# Faeit 212 Exclusive: 40k Design Studio Open Day



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

You can find it here.



> * Faeit 212 Exclusive: 40k Design Studio Open Day *
> 
> 
> ​
> ...


A lot of nice insight. Then again I appreciate peeks into the Dev's way of thinking here and there.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

WHAT ABOUT SOB lol. Nice info though, thank you for posting.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Arcane said:


> WHAT ABOUT SOB lol. Nice info though, thank you for posting.



Apparently Ward DID mention them...but yeah, no Sisters rumors.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

> there are currently 6 ‘projects’ on the go for 40k


This is the part I find interesting. So Chaos, DA, Tau, and (probably) Tyranid make 4, leaving an expansion and 1 other mystery codex?


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Arcane said:


> This is the part I find interesting. So Chaos, DA, Tau, and (probably) Tyranid make 4, leaving an expansion and 1 other mystery codex?


Angry Marines?


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Zion said:


> Angry Marines?


Lol maybe. I really wish they would do an expansion which had all the current flyer rules (WD and otherwise) which also gave every army an option for anti aircraft weapons. Call it like Skies of Death or something.

Edit: derp I just looked up the new forgeworld IMPERIAL ARMOUR AERONAUTICA seems to be just what I was talking about.


----------



## Glokkss (Jul 31, 2011)

Love this thread.


----------



## elmir (Apr 14, 2011)

Interesting read. 

I agree with the writer of this article... Matt Ward doesn't deserve all the flak he's getting from some loudmouths on the internet. He designs pretty solid codexes with several potential builds. 

I'd much rather have a Matt Ward write a(ny) codex that's very strong, shakes up the meta completely when released BUT stands the "test of time", then have a cruddace like codex in powerlevel that completely kills off an army in the long run (like the nids). 

They would have to be very strong/competitive with GWs current codex update frequency.


----------



## HoboAnarki (Jul 13, 2012)

Arcane said:


> This is the part I find interesting. So Chaos, DA, Tau, and (probably) Tyranid make 4, leaving an expansion and 1 other mystery codex?


My guess would probably be Chaos, Dark Angels, Tau, Eldar, Black Templar and Sisters.

I thought the part about trying to get a release every month sounded pretty impressive anyway, could potentially have 6 new codexes within the year.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

HoboAnarki said:


> My guess would probably be Chaos, Dark Angels, Tau, Eldar, Black Templar and Sisters.
> 
> I thought the part about trying to get a release every month sounded pretty impressive anyway, could potentially have 6 new codexes within the year.


I doubt it would be that many codexes. More likely it would be a few codexes, an expansion, some new models and some other supplementary things.



elmir said:


> Interesting read.
> 
> I agree with the writer of this article... Matt Ward doesn't deserve all the flak he's getting from some loudmouths on the internet. He designs pretty solid codexes with several potential builds.
> 
> ...


Would rather hear loudmouths on the internet complain about Matt Ward than whiners on the internet QQ about Cruddace and Nids.


----------



## ShadowMatt (Sep 9, 2008)

_"Lastly I spoke to Robin Cruddace. I asked him about GW’s release schedule and to my utter amazement, he said that they were aiming for some sort of release each month. Be it a codex or some sort of expansion. I would be surprised if this were true!"_
That could mean anything from a codex to campaign supplements. GW will never release more than 3 or 4 codices per year..._ "so that you don’t reach a point where all codex’s for 6th are released with 2 years still to go before the next cycle."_
In other words they deliberately delay new codices to avoid a gap in major releases before the next edition. Depending how you look at it, it's either great business strategy, or a massive "screw you" to everyone stuck in old, clunky codex.


----------



## Karyudo-DS (Nov 7, 2009)

Arcane said:


> I doubt it would be that many codexes. More likely it would be a few codexes, an expansion, some new models and some other supplementary things.


Well we're pretty sure we're getting a couple in the near future and a few armies seem like they've needed new ones for awhile. Not sure about Nids, they may need a shot in the arm but they did get a book semi recently.

Trying to put out things every month sounds like a good deal of work. I wouldn't blame them if they didn't get that much done that quickly. Though if they can I at least hope these "Expansions" are better than the previous ones. The 5th edition ones left me unimpressed, but a book with relics etc... does sound interesting.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Arcane said:


> Would rather hear loudmouths on the internet complain about Matt Ward than whiners on the internet QQ about Cruddace and Nids.


Yeah, i'd rather have the codices be so good that they seem broken rather than so crap that they seem worthless too. :taunt:


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

ShadowMatt said:


> _"Lastly I spoke to Robin Cruddace. I asked him about GW’s release schedule and to my utter amazement, he said that they were aiming for some sort of release each month. Be it a codex or some sort of expansion. I would be surprised if this were true!"_
> That could mean anything from a codex to campaign supplements. GW will never release more than 3 or 4 codices per year..._ "so that you don’t reach a point where all codex’s for 6th are released with 2 years still to go before the next cycle."_
> In other words they deliberately delay new codices to avoid a gap in major releases before the next edition. Depending how you look at it, it's either great business strategy, or a massive "screw you" to everyone stuck in old, clunky codex.


