A simple fix

[Halandaar]

I want new codexes with new editions... Editions just need to last longer and codexes come out quicker.

 

Can't argue with that; a new book every edition would be a lot more tolerable if that meant every 5 years rather than every 3.

 

The pace of release is also super relevant; it's one thing for it to take 2 years to produce all the Codexes if it's a 5-year edition cycle, but at the rate things are going it's plausible that we might have factions who don't even get a single year of play from their 9th Edition Codex before 10th arrives next summer, which really isn't good enough.

 

 

How about indexes instead of codexes? i.e. something put online rather than a new book for everyone so soon after the newest codexes.

 

I think Indexes were a good solution for 8th Edition when there was such a big shift in the core system, but I fear that now all they'd amount to would be a way for GW to charge us for temporary rules while still making us wait to pay for the Codex containing the "real" thing.

 

The only real solution is for every Codex to be written and tested simultaneously and then all released at the same time (or at worst, within the same 3 month window) at the beginning of an edition so that everybody gets the same amount of overall playtime for their faction in that edition.

 

 

Given GW's broadly no mini no rules policy (e.g, parasite of mortrex has come back to life, but no tyranid warriors with wings) would folk accept a simultaneous month 1 codex release for every faction which included datasheets for unreleased models but precluded their use until general release?

 

The reason codexes are staggered is to coincide with model releases so if you take the models out of the equation temporarily then everyone gets updated rules together. 

 

I don't think it needs to be that complicated (and frankly, such a ban on unreleased units isn't enforceable outside of GW-run games and events). They've demonstrated a few times in this edition that they are prepared to release new datasheets alongside new models (Sororitas Novitiates, Gravis Captain and Primaris Ancient) without that being linked to a Codex, so there's not really any reason that couldn't be the case in the future. Release all Codexes at the beginning of the edition, with the only ones getting new models the factions in the starter set. Then over the course of the edition you can add new datasheets (or update existing ones) alongside model releases as necessary. 

[Special Officer Doofy]

 

 

I want new codexes with new editions... Editions just need to last longer and codexes come out quicker.

Can't argue with that; a new book every edition would be a lot more tolerable if that meant every 5 years rather than every 3.

 

The pace of release is also super relevant; it's one thing for it to take 2 years to produce all the Codexes if it's a 5-year edition cycle, but at the rate things are going it's plausible that we might have factions who don't even get a single year of play from their 9th Edition Codex before 10th arrives next summer, which really isn't good enough.

Completely agree. I feel 4 years is good. 5 might be too long and players might dip for a bit and GW would lose money. 3 is far too quick, specially when it takes the better part of 2 years to release 20 books. 4 seems good.

 

Release the codexes all within 1 year. Don't need models and range refreshes with them. Then the next 2-4 years slowly do campaigns, mission packs, events, new models and such. Keeps the money rolling all 4 years for GW.

 

I know some people are into 40k just to hobby and paint, some are just to play and don't want to paint or pay others, and some are a mix of both. I'm a mix of both but I only paint to play (I want my miniatures to look cool and add to the feel of the game). I want rules out for me AND my openent that is balanced and timely reasonable. Campaign books coming out while half the factions don't have new codexes is dumb, those who don't have codexes are rightfully pissed, and the ones who just got a new codex and now are finding new rules in another book are mad because of "day one DLC" are also rightfully pissed.

 

I feel that 4 year schedule would be best and please the most parties. Codexes are easy to shelve and ship. Buy the few you use and play. And then halfway through an edition if let's say they redo half a faction with awesome new looking models, just buy the codex when you get into the faction. Simple as that. They will all be collected into the codex the following edition maybe with some new unit specific strategems.

