PDA

View Full Version : all we need is four books (wanton daydreaming)



self biased
06-09-2008, 22:38
Yeah, I said it: I think that all warhammer 40k needs is four Grand Codecies. Seriously, for whatever conceivable use or army, we can fit everything we need for this division into a two hundred fifty to three hundred page book, spread over four volumes. These would ideally be hardcover, but not necessarily so. What happens next is that chapter approved is resurrected, and used to deliver updates to these codecies, be they balance tweaks, errata, or wholly new things.

Volume One: Armies of the Imperium.

this details the Guard, Adeptus Astartes, the branches of the Inquisition, and possibly the adeptus mechanichus. About two thirds of the book should be various fluff, from stories, painting tutorials, and modelling ideas.

For the marines, we’ll have lists based off the original nine legions: Dark Angels [I], White Scars [V], Space Wolves [VI], Imperial Fists [VII], Blood Angels [IX], Iron Hands [X], Ultramarines [XIII], Salamanders [XVIII], and Raven Guard [XIX]. Even then, there’s really only one first-founding chapter that deviates significantly from the Codex Astartes: the Space Wolves. The only other chapter that presents any kind of logistical problem is the Black Templars and their ilk; the crusading chapters. Out of the eight remaining legions (as the templars are a VII offshoot), no one legion requires more than a page or two of replacement rules.

Astartes Doctrines could even be reintroduced: all one has to do is start with a bare-bones battle company, and use doctrines to specialize beyond that.

The Guard could follow suit of the marines (though the guard ought to come first) in overreaching structure. Codex list :: Known regiments of renown (cadians, tallarns, steel legion, valhallans, catachans, elysians, mordians, &c.) :: basic list, with doctrines to add and specialize.

When rolled into one list the inquisition becomes a fairly simple flowchart stemming from where one’s inquisitor has his roots: Hereticus, Malleus, or Xenos.

There could even be an appendix for allies and their requirements. Guard could buy a Marine squad or two as an elites choice. Assassins could be used by anyone with an inquisitor attached, as well as Mechanichus allies.

If all the might of the imperium were brought to light in one book, it may lead to more ‘fluffy’ army choices, much like the expedition fleets in the horus heresy novels. If all these armies were in one book, they could not only use each other, but be balanced not only in their own right, but balanced between each other.

Volume Two: Realm of Chaos.

There will be three basic divisions, and within these three basic divisions there will be five universal divisions. The basic divisions will be Lost and the Damned, Chaos Space Marines, and Daemons. There shall be a division within each army for each chaos god, and an additional one for undivided chaos. Each legion will get its 1-2 pages of army specific rules and restrictions, as would each God. Follow the template of its imperial counterpart, lather, rinse repeat.


Volume Three: Eldar and Tau.

The ‘nominally good,’ or ‘organized’ xenos. This would cover all flavors of eldar: craftworld, pirate, exodite, ‘dark’ and whatever else comes to light. The same goes for the Tau empire. One could do various septs or different parts of the empire. This would also be an apropriate place for demiurg allies and units. Lather, rinse, repeat as above.


Volume Four: Orks, Tyranids, and Necrons.

At this point, I think you get the idea.

Now where chapter approved comes in, it’ll add new units, tweaks, and erratum to the four books. Once a year, release a collection of articles in a book, and say, a month after the book is released, it’s ‘official’ and taken as stock for tourneys and what have you. And voila! We can have a game with a ten year life cycle.

Delmont
06-09-2008, 22:43
You know, Privateer does this and it actually prevents me from buying their books. I don't want to buy one big book and have 20-50 pages detail what i'm actually interested in and then have the rest be next to useless for me. I like each book being its own, separate concept and idea.

heretics bane
06-09-2008, 22:52
You know it would take really long just to find some pages and look up the tinest facts

Khornies & milk
06-09-2008, 23:01
A lot of effort put into the OP's ideas, but it wouldn't be a Codex....books that BIG are called Tomes.

You'd be hardpressed lugging it around yet alone looking up details quickly.

samiens
06-09-2008, 23:02
Well, firstly to fit in with the newer codexes it would cost a lot more for the book- which would put people off. Secondly it would be harder to find what you want and harder to manipulate the book- petty I know but plenty of people use the AoBR rulebook because its smaller.

secondly- your Chapter approved idea means we would all need new books every year- we could end up carrying quite a lot. Maybe this workds for the Hardcore gamer- but for the more casual player the idea of having to buy a new book every year instead of every 3-4 (or more) is a big turn off- especially as you potentially lose revenue in the later months before the update.

So my first problem is one of impracticality- which leads to reduced sales. Also, your system is undoubtedly worse from a business point of view- the books cost more so you sell less, and you can't focus on one race at a time and lose the intensive advertising (and profit yield) you have now.

Thirdly, I actually believe this will make the game less balanced- rather than unbalancing one army at a time you will unbalance segments leaving a much less even playing field. Also, if all the books come out at once there is way too much work at one time followed by lull periods- seasonal buying is not the greatest plan when you look at the gaming demographic- the sales to younger players at Christmas exist anyway- and its more likely to make spendthrift veterans spend less throughout the year as they only have to focus on what they most want.

With Space Marines all together you lose the sales to the very, very many veteran players who love marines a bit too much and have a wide variety of armies (not to mention extra book sales)

basically, this is a 'forum' idea that is impractical and unprofitable in the wider market place. Even if it did help the game (which i believe it would not) it may very well kill the business, especially in a difficult financial time- when always having a strongly advertised product that is constantly changing is more likely to attract business by catching people on a good day.

Your idea is far too high risk in a business sense (GW actually does quite well given the world market) and also robs partisan players of their armies moment in the limelight. NO!

loveless
06-09-2008, 23:16
True, that's the biggest problem that Privateer Press has - big book of all factions, which means you pay $50 or so to get a book where you only use 1/4 of the units. Dreadful.

I'd rather see small books, like GW does. Yes, it's more expensive if you want multiple books, but the convenience of having one small book to check all of your army's special rules is preferable to having to flip through a big Tome to do the same thing. At least you'll use every page in a Codex.

Also, you forgot Orks!

LionoftheBegs
06-09-2008, 23:57
I didn't see a mention of the Sisters anywhere.

And what of the different races like the Hrud or such?

Templar Ben
07-09-2008, 00:15
Orks is volume 4 silly.

I think that idea is much better then the current release scheme. They would really be reducing the number of armies to balance (since there is a presumption of allies) so it would allow for them to try a different release scheme. I would like a Segmentum release schedule but something else would be good.

Templar Ben
07-09-2008, 00:16
I didn't see a mention of the Sisters anywhere.

Volume 1.


And what of the different races like the Hrud or such?

That would be a WD release unless they wanted to add several in Volume 5 (Minor Races).

Firaxin
07-09-2008, 00:37
Aside from the problems already mentioned, the concept of having all those armies being able to ally is scary.

You know, marine armies with basilisk support, etc...

Templar Ben
07-09-2008, 00:44
Well, firstly to fit in with the newer codexes it would cost a lot more for the book- which would put people off. Secondly it would be harder to find what you want and harder to manipulate the book- petty I know but plenty of people use the AoBR rulebook because its smaller.

Which is rather funny. Warmachine Escalation and Apotheosis are $35, Warmachine Pirates of the Broken Coast $22, but the new Space Marine Codex will be $30. No reason for the book to cost more especially given the fact that with one book used by more players you have volume working for you.

As for it being harder to find what you need, that is an editing problem. I agree that GW often has problems in that regard but look at a Forge World book sometime. It is very easy to find the information you need (just hope it is not full of typos).

I know a lot of people that don't bring out the WM books at all since the stats are on the card. A better layout for the download and print off sheet would solve those issues.


secondly- your Chapter approved idea means we would all need new books every year- we could end up carrying quite a lot. Maybe this workds for the Hardcore gamer- but for the more casual player the idea of having to buy a new book every year instead of every 3-4 (or more) is a big turn off- especially as you potentially lose revenue in the later months before the update.

How do they lose revenue by having free rules online? That model works very well. GW can collect them and have a release or better yet they could take back feedback from players and adjust those so that when a release does come it will be balanced. We really are getting in to crazy town though.


So my first problem is one of impracticality- which leads to reduced sales. Also, your system is undoubtedly worse from a business point of view- the books cost more so you sell less, and you can't focus on one race at a time and lose the intensive advertising (and profit yield) you have now.

As demonstrated by Warmachine, the books don't need to cost more. I agree that things that cost more normally have lower volume (perhaps GW doesn't believe this). What intensive advertising do they have currently? Do you mean the articles in White Dwarf for the splash release? I know it is really thinking outside the box to have sales spread out over the years instead of a huge sale for an army every few years but then again you do see that with other toy companies. This is almost like an Other GW discussion now.


Thirdly, I actually believe this will make the game less balanced- rather than unbalancing one army at a time you will unbalance segments leaving a much less even playing field. Also, if all the books come out at once there is way too much work at one time followed by lull periods- seasonal buying is not the greatest plan when you look at the gaming demographic- the sales to younger players at Christmas exist anyway- and its more likely to make spendthrift veterans spend less throughout the year as they only have to focus on what they most want.

I agree that GW has "issues" with balance but this doesn't mean that balance will be worse. If anything having fewer books means they will have an easier time of balance. I know you have seen GW do the "pump and dump" model for so long that it is hard to think of how other companies keep interest over time with releases but they do. GW just need to change their paradigm.


With Space Marines all together you lose the sales to the very, very many veteran players who love marines a bit too much and have a wide variety of armies (not to mention extra book sales)

The money is not in the book. The money is in the much higher margin model. People that have Ultramarines, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels under the current system would do so under the new one. They would just have more money for models which is better for GW.


basically, this is a 'forum' idea that is impractical and unprofitable in the wider market place. Even if it did help the game (which i believe it would not) it may very well kill the business, especially in a difficult financial time- when always having a strongly advertised product that is constantly changing is more likely to attract business by catching people on a good day.

I doubt this would hurt GW at nearly the level that the recent price increase or the decision to not solicit feedback but then again I am biased. I will level with you. I am one of those dreaded MBAs that work in business.


Your idea is far too high risk in a business sense (GW actually does quite well given the world market) and also robs partisan players of their armies moment in the limelight. NO!

Too high risk? GW does quite well?

I am thinking there is a disconnect there. Perhaps you should visit us down in Other GW.

self biased
07-09-2008, 03:23
Aside from the problems already mentioned, the concept of having all those armies being able to ally is scary.

You know, marine armies with basilisk support, etc...

*sigh* it disheartens me to realize that there are people out there, and i mean no disrespect, that seem to think that a space marine 'army' i.e. the fifteen hundred or two thousand points exists in some kind of null state, and passes through a membrane from another reality to play a game of 40k and then returns to its original null state. not to mention i didn't say marines should have access to the full list of others, just that some allying system should be put forth or somesuch.

while not wholly relevant to the argument at hand, has anyone read just about anything out of the horus heresy novels? for those that haven't, there are entire fleets, with company after company of infantry, tank battalions, and a battle company or two of marines in support. out of thousands upon thousands of guard, there might be two hundred astartes. while i'm firmly an advocate of rules and gameplay before fluff justification, how horrifying would it be for the guard to take a tactical squad of marines as an elites choice? mmm?

my idea for these books does involve a certain amount of change to how armies are selected, but the apparent knee-jerk negative reaction has me scratching my head.



Well, firstly to fit in with the newer codexes it would cost a lot more for the book- which would put people off. Secondly it would be harder to find what you want and harder to manipulate the book- petty I know but plenty of people use the AoBR rulebook because it's smaller.

easier to manipulate? surely you jest. i agree the apocalypse book is a bit unwieldy, but i managed to type up and print out the crunchy bits for reference (and so i don't have to carry that damned thing everywhere i go). the rules, sans datafaxes took up a depressingly small amount of space.


secondly- your Chapter approved idea means we would all need new books every year- we could end up carrying quite a lot. Maybe this workds for the Hardcore gamer- but for the more casual player the idea of having to buy a new book every year instead of every 3-4 (or more) is a big turn off- especially as you potentially lose revenue in the later months before the update.

do you remember how chapter approved used to operate? the book was only a collection of white dwarf articles. spending seventy-odd dollars a year for issues of the dwarf, or significantly less to have everything you need in one place, and not lug around every issue you own?


So my first problem is one of impracticality- which leads to reduced sales. Also, your system is undoubtedly worse from a business point of view- the books cost more so you sell less, and you can't focus on one race at a time and lose the intensive advertising (and profit yield) you have now.

i will yeild to that nice templar ben and his magical mystery MBA.


Thirdly, I actually believe this will make the game less balanced- rather than unbalancing one army at a time you will unbalance segments leaving a much less even playing field. Also, if all the books come out at once there is way too much work at one time followed by lull periods- seasonal buying is not the greatest plan when you look at the gaming demographic- the sales to younger players at Christmas exist anyway- and its more likely to make spendthrift veterans spend less throughout the year as they only have to focus on what they most want.