Well, I for one am hoping that they change it up so that all the codices are revamped in 4 years. Maybe not quite all of them. The can skip necrons and grey knights since they are essentially 6th ed now.

And if the squat sisters and templars it will be easy to do! : D


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Eleven said:


> Yeah, i'd rather have the codices be so good that they seem broken rather than so crap that they seem worthless too. :taunt:


Don't worry, Ward probably wont be involved with 6th ed Nids so even after the new dex those players can still find ways to cry when they don't win every single game.


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

To be honest if Eldar isn't in the next few codices then GW are going to kill it, I don't know about most Eldar players but personally I was bored with my options 12months ago, the FW book did offer a few more apocalypse options but my list has essentially not changed for two years.

As for sisters - you got a White Dwarf codex, I think you should take that as a message that all you are likely to get is the odd unit update, until of course the army is subsumed into some "forces of the imperium" dex containing squats and all the other imperial minorities/oddities - the re-introduction of allies makes this all too likely.

I can see the issue with nids, they are just too different to try and get them to work properly, I think the decision to make them a little underpowered then fix them quickly was the right one, most players only bitch when one army trumps all - not when it is poor in comparison or doesn't work properly.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Bubblematrix said:


> To be honest if Eldar isn't in the next few codices then GW are going to kill it, I don't know about most Eldar players but personally I was bored with my options 12months ago, the FW book did offer a few more apocalypse options but my list has essentially not changed for two years. _Considering GW's history of updating armies long past overdue several years after they should have been updated, it's completely possible that they'll still get an update, and it'll be likely well past when people expect it. There have already been some small rumors about work being started on Eldar (about a month to two months ago), which if true, puts them at a bit past a year out if the standard development time of 18 months holds true still. _
> 
> As for sisters - you got a White Dwarf codex, I think you should take that as a message that all you are likely to get is the odd unit update, until of course the army is subsumed into some "forces of the imperium" dex containing squats and all the other imperial minorities/oddities - the re-introduction of allies makes this all too likely. _I disagree, Sisters got their own unique page with army specific fluff and models. To me that's a sign that they're conscious that Sisters need an update as Sisters. Besides, this isn't the first time we've seen an army White Dwarfed. _
> 
> I can see the issue with nids, they are just too different to try and get them to work properly, I think the decision to make them a little underpowered then fix them quickly was the right one, most players only bitch when one army trumps all - not when it is poor in comparison or doesn't work properly. _You are just a ray of sunshine in this thread aren't you? Nids are by no means completely broken, but they're written strictly with 5th edition rules in mind so this is going to cause some oddities in how they play. And this is the internet, people bitch about everything._


Comments in _yellow_. Seriously, GW isn't going to squat things, people have been saying that about Sisters for how long? And before that about Dark Eldar for how long? And then there is the fact that Eldar made the rulebook with their own section, not some roll up into "other aliens". And I doubt they're throwing Sisters into a generic "Forces of the Imperium" book, they got their own section on the rulebook as well as "Sisters of Battle" not "Forces of the Imperium" (as they'd gotten labelled in 5th). It just comes off as too out there when you have an army that's been around since 2nd Edition, has a good deal of fluff already and really just needs a couple small tweaks, a couple of new units, and new models to complete in a way that'd make people want to play Sisters more often.


----------



## Grogbart (Aug 29, 2010)

elmir said:


> I agree with the writer of this article... Matt Ward doesn't deserve all the flak he's getting from some loudmouths on the internet. He designs pretty solid codexes with several potential builds.


I'm so fed up with this sorry excuse of a justification!
Pretty much all of the argumentative criticism I've read (and also wrote) about Ward are concerning fluff he wrote.

So to me, it sounds a lot like:

Person A: "I've had some of Bill's cooking, it tasted awful. I think he's a bad cook!"
Person B: "No, he doesn't deserve all the flak he's getting. He once rescued a kitty from a tree!"

I've no intention of another pro/contra Ward discussion, certainly not here, but could we please refrain from such reasoning nonsense.

It should be allowed criticise someones work, even if he's a nice bloke, 
in the same sense as, 
someone shouldn't be declared an arse, just because you don't like his work!


----------



## Mokuren (Mar 29, 2011)

Grogbart said:


> It should be allowed criticise someones work, even if he's a nice bloke,
> in the same sense as,
> someone shouldn't be declared an arse, just because you don't like his work!


