Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kojiro wrote:

I still believe the PP MK2 Field Test should be the standard. There is simply no excuse for a company the size of GW to fail this task. People always go on about how tight the rules are and this was a big reason for it.

Which GW couldn't give to feths about.

They have no interest whatsover in making competition rules, or even tight rules.

And I'm fine with that.

 cincydooley wrote:

Which GW couldn't give to feths about.

Well nobody ever accused GW of being geniuses.

They have no interest whatsover in making competition rules, or even tight rules.

Why would they, they're only losing market share to games with those kind of rules.

And I'm fine with that.

Is it actually your preference for loose rules or do they simply not bother you? If it's the former then I simply don't understand. If it's the latter then surely you're not bothered by tight rules?

The answer is as always, it depends.

I haven't bought a rulebook since 6th edition. Got one from a box set, read it, tossed it in the bin. There would need to be GIGANTIC fixes to entice me to get back into gaming (as opposed to just collecting). If the new owner delivered - I would buy it in an eye blink.

But if it was just another turd warmed over (see: 7th), I would save my money for the toy soldiers and pass on the book.

 adamsouza wrote:
Honestly I find this entire concept laughable. We have people who have left the game, and people who raged about buying 7th edition and hardcover codexes, getting excited about having to buy new rules and codexes.

Nothing wrong with that at all. I won't buy 7th edition, because it's a quick update on 6th edition whilst making things worse, so is redundant and 300% overpriced.

I'd buy an 8th Edition in a heartbeat if it was a complete re-write by a designer/company that wants to make a good game and not just sell giant model kits. If Priestly or Cavatore were to announce a re-write I'd pre-order it on the spot. Bolt Action: Grimdark would be epic.

As to the topic; I wouldn't want the update straight away. It'd realistically take 2 years for a re-write to make it to the market; 6+ months to write the rules/army books, 6+ months to playtest/edit, then another 6 months lead time.

I'd rather they didn't waste time trying to errata the current GW books into something useful, and just focus on making a good game again.

Herzlos wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Honestly I find this entire concept laughable. We have people who have left the game, and people who raged about buying 7th edition and hardcover codexes, getting excited about having to buy new rules and codexes.

Nothing wrong with that at all. I won't buy 7th edition, because it's a quick update on 6th edition whilst making things worse, so is redundant and 300% overpriced.

I'd buy an 8th Edition in a heartbeat if it was a complete re-write by a designer/company that wants to make a good game and not just sell giant model kits. If Priestly or Cavatore were to announce a re-write I'd pre-order it on the spot. Bolt Action: Grimdark would be epic.

As to the topic; I wouldn't want the update straight away. It'd realistically take 2 years for a re-write to make it to the market; 6+ months to write the rules/army books, 6+ months to playtest/edit, then another 6 months lead time.

I'd rather they didn't waste time trying to errata the current GW books into something useful, and just focus on making a good game again.

I'd want the playtest bumped up to two years - but that also assumes that the army lists are being roughed in and balanced during that same period.

Get the armies written, balanced, and planned to make sure that each unit has a place where it works. Do not surprise the game designers by dropping a *rolls randomly* flying bathtub pulled by wolves on them and then expect them to come up with rules for same.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* In third edition both the Dark Eldar and the Dark Angels had surprises dropped on the design team... with results that were less than stellar.

Step 1. Take all the rule books, errata notes and rules questions.
2. Get a player group to plough through them.
3. Release a plan of the changes they want to make.
4. Get the main FAQ/Errata sent out ASAP.
5. Trickle out more as testing balances them.

6. When that has finished, take all the ideas that came up during that process to start writing 8th ed rules.
If that means ripping all the rules apart, make a new game out of it all. Call it "Warhammer: Age of the Imperium" or something, and drop the 40k title. Keep 40k for old-school games, and run with the new title in the new games.
7. Release the rules and codexes at the same time. For Everything at once.
8. For every new model, release both sets of rules for it.

It'll mean they can keep making money while they work on the new game, and existing players get to choose.

 Kojiro wrote:

Is it actually your preference for loose rules or do they simply not bother you? If it's the former then I simply don't understand. If it's the latter then surely you're not bothered by tight rules?

Doesn't bother me. I like that 40k is a game I can dick around with and roll some dice while drinking.

