Back to 0 Faith ...

[TheArtilleryman]

9 hours ago, ZeroWolf said:

With regards to the last codex of the edition paradigm, I'm sure that back in 40k past there was a codex that was made to be forward compatible as the new edition was being developed at the same time. This led to it being useful in both old and new editions.

This was definitely before the three year cycle but I'm now worried that my memory is playing tricks on me.

 

Either way, that's what they should aim for if they insist on the 3 year cycle. Though given the amount of games that GW are offering, I think they could feasibly move to a 4 - 5 year model, release all codexs in the first 3 years, next 1-2 years is campaign books, like 1 a quarter.

Your recollection is correct. Codexes always used to be valid for the edition after right up until they got updated. They only need to wipe codexes when rules change so much that the fundamentals of unit or weapon profiles are rendered obsolete. As far as I can remember:

 

In 3rd edition the rules changed for weapon profiles, moving to the system where AP of 3, for example, meant that marines got no save at all against the weapon. This system persisted for 5 editions during which codexes remained valid as they overlapped Rulebook changes. Codexes were released very quickly in 3rd as really slim volumes and some armies even got two in the same edition. This was a period where new editions of the rules only had minor changes or additions. The 6th edition rules were also the basis for the first edition of Horus Heresy. This was my “golden age” of 40K that stretched from my mid teens well into my 30s and was where I felt really confident about the rules to the point where I had everything memorised.

 

In 8th edition  when primaris marines released, they invalidated all for the second time. They changed how the weapon skill stat worked, started using keywords and brought in power levels so the profiles in all previous codexes wouldn’t be compatible. They released five index books covering all armies at launch for a tenner each. I still have four of them on my shelf and didn’t even bother to buy a codex that edition.

 

In 10th, they have changed the datasheets again and how the stats work, so again codexes are invalid. This feels like far too soon, especially for IG players.
 

I’d like to see some stability in the system again personally and be able to pick up a Codex safe in the knowledge that it will be useable when they change the rules. From 8th onwards I have found it much harder to get into the game and remember the rules, especially with less free time. It definitely feels like things change too fast and like it’s all about money instead of the community.

 

Or another option … release all the army rules in one book with the rules like Mantic do. To do this though they would have to release rules for units that don’t have models, unless they were to release all at launch. I have no issue with that though as others have said.

Edited January 26 by TheArtilleryman

[ThaneOfTas]

10 hours ago, ZeroWolf said:

Either way, that's what they should aim for if they insist on the 3 year cycle. Though given the amount of games that GW are offering, I think they could feasibly move to a 4 - 5 year model, release all codexs in the first 3 years, next 1-2 years is campaign books, like 1 a quarter.

I mean, let's look at their current systems, you've got 40k, AoS, 30k, ToW, LotR, Killteam, Necromunda, Warcry, Underworlds, LI and Warhammer Quest. 

 

Theoretically we could have the first five on a 5 year cycle, one each, with the rest spread out between in the off halves of the years. It might not be perfect, for one thing I don't know if I like the idea of Heresy being updated even that often, and the community of LotR and ToW might feel similar, but it should absolutely be doable for them to spread out the edition cycle for longer.

[armarnis]

Longer edition cycles would do a lot for the health of warhammer

[ZeroWolf]

7 hours ago, armarnis said:

Longer edition cycles would do a lot for the health of warhammer

Don't think you'll ever find anyone to argue the opposite!

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Maybe the return of The Old World and the launch of Legion Imperialis could be a good thing in that regard of having longer life cycles. If they have five main systems instead of two (Aos, TOW, HH 2.0, 40K, LI) they could start stretching things out a bit. 

[SvenONE]

3 hours ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

Maybe the return of The Old World and the launch of Legion Imperialis could be a good thing in that regard of having longer life cycles. If they have five main systems instead of two (Aos, TOW, HH 2.0, 40K, LI) they could start stretching things out a bit. 

  

At the very least it does make you wonder how they could manage to maintain these systems without slipping on quality, and matching the hype train they seem to be driving.

 

I also dabble in AOS with a FEC army, GW announced the Ushoran model and the next Dawnbringer book (IV) a little more than 2 months ago at the last major event reveal. There's still no date announced yet (not like it I'll be able to get the model bc of scalpers/bots) and they are already talking about book V!

 

I'm actually starting to think 2024 is going to be a little bit of a humbling year for GW as they wrestle with some more recent success. Biting off more they can chew and all that.

 

IIRC the 40K roadmap had a "mystery" codex for late summer/fall, I wonder if that's just to give them wiggle room if they fall behind.