This cannot be stressed enough, I'm glad Matt Ward is a nice, reasonable and friendly fellow, but every time I read one of his fluff sections a small part of me dies.

It also dies every time a game designer puts "REALISM" as a design goal. Seriously, that makes me cringe, in my experience with tabletop wargaming and RPGs (and boardgaming too while we're at it) realism has _never_ resulted in anything but unnecessary complications and overall drop in quality.

Back on topic again, it makes me sad that, while they're trying to move away from the "ALWAYS COMPETITIVE ALL THE TIME" model in favour of the "WACKY HIJINKS" one, which I indeed like, they're still going to keep up with the corporate business idea that "It's okay to let several armies rot for seven years and then make them overpowered for one until some Marine chapter kicks their asses again" is healthy for the game.

Of course from a business standpoint it's great because people will always have to buy your latest models to win so you can sell them off fresh and keep little stock, which will be depleted by the "fans" and other people dumb enough to stick to things that won't get a iota of support before six years in the future.

From a gaming standpoint, however, it's horrible: last time I've been to a local tournament there was one IG player, one tyranid player, one demon player and my friend and I with CSM: the remaining 15 were all marines (GK included) with the occasional necron. This was a couple months before 6th edition hit.

I can't blame anyone for not bringing Tau or Sisters to the table, the worst part is that I know the reason I'm not seeing them around and I know GW encourages this attitude with their politics, and I'm just hating it.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Bubblematrix said:


> As for sisters - you got a White Dwarf codex, I think you should take that as a message that all you are likely to get is the odd unit update, until of course the army is subsumed into some "forces of the imperium" dex containing squats and all the other imperial minorities/oddities - the re-introduction of allies makes this all too likely.


You've obviously never heard of Vampire Counts or Blood Angels.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Arcane said:


> You've obviously never heard of Vampire Counts or Blood Angels.


Or Warriors of Chaos. 

I'm seriously wondering if that was a trolling attempt that just don't go right or they were seriously confused and believed what they said.


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Mokuren said:


> I can't blame anyone for not bringing Tau or Sisters to the table, the worst part is that I know the reason I'm not seeing them around and I know GW encourages this attitude with their politics, and I'm just hating it.


It's not politics, it's a simple Catch 22 imposed by the financial people at GW (not the Studio directly). 

Something doesn't sell, so it's pushed back and doesn't get updated.
Something doesn't get updated, so it doesn't sell.

It annoys the hell out of those working there, as no matter how much they want to do something, it has to be cleared by upper management first, who (because it's a plc) have to think of the money first.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

As someone who regularly accuses GW of not communicating enough with the fan-base (explaining the reasons behind rules, fluff or anything else we collectively bitch about), I think this is great. They really should do that more often...

Phil


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

boreas said:


> As someone who regularly accuses GW of not communicating enough with the fan-base (explaining the reasons behind rules, fluff or anything else we collectively bitch about), I think this is great. They really should do that more often...
> 
> Phil


I have to agree, the interview is one of the best things i have seen GW do for a long time, its a bit like they have taken a leaf out of FW's book. Personally im very impressed with 6th edition and the explanations for certain things these guys have given makes it even more enjoyable, I have quite a warm fuzzy feeling about the game side of the hobby again and im looking forward to playing a 6th edition game. But mostly im interested in whats in 40ks future, the hint about a release a month seems to be an indication that "allies" could be more than just the units from current armies? and possibly stand alone allies and merc/xenos units? either way this edition has certainly got a rogue trader 40k feeling to it, they used to release units and models pretty much every month for 40k back in the day,and every month you would have an article about the new release with rules in WD which would then end up in or part of an expansion or compilation. 
Also nice to see some love for Matt Ward.


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

First, read what I wrote not what you think I wrote - 



> To be honest if Eldar isn't in the next few codices then GW are going to kill it


I did not say stop it existing, or stop making Eldar - I mean't kill it, as it Eldar will be put onto the back burner until a new dex is out, they are currently a bit 1D and dull. I have read the rumours too, 18months is fine, two more years would be a little too long imho.



> As for sisters - you got a White Dwarf codex, I think you should take that as a message that all you are likely to get is the odd unit update, until of course the army is subsumed into some "forces of the imperium" dex containing squats and all the other imperial minorities/oddities - the re-introduction of allies makes this all too likely.


Maybe I was sisters baiting here, yes there have been codices after WD articles, but to be honest - you got an article to update you most likely because GW realised that sisters was on the long timetable and they didn't totally want to alienate you.
The forces of the imperium is pure conjecture, but with the option of allies and all the possibilities such a book would bring coupled with the attraction to the marine players this is I feel quite likely. At this point I would highly expect them to wrap up sisters in it as at the moment they seem to be a minority army which GW seem uninterested in producing a full codex re-write for.



