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.

I was reading that thread that got canned regarding Rick Priestley leaving/retiring/getting binned/whatever from GW, and it seemed from some of the posts that some folks are of the opinion that GW is moving out of its development of Warhammer and 40K. That the rulessets are just about done, too many factions as it is so no further development needed there, and any further changes in the future will be very much in the fine tuning nature. This, it seemed to me that they were thinking, is why so many artsy/dev personalities have been leaving in recent years.

If this is indeed true (and I could see it, I really could; but there are factors both for and against), what does that mean for the future of the game? Will we see an end to codex creep, or wilder swings in it as the accountants take over from the games developers and attempt to push profits? What could we expect in terms of new future models? What will future editions of the games look like as refining the rulesets becomes largely unneeded and changes will be solely to push sales?

And what about release schedule? With less actual development being needed to iterate, will they finally get off their collective kiesters and get releases out at a pace a bit quicker than 5 years? If this was truly a planned "development phase", and it is coming to a close (mind you I have some issue with attributing such long-ranged planning to GW, but it COULD be within the realm of possibility), is it possible that GW's legendarily slow release schedule has been planned/extended/taken advantage of to prolong the time needed to refine the machine. And now that the machine is polished and basically self-sufficient (again, not sure I BUY this, but it makes an interesting thought) they are jettisoning the artisitc and games dev "engineers" as they are no longer needed and just cranking out more of what they know works, focusing more on production?

Yeah, there are some real obvious holes in these theories, but I was just curious to see what Dakka thought.

40K has gone 10 years without a major reboot. On the other hand, WHFB has just had one.

Difficult to say, on the face of it, that they're ceasing major development.

I think there's an awful lot of waffle online and precious few facts.

I'm not sure the Rick Priestley thing ever truly got cleared up, so to use that without any knowledge is a bit of a bad start.

In short, people are being paranoid in my opinion.

grizgrin wrote: This, it seemed to me that they were thinking, is why so many artsy/dev personalities have been leaving in recent years.

There's a flaw in your arguement; Javris is still around.

The Emperor protects. Well, twenty five years ago nobody would have thought TSR would end up going under and selling Dungeons and Dragons to toy companies either. People have way too much investment in this hobby for it to ever really die, but to tell you the truth I am all for the idea of codex creep and constant updates coming to an end. I can still use the same Battletech rulebook I had in 1990, still play AD&D 1st edition with my buddies, and never have to buy the latest monthly updates to stay 'competative'. The constant need to keep buying things in order to participate in a game is what makes companies last, for a while (MTG for instance), but also what ends up alienating people. Who wants to keep shelling out money to update a game that once upon a time could have been played right out of the box. You sell one great rule set that is set in stone and you will only sell it once. You keep adding to it and people have to keep up, especially when they are expected to participate in community events where everyone else is up to speed.

I think if they were to just finish off 5th ed. 40k with all the armies represented and brought up to speed with 5th ed. and announce a resounding "THERE THIS IS IT... THIS IS 40k!" and continue to push miniatures while just leaving the rules ALONE they would have a lot of happy customers. They would still make plenty of money from the sale of figures, modelling supplies, tournament participation, fiction, white dwarf could become a more well rounded magazine again instead of a glorified mail order catalog.

(anybody remember when White Dwarf actually had reviews and articles about games that weren't exclusively GW? or when citadel made regular figures for 'fantasy' instead of just for 'WHFB'... when GW considered itself a gaming company along with all the rest of them instead of set apart as "The GW Hobby"?) Point being, if they have a finished product they can still make money selling all the stuff that supports it like figs and paint, and they wont alienate so many people by selling them a constant work-in-progress.

Toyota does not sell you a car and then tell you a year later that it needs a completely differnt transmission and a year after that that it needs an engine with different specs and that makes the transmission obsolete so now you need another one of those, and then the next year you find out it needs tires which need another new computer to handle the new brakes that the new tires need, and so on and so on. No. They sell you a car that works and that's that. You drive it for years, fix it if it needs fixing, and replace it when it is obsolete. Making it obsolete every few months by constant updates makes people not want to get one in the first place.

They need to keep releasing the game and the codexes on a cycle every few years to keep the hobby going. Otherwise people buy themselves out, they get all the books and play the game without coming back to GW. Constantly rehashing the rules is one way to turn things over and keep people buying, so no they won't cease development even if they need to rewrite rules just for the sake of it.

I was thinking this myself really, are they going to 'freeze' the rules once they release tau, necrons and sob? That and the rest of the DE minis will be at least 2 years of mileage. Fantasy is relatively stable and odd things get splash releases now and again.

I don't think there's any truth in this idea at all. And trust me, I keep track of GW pretty closely as I make a good chunk of my living from them.

Rick has had less and less to do with rules, fluff, and models as the years go by. Lately he's worked on projects like the Black Powder ruleset.

