Wanted to repost it here anyway for greater exposure.
Please take 5 minutes to fill out the survey!
Your Chance to Make Warhammer 40,000 Even Better with the Gamers’ Survey
Every day, Warhammer 40,000 fans around the world get in touch to share their thoughts on the game, so we have decided to give you an official way to get your voice heard. Whether it’s your experience with your favourite Codex, how the game plays right now, or ideas about what would be great to see in a future edition, we want to hear from you. Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early.
Whether you’re a new gamer, you’ve been playing since boxed sets came with a cardboard Dreadnought, or are a lapsed fan of the 41st Millennium, we want your opinions. What do you love about Warhammer 40,000? What would you like to see changed?
Take this survey and have YOUR say on the future of Warhammer 40,000.
The survey is open until the 11th of November, so you’ve got a few days to fill it in. If you have any friends who play Warhammer 40,000 (or used to – we’d love to hear from past players too!), please send them a link to ensure that the Warhammer studio can hear from the widest range of voices.
I feel like if I say 9th edition is complicated, they will strip down the core rules even further and stuff more things into the codexes.
There needs to be a way to say "there's room for improvement in the core rules, but the biggest hurdle to playing right now is the massive amount of rules within codexes"
I feel like if I say 9th edition is complicated, they will strip down the core rules even further and stuff more things into the codexes.
There needs to be a way to say "there's room for improvement in the core rules, but the biggest hurdle to playing right now is the massive amount of rules within codexes"
which is what I wrote in my comment.
I actually struggled a bit with that, since I don’t find the game complicated. But it was sorta the only one that fits the bigist issue I had. So I put a lot into the comment section, good stuff for GW letting us put a lot in there :0
I just called for an activation mechanic in the comment section, because overall I'm fine with the current rules.
Unfortunately there were a lot of question about tournament/ matched (and none about Crusade/ narrative aside from "I do narrative" - wtf?) that didn't apply to me but show the direction GW seemingly tries to force the game into.
I found it difficult to clarify that the core rules are too bare bones, while the avalanche of strategems and faction specific rules are way too tedious to keep up with.
Brickfix wrote: I found it difficult to clarify that the core rules are too bare bones, while the avalanche of strategems and faction specific rules are way too tedious to keep up with.
Just click "its too complicated" so GW can totally misunderstand the problem, turn all interactins into a dice roll of 4+ then add EVEN MORE STRATAGEMS! At some point 40k will become a resource management game where army building determines your CP and your CP allocation determines who wins and there'll be no need for models or boards.
Brickfix wrote: I found it difficult to clarify that the core rules are too bare bones, while the avalanche of strategems and faction specific rules are way too tedious to keep up with.
Just click "its too complicated" so GW can totally misunderstand the problem, turn all interactins into a dice roll of 4+ then add EVEN MORE STRATAGEMS! At some point 40k will become a resource management game where army building determines your CP and your CP allocation determines who wins and there'll be no need for models or boards.
So um, 8th ed?
I mean currently if you consider the various obscuring terrain pieces as like "Defense Mode" then 40k 9th is already kind of like a game of yu-gi-oh where you start with all your monsters deployed on the board unless you want them in your hand.
You could abstract it to the point where there's no need to actually move - just select a target to attack, and deal an average amount of damage instead of rolling dice. If you put enouhg attack points into your opponent's model, they may remove it from the board.
Avoid the hassle! Just have people set their minis down on the table in a line, turn it into a version of MTG where every card costs 60+$.
Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.
FYI, if you want the opportunity to give substantive feedback, you have to answer that you've played more recently than in the last 2 years (maybe in the last year? see above?), or it'll cut you off after asking you why you haven't played much.
GW, making some people lie on surveys in order to be allowed to give feedback, which only hurts the integrity of their own survey data...classic stuff.
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.
What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.
What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?
The same thing most other people want. Do you want me to sit and write a 2500 long word essay (not having a go at H.B.M.C, his essay probably covers most of what I'd say) about how I feel the game is too bloated and armies lack a faction identity and the game currently feels like an elaborate system for packing away models over the course of 3 hours?
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.
What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?
The same thing most other people want. Do you want me to sit and write a 2500 long word essay (not having a go at H.B.M.C, his essay probably covers most of what I'd say) about how I feel the game is too bloated and armies lack a faction identity and the game currently feels like an elaborate system for packing away models over the course of 3 hours?
Soooo the leap from dog turd with no standards is to strip back bloat, reinforce faction identity and reduce lethality whilst improving tactical decision making?
yukishiro1 wrote: FYI, if you want the opportunity to give substantive feedback, you have to answer that you've played more recently than in the last 2 years (maybe in the last year? see above?), or it'll cut you off after asking you why you haven't played much.
GW, making some people lie on surveys in order to be allowed to give feedback, which only hurts the integrity of their own survey data...classic stuff.
The bizarre thing is, its super-easy to make surveys like that which fork at major decision points, so they could have easily asked what people were interested in and what would pull them into the game, what would you like to see from older editions, etc, etc. Then see how much overlap there is between those responses and people who claimed to be current players.
But no, got to keep that Ivory Tower gate locked up tight. Sort top 3 responses with no context, instead.
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.
What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?
The same thing most other people want. Do you want me to sit and write a 2500 long word essay (not having a go at H.B.M.C, his essay probably covers most of what I'd say) about how I feel the game is too bloated and armies lack a faction identity and the game currently feels like an elaborate system for packing away models over the course of 3 hours?
Soooo the leap from dog turd with no standards is to strip back bloat, reinforce faction identity and reduce lethality whilst improving tactical decision making?
It's almost like I want to play a game with good mechanics, a strong theme and interesting decisions, none of which 40k currently has in my opinion. I don't get what you're trying to do here. Maybe instead of trying to draw me into a long conversation about the minutiae of an off-handed sentence just tell me what silly little tangent point irrelevant to the larger discussion you want to argue about for the next few pages until I go to bed and a whole different argument between two other people can take place while ours is forgotten or picked up by others.
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
I got about 10 questions, interesting I wish I had taken note now. Did you not get the optional put anything in at least ?
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.
What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?
The same thing most other people want. Do you want me to sit and write a 2500 long word essay (not having a go at H.B.M.C, his essay probably covers most of what I'd say) about how I feel the game is too bloated and armies lack a faction identity and the game currently feels like an elaborate system for packing away models over the course of 3 hours?
Soooo the leap from dog turd with no standards is to strip back bloat, reinforce faction identity and reduce lethality whilst improving tactical decision making?
It's almost like I want to play a game with good mechanics, a strong theme and interesting decisions, none of which 40k currently has in my opinion. I don't get what you're trying to do here. Maybe instead of trying to draw me into a long conversation about the minutiae of an off-handed sentence just tell me what silly little tangent point irrelevant to the larger discussion you want to argue about for the next few pages until I go to bed and a whole different argument between two other people can take place while ours is forgotten or picked up by others.
I just wanted to find what it was you wanted, you're consistently happy to gak on the game, say it has no standards etc and given the strength of your stance and dislike of GW I assumed that there isn't a point of return for you.
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.
What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?
The same thing most other people want. Do you want me to sit and write a 2500 long word essay (not having a go at H.B.M.C, his essay probably covers most of what I'd say) about how I feel the game is too bloated and armies lack a faction identity and the game currently feels like an elaborate system for packing away models over the course of 3 hours?
Soooo the leap from dog turd with no standards is to strip back bloat, reinforce faction identity and reduce lethality whilst improving tactical decision making?
It's almost like I want to play a game with good mechanics, a strong theme and interesting decisions, none of which 40k currently has in my opinion. I don't get what you're trying to do here. Maybe instead of trying to draw me into a long conversation about the minutiae of an off-handed sentence just tell me what silly little tangent point irrelevant to the larger discussion you want to argue about for the next few pages until I go to bed and a whole different argument between two other people can take place while ours is forgotten or picked up by others.