> I can see the issue with nids, they are just too different to try and get them to work properly, I think the decision to make them a little underpowered then fix them quickly was the right one, most players only bitch when one army trumps all - not when it is poor in comparison or doesn't work properly.


This was taking the GW statement that they are likely to release a second FAQ later and some of the design team talking about the difficulties with nids and wondering aloud whether fixing them later and properly is what will happen and that rather than overpowering they chose slight underpowering as this often gets a better reception in the 40k community.



Zion said:


> I'm seriously wondering if that was a trolling attempt that just don't go right or they were seriously confused and believed what they said.


No, you just needed to read it a bit more carefully and without the sisters bias. In all honesty I cannot see a sisters codex if at all before most other armies are 6th'd and your best hope is them included in something else - maybe with FW being much more 40k accepted it might come in the form of an IA book - which would be another way to handle it.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

sisters will get there own codex, as sure as eggs is eggs and to be fair bubble, when you use the phrase "GW will kill it" that means it "is no more", "has ceased to be", "bereft of life, it rests in peace" which in the GW context is "squatted"


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> sisters will get there own codex, as sure as eggs is eggs and to be fair bubble, when you use the phrase "GW will kill it" that means it "is no more", "has ceased to be", "bereft of life, it rests in peace" which in the GW context is "squatted"


*Squawk!* :wink:


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

I will correct myself, will seriously reduce the attractiveness or interest - a bit a like a bad fake tan.

And good MP ref there 

As for the sisters codex, I think we agree to disagree on that one.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

bitsandkits said:


> sisters will get there own codex, as sure as eggs is eggs and to be fair bubble, when you use the phrase "GW will kill it" that means it "is no more", "has ceased to be", "bereft of life, it rests in peace" which in the GW context is "squatted"


While I wouldn't say it's probable that sister get squatted, nothing is impossible. If the models production get too problematic (eg those infamous sleeves, etc), if sales projections are iffy, or anything else goes wrong, the higher management could pull the plug. I know lots of sisters players will angrily tell me that "Its impossible" or "all armies that got WD codexes got real codexes" or "GW will never squat any army". I'd remind those that Sisters are THE reason I switched from WFB (my first GW game) to WH40k. I'd be sad to see them go and if they get redone, it'll probably be the biggest sales GW will get from me since they re-did GKs. But realistically, in a business (as so many are fond of remind me when I critic GW's more agressive moves like removing ROW shipping), no project is 100% safe.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

while i agree nothing is 100% safe from the dreaded accountant, sisters are a popular army, despite having almost zero plastics and outdated codex they still remain popular and in my opinion they have always been a more popular army than necrons and DE in terms of sales until they were both revamped. Sisters as they stand at the moment are a non starter i grant you,which is why i think GW have taken them back to the drawing board (literally) under the guidance of Jes Goodwin, he and his understudys will wave there collective magic wands over them and they will be relaunched on mass and the fans will buy in droves and they will also get picked up as ally units to boot. 

I cant offer anything in terms of concrete evidence, In purely business terms sisters make no sense to update, but as has been pointed out on many occassions, if GW only produced models based on sales figures we wouldnt have any xenos except maybe Orks and you certainly wouldnt have catachan guards and most of the Warhammer fantasy stuff wouldnt exist and the company wouldnt have stores all over the world. GW does not make models based on purely sales figures.

we should how ever take the fact that DE and Necrons got such a massive and impressive update and revamp as a clear indicator of GWs plans for its Sisters range, after all there is always a second option in business when something isnt selling very well other than bin it, you can always make it better than it was, i know that might shock some people but its true and DE and Necrons are both huge testaments to that.


----------



## TheSpore (Oct 15, 2009)

Gotta agree with you Bits, the sisters will one day make a comeback, just not soon enough that is all. I heard the CSM will be getting a new dex by like next month or so (don't quote me on that), this year is going to be the year for 40k, a new edition tends to herald in a new update for many of the extremly outdated codexes, and I am sure this will occur with the ones we have now, except SM, we all know somewhere soon will be a nilla dex for them.


----------



## HoboAnarki (Jul 13, 2012)

bitsandkits said:


> we should how ever take the fact that DE and Necrons got such a massive and impressive update and revamp as a clear indicator of GWs plans for its Sisters range, after all there is always a second option in business when something isnt selling very well other than bin it, you can always make it better than it was, i know that might shock some people but its true and DE and Necrons are both huge testaments to that.


After the success GW have had with re-releasing previously unpopular armies (Dark Eldar and to a lesser extent Grey Knights and Necrons), you've got to think they'll be hoping for a similar outcome with re-releasing an army like sisters of battle.

The current situation of sisters at them moment is very similar to how dark eldar were before their updated codex, most peoples reaction to seeing them was something along the lines of "I've always been interested in these guys, if only they had better/plastic models."


----------

