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.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
BRB also had deep flaws, especially compared to 8th. The most obvious ones were between monstrous creatures and vehicles, vehicles overall were mostly made of paper.

This is a result of GW making things MCs that should've been vehicles. It was the same in 6th, but since monsters were only ever T6 with a 3+ save at best (and therefore quite vulnerable to bolters and lasguns) no one batted an eye.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
You think vehicles in 8th or 9th edition are squishy? Imagine them having no save at all and only 3 hull points.

This doesn't seem to be a problem in 30k. To take the 4 hull points away from a Land Raider on average required 12 lascannon hits on average, and that's if the Land Raider was in the open with no cover. In the same situation in 8/9th, 12 lascannon hits overkill a Land Raider on average.
A Leman Russ's 3 hull points absorbed 9 lascannon hits to the front armor. 9 Lascannon hits in 8/9th will dramatically overkill an LRBT by nearly 50%. The main difference is:
In 7th, literally infinite autocannons could not hurt a LRBT. In 9th, it takes 36 autocannon hits to kill an LRBT on average.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Balance wize I agree though that formations pronounced the bad basic rules. No wonder 6th and 7 th Edition nearly killed GW, and keeping 7th Edition rules basically killed HH.

HH is still going strong, so IDK what you're on about here. In fact, HH is growing in my group while 40k is shrinking (at the current moment during COVID).

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The Necron player in our group stopped using Decurion after we realized he would lose no units against my CSM. He sometimes used it against Tau which had similar cheese. With Traitor Legions Chaos could keep up but that was half a year before the Edition was replaced.
I did like my Nurgle Daemons' Tallyband formation actually. I don't recall it being particularly powerful, but it made the infamous Warp storm table pretty reliable.

I never played with or against it but Space Marine psykers moving terrain pieces around, with models standing on these sounded.... fun.

Yeah the codex/formation rules were silly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest cheeses in 7th came mostly from the army building rules. The core rules were generally fine. It's why 30k thrives on basically the same rule-set (with a few minor tweaks, GTFO Invisibility).

But my GOD the army building rules. You had random stuff like:
- Necrons got Reanimation Protocols on models that were not priced to have it.
- Tau units could hit rear armor on tanks facing them.
- Space Marines got free transports.
- Baneblade companies could annihilate huge chunks of the board with their formation rules.

There was just utter nonsense in the army building rules. As for core rule flaws that actually caused cheese (as opposed to being inconvenient):
- The interaction between Allied units and Primary transports was always shenanigany (Allies no longer can embark on transports at all in 30k, even ICs) and could be cheesed (Skitarii Drop Pods!).
- The Invisibility psychic power (completely removed in 30k)
- The interaction between the Independent Character rules, the Wound Allocation rules, and army building rules. (Addressed to some extent in 30k which of course has completely different army building rules).
Superfriends was essentially a huge amount of characters all blobbed up sharing their buffs.
1) IC rules meant that characters who shared buffs were incredibly powerful tools, though not OP the way they were "intended".
2) Wound Allocation rules meant that the toughest model could always be guaranteed to take hits unless you surrounded the enemy.
3) Army building rules got so ridiculous that you could bring a huge amount of characters. At the start of the edition, an army could have 3 - 2 Primary HQs and 1 Allied HQ. But certain formations and armies (Space Wolves *cough*) just ignored most of that by the end of the edition.

yeah, the i ignore parts of designated roles was really taken to a whole new level. Gone were the days where a nurgle lord made PM troop choices, instead we then got Earthshaker batteries as tropps... because of course gw couldn't contain themselves... And neither could FW at the end of 7th,

If you only consider front armor, yes, some vehicles in 7th were more durable against shooting from one direction. I remember my Rhinos and Helbrutes dieing to single Plasma guns and power Fists though, which hasn't happened since then .
A single Plague Marine in 7th usually was more durable against many things than a Rhino. Granted, when equipped with Melta he also costed more, it still felt wrong that vehicles were the squishy parts of the army while infantry would shrug of most damage, especially when in cover.

Yeah, Nid MCs weren't an issue at all besides flyrants, and those were merely keeping up by hoping the enemy won't hit them.

It was the plethora of various silly walkers and suits dodging the vehicle rules and taking advantage of the more flexible MC rules, that was the real issue between vehicles and MCs.

Oh, and feth challenged, so much. If you had a marine sergeant with a power sword, you had the choice of either deactivating it or taking a high chance of it getting killed.