Scott-S6 wrote:40K has gone 10 years without a major reboot. On the other hand, WHFB has just had one.

Difficult to say, on the face of it, that they're ceasing major development.

What was the major reboot in Fantasy?

Oh come on KK. Are you trying to be obtuse?

No, it comes naturally due to the slope of my forehead.

I haven't played Fantasy since 2nd edition. The only thing I know about 8th edition is that it has variable charge distances.

That in itself is not a revolution, so presumably there must be other changes which really shake up the game. Unit activation by card draw or something like that.

I remember when they released 5th edition and said in White Dwarf that they'd just tweaked 4th edition because "there's no point in fixing something that ain't broke". Yet now they are on 8th edition. Funny that.

Yet 8th Edition is a marked improvement, without changing the fundamentals of the game overly much. Statlines remain the same, combat procedures remain the same.

KK....8th Ed enables massive units of infantry to do most of your fighting, and has presented the gamer with a far more even playing field against other armies. The game is an absolute bloodbath these days, with veritable buckets of dice being slung around. Which is just the way I like it! Though of course others may disagree, which is fair enough. But me, I like my grand spectacle, and that's what 8th is all about if you ask me.

yeenoghu wrote: I can still use the same Battletech rulebook I had in 1990 You keep adding to it and people have to keep up

I think the lack of that kind of updating is precisely what cause Battletech to stagnate. Where is Fasa now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I haven't played Fantasy since 2nd edition. The only thing I know about 8th edition is that it has variable charge distances.

Charging, magic, the way large units work. Small changes to almost everything else.

Bigger than anything 40K has had since 2nd changed to 3rd. (but not as big as that was)

Have those changes fundamentally altered the way the game works, like the dropping of opportunity fire from 40K did?

Kilkrazy wrote:No, it comes naturally due to the slope of my forehead.

I haven't played Fantasy since 2nd edition. The only thing I know about 8th edition is that it has variable charge distances.

That in itself is not a revolution, so presumably there must be other changes which really shake up the game. Unit activation by card draw or something like that.

8th edition is basically a throw back to 4th edition fantasy. Very similar in magic wise and a few other things.

Kilkrazy wrote:Have those changes fundamentally altered the way the game works, like the dropping of opportunity fire from 40K did?

No, as I said, not as big as the 2nd-3rd 40K changes.

Then it sounds like not a major reboot but an extensive set of tweaks, some of which are recycled.

I am not lead to think that a large number of design staff are needed for such an effort.

Kilkrazy wrote:Then it sounds like not a major reboot but an extensive set of tweaks, some of which are recycled.

I am not lead to think that a large number of design staff are needed for such an effort.

Nobody's mentioned that trees don't slow you down anymore, they just eat you and then charge off to a different part of the board.

Joking aside, I'd agree that no massive change took place. However it was a big arse book, so quite a lot of design work must have gone into it.

Or those trees give you poisoned attacks!

Scott-S6 wrote:

yeenoghu wrote: I can still use the same Battletech rulebook I had in 1990 You keep adding to it and people have to keep up

I think the lack of that kind of updating is precisely what cause Battletech to stagnate. Where is Fasa now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

That was kind of my point. Are you trying to imply that creating a legacy is pale in comparison to corporate bottom line that will gradually cause the downward spiral of something that started as a cool idea? Gygax would roll over in his grave.

Kilkrazy wrote:Have those changes fundamentally altered the way the game works, like the dropping of opportunity fire from 40K did?

Actually, I think it has. Biggest change is in 'Dead or Fled' for Victory Points. No more 50%. You either get the whole lot, or nowt, which changes your tactics dramatically.

I would highly reccomend picking up a copy of the rules KK, the tweaks and changes are numerous. None of them on their own are that earth shattering, but when put together, the game plays really rather differently. For instance, in my opinion Hero Hammer has well and truly had it now. Infantry are a Monsters worst nightmare thanks to steadfast, and Cavalry excel in putting down the really big monsters!

Well, that was an interesting read. Thank you, Dakka.

If they paint themselves into a corner I'd expect a major overhaul in both rules & fluff basically designed as reset, with changes that focus on bringing in a new playerbase. If you're familiar think the changes between 3.5 D&D, and 4e. It'd probably be pretty healthy for the game overall, while vets tend to love their legacy stuff it I think clinging to it generally holds games back.

But the background is inherently mutable, written as it is less from a factual standpoint, as a collection of myths, rumours and legends.

This is especially true of 40k, easily the biggest property GW owns. Indeed in this respect, I'd venture the opposite of legacy is true, in so far it is those who stick doggedly to older background that would cause stagnation.

yeenoghu wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

yeenoghu wrote: I can still use the same Battletech rulebook I had in 1990 You keep adding to it and people have to keep up

I think the lack of that kind of updating is precisely what cause Battletech to stagnate. Where is Fasa now?