With Space Marines all together you lose the sales to the very, very many veteran players who love marines a bit too much and have a wide variety of armies (not to mention extra book sales)

basically, this is a 'forum' idea that is impractical and unprofitable in the wider market place. Even if it did help the game (which i believe it would not) it may very well kill the business, especially in a difficult financial time- when always having a strongly advertised product that is constantly changing is more likely to attract business by catching people on a good day.

Your idea is far too high risk in a business sense (GW actually does quite well given the world market) and also robs partisan players of their armies moment in the limelight. NO!

frankly, the rest of your post makes less sense than the start of it. unless you've got some kind of business or economics degree (which i do not), your reasoning comes across as e-peen pumping. but to me, spreading out sales across the entire range as opposed to the 'pump and dump' model seems like a good idea to me. i could be wrong. i honestly don't give seven rats asses if it tanks GW, so long as the quality of the game improves.

ultimately the idea is to improve the life cycle of the game. four years between editions is far, far too short. armies get left out. you mention army's moment in the limelight, when was the last time we've even seen a brand-new dark eldar release? i don't remember either.

SirSnipes
07-09-2008, 04:03
you forgot the dark eldar

Slaaneshi Ice Cream
07-09-2008, 04:22
PP books are around $35, as has been said. They come with full-color everything, units for all the races, background, and pictures. At $50 they'd be over-priced but they're not at $35.

GW codices cost $22 now and they come with very few color pictures. The editing is terrible and you only get units for one army. If your lucky the army has good rules, if not wait 4 years.

I second the notion for allying armies. I want to field allied CSM, traitors, and daemons. That would make me a happy, happy gamer.

loveless
07-09-2008, 05:32
I'm sorry, I was off at $50.

They're $45. Why do I say $45? Because that's the hardcover. $35 is the paperback. Privateer Press seems to find it funny to do a ****-poor job of binding their paperbacks. Unlike Warhammer Army Books/Codices, which I have never seen fall apart (unless you're trying to break them). PP books fall apart from just light usage - especially the thicker ones.

But this is going to be a stalemate of a war. No one's going to change their position. I'm willing to pay $22-25 per codex/army book for the convenience of having all of my army's background and units in one place. I'm willing to spend $60 to get a box full of miniatures, templates, and the core rules for a game. I am not too keen on having to buy a $45 book (if I want one that won't crumble) every year just so I can keep up-to-date on all of the rules for the core game, in addition to the rules for my army (and every other army). I'm someone that doesn't want to pay for things I won't use.

I can understand viewing the "all-in-one" book as a benefit. It seems like it should be. But with poor binding on the cheap copies and everything crammed into one book, it becomes more of a hassle for gaming purposes.

Also, GW background is miles above PP background. The latest GW books are PACKED with background. It's honestly ridiculous when you compare it to the older books. The PP books are, well, from what I've seen, lacking. Yes, they have lots of pretty pictures. I prefer the pretty pictures in the GW books.

In the long run, it's all a matter of preference. I didn't care for the GW BFG books with so many different races packed into one place. I prefer my books separate.

Preston
07-09-2008, 06:56
Actually, other then Prime original printing, I haven't had a single problem with my WM or Hordes books.

Those beautiful, full color, fluff filled books with an actual continuing story in them instead of rehashed generic background information, with decent layouts.

Of course, it could be because I don't have to refer back to my book every time I need to know a piddling detail about my army or my friends army - look at those useful cards the game uses for reference!

Honestly, I feel like I'm wasting money on a Codex. 20+ dollars for a poorly written, thin, badly edited, crap layout, black and white with a few color pages for modeling (to show you what you really need to be buying) book that may or may not make my army weaker and or stronger (on a unit by unit basis) ...

yeah, great option there. :P

Graz
07-09-2008, 07:08
Know thy enemy....I like the fact that in WM/H I can memorize opponents' data (and consider new factions) without buying extra books. Good idea, self biased.

CthulhuDalek
07-09-2008, 07:21
I'd see it more like:

-Adeptus Astartes
-Inquisition/Imperial Guard/Navy/etc
-Eldar(Craftworld, Dark Eldar, Exodites)
-Tau Empire(With a bunch of coolio new races to make them truly awesome--Hrud?)
-Orkz
-Nids
-Necrons
-Chaos(all of 'em)

8 total biiiig codices.

Jackmojo
07-09-2008, 07:56
This is basically the setup 2nd Edition epid used, three army boxes (which were codex + templates and reference cards) followed the main release:

Armies of the Imperium (Space Marines and IG)
Renegades (Eldar and Chaos)
Warlords (Orks and Squ-[SILENCED BY ORDER OF THE INQUISITION])
Then followed much later by a tyranids book (since they were still kinda new back then)

It had its benefits, and I'm sure it contributed to my collecting 4 armies to some degree, but all in all I prefer the stand alone solution.

What I wish they would do; is update their codices more often, I would much rather purcahse a new codex book for my army every one or two years (and always have roughly compareable rules to new releases and consistancy within design philosophy with them as well) then always need to wait ages for every army to be "up to date". Of course I also tend to think the army rules ought to be free since GW is supposed to make their money on the miniatures (a business model of which I approve).

Jack

Jos
07-09-2008, 09:02
As good as it may be, it would create less profit for GW. It would also make the game take a step towards spacemarinehammer 40k

Grimtuff
07-09-2008, 09:35
You know, Privateer does this and it actually prevents me from buying their books. I don't want to buy one big book and have 20-50 pages detail what i'm actually interested in and then have the rest be next to useless for me. I like each book being its own, separate concept and idea.

You obviously have no idea of how Warmachine, it's background, gameplay complexity and the expansions that go with it work.

Trust me, you NEED to have all of the entries for all of the forces in one book. The amount of times i've had to flick through the books to find a combo that is horrific against certain Warcaster armies (WM is basically a CCG in miniature form), yet will fall flat on its face against others.

Same goes for the background. If PP were to split up their books then you would dismiss all of the ones you "have no interest in" and would never know such snippets like Haley and Deneghra (who are Warcasters for two different factions) being twin sisters.

Seperete codexes work for GW, as they seem to have no wish to have an actively extending timeline like PP does (so expansion books make perfect sense). were they to do so, then it would make more sense as we see the armies "evolve" over time with new troop types gotten over points in history.

Adra
07-09-2008, 12:00
makes it harder to impliment an update. silly idea.

Templar Ben
07-09-2008, 12:40
How is that Adra?

Adra
07-09-2008, 12:49
If you have a problem with one armies rules...IG for example....and they need an update you would have to reprint and re-release the entire book with all the other armies unchanged. Situations where one army has been messed up do happen and it wouldnt be economicaly viable, for the company or the consumer, to bring out a new book every time one army needs an update.

Sidstyler
07-09-2008, 12:51
WM is basically a CCG in miniature form

And that's what turns me off more than anything. People tried to pressure me into doing WM at the store (it's more popular there than 40k is) and I would've shot them if I had actually gone through with it. I hate card games. I hate the attitude the players have (at an event my brother was actually asked if he wanted to give the guy a win instead of "go through the motions" since he would lose anyway). I hate how the guy with the most money and eBayed cards wins. And I REALLY hate how a deck will only be legal for so long, they practically force you to continuously buy cards, whereas in Warhammer you can build an army and use it for years, probably for life barring any ridiculous changes (RIP Squats).

If I keep hearing people compare it to a CCG then I'll keep staying away from it. I don't ever want to join that crowd again.

Master Stark
07-09-2008, 13:01
If you have a problem with one armies rules...IG for example....and they need an update you would have to reprint and re-release the entire book with all the other armies unchanged.

Which could be a problem, I'll agree.

Except that according to GW, GW publications are flawless, and final.

They don't 'do' updates, and they don't 'do' FAQs.

Templar Ben
07-09-2008, 13:45
If you have a problem with one armies rules...IG for example....and they need an update you would have to reprint and re-release the entire book with all the other armies unchanged. Situations where one army has been messed up do happen and it wouldnt be economicaly viable, for the company or the consumer, to bring out a new book every time one army needs an update.

But since they are being balanced at the same time that would be less likely to occur. We have armies in GW that were not balanced for years and GW never updated them.

Perhaps I should explain why I see this as viable.

GW soft cover books cost more than other trade paperbacks of similar size. I don't know if it is because of GW's issues with their supply chain or due to the small print runs. Both of those are reduced with selling a higher volume. So going to fewer books used by more players you will have economies of scale which will have a downward effect on costs.

By having the books released as they are currently, there is a gap of years between the books which must be balanced. When the Dark Eldar Codex was released, GW didn't know what direction 4th or 5th edition were going to take. How can one presume that Codex is balanced against Space Marines or the new Orks when the armies are currently designed are not like they were a decade ago? Having fewer releases of the core armies means you will not see the wild divergence over the years.

Much has been made of GW's current model of using the fact that armies go for years before an update to build an interest in that army when it is released. Just because GW does this does not mean that it is the most viable method of building interest. In fact it is a case of putting all of your eggs in one basket but changing that basket every 3 months. Instead GW could focus on expansion releases which give changes to the armies slowly over time. Again it is easier to balance this because you could give a handful of Fast Attack to 3-5 armies and cost them according to the baseline already established (I agree that it is foolish to think that GW would develop a formula for assigning point values).

Please explain why this would not work and why they should stay with the current model.

self biased
07-09-2008, 16:00
even then, one could still do a complete overhaul of the range and still make a big deal out of it, thus having the best of both worlds.


If you have a problem with one armies rules...IG for example....and they need an update you would have to reprint and re-release the entire book with all the other armies unchanged. Situations where one army has been messed up do happen and it wouldnt be economicaly viable, for the company or the consumer, to bring out a new book every time one army needs an update.

i think you're missing a vital point: Emperor forbid that an entire army get released with some sort of glaring flaw that makes it broken in any particular sense. that would be what the Chapter Approved articles would be for. they'd be published in white dwarf, likely published in .pdf format online, and in the annual book, for those of us that like to be complete. if you have even a modest size group, all one person has to do is buy the thing each year and photocopy relevant pages for each player.

GW is a miniatures company. having fewer books and an actual allying system would sell more models. as an example, say i have a sizable dark eldar army, say about three thousand points. i'm getting a little bored with things, but what's this? i can buy some exodite dragon riders and a few other things from that list. eh, why not? the models are cool. fifteen hudred points of exodites later, it could snowball into other army lists from there.

Adra
07-09-2008, 16:49
So wait. Your argument is that each book would be balanced. Ok fine Ill take that. What about balance between books? Wouldnt that still happen as it does with current codecies? All your doing is creating possibly larger imbalance with even less ability to ammend due to the clumped together nature of the armies.

I love this idea of getting updates from online and wd. great. so my codex is going to look like a polyglot multch of scraps of paper? Plus I have to carry the thing about. Its gonna weigh a ton. i have no problem with reducing imbalance and chapter approved but sticking codecies together in the hope of assending the game to a new level of balance is just silly. the multi codex works fine, dont swap it for something with just as many issues and more.


GW is a miniatures company. having fewer books and an actual allying system would sell more models. as an example, say i have a sizable dark eldar army, say about three thousand points. i'm getting a little bored with things, but what's this? i can buy some exodite dragon riders and a few other things from that list. eh, why not? the models are cool. fifteen hudred points of exodites later, it could snowball into other army lists from there.

Perfectly executable with seperate codecies.



Please explain why this would not work and why they should stay with the current model.

Well it sounds very time consuming for a development team and im not sure you could keep quality controle over such a small period. i would prefer a well written codex than a crappy 2am last minute deadline PDF. Also it smells of the amiture.

Preston
07-09-2008, 16:50
And that's what turns me off more than anything. People tried to pressure me into doing WM at the store (it's more popular there than 40k is) and I would've shot them if I had actually gone through with it. I hate card games. I hate the attitude the players have (at an event my brother was actually asked if he wanted to give the guy a win instead of "go through the motions" since he would lose anyway). I hate how the guy with the most money and eBayed cards wins. And I REALLY hate how a deck will only be legal for so long, they practically force you to continuously buy cards, whereas in Warhammer you can build an army and use it for years, probably for life barring any ridiculous changes (RIP Squats).

If I keep hearing people compare it to a CCG then I'll keep staying away from it. I don't ever want to join that crowd again.]

I think you misunderstand "CCG in Miniature form"

WM/Hordes, to a certain extent, relies on forethought and planning out your moves ahead to set up combination's of effects, in this aspect it plays like a CCG in that many times it's not the effects of single cards that matter, but rather how your deck builds off of itself. WM/H armies are like this.

As far as everything else about Collectible games...well, not really. It's not about who has the most money or most uber cards, because there is no "I Win" rare, because it's not a collectible game.

Also PP has promised to never retire or make a model you own tourney illegal. So, unlike GW with characters like Cypher, Doom Rider, and probably a host of others whose names I don't know, if you buy a model today then 10 years from now you'll still be able to field it with rules for it.

And PP also viciously supports their product with errata and faq's. Again, unlike GW who lets their rulebooks languish, whether due to laziness or due to delusions of grandeur...well, the reason is irrelevant. The fact is they aren't very pro or even re-active when there are rule problems or imbalances in their product.