Challenges. Oh wow I hated those. Something else I had managed to completely forget until now. They were so terrible for CSM thanks to the fact that we had to accept them, and, if we won, would likely get boned by the stupid boon chart.

I once had Kharn charge a line of Dark Angels Tacticals who had a Libby and a Tech marine (I know - my mistake here but he had actually made it all the way across the table on foot so I wasn't NOT going to charge! ). The Tech Marine challenged, Kharn mulched him and I rolled Dark Apotheosis. So Kharn became a Demon prince (which of course made him WORSE) and the Tacticals swarmed and killed him next turn.

Other highlights include my Berzerker Sgts always managing to roll +1 to shooting (super helpful) and the time my Huron killed someone with his claw flamer. He was in an alley between two buildings so, of course I rolled the DP result. Since there wasn't enough room to put a Demon Prince in the alley ... he just died. So fun GW. So fun ...

Yeah. Single Lascannons could kill a tank with one hit (even autowounded against back Armour) but only ever did one wound against monsters.

Edit: concerning Chaos boon table, yes it was often stupid or useless, but at least my Daemon Prince I still use today goes back to a Plague Champion that killed something, fun times. If I do have the CP I still roll on the boon table, but it's not as punishing today

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
You think vehicles in 8th or 9th edition are squishy? Imagine them having no save at all and only 3 hull points.

This doesn't seem to be a problem in 30k. To take the 4 hull points away from a Land Raider on average required 12 lascannon hits on average, and that's if the Land Raider was in the open with no cover. In the same situation in 8/9th, 12 lascannon hits overkill a Land Raider on average.
A Leman Russ's 3 hull points absorbed 9 lascannon hits to the front armor. 9 Lascannon hits in 8/9th will dramatically overkill an LRBT by nearly 50%. The main difference is:
In 7th, literally infinite autocannons could not hurt a LRBT. In 9th, it takes 36 autocannon hits to kill an LRBT on average.

I don't think those maths are accurate.
For a start, every lascannon hit on a Landraider had a 1/6 chance of penetrating it, which would essentially cripple the tank on most results. If the attack had armourbane, like a meltagun, the chance of the Landraider taking a penetrating hit went up dramatically.
Not to mention the ridiculous grav which automatically immobilised a vehicle on a 6, crippling it then and instantly destroying it on a second 6 (with their bucket full of dice each).

Whereas in 8th, 12 lascannon hits would be approximately 8 wounds, just over 5 failed saves, for an average of 19 wounds. That barely kills a Landraider.
Although obviously the Landraider's stats degrade to the point where it's pretty worthless.
You are right that 9 lascannons completely overkill a modern Leman Russ though

So I think vehicles were squishier to dedicated anti-tank than they are now.
People complain about Eradicators deleting tanks, but back in 7th any melta within half range would cripple or outright destroy a tank in just 1-2 shots.

Tycho, OUCH, those two Daemon Prince anecdotes physically hurt me.

The psychic power that allowed you to move whole pieces of terrain with models on it up to 24". I think I remember loading up Chaos Spawn and other nasties in a ruin, and using the ruin as an assault transport.

Grav Cannon spam out of my free Transports.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The psychic power that allowed you to move whole pieces of terrain with models on it up to 24". I think I remember loading up Chaos Spawn and other nasties in a ruin, and using the ruin as an assault transport.

I don't remember Chaos having access to that as well, I thought only Loyalists could do it because of one expansion. Might have been something for Tzeentch though which I'm not familiar with.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think those maths are accurate.
For a start, every lascannon hit on a Landraider had a 1/6 chance of penetrating it, which would essentially cripple the tank on most results. If the attack had armourbane, like a meltagun, the chance of the Landraider taking a penetrating hit went up dramatically.
Not to mention the ridiculous grav which automatically immobilised a vehicle on a 6, crippling it then and instantly destroying it on a second 6 (with their bucket full of dice each).

They are accurate, check them. I handwaved the damage table because it still exists in 8th - vehicles can still be crippled (heck, a single multimelta can still kill a Russ). Like yeah, sure, it moves 3" instead of being immobilized, and hits with all weapons on 6s rather than losing 1 weapon, but it's not like a 1-3 wound Russ in 8th is any better off than a 7th edition Russ after 2 pens in 7th.

