releases.

[fracas]

maybe 6 years cycle, with a new addition of a core game every other year

[Some guy (UK)]

Some comforting and some unsettling news here. For example, a series of rule expansions (e.g. campaigns, rulesets), yet on the other this comfirms seeing such wacky expansions in WD will be a rare thing indeed.

Its also good to hear about more 'mixed up' releases, presumably due to rule expansion sets, as happened around the release of Cities of Death, with new models for many of the fractions.

Welcome news in the form of army books that will fit in with a particular layout or order and aimed at certain sized games.

Indefinate support was something I was glad to read for DE players, though as said above, putting 'fun' lists in WD wouldn't hurt for spicing up games using existing model ranges- so that indefinate support for these would not be required?

All in all, a sweet and sour bag of news.

[Odin]

Originally Posted by Dr. Who

Thanks for sharing this. It is an interesting read.

Not sure I like what Jervis is saying (implying?) though. The 8 years (or whatever long time we wait) between different codexes/armybooks won't go away anytime soon, if at all, if GW continues its releases at what seems like a snail's pace. I don't seem altering that. I may mean though that miniature releases will be more frequent for each army.

That's what I guess it will mean - things like the Ork Kommandos and Eldar Rangers - models released gradually for each army, not all released to coincinde with the new Codex then nothing for 8 years until the next Codex.

[LessThanSimple]

Is it just me, or does GW seem to change it's business model every other time they put out a new book?

This is kind of irritating. what I got out of this is that we, as players, are now forced to pick our armies from only the main books. So eventually we will see the same army, right down to composition at every gaming session. This phenomenon will be even worse at tournaments. This is already a problem, but now it's going to get worse.

[cailus]

The new approach sounds really good. It means regular army updates and I especially like the DA Codex format. This really is great news.

[Shadowheart]

It sounds like a good plan to me. I think it's much better for the customers to have a smaller number of armies that are supported fully and reliably than to have a larger number with patchy updates and the chance of being dropped at a moment's notice. Ideally GW would've decided on this before they went ahead and did a bunch of variant armies for people to sink their time and money into.

But as LessThanSimple points out, GW changes their approach all the time. I only have to look at my collection of army books or White Dwarfs to see that "the way it will be from now on" doesn't tend to last long. Sooner or later someone else is going to come up with an 'even better' plan.

[studderigdave]

i for one DO NOT like the new DA format. its good of GW to snap me back to reality though. each time i think they are their for their fanbase they pull something like this, quickly correcting me of the though. i know GW is there for the $$$ not the fans, but this is getting rediculous. the new CSM codex will look like the DA one? will the entry for demon prince be 4 pages long?

[Tastyfish]

Feral Orks, Exodites, Kroot mercs could easily be including in Campaign books like the Red Host of Sotek and Clan Pestelins was in warhammer with the jungle fighting Lustria book

[Zander77]

Well, as only a Dark Eldar player can feel,"regular updates" sounds pretty cool, so I'm game unless it messes EVERYTHING up and unfortunately....it probably will somehow just because it's a halfway decent idea.

[Quade Collins]

If the DA codex is the new norm i am not impressed. I like the fact they tell you what you are allowed to use on a character (i have seen to many players decide that their interpretation of the rules is better) what i don't like is the 5 or 10 rule, not to mention the layout. I like having the option of less guys per squad. However some things do need to be fixed pointwise.

Also the marines being the golden GW child, it'd be nice to see some of that love spread around...

[Ozymandiass]

I have to say this is great news. I really like the DA dex and the format (the WHFB format has been this way as long as I can remember) and it keeps them focused on putting out great rules and leaves the overly complicated stuff for expansions.

I have always been a fan of JJ and I am glad to see he will be setting the tone for both 40k and Fantasy.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

[swordwind]

Hang on a minute. I thought GW has said they wanted to cut down on the "subcodexes" like Eye of Terror and the old style Angels and Wolves codexes so that new players dont get confused. So why are they faffing about with these "Expansions"?

I may have to start a LatD army, purely on the principle that it will annoy Games Workshop...