 

Edit: the core rulebook and codexes should come with digital codes for a digital version that can update. That way in my example if in year 2-4 a range is refreshed or a model comes out, they can update the digital versions so there are rules all in one place still. I appreciate the attempt they did with that in 9th and their current app but it's pretty garbage. Having to constantly connect online, not having the full codex just rules, all the errors, and basic layout issues like when you go to factions, the factions you have unlocked should jump to the top. They have alot of potential with the app. Just make it better. And make it so we can just purchase the digital code if we don't want the physical books. Saves money, trees and space while also protecting their IP through a monitored app and not a piratable epub file.

 

Again nothing will ever be perfect, but I feel my example of a 4 year edition is way better then what's going on now.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Putrid Choir

[Rogue]

They did something similar with AdMech, as I recall - the pteraxii and the cavalry guys came out after the codex released, had their own sheets, got folded into the next codex release.

 

Which feels like the balance to releasing all the codices at once. You can still have each factions moment in the sun, but by releasing models, not codices.

 

If you'd given me the option at the start of 9th, I'd have happy taken an immediate codex release followed by new models and temporary data-sheets 18 months later, rather than waiting 18 months for everything at once.

[Halandaar]

They will all be collected into the codex the following edition maybe with some new unit specific strategems.

 

Much as I dislike unit-specific stratagems as a concept anyway (just give the unit the ability on it's datasheet), they could even include new stratagems right there on the downloadable datasheets if that's a consideration as to why GW feels new units must arrive alongside Codexes.

 

 

If you'd given me the option at the start of 9th, I'd have happy taken an immediate codex release followed by new models and temporary data-sheets 18 months later, rather than waiting 18 months for everything at once.

 

I'm with you, and that would be my preferred model for 40k in the future. Give me the rules for the existing units in every faction - updated with whatever the new edition's gimmick is - on day one, and just introduce the rules for new units when those model kits are ready to be produced. There's no need to hold the entire faction's up-to-date rules back just to wait for a plastic production slot for their new minis.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Halandaar

[Special Officer Doofy]

 

 

They will all be collected into the codex the following edition maybe with some new unit specific strategems.

Much as I dislike unit-specific stratagems as a concept anyway (just give the unit the ability on it's datasheet), they could even include new stratagems right there on the downloadable datasheets if that's a consideration as to why GW feels new units must arrive alongside Codexes.

 

If you'd given me the option at the start of 9th, I'd have happy taken an immediate codex release followed by new models and temporary data-sheets 18 months later, rather than waiting 18 months for everything at once.

I'm with you, and that would be my preferred model for 40k in the future. Give me the rules for the existing units in every faction - updated with whatever the new edition's gimmick is - on day one, and just introduce the rules for new units when those model kits are ready to be produced. There's no need to hold the entire faction's up-to-date rules back just to wait for a plastic production slot for their new minis.

I'm with you being against unit specific strategems, I was hastely typing trying to also answer a counterpoint that could have been made against new models after the codex. The argument could have been if new models come out after a codex in an edition (talking about more of a range refresh or group of new models versus a character and terrain type release) that there would be a lack of new strategems to go with them. I meant strategems to go with larger realeses, like if the ork codex was already out and they released all those new beast snagga models. There is potential for some cool strats to go with a new keyword that is shared across multiple different units, and that could come in with a codex faq/errata and or digital codex update.

 

To be 100% honest, I'm not a fan of strats. I feel the bridge was crossed and there is no going back now though. A list of shared strats in the core rulebook should have been fine, or they are limited to the command phase at least. I don't care for in the moment / counter strategems like transhuman. Feels too gamey like a card game. Having to bait a player to use it on one unit and not another does not add more skill I feel and just adds a layer of less realism to the game. In short I think GW is not great at balancing their game. Every faction specific strat and secondary is a whole other thing GW has to balance, and they kind of suck at balancing their game as is with different factions (with different edition codexes), units, sub faction traits and points, the extra juggling of strats and secondaries does not help their cause.