Grav is a codex problem - not everyone had it, and it works differently in 30k. Agree that the 40k implementation was dumb, but it was a perfect example of an end-of-edition codex rule problem. The only major difference you pointed out is the instant destruction, but that was rare (1 lascannon hit 3% of the time vs AV14) and just about the same as the amount of damage small arms can do to vehicles now (instant death from a lascannon 3% of the time for an LRBT vs. taking a wound about 5% of the time from a single lasgun hit). Given the relative numbers of small arms that can now harm tanks, I think it's a wash with the tiny percent chance that a vehicle could be one-shot.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Whereas in 8th, 12 lascannon hits would be approximately 8 wounds, just over 5 failed saves, for an average of 19 wounds. That barely kills a Landraider.

You could nearly strip away 1 whole lascannon (3.5 damage) and still kill its 16 wounds a good chunk of the time. Furthermore, even if it left it alive with 1-5 wounds left, it would be hitting on 5s and move 3". Sure it's not immobilized and one of its guns isn't outright gone, but 3 pens was unlikely to strip all the guns away. You'd probably end up fishing for 6s, which with twin-linked is actually about the same as hitting on 5s. You get more shots, now, but everything does. The game is much more lethal.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
People complain about Eradicators deleting tanks, but back in 7th any melta within half range would cripple or outright destroy a tank in just 1-2 shots.

Yes, but things like Eradicators didn't exist, and most melta that could get that close was suicide melta (against which there were other tools). Ironically, 30k has also addressed this problem. ("Be immune to the half-range melta rule if you want. Just make sure to pay TONS of points for it").

SirGunslinger wrote:
I came in at 8th, and some of the veteran players have been regaling me with tales of 2++/2+++ rerollable farseers and infinite daemons from 7th, so I'm wondering what other tales of pure cancer exist from the seventh age?

Obviously you've been misinformed.
There never were 2++/2+++ rerollable farseers, and they never were a dominant force in 7th.
The only competitive build in 7th ed with farseers would be the beast star, which was only alive until drukhari 7th ed.

I can't remember a time where demon invocation ever was broken enough to make it to the top lists.

Chaos used the Screamerstar for a long time, and that was based on 2++ rerollable saves, but as the stats show, it only netted them one of the 4 top 4 spots, with all top 4 armies ranging between 53 and 59% win rate.

Nothing remotely broken in the realm of competitive 40k through the ages.

If you want brokenness, there is the end of 7th, electro-displacement deathstar, a list so completely overpowered (70% win rate ?) that it was actually banned from events that had no problems with Wave Serpent spam, Seerstars, Screamerstar, Knights and really everything that was competitive all through sixth and seventh editions.

More utter brokenness ? 8th edition space marines, with Iron Hands actually bringing the win rate once more to 70%, luckily GW did the job themselves and nerfed that quickly enough.

7th overall was one of the more balanced editions, with 4 top factions with "comparable" win rates and multiple army lists actually having a shot at the #1 position.

In comparison, anything from 2nd to 5th was a lot more imbalanced and had some utterly broken combos that most armies couldn't even do a thing against.
A bit like early 8th where basically Astra Militarum conscript spam and Chaos horror spam were completely broken.
Then we had the blood angels chapter master, and the undercosted crazy knights with loyal 50 and ...

Really, if anyone tells you 8th was more balanced than 6th or 7th, they must have a very biased viewpoint.

The one big positive difference is that now GW doesn't let anything stay top dog for very long it seems.

That's a pretty unique standpoint on 7th.

 Da Boss wrote:
That's a pretty unique standpoint on 7th.

I think the issue with 7th is the huge gulf between casual and competitive.

The competitive meta might be balanced in the sense that a number of the factions had one or two gimmicks they could exploit to fight at the top tables.

But the competitive-casual gulf was GIGANTIC. If you weren't using one of those gimmicks (e.g. a certain formation bonus) then you were hosed.

My apologies, I had 18 wounds for a Landraider on my brain.
I think the penetrating hits are something that shouldn't be ignored, melta (the commonality of Bikers, Flyers, and Drop Pods meant it wasn't that hard to get within range), plus the presence of Destroyer the Eldar were packing in spades.
You've also picked a vehicle (the Landraider) which is waaay squishier now than it used to be. AV14 used to be rare and hard for a lot of AT guns to deal with compared to AV12 or AV13 that was common. But now, the T8 just doesn't matter against most weapons.

I think vehicles are probably much of a muchness at the moment.
Although before vehicles were at least vulnerable to *anti-tank weapons*. Now, however, they're vulnerable to the exact sorts of mid-strength shooting that's best for anti-infantry work as well.
Dedicated AT guns tend to be pretty bad.

