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.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Cronch wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Or ever, cuz it has zero to interest me(pay to win, consumable short term product, etc). I remember when that lame fething game came out an people were comparing going on and on about how great it was to buy a new deck all the time like it was some fething new version of POGS or whatever the morons were buying that week.

No that's ok I'll stick to my well painted assembled models thank you very much...

Seeing a person defend playing with toy soldiers as somehow more dignified experience to playing cards made my day, thank you radom internet person

The big difference is with MTG you buy as many packs(waste produced) to increase the chances of getting a good card, which you might not even get. This is the part I don't understand. at least with 40k I know what I am going to get in every box i buy, control how I want them to look, paint them how I want them to be painted, etc...

I don't remember what the rules for official tournaments are these days, but for casual games you absolutely can paint over the artwork on MtG cards. It just requires a bit more skill.
But yes, it's almost like they're fundamentally different game types- MtG is a game that happens to have collecting hobby attached, 40k is a collectible hobby that happens to have a bad game attached.

I wrote that I wanted to see alternate activation come to the next edition of 40K. I mean, it’s fruitless, I don’t think they really care. But at least I could officially write something to GW fruitlessly rather than not at all.

I also ticked the boxes a lot of others did, about it being too complicated.

I do wish that I’d also write about the lethality and wanting it to be a lot less lethal though.

The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.

I wouldn't really call that cynic.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.

Well that would only be 1 year earlier than expected. 2023 is where 10th could be expected.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.

If it was a good update then I don’t think it’s a bad thing, one issue GW has is they have so much bloat in 40k right now. That they would need a full reset again I think to fix some of the issues.

But put some real effort in and it could work for them no worry.

With a 3 year cycle and 1 year totally lost to Corona and a 2nd year likely damaged as a result in terms of actual games we could potentially see GW go one of three directions

1) Stay the course and keep going as close to normal as possible

2) Rush out a new edition earlier than normal as a kind of "corona is controlled/maintained/gone/gaming is back" celebration

3) Take a bit longer so that the current edition gets a proper showing and spend longer working on the rules.


One problem is that new editions spark BIG sales increases and are a big marketing boom in themselves. They also have to slot in around others and at some point we know Old World is coming. You don't really want two main games having super-massive sales events in the same year - its a huge pull on resources for the company and its a marketing nightmare because your customer base does cross over. Release too many big things all at once and your customers run out of money and the latter releases suffer

 Albertorius wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.

I wouldn't really call that cynic.

More prophetic than anything.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.

I wouldn't really call that cynic.

More prophetic than anything.

Ha ha well jokes on GW this time, I was ahead of the curve and didn't buy any of the books this edition, so when they throw out a new edition way sooner then expected they aren't leaving me with dead product this time, these cheeky gits.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.

I wouldn't really call that cynic.

More prophetic than anything.

Kids these days. Real cynicism works like this: GW can only produce so many books a year. They will keep the already very short three year cycle in place to make sure every codex gets updated during the edition and have a wrap up period. This way they can sell every player the rule book, their codex, one or two day one DLCs, and at least one edition wrap up book. Worst case scenario for GW, four books per player*. Hopefully more.

If they shortened the edition cycle to two years they'd produce less DLC, which makes them less money and has to be made up by the new rule book, and not update every codex, so they definitely lose out on codex sales for a portion of their players and risk making DLC books for those armies less attractive if the foundation on which they build is so outdated that the DLC won't help. They'd also miss out on sales of day one DLC that does not get produced for lack of the updated codex it would tie in with. And since the number of armies in the game doesn't decrease, it's a snowballing effect that they'll feel in further editions as well.

No, three years is the sweet spot. It's the maximum amount of books sold to the maximum amount of players while making everyone feel loved and getting them to come back for the next round, next edition.

*Edit: Not accounting for Chapter Approved which they'll also sell. Selling errata once a year is completely detached from the edition cycle, though, and does not figure into it.

You assume goal is every book updated during edition which isn't. That result is abnormality for gw done only twice in 40k/fb/aos history

I'm just wondering which army won't get their Crusade rules before GW abandons that part of the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm just wondering which army won't get their Crusade rules before GW abandons that part of the game.

Is it cheating if I say Inquisition?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm just wondering which army won't get their Crusade rules before GW abandons that part of the game.

CWE obvs, still paying the past sins tax of hanging about with Yvaine or them invisible WraithKnights

 Geifer wrote:
Is it cheating if I say Inquisition?

Heh. Ok. You've got me there.

I'm thinking Tyranids... or Ynnari, if they even count anymore. Both seem far down the pipe (or just non-existent for the latter).

While releases are getting pushed back, I'm not sure the bean counters will let a new edition get pushed back. They certainly didn't for AoS, despite the release mess with various orcs, stormcast and dragons.

Cronch wrote:

I don't remember what the rules for official tournaments are these days, but for casual games you absolutely can paint over the artwork on MtG cards. It just requires a bit more skill.

From what I remember, alters are fine in tournaments, mostly because you're expected to sleeve your cards anyway. There's some guidelines (no making it look like a different card, retain the important info and most of the original art, etc.), but in general judges tend to be reasonably permissive.