 

I bet if codexes came out faster and were more balanced, strats and secondaries would be more balanced and more people would be fans of them. I personally come in contact with more people who dislike or don't care about faction specific strats and secondaries than I do people who like them and think they are great. I want them to work, it allows more flavor to differentiate factions and sub factions, but if that costs the game more balance issues than it already has, I'm not a fan.

 

Edit: I also agree with you Rogue. I would chose the same.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Putrid Choir

[Schlitzaf]

@Halandaar Just for the record, afaik as I know every codex is PLAYTESTED all together. But not released all togetbor which is the problem

[phandaal]

I bet if codexes came out faster and were more balanced, strats and secondaries would be more balanced and more people would be fans of them. I personally come in contact with more people who dislike or don't care about faction specific strats and secondaries than I do people who like them and think they are great. I want them to work, it allows more flavor to differentiate factions and sub factions, but if that costs the game more balance issues than it already has, I'm not a fan.

Seems like it does cause more issues than not. i.e. stacking strategems to set up big gotcha moments and unbalanceable interactions.

 

USRs are fine. Those can be priced in to the cost of the unit and people know at the start of a battle exactly what a unit can do at a glance.

 

Flavor can come from special army rules rather than strategems.

 

@Halandaar Just for the record, afaik as I know every codex is PLAYTESTED all together. But not released all togetbor which is the problem

Honestly, doubt this. There are codexes which have come out and have not been significantly nerfed, and those get dumpstered by newer codexes. You would have to assume that the codexes which were released earlier were deliberately made to be weak.

 

For example, assuming Necrons were balanced against Tau just means Necrons were deliberately created to be underpowered, and that is not a charitable take on GW's work. Assuming Blood Angels were balanced against Custodes, same problem.

 

Hell, even newer Space Marine units have different rules than the 9th Ed. codex. The new Gravis Captain has "fighting styles" which have started appearing in newer codexes as a special way for certain units to pick attacks. Was that planned for the codex version of the Gravis Captain and GW just kept it out?

 

It makes a lot more sense to assume that codexes may have been planned and started bare bones around the same time, but newer releases are worked on later.

Edited March 17, 2022 by phandaal

[Schlitzaf]

Keep in mind:

Necrons were Balanced Against the Version of Tau that Existed Year. Often times tweaks to those versions happen. And in fact that is percisely the point.

 

Remember how many Year 1 CA Nerfs Happened? Outriders, Chief Apoc, and in case of BA, Sang Gaurd, then broadlg speaking SShields in General got Dumpstered.

 

The Version of the Books we got on released were meant to be used vs these books or an earlier incarnation. (An easy example of how things can change and even drastically so, between Year 1 Versions and “Release” Versions. Is compared PDF BT to Supplement BT)

[phandaal]

Having a hard time understanding this. Were Necrons balanced against 8th edition Tau or 9th edition Tau?

 

If every book for an edition is balanced together and then released in a staggered method, it would be balanced against the codex that just released, not the codex that existed in 8th edition.

[OldWherewolf]

@Halandaar Just for the record, afaik as I know every codex is PLAYTESTED all together. But not released all togetbor which is the problem

If they were all playtested together, then each and every codex that comes out would not be 1-upping every prior codex.  Furthermore, if they had the rules available, they wouldn't need to patch codexes in campaign books, they could just release the rules in or alongside the campaign book. 

 

But the opposite is true.  Rumor is that Custodes were tested against Eldar and deemed to weak, that's why Custodes are strong against every other army and have the ridiculous win rate.  Nobody, and I mean NOBODY would have approved the Tau, Custodes, Dark Eldar AdMech or Eldar codex against the original space marines and/or Necrons.  The only way anybody would have approved the Eldar codex was if it was purposely intended to 1-up Custodes.

[Schlitzaf]

Having a hard time understanding this. Were Necrons balanced against 8th edition Tau or 9th edition Tau?

 

If every book for an edition is balanced together and then released in a staggered method, it would be balanced against the codex that just released, not the codex that existed in 8th edition.