To me its the fishing of wargaming. Well, all wargaming to me is, honestly. I don't participate in this hobby to be ultra competitive. For me it's something to do while I hang out with friends.

I've got plenty of other things in my life that are competitive; I have no interest in this hobby being that.

Make 50k or something where the timeline has gone on. You can still use your old models (to not alienate your veterans) but also use new stuff. (To make the company more money.)

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

Is it actually your preference for loose rules or do they simply not bother you? If it's the former then I simply don't understand. If it's the latter then surely you're not bothered by tight rules?

Doesn't bother me. I like that 40k is a game I can dick around with and roll some dice while drinking.

To me its the fishing of wargaming. Well, all wargaming to me is, honestly. I don't participate in this hobby to be ultra competitive. For me it's something to do while I hang out with friends.

I've got plenty of other things in my life that are competitive; I have no interest in this hobby being that.

You do realize that "competitive" doesn't always mean cutthroat tournament right? That it's generally used to mean a balanced, concise set of rules that while it's great for tournament play also helps non-competitive people by making it so every army has a chance to win and there aren't many rules disputes.

I see this counter argument a lot, usually on BOLS, and it really bugs me because it's not some black and white distinction. A set of rules for competitive play can be just as fun and enjoyable, if not more so, than a set of rules like 40k that don't care a lick for competitive gamers or balance. In fact, competitive rules tend to be better overall because they are more balanced, easier to learn and understand, with a lot of reward for skill.

I'd go so far as to say that a set of clear, competitive rules can be more fun for casual play, because it's quicker to learn and there's less rules debates.

I've never played a game of 40K where I haven't had to stop and look up a special rule or interaction, but I've gone to Malifaux tournaments where I didn't even have to bring the rulebook out of my bag. And I've been playing 40K for 14 years more than Malifaux. The difference? Everything in Malifaux is clear, and the wording is consistent. Everything in 40K is a rambling ambiguous mess.

WayneTheGame wrote:
In fact, competitive rules tend to be better overall because they are more balanced, easier to learn and understand, with a lot of reward for skill.

You must have missed the point about being more concerned with hanging out and drinking beer.

The rules are plenty clean or that. A melta always does the same thing. I don't have to be concerned that one persons magelock pistol does something different than another persons.

Whenever we have disputes, we make the decision based on which will yield a more fun outcome. We've intentionally had flyers crash into units on the ground instead of where they're supposed to.

I'm clearly not the right person to talk to in this thread, because my expectations of 40k, and what I want out of it, are nothing like the rest of yours.

WayneTheGame wrote:

I see this counter argument a lot, usually on BOLS, and it really bugs me because it's not some black and white distinction. A set of rules for competitive play can be just as fun and enjoyable, if not more so, than a set of rules like 40k that don't care a lick for competitive gamers or balance. In fact, competitive rules tend to be better overall because they are more balanced, easier to learn and understand, with a lot of reward for skill.

That, and you're spending a crapload on books and minis just to arse around. You could get chinese knockoff action figures from the pound/dollar shop and make pew-pew noises if that's really all this thing means to you.

But your enjoyment of 40K wouldn't be ruined by the rules becoming clearer, more balanced, or more "competitive"?

We do the same BTW; the rules are a kind of vague framework, largely because we can't be bothered figuring out the correct thing to do. Do I enjoy playing the games as is? Yes. Would I complain if the rules were better? Hell no.

 cincydooley wrote:

Doesn't bother me. I like that 40k is a game I can dick around with and roll some dice while drinking.

But unless you're completely blind you must have noticed that to a good number of people it does matter. If I was in charge of the release of 8th people like you will play regardless of rules quality- as you say it doesn't bother you. But I'd be an utter idiot if I could release a well tested product that also wouldn't bother you AND appealed to everyone looking for tighter rules! Do you not get that? Unless there is a subset of players who deliberately want loose rules, a tight rules set is win/win. More players buying your game/minis = more $$$.

To me its the fishing of wargaming. Well, all wargaming to me is, honestly. I don't participate in this hobby to be ultra competitive. For me it's something to do while I hang out with friends.

And that's fine. But you could still play our hypothetically well balanced and tight 8th casually with friends. Clarity and fairness doesn't breed competitiveness. Competitive people breed competitiveness.

