warhammer40k Updated 40k Codex Release schedule

[Jscarlos18]

The schedule is a mix of the three mega-factions, but is true that Space Marines has gotten the spotlight so much with 40k, HH and KT and it gets tiresome.

 

Being so popular is a double-edged sword, since like somebody said once: "If you're fan of Space Marines you are paying for a subscription service". You're expected to open your wallet every month to get new/updated units.

 

Looking at the Dark Angels and Space Marine releases combined with the rumours, it seems this edition GW is going to focus mostly on Terminator units for the different Space Marine flavours.

 

These past editions GW has been updating other factions so it's not too bad. Could be better obviously, but the plans right now seem to be alternating between big and small updates with each codex release.

 

There's been discussions in the forum of which faction needs what, so hopefully 40k finally gets rid of finecast/metal between 10th/11th.

 

The EC will 100% sure come this edition. Sucks to wait, but at least all other factions without codex have the indexes at the moment.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Jscarlos18

[phandaal]

4 minutes ago, Jscarlos18 said:

Being so popluar is a double-edged sword, since like somebody said once: "If you're fan of Space Marines you are paying for a subscription service". You're expected to open your wallet every month to get new/updated units.

 

This is very true. Once you step off of the Space Marine treadmill for a while you really notice the extra breathing room. 

[Dark Shepherd]

DId versus boxes normally align with codex releases?

 

[Halandaar]

18 minutes ago, Dark Shepherd said:

DId versus boxes normally align with codex releases?

 

In AoS they did; all four of these Battletome pairs were accompanied by dual-faction Battleboxes:

 

On 11/19/2023 at 1:27 PM, LSM said:

• L+9: Fyreslayers, Idoneth Deepkin
• L+11: Nighthaunt, Daughters of Khaine
• L+12: Skaven, Sylvaneth
• L+17: Disciples of Tzeentch, Lumineth Realm-Lords,

 

More of a mixed bag in 40k 9th, battleboxes often did have Codex releases alongside them, but sometimes the Codexes were a few weeks later, sometimes quite widely spaced apart (Eldritch Omens was Feb 2022 with the Eldar Codex out in March and the CSM book not until July), and actually the last Battlebox for either system (Wrath of the Soulforge King) was part of the Arks of Omen campaign rather than the Codex release schedule.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Halandaar

[Rain]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

 

This is very true. Once you step off of the Space Marine treadmill for a while you really notice the extra breathing room. 

Amen to that. I don’t want some of the “attention” that loyalist Marines have received. I’d rather sit in my corner like the good red armored stepchild that I am.

[Dark Shepherd]

10 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

In AoS they did; all four of these Battletome pairs were accompanied by dual-faction Battleboxes:

 

 

More of a mixed bag in 40k 9th, battleboxes often did have Codex releases alongside them, but sometimes the Codexes were a few weeks later, sometimes quite widely spaced apart (Eldritch Omens was Feb 2022 with the Eldar Codex out in March and the CSM book not until July), and actually the last Battlebox for either system (Wrath of the Soulforge King) was part of the Arks of Omen campaign rather than the Codex release schedule.

 

 

Cheers. The more characters that just get stand alone releases the better :)

[davextreme]

I beg everyone not to simply accept that editions must turn over every three years. GW doesn’t have to listen to us but we can at least express our displeasure at being forced onto a treadmill. 

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

@davextreme The three year cycle is a massive problem. A four year cycle would be better, ideally a five to six year cycle. As long as the current model continues to make money for GW it won't change and I don't think there are enough people to vote with their wallet and give GW any inclination to change. 

 

I wonder why GW does these roadmaps given the releases nearly always slip a quarter or two. 

Edited November 24, 2023 by The Praetorian of Inwit
Layout

[Dark Legionnare]

3 hours ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

@davextreme The three year cycle is a massive problem. A four year cycle would be better, ideally a five to six year cycle. As long as the current model continues to make money for GW it won't change and I don't think there are enough people to vote with their wallet and give GW any inclination to change. 

 

I wonder why GW does these roadmaps given the releases nearly always slip a quarter or two. 

"To keep people on the line".

 

Fishing metaphor, not Yoda referring to people browsing the web.

[skylerboodie]

The thing I really hate about edition churn - apart from costs - is that it seriously diminishes the opportunity for more campaign/lore releases and story progression. Having to rewrite/publish c.30 codexes every time leaves only ~6-9 months at the end of the cycle for a decent campaign series (Psychic Awakening, Arks of Omen, etc), which I feel is potentially the best part of GW's 'rulebook' offering.