They were Balanced Against the Tau 9th Edition Codex that Existed in Year 1 of 9th Edition.

 

Brain by the time we got those armies several units of Codex: Space Marines and Necrons got dumpstered.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Schlitzaf

[phandaal]

 

Having a hard time understanding this. Were Necrons balanced against 8th edition Tau or 9th edition Tau?

 

If every book for an edition is balanced together and then released in a staggered method, it would be balanced against the codex that just released, not the codex that existed in 8th edition.

They were Balanced Against the Tau 9th Edition Codex that Existed in Year 1 of 9th Edition.

 

 

Is that the same Tau codex that just got released?

[Schlitzaf]

 

 

 

Having a hard time understanding this. Were Necrons balanced against 8th edition Tau or 9th edition Tau?

 

If every book for an edition is balanced together and then released in a staggered method, it would be balanced against the codex that just released, not the codex that existed in 8th edition.

They were Balanced Against the Tau 9th Edition Codex that Existed in Year 1 of 9th Edition.

 

Is that the same Tau codex that just got released?

It was the version of that Codex that existed in the Year 1 of 9th Edition. But also the version of C:SM that didn’t have nerfed Erads, BGV, SShields, VangVets etc.

[phandaal]

 

 

Is that the same Tau codex that just got released?

It was the version of that Codex that existed in the Year 1 of 9th Edition. But also the version of C:SM that didn’t have nerfed Erads, BGV, SShields, VangVets etc.

 

 

And are we saying the version of the Tau 9th edition codex that existed during playtesting in year 1 is identical to what got released this year?

[Schlitzaf]

Are your early drafts of an essay the same version you turn into the teacher as your final? Or more accurately.

 

Is the version of your class final paper you turn into the teacher, the same version of the paper you you’d turn in if you got a 1 month extension? They will be similar to each other yes. But not “exactly” the same.

 

More accuratelt its let you got an extension on everythig that wasn’t your introduction paragraph

Edited March 17, 2022 by Schlitzaf

[phandaal]

Are your early drafts of an essay the same version you turn into the teacher as your final? Or more accurately.

 

Is the version of your class final paper you turn into the teacher, the same version of the paper you you’d turn in if you got a 1 month extension? They will be similar to each other yes. But not “exactly” the same

 

College essays are not 40k codexes.

 

All this seems like a roundabout way of saying GW does not in fact have all 9th edition codexes sitting together ready to go on a hard drive and does in fact make changes as editions go on.

 

Which is fair, because while the state of things may be frustrating, I do not dislike GW enough to assume they are creating codexes weak on purpose and releasing them first out of spite. Much more fair to assume they know what they are doing, and they know that having the strongest rules sells models.

[Schlitzaf]

The version of tje (x)Edition codexes are “finished” in that they are releasable state and that is enviroment those books are intended to be in, at the start of rhe edition.

 

What happens is that the books are released earlier on. Are hit a bat to bring them in line. Then following books whom designed aroujf the higher power level etc

[phandaal]

The version of tje (x)Edition codexes are “finished” in that they are releasable state and that is enviroment those books are intended to be in, at the start of rhe edition.

 

What happens is that the books are released earlier on. Are hit a bat to bring them in line. Then following books whom designed aroujf the higher power level etc

 

Nah, not buying it. That still requires some pretty hefty assumptions. It means that whatever book comes last, which will undoubtedly be on another plane of existence in terms of power, was the baseline for whatever all 9th edition books were supposed to be pre-nerf. Then books were given bigger or smaller nerfs depending on where they were in the release schedule.

 

If that is the case, would like to see what Necrons were supposed to be before they had to get their massive pre-launch nerf. S8 AP -5 D12 Assault 10 36" Gauss Reapers?

 

So yeah, unless we are just trying very hard not to think about it, the obvious (and in fact most charitable) answer is that books are being released to be a little bit stronger each time on purpose.

[Schlitzaf]

Phandaal you don’t need to guess: Year 1 CA.