I just wanted to find what it was you wanted, you're consistently happy to gak on the game, say it has no standards etc and given the strength of your stance and dislike of GW I assumed that there isn't a point of return for you.
Do you think people critical of GW post here because it's le ebin trolololol? It never occurred to you that maybe the people complaining are fans of Warhammer and 40k who WANT to come back, but the state of the game doesn't suit what they want and they have the good sense to stop feeding GW money until the game meets a state they deem acceptable?
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.
What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?
The same thing most other people want. Do you want me to sit and write a 2500 long word essay (not having a go at H.B.M.C, his essay probably covers most of what I'd say) about how I feel the game is too bloated and armies lack a faction identity and the game currently feels like an elaborate system for packing away models over the course of 3 hours?
Soooo the leap from dog turd with no standards is to strip back bloat, reinforce faction identity and reduce lethality whilst improving tactical decision making?
It's almost like I want to play a game with good mechanics, a strong theme and interesting decisions, none of which 40k currently has in my opinion. I don't get what you're trying to do here. Maybe instead of trying to draw me into a long conversation about the minutiae of an off-handed sentence just tell me what silly little tangent point irrelevant to the larger discussion you want to argue about for the next few pages until I go to bed and a whole different argument between two other people can take place while ours is forgotten or picked up by others.
I just wanted to find what it was you wanted, you're consistently happy to gak on the game, say it has no standards etc and given the strength of your stance and dislike of GW I assumed that there isn't a point of return for you.
Do you think people critical of GW post here because it's le ebin trolololol? It never occurred to you that maybe the people complaining are fans of Warhammer and 40k who WANT to come back, but the state of the game doesn't suit what they want and they have the good sense to stop feeding GW money until the game meets a state they deem acceptable?
Yes, but I couldn't imagine spending all this time and energy on something I actively dislike/have no current interest in.
I would spend my time engaging with something I do deem acceptable, want to spend my money on and enjoy.
And yes I'm also sure a decent % of the consistent complainers, do it because it's popular to GW bash in this community.
You also seem to assume that people are unable to enjoy something despite its flaws, but your standards aren't golden and you don't have to be an apologist or drone to enjoy or find something acceptable.
yukishiro1 wrote: FYI, if you want the opportunity to give substantive feedback, you have to answer that you've played more recently than in the last 2 years (maybe in the last year? see above?), or it'll cut you off after asking you why you haven't played much.
GW, making some people lie on surveys in order to be allowed to give feedback, which only hurts the integrity of their own survey data...classic stuff.
The bizarre thing is, its super-easy to make surveys like that which fork at major decision points, so they could have easily asked what people were interested in and what would pull them into the game, what would you like to see from older editions, etc, etc. Then see how much overlap there is between those responses and people who claimed to be current players.
But no, got to keep that Ivory Tower gate locked up tight. Sort top 3 responses with no context, instead.
IMO (ive done some industry research) this is pretty typical for a "We want an answer to this ONE QUESTION we have, and we will disguise it as a general poll"
Theres a reason "too complicated" "too many rules" etc was on every page. They want to know if the current hype du jour online and amongst 40k influencers is real or a loud minority.
Skinnereal wrote: Bring back kit-bashing, instead of 'what's in the box' limitations.
Top comment; wish I'd've thought to add that to my long list
Oh boy, same here.
I also forgot the wonky Bodyguard rules; preventing me from sniping a character who is the closest thing to me kind of strikes me as a rule not working as intended, preventing me from firing overwatch when a character charges in by themselves definitely strikes me as a rule not working as intended.
Skinnereal wrote: Bring back kit-bashing, instead of 'what's in the box' limitations.
Top comment; wish I'd've thought to add that to my long list
Oh boy, same here.
I also forgot the wonky Bodyguard rules; preventing me from sniping a character who is the closest thing to me kind of strikes me as a rule not working as intended, preventing me from firing overwatch when a character charges in by themselves definitely strikes me as a rule not working as intended.
of all the things to complain about right now, the fact that you can only reduce characters to a pair of smoking boots after youve reduced their bodyguards to a pair of smoking boots is a strange take.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Btw. I was surprised that GW so openly states: "Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."
I mean, one big complaint is the fast change of edition every couple years...
It's fine, it's not like we don't already know 10th is on the way.
It'll arrive 6-9 months after the last Codex in the line-up. Right after the obligatory PA style filler material.
Yes, but I couldn't imagine spending all this time and energy on something I actively dislike/have no current interest in.
Not all my time. Some times when I'm standing out in the yard with the dogs, or while eating dinner, or while ignoring a TV show. I assume it's the same for most people. Currently I have an hour to burn before I go out to get a take out, so I'm browsing the internet. I don't have "no current interest in" 40k. I'm very interested because I want to play the game again because I've spent 30 years playing it.
I would spend my time engaging with something I do deem acceptable, want to spend my money on and enjoy.
So do I. But it's not 40k or GW at present.
And yes I'm also sure a decent % of the consistent complainers, do it because it's popular to GW bash in this community.
This is your own confirmation bias. People couldn't POSSIBLY dislike the thing you like so you assume they're just being contrarian. They couldn't possibly be frustrated that the game isn't meeting what they ask for as a hobby/money sink.
You also seem to assume that people are unable to enjoy something despite its flaws,
No game is perfect and I don't ever think 40k will ever be a mechanically amazing game, probably never even great Maybe good if GW REALLY tried. All I ask that it be enjoyable to play, which I don't think it is.
but your standards aren't golden
Yes they are.
and you don't have to be an apologist or drone to enjoy or find something acceptable.
No, but it helps. Don't deny that there is a lot of sunk cost fallacy in regards to 40k and GW or that they have their whales and they know how to target them. I also don't deny that people enjoy 40k but I sometimes wonder how much of that is the social element more than the game. As I've said before I've watched games of 9th where the people whose turn it isn't are having a better time than the person who is currently playing because they get to interact with the people around the table rather than the game itself.. Since they had fun being social in the context of playing 40k was it the game they enjoyed or the social experience? But that's another conversation for another time. I don't think people are wrong to enjoy 40k and I've never said they are.
Let's see if the conclusion they draw from that is:
1) Put more care into the base releases so they're balanced out the gate, meaning massive balance revisions are less necessary
or
2) He put "as balanced as possible" but clearly it isn't very possible because he only wants it updated yearly trolorlorlorlorl
I honestly do hope they can refine down a product that will make the majority happy and by extension, something you'll enjoy coming back to. They have the ability to do so and the game does need a lot of tlc to get where I think anyone wants it to be in an ideal world.
Sadly I just don't think they're going to quite get there any time soon and I don't like to think anyone is out there being so consistently fed up with something they should enjoy, so it does make me feel better this is just a time filler for you.
As scotsman summed up in the news thread, in honesty this whole thing is likely very shares and profit based, which likely isn't really heavily weighted in the 40k rules so much as the global pandemic bubble bursting for them.
They probably don't fully understand the problem, who they want to speak to or why in reality.
Skinnereal wrote: Bring back kit-bashing, instead of 'what's in the box' limitations.
Top comment; wish I'd've thought to add that to my long list
Oh boy, same here.
I also forgot the wonky Bodyguard rules; preventing me from sniping a character who is the closest thing to me kind of strikes me as a rule not working as intended, preventing me from firing overwatch when a character charges in by themselves definitely strikes me as a rule not working as intended.
of all the things to complain about right now, the fact that you can only reduce characters to a pair of smoking boots after youve reduced their bodyguards to a pair of smoking boots is a strange take.
I never have any trouble doing both.
The issue isn't that it's hard, the issue is that the rule is unintuitive. And believe me, it would have been at the end of a pretty long list of other unintuitive rules.
Skinnereal wrote: Bring back kit-bashing, instead of 'what's in the box' limitations.
Top comment; wish I'd've thought to add that to my long list
Oh boy, same here.