But the competitive-casual gulf was GIGANTIC. If you weren't using one of those gimmicks (e.g. a certain formation bonus) then you were hosed.

Not only that, but 7th was the poster child for needing 19 different rules sources to play your army. White Dwarf was a weekly pamphlet back then, and they published a ton of rules in it. 7th became unwieldy quickly in that one might need 3-5 (sometimes 6) different books/magazines etc to contain all the rules for a single army.

It was incredibly hard on tournament organizers. There's a reason 7th is generally given credit for essentially single handedly giving the ITC the level of legitimacy it now has. Were it not for them, competitive 40k would have almost wholly died out in a lot of areas in the states.

Introducing a new player was never more difficult than in 7th either. I mean, let's face it, GW did almost everything wrong w/that edition

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
That's a pretty unique standpoint on 7th.

I think the issue with 7th is the huge gulf between casual and competitive.

The competitive meta might be balanced in the sense that a number of the factions had one or two gimmicks they could exploit to fight at the top tables.

But the competitive-casual gulf was GIGANTIC. If you weren't using one of those gimmicks (e.g. a certain formation bonus) then you were hosed.

Absolutely.

But then on the other hand, what mostly happened was pretend casual players with net list stomping on true garbage-tier list writers (not just fluff, outright nonsense that cannot possibly work as a functioning effective army), and said victims blaming it on codexes or rules
It was very easy to write totally gakky Eldar lists, early 7th that meant anything but wave serpents or beaststar, and late 7th that was anything but scatspam and WraithKnights.

That said, to me that gulf was always there.

I've been totally wrecked when bringing "fluff" lists, and I've totally tabled people in one to two turns when bringing competitive lists, and while I haven't played in every edition, I've seen it in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and not yet 9th... no time these days.

Nothing new really, and nothing incredible for 7th. 6th Taudar or 6th seerstar were the best the Eldar could muster and it wasn't leagues above other broken builds really, be it bakery necrons, seekerstar or other broken gak.

5th had leafblower, and GK at some point I believe, earlier I don't remember but I've read enough to tell you there was crazy gak you didn't stand a chance against if your list wasn't one of the top 3 combos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:

Introducing a new player was never more difficult than in 7th either. I mean, let's face it, GW did almost everything wrong w/that edition

No.

Actually what's true is that GW began doing everything right starting with 8th.

Going from recent memory, that might look like it to you.

But prior editions were a nightmare too, with broken gak going unchallenged for years at a time, unlike builds in 7th which lasted <18 months, and dominations in 8th which lasted <12 .

GW did indeed get their gak together that's for sure, and it happened mostly after 7th, but even 7th had early glimpses of this "new GW" in it.

That was the perfect time to buy GW stock, I sure wish I did.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The psychic power that allowed you to move whole pieces of terrain with models on it up to 24". I think I remember loading up Chaos Spawn and other nasties in a ruin, and using the ruin as an assault transport.

Grav Cannon spam out of my free Transports.

Oh god, I can't remember what GW were thinking when they came up with that power.

Challenges as a whole annoyed me. The concept was cool, your leader pushing others aside in melee to get to the enemy captain and cutting him down, but it didn't work in practice. If Kharn was amongst a squad of Guardsmen, the Sergeant could just challenge Kharn. If Kharn refuses he can't attack at all this turn, and if he accepts he's almost certainly going to kill the Sergeant, but the rest of the squad are untouched.

 Valkyrie wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The psychic power that allowed you to move whole pieces of terrain with models on it up to 24". I think I remember loading up Chaos Spawn and other nasties in a ruin, and using the ruin as an assault transport.

Grav Cannon spam out of my free Transports.

Oh god, I can't remember what GW were thinking when they came up with that power.

Challenges as a whole annoyed me. The concept was cool, your leader pushing others aside in melee to get to the enemy captain and cutting him down, but it didn't work in practice. If Kharn was amongst a squad of Guardsmen, the Sergeant could just challenge Kharn. If Kharn refuses he can't attack at all this turn, and if he accepts he's almost certainly going to kill the Sergeant, but the rest of the squad are untouched.

You're thinking 6th. In 7th, attacks spilled over.

That's why the Imperial Guard assault blob squads were hilarious in 6th, because they had 5 sergeants and a Commissar they could throw under the Bloodthirster bus before the Bloodthirster could hit anyone else in the squad.

In 7th, though, wounds spilled over (finally, thank god).

No.