Number 24
07-09-2008, 17:09
even then, one could still do a complete overhaul of the range and still make a big deal out of it, thus having the best of both worlds...

...that would be what the Chapter Approved articles would be for. they'd be published in white dwarf, likely published in .pdf format online, and in the annual book, for those of us that like to be complete.

"Likely" published in PDF online? You're not very familiar with GW are you?

How is that the best of anything? As it stands now, if I want to play an IG army, I buy the rulebook and an IG codex. I buy each book only when those books are changed (new editions). So that's one rulebook every 4-5 years and one codex every 3-6 years. Now I buy a massive hardbound book that costs 4-5 times as much and there's no guarantee that it's up to date? I have to check to see if any annual Chapter Approved collections (or back issues of White Dwarf that haven't been collected yet) made changes to this massive and potentially useless book of mine?

As for armies getting left out of the editing process for new editions: Do you really think GW will get cracking on those Dark Eldar updates just because it's in the same book as the Eldar? Work is work, time is time and updates require both. It's not as if putting all of this info in one book magically makes it easier to write in less time with less effort. GW wrote a new SM codex instead of a new DE codex because they see it impacting their bottom line more. For the amount of work and time that goes into updating an army, they could make more money selling SM figures than DE figures.

If DE were in the same book as Eldar, then the Eldar section would get updated about as frequently as it is now and the DE section would get updated about as frequently as it is now. Why do you think this would change? It's not like GW can suddenly hire more writers and playtesters just because these armies are in one book now instead of two. It's not like less effort and time would be required to make those changes. Folding everything into one book doesn't alter the fabric of space and time.

No, what you'd really have is a book with a lot of outdated information in it for all armies. Then there'd be a series of Chapter Approved collections published every year that ultimately become more and more important each year as more and more of the original book gets outdated (and of course you'd have to have each one because the latest edition doesn't contain the articles from the previous edition). The DE would still never see an update and the SM would still get updated almost annually. The "codex" volumes would be updated too so if you wanted to spend full price to buy the whole thing over again, you could save yourself having a bag full of books every time you go play. Oh, and there'd be some vital piece of information about a few armies buried in a back issue of White Dwarf too, something that hasn't yet made it into a collected Chapter Approved volume but is still too good not to use and less than half of all the players would know about it.

Yeah, that's the best of both worlds alright. Let's buy three times as many books, all subscribe to WD (or carry around a binder of copies made by friends) and most of the players will have different versions of the same army because there's no way in hell everybody will be capable of staying on the same page with this much crap to keep track of.

And how does this effect allying exactly? GW could just as easily put rules for allies in the existing codices. In fact, looking at my WH codex right now, there are rules for allying. The existence or lack of allying rules has nothing at all to do with the format for publishing codices. It's a design decision made by GW and they can publish it any way they choose. Not putting allying rules in the newer codices has nothing to do with the books being published separately. It's a deliberate decision made by the 40k designers. I'm not a fan of that choice either, but putting everything in one book won't change it.

What it all boils down to is this: You want GW to make collecting everything cheaper "for those of use that like to be complete". Most players don't collect every single damn thing and they like buying $22-$25 codices one at a time for the armies they play or are interested in. Revisions to each army are easier to handle this way too which works out better for everyone (because not all of us subscribe to WD and not all of us want to have to keep track of which article was published which month that suddenly makes my army list obsolete).

You're spending more money than average on 40k and you want GW to change their business plan to suit you better at the expense of players who; A) don't want to own every single codex and, B) don't want to buy an updated appendix every year and, C) don't want to download new rules from the website every week and, D) don't want to religiously follow every WD issue or constantly check the website FAQs to keep track of who can do what.

And for God's sake man, stop writing everything in italics. If you want to make your text "look cooler" learn to capitalize properly.

Temprus
07-09-2008, 17:20
If you have a problem with one armies rules...IG for example....and they need an update you would have to reprint and re-release the entire book with all the other armies unchanged. Situations where one army has been messed up do happen and it wouldnt be economicaly viable, for the company or the consumer, to bring out a new book every time one army needs an update.
I agree with your point, but has GW ever updated an army that had messed up rules in a timely fashion?

Adra
07-09-2008, 17:30
I agree with your point, but has GW ever updated an army that had messed up rules in a timely fashion?

I se your point and im not saying GW update in a reasonable way now, but the big book idea would just create even less incentive to update. Maybe GW will one day update in a timely fashion, who knows, but i dont want to throw road blocks in their way to make the chance of that more unlikely.

max the dog
07-09-2008, 17:30
Actually I'd love it even more if GW made all the codex's a living document by posting them online. What they'd loose in book sales they'd probably make up for in figure sales from people making second and third armies. Right now only hardcore 40K gamers have multiple armies but if the price to start one was a couple boxes of mini's and a free download I'm sure the casual gamer would also collect 2 or 3 "second armies".

Templar Ben
07-09-2008, 18:16
So wait. Your argument is that each book would be balanced. Ok fine Ill take that. What about balance between books? Wouldnt that still happen as it does with current codecies? All your doing is creating possibly larger imbalance with even less ability to ammend due to the clumped together nature of the armies.

I would presume those books would be made available as quickly as possible. Much like how Wizards doesn't make you wait years between the PHB and the Monster Manual.

A FAQ could be issued immediately if there is an error that needs correcting. Dating and numbering the FAQ would prevent issues of who's takes precedence if there is a conflict.


I love this idea of getting updates from online and wd. great. so my codex is going to look like a polyglot multch of scraps of paper? Plus I have to carry the thing about. Its gonna weigh a ton. i have no problem with reducing imbalance and chapter approved but sticking codecies together in the hope of assending the game to a new level of balance is just silly. the multi codex works fine, dont swap it for something with just as many issues and more.

Your army book will look however you wish for it to. Prime Remix is rather lightweight so I don't see there being an issue. If you think that people are unable to carry it then there could be a viable alternative for GW to offer a download barebones list of a few pages with all of the information you need. Much like the one in the back of the 5th edition rulebook but with point values and ...well... correct.

I don't follow why this causes more issues.


Perfectly executable with seperate codecies.

Could be but won't be. It makes sense to say this book is stand alone instead of saying these 7 can work together. That is more true when one of the seven may be updated 2-3 times before others and the values are then wildly different.


Well it sounds very time consuming for a development team and im not sure you could keep quality controle over such a small period. i would prefer a well written codex than a crappy 2am last minute deadline PDF. Also it smells of the amiture.

Are you honestly suggesting they have quality control programs in place now? If I were them I would put the rules online first and let people point out all of their errors so that when they are printed they will be corrected. A simple webform where you can submit questions would help them see where the confusion lies.


]I think you misunderstand "CCG in Miniature form"

WM/Hordes, to a certain extent, relies on forethought and planning out your moves ahead to set up combination's of effects, in this aspect it plays like a CCG in that many times it's not the effects of single cards that matter, but rather how your deck builds off of itself. WM/H armies are like this.

As far as everything else about Collectible games...well, not really. It's not about who has the most money or most uber cards, because there is no "I Win" rare, because it's not a collectible game.

Also PP has promised to never retire or make a model you own tourney illegal. So, unlike GW with characters like Cypher, Doom Rider, and probably a host of others whose names I don't know, if you buy a model today then 10 years from now you'll still be able to field it with rules for it.

It is hard to compare the systems as WM is made for a different market.


"Likely" published in PDF online? You're not very familiar with GW are you?

So your argument is, "GW can't change this part of their obsolete model because it would mean they should change that part of their obsolet model"?


How is that the best of anything? As it stands now, if I want to play an IG army, I buy the rulebook and an IG codex. I buy each book only when those books are changed (new editions). So that's one rulebook every 4-5 years and one codex every 3-6 years. Now I buy a massive hardbound book that costs 4-5 times as much and there's no guarantee that it's up to date? I have to check to see if any annual Chapter Approved collections (or back issues of White Dwarf that haven't been collected yet) made changes to this massive and potentially useless book of mine?

They wouldn't need to make anything obsolete. They can give more options but just like adding new units in IA Volumes doesn't make anything else obsolete, nothing they add through the years will make the others obsolete. You also state that this book will cost 4-5 times as much even though it has been demonstrated that other companies make better books for far less. Sounds like you know you have little merit in your argument since you have to create strawmen.


As for armies getting left out of the editing process for new editions: Do you really think GW will get cracking on those Dark Eldar updates just because it's in the same book as the Eldar? Work is work, time is time and updates require both. It's not as if putting all of this info in one book magically makes it easier to write in less time with less effort. GW wrote a new SM codex instead of a new DE codex because they see it impacting their bottom line more. For the amount of work and time that goes into updating an army, they could make more money selling SM figures than DE figures.

One would hope that the army books would be fairly static. If GW chose to update Eldar then there is no reason for them to not also update Dark Eldar, Exodite Eldar, Pirate Eldar, etc. at the same time. Currently updates are only done with the release of miniatures because the update is the only marketing for the release. There is nothing to say that they would need to reissue the book and only update part. Again, swing and miss.


If DE were in the same book as Eldar, then the Eldar section would get updated about as frequently as it is now and the DE section would get updated about as frequently as it is now. Why do you think this would change? It's not like GW can suddenly hire more writers and playtesters just because these armies are in one book now instead of two. It's not like less effort and time would be required to make those changes. Folding everything into one book doesn't alter the fabric of space and time.

Again, you are thinking that GW would update everything if they could. They can now. They don't because the update is simply the way of marketing the miniatures which is completely different.


No, what you'd really have is a book with a lot of outdated information in it for all armies. Then there'd be a series of Chapter Approved collections published every year that ultimately become more and more important each year as more and more of the original book gets outdated (and of course you'd have to have each one because the latest edition doesn't contain the articles from the previous edition). The DE would still never see an update and the SM would still get updated almost annually. The "codex" volumes would be updated too so if you wanted to spend full price to buy the whole thing over again, you could save yourself having a bag full of books every time you go play. Oh, and there'd be some vital piece of information about a few armies buried in a back issue of White Dwarf too, something that hasn't yet made it into a collected Chapter Approved volume but is still too good not to use and less than half of all the players would know about it.

Nothing gets outdated. If GW released a Chapter Approved for Zealots for your IG army it does not invalidate your Infantry Squads, conscript Platoon, or tanks. It simply means that there is a new option. If you choose to keep the static army list then that is fine as well.

If you are saying that GW is incapable of adding a unit without that unit being over or undercosted for its abilities then that is a separate issue.


Yeah, that's the best of both worlds alright. Let's buy three times as many books, all subscribe to WD (or carry around a binder of copies made by friends) and most of the players will have different versions of the same army because there's no way in hell everybody will be capable of staying on the same page with this much crap to keep track of.

If only there was some way for a company to get information to people around the world instantly.


And how does this effect allying exactly? GW could just as easily put rules for allies in the existing codices. In fact, looking at my WH codex right now, there are rules for allying. The existence or lack of allying rules has nothing at all to do with the format for publishing codices. It's a design decision made by GW and they can publish it any way they choose. Not putting allying rules in the newer codices has nothing to do with the books being published separately. It's a deliberate decision made by the 40k designers. I'm not a fan of that choice either, but putting everything in one book won't change it.

I agree that they could but won't. The best reason for not doing it is what you see now. I will play Space Marines but my Drop Pods are from allied Black Templar because they cost less. My jump troops are actually Blood Angels so they are troops. The problem is with the way they dribble out codexes without a clear plan for where they want to be in 2 years.

Putting everything in one books means that things will not change piecemeal.


What it all boils down to is this: You want GW to make collecting everything cheaper "for those of use that like to be complete". Most players don't collect every single damn thing and they like buying $22-$25 codices one at a time for the armies they play or are interested in. Revisions to each army are easier to handle this way too which works out better for everyone (because not all of us subscribe to WD and not all of us want to have to keep track of which article was published which month that suddenly makes my army list obsolete).

Revisions for an army may be easier but it guarantees that there will not be parity at any point. I would rather buy a $25 army book that covered 4 armies than a $25 army book that covered 1. I am silly that way.


You're spending more money than average on 40k and you want GW to change their business plan to suit you better at the expense of players who; A) don't want to own every single codex and, B) don't want to buy an updated appendix every year and, C) don't want to download new rules from the website every week and, D) don't want to religiously follow every WD issue or constantly check the website FAQs to keep track of who can do what.

We don't know what the average spend is. Again what that same tired strawman of your army not working any longer. If the other companies are not doing that why would GW, even if GW has made armies obsolete in the past?

samiens
07-09-2008, 18:30
Ok, firstly why attack my credentials- for your information I have a law degree.. Secondly- this is a bit like an 'other GW' discussion topic- something I don't enter because I like to talk about toys on the internet and can find many professionals who are all too happy to discuss things like GW's performance- with a level of accuracy and skill I lack- they're not as bad as the forums would have you believe according to my friends in the city lol.