I also forgot the wonky Bodyguard rules; preventing me from sniping a character who is the closest thing to me kind of strikes me as a rule not working as intended, preventing me from firing overwatch when a character charges in by themselves definitely strikes me as a rule not working as intended.
of all the things to complain about right now, the fact that you can only reduce characters to a pair of smoking boots after youve reduced their bodyguards to a pair of smoking boots is a strange take.
I never have any trouble doing both.
How much los ignoring guns you have? Not every faction has enough to reliably take out bodyguard.
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
Didn't know that. Good thing I played a game against a friend over the summer so I couldn't lie...
Gave them the full rant in the last comment box. I'm sure they won't read it though and just want fawning praise from the Buttermilk Bobs of the world.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, is it really worth commenting and answering?
Depends, do you want the game to be altered in some way?
If yes, say you play every 6 minutes, you make a billion pounds a year, and you WANT. YOUR GOD DAMN. SQUATS BACK.
They'd see through that.
Because were there any Squat fan with a Billion dollars?
Then there would already be a Squat fan owning GW.
And you all would be discussing how broken Living Ancients are or something & eagerly awaiting mk.2 exo-armor trikes.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Btw. I was surprised that GW so openly states: "Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."
I mean, one big complaint is the fast change of edition every couple years...
Yeah, I wanted to point at that open lie as well [hurr hurr hurr, we’re totally not ready to already drop the next version June 2022], but I imagine most people just rolled their eyes on that statement and moved along. Why ask for a rules survey if you aren’t considering major rule changes/cleanups?
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Btw. I was surprised that GW so openly states: "Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."
I mean, one big complaint is the fast change of edition every couple years...
Yeah, I wanted to point at that open lie as well [hurr hurr hurr, we’re totally not ready to already drop the next version June 2022], but I imagine most people just rolled their eyes on that statement and moved along. Why ask for a rules survey if you aren’t considering major rule changes/cleanups?
I'd find it quite unlikely to be 2022. They'd have to have the book nearly done for a June launch. Average launch is 3 to 4 years so 2023 makes sense.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Btw. I was surprised that GW so openly states: "Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."
I mean, one big complaint is the fast change of edition every couple years...
Yeah, I wanted to point at that open lie as well [hurr hurr hurr, we’re totally not ready to already drop the next version June 2022], but I imagine most people just rolled their eyes on that statement and moved along. Why ask for a rules survey if you aren’t considering major rule changes/cleanups?
I mean, 1 year is still "some years" on an incredibly literal level that would annoy people. It's not like they're prone to retroactively altering articles to scrub times off or anything.
"An elegant game combines simple rules with depth of choices. WH40K does the exact opposite. Rules bloat like the multitude of equipment choices with minute differences adds to the memorisation load but provides no opportunity for interesting decisions on tabletop. The game confuses depth with width. The game has terrible upkeep to actual gameplay (decisions and choices) ratio. Decisions are simplistic, resolution long and tedious. The game looks awesome, but it's its only saving grace"
The core rules are relatively solid, and I'm happy with them, the codexes and campaign books are where the game falls down in my opinion.
You gained a lot of good faith during 8th with your community engagement and scheduled balance patches, which you roughly followed, but these seem to have been abandoned in 9th and its making me feel less positive about the game, and by extension, you as a company.
While I don't think the current rules are difficult to follow, the sheer quantity of rules and sources, makes the game difficult (my own army requires 5 books), Id love for some form of subscription which would give me access to all the rules and self updates when you publish faqs/errata.
As far as balance goes, I really like being able to customise my army, and I love how much scope everyone has for this, but I also want a game where, the vast majority of times, showing up for a game against an unknown opponent, we wouldn't be able to tell who will most likely win just by looking at each others armies, or by who won the roll off to go first. Right now Id say that about 75% of the time, the game beyond the first turn roll off is already a foregone conclusion. However I recognise that right now, changing this would be very very difficult without a significant rewrite on the scale of 8th or even more drastic.
Most importantly, please listen to the feedback of your play testers when they tell you things might be too effective. And invest more in testing before you send to print. Id love for more regular game patches, but Id rather you spent some more time initially to get the product more polished before you dropped it on us.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Btw. I was surprised that GW so openly states: "Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."
I mean, one big complaint is the fast change of edition every couple years...
Yeah, I wanted to point at that open lie as well [hurr hurr hurr, we’re totally not ready to already drop the next version June 2022], but I imagine most people just rolled their eyes on that statement and moved along. Why ask for a rules survey if you aren’t considering major rule changes/cleanups?
Because a good portion of their customers will gobble that stuff up.
Remember a couple of weeks before 8th dropped, when GW said that they wanted feedback on the proposed rules? Blatant lie. But people were fawning over how GW had 'changed' and begging them to take their money.
Yeah, I was able to reply to the survey despite not playing in a long time. Though many of the questions did not apply to me in any case, as someone who is not currently playing. You can tell they didn't design it to allow people like me to continue because there's no "None of the above" option for various questions.
I'm sure it was all well intentioned anyway. I found the questions a bit poorly structured, too leading in my view. But I dunno how you can do it better in that survey format.
Lord Damocles wrote: Because a good portion of their customers will gobble that stuff up.
Remember a couple of weeks before 8th dropped, when GW said that they wanted feedback on the proposed rules? Blatant lie. But people were fawning over how GW had 'changed' and begging them to take their money.
Do we have reliable data about what feedback was sent back in which amount? And what was done with it?
I like how you can make very different armies within the same Codex. It's good that, for example, Ultramarines and White Scars genuinely feel like different armies despite coming from the same book.
I think Crusade is a wonderful addition to the game, even if my Tyranids don't have any Crusade rules yet. :( People tend to dump on Crusade for being "more rules" and not being "narrative" based. I see them as a progression system that enhances the narrative of your campaign, a bit like Necromunda's progression system.
I've been playing Necromunda since it first came out in the 90's – it remains my fav GW game to this day – so the inclusion of a similar style system for 40k, with long-term goals for your army and a build-in sense of escalation, that's all great. That said, when the current edition of 40k started you should have included a Crusade section in that year's Chapter Approved with some 'get you by' rules for all the armies, so that they'd have something during the long wait to get a Codex. More on CA later…
There are a number of problems with the game that stand out and actually hinder my enjoyment. I'll go over them as briefly as I can.
Coherency/Hordes – Making the threshold for hordes 6+ models is far too low. It encourages units to stay at 5 or below, as when you hit that number 6, suddenly the entire unit has to shift how you deploy it. This becomes really weird when 5 Jetbikes can spread out, but 6 have to clump together because of the size of their bases. I acknowledge that any number chosen to be the starting point for what constitutes a horde – be it 10 models, 12 models, 20 models and so on – will be arbitrary. That's unavoidable. But 6? At least make it one above the standard squad size for most standard units in the game (10 models).
Morale – The morale system just punishes players as it attempts to abstract something in a way that essentially makes players feel worse, and makes them 'lose more' than they already were. I lost a bunch of guys to shooting, and now I get to lose even more of them! Worse, it bypasses every single method of causing casualties that exists in the game. Morale ignores toughness, saving throws, wounds, and damage and just outright kills things in a way more dangerous than anything else in the entire game (including Mortal Wounds!). A loss of morale should be disruptive – your units cannot hold objectives, launch assaults, perform actions, benefit from auras, etc. – not just lose more people!
Cover & Line of Sight – I'm not sure why it was decided that allowing players to target wing tips, tips of claws, antenna, banner poles, pointing fingers and gun barrels was a good idea, but it's just awful. The fact that an entire squad can be wiped out because the tip of one model's toe is sticking out, or a big monster can be shot off the table because you can see the very tip of a claw on his wing is crazy. Worse, with the interaction with terrain, the same wing tip or gun barrel can be sticking out the top of a piece of terrain but cannot be shot, but if it's to the side it can be, because in some cases terrain is infinitely high.