 Kojiro wrote:

But unless you're completely blind you must have noticed that to a good number of people it does matter. If I was in charge of the release of 8th people like you will play regardless of rules quality- as you say it doesn't bother you. But I'd be an utter idiot if I could release a well tested product that also wouldn't bother you AND appealed to everyone looking for tighter rules! Do you not get that? Unless there is a subset of players who deliberately want loose rules, a tight rules set is win/win. More players buying your game/minis = more $$$.

I'd contend that GW doesn't care about that, and thus doesn't want to invest the time and effort it would take. GW has made it pretty clear, multiple times, that they'd really prefer not to do rules at all if they didn't have to.

And I'm fine with that.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

But unless you're completely blind you must have noticed that to a good number of people it does matter. If I was in charge of the release of 8th people like you will play regardless of rules quality- as you say it doesn't bother you. But I'd be an utter idiot if I could release a well tested product that also wouldn't bother you AND appealed to everyone looking for tighter rules! Do you not get that? Unless there is a subset of players who deliberately want loose rules, a tight rules set is win/win. More players buying your game/minis = more $$$.

I'd contend that GW doesn't care about that, and thus doesn't want to invest the time and effort it would take. GW has made it pretty clear, multiple times, that they'd really prefer not to do rules at all if they didn't have to.

And I'm fine with that.

then they don't care about keeping customers.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

But unless you're completely blind you must have noticed that to a good number of people it does matter. If I was in charge of the release of 8th people like you will play regardless of rules quality- as you say it doesn't bother you. But I'd be an utter idiot if I could release a well tested product that also wouldn't bother you AND appealed to everyone looking for tighter rules! Do you not get that? Unless there is a subset of players who deliberately want loose rules, a tight rules set is win/win. More players buying your game/minis = more $$$.

I'd contend that GW doesn't care about that, and thus doesn't want to invest the time and effort it would take. GW has made it pretty clear, multiple times, that they'd really prefer not to do rules at all if they didn't have to.

And I'm fine with that.

If you don't care about the rules then what investment do you have in this debate?

You seem to be pushing the idea that the status quo should remain the same but also seem to be saying you'll play the game your way no matter what.

Please correct me if any of that is wrong because that then makes it seem like you're indirectly saying the game should not change to please us, even though it won't matter to you anyway.

I guess the valuable parts of GW are the model design and manufacturing capability, and the IP of 40k.

As mentioned, they need to make money somehow, and if they can't make it from people who already own models, they'll have to look for new markets. Changing the rules to 'make models invalid' would be difficult, given that so many people are capable of converting stuff. I mean, this has been happening for twenty years already, and I rarely need to actually buy new models.

In an ideal world, I'd like them to stop, consolidate their manufacturing so that they release everything they think is missing or is a whole (Adepta Sororitas, some kits that are currently resin but could be plastic) etc etc, and then release a full free 8th Ed ruleset.

With 40k 'done' for a while, I'd then expect them to explore the IP further by releasing more games, skirmish versions, campaign sets, and even prepainted starter boxes to get new markets.

I'd also expect them to close most B&M stores apart from major flagship cities and pursue a concerted online marketing and FLG support campaign.

You know, the stuff that most businesses do...

 MWHistorian wrote:

then they don't care about keeping customers.

The customers they want to keep are the ones on which they can use the idea of playing a game as a means to sell them models. The rules don't need to function as a game for these people. They sales people just need a tool they can use to sell people on the idea of building a whole army to increase model sales. Probably most will quit before ever playing the game at full points values. Some won't though and will enjoy 40k as a non-serious sort of joke game where it's more about having fun with some friends regardless (or in spite of) inferior rules.

Basically GW is looking for customers who are willing to accept crap rules for a high price and those who can be sold on buying more miniatures through the rules being used as a marketing tool.

The customers who actually think a game should be good? Catering to those people would require investing money into development, which cuts into margins and dividend cheques.

 jonolikespie wrote:

If you don't care about the rules then what investment do you have in this debate?

You seem to be pushing the idea that the status quo should remain the same but also seem to be saying you'll play the game your way no matter what.

Please correct me if any of that is wrong because that then makes it seem like you're indirectly saying the game should not change to please us, even though it won't matter to you anyway.

It is wrong. I'm responding directly to the thread's primary question, "would you want 8th edition straight away."