Actually what's true is that GW began doing everything right starting with 8th.

Going from recent memory, that might look like it to you.

But prior editions were a nightmare too, with broken gak going unchallenged for years at a time, unlike builds in 7th which lasted <18 months, and dominations in 8th which lasted <12 .

GW did indeed get their gak together that's for sure, and it happened mostly after 7th, but even 7th had early glimpses of this "new GW" in it.

That was the perfect time to buy GW stock, I sure wish I did.

I've played every edition since RT, and we had numerous discussions on Dakka during 7th where we all pretty much agreed that it had become almost impossible to bring in a new player cleanly and easily (majority agreement on Dakka is akin to getting a clear photo of Bigfoot). 7th is probably the most universally reviled edition. For every other edition you can bring up, you will have every position covered from "loved it" to "hated it". I find the one thing most players seem to agree on, is how much they hated 7th, and GW's stock price at the time seems to indicate that 7th likely was the "worst" edition. They even replaced their CEO over it ...

You do occasionally have the players who say "7th was actually a good rule set ..." but that's almost always followed by, "as long as you remove these 5 paged from the BRB, drop these psychic powers, ban these 15 WHite Dwarfs, change these specific rules in this way, don't use THAT thing, makes sure to alter these 4 codexes exactly like THIS ...." etc, etc. At which point, you aren't really playing "7th" are you? lol

It's also the edition where they kicked a lot of the anti-consumer practices into high gear. I'm usually the first one to say the anti-consumer issues often stem from incompetence rather than malice, but the CEO himself was publicly espousing anti-consumer ideals. It was the edition where they started breaking boxes so that certain things (like Eldar Dire Avengers for example) that you might need in a minimum of 10, suddenly started coming only in boxes of 6 at an increased price to-boot. There's not a single edition that was handled as badly across the board as 7th. It's like the were TRYING to kill the game.

EDIT:

There's a very good reason 7th is, by far, the single shortest edition ever. Even GW themselves seem to agree it was their worst work.

Tycho wrote:
You do occasionally have the players who say "7th was actually a good rule set ..." but that's almost always followed by, "as long as you remove these 5 paged from the BRB, drop these psychic powers, ban these 15 WHite Dwarfs, change these specific rules in this way, don't use THAT thing, makes sure to alter these 4 codexes exactly like THIS ...." etc, etc. At which point, you aren't really playing "7th" are you? lol

That's why 30k's alive and well, because it isn't 7th despite having the same "Trappings". But in general, I agree. 7th was a nightmare to get into at the end.

At the beginning? It was okay. Not super great, but okay.

That's why 30k's alive and well, because it isn't 7th despite having the same "Trappings". But in general, I agree. 7th was a nightmare to get into at the end.

At the beginning? It was okay. Not super great, but okay.

A lot of the 30k players seem to be shifting their stance to "30k is now also mismanaged", but I feel like that probably has more to do with Alan passing. When the heart and soul of a thing goes, I'm not sure how you pick back up.

I do agree that 30k's version of that rule set seems tighter, but, as others always point out, it's probably easier with a mostly space marine game.

I think 6th and 7th probably both followed the same pattern. Started ok, we got a little concerned, and then it all went off a cliff.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The psychic power that allowed you to move whole pieces of terrain with models on it up to 24". I think I remember loading up Chaos Spawn and other nasties in a ruin, and using the ruin as an assault transport.

I don't remember Chaos having access to that as well, I thought only Loyalists could do it because of one expansion. Might have been something for Tzeentch though which I'm not familiar with.

Chaos got it in their own mirrored expansion, whatever it was called. Iirc they got the same new powers that loyalists did except called something different.

Tycho wrote:

That's why 30k's alive and well, because it isn't 7th despite having the same "Trappings". But in general, I agree. 7th was a nightmare to get into at the end.

At the beginning? It was okay. Not super great, but okay.

A lot of the 30k players seem to be shifting their stance to "30k is now also mismanaged", but I feel like that probably has more to do with Alan passing. When the heart and soul of a thing goes, I'm not sure how you pick back up.

I do agree that 30k's version of that rule set seems tighter, but, as others always point out, it's probably easier with a mostly space marine game.

I think 6th and 7th probably both followed the same pattern. Started ok, we got a little concerned, and then it all went off a cliff.

0% of my games have been "all space marine" - all 5 of the factions I play aren't Space Marine factions.