Overall the cover rules are massively complicated and in a lot of cases counter-intuitive. It's very hard to not be in LOS, there are arbitrary limits that make it impossible to hide big things even behind huge pieces of cover because the rules dictate what can be seen based on unit type rather than the terrain itself. Things out of LOS shouldn't be eligible to take damage, so if there's one guy in the open and the rest of his squad is completely hidden, then too bad for that one guy.
Some might say this would encourage movement of other units to block LOS to all but key models, but really, is that a bad thing? Positioning and manoeuvre don't matter in 40k outside of holding objectives and charge distances, so much so that a vehicle can fire all its guns no matter where they are through the tip of its front track sticking out of cover, and entire squads can vanish because the enemy got LOS to a gun barrel. If you had to really get LOS to the things you wanted to kill, and players had to really thing about the placement of their miniatures, the game would be richer for it.
Vehicle/monster durability – In the transition from 7th edition through to the current editions vehicles went through a radical change that removed Armour Values and damage charts in favour of a standard toughness/wounds/save system. Now the degrading statlines were a good choice – bravo on that abstraction – but sadly vehicles and monsters lost so much of their durability in the process.
The first issue is now everything can wound everything. As you always wound on at least a 6, you can 'fish' for 6's with any gun in your army, so even Lasguns can fell a mighty Warlord titan. Is it likely? No, but the fact that it can happen at all is what makes the system fail. But to be more specific, AV12 in the old system took a hit from an S8 Krak Missile on a 4+, and an AV14 Land Raider took a hit from a Krak Missile on a 6+. Now the Krak Missile wounds the same T8 Land Raider on a 4+. Where did the durability of the Land Raider go?
You made a big song and dance at the start of the last edition how characteristics could go above 10 now, yet you've not done so. Titans are T9 at most. Why aren't more vehicles higher than T8? This applies to monsters as well, where Tyranid players suffer from having their units deleted very quickly, especially as damage goes up.
And why in the Emperor's name are Rhinos more durable than Carnifexes?!?!
That brings us to lethality in general. 40k is an immensely lethal game, where you can have multiple units just deleted before they've even done a thing. Ranges have gone up, Rapid Fire now works at full range, and you made table sizes smaller because your standard boxes don't fit 1x1 tiles. Shooting at a unit often means that unit is gone. Close combat is so decisive that whatever's getting attacked is often annihilated before it can do anything, and in turn the unit that killed it gets annihilated right back. Players spend entire turns packing up the models that they only put onto the table 20 minutes prior, and those units often haven't moved. Recent GT results have had multiple instances of one side being wiped off the board in the first turn! There's no way you haven't noticed this. 40k is too lethal now. Things need to die less.
On top of this (almost literally) are the layers and layers of rules. When the Adeptus Mechanicus Codex came out I joked that I wouldn't be able to use it until I'd first completed a two-week correspondence course. There's just so much going on in these books, and you even add to them further with DLC campaign books that come out right after the Codex has come out. Like I said at the start, I like that it's possible to make multiple different distinct armies from within the same Codex, but it is getting out of hand.
And speaking of getting out of hand, stratagems have just gone wild. Generally speaking there are three types of strats that cause all sorts of problems: The first are the 'gotcha' reactionary strats, Transhuman Physiology being the poster child (but that horrible Cadian one being the latest example. These are ones you spring on your opponent after they have made a choice, heavily negating that choice for very little expenditure on your side. It's also a weird way of 'forging a narrative', having a unit of Marines (or Cadians) suddenly get tougher because you expended an abstracted strategic resource.
The second are strats that change the rules for specific units of pieces of equipment (the KFF one being a recent example, or the Exocrine's strat that affects only it). Why these just special rules aren't build into the unit itself? Why do they need to be an additional layer of rules that you sometimes use with an entire different rule mechanics? It's not adding anything to the game except more things to remember.
The third is equipment strats, with smoke launchers being the most egregious example. Wargear and equipment should be things you pay points for, not things that exist in the ether via strats.
Stratagems are a wonderful idea with terrible execution. There are too many of them (Death Guard alone have nearly 40 of them that fit into 7 broad categories!) and so many of them are so specific that they should just be special rules for the unit in question, or just regular equipment/wargear.
You're also needlessly complicating things with unit weapon options. It started with the Death Guard Plague Marine and Terminator weapon options (one model can have X, one model can have Y, one model can have Y and Z, one model can have B, but only on Tuesdays) and spread to the AdMech, Dark Eldar Wyches and most recently Sword Brethren. How is this helping new players when they see a block of unintuitive weapon options that require a master's degree in code breaking to decipher? Why can't it just be "May take X options from the Special Weapons list per Y models in the unit", and let people go from there? This goes doubly for characters, the Primaris Captain being the worst offender among them (can take a power fist, but only if it also takes a plasma pistol, unless you're a Dark Angel in which case you can take a bolter as well). It's --maddening--! Stop it!
The method of placing fortifications means that no one takes them. I'm sure you have come to realise that now. Their placement is so restrictive that you often can't place them. Please do something about this.
There are too many rules that all do the same thing in slightly different ways. A codified set of universal special rules, 2-3 pages, appearing in the rulebook and in the back of every Codex would clear so much up, and mean you could update single rules without needing to account for every instance where something similar pops up as a 'bespoke' rule. This goes doubly for weapon types, where you repeat the rules for melta weapons or plasma weapons overcharging or chainswords giving extra attacks over and over again.
Codify, streamline, and allow for scaling. If you have a rule that says "This unit can only take a maximum of 4 wounds per phase", instead have a general rule (eg. Insane Durability (X)), where 'X' equals the max amount of wounds a unit can take in a phase. That way you don't have to repeat it every time, and the 'X' value allows you to apply the same rule to multiple units across multiple books without having to have differently worded rules that all achieve the same basic effect. Overcharge X – for each unmodified To Hit roll equal to the X, the firer suffers 1 Mortal Wound (for plasma weapons and the like). Unwieldy X – Each time a To Hit roll is made with this weapon, subtract X from the roll (for power fists and the like). And so on and sort forth. Make things easier for everyone to understand.
I think that you've made great leaps and bounds in the way armies are structured in the shift away from 'soup' lists and whatnot, but I still think that since the start of 8th and into 9th the Forge Organisation Chart may as well not exist. In 3rd-7th the FOC imposed actual restrictions on your army building. You literally couldn't take more than what the slots allowed and you had to create your armies within that framework. Now you just spend some extra Command Points and bingo, I've got 5 more Heavy Support slots. Even the so-called 'Rule of 3' doesn't do much, as so many units have their own datasheets (ie. The Marine Gladiator is 3 different data sheets), so the fact that you can only take 3 of each (so 9 in total) doesn't mean much.
Bring back Imperial Guard platoons! And put their Officers back into Command Squads. Officers were originally put into Command Squads because the writers realised that they were far too squishy to be wandering around by themselves and that it made more thematic sense to have them as part of a military structure. When 8th came along, and command squads were torn apart in all armies, the Guard suffered from having their Officers booted into the cold with no support. And the platoon structure was removed, something that was added to make it feel more like an army and so out 6 Troops slots felt more worthwhile.
Missions/Secondary Objectives – It's weird that despite being called 'secondary objectives', so much of 40k play is geared around scoring these things. Secondary missions, as it turns out, are of primary concern. A big contributing factor to this is that the standard mission objectives are SO BORING. They're all the basically the same – a scattering of 4-8 objectives, always at ground level, and being worth the same in every mission. What on Holy Terra happened to the mission variety in 40k, like all the stuff we got in Chapter Approved books during 8th? And on that subject…
I said I'd come back to Chapter Approved, so here we are. Chapter Approved, for as long as I can remember, was about not only errata and FAQs but also adding more interesting ways to play the game, new army lists, quickly ideas, putting in new scenarios and generally enhancing the game experience. Now Chapter Approved is a sterile wasteland of tournament rules (and mostly reprinted core rules). The fun has gone from CA. The creativity. The narrative. It’s just all tournaments all the time.