I said no. I'm comfortable with how the rules are now.

 cincydooley wrote:

It is wrong. I'm responding directly to the thread's primary question, "would you want 8th edition straight away."

No, you were responding to my claim that a PP style field test should be a standard level of playtesting for a new edition and it was a failure on GWs behalf with 7th that could have significantly improved the game.

In essence I said playtesting is good for a game and GW should have done A LOT more. Your response was basically 'GW doesn't care and neither do I'. The point you're getting stuck on now is admitting that playtesting is good for a game and that not caring about something that improves your product is a stupid position to take.

 Kojiro wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

It is wrong. I'm responding directly to the thread's primary question, "would you want 8th edition straight away."

No, you were responding to my claim that a PP style field test should be a standard level of playtesting for a new edition and it was a failure on GWs behalf with 7th that could have significantly improved the game.

In essence I said playtesting is good for a game and GW should have done A LOT more. Your response was basically 'GW doesn't care and neither do I'. The point you're getting stuck on now is admitting that playtesting is good for a game and that not caring about something that improves your product is a stupid position to take.

I was more concerned that it sounded like he didn't want anyone else's product improved even though he doesn't care.
I do think that's how it came across.

 Kojiro wrote:


In essence I said playtesting is good for a game and GW should have done A LOT more. Your response was basically 'GW doesn't care and neither do I'. The point you're getting stuck on now is admitting that playtesting is good for a game and that not caring about something that improves your product is a stupid position to take.

Or they performed a cost-benefit analysis and decided the time and cost of "sufficiently playtesting" wasn't worth it to them.

You can call it stupid as much as you want. Doesn't change how they choose to manage their rules.

If they could legitimately make the choice, I'm sure they would chose not to make rules at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

I was more concerned that it sounded like he didn't want anyone else's product improved even though he doesn't care.

I mean, I don't personally care about "your" product at all.

 cincydooley wrote:

Or they performed a cost-benefit analysis and decided the time and cost of "sufficiently playtesting" wasn't worth it to them.

This.

If they could legitimately make the choice, I'm sure they would chose not to make rules at all.

The sale of books and electronic supplements probably prevents them from legitimately making that choice though.

I mean, I don't personally care about "your" product at all.

That just sounds like you maliciously want to keep the game at a point many people consider sub par or even outright awful for no reason then.

 jonolikespie wrote:
That just sounds like you maliciously want to keep the game at a point many people consider sub par or even outright awful for no reason then.

I don't want to speak for him, but I don't get that sense at all. The sense I get is that the current rules work for him, so even if the next edition was superior for other people, there could be reasons why it offers him nothing.

If the current rules work and then they're reworked to work for more people, but then don't work any better (or worse) for him, all that does is either necessitate the purchases of new rules (again) or segment the local player base between editions if he doesn't want to stay current.

There's no up side for him.

That's how I'm reading what he's saying.

And take a look at his signature banner. It's for Infinity. He already has a product that satisfies his need for a tactically deep game that's been well developed over time. Why would he need 40k to become like that when he already has that need met with Infinity?

---

 jonolikespie wrote:
That just sounds like you maliciously want to keep the game at a point many people consider sub par or even outright awful for no reason then.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension, most specifically your inference skills.

Or I could just flip it.

"You sound like you maliciously want to change the game at a point many people are plenty happy or even outright pleased for no reason other than to make yourself happier."

But then again, when we play, over beers and bourbon, we almost always use Planetstrike or one of the other non main-rulebook scenario or play types.

Well how much is GW worth and who would most likely buy them out are two question that MUST be answered first before any rules/model wishlists are fulfilled.

 mondo80 wrote:
Well how much is GW worth and who would most likely buy them out are two question that MUST be answered first before any rules/model wishlists are fulfilled.

The answer is still "nobody" for the second question. They don't fit the profile of any of the larger companies like Hasbro or Bandai to buy out (Hasbro only buys successful growth stories, for example).

The OPs question should probably be adjusted to "If a new design mandate was put in place, would you want 8th edition straight away?" and cut out the buy out issue.

All the equipment for making the plastic minis will still be there so if they're bought out, I'd imagine that they'd want to make a new game or several games that can use the same minis.
Different versions of battle in the 40k universe.


I still like my 50k idea. :(