Friday, December 12, 2008

Supplements- Why GW should bring them back


Remember the days where you bought a codex, lets say Space Marines for instance, and then you got that cool supplement, such as Blood Angels, that based it's core off that codex. Those were the good old days, right. When you didn't have to worry about your list becoming outdated/broken when they decided to change something with a new book or FAQ.

Case for supplements-
First of all from a purely business standpoint, it is better. We all know that GW likes to make money, and if you are reading this blog, you most likely are willing to pay vast amounts of it on what are essentially "Toys". Given this fact, GW could sell a normal codex at normal price and then make extra off a 1/2 price 1/2 codex. The way it is now, everyone buys 1 codex for 1 army. This way everyone buys AT LEAST 1 codex per army and some people choose to buy MORE. Not only did it allow for variant army supplements, but campaign books could be supplemental to codices as well, such as Armageddon and Eye of Terror. You needed the main book and then the campaign book for your specific army list. Business logic tells me that is a winning plan.

Okay now for the player side of things. It is nicer. It meant consistency through out the codices. Catachans selected from IG, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Salamanders, Black Templars, 13th Company (A Double Supplement- excellent business move) all used Space Marine, Craftworld Eldar used Eldar. What this hurts really now is the variant Space Marine lists. Why do some chapters get Land Raiders of Variant capacity? Different veterans? etc. etc. GW can't update the variants fast enough for separate codices to be viable options. Supplements work. When the core changes, all change with it. It is easy, fast and done. THEN they can take their time on changing a supplement, but at least it isn't outdated.

In addition, supplements for things such as Catachans and Eldar allowed for a little more flavour. They say that you can now make any craftworld from the Eldar list, but IMOHO they aren't as representative of their craftworlds as they used to be. Furthermore, there isn't as much fluff on certain armies when the supplement is just folded into the main book. There is much more potential in the supplement to contain background and hobby info in the supplement for a variant than in the main codex.

To some it up supplements are:
Fluff and Hobby friendly- able to have more than a folded in variant and as much as a separate codex
Easily Updated- One change rather than a Squillion over the course of a decade. By the time a variant separate codex is updated, everything is changed.
Better business- I am willing to pay for your products. Sell them to me.
Allows for Campaign Books
Greater flavour to the army- Salamanders are nothing in the new SM codex. They were so much cooler from the Armageddon book. Give the players back the fluff. AND the army special rules...

So thats my rant for the day.

Tell me what you think in the polls.

On a seperate note I want to thank those who added me to their blog rolls. If they added me, they are present in mine- so go check them out.

No post tomorrow most likely- I have a 7+ hour drive...

Seperate codex for each army
3 (17%)
Supplement Codices for variant lists
8 (47%)
Independent Character driven variant lists
0 (0%)
Wider options in the main list to attempt and create a "variant list"
3 (17%)
Trait/doctrine driven variant lists
3 (17%)