Anyway, personally i believe that this would be a disastrous business idea from discussions I've had with industry professionals- GW is the world's leading miniature wargames (you know what I mean lol) games brand and I think they do pretty well even now. The system they are using does lead to more balanced yearly sales- important in terms of cash flow. Now I've got to admit I'm in the UK where the pricing difference between GW and other brands is different to the US. Also, it would hamper manipulation of the release schedule to increase profit-yield- an ugly reality of the entertainment industry.

As for the system- Index Astartes wasn't too bad an idea- though it was largely poorly implemented and suffered from creating far too many factions- soemthing that effects balance. There is no reason to believe that if we just had 4 books the game would be more balanced- in fact with deadline pressure and the amount of content; chances are that there would be less balance.

I want the best possible 40k but for that I want GW to survive. Now lets not forget that GW hasn't always used race specific models for their sales pattern- it was a mess that certainly didn't drive sales as well as now. As for advertising- I used this as an umbrella term for everything from White Dwarf to shop layout. The largest period of growth came with race specific selling- its financially a better idea- now even in terms of impulse sales- having to have less varied in-store graphics saves money.

I don't want to get stuck in a financial discussion (this is leisure time!) so I'll leave it with this: I belive that this idea would be the death of some of the smaller races. Instead of having a month or two to themselves they would have to compete even more with heavy weights and the casual gamer who suddenly has money wouldn't be so seduced if he had to choose between new marines and new Sisters. With the lack of new entry sales when a new book comes out it would make sense for the company to ditch the less well performing races- something they have admirably avoided (Squats performed rather well lol)

Dooks Dizzo
07-09-2008, 19:01
Sorry no grand reply here, simply this: I love the idea.

I'd buy all the books just because I like 40K reading material.

Burning Star IV
07-09-2008, 19:23
my idea for these books does involve a certain amount of change to how armies are selected, but the apparent knee-jerk negative reaction has me scratching my head.

i honestly don't give seven rats asses if it tanks GW, so long as the quality of the game improves.


Have you considered the possibility that this isn't a knee-jerk reaction and that people may genuinely dislike your idea? Perhaps the reaction has a direct relationship with the quality of the idea, i.e. bad idea gets bad reaction...

I guess you're joking about that second part?

Templar Ben
07-09-2008, 21:21
Ok, firstly why attack my credentials- for your information I have a law degree.. Secondly- this is a bit like an 'other GW' discussion topic- something I don't enter because I like to talk about toys on the internet and can find many professionals who are all too happy to discuss things like GW's performance- with a level of accuracy and skill I lack- they're not as bad as the forums would have you believe according to my friends in the city lol.

If I attacked anything it was your business acumen and not your credentials. Well invite your friends in the city to come into other GW. I would love to hear how a micro cap that is unable to earn a return in line with its risk is not not doing that bad.


Anyway, personally i believe that this would be a disastrous business idea from discussions I've had with industry professionals- GW is the world's leading miniature wargames (you know what I mean lol) games brand and I think they do pretty well even now. The system they are using does lead to more balanced yearly sales- important in terms of cash flow. Now I've got to admit I'm in the UK where the pricing difference between GW and other brands is different to the US. Also, it would hamper manipulation of the release schedule to increase profit-yield- an ugly reality of the entertainment industry.

Interesting that you mention their cash flow. That is GW's greatest weakness and has been for years. They are able to function due to their heavy borrowing and not because of their model.


As for the system- Index Astartes wasn't too bad an idea- though it was largely poorly implemented and suffered from creating far too many factions- soemthing that effects balance. There is no reason to believe that if we just had 4 books the game would be more balanced- in fact with deadline pressure and the amount of content; chances are that there would be less balance.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on that point. I see no reason to think that releases spread out over 5 years will be balanced since GW doesn't have an overall plan for how they want the game to progress in that time.


I want the best possible 40k but for that I want GW to survive. Now lets not forget that GW hasn't always used race specific models for their sales pattern- it was a mess that certainly didn't drive sales as well as now. As for advertising- I used this as an umbrella term for everything from White Dwarf to shop layout. The largest period of growth came with race specific selling- its financially a better idea- now even in terms of impulse sales- having to have less varied in-store graphics saves money.

Their largest period of growth was the "LoTR bubble" as they have termed it. There are still options of having a rolling showcase but the rules do not have to serve as a marketing device.


I don't want to get stuck in a financial discussion (this is leisure time!) so I'll leave it with this: I belive that this idea would be the death of some of the smaller races. Instead of having a month or two to themselves they would have to compete even more with heavy weights and the casual gamer who suddenly has money wouldn't be so seduced if he had to choose between new marines and new Sisters. With the lack of new entry sales when a new book comes out it would make sense for the company to ditch the less well performing races- something they have admirably avoided (Squats performed rather well lol)

I don't follow this so perhaps you may wish to expound upon your statement. It sounds like you are saying that if they update everything at once they may decide some lines are not worthwhile. That is contrasted with the current business model of "supporting" those lines with no new models and no rules updates for several editions. We still don't know what will happen to Sisters for instance. Given that they are becoming more expensive we will have to see what happens.

Richter Kless
07-09-2008, 21:27
Actually, other then Prime original printing, I haven't had a single problem with my WM or Hordes books.

Those beautiful, full color, fluff filled books with an actual continuing story in them instead of rehashed generic background information, with decent layouts.

Of course, it could be because I don't have to refer back to my book every time I need to know a piddling detail about my army or my friends army - look at those useful cards the game uses for reference!

Honestly, I feel like I'm wasting money on a Codex. 20+ dollars for a poorly written, thin, badly edited, crap layout, black and white with a few color pages for modeling (to show you what you really need to be buying) book that may or may not make my army weaker and or stronger (on a unit by unit basis) ...

yeah, great option there. :P

Yeah, no bias here.:wtf:

grickherder
08-09-2008, 00:17
Yeah, no bias here.:wtf:

Bias or not, I can definitely see the advantages. Also after playing 4th ed D&D, I'm thinking more and more than I'm going to make reference cards with the rules text for every unit in my army. I'll have a small deck of cards in card sleeves colour coded to where the unit is in the force org.

I love the idea of a multi-army codex as well.

Adra
08-09-2008, 01:33
Well still no one has convinced me that its a better idea than the current system, just that its a different way of doing it. The grass is always greener so maybe the knee jerk reaction of loving this idea is just as a result of frustration and not logic. A healthy amount of cynasism is a good thing....especialy when people start talking D&D....

People complain about how crap the current crop of codecies are and yet GW spend a great deal of time on them and compared to other publications in the genre they seem really good. Imagine how long it would take for GW to develop rules for a number of armies, to a higher standard than they are done at the moment, and put everything together in one book. You cant ask for higher quality and faster development time. Well no you can, but hay i want a flying moose so....you guys can take a number. By the time they are happy with all of the armies they will be ready to just start over.

Askari
08-09-2008, 01:38
Why do you think not many people buy Imperial Armour volumes?
Exact same reason, they only have one model in that book who's rules they want, and don't really want to spend £40 on one set of rules.

Honestly, I dislike the idea totally.

And even as a Chaos player, I don't think they should get a book to cover Chaos Marines and Daemons where the Imperium has to fit Space Marines, Imperial Guard and the Inquisition in one.

Templar Ben
08-09-2008, 02:23
Why do you think not many people buy Imperial Armour volumes?
Exact same reason, they only have one model in that book who's rules they want, and don't really want to spend £40 on one set of rules.

Is that why? It is not due to the fact that they cost twice as much as the rule book? It is not due to the fact that they are not sold in GW stores? It is not due to the fact that people in the US must order them from the UK and pay shipping for a very heavy book?

That is just silly. You are comparing a very expensive coffee table book to what will be a rather inexpensive trade paperback.


Honestly, I dislike the idea totally.

I can tell by your use of hyperbole.


And even as a Chaos player, I don't think they should get a book to cover Chaos Marines and Daemons where the Imperium has to fit Space Marines, Imperial Guard and the Inquisition in one.

That is very magnanimous of you.


Well still no one has convinced me that its a better idea than the current system, just that its a different way of doing it. The grass is always greener so maybe the knee jerk reaction of loving this idea is just as a result of frustration and not logic. A healthy amount of cynasism is a good thing....especialy when people start talking D&D....

What could be done to convince you? Fewer books means less power creep. Fewer books means it is easier to balance. I don't view cynicism as good. Be skeptical if you wish but a cynic will not be convinced.


People complain about how crap the current crop of codecies are and yet GW spend a great deal of time on them and compared to other publications in the genre they seem really good. Imagine how long it would take for GW to develop rules for a number of armies, to a higher standard than they are done at the moment, and put everything together in one book. You cant ask for higher quality and faster development time. Well no you can, but hay i want a flying moose so....you guys can take a number. By the time they are happy with all of the armies they will be ready to just start over.

Actually the rules are not bad because they are rushed. They work just as the designers wish for them to. The problems with design currently is the rules must work with the models are they are being developed and they are being modified over time.

Look at other systems, it can be done. It would behoove GW for them to explore such an option. GW could actually contract a couple of Mathematics Grad Students over at Nottingham and have them devise a points formula. That would go a long way as far as balance.

Askari
08-09-2008, 02:34
Is that why? It is not due to the fact that they cost twice as much as the rule book? It is not due to the fact that they are not sold in GW stores? It is not due to the fact that people in the US must order them from the UK and pay shipping for a very heavy book?

That is just silly. You are comparing a very expensive coffee table book to what will be a rather inexpensive trade paperback.


It's what I hear on here. And the price was one of the reasons I mentioned no?

And they ARE sold in [at least one] GW store, I've seen them in GW Manchester. So my

use of hyperbole.
is as much as yours?

Templar Ben
08-09-2008, 02:38
So the fact that they are sold in one GW store that you are aware of means that a book that is over $100 is a comparison for $25 rulebook that would be available in all stores?

Look I get it, you think the idea is bad. Just say why it is bad without getting silly.

self biased
08-09-2008, 03:20
Actually the rules are not bad because they are rushed. They work just as the designers wish for them to. The problems with design currently is the rules must work with the models are they are being developed and they are being modified over time.

i'll actually go one step further than you: the GW design studio aren't professional game designers. i'd wager that there's not a single person outside of their accounting department that has any sort of degree relating to mathematics, which means that there's nobody to play theoryhammer. poo-poo it as you may the best place for it is in design, looking as to what is likely to happen.

the design studio is just like any other gaming group. they play with more house rules than they realize, and don't know what they've written as compared to the way it sounds in their heads. i won't provide an example, as there are far too many for me to chose from. while the daemon codex certainly was written with fifth edition in mind as likely may have been the Ork book, anyone who thinks that the Eldar Codex was written with fifth edition in mind should be laughed at. anyone who thinks this about the Dark Angel codex should be shot. the paradigm of each edition previous to this one has started off as one thing, and after it's gotten into the hands of the players, turned into something else. i don't know about you, but this is a trend i see continuing.

self biased
08-09-2008, 03:29
If only there was some way for a company to get information to people around the world instantly.

fixed. you forgot a vital set of tags.

Master Stark
08-09-2008, 09:10
the apparent knee-jerk negative reaction has me scratching my head.

:confused:

This is Warseer. New ideas, no matter how good, will always be treated with scorn and fear.


People around here almost automatically react unfavorably towards any new idea's as evidenced by about 90% of the threads on this forum.

True dat.


Have you considered the possibility that this isn't a knee-jerk reaction and that people may genuinely dislike your idea? Perhaps the reaction has a direct relationship with the quality of the idea, i.e. bad idea gets bad reaction.

Absolutely true. Unfortunately, as stated above, this is Warseer. No one likes new ideas, no matter how good they are.

The problem here is that many people have canned this idea, but no one has provided any coherent reasons as to why. So all that can be surmised is that the standard Warseer knee-jerk reaction is in play.

grickherder
08-09-2008, 10:20
A healthy amount of cynasism is a good thing....especialy when people start talking D&D....

Have you played the latest edition? It is an amazing achievement in game balance and directed design. The combat system in isolation is a fantastic miniature game in of itself. GW's current games aren't half as well designed and balanced as 4th edition D&D.



Imagine how long it would take for GW to develop rules for a number of armies, to a higher standard than they are done at the moment, and put everything together in one book.

Other companies do it. Let's stick with D&D again. There are countless different character class and race combinations, power choices, feats, multiclass feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, magic items, etc., etc., and then there are almost 500 different monsters in the latest monster manual. You take a tenth of what the party needs to get to their next average level and you spend it like a points system on the monsters (each costing their XP value) and you get a balanced encounter.

And the sheer amount of content and design work that WotC puts out. GW comes out with what? 30 pages of rules and a bunch of rehashed fluff as single books a few times a year? That sucks.

GW needs to take a page from Wizards of the Coast's playbook. While GW is struggling to make ends meet, taking out debt to cover operating expenses, WotC is breaking sales records, selling out of products in preorder, having a huge organized play organization that runs a living worldwide campaign all year long, and is sucking in miniature gamers because of how strong the miniature combat side of the new rules system is. All while producing high end books of great production value in hard cover.

GW could learn a lot from the D&D 4th edition design team.

