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.

From a personal point of view, it has always been something that annoys the hell out of me. I'm more of a collector than a gamer and over the many years I being involved in the hobby, I have at least 2500 points of every single faction and sub-faction in the game but every time there is a new edition, there is a cost of £100's just to rebuy codexes and keep 'up to date'. It's one of the reasons I got off the merry go round last edition and am seeking an edition to choose where my model collection and book collection harmonize. I think I will stick to 9th - it isn't the best edition by a long shot but I get to use all the fancy new models my armies have (plus Votann) and not need to buy any new books.

 vict0988 wrote:
What was the signal about psychic powers that got lost in the noise?

"I, as a thousand sons player, really love the dynamic feel of sharting out MW at my Tau opponent, watching as they're decimated with nothing they can do! This really enhances the feel of power for my faction."

Well the tau player has chaff, LoS shoting, shark bombers throwing out MW, that the 1ksons player can not counter either. He also has marker lights, drone farms and big robots, which the 1ksons player may struggle to counter, especialy if he doesn't want to or can't use Magnus.

The tau player didn't lose anything in the translation from 9th to 10th. His army is just bad because of weak stats, points costs and rules.
Now on the other hand someone playing an army where the psychic powers were part of the faction fantasy, lost what was their faction fantasy. Now 1ksons got lucky, because they had someone at the studio write in a psychic phase for them, and eldar were made OP and so cheap, that everything they have feels magical. But not all armies were that lucky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface 811321 11583478 wrote:

And if the bad rules are a result of the comnunity noise?

When was it ever the time, where bad rules were caused by community noise. Aside maybe for eldar player claiming that their army has to be annoying to play, because it is part of how eldar armies would be in RL?

If anything most of the problems we had the last 2 editions switch, come from the fact that GW brings most armies to some level, they function. And then GW resets everything and now the WE player can wait anothe 2-3 years for his faction to be fixed, when at the end of 9th good or bad, it at least worked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dreadblade wrote:
. As for GK, I think the focus on teleporting rather than psychic is fun. They still have psychic too of course.

Only it is a no they don't situation. GK don't have "psychic" there are units in the GK army which have one once per GAME special rule, or rules that work vs extremly specific opponents. the 1ksons cabal points thing works always. It even works when there is no Magnus around. GK weapons have psychic on them, and the weapons are worse versions of weapons that have better stats and are not psychic.

Also teleporting and not being able to kill anything, turns the GK game play in to 45 min turns where you have to check all the ranges, all the potential LoS after your opponents potential movment, combined with what happens when they Rapid Ingress, teleport themselfs etc. And vs certain armies like GSC or marines with the anti deep strike guys, you play as if you don't have an army rule. It is extremly taxing and unfun to the GK player, and just as unfun to the opponent, who has to wait for the GK players to check ALL the ranges. And if both players are playing clock games, then the opponents has more fun game, but the GK players game turns in to a game of "upps you missed this move by 1", guess you lose the game turn 1".

So if psychic power can't fail its not psychic?

Gk brotherhood of captain has 2 psychic power. You think gk would be better if he needs to roll 6+ on 2d6 to get off and opponent can deny?

 Overread wrote:
It's not so much changing of stats but how the game functions. Eg 10th edition has removed the psychic phase from the game. There's no real "reason" for this save that its different to earlier editions of the game.

GW basically just juggles around how the game mechanically works at its core each edition. IT generates a "need" to rebuy all the material to keep up which is why GW likes it (nice guaranteed 3 year profit boost); but on the flipside it means that despite being a 30 year old game; the rules are only 3 years old.

So GW's overall game quality never improves because the changes are more at random. Removing the psychic phase isn't the result of 27 years of major problems being resolved by its removal as part of a calculated measure; its just done because they can.

That's a pretty perfect explanation of it, exalted!

Battleshock I like. I think that change was positive, even if I think it should last a little longer.
Pyschic powers are, in theory, good. In actuality, the lack of options and overall blandness of them makes them not really fun. For me, at least.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Pyschic powers are, in theory, good. In actuality, the lack of options and overall blandness of them makes them not really fun. For me, at least.

And that so many of them only function if the psyker has a unit with him.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Pyschic powers are, in theory, good. In actuality, the lack of options and overall blandness of them makes them not really fun. For me, at least.

And that so many of them only function if the psyker has a unit with him.

Yeah, that Leader thing where it doesn't work if they're alone is DUMB.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
And what makes it even more absurd is that we already did this same dance with the change from 2nd to 3rd edition, where Space Marine Librarians (as perhaps the most egrarious example) went from having access to a wide range of varied abilities to having an in-built heavy bolter. Everybody hated it, and they gradually worked proper psychic powers back into the game as a result. So they're not just learning the wrong lessons, they're also ignoring that they already learnt the right lesson years ago...

Which brings us back to the whole "they don't iterate" issue.

I'll say it again: 40ks core rules should be like BattleTech. So refined and buffed to a mirror finish that the changes over the years are minimal. Now I fully acknowledge that BTech, from a unit perspective, is far simpler than 40k - there are only two "factions", and even then they all pretty much have the exact same weapons and equipment, just one side has better versions of them - so there is a lot more going on in 40k as Tyranids don't have any common weaponry/equipment that they share with Eldar or Orks or Knights, for example.

