Now, unlike the other Q&A with Gav, this one may be a bit more or less straight forward. You have been warned, so onward:
Green for QuestionsRed for Andy Hoare>> First off, got to say that GW has really improved in leaps and bounds over the last decade. Not only did the old 2nd edn rules get a much needed make-over to help the game flow, but the background has allowed for some of the best creativity (art, models, background, storylines, etc) GW has ever produced. Even the range of novels has expanded exponetially, and friends of mine who work as teachers claim to have seen a lot of kids with language and math difficulties suddenly develop an avid interest in both as a result of this hobby. Damn fine job you lads are doing! Bravo!I can feel a 'but' coming on here ;-)
>>
>> However, as an enthusiast myself, this is where my questions start, and I'd really appreciate some answers from the guys who know (ie, the overworked, underappreciated, and no doubt underpaid GW GD staff), if they'd be so good and feel so inclined.
>>
>>
>> 1) CODEX IG
>> There are an awful lot of posts and opinions (or is that a lot of awful posts and opinions?) on the notion of Adversaries and their background (see the Daemon/Witch-hunters codexes for more details) on this forum, and despite the huge popularity of such, there still seems to be a good deal of debate on the matter. Most of my own involvement is with IG, although I do get involved in most of the others too, so I'd like to say that a Traitors and Renegades section in the back of a completely reworked IG codex would be fantastic.
>>
>> Okay, to the questions: Can we expect to see the next release of codex IG (whenever that is) include:
Well, it isn't even a glint in a scheduler's eye right now, so this is all entirely hypothetical, but I'll have a go at some of your points, apart from the Eldar, as I don't want to tread on any toes.>> (a) A Traitors and Renegades section that incorporates the Adversaries options from both the Witchhunters and Daemonhunters codexes and/or Eye of Terror Blessings of the Gods as upgrades plus Chaos hounds and spawn Force Selection add ons?
I think its most unlikely, as the Adversaries rules are really just for fun in very specific, narrative driven instances. These can't develop into armies in their own right, as they rely on playing against other, specific armies, so if we do develop them, it'll most likely be done in a different way.>> (b) An option for things like Motorised Rough Riders, infantry based Patrol Squads, IG Battle Buggies like the Ork wartracks and war buggies, heavy sentinels, 'build your own' Armoured Vehicles, new Regimental Doctrines, etc (ie, most of the stuff I have collected from various sources and posted in the GD forum for discussion before those posts mysteriously vanished)?I'm sure we'll pursue many of these themes, although I couldn't predict in what form. As many are extremely niche, its often a case of diminishing returns for us to do so, so you're really best of developing that sort of thing for your own use. That's what the hobby's all about.>> (c) A mercenaries option that allows human Traitors and Renegades to be used with various other armies like the Tau and Space Marines (who have human support crews as we all know)?
Mercs in 40k are one of those subjects that people get very worked up about. Personally, I feel that people like strongly themed armies, hence the number of Tau players who don't take Kroot, Witch Hunters players who take only Sisters, Chaos Legions etc. This being the case, I suspect that, although many people like the *idea* of mercs, they wouldn't actually see that much use. An all-merc army I can see being cool (ala Wild Geese or Hammer's Slammers) though.
>> (d) will a revamped codex release be combined with GW store variants of the fantastic Elysian and Tallarn Guard models, and can we expect to see others (eg, Steel Legion/Valhallans)?
Too early to know.>> 2) CODEX ORKS
>> The Orks codex was very, very cool but seemed a little thin both physically and in content, so will the next release of this codex (whenever that is) include:
>>
>> (a) the Chapter approved Clanz and Feral Orks lists?Don't know.>> (b) a Gretchin Revolution Kommittee section in the back somewhere to represent the various clan/factions of this little Green tide of sociological dissidents?Again, a funny idea, but very niche. Is our time better spent writing about the Red Gobbo or writing a new, for example, Codex Necrons?>> 3) CODEX ELDAR
>> Oh the lamentations of those who feel betrayed by the format of Codex Eldar! Again, wonderful job but a little thin in both content and physical size, so can we expect the next revision of the Eldar codex (whenever that is) to include:Remember, books were written then to get as many for the 3rd ed out as possible - if they weren't, they'd still be being written now!