Ronin_eX
08-09-2008, 10:26
Meh, people are afraid of changes. Especially ones that could go and improve things it seems. I've wanted to see things released in volumes like this for a while simply because the way they do it now has us getting the game piecemeal and because GW can't seem to keep track of balance for more than 6 months at a time there are massive differences between lists made more than half a year apart (or less sometimes).

The upsides to the big book is that they can cut down on price because it wont simply be a single book sold to a single customer who plays a certain army. Because more people will buy each book they can cut down on the price comparatively due to the higher sales volume (i.e. Guard, Marine, Inquisitor, AdMech, Sororitas players will all buy the same codex). It also means they can consolidate what they need to print into larger volumes. This means they need to print out less distinct books (which will likely cut down on a lot of overhead) but because you get price cuts on larger books further savings can be seen because each book will be printed at a better cost compared to the smaller books they currently print.

So on that alone it is cheaper.

As for what players get we get more background material all in one place, there is a better chance of niche armies getting support simply because they don't need to find a big reason to include a couple of niche units in a book that already contains full on armies. If they wanted to include some AdMech troops in the Imperial Volume they wouldn't need to go to the trouble of making an AdMech book to stand alone, they'd need only make a new small section for some Imperial agents and add in the stats. In short because they don't need to make everything in a given range stand alone they can be a little more adventurous with list options and allies.

It will also consolidate releases much better because instead of possibly having to wait several years for you list to come around you get released in a lump along with several others. No longer will you need to wait for 5 marine codices to push your release back since they will all be included in the Imperial volume. So a little development time would be added (but because it is all in one large book you cut out a lot of overhead needed when simultaneously trying to design multiple books like they do now) but overall release rates could increase as armies are released in groups instead of one at a time.

Further more it allows you to get a look at enemy stats without needing to buy a whole swathe of books. Many do this already so this would simply make the acquisition easier as well as cheaper (at least if you plan on getting all the codices for research purposes).

That said I also think the idea about bring back Chapter Approved in WD, yearly compendium and online source is a great idea (thus insuring GW will never do it of course ;)). You don't always need to lug everything around with you so simply bringing a printout of your FAQ and maybe one of the compendiums because you want to try out a special scenario in it isn't going to break your back.

Though personally I would go even further. I would put all four books online and turn 40k into a living rulebook game. Most game companies sell their books as a loss leader anyways (kind of like how consoles work early on; they lose money on the main unit but make huge profits in game sales) relying on mini sales to make them money. So what is the point of this? If minis are the main profit margin then why force people to pick up close to $100 in books just to play. With that $100 people could buy your minis and you'd actually make a profit off of that customer. Sure print out some books anyways because not everyone has access to a computer/print shop but with free rules online you suddenly make the game much more accessible to people.

Hell they could even to what Urban Mammoth do and charge a small fee for electronic copies if you want (likely more profit margin in that than in selling the books themselves) and maybe even run it as print on demand (i.e. buy the pdf and then for an extra fee GW can print and send off a hardcopy to you).

Really any company that isn't taking notice of the internet as a great tool nowadays is going to be feeling it later. Things like e-books and Print on Demand services could really cut down on the entry price into GW games (which is uniformly higher than almost any other game on the market on book costs alone) which I think is one of the reasons they've been seeing profit decreases lately. Unless they shift over to making skirmish games again (becoming popular because of low startup costs) they need a way of making entry easier for new players and cutting out the required $80-$100 in books would be a step in the right direction me-thinks.

But I have no doubt that most people will never want things to change, and I can feel for them. I play 2nd edition and looking at what happened in following editions I would have preferred less of a change but when it comes down to it the hulking monstrosity that is GW need to start thinking about some real changes to how they present and market their game because their current system is starting to show its age. The individual armybook is falling out of favour for most companies because you doom each book to being a niche within a niche, consolidating things in to less books is more cost effective and will often end up giving more bang for the customer's buck while allowing things to be balanced more easily due to the concurrency of releases. Times change and I think GW need to pull their heads out of their, err, "GW hobby" and look at what is happening in the market around them before they are passed by.

Eulenspiegel
08-09-2008, 10:26
I hate it how eveybody who doesnt like the idea of big multi-codexes is being pushed into the GW-Fanboi corner.

So an idea was being proposed, it was posted on the internet to get feedback. The feedback was not aggressive or flaming, but mostly negative.
So what?
Perhaps the idea wasn´t that good after all?


GW does many things right. That´s why they have us junkies hooked, and why they earn so much money.
That´s also why radical ideas don´t get much good feedback!

GW has the fundamentals right. I think separate Codexes for each army are a great idea. Where GW f*cks up is the detail: balancing, FAQs, admitting to errors in the first place, ...

One big book wouldn´t change those problems at all. It would merely be a different way of doing it wrong.


/draw breath

Ich habe fertig.

grickherder
08-09-2008, 10:54
The individual armybook is falling out of favour for most companies because you doom each book to being a niche within a niche, consolidating things in to less books is more cost effective and will often end up giving more bang for the customer's buck while allowing things to be balanced more easily due to the concurrency of releases. Times change and I think GW need to pull their heads out of their, err, "GW hobby" and look at what is happening in the market around them before they are passed by.

Absolutely. The niche within a niche is a great way to put it. Given that each book they produce has costs in terms of design, layout, binding, etc., that make it more expensive than simply making a book larger, every army book, codex, etc., it costs them more just for the ability to sell it to less people.

GW really does need to take a look at what's happening around them. If they were smart, they'd drive a truckload of money up to Mike Mearls' house and ask him to do for 40k and WFB what he did for D&D. Or they should go after a designer from a really amazing video game company. And as for marketing, they should get out of the past and learn something from the companies that are out there in people's faces, at trade shows, giving massive amounts of interviews on podcasts and generally harnessing the opportunities new technology provides for communicating with existing and potential customers.

Another thing to remember though, is that codex development is delayed by model development. Under current company policies, even if the designers had another codex concurrently developed, the company wouldn't release it without having a splash of new plastic models to release at the same time. They think, for some weird reason, that their books aren't good enough to sell without the buzz of model releases as well. This is a big vote of "no confidence" in their own product-- that they're unwilling to release it to stand on it's own merit.

GW has gone with a "flavour of the month" marketing approach and have decided that certain ways of releasing rules and models are sacrosanct.

But we're expecting way, way too much from GW. We need to remember that this is a company that releases products that generate an immediate deluge of rules questions and demands for clarifications with every release and fails miserably to address them in any timely fashion. This is a company that releases a new edition of the game, promises FAQs to cover armies that were released 2 editions ago (!) and then fails to address basic thins like that book that lets people take first turn on a leadership test and how that interacts with basic things like scenario deployment and turn structure.

It was almost 10 years between Ork codexes! There are still many armies that have their rules written to be played under a set of rules that isn't even the last edition, but the one before that. How can you possibly have balance between codexes that are a combination of
1. designed for completely different editions of the game, including ones 2 editions old,
2. designed in the twilight of one edition while having to work in the upcoming edition, thus stradeling two different conditions of game play
3. admittedly designed by subjective "feel" of the game designers

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. GW has been rehashing armies and having massive amounts of time between releases and somehow that's going to produce balance when it never has before? That the flavour of the month marketting is going to produce sales when revenue has been so poor that they've had to cancel their dividend, borrow to cover basic operating expenses, close down stores and have massive staff layoffs?

samiens
08-09-2008, 11:46
Ok, firstly, not going to comment on fiscal elements- there are many ways to manage a company and its financial situation and so there will always be differing opinions. Plenty of wargames companies go out of business, GW hasn't and doesn't look like it will- which means we can all argue about toys and enjoy our free time!

Firstly, in the UK IA is sold in every store (or at least all the ones I've ever been in and I travel around a lot!) It doesn't sell because its too expensive, often has rules for yet more expensive resin models, isn't tournament legal (for most GW sanctioned events) and is basically asking people to buy a book for a few models for their race. If they were the only source of rules undoubtedly they would sell better- whether they would sell as well as codexes do now is a matter for debate.

As for Maths degrees- you don't need one to use probability matricies- I use them in non-professional game development all the time (Just done a transformers game which is awesome lol)- and I know that GW use matricies in their development. But its also important to realise (something that I think many forumers don't) that theory hammer is not the key to success. Sopund understanding of probabilities helps- but in a free-form environment it only gets you so far.

The crucial elements for me from a gaming point of view are size, ease of reference, ease of mobility (some players don't take to kindly to summary sheets and actually want to see the published rules- which I can totally understand due to the ungentlemanly nature of quite a lot of gamers), the fact that there is no reason to believe that they would be updated more often or be more balanced.

Size and so on is obvious- it takes longer to leaf through a bigger book! As for updates, consider that the days of compartmentalising development in IA articles leads to too many armies for balance to exist- which can be cross-referenced with the last Chaos codex! Secondly, it seems to work on the flase assumption that we would see updates more frequently for all armies- yet there is much talk of a more static game with more and more units added. The fact is that if they were to produce them at the same rate we would still see by all accounts an Imperium book about twice as often as the rest. From a utilitarian point of view it is better to sacrifice a smaller number of armies. It might also be harder to have focussed development which could lead to bizarre changes in direction mid-book (presumably they have to work on more races at a time- remember the quality difference between various 2nd ed space marines (and especially orks)- at least we have a more synthesised model range with similar rules.

Basically, however, I, and I think many of the other people on this thread, am opposed to this because it is predominantly a different way of doing things without being any better- plus change tends to create new problems. I do think there are ways of making the system better- I'm an advocate of living codexes, more mass consultation (they do consult a lot more than forums have you believe) and better long term strategy in order to improve the game. I would also move away from pure model driven development and have a more compromising approach.

In order to effect change you should show undoubted benefits and the general feeling on the thread is that this particular idea does not do so.

Askari
08-09-2008, 11:56
So the fact that they are sold in one GW store that you are aware of means that a book that is over $100 is a comparison for $25 rulebook that would be available in all stores?

Look I get it, you think the idea is bad. Just say why it is bad without getting silly.

Ah, I'm sorry, it was nearing 3am, getting a bit itchy at that time.

The thing is this is how I see the idea:

1. It won't be that cheap...Games Workshop would never sell the equivalent codexes of 4/5 armies for the price of one. Even if it only double that price, it means people who do not want the other rules are paying for them. Hence more disgruntled customers. But sure it's not a massive price-difference, but people won't be happy.

2. Codex creep would still happen, it's just it'll happen in batches of 4 armies instead of each one. It doesn't help those affected badly by it in any way.

3. More disgruntled people, when they hear on forums like this "They've finished the rules for Space Marines!!!!...... but you'll have to wait another year and a half while they start Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard, AdMech, Inquisition..."

So while all there will be [in my opinion] is disillusion, the idea isn't THAT vastly different from now, and there's no advantage that I can see, so why do it?

1 pence given.

Pyriel
08-09-2008, 12:52
Why doesn't anyone understand the true problem?

what everyone is saying is "we hate the codex creep".can i ask you something? why is every single new codex sickly imbalanced in comparison to the previous one?can't they "fix" armies instead of improving them?

4th space marines' tactical with veteran, frags and kraks costed 195 points with no special/heavy. now, with 5thed codex it costs 170.?!?!

shouldn't a 4th edition codex be EQUAL to a 5th edition one?why must a codex be an IMPROVEMENT to the army's competitiveness?can't it be a "fix"?

why must new IG have gazillion new rules(Heavy tank squadrons, platoon drill etc.)?caouldn't GW just fix the things that need fixing like advisors rule, lasgun problems(if they wanted to, they COULD find a way to fix it, not of discussion here) and tweak heavy weapon options?

shouldn't a new codex be a "massive errata"(on the problems that need fixing, both buff/nerf) instead of a "boost"? if it was this way, then codex creep shouldn't be such an issue...

Templar Ben
08-09-2008, 16:01
I hate it how eveybody who doesnt like the idea of big multi-codexes is being pushed into the GW-Fanboi corner.

So an idea was being proposed, it was posted on the internet to get feedback. The feedback was not aggressive or flaming, but mostly negative.
So what?
Perhaps the idea wasn´t that good after all?


GW does many things right. That´s why they have us junkies hooked, and why they earn so much money.
That´s also why radical ideas don´t get much good feedback!

GW has the fundamentals right. I think separate Codexes for each army are a great idea. Where GW f*cks up is the detail: balancing, FAQs, admitting to errors in the first place, ...

One big book wouldn´t change those problems at all. It would merely be a different way of doing it wrong.


/draw breath

Ich habe fertig.

It was not my intention to say that anyone for or against the idea it pro or anti GW. I think the idea has some merit but for those that don't, I am trying to see where the cons are other than "it is different".


Ok, firstly, not going to comment on fiscal elements- there are many ways to manage a company and its financial situation and so there will always be differing opinions. Plenty of wargames companies go out of business, GW hasn't and doesn't look like it will- which means we can all argue about toys and enjoy our free time!

Firstly, in the UK IA is sold in every store (or at least all the ones I've ever been in and I travel around a lot!) It doesn't sell because its too expensive, often has rules for yet more expensive resin models, isn't tournament legal (for most GW sanctioned events) and is basically asking people to buy a book for a few models for their race. If they were the only source of rules undoubtedly they would sell better- whether they would sell as well as codexes do now is a matter for debate.

