PDA

View Full Version : Codex Updates



PhoenixFlame
10-27-2009, 01:53 PM
I'm here to talk about two of our favorite things, "codex" and "update"
there's lots of talk about what Codex is coming up next, what it should be, what it shouldn't be, and why. Well that "why" is the focus here, I want to know what method each of you hobbyists uses to personally decide which Codex should get the nod next.

What follows is a brake down of my personal method, feel free to comment on it but please include your own as well. Go crazy, if you were in charge of the Games Workshop publishing department how would YOU run things? Give it your best go, make your points clearly, after all, you never know who might read it :)


My method:

My priority for both modeling and game play is the 'twin-dragon' of balance and diversity.
Balance because it allows for more fun armies to be fielded in a somewhat competitive way (and thus a larger pool of people who might pick them up) thus increasing the fun of games and the opportunities for modeling, painting and conversion.
Diversity for all the reasons listed above, after all there's a lot more to be said for facing off against 5 unique armies at a tourney each with it's own paint style and individual flair than it is to hit the same thing over and over... that kind of monochromatic situation is less fulfilling weather you're talking about painting, modeling, building diorama, or tactical competition.

So my factors, listed in order of priority are as follows

Rules balance (as the function whatever edition is current)
Diversity of options (Are Ultras and Dark Angels different, absolutely.. are they as different as Daemons and Guard? Not really)
Time since last update (because lets face it the longer this goes the more likely it is to have issues in one or both of the preceding areas)
Sales numbers (the hobby needs money to keep running and what sells does matter but its the lowest standard on my list because everything gets a sales boost when new books, models, kits, etc. are released for it. Beyond that sales also start to decline as options get stale through lack of update and even more so as rules get incompatible and weak thus killing the pool of payers willing to take up or maintain use of a given army/list. Because of that using Sales is something of a self fulfilling prophecy and thus needs to be tempered by having other considerations first)


Alright I've opened the floor, now what do you think?

Herald of Nurgle
10-27-2009, 02:00 PM
First of all I would ensure that all months of the year are filled. 40k -> Fantasy -> LotR/Tools -> Fantasy -> 40k -> LotR/Tools/Expansion -> 40k -> Fantasy and so on... 4 codexes a year are better than just 2, even if they require FAQs.

Next, I bring hobby stores into the equation for playtesting etc. Then, each month the new codex for that month will gain an FAQ. In LotR/Tools/Expansion months, FAQs will be updated should there actually be no release.

I maintain a strict schedule. One Marine codex is released per year, and this shall be at the beginning (to catch that wandering XMAs cash). I then release a single codex from each 'tier':
40K
- Second: Eldar, Orks, CSM, Guard
- Third: Tau, Tyranids, Inquisition
- Fourth: Necrons, Dark Eldar
FANTASY:
- First: Empire, Chaos, Skaven
- Second: Vampire Counts, Elves
- Third: Ogres, Tomb Kings, Bretonnia, Dogs of War (WD Minidex)

Blah-bitty-blah.

Miggidy Mack
10-27-2009, 04:37 PM
This all makes sense and would help build a better game... which is a more marketable game. There are people who will believe that "GW knows best" because of market research and experience. Market research into a niche is notoriously unreliable, so any they have done probably isn't going to work well.

They stay on top because they have their own stores and they don't have that much competition. Warmachine just isn't there yet. It doesn't have the industry momentum of GW.

GW isn't perfect, they are definitely missing out on some serious opportunities. FAQ's and Errata would help them cover that. There are players who are WAITING to spend money. Why make them wait for a new codex? Why not do a quick update and give inquisition armies a drop pod? BAM, one PDF and you have made money.

"But people can do that without permission". That's what I keep hearing in response. That just shows a lack of understanding of how many gamers treat rule systems. That's mostly American gamers, however. My research into other cultures on the subject is admittedly limited.

In the end, the only reasons GW doesn't seriously maintain a REAL FAQ/Errata system boils down to only 2 options:

1) Incompetence. This includes fear of the internet, laziness, corporate red tape and of course stubborn refusal based on previous data that really isn't adequate.

2) Dislike of people who play certain armies. They must actually see someone buying a necron army and think to themselves "Wow, I hate that guy. I hope he is sterile. What can I do to make his money, time and effort less valuable than those whose personal tastes I value? Man those necron players a retards, they fell right into my trap of profiling the morons based on their army tastes."

PhoenixFlame
10-28-2009, 12:51 PM
That's a good point about the FAQs/Errata I hadn't been thinking along those lines but it would definitely help.
Thank you both for you input :) I'm looking forward to seeing what other thoughts/ideas are floating around here at BoLS