[01RTB01]

2 hours ago, skylerboodie said:

The thing I really hate about edition churn - apart from costs - is that it seriously diminishes the opportunity for more campaign/lore releases and story progression. Having to rewrite/publish c.30 codexes every time leaves only ~6-9 months at the end of the cycle for a decent campaign series (Psychic Awakening, Arks of Omen, etc), which I feel is potentially the best part of GW's 'rulebook' offering.

I can't comment on arks but PA was probably the worst campaign series I've seen.

 

They can drop crusade books in too - we've already had one for tenth with another on the way. Albeit 'another"Pariah nexus book. 

[Noserenda]

I get the feeling the campaign books are more the work of the 40k story team, whilst codexes are more the work of the rules team each with fairly minimal work from the other, so in theory both work fine alongside each other but thats extrapolation really.

 

Them working on each new edition from before the prior edition even launches is probably more awkward tbh

[ZeroWolf]

42 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

I get the feeling the campaign books are more the work of the 40k story team, whilst codexes are more the work of the rules team each with fairly minimal work from the other, so in theory both work fine alongside each other but thats extrapolation really.

 

Them working on each new edition from before the prior edition even launches is probably more awkward tbh

Yeah, that last part alone is more of a reason to extend the lifespan of an edition, as at least they can spend the first two years gathering feedback to see which core rules need tweaking. However business going to business and  GW will just do what ever brings on the profits they want.

[ThePenitentOne]

Talking about the length of cycles, what I would like to se is this:

 

1. NO campaign books during the Codex release cycle.

2. The edition last at least 2x the Codex release cycle.

3. The second half of the edition, campaign books drive the release cycle rather than Codices.

 

GW have been circling this idea since 8th, but they just can't help themselves. By making campaign books exclusively Crusade in 10th, they've actually back-tracked the idea- we NEEDED Tyrannic War because it was the source for Crusade rules... Despite the fact that it's a campaign book.

 

We don't NEED Pariah Nexus, and it would in fact be better for the game if they gave us another dex in its place- get the dex release cycle done so that everyone can play on a (relatively) more even footing. Then and only then, release campaign books.

[brother_b]

I’m super tired of the short edition release schedule. Three years? We finally got a complete edition that sure was… heavy on the rules and clutter… but balanced and every army had a codex. How long did IG get to play with their codex in 9th?

 

This last edition reset is ok but I still think they got some things wrong, especially de facto PL. I loved a little grind and granularity. I just keep going back to acolytes in GSC. There is absolutely no reason to ever take autopistols when free hand flamers are always better. 
 

Back to the topic how many codexes do we think are fully complete ready to go, and how many are in development? What I mean is how many are being written right now as opposed to already finished up.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I have 9 Editions of books, I didn't buy 10th because I too am over the churn.

There is no value to me in books without longevity.

I only play casually so I've switched to other games.

Thos road map shows me where the DA dex might be, I might get it for a read because Black Library books are so hard to get there might be a collection of fluff in it.

[ZeroWolf]

1 hour ago, brother_b said:

I’m super tired of the short edition release schedule. Three years? We finally got a complete edition that sure was… heavy on the rules and clutter… but balanced and every army had a codex. How long did IG get to play with their codex in 9th?

 

This last edition reset is ok but I still think they got some things wrong, especially de facto PL. I loved a little grind and granularity. I just keep going back to acolytes in GSC. There is absolutely no reason to ever take autopistols when free hand flamers are always better. 
 

Back to the topic how many codexes do we think are fully complete ready to go, and how many are in development? What I mean is how many are being written right now as opposed to already finished up.

They'll have broke ground on 11th edition (assuming all paradigms are the same and no radical yells out: "ohh, maybe we can move to a 4 year cycle now that we have more games?") Also I suspect they would be the latter stages of the codexs that would be released this time next year and gathering ideas for 2025 lot. This is my assumptions however and I'm likely off the mark by a large margin.

[Xenith]

3 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Talking about the length of cycles, what I would like to se is this:

 

1. NO campaign books during the Codex release cycle.

2. The edition last at least 2x the Codex release cycle.

3. The second half of the edition, campaign books drive the release cycle rather than Codices.

 

I'd love this - pump out all the codexes in year 1, then yearly 'campaign seasons' for the next 3 years, each book adding a smattering of new units or balance updates. I do think they need to go back to a 4 year cycle, it's better for the fans, reducing fatigue, and definitely seems better for the writing staff. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

They're hitting where they can barely get all the codices out by the end. Start adding even more to that, with Emperor's Children, Dark Mech or any other faction they decide to add and it will just get worse.