[tychobi]

 

The version of tje (x)Edition codexes are “finished” in that they are releasable state and that is enviroment those books are intended to be in, at the start of rhe edition.

 

What happens is that the books are released earlier on. Are hit a bat to bring them in line. Then following books whom designed aroujf the higher power level etc

 

Nah, not buying it. That still requires some pretty hefty assumptions. It means that whatever book comes last, which will undoubtedly be on another plane of existence in terms of power, was the baseline for whatever all 9th edition books were supposed to be pre-nerf. Then books were given bigger or smaller nerfs depending on where they were in the release schedule.

 

If that is the case, would like to see what Necrons were supposed to be before they had to get their massive pre-launch nerf. S8 AP -5 D12 Assault 10 36" Gauss Reapers?

 

So yeah, unless we are just trying very hard not to think about it, the obvious (and in fact most charitable) answer is that books are being released to be a little bit stronger each time on purpose.

 

I would say the data does not point to any easy assumptions.  Power creep is not a nice flat curve in 40k more like a craggy volcanic mountain range jumping around as releases and nerfs shake things up.  What is clear is that game balance is not a priority.  Despite lots of noise from GW about  balance updates and faqs the action of releasing actual equitable rules is not something that has happened.  9th is a hot mess.  Active complexity and dispersement of official rules are really hurting the community and I wonder if this trend is by design.  It's possible GW has made an assessment and does not actually want to expand the hobby as they are aware they cannot keep up with demand if it does.  Sucks from the consumer perspective but poor game design could be a strategy?

[Jings]

Given GW's broadly no mini no rules policy (e.g, parasite of mortrex has come back to life, but no tyranid warriors with wings) would folk accept a simultaneous month 1 codex release for every faction which included datasheets for unreleased models but precluded their use until general release?

 

The reason codexes are staggered is to coincide with model releases so if you take the models out of the equation temporarily then everyone gets updated rules together. 

 

Honestly what GW should be doing is releasing the rules for every army alongside the main rulebook, then institute some form of bi-yearly "season" book ala Chapter Approved which contain the datasheets for all units released up until that timeframe as well as new missions, errata'd and improved datasheets for older units. Then they can decentralize the model releases from book releases, allowing for more frequent updates across all factions.

 

I think slower book releases would probably generate more sales in the long run for both models and the books themselves, particularly if they include a decent chunk of quality lore and art alongside the updated game mechanics. I wouldn't mind spending £40-50 every 6 months on a 150-page hardback reference book if the content within it was good and I already have all the rules for everything else readily available in an Army Sourcebook.

 

As it stands I just don't bother buying any books bar the rulebook that comes with the latest edition starter set because the content within them is largely just regurgated content and rules I can use more easily through 3rd party products. They should just make the rules free and online with optional physical copies available for those who want them. 

[Halandaar]

Are your early drafts of an essay the same version you turn into the teacher as your final? Or more accurately.

 

Is the version of your class final paper you turn into the teacher, the same version of the paper you you’d turn in if you got a 1 month extension? They will be similar to each other yes. But not “exactly” the same.

 

More accuratelt its let you got an extension on everythig that wasn’t your introduction paragraph

 

So basically, the later versions have more revisions. Sure, makes sense.

 

And therefore means that the final released product bears little to no resemblance to the one that was tested against all the earlier books at the same time and completely undermining the idea that they were all balanced together.

[Schlitzaf]

Which is my point Halandaar hence why codex slow drip is bad for the game

[phandaal]

Which is my point Halandaar hence why codex slow drip is bad for the game

 

Definitely agree on that. CSM, for example. "One Wound" is almost a meme now, but it is also a very poor way to treat valued customers.

[Halandaar]

Which is my point Halandaar hence why codex slow drip is bad for the game

 

Right  That's what we've been saying all along. You phrased all of this as if you were disagreeing because the "codexes were playtested together"!