And we shouldn't have to pay for points updates. That's just insane! They should be in the free errata FAQs. If you're including the new points alongside the Chapter Approved books because you're afraid that without them the CA book won't sell, make the CA book more appealing to everyone.
I think 40k's wonderful. There have been tons of games over the years that have come and gone, and none have ever managed to capture my imagination like 40k (and related games like Necromunda, the Dark Heresy RPG line and similar things). About the only thing my group plays as much as those three is old school 90's Warhammer Quest! But it is sad to watch the game I love so much disappear further and further into this quagmire of endless layered rules, pointless stratagems, boring mission design, unintuitive Codex/unit options, bad cover/LOS rules, needlessly punishing morale rules, horde rules that encourage minimum sized units, absurd levels of lethality, and Rhinos that are more durable than Carnifexes.
You've been at this a very long time now. You know you can do better.
(Also, unrelated to the above, your survey asks if people have played recently – a lot of the world's been in lockdown, literally unable to play for months if not over a year – please remember that!)
Granted, I only read over the rules for 9th, and they were written so wordy and poorly I gave up on them - I just couldn't get through the gobbledygook writing without a vein popping in my forehead.
Overall, I've had a tumultuous relation with 40K. Stopped playing after a bad experience in 2E, but continued collecting. Got back into playing at the tail end of 5th as I got my son interested, then petered out around 7th. Came back for 8th, and enjoyed that (especially using the indexes) - until Psychic Awakening.
So they've had me on an off again as a customer playing the game, but I've kept my eye on the lore and bought models - up until 9th. I just have finally gotten tired of the edition treadmill and downhill spiral for the rules. Last time I bought something 40K was when new starter box dropped - I bought a handful of the new necrons to reverse engineer into my 8E games. Nothing since then.
That's what I've ended up expressing to them in the survey, to the best of my ability. I play games like X-Wing, Bolt Action, Star Wars Legion, some Battletech and I've even returned to Car Wars. I'll play the latest-greatest 40K if they'll make it into a reasonable game, but for me the current version isn't in that state. I agree with almost all of HBMC's assessment for why I stopped around PA. For me, I make better use of the old rules and shun the current rules state.
Interesting read HBMC. Here's what I put in the free text box:
Spoiler:
I have been a 40k fan since the first edition was released. Like many people I imagine, I have not yet actually played 9th edition yet due to Covid as I live with a vulnerable person, so I have not been doing in-person gaming, but I have watched a lot of streamed games and still continued to build armies and participate in forum discussions, so I think I have a reasonable understanding of the state of the game, albeit vicariously.
I did a fair amount of organised play (campaign weekends and tournaments) in the 4th-5th edition era but more recently it has all been home or club play.
I think currently lethality seems too high overall. Some of this is to do with LOS rules being too permissive. I preferred it when things like aerials, banners, gun barrels etc were ignored for LOS as it’s almost impossible to deny LOS currently with common terrain. I find the current LOS rules very immersion breaking, especially with vehicles and large monsters etc. I would prefer a return to some sort of facing for units like these. I hate the idea of tank sponsons being able to shoot through the body of the vehicle for instance. Aircraft also wouldn’t be nearly so problematic if they had to face their targets as well.
I feel it is unnecessary to cap to-hit penalties and bonuses at +/- 1 given that 6’s auto-hit. There is not currently enough difference between a unit shooting at an easy target (static, in the open, short range) and a difficult one (in-cover, long range, moving). This means that effective manoeuvre seems devalued. Allowing modifiers to stack (while keeping natural 6’s auto-hit and natural 1’s auto-miss) would allow a wider range of outcomes and create more decision points.
I would prefer morale to cause suppression, pinning, fall back etc, to degrade units’ effectiveness without just being more casualties.
Actions are a great addition in 9th. I like the fact that units can contribute to the mission in ways other than killing stuff. It feels really cinematic to have a unit trying to hack a data terminal, plant demolition charges or send a vital message while the rest of your army keeps the enemy occupied.
Crusade seems like a fantastic way to play and is exactly the sort of thing I want out of the game.
On the whole I like CP and strategems, but I think there are too many of the latter, specifically there are many which only affect one unit which should just be a datasheet ability or a points-based upgrade. This does seem to have improved somewhat since late 8th edition though, and the detachment system in 9th is a big improvement over 8th.
I love the way every faction is now getting to benefit from the variety of sub-factions and customisation that marines have enjoyed for years, and especially the custom sub-factions traits so that you army can really be “your dudes”.
I do think that in some ways there are too many layers of rules with factions, subfactions, character upgrades, strategems etc which can be overwhelming. I have been building a Mechanicus army for when I get to play in person again and the number of overlapping auras, abilities and buffs to remember seems quite intimidating, even as someone who’s been immersed in 40k for over 30 years. I can only imagine it must be difficult for new players. On the other hand I like having this level of detail available as an option.
Obviously after submitting it I thought of a bunch of other stuff I wish I had mentioned.
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.
The real reason is that if it's been more than a year since you played, you probably can't actually offer any worthwhile, experience-based feedback on the current edition. If I recall correctly, the SM and Cron dexes came out in October of last year- which would mean technically, you might be able to offer feedback on playing with those dexes for a couple of weeks, but beyond that, you're just a rules analyst/ Internet echo chamber junkie/ armchair quarterback.
While I frequently disagree with Sim, I'd never accuse the dude of being stupid, so I would assume he thought of this and just decided to sh!tpost anyway?
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.
The real reason is that if it's been more than a year since you played, you probably can't actually offer any worthwhile, experience-based feedback on the current edition. If I recall correctly, the SM and Cron dexes came out in October of last year- which would mean technically, you might be able to offer feedback on playing with those dexes for a couple of weeks, but beyond that, you're just a rules analyst/ Internet echo chamber junkie/ armchair quarterback.
While I frequently disagree with Sim, I'd never accuse the dude of being stupid, so I would assume he thought of this and just decided to sh!tpost anyway?
There is other feedback that would be useful to collect from players like that, especially if they are still very active in community where they would see the survey.
I like what you wrote. I wish I'd thought've Unit Actions, as I think that's a great system that could be expanded upon - Cultists performing rituals, Priests 'cleansing' areas of the battlefield, Necrons beinging arcane technology back online, and so on.
I like what you wrote. I wish I'd thought've Unit Actions, as I think that's a great system that could be expanded upon - Cultists performing rituals, Priests 'cleansing' areas of the battlefield, Necrons beinging arcane technology back online, and so on.
Y’all worded stuff so much better than I did. Also i wish I said some of the things you did... I mostly griped about getting supplements for codices that don’t work and about the rules being a barrier to entry for new players, as well as a barrier for retention, along with the financial barrier the rules are creating.
You're right about all of those things, but I intentionally avoided bringing up costs, GW prices and things that, whilst important, aren't necessarily specific to 40k.
If this'd been a whole "How are we doing?" survey for GW in general, sure, there were a bunch of things I would have added, but I tried to avoid mentioning other games unless it was a direct comparison (and I stuck to other GW games, rather than bringing up other things I play like BattleTech).
It's very easy to get lost in a rant, so I had to set a kind of boundary for tangents I wouldn't go off on, no matter how much I wanted to.
Doesn't make you wrong for doing so - someone needs to say it! - but my response was long enough as it was and I had to maintain a focus on just 40k.
The interesting thing about this to me is (assuming GW isn't just throwing this feedback into the trash and only doing it as PR thing), this suggests that they haven't finalized even basic elements of 10th edition like whether stratagems will still exist or not. That or they have, but they've been given such cold feet by recent problems with the game that they're considering ripping up what they previously came up with and starting again essentially from the ground up.