[brother_b]

I play this game for fun and for the “story” it tells. I think 9th edition was the best edition, had veerrrrrry chunky rules but they really conveyed the “feel” if all the armies. It was also fairly balanced.

 

I feel 10th edition was pushed way to far to the “simple” side of gaming and we lost too much granularity (de facto PL, fixed units, etc).

 

Back to faith, I own Rogue Trader and played it as my first edition. What we have now is amazing and I’ll continue to ride the bus of GW and 40K, not for the amazing rules, but for the camaraderie, fun with friends, and amazing lore and universe.

 

 

[Helias_Tancred]

On 1/27/2024 at 4:46 PM, SvenONE said:

  

At the very least it does make you wonder how they could manage to maintain these systems without slipping on quality, and matching the hype train they seem to be driving.

 

I also dabble in AOS with a FEC army, GW announced the Ushoran model and the next Dawnbringer book (IV) a little more than 2 months ago at the last major event reveal. There's still no date announced yet (not like it I'll be able to get the model bc of scalpers/bots) and they are already talking about book V!

 

I'm actually starting to think 2024 is going to be a little bit of a humbling year for GW as they wrestle with some more recent success. Biting off more they can chew and all that.

 

IIRC the 40K roadmap had a "mystery" codex for late summer/fall, I wonder if that's just to give them wiggle room if they fall behind.

 

I hope they have a humbling year. Whatever it takes to make them reevaluate their current scheme and make it better for their customers and new players.

 

[MegaVolt87]

1 hour ago, Helias_Tancred said:

 

I hope they have a humbling year. Whatever it takes to make them reevaluate their current scheme and make it better for their customers and new players.

 

 

More like,

 

"I hope they have a humbling year. Whatever it takes to make them reevaluate their current scheme and make it better for their Warhammer 40k customers and new 40k players."

 

While things could always be better for any GW system, its clearly 40k's turn to be on the struggle bus this time. Its a great time to be involved in the warhammer hobby that isn't current 10th ed 40k. I don't think GW could have afforded to stay in business to go full AoS on 40k, so we ended up with what we have today. GW is between a rock and a hard place, they want to have their cake and eat it- how firstborn are handled, prioritization of new units vs existing kit resculpts/ remasters and simplifying the rules has now created more problems than it solved. Its also incredibly stupid to release new units every edition for a new codex, save that for campaign books. Kit re-masters/ re-sculpts at most for a new edition codex drop. The new primaris flamethrower guys should have been in a campaign book, not for the SM dex launch for example. 

 

[Helias_Tancred]

but .... but the cash register must ruing continuously and extremely loudly! ;) ... "We got shareholders to answer to! and continuous growth to achieve!"

Edited January 29 by Helias_Tancred

[Xenith]

On 1/22/2024 at 1:25 PM, gideon stargreave said:

100% agreed. Yes it can be nice to have test of skill Style even match ups, I think the game shouldn’t be that as default. I’d love to see rulebook scenarios that were made unbalanced as written, eg. Defenders have 1/2 points values but special terrain 

 

Check the narrative section! That's where you'll find the previous edition style thematic games, with asymmetric objectives. You don't even need to be playing crusade to run them, just have a go! 

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Helias_Tancred hit the nail on the head. The business model requires infinite exponential growth. So GW will do that regardless of the long term. Long term thinking just isn't something western businesses tend to do. 

 

@SvenONE Book IV and Ushoran go up for pre-order 3rd February! The FEC army box is still available on the GW website too at time of writing. 

[Valkyrion]

GW don't really have 5 major games systems, they've more got 3 levels - AOS and 40k in one bracket, AoD, LI, TOW, LOTR in another, Necro, KT, BB etc in the third.

 

A four year life cycle would allow for this, for instance;

Year one - 40k and Blood Bowl

Year two - HH, TOW and NM

Year three - AOS and Kill Team

Year four - Epic and AT, LOTR and Warcry

 

I'm just talking core sets involving rule changes, not 'seasonal' things like KT expansions or Blood Bowl annuals or whatever. I have no idea how big a game Underworlds is either, but it doesn't seem to be as developer intensive as the rest, but I may be wrong and it warrants its own design window like the rest of the catalogue. 

By the 2 year point of the game cycle, the final codexes or equivalents will be released, giving all gamers a full two years to play knowing that their rules, for good or bad, are now set in stone for two full years.  Campaigns, FAQ's, one off unit releases with pdf rules can all still be released, but the fundamentals remain static for fully half the lifespan of the game. 