 

I think they're going to have to do a 4 year cycle, they just haven't gotten there and made that call yet.

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, Xenith said:

 

I'd love this - pump out all the codexes in year 1, then yearly 'campaign seasons' for the next 3 years, each book adding a smattering of new units or balance updates. I do think they need to go back to a 4 year cycle, it's better for the fans, reducing fatigue, and definitely seems better for the writing staff. 

Everyone would love this, but it will never happen because spreading out the release of popular army codices smooths out their revenue across quarters and years. This would maybe work if campaign books had additional formations and they launched corresponding models, to drive sales, but then people on the internet would  about having to buy multiple books to play their army.

[Wispy]

On 11/20/2023 at 7:00 AM, phandaal said:

 

This is very true. Once you step off of the Space Marine treadmill for a while you really notice the extra breathing room. 

Long ago I decided to pace my purchases around what I could and wanted to paint and I found this is the best balance for myself, both for my wallet and my available leisure time. f folks are mass buying tides of grey plastic to chase a meta or new army fads, well maybe they should look inward. 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Wispy

[Wispy]

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

Everyone would love this, but it will never happen because spreading out the release of popular army codices smooths out their revenue across quarters and years. This would maybe work if campaign books had additional formations and they launched corresponding models, to drive sales, but then people on the internet would  about having to buy multiple books to play their army.

The codexes would be incredibly broken,and full of errors if their design team had to do all of them in a year. It's too big an ask as an infrastructure and logistical challenge. No one is happy with the free 'get you by' rules that came out with 10th edition.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Wispy

[Sky Potato]

19 minutes ago, Wispy said:

The codexes would be incredibly broken,and full of errors if their design team had to do all of them in a year. It's too big an ask as an infrastructure and logistical challenge. No one is happy with the free 'get you by' rules that came out with 10th edition.

 

The implication of having all codices released within 12 months of the edition launch is that all codices are written at edition launch.

 

That's something that, at the current release pace, isn't achievable as you say. It IS something that could be done with a longer release cycle than three years though. We already know that GW sit on stuff that's ready to go for a long time, so why not with the new edition?

 

If the design team keep on with 10th for 5 years, they could write 11th in year 3 of the edition, leaving years 4 and 5 to write the codices. Then drop 11th at the end of year 5, with a release schedule of 2 codices a month.

 

There's a million and one ways to skin the cat in order to hit this sort of release schedule. None of which are unachievable for a company of GWs size. It's just a question of corporate willpower more than anything else.

[irlLordy]

9 hours ago, Wispy said:

The codexes would be incredibly broken,and full of errors if their design team had to do all of them in a year. It's too big an ask as an infrastructure and logistical challenge. No one is happy with the free 'get you by' rules that came out with 10th edition.

 

I would think it would be quite achievable, assuming they hired enough staff to properly do it. Standardising wordings on strategems and properly mathemathically modelling weapon damages and how they could be increased in codex (there are only a finite amount of combinations) would also help avoid obviously broken interactions.

 

Whether or not GW has the desire to do this is another thing.

[Mogger351]

28 minutes ago, irlLordy said:

 

I would think it would be quite achievable, assuming they hired enough staff to properly do it. Standardising wordings on strategems and properly mathemathically modelling weapon damages and how they could be increased in codex (there are only a finite amount of combinations) would also help avoid obviously broken interactions.

 

Whether or not GW has the desire to do this is another thing.

What would those staff be doing the other 2 years of the edition?

 

If they spend one of 3 years writing the books, we must assume they spend a year or so also working on the core rules or index releases if needed, so in reality, you release an edition, spend a year rapid firing books, get 1 year of patches/supplemental content, then nothing for 12 months as they go and work on the next edition. The doesn't also then consider both other game systems nor the fact the teams would need to be a lot bigger to get any form of playtesting done in time.

 

In short it'd be a really bad idea for GW and for us, you'd have the luxury of having a edition "done" with no updates for 12 months, which means some people get bored, no matter what they say and GW don't have shiny new stuff to sell for a year. It would also result in units being shoved out in cadence with the codex books. Kind of hard to balance a book when not all of the units you test with exist for the player base.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Mogger351
adding context