Based on the normal 3-year timeframe, 10th is only a year and a half away. According to GW's normal development schedule, the rules would be essentially done at this point aside from small adjustments based on playtesting.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You're right about all of those things, but I intentionally avoided bringing up costs, GW prices and things that, whilst important, aren't necessarily specific to 40k.
If this'd been a whole "How are we doing?" survey for GW in general, sure, there were a bunch of things I would have added, but I tried to avoid mentioning other games unless it was a direct comparison (and I stuck to other GW games, rather than bringing up other things I play like BattleTech).
It's very easy to get lost in a rant, so I had to set a kind of boundary for tangents I wouldn't go off on, no matter how much I wanted to.
Doesn't make you wrong for doing so - someone needs to say it! - but my response was long enough as it was and I had to maintain a focus on just 40k.
I was going to not say it too but they did ask about accessibility to new players. It’s not like they couldn’t use a subscription for periodic payments or the models themselves to implement a pay to win system...
Thadin wrote: Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me
And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!
They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.
The real reason is that if it's been more than a year since you played, you probably can't actually offer any worthwhile, experience-based feedback on the current edition. If I recall correctly, the SM and Cron dexes came out in October of last year- which would mean technically, you might be able to offer feedback on playing with those dexes for a couple of weeks, but beyond that, you're just a rules analyst/ Internet echo chamber junkie/ armchair quarterback.
While I frequently disagree with Sim, I'd never accuse the dude of being stupid, so I would assume he thought of this and just decided to sh!tpost anyway?
I find it very hard to let opportunities to gakpost go by. Its a crime to see a gakpost and not do it.
Discarding feedback if you havn't played for a while is the right thing to do considering the questions in the survey.
Kicking you out immediately after that question though was dumb. They should have just filtered answers based on that question without telling the customers.
Only thing I'd really wish is to significantly slow down the releases, especially the rules. 5 years editions for starters, and codexes that last that much at least but are still ok even if they were released one edition behind.
Spoletta wrote: Discarding feedback if you havn't played for a while is the right thing to do considering the questions in the survey.
Kicking you out immediately after that question though was dumb. They should have just filtered answers based on that question without telling the customers.
I think it’s a bit of a lost opportunity and shows there lack of regard.
A simple page of, what is important to you in 40k. To see what players may be still interested in.
A when did you last purchase a 40k kit. And then comments at the end.
Only thing I'd really wish is to significantly slow down the releases, especially the rules. 5 years editions for starters, and codexes that last that much at least but are still ok even if they were released one edition behind.
"Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."
Only thing I'd really wish is to significantly slow down the releases, especially the rules. 5 years editions for starters, and codexes that last that much at least but are still ok even if they were released one edition behind.
"Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."
I think that this will be a 5 year edition.
Have you somehow never heard marketing speak before?
Only thing I'd really wish is to significantly slow down the releases, especially the rules. 5 years editions for starters, and codexes that last that much at least but are still ok even if they were released one edition behind.
"Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."
I think that this will be a 5 year edition.
Good, make it a standard lifespan of a 40k edition then
Technically "some years off" could mean 1.5 years, like 2023. Same old crappy 3 years cycle .
Only thing I'd really wish is to significantly slow down the releases, especially the rules. 5 years editions for starters, and codexes that last that much at least but are still ok even if they were released one edition behind.
"Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."
I think that this will be a 5 year edition.
Good, make it a standard lifespan of a 40k edition then
Technically "some years off" could mean 1.5 years, like 2023. Same old crappy 3 years cycle .
I find the edition length interesting, my brother was lamenting the fact nids have stopgap rules and are being passed over until seemingly the back end of next year at the earliest, but if all armies are updated by 2023 and this is a 5 year edition, the only thing GW seem to have up their sleeves from that point is PA style tack-on books. I can't imagine 2 years of an edition without any "compulsory for your army" releases.
Wierd survey...
I think its pure lip service. The one last year was a lot better IMO. This seemed to only allow answers that support 40k.. It was hard to give any real feedback until right the end.
Basicaly wrote - Core rules very bare bones. Too many supplementary rules in codex/supplament to compensate creating a mess of "bespoke" rules which seem to do the same thing across armies but are worded slightly differently making it frustrating mess trying to remember unit rules.
Also - Ad mech level of power creep is bad for the casual players who happen to come across such armies and for competitive players who don't want to bother going to an event..
Also - Replace fine cast - all of it. Update armies more equaly.
I called for bringing back some unique flavour to units instead of stripping out abilities or replacing them with generic Mortal Wound effects.
Have a look through the IA Compendium and see how many units lost unique stuff, stuff that wasn't even competitive or complicated in any form or manner.
Argive wrote: Wierd survey...
I think its pure lip service. The one last year was a lot better IMO. This seemed to only allow answers that support 40k.. It was hard to give any real feedback until right the end.
In a slight bit of fairness to GW, the article on WHC does seem to frame it specifically as a survey about 40k, rather than a general GW survey.
We've been on a no longer than 3 year edition lifespan in both flagship games since 2012.
Yet people still come out each time saying they think it will be 4+ years as the game doesn't "need" it.
It's a guaranteed sales bump each summer one takes place. Wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Old World line up so they don't have a summer without a big edition launch.
Spoletta wrote: If we get a longer than 3 years cycle is because all the releases have been delayed so far.
If a worldwide pandemic did not stop them releasing a new edition of 40k then nothing will, things being "ready" be damned.
They likely had 9th ready to go well before the pandemic, it also sold like hotcakes and was the perfect lockdown distraction for a lot of people which lead to record profits.
The bubble has burst now people are starting to have to get back to the office/see people/lost jobs/etc.
Spoletta wrote: If we get a longer than 3 years cycle is because all the releases have been delayed so far.
If a worldwide pandemic did not stop them releasing a new edition of 40k then nothing will, things being "ready" be damned.
They likely had 9th ready to go well before the pandemic, it also sold like hotcakes and was the perfect lockdown distraction for a lot of people which lead to record profits.
The bubble has burst now people are starting to have to get back to the office/see people/lost jobs/etc.
If I was a GW exec, that'd scream to me "get 10th out as soon as possible to inflate our sales numbers again!" not "let's take it slow with 10th edition."
Spoletta wrote: If we get a longer than 3 years cycle is because all the releases have been delayed so far.
If a worldwide pandemic did not stop them releasing a new edition of 40k then nothing will, things being "ready" be damned.
They likely had 9th ready to go well before the pandemic, it also sold like hotcakes and was the perfect lockdown distraction for a lot of people which lead to record profits.
The bubble has burst now people are starting to have to get back to the office/see people/lost jobs/etc.
If I was a GW exec, that'd scream to me "get 10th out as soon as possible to inflate our sales numbers again!" not "let's take it slow with 10th edition."
Nah I think they realise a lot of people lacked the chance to get much 9th ed experience and games in (hence a lot of the angry responses to the poll), so replacing a lot of stuff that people never got chance to use for external reasons is a bad look. I'm not in marketing but it seems common sense.
Spoletta wrote: If we get a longer than 3 years cycle is because all the releases have been delayed so far.
If a worldwide pandemic did not stop them releasing a new edition of 40k then nothing will, things being "ready" be damned.
They likely had 9th ready to go well before the pandemic, it also sold like hotcakes and was the perfect lockdown distraction for a lot of people which lead to record profits.
The bubble has burst now people are starting to have to get back to the office/see people/lost jobs/etc.
If I was a GW exec, that'd scream to me "get 10th out as soon as possible to inflate our sales numbers again!" not "let's take it slow with 10th edition."
Nah I think they realise a lot of people lacked the chance to get much 9th ed experience and games in (hence a lot of the angry responses to the poll), so replacing a lot of stuff that people never got chance to use for external reasons is a bad look. I'm not in marketing but it seems common sense.
GW marketing does not work based on common sense. It works on how much money can they make RIGHT NOW.
Replied strongly about stratagems. Other pages seemed built to allow only confirming responses, e.g. what do you like about X? Suggested that new rules be plug in play based on prior editions and allow players to select levels of realism and detail.