There are two things there. First, why would this book cost anywhere near the cost of a Forge World book? PP sells 200+ page full color books for $35. GW could do the same. Actually, GW SHOULD do the same. I am glad that you agree that the IA books are for a different market with a different pricing structure so it is not a truly valid comparison.


As for Maths degrees- you don't need one to use probability matricies- I use them in non-professional game development all the time (Just done a transformers game which is awesome lol)- and I know that GW use matricies in their development. But its also important to realise (something that I think many forumers don't) that theory hammer is not the key to success. Sopund understanding of probabilities helps- but in a free-form environment it only gets you so far.

A solid understanding of game design is what is needed. Look at Alessio. They took a guy that won a lot of games and told him to design some. That is like me grabbing some good race car driver and saying "Design me a car." Sure he may understand some of the issues involved and he can tell you how the car "feels" but I would rather have an engineer when we are talking about metal stress and crumple zones.


The crucial elements for me from a gaming point of view are size, ease of reference, ease of mobility (some players don't take to kindly to summary sheets and actually want to see the published rules- which I can totally understand due to the ungentlemanly nature of quite a lot of gamers), the fact that there is no reason to believe that they would be updated more often or be more balanced.

Well one could carry Prime Remix so you could just as easily as a different rulebook so I don't see that as an issue. If you don't want a summary sheet then carry the book. If you don't want to carry the book then carry the summary sheet. If you don't want either then perhaps you are not able to be pleased.

Would you say that Orks, Daemons, and the upcoming Space Marines are balanced against each other? Natually 40K isn't balanced but just look at the armies that are released within about 9 months. That is where you will find balance. So going to 4 books means that you should see the same level of balance.


Size and so on is obvious- it takes longer to leaf through a bigger book! As for updates, consider that the days of compartmentalising development in IA articles leads to too many armies for balance to exist- which can be cross-referenced with the last Chaos codex! Secondly, it seems to work on the flase assumption that we would see updates more frequently for all armies- yet there is much talk of a more static game with more and more units added. The fact is that if they were to produce them at the same rate we would still see by all accounts an Imperium book about twice as often as the rest. From a utilitarian point of view it is better to sacrifice a smaller number of armies. It might also be harder to have focussed development which could lead to bizarre changes in direction mid-book (presumably they have to work on more races at a time- remember the quality difference between various 2nd ed space marines (and especially orks)- at least we have a more synthesised model range with similar rules.

I am not sure why you are going through your book that much during a game. If the book is well organized, it won't take long at all. Tons of fluff up front and then the last 10 pages have the army specific rules and the unit stats. If you can't get through 10 pages then the current Codex must kill you.

Working on IG, Inquisition, Ad Mech, Space Marine, Imperial Navy, and Arbites at the same time will be faster and allow for balance.


Basically, however, I, and I think many of the other people on this thread, am opposed to this because it is predominantly a different way of doing things without being any better- plus change tends to create new problems. I do think there are ways of making the system better- I'm an advocate of living codexes, more mass consultation (they do consult a lot more than forums have you believe) and better long term strategy in order to improve the game. I would also move away from pure model driven development and have a more compromising approach.

In order to effect change you should show undoubted benefits and the general feeling on the thread is that this particular idea does not do so.

As far as consultation, I would be happy if they just had a feedback card in each of the boxes so they could have a CLUE about who is buying their product. Right now the only view they have of customers are those that attend GW sponsored events. That does give them an interesting view.


Ah, I'm sorry, it was nearing 3am, getting a bit itchy at that time.

The thing is this is how I see the idea:

1. It won't be that cheap...Games Workshop would never sell the equivalent codexes of 4/5 armies for the price of one. Even if it only double that price, it means people who do not want the other rules are paying for them. Hence more disgruntled customers. But sure it's not a massive price-difference, but people won't be happy.

Well Space Marine will be $30 soon in the US. A combined codex at $35 would still sell well and would be used by a large portion of the gamers. I am sure someone will say, "If they had just dropped X then they could have sold it for $30" but that will be expected. The books are a barrier to entry so make them worth more in the eyes of the buyer.


2. Codex creep would still happen, it's just it'll happen in batches of 4 armies instead of each one. It doesn't help those affected badly by it in any way.

Codex creep would not need to happen. It happens now because of the change in design philosophy.


3. More disgruntled people, when they hear on forums like this "They've finished the rules for Space Marines!!!!...... but you'll have to wait another year and a half while they start Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard, AdMech, Inquisition..."

One would hope that design would be concurrent.


So while all there will be [in my opinion] is disillusion, the idea isn't THAT vastly different from now, and there's no advantage that I can see, so why do it?

1 pence given.

Well, it will keep the sales focus on miniatures. It will allow the rules to be rules and not marketing for new miniatures (which serves to ensure some units get a boost and others are nerfed).

ChrisMurray
08-09-2008, 16:31
I don't think the idea is a totally bad idea, but there are problems with it. One main one would be the amount of time it would take for them to develope the book. Say it was two years to develope one of these super codex's that's 2 years with no release's and then another 2 years whilst you wait for the next book. If there's 4 books your looking at from start time of developing 8 years till they're all released and then about 8 years between each updated codex release, plus trying to fit in developing the overal rules with new editions.

samiens
08-09-2008, 23:55
Hmm, the racing car analogy is interesting because the truth is that there is driver input, plenty of it, but it is true that I would rather have an engineer dealing with these things. However, making a wargame is not the same as designing a car- real world application of statistics based around 6 equally probable outcomes and the multitude of variables in a race car are somewhat different. I actually think the game should be created by excellent players with a sound understanding of probabilities-the difference is that I do need to know all about the engineering process with a car- from how welding works upwards- I think everyone will agree that its a bit more complicated than making a tabletop wargame- if it weren't a game developer would have to understand the casting process- something he clearly does not.

Now here's an interesting point- would I say that Orks, Daemons and Space marines are balanced? Well, I've got an (unpainted oops) Ork army, playtested daemons a lot before turning them down because I found the playstyle uninteresting and I've worked a little with the marine book, but obviously don't have it yet so theres a bit of guesswork there.

Firstly, daemons and Orks are balanced at a competitive build level. Now there's only point in discussing similarly powerful builds against each other- part of the skill of the game is in the army list building. So at tournament standard (tournamants without soft scores like most UK GW tournaments) I do think that the lists are even in 5th (in 4th too, but that's the past now). Daemons undoubtedly have some of the best assault units in the game, which would be disproportionately powerful (bloodcrushers) without their deployment rules- they're still amazing (every 2 is like a mini daemon prince) but tactics must be evolved to get them safely into combat even with their toughness. This is rather the theme of daemon list and a challenge I combatted at a high level by developing overload tactics (i.e. dropping tons of bloodcrushers, daemon princes etc and letting them take a turn of fire and then smash a big hole in the enemy whikle the rest of the army drops a little more conservatively) These were extremely successful when used right- but there is a certain amount of daring in them. Daemons are not the best objective holders- a plague bearer is statistically a t5 space marine against basic weapons, so is hardly unkillable.

Orks on the other hand have perhaps a couple more competitive build types- but I would still plump for large basic units and using attrition to win the game. Clever tactics can easily negate this though- as Orks are only effective holders while they have numbers- and if you slow down to pick up cover your opponent has the advantageof added time. That's for opponents who can't murder orks in cc- and there are plenty of those. so Ork tactics are very different, though they still work well with an overload- just a much later one.

I've played games between 2 good lists and they've been even- I'd go so far as to say balanced- the best execution of army specific tactics combined with the best reaction to enemy tactics tended to carry the day.

new marines are different- yes, tactical squads are cheaper, but they won't infiltrate en masse, produce the small las-plas squads that are allegedly so effective, gain LD 10 because a Captain is on the field or be able to take bolt pistols and close combat weapons or a second special weapon. (Yes I know, to get those you may have to give up allies, or even worse not take the librarian you had no intention of taking) To compare the prices of something in isolation is a worthless endeavour when its the combination of tricks that is effective. This one of the areas in which theory hammer falls down- in fact I dare say that GW has suffered criticism because of theory hammer in isolation- 2 lash princes anyone? Theory hammer across the whole range of possibilities still isn't going to produe balance- playing lots of games is just as likely too- think of it as using a wind tunnel.

Now, its true, I have tended to deconstruct this idea as I see it as unnecessary and ineffective. For the change it should be a more effective system than the current one- if only for the costs of changing. Furthermore, it seems to be underpinned on some theories that I see as wrong:

firstly: that pricing structure would change to make it viable. The truth is taht whatever anyone lese charges, GW is up and running and is unlikely to have a complete rethink on pricing. Should there be a rethink- maybe there should but it isnt a likely point. Other companies run different businesses so its not necessarily a sensible comparison, in the absence of which we should go with what we know.

secondly: updates will be faster. This is IMO a nonsense as it takes longer to games test against a changing set of rules for other races than a fixed one. Plus to do a thorough job every time something changes it needs to be tested against everything again- with the likelihood of spiralling and longer development times being high.

Thirdly: updates will be more balanced. Similar to the reasoning above, trying to balance more plates in the air makes it less likely as you are balancing against a frame of reference that in a quarter of cases isn't fixed. You either need to do one at a time or all of them at the same time- and that would create too long a gap between releases to be viable- at least at the speeds they are currently capable of working at (and given the many proof problems publications we have now, I don't think working faster is that good an idea, we'll have marines with different toughnesses on every page!)

Fourthly: It would be cheaper for us. Well, maybe the book could be sold cheaper- but then they could reduce the prices of codexes- they most likely won't!

Fifthly: what will this achieve exactly? More rules in the same crowded place (yes good indexing would help-but I often leaf through books to check rules mid-battle hence why I rarely accidentally cheat- and its definately faster in a codex than the rulebook), more expensive books, less army releases, a mass reorganisation of working practice. Maybe some of this is ok, but I fail to see how it solves the following forum acknowledged issues:

Balance, waiting times for less popular armies, a better game

Here's my solution: Every codex is put on the internet as a living document to be reviewed every 12 months with all codexes errata'd at the same time. Old codexes are fast-tracked by a small term hiring of extra development staff to get all the codexes updated with publish acknowledgement of this- it needn't be full codex alteration but a balancing exercise. When this is done you have a full frame of reference and can return to incidental updates with much better controlled errata. The game also stops being treated as a hobby by the designers to ensure balanced play and important clarifications get through- not some crazed chaos codex develpoer loving his own toys way too much! I might also seperate artistic direction (ie fluff) and game design into seperate studios and bring in some decent authors!

CaptainSenioris
09-09-2008, 01:16
I'd like to start by saying I despise posting in threads like these and I also despise posting in 'Other GW Discussion'. Which is where I feel this belongs as the same could be true of Fantasy, surely. This is due to the nature and style of post/er that frequents these threads and makes my blood, and clearly the blood of others, boil.

Well for the first time I'm actaully going to give my opinion.

In doing this book you would be asking the developement team to work on 4+ army lists simultaneously, whilst I understand that several units will be interchangeable (e.g. a SM tactical squad) between armies and thusly will cause less ambiguity, a good thing IMO, I still don't like the idea.

When the GW development team does a codex/army book, the writer/s have a passion for the army to which the codex is dedicated. This is something that they have said in interviews/seminars/general chat is important when writing the rules. In a multi army codex surely writers would have to contribute to the whole project rather than focus on anyone/thing?


In summary: I don't like the idea because I don't believe the developement team could do any of the armies justice as their individual talents and passions would be heavliy diluted.

Now, time to watch my post be quoted, disregarded and skipped over.

grickherder
09-09-2008, 01:26
In summary: I don't like the idea because I don't believe the developement team could do any of the armies justice as their individual talents and passions would be heavliy diluted.

They would need to also get designers that are sufficiently professional and up to the task. If the current design team can't work on 4 armies at once, something is wrong with them. Computer/video game designers aren't always passionate about whatever the next game they might be working on, but they get the job done anyway, often producing amazing games that obviously need to have a good handle on statistics, balance, etc.,. If miniature game designers aren't up to the same standard, then better people need to be hired.

CaptainSenioris
09-09-2008, 01:38
Whilst you are right the development team should be up to the task, I personally prefer the results in the concentrated and passionate form that we have at the moment.

The work of dispassionate games designers can have terrible end results as well, no matter what medium it is in.

Adra
09-09-2008, 01:58
Oh ive been classed as a GW Fanboi? Awesome!!!! Im so proud to be so poorly identified. Speak to any member of my local store and see how that label amuses them when applied to me.

I loved the comment about GW games developers not being professional games developers. not sure what thats supposed to mean. Is there a table top games development Masters Degree i missed? How much more professional do you want to be? They produce games and rules for a multi million pound company, you cant really call them small time. if anything they are leaders in their speciality.