 

Squashing all of that into a three year life span just feels exactly what it is; rushed and uncoordinated. 

[Xenith]

1 hour ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

The business model requires infinite exponential growth. So GW will do that regardless of the long term. Long term thinking just isn't something western businesses tend to do. 

 

Well, infinite exponential growth is impossible, and most companies know this. Infinite sustained growth is what all businesses plan on and are required to do by both shareholders and the fundamental requirements of capitalism (inflation > prices go up > people cant afford > businesses growth stalls > recession > print money > inflation), so this isn't a GW thing, per se, but like you say, a Western problem. 

 

But yes, to secure 3% increases to stay in the same place (due to inflation), they either have to sell you 3% more, or give you 3% less for the same money (shrinkflation). This isn't unique to GW. Every business in the world does it, bar some exceptions. This means that every business in the world needs to grown by a minimum % each year to stay in the same place. This isn't a GW thing. It's the world we live in. 

Edited January 29 by Xenith

[phandaal]

22 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

Squashing all of that into a three year life span just feels exactly what it is; rushed and uncoordinated.

 

Agreed. And there is another piece of the puzzle: the game rules. For me, and it seems like for many others as well, the rules themselves are a core part of the problem.

 

For example - Power Level. Didn't want it before, don't want it now when they rename the system to Points. It was fine as an optional system for people who really wanted that much less granularity, but not as the main building block for everyone.

 

A four-year cycle will not make those kinds of things any better, so the fundamentals also have to work to give people something they actually want to spend time with.

[SvenONE]

12 hours ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

@SvenONE Book IV and Ushoran go up for pre-order 3rd February! The FEC army box is still available on the GW website too at time of writing. 

 

I saw! It's like I willed it into existence! FEC isnt like wildly popular but I feel like GW really dragged their feet with it.

[Helias_Tancred]

17 hours ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

.... Long term thinking just isn't something western businesses tend to do. 

 

Amen! Bingo! I've been saying this for years now. I agree 120%. Sometimes the shareholder model especially in "gotta get rich quick" societies  (USA and UK) can be a detriment to long term planning/prosperity. 

Edited January 30 by Helias_Tancred

[sarabando]

rather than a whole new edition each 3 years they should do a new starter set with a rulebook that has all the FAQs applied and errors fixed. 

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

@Svenone I have a soft spot for FEC. Unfortunately I just don't get to play enough AoS to justify having them. I hope the Battletome is good and grisly for you. 

 

It does at times seem like GW take ages for certain things to drop, or see a stand alone release outside of a box set of something. 

[MegaVolt87]

On 1/31/2024 at 5:38 AM, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

@Svenone I have a soft spot for FEC. Unfortunately I just don't get to play enough AoS to justify having them. I hope the Battletome is good and grisly for you. 

 

It does at times seem like GW take ages for certain things to drop, or see a stand alone release outside of a box set of something. 

 

The rise of box splitters has definitely thrown a spanner in the works for stand alone releases. An obvious example is characters. Who is buying those at RRP these days when you can just watch the net and grab them at a fraction of the price from box splitters. GW bundles really should not be including them to prop up the sales of them separately. 

[TheArtilleryman]

4 hours ago, MegaVolt87 said:

 

The rise of box splitters has definitely thrown a spanner in the works for stand alone releases. An obvious example is characters. Who is buying those at RRP these days when you can just watch the net and grab them at a fraction of the price from box splitters. GW bundles really should not be including them to prop up the sales of them separately. 

 

Totally with you on this. I have t bought anything direct from GW for years because it makes no sense when you can save so much by going elsewhere.

 

What I really don’t get though is why box splitters do it. I looked into doing it myself once a long time ago, and their margins must be so pitifully small, what with all with the packaging and shipping as well, that they would need to sell an absurd number of kits to make any kind of worthwhile money.

[MegaVolt87]

6 minutes ago, TheArtilleryman said:

 

Totally with you on this. I have t bought anything direct from GW for years because it makes no sense when you can save so much by going elsewhere.

 

What I really don’t get though is why box splitters do it. I looked into doing it myself once a long time ago, and their margins must be so pitifully small, what with all with the packaging and shipping as well, that they would need to sell an absurd number of kits to make any kind of worthwhile money.

 

Easiest way to explain it is McDonald's margins. They make small margin or a loss on specific items, but turn a profit once a certain level of volume sales are met. For example, your x2 boxes of the HH starter won't make you money, but if you can move x20 or x200 HH box splits then that's a different story.