Most of the responses I've seen are
"Oh, neat, here's the changes from 9th I'd like to see"
There were initially a lot of people who haven't played for over 2 years angry they couldn't feedback. They since opened it out a little more, but obviously these people now just get questions about 9th which may not be relevant.
Most of the responses I've seen are "Oh, neat, here's the changes from 9th I'd like to see"
There were initially a lot of people who haven't played for over 2 years angry they couldn't feedback. They since opened it out a little more, but obviously these people now just get questions about 9th which may not be relevant.
Here's a question:
do you have to play a rule set before you know whether you'll like it or not? Could you tell just by reading? If not, Then why shouldn't you be able to give recommendations on the ruleset that would make it more likeable to you?
Spoletta wrote: If we get a longer than 3 years cycle is because all the releases have been delayed so far.
If a worldwide pandemic did not stop them releasing a new edition of 40k then nothing will, things being "ready" be damned.
They likely had 9th ready to go well before the pandemic, it also sold like hotcakes and was the perfect lockdown distraction for a lot of people which lead to record profits.
The bubble has burst now people are starting to have to get back to the office/see people/lost jobs/etc.
If I was a GW exec, that'd scream to me "get 10th out as soon as possible to inflate our sales numbers again!" not "let's take it slow with 10th edition."
Nah I think they realise a lot of people lacked the chance to get much 9th ed experience and games in (hence a lot of the angry responses to the poll), so replacing a lot of stuff that people never got chance to use for external reasons is a bad look. I'm not in marketing but it seems common sense.
GW marketing does not work based on common sense. It works on how much money can they make RIGHT NOW.
That’s how every big business works. The emphasis is always on THIS quarter’s reports.
do you have to play a rule set before you know whether you'll like it or not? Could you tell just by reading?
If not,
Then why shouldn't you be able to give recommendations on the ruleset that would make it more likeable to you?
It seems people who aren't seen as active players - based on GW's own definition - are not the target audience for the survey. Otherwise those people would have gotten questions along the line of "what would it take for you to come back to the game?" and such.
do you have to play a rule set before you know whether you'll like it or not? Could you tell just by reading? If not, Then why shouldn't you be able to give recommendations on the ruleset that would make it more likeable to you?
It seems people who aren't seen as active players - based on GW's own definition - are not the target audience for the survey. Otherwise those people would have gotten questions along the line of "what would it take for you to come back to the game?" and such.
WarCom was apparently (again) ill-informed.
You'd think for a game that was looking to EXPAND the survey would be targeted at people who aren't currently playing.
Asking only people who are currently playing about rules is going to result in a positive skew on the results.
The only excuse would be targeting players like me who enjoy it somewhat but think improvements could be made... which I think would require a more narrow set of questions.
I think that it is certainly possible to contribute meaningfully to discussion without actual play experience; however I do also think that those who have actual play experience can offer more insight- since they can speak from both theory and practice, rather than theory alone.
As for soliciting advice from those outside the current version to encourage growth: it does make sense, to a certain extent.
However it might also lead to a situation where there is both an influx of new players AND an exodus of those who are already here, resulting in a net zero gain, or worse, a loss.
do you have to play a rule set before you know whether you'll like it or not? Could you tell just by reading?
If not,
Then why shouldn't you be able to give recommendations on the ruleset that would make it more likeable to you?
It seems people who aren't seen as active players - based on GW's own definition - are not the target audience for the survey. Otherwise those people would have gotten questions along the line of "what would it take for you to come back to the game?" and such.
WarCom was apparently (again) ill-informed.
You'd think for a game that was looking to EXPAND the survey would be targeted at people who aren't currently playing.
Asking only people who are currently playing about rules is going to result in a positive skew on the results.
The only excuse would be targeting players like me who enjoy it somewhat but think improvements could be made... which I think would require a more narrow set of questions.
Targeting the people that made their stock explode with their survey makes more sense than you’d think. Granted, growing the hobby means bringing other people in, but the focus is those who were responsible for the massive growth the hobby gained. The marketing research is very targeted to figuring out how to scrape another boom together in stock prices. Those who were dissatisfied with 9th edition at the beginning of it were not involved in the explosion of the stock prices unless they were still hooked on the plastic crack barring an enjoyable game, which does exist. These people will continue to make purchases barring a game they enjoy however. They know that the formula for making 40k accessible is in the 8th and 9th edition core rules because the 8th and 9th edition is what made the game palatable to the masses.
Again, profit motive. It happens in every industry. Musicians like REM will abandon the fans that kept them from starving in the early part of their career at live shows in favor of appeasing the masses of fans that enjoy their more poppy sound because they put a metaphorical Ferrari in their garage. GW is not in the business of making you happy, they are in the business of making money and they have been doing an amazing job of it.
I don’t like it any more than you do and I absolutely do not believe that this is right, but in capitalism the only moral constraint is growth and profit. You are not in the pool of players that will contribute to another boom in stock prices because you are a small niche of players along with everyone else screaming for a better game, myself included. They don’t want to make a better game. They want to make a game that will generate more profit. To understand this, play any phone app game (which are rediculously profitable and terrible in terms of pay to win mechanics).
The explosion in profit was due to sales, right? Like, GW didn’t receive a fat check every time someone completed a game, right? Only buying minis counts towards their profits?
It seems odd for them to believe that the people currently playing the most recent edition, during a pandemic, were the only people buying minis.
The people that were buying the minis without playing probably don’t depend on new rules to keep buying minis unfortunately. Not the extent that whales buying a codex and army release would.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The explosion in profit was due to sales, right? Like, GW didn’t receive a fat check every time someone completed a game, right? Only buying minis counts towards their profits?
It seems odd for them to believe that the people currently playing the most recent edition, during a pandemic, were the only people buying minis.
The trend follows people bought and painted a lot in lockdown to play games once they can, so their concern seems to be that the players who were consuming during lockdown, are dissatisfied with the rules enough not to come back.
This likely isn't the problem at heart, but as others have pointed out, they're not looking at expanding in this survey, or drawing in people from 2+ years ago, they're interested in contraction and not losing the people who have been paying them inside the lockdown window.
Meanwhile an odd group of people seem really disturbed at the idea of people voicing their opinions of the game unless they are 'experts' at playing it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Meanwhile an odd group of people seem really disturbed at the idea of people voicing their opinions of the game unless they are 'experts' at playing it.
Gotta wheel out those essays of maths no one cares about and split them strategems into seven broad categories to have an opinion on this game, right?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Meanwhile an odd group of people seem really disturbed at the idea of people voicing their opinions of the game unless they are 'experts' at playing it.
Gotta wheel out those essays of maths no one cares about and split them strategems into seven broad categories to have an opinion on this game, right?
Right next to the odd group of people who are disgruntled by the fact the survey isn't aimed at them.
The questions are asked towards people who play the game, other input is not required atm and WarCom was wrong as usual. There is no need to discuss the validity of specific opinions/experience.
Just as a food for thought, though: At the beginning of the edition nobody was thinking Slaanesh would be good just from reading the rules. And I think we are still waiting for a SM list making 1st place with 18 Eradicators. I believe melee was declared dead as well. Slow gunlines aren't exactly the meta.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Meanwhile an odd group of people seem really disturbed at the idea of people voicing their opinions of the game unless they are 'experts' at playing it.
Gotta wheel out those essays of maths no one cares about and split them strategems into seven broad categories to have an opinion on this game, right?
Right next to the odd group of people who are disgruntled by the fact the survey isn't aimed at them.
The questions are asked towards people who play the game, other input is not required atm and WarCom was wrong as usual. There is no need to discuss the validity of specific opinions/experience.
Just as a food for thought, though: At the beginning of the edition nobody was thinking Slaanesh would be good just from reading the rules. And I think we are still waiting for a SM list making 1st place with 18 Eradicators. I believe melee was declared dead as well. Slow gunlines aren't exactly the meta.