But even so, the constant need to reinvent the wheel every time they re-do something creates a maddening level of unnecessary change. A cynic might even go so far as to say that it's intentional, but Hanlon's Razor says otherwise.

Overread wrote:Thing is this isn't griping just about the newest edition changes; its about the speed of changes. New editions of core rules every 3 years is fast and yet carries an inherent problem that so long as each new edition is basically a new game; all the balance improvements, all the refinements, all the tweaks and feedback from the previous game - is all thrown out the window.

It creates an endless cycle of "new game, new issues". Yes there are good things that come along with each edition, but again because each new edition is a rebuild the good things get left out too.

Well said, the both of. This is one of the many reasons why I've dropped out of 40k for a comparatively more solid ruleset. Gw's penchant for fixing things that aren't broken notwithstanding.

I think change for change's sake is rarely ever a good thing. However, it might be more bearable if the changes didn't consistently make the game worse.

e.g.

Customisation has been hammered into the dirt. It wasn't exactly spectacular in 9th but now it's basically non-existent for many armies. Here is your character. Here is his permitted weapon loadout. You may not change weapons. You may not add any additional wargear. You may not add warlord traits. You may not choose psychic powers. You may give him this single, state-approved artefact, but ensure that in doing so you do not exceed your daily allotment of fun.

The character rules are worse than the Independent Character rules of old, and miles worse than the rules in 8th/9th. Characters are now glorified sergeants who must start the game glued to specific units and cannot ever leave said units or join new units, even if their starting unit is killed to a man. There is no explanation for this beyond "writing is hard". We also have baffling abilities that work on the character while he's in a unit but then cease affecting him if his unit dies. I guess Resurrection Orbs are defeated by loneliness?

USRs exist again... except for all the rules that are endlessly reprinted but still not USRs. But at least everyone and their dog now has one of the three USRs GW bothered to make. That's good, right?

Unit loadouts are rigidly fixed to match the boxes... except for the units that aren't even permitted weapons that exist in the box. Sorry, Wyches, your Wych weapons no longer exist because GW designers are too lazy even to hit Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.

"Points"... oh dear Lord. I remember in 8th edition (the last recorded instance of effort) when point costs of weapons and units were tweaked so that the majority of units and gear actually felt like they had a place (or, at the very least, wouldn't be a detriment if taken). Well, obviously we can never have that happen again. You never know when the Russians will detonate an EMP device and destroy all of little Timmy's calculators, thus leaving him powerless to add 7 to 4. No, now the system is that you just take the best weapons on every unit because they all cost the same and units are priced with the assumption that they'll be carrying the best gear available. How lucky we are to have reached such an epic age of balance.

etc.

vipoid wrote:

"Points"... oh dear Lord. I remember in 8th edition (the last recorded instance of effort) when point costs of weapons and units were tweaked so that the majority of units and gear actually felt like they had a place (or, at the very least, wouldn't be a detriment if taken). Well, obviously we can never have that happen again. You never know when the Russians will detonate an EMP device and destroy all of little Timmy's calculators, thus leaving him powerless to add 7 to 4. No, now the system is that you just take the best weapons on every unit because they all cost the same and units are priced with the assumption that they'll be carrying the best gear available. How lucky we are to have reached such an epic age of balance.

What are you talking about?
In the event of an emp little Timmy isn't going to be able to play 10e 40k at all - because he relied upon an app for both pts & stats.

 vipoid wrote:
I think change for change's sake is rarely ever a good thing. However, it might be more bearable if the changes didn't consistently make the game worse.

e.g.

Customisation has been hammered into the dirt. It wasn't exactly spectacular in 9th but now it's basically non-existent for many armies. Here is your character. Here is his permitted weapon loadout. You may not change weapons. You may not add any additional wargear. You may not add warlord traits. You may not choose psychic powers. You may give him this single, state-approved artefact, but ensure that in doing so you do not exceed your daily allotment of fun.

The character rules are worse than the Independent Character rules of old, and miles worse than the rules in 8th/9th. Characters are now glorified sergeants who must start the game glued to specific units and cannot ever leave said units or join new units, even if their starting unit is killed to a man. There is no explanation for this beyond "writing is hard". We also have baffling abilities that work on the character while he's in a unit but then cease affecting him if his unit dies. I guess Resurrection Orbs are defeated by loneliness?

USRs exist again... except for all the rules that are endlessly reprinted but still not USRs. But at least everyone and their dog now has one of the three USRs GW bothered to make. That's good, right?

Unit loadouts are rigidly fixed to match the boxes... except for the units that aren't even permitted weapons that exist in the box. Sorry, Wyches, your Wych weapons no longer exist because GW designers are too lazy even to hit Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.

"Points"... oh dear Lord. I remember in 8th edition (the last recorded instance of effort) when point costs of weapons and units were tweaked so that the majority of units and gear actually felt like they had a place (or, at the very least, wouldn't be a detriment if taken). Well, obviously we can never have that happen again. You never know when the Russians will detonate an EMP device and destroy all of little Timmy's calculators, thus leaving him powerless to add 7 to 4. No, now the system is that you just take the best weapons on every unit because they all cost the same and units are priced with the assumption that they'll be carrying the best gear available. How lucky we are to have reached such an epic age of balance.

etc.

The forcing of power levels on to everyone is such a terrible idea for reasons you described. 40k is