But yes, in general, after Alan Bligh died the problem isn't so much "mismanagement" as it is 'lack of stuff', at least for my part. I think 30k was smacked really badly by Alan's passing. Plus, I think intra-studio tension is hurting FW pretty badly (I don't think Citadel would keep it around right now if it weren't coasting on previously released models).

From a player perspective (and I know that 40k players might just explode to hear this), a low amount of content releases isn't a bad thing, though. The game feels "stable" (coming from someone who plays 40k alongside it), and that stability really helps the local meta shake out and new players jump in. Compared to 40k's bumpy wake-crossing speedboat, 30k feels like a sailing ship. It's just a sailing ship without much wind, after the death of Alan Bligh. But being on it is no less pleasant.

I've been playing ProHammer (5th ed based) using the 7th edition codexes in our last few games. ProHammer precludes the use of the custom formations - everyone has to use the standard force organization chart. Things haven't seemed to crazy, even in games with 7th edition codex being used opposite a 5th edition codex. I feel like the formations were the biggest contributor to cheese, but maybe I'm wrong on that impression.

From a player perspective (and I know that 40k players might just explode to hear this), a low amount of content releases isn't a bad thing, though. The game feels "stable" (coming from someone who plays 40k alongside it), and that stability really helps the local meta shake out and new players jump in. Compared to 40k's bumpy wake-crossing speedboat, 30k feels like a sailing ship. It's just a sailing ship without much wind, after the death of Alan Bligh. But being on it is no less pleasant.

Yeah that makes sense. GW needs to find the right rhythm for 40k releases. Setting aside the unavoidable pandemic issues, it does seem like they are either too slow or too fast in 40k. You can have your codex stretch out for years across multiple editions, or you can have it outdated in 3 months ... lol

Tycho wrote:

From a player perspective (and I know that 40k players might just explode to hear this), a low amount of content releases isn't a bad thing, though. The game feels "stable" (coming from someone who plays 40k alongside it), and that stability really helps the local meta shake out and new players jump in. Compared to 40k's bumpy wake-crossing speedboat, 30k feels like a sailing ship. It's just a sailing ship without much wind, after the death of Alan Bligh. But being on it is no less pleasant.

Yeah that makes sense. GW needs to find the right rhythm for 40k releases. Setting aside the unavoidable pandemic issues, it does seem like they are either too slow or too fast in 40k. You can have your codex stretch out for years across multiple editions, or you can have it outdated in 3 months ... lol

For 40K, I wish they took slightly longer between editions, and also released editions with all the codex books at the same time. By taking longer, they can work on "balancing" the codexes, or at the very least if there are big sweeping changes to the rules that affect statlines and such, this can be handled all at once. They did this with the indexes starting from scratch - stands to reason that now they have more to work they could revise the codex's comprehensively and release them all at once. I don't even want to play 9th, really, because most of the factions haven't been updating for the new "standard" that the marine codex has pushed.

Once the codexes are out, you can start rolling out models in whatever order is deemed to be most profitable. If there is a completely new unit or two in a given codex, might make sense to prioritize that.

Man - Have we mentioned trip-tides yet? That was awful ...

@mezmorki - I think, even if they didn't want to/weren't able to roll all the books out at the same time, I think they would at least help solve some of the issue by using modern best practices for publishing, and by deciding what the codex design philosophy is ahead of time and sticking to it. As it is, each book becomes its own little self contained experiment.

Though I generally agree with the notion that 7th had some deep flaws, I like to remind people that 6th basic rules were even worse. 7th was a slight improvement to these, like 9th is for 8th, but at the start of 7th people were actually like, oh that's cool, they fixed the mess with the challenges and improved the vehicle damage table (explodes result went from 6+ to 7+ if I recall correctly) and I think the psychic phase was changed substantially. Afterwards GW went crazy with the Codizes starting with Necrons, but the basic rules of 7th were actually better than 6th.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Though I generally agree with the notion that 7th had some deep flaws, I like to remind people that 6th basic rules were even worse. 7th was a slight improvement to these, like 9th is for 8th, but at the start of 7th people were actually like, oh that's cool, they fixed the mess with the challenges and improved the vehicle damage table (explodes result went from 6+ to 7+ if I recall correctly) and I think the psychic phase was changed substantially. Afterwards GW went crazy with the Codizes starting with Necrons, but the basic rules of 7th were actually better than 6th.

TBF 7th get's a deserved bad rep, especially in regards to balance of the factions.
But yeah 6th was a clusterfeth that got replaced the fastest, ever. It was so bad it got basically insta abbandoned.