That was kind of my point. Are you trying to imply that creating a legacy is pale in comparison to corporate bottom line that will gradually cause the downward spiral of something that started as a cool idea? Gygax would roll over in his grave.

I think battletech started as a cool idea but without regular changes to the status quo the game stagnates. Fasa knew that and, to begin with, they were releasing supplements, new weapons, new mechs, etc. When they stopped doing that is when the game started to lose the bulk of it's player base.

I will eat my Green Stuff the day GW gives up repeated rule updates and army releases. That's been their entire business model for as long as I can remember.

And it's kinda silly to ask them to do otherwise. There is nothing stopping you from playing a game in the previous edition- provided you purchased the rules back when they were available. So stopping edition changes does nothing to help people who like the old but hurts people who like the new.

And if we want GW to keep providing us better models, they have to keep making money, and that means either of two things:
A) a constantly evolving game with constantly evolving rules and minis, or
B) a game that goes through a complete development cycle for every army and then gets completely scrapped, never supported again while GW works on a new game in an entirely different setting with completely incompatible rules.

I hope we can all agree A is a lot more workable than B.

JOHIRA wrote:

And if we want GW to keep providing us better models, they have to keep making money, and that means either of two things:
A) a constantly evolving game with constantly evolving rules and minis, or
B) a game that goes through a complete development cycle for every army and then gets completely scrapped, never supported again while GW works on a new game in an entirely different setting with completely incompatible rules.

I hope we can all agree A is a lot more workable than B.

Actually no

I don't mind the occasional rules tweak for ballance or to make something more clear that people have been regularly getting wrong. but when each new iteration of the rules renders my old arm obsolete / untenable then I'd much rather have a well developed game mechanic where there is option for player customisation of units and stats.

This is what Battletech is. A comprehensive rules set where each unit is (almost) infinitely customisable within those rules. Sure, there are new official units released every few years and the history is constantly evolving but the new releases fit into the scope of the original rules.

By your analogy, 40K is actually closer to B. Each revision of the rules changes the basic scope of the game. I physically cannot use the set up I had for my 4th edition marine force in 5th edition because the rules do not support it (Purity above all rule - Vet sergeants can be replaced by apothecaries). Sure, the basic combat system remains the same but the points values and special rules are different. There were similar significant changes between 2nd and 3rd and between 3rd and 4th.

I'd much rather see a completed rules set, laid out in stone, but where each few years the story line moved forward a bit with perhaps some new or recovered technology, details for new units / races / chapters, but done in such a way as the basic set ups for each existing group is still viable rather than being kicked into the long grass by the new flavour of the month codex.

Is this achievable? No, probably not. No rules set is ever air tight enough that it won't need a bit of tweaking. Classic Battletech had a major re-write a few years back. The rules are still the same but some parts were tweaked to make them easier to understand / compute. 40k is still fundamentally the same rules set that was in Rogue Trader but simplified (or dumbed down depending on the argument you hold with). But is it really necessary to make each army have to reform each time you reboot the system? The DCMS forces in Battletech under the current rules set are no better or worse than they were under the set released 25 years ago. They have more units and weapons to choose from but the baseline is the same. The same cannot be said of 40k

The original 40k rules in Rogue Trader specifically stated that units from 40k would work in the Warhammer world and vice versa. not sure this is the case any more. Indication of how much the system has changed. I can't even use half the weapons from the original system or if I can it's not in the same way.

The basic rules system can remain fixed (not stagnant) and GW can still produce new miniatures, new weapons, new ideas with a fixed base set of rules. Just because a system is fixed doesn't mean the developers will abandon it. CBT is nearly at 30 years and still a popular system.

Mini rant over. thanks for your time

Capt_Bowman wrote:By your analogy, 40K is actually closer to B. Each revision of the rules changes the basic scope of the game. I physically cannot use the set up I had for my 4th edition marine force in 5th edition because the rules do not support it (Purity above all rule - Vet sergeants can be replaced by apothecaries). Sure, the basic combat system remains the same but the points values and special rules are different. There were similar significant changes between 2nd and 3rd and between 3rd and 4th.

Actually the changes between 2nd & 3rd were way bigger than that. Lots of core mechanics changed (e.g. assault moves were introduced).

Capt_Bowman wrote:The original 40k rules in Rogue Trader specifically stated that units from 40k would work in the Warhammer world and vice versa.

Page reference please.

This is from my 2nd printing soft cover - Page 6, 1st column, about half way down

"Warhammer 40,000 employs the proven and popular game mechanics of the Warhammer Game System. Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer Battle Rules can therefore be used in conjunction; you will find creatures and weapons from one game will be perfectly usable in the other. Even magic, psionics aliens, monsters and equipment have been designed so they can be transplanted between the two games..."