I'd consider myself a 40k player even though I'm not actively playing. 30 years of game/hobby experience doesn't just vanish from your head because you haven't played for a year.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's fun to have an official avenue to be ignored by GW.
Anyway, I write a 2,500 word essay. That should be enough.
Correct. I won´t bother replying to them. Waste of time. Though I will mention my ideas for improvement here. I played 40K like this for more than a decade and will never go back to "official" nonsense of new edition tax to play the game:
1. Implement alternate activation. Period. No discussion.
2. Implement boni for favourable positioning of units for "Crossfire". Take a look in the Epic Armageddon (EA) ruleset how it is done.
3. Implement a mechanic for pinning or staggering units. Take again a look at EA which uses the blast marker mechanic to emulate this. Shooting at units needs to have other effects than just a simple decision of dead or alive.
4. Reintroduce abstract area terrain again. Swiss cheese plastic terrain kits won´t give cover for your models. Or even better: Build your own terrain.
5. Abolish flyers and large walkers (IKs, Stompas, etc.) from ROUTINE 40K missions. They just don´t fit the scale of the game. Instead create special scenarios in which it would make sense to use them. And while you are at it improve their stats by a LARGE margin. It never felt right to me that an infantry model gets a save when stomped by an IK...
5. Reintroduce USR into the game. Also do this: Sell boxed sets of models which INCLUDE small data cards which lists the USR and faction specific rules those models might have. Saves the players time looking them up in the rulebook.
6. Banish all aspects of "MtG" which has leaked into 40K. If I want to play MtG then I play MtG and not a cheap copy of it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Meanwhile an odd group of people seem really disturbed at the idea of people voicing their opinions of the game unless they are 'experts' at playing it.
Gotta wheel out those essays of maths no one cares about and split them strategems into seven broad categories to have an opinion on this game, right?
Right next to the odd group of people who are disgruntled by the fact the survey isn't aimed at them.
The questions are asked towards people who play the game, other input is not required atm and WarCom was wrong as usual. There is no need to discuss the validity of specific opinions/experience.
Just as a food for thought, though: At the beginning of the edition nobody was thinking Slaanesh would be good just from reading the rules. And I think we are still waiting for a SM list making 1st place with 18 Eradicators. I believe melee was declared dead as well. Slow gunlines aren't exactly the meta.
I'd consider myself a 40k player even though I'm not actively playing. 30 years of game/hobby experience doesn't just vanish from your head because you haven't played for a year.
Plus, of all people to call out (me) who has posted in this very thread that they have played 9th back in the summer, but apparently that is not good enough to be part of the 40k zeitgeist…
For my feedback, I stayed very focused and discussed how their Points Value system for Match Play actively encourages Min-Maxing and discourages armies that look like they are supposed to in the 41st Millennium. I used the classic example of the poster boy Tactical Marine.
10 Tactical Marines cost the same if they are 2 5-model units or 1-10 model unit. And yet you get two sergeants for the same points value in the 2 5-model units, not to mention two units for actions and have to worry about Morale less with the smaller units. You are rewarded for taking the smaller units for the same points!
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's fun to have an official avenue to be ignored by GW.
Anyway, I write a 2,500 word essay. That should be enough.
Correct. I won´t bother replying to them. Waste of time. Though I will mention my ideas for improvement here. I played 40K like this for more than a decade and will never go back to "official" nonsense of new edition tax to play the game:
1. Implement alternate activation. Period. No discussion.
This requires a lot of the other guts of the game to be ripped out but that's probably a good thing.
2. Implement boni for favourable positioning of units for "Crossfire". Take a look in the Epic Armageddon (EA) ruleset how it is done.
3. Implement a mechanic for pinning or staggering units. Take again a look at EA which uses the blast marker mechanic to emulate this. Shooting at units needs to have other effects than just a simple decision of dead or alive.
These go hand in hand for me, morale shouldn't just be guys run away or pointless, likewise shooting shouldn't just be dead or alive. Even if the additional stuff comes in via morale.
4. Reintroduce abstract area terrain again. Swiss cheese plastic terrain kits won´t give cover for your models. Or even better: Build your own terrain.
No thanks, the midground we have now is fine, I don't want any more "my toe is in a ruin on my riptide so I have a cover save" crap again.
5. Abolish flyers and large walkers (IKs, Stompas, etc.) from ROUTINE 40K missions. They just don´t fit the scale of the game. Instead create special scenarios in which it would make sense to use them. And while you are at it improve their stats by a LARGE margin. It never felt right to me that an infantry model gets a save when stomped by an IK...
Meh, that cats out the bag, it's here to stay but the big models need to be more engaging to interact with.
5. Reintroduce USR into the game. Also do this: Sell boxed sets of models which INCLUDE small data cards which lists the USR and faction specific rules those models might have. Saves the players time looking them up in the rulebook.
They could do this just be expanding the manuals to have some icons that refer to some rules tbh. I'd not be against datacard packs to buy either.
6. Banish all aspects of "MtG" which has leaked into 40K. If I want to play MtG then I play MtG and not a cheap copy of it.
Nothing about 40k is cheap! Jokes aside, I don't play magic so can't really comment but I don't design a deck of cards for my army so unsure? If you mean reactionary actions and what are in essence "power ups" via strats, the former needs to be there in some capacity and the latter needs to be reigned right in.
Sim-Life wrote: I'd consider myself a 40k player even though I'm not actively playing. 30 years of game/hobby experience doesn't just vanish from your head because you haven't played for a year.
It doesn't, but again, the survey is aimed at people playing the current game and their input on it. If they wanted to know what has to be done for lapsed players to return to the game, they would not have kicked you out after the first question.
Sim-Life wrote: I'd consider myself a 40k player even though I'm not actively playing. 30 years of game/hobby experience doesn't just vanish from your head because you haven't played for a year.
It doesn't, but again, the survey is aimed at people playing the current game and their input on it. If they wanted to know what has to be done for lapsed players to return to the game, they would not have kicked you out after the first question.
Jokes on you. They changed the survey shortly after it went up and let lapsed players get past the second question. I did it twice, both times saying I haven't played in 2 years (though Dudeface informed me I played at least a year ago, thanks lockdown for screwing up my perception of time) and the second time I got the full survey.
Sim-Life wrote: I'd consider myself a 40k player even though I'm not actively playing. 30 years of game/hobby experience doesn't just vanish from your head because you haven't played for a year.
It doesn't, but again, the survey is aimed at people playing the current game and their input on it. If they wanted to know what has to be done for lapsed players to return to the game, they would not have kicked you out after the first question.
Jokes on you. They changed the survey shortly after it went up and let lapsed players get past the second question. I did it twice, both times saying I haven't played in 2 years (though Dudeface informed me I played at least a year ago, thanks lockdown for screwing up my perception of time) and the second time I got the full survey.
Not gonna lie, I thought the necron book was older as well!
I totally thought Slaanesh would be good when I read the 9th book. As soon as it said "you lose several square feet of play space" I knew I was going to get first turn charges.
What I didn't anticipate was *how* good (since gunlines evaporated overnight)
Sim-Life wrote: I'd consider myself a 40k player even though I'm not actively playing. 30 years of game/hobby experience doesn't just vanish from your head because you haven't played for a year.
It doesn't, but again, the survey is aimed at people playing the current game and their input on it. If they wanted to know what has to be done for lapsed players to return to the game, they would not have kicked you out after the first question.
Thanks for sharing the survey here! I haven't been keeping up with WarCom as much so I would have missed.
Sim-Life wrote: Jokes on you. They changed the survey shortly after it went up and let lapsed players get past the second question. I did it twice, both times saying I haven't played in 2 years (though Dudeface informed me I played at least a year ago, thanks lockdown for screwing up my perception of time) and the second time I got the full survey.
That's gopd, then everybody can leave feedback. Let's hope the changed question path is not just for show.