[Snip Eldar stuff]>> 4) CODEX TAU
>> Perhaps the greatest leap forward by GW was the Tau; the first real 'new' thing to come into the 40K universe for a long, long time. This ended many years of stagnation in one bold move but really didn't capitalise where it could have regarding mercenaries. Therefore, will the next revision of the Tau (whenever that is) include:
>>
>> (a) A section titled Mercenaries that provides some decent rules that fit with the background fluff of 'sharing' tech for using humans, abhumans, Hrud, Loxatl, Vespoids, Kroot, Galgs, Exodites, and Lord only knows what other xenos races that the Tau have assimilated into their empire to protect their ever expanding borders?Remember, stuff can exist in the background without having to exist on the tabletop - if we *had* to put everything ever mentioned in the background onto the table, we'd end up having to cut back all the interesting references so as not to create an unfulfillable demand. As it happens, we've had many discussions about the danger of watering down the very tight, focussed image of the Tau, yet still conveying the character of their empire. We think we've done it, but you may not ;-)
>> (b) A more 'build your own' battlesuit approach to the Tau battlesuit technology systems, rather than limiting enthusiasts to the predetermine five 'official' formats that prevent them from creating some of the fantastic Forge World models?Adding more variaty was an aim, yes.
>> 5) GAMES DEVELOPMENT FORMAT AND STAFF INVOLVEMENT
>> And last, but not least, a question on the format of the Games Development forum. There are a lot of good ideas here that go unnoticed or get spirited away without explanation, and yet many of those good ideas fail to get support from the GD team. There is no doubt that you guys are run off your feet and don't have a lot of time to read even one percent of these posts, but surely someone can be dedicated to keeping an eye on what goes on here?
>>
>> So many times we see moderator involvement to reprimand some poor poster who has mentioned something forbidden (which they may not have known was off-limits, eg, short, bearded people who no longer dwell in 40K because they are too close to their fantasy cousins, yet we have Dark Eldar ....) or forgotten to tag (40K), WHFB), or whatever on his or her post, yet there is very little intervention on the part of GD team members to redirect or provide an 'official' direction on matters of background fluff and rules. How many times have posters with great ideas that really explore the potential of 40K been shut down by somebody crying foul over 'balance' issues? When a real translation is made of this 'unbalnce' issue, it is that the idea threatens the respondants control over some part of the hobby (be it ability to win games or general knowledge of the rules and mechanics).
>>
>> It seems a shame that enthusiasm and creativity go unrewarded while the exact opposite is (by default) promoted, especially in a market where competition for new clients is so fierce and those that lose interest may never return (not good for generating the funds to keep this hobby going). What I'd like to know, is will GW start to encourage posters with good ideas that seek to expand and improve the hobby, or will GW allow these kinds of negative postings to again cloak the hobby in a period of stagnation and elitism? Will you guys put an end to rediculous notions that limit the scope of such a huge genre (face it, the galaxy is a very, very big place with room for all), or will you continue to inadvertently promote attitudes like "no human anywhere has access to anti-grav because it was forbidden by the Emperor", "Eldar or Tau with special and heavy weapons will turn into Space Marines", "if that idea was used the game wouldn't work and I'd never play again", etc, etc?
Well, we look when we can, but it isn't part of our day to day duties - I normally only look or post in my lunch break, because I want to, not because I have to. Perhaps its just how people play games these days, but I've never felt the need for external validation of rules I've played in my own gaming group. Sharing your ideas is always good, but you don't need our permission, or anyone else's to use them. A good example is the ASM debate - having played many games sysems since the mid eighties, its not something I would want back in 40k even if it were my decision, as it really is something that only a very small % of 'elite' players care amount - those are the guys, like yourself, who are capable of making their own rules, and using them - they don't need our permission to do so and we would never presume to tell them they do!
Hope that helps a bit!
Happy Christmas all
Andy http://uk.games-workshop.com/apps/eshare.pl?do=ReadThread&BoardID=16&ID=4551495&template=uk