This issue is predecated on the notion of codex creep and that a supercodex would solve this issue. Frankly codex creep is a fantasy notion and totaly impossible to prove. Its so easy to argue both ends of it you cant seriously use it as a reason to drasticly alter the structure of GW publications. Codex creep indeed...sounds more like new army hate cos they have shiny new things compared to my old army.

And my D&D comments where more to do with the fact that i loath D&D and GW cant, in my opinion, run far enough away from that system. All D&D has ever been good for is making GW players feel less like nerds.

Templar Ben
09-09-2008, 03:17
Hmm, the racing car analogy is interesting because the truth is that there is driver input, plenty of it, but it is true that I would rather have an engineer dealing with these things. However, making a wargame is not the same as designing a car- real world application of statistics based around 6 equally probable outcomes and the multitude of variables in a race car are somewhat different. I actually think the game should be created by excellent players with a sound understanding of probabilities-the difference is that I do need to know all about the engineering process with a car- from how welding works upwards- I think everyone will agree that its a bit more complicated than making a tabletop wargame- if it weren't a game developer would have to understand the casting process- something he clearly does not.

The game developer needs to understand game design. Otherwise it is like a driver tinkering in his garage. Do game designers need to get feedback from playtesting? Sure. Do game designers need to "road test" their designs? Naturally. Do drivers make good engineers? Rarely but there is nothing to say that a good engineer can't also be a driver. If GW wants to hire game designers that also play GW games then that would be great for them.

Sorry I wasn't following the part in the middle where you describe the armies so I will just let that part go.


firstly: that pricing structure would change to make it viable. The truth is taht whatever anyone lese charges, GW is up and running and is unlikely to have a complete rethink on pricing. Should there be a rethink- maybe there should but it isnt a likely point. Other companies run different businesses so its not necessarily a sensible comparison, in the absence of which we should go with what we know.

I was using the competitor pricing as there has been an assertion that a book of 200 pages must be in the same price range as Imperial Armor Volumes.


secondly: updates will be faster. This is IMO a nonsense as it takes longer to games test against a changing set of rules for other races than a fixed one. Plus to do a thorough job every time something changes it needs to be tested against everything again- with the likelihood of spiralling and longer development times being high.

Actually the development time should be shorter than developing them separately as they will go from unit to integrated testing faster. In a perfect world this would coincide with the release of 6th edition. Wizards has been brought up before. They balance far more in such a time frame but then they hire a different sort of game designer.


Thirdly: updates will be more balanced. Similar to the reasoning above, trying to balance more plates in the air makes it less likely as you are balancing against a frame of reference that in a quarter of cases isn't fixed. You either need to do one at a time or all of them at the same time- and that would create too long a gap between releases to be viable- at least at the speeds they are currently capable of working at (and given the many proof problems publications we have now, I don't think working faster is that good an idea, we'll have marines with different toughnesses on every page!)

GW hiring a decent technical writer not withstanding, it is far easier to balance multiple things at the same time then trying to do it piecemeal. It is just like an ERP implementation, doing one module at a time with a phased roll out is much harder than doing everything at once (naturally there are often other forces at work that require phased approach).


Fourthly: It would be cheaper for us. Well, maybe the book could be sold cheaper- but then they could reduce the prices of codexes- they most likely won't!

Look at it this way. GW currently sells 1 million of each of 4 codexes. With the new way GW will sell say 3 million of the combined codex. That is a higher volume giving GW economies of scale with printing and distribution not to mention reducing SKUs and shelf space.


Fifthly: what will this achieve exactly? More rules in the same crowded place (yes good indexing would help-but I often leaf through books to check rules mid-battle hence why I rarely accidentally cheat- and its definately faster in a codex than the rulebook), more expensive books, less army releases, a mass reorganisation of working practice. Maybe some of this is ok, but I fail to see how it solves the following forum acknowledged issues:

Balance, waiting times for less popular armies, a better game

As far as army release, that should be divorced from rule development as having rules as marketing is why they have so many of their current problems.

Balance as I said is easier when you have fewer releases. Testing is easier. Change management is easier. The chance of a shifting baseline is reduced.

Waiting time is reduced because I would expect to see these come out quickly. The purpose of such books is to get the rules in the hands of customers and not dragging them out until they can think of a new concept for Dark Eldar and then make models.

A better game would be a separate issue as we can discuss what should be included.


Here's my solution: Every codex is put on the internet as a living document to be reviewed every 12 months with all codexes errata'd at the same time. Old codexes are fast-tracked by a small term hiring of extra development staff to get all the codexes updated with publish acknowledgement of this- it needn't be full codex alteration but a balancing exercise. When this is done you have a full frame of reference and can return to incidental updates with much better controlled errata. The game also stops being treated as a hobby by the designers to ensure balanced play and important clarifications get through- not some crazed chaos codex develpoer loving his own toys way too much! I might also seperate artistic direction (ie fluff) and game design into seperate studios and bring in some decent authors!

There has been a lot of resistance to living rulebooks for the core games. I agree that most of the biggest problems have been games designers creating rules for their armies. You wouldn't want me coming up with the rules for IG or Black Templar.


Oh ive been classed as a GW Fanboi? Awesome!!!! Im so proud to be so poorly identified. Speak to any member of my local store and see how that label amuses them when applied to me.

I didn't class you that way but ... congrats?


I loved the comment about GW games developers not being professional games developers. not sure what thats supposed to mean. Is there a table top games development Masters Degree i missed? How much more professional do you want to be? They produce games and rules for a multi million pound company, you cant really call them small time. if anything they are leaders in their speciality.

Actually game design is a very advanced specialty.

You can get a Masters at Michigan State (http://www.seriousgames.msu.edu/), University of Southern Cal (http://interactive.usc.edu/), and Carnegie Melon (http://www.etc.cmu.edu/). That is the thing. People have a idea because back in the 70's some guys thought it up in their basement and it was a success that now anyone can do the same. That is no longer true in computers and if you are halfway professional that is not true in games.

Just because GW has designers doesn't mean they are great designers. They have won 2 awards at Origins in the last 5 years and both were for expansion of Warhammer Historicals. Compare that to Wizards, Wizkids, Steve Jackson games, Green Ronin, Fantasy Flight, and yes Privateer Press.


This issue is predecated on the notion of codex creep and that a supercodex would solve this issue. Frankly codex creep is a fantasy notion and totaly impossible to prove. Its so easy to argue both ends of it you cant seriously use it as a reason to drasticly alter the structure of GW publications. Codex creep indeed...sounds more like new army hate cos they have shiny new things compared to my old army.

If you are unable to see a power difference in Orks over IG or the new SM over DA then there is no point in us discussing that issue.


And my D&D comments where more to do with the fact that i loath D&D and GW cant, in my opinion, run far enough away from that system. All D&D has ever been good for is making GW players feel less like nerds.

Perhaps you should look at what Wizards has done over the past decade. Besides it could be a difference in US and UK with regards to D&D. Here a lot of cool people talk about playing it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo)

DeathsHead
09-09-2008, 03:44
There is an annoying degree of arrogance, cynicism and illogic in this thread, mostly on part of the "ITS IMPOSSIBLE" crowd.

Really, would it would rob the game designers of their 'passion' to simultaneously work on multiple armies, or to have different teams developing different armies at the same time? This seems like an awfully groundless statement. Personally, it's not hard for me to imagine myself getting really into designing multiple armies at once, because you could really get deep into the interactions between different units on opposing sides, as well as the armies as a whole. Designing rules for Space Marines and Chaos Marines at the same time, for example, seems... logical, doesn't it? Not to mention like a ton of fun!

The problem as it stands now with the 'single-codex' process is that each codex gets developed in a semi-vacuum, resulting almost inevitably in balance issues later on. It just doesn't make very much sense... and as far as it producing works that are more "passionate"... Come on, Dark Angels? Chaos Marines? Blood Angels?!?!? These books were not only received poorly in terms of their rules (which seem developed 'willy nilly') but because they were spirit-less and mediocre in their background content.

I think that overall, the concept of making larger books which are more 'faction' oriented makes a lot of sense, particularly for the "Forces of the Imperium" and the "Forces of Chaos". I can see the "Xenos" books being a little bit more complicated, as the forces in question aren't necessarily related in the same manner. Orks + Necrons? Orks + Tau?...

Anyway.... None of this really seems nearly as unfeasible as the nay-sayers are making it out to be. Perhaps there would be serious financial drawbacks to the scheme - I don't pretend to have much 'business' savvy. But from the perspective of game design, it's neither impossible nor unrealistic to expect a company as (generally) successful as Games Workshop to make their product into something as sophisticated and well-crafted as we would like. It seems that the real obstacle here is a lack of organization, a lack of motivation, a lack of dedication, or maybe just plain old lack of resources.

Occulto
09-09-2008, 04:40
I am not sure why you are going through your book that much during a game. If the book is well organized, it won't take long at all. Tons of fluff up front and then the last 10 pages have the army specific rules and the unit stats. If you can't get through 10 pages then the current Codex must kill you.

So customers would be paying for a much larger book, in order to use 10 pages with any regularity? :eyebrows:


I was using the competitor pricing as there has been an assertion that a book of 200 pages must be in the same price range as Imperial Armor Volumes.

It would probably be cheaper... round the same price as the 40K rulebook. But that's still more expensive than what I paid for my current codex. Yes, that would represent a saving for some players - ie someone who fielded nothing but Imperial armies - there are those who'd get shafted in a big way.

Let's say I'm a player who's got Eldar, SM and Chaos armies... you're asking me to pay the equivalent of three copies of the BGB, to access maybe 30 pages worth of rules? That's a pretty big con if you ask me.

While some players choose to buy everything GW releases, that's their choice. Saddling everyone with buckets of rules they don't actually need seems rather idiotic. It'd be the equivalent of forcing customers to buy value meals at McDonalds:

"Sorry sir, we don't sell individual burgers any more. If you buy in a value meal, then the cost of each item is cheaper overall. Yes, I know it costs more than the individual burger, but we reckon so many people buy fries and a drink anyway. Not only that, but because they're all prepared at the same time, they taste better. No cold fries with your hot burger any more! Um... with all of these improvements can't you see the benefits? Well, the fact you only want the burger and are paying for stuff you don't want could be considered a con..."

I dunno, I'm just not seeing how this would make 40K a better game. I'm reading a lot of people who are hoping it would.

ZamOne
09-09-2008, 05:28
Seems to me this whole idea of "4 books to include them all!" just homogenizes the armies into uniform blobs with a few simple flavours to differentiate them from each other.

Ronin_eX
09-09-2008, 05:56
Seems to me this whole idea of "4 books to include them all!" just homogenizes the armies into uniform blobs with a few simple flavours to differentiate them from each other.

How do you figure that? It doesn't seem implied by the OP or anything that comes later. It is literally putting multiple armies in one book. To add "homogenizing" to that seems to be suffering from a bit of slippery slope fallacy.

Adra
09-09-2008, 10:54
Actually game design is a very advanced specialty.

Just like cheese appreciation. Im sure that they are good courses but GW designers are in the feild and produce a quality product. They do the job and do it pretty well. They may not measure up to any qualification standard you have for game designers but they are professionals end of story.


Just because GW has designers doesn't mean they are great designers. They have won 2 awards at Origins in the last 5 years and both were for expansion of Warhammer Historicals. Compare that to Wizards, Wizkids, Steve Jackson games, Green Ronin, Fantasy Flight, and yes Privateer Press.

Thouse things are so political :p



If you are unable to see a power difference in Orks over IG or the new SM over DA then there is no point in us discussing that issue.

Are you serious? DE and the new SM have almost 10 years between them. I would be happy if things where changing in the codecies in that time. As for Orks and IG...ok you see one as massivly powerful over the other but then ive seen both trample each other in games. As its possible for one to beat the other i see any difference as too small to worry about. If it makes you feel better about it to think that there is a massive power shift between them then go ahead. Obviously one army may be weaker against another but thats fine as far as balance goes imho.


Perhaps you should look at what Wizards has done over the past decade. Besides it could be a difference in US and UK with regards to D&D.

No im good with my irational hate thanks :)

grickherder
09-09-2008, 11:07
DA and the new SM have almost 10 years between them.

Thank you for making the case for concurrent design. :D

Adra
09-09-2008, 11:51
Thank you for making the case for concurrent design.

According to the plan SM and DE wouldnt be in the same book so you would still have imbalance, therefore its a case for nothing :)

Thing is if you value the rules over everything else about the game then i guess you would desperatly worry about small imbalances. i mean, you dont want another player to have an edge in anyway do you? I dont really care that much about playing, but i do love the hobby as a whole, so im very happy with the way codecies are done at the mo. plenty of flavour and background and not an anal obsession with purity of rules. You want pure balance go play chess.

Templar Ben
09-09-2008, 12:15
There is an annoying degree of arrogance, cynicism and illogic in this thread, mostly on part of the "ITS IMPOSSIBLE" crowd.

Really, would it would rob the game designers of their 'passion' to simultaneously work on multiple armies, or to have different teams developing different armies at the same time? This seems like an awfully groundless statement. Personally, it's not hard for me to imagine myself getting really into designing multiple armies at once, because you could really get deep into the interactions between different units on opposing sides, as well as the armies as a whole. Designing rules for Space Marines and Chaos Marines at the same time, for example, seems... logical, doesn't it? Not to mention like a ton of fun!

The problem as it stands now with the 'single-codex' process is that each codex gets developed in a semi-vacuum, resulting almost inevitably in balance issues later on. It just doesn't make very much sense... and as far as it producing works that are more "passionate"... Come on, Dark Angels? Chaos Marines? Blood Angels?!?!? These books were not only received poorly in terms of their rules (which seem developed 'willy nilly') but because they were spirit-less and mediocre in their background content.

I think that overall, the concept of making larger books which are more 'faction' oriented makes a lot of sense, particularly for the "Forces of the Imperium" and the "Forces of Chaos". I can see the "Xenos" books being a little bit more complicated, as the forces in question aren't necessarily related in the same manner. Orks + Necrons? Orks + Tau?...

Anyway.... None of this really seems nearly as unfeasible as the nay-sayers are making it out to be. Perhaps there would be serious financial drawbacks to the scheme - I don't pretend to have much 'business' savvy. But from the perspective of game design, it's neither impossible nor unrealistic to expect a company as (generally) successful as Games Workshop to make their product into something as sophisticated and well-crafted as we would like. It seems that the real obstacle here is a lack of organization, a lack of motivation, a lack of dedication, or maybe just plain old lack of resources.

Not to speak for the OP but perhaps Ork and Nid as overwhelming tide and Tau and Eldar as mobile and fragile?

It would really upset people if there was a Xeno book (6 factions) for all non Imperial and non Chaos forces.

Then again Hellebore has often suggested a Order and Disorder book so that they are all placed together.


So customers would be paying for a much larger book, in order to use 10 pages with any regularity? :eyebrows:

As opposed to the 5 pages currently used with regularity in a Codex. Any time you are flipping through a codex for a rule or unit stat is due to poor layout and nothing else.


It would probably be cheaper... round the same price as the 40K rulebook. But that's still more expensive than what I paid for my current codex. Yes, that would represent a saving for some players - ie someone who fielded nothing but Imperial armies - there are those who'd get shafted in a big way.

Again it doesn't follow that it should be the price of a 40K rulebook. Unless the assertion is that GW is incapable of rational pricing, it does not follow that this book will be more than $35.


Let's say I'm a player who's got Eldar, SM and Chaos armies... you're asking me to pay the equivalent of three copies of the BGB, to access maybe 30 pages worth of rules? That's a pretty big con if you ask me.

While some players choose to buy everything GW releases, that's their choice. Saddling everyone with buckets of rules they don't actually need seems rather idiotic. It'd be the equivalent of forcing customers to buy value meals at McDonalds:

"Sorry sir, we don't sell individual burgers any more. If you buy in a value meal, then the cost of each item is cheaper overall. Yes, I know it costs more than the individual burger, but we reckon so many people buy fries and a drink anyway. Not only that, but because they're all prepared at the same time, they taste better. No cold fries with your hot burger any more! Um... with all of these improvements can't you see the benefits? Well, the fact you only want the burger and are paying for stuff you don't want could be considered a con..."

I dunno, I'm just not seeing how this would make 40K a better game. I'm reading a lot of people who are hoping it would.

I have actually also proposed that the actual rules be made available online so I can't comment on your strawman. Sorry.


According to the plan SM and DA wouldnt be in the same book so you would still have imbalance, therefore its a case for nothing :)

Thing is if you value the rules over everything else about the game then i guess you would desperatly worry about small imbalances. i mean, you dont want another player to have an edge in anyway do you? I dont really care that much about playing, but i do love the hobby as a whole, so im very happy with the way codecies are done at the mo. plenty of flavour and background and not an anal obsession with purity of rules. You want pure balance go play chess.

DA came out last year and SM is out to many people now. There was a clear change in design between the two.

That would not happen under the scheme proposed by the OP unless GW went out of their way to create such a scenario.

samiens
09-09-2008, 12:40
OK, I think there's a little confusion over DA- dark Angels and DE- Dark Eldar.

Anyway, power levels is an interesting thing- often driven by forum hysteria rather than actual experience. Are Dark Angels and Marines that different in terms of power level? No is my considered answer. Yes marines have many new (somewhat expensive)toys and overall cheaper tactical squads- but the strengths in the Dark Angel list are scoring terminators and scoring Bikes (which have significant advantages over regular scoring bikes from the marine codex) which are designed to work in mobile concert. The question is about what you percieve as balance- is it utter equality on a point by point basis (I would argue that this would be very restrictive and negate the skill of army building) or is it as close as possible to practical equality when using similar power level lists (the best way to do this is obviously top end tournament quality)? Obviously I believe in the latter and I do think this is where we are pretty much at now- I do know that an IG list built right can take on any of the uber-lists and win through better tactics. Much of the imbalance of the game is a perception relic on forums from a time when JJ wasn't calling the shots and making the game work. I don't hear it so much when I get out there and play- except maybe whining at tournaments because egos got bruised or fluff players who don't build a game effective list but deeply believe they'll win anyway.

Anyway, obviously this leads to a debate- if you think major change is needed you are more likely to see potential advantages in ideas like this- if what you want is a few lagging armies to catch up and more errata, this idea hardly solves the problem. I think that the thing about the idea is that it is neither different enough to provide real solutions to the problems out there, or in any case it lacks any factor taht says- this way is much better.

Oh, and as for computer game designers- to say taht they always produce quality products is a nonsense- most games are ill-though out and poorly executed, despite the quality of the degrees that the makers may have (The team that design FIFA are actually more qualified than those that make PES, but no little about football and have created a bland game that real fans don't want to play)

Ultimately, from my own experience mucking about at home- you don't need a degree in it to design a good game, just a basic understanding of Maths and good 'feel'

You can now do a degree in surfing, I wonder how many top level surfers have one? Sorry if that sounds flippant, just a little joke! At the end of the day I'm very receptive to good ideas for change that will yield real improvements- the way I've improved at 40k since I got into the tournament scene and took great players advice (thanks Tournament Chris, wherever you are lol) is evidence of this.

samiens
09-09-2008, 12:42
Sorry for the doyble post- but change in design doesn't mean change in power- DA and marines just aren't exactly the same any more

grickherder
09-09-2008, 14:37
According to the plan SM and DA wouldnt be in the same book so you would still have imbalance, therefore its a case for nothing :).

The case I thought your statement made was the pointing out of a major problem with the current release method. There are armies in the game right now whos rules were written for the game as it was 2 editions ago!

Adra
09-09-2008, 19:06
Sorry my bad...DA was DE....

Sidstyler
09-09-2008, 20:14
All D&D has ever been good for is making GW players feel less like nerds.

Oh, please...if there is any GW player out there who feels like "less of a nerd" when compared to D&D players, he needs a rather large dose of reality applied to his forehead.

It doesn't matter what game you play, whether you roll dice and play with models or sit hunched over in front of a computer all day with a $200 pair of headphones strapped to your head. It doesn't matter what you look like: nasally voice and pimples, fat with glasses, or 140 pounds with a crew cut and a Hollister shirt. It doesn't matter how old you are, 11 or 42. It doesn't even matter what the trends are, even though video games and the whole "retro" thing are becoming more and more popular, YOU ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE A NERD.

If there is anything that annoys me more, it's this silly, stupid, downright ridiculous notion that you are somehow better than someone else based on what nerdy hobby you take up. The only thing that pisses me off more is when someone, playing the same game as you no doubt, insists that you are lamer than he is because "I bet you play this game all the time, go outside nerd, lololol". GW games are just as bad as D&D, and you are just as nerdy as that one kid you know that doesn't bathe or use deodorant.

Also, I do believe the correct term here is "geek" and not nerd. Or at least I will never accept the nerd label, since nerds are stereotypically smart and it would be an insult to real nerds to group me with them.


Anyway, now that that BS is out of the way, I personally don't like the four big books idea. What I would like is if they simply put out better quality books in the same way they do now (except maybe at a higher frequency, 4 or more books a year for 40k and WHF). Every army should get the same amount of attention and the same passionate, fun rules that Space Marines enjoy. Every army should get awesome plastic kits and not be stuck with 10-year-old retro crap and rules that have no corresponding models (or even kits that don't have all weapon options on the sprue) while everyone else is running around with Mk2 rhinos and vindicators, 3 or 4 (or more) variant land raiders, 3 different kinds of dreadnoughts, dump truck loads of veteran models, and even entirely new units and models that they pulled out of thin air just because they can. There is obvious favoritism here and I don't think it's right at all, someone in GW needs to get their damn act together because I for one am losing a lot of confidence in them. I don't want to feel like a second-class citizen (indeed, I get that feeling enough in my every day life) just for playing something other than Marines.

And for god's sake, don't be afraid to put out two xenos books in a freaking row. Not every other release has to be yet more Marines.

Occulto
10-09-2008, 01:26
As opposed to the 5 pages currently used with regularity in a Codex. Any time you are flipping through a codex for a rule or unit stat is due to poor layout and nothing else.

I'd rather pay the current price for 5, than more for a bunch of extra pages I'm not going to use.


Again it doesn't follow that it should be the price of a 40K rulebook. Unless the assertion is that GW is incapable of rational pricing, it does not follow that this book will be more than $35.

Well are they capable of rational pricing?

I'm working on their current practices. What are you basing your argument on?


I have actually also proposed that the actual rules be made available online so I can't comment on your strawman. Sorry.

Anything indicate that GW are keen on ever releasing the rules for the armies in their core games online? So far that seems to be the exception (BA & Catachans) rather than the norm.

If they did release them online, then there's no problem. But if they don't, then it's the value meal syndrome.

Which do you think is the more likely scenario?

self biased
10-09-2008, 02:13
hrm. how to salvage things... mayhaps a little insight as to my motivations and where the roots of my idea actually lie.

first and foremost, my stated goal will be to extend the life of a single edition. the current standard of four to five years is a depressingly short life cycle for a game. fourth edition came to us in 2004, and fifth in 2008. third edition was a cycle of five years? six? second edition lasted for nearly as long as that. my ideal leans more towards an eight to ten year life cycle.

my four books idea would also require a complete reset of the game, much as what happened between second and third edition. the current model of requiring core rules to be backwards compatible with previously released codecies leads to what's happened with the Orks and Dark Eldar; players playing with rules that were designed with a polar opposite paradigm.

so, we reset and redesign the core rules. ideally all four 'faction' books would be released simultaneously if finances allowed. this would mean that the overwhelming majority of the legwork needs to be finished before the game is released. if finances do not allow, the releases will be spread out over the course of the year. this works better if all four books are released at once, as it allows for more feedback for the work as a whole, and on the interactions between different books and within armies and their allies. in descriptions of wargear, abilities, and other aspects of the game the rules will be clearly delineated from their fluff justifications and descriptions.

six months before public release, a closed beta is held with a few dozen trusted gaming groups for three months. these outside participants are charged with finding the most abusive ways to play the various codecies. three months worth of faqs, errata, and clarification are written for White Dwarf to be published in the magazine and online.

upon release, either re-open the forums and moderate them with an iron fist, or have a 'submit battle report' form on the website. collect feedback, weigh merits and flaws of arguments and publish chapter approved articles monthly or bi-monthly to fix issues as they arrive in order of importance. at the end of the inaugural year, publish the first 'chapter approved' book, containing all fixes to core rules and armies up until now. the chapter approved articles will be kept online until the second year book is released.

the second year book will contain all fixes from the previous year, plus whatever new units that were added during year two. the idea is that the most recent chapter approved book will contain all the fixes and additional units of previous books, so that on year six of the game, one does not need the main rulebook, their faction book, and five chapter approved books in order to play the game properly, only the most recent ones.

at some point, an 'X.5' version of the five main books (core rules and four faction books) should be released mid-cycle. these books would be updated versions of the old books to consolidate things. at this point, we're used to buying a new rules set every five years or so, so it wont' be that much different from that perspective.

every 2-3 years an expansion should be released with optional rules, much like cityfight, apocalypse, and the rumored 'dropzone' codex. ideally these would expand upon ideas already present in the game, rather than wantonly adding new rules. this would be a challenge, as adding super-heavy vehicles without having the rules for them feeling attached to the main rules with duct tape and a whole lot of hope would be difficult. the core rules would have to be designed in such a way that certain areas would be selected to be expanded upon, and could be combined during the last third or quarter of the lifecycle.

as a part of a secondary point, does anyone remember when they finally released eldar shining spear models? the only problem was that the rules were horrible, and they failed to sell in droves. the fourth edition codex comes around, and surprise! shining spears get a boost to sell models. by keeping each unit useful, more models would be sold. by having an overlap between armies in books e.g: if guard armies were allowed to take marines as allies in specific circumstances or with appropriate restrictions, more models would be sold, which is the business that GW is in: selling models.

i hope this goes a long way towards explaining some of the finer points of my idea. i had left things more intentionally vague to let the reader fill in the blanks with things that they'd like to see in the game as opposed to my myopic vision, but that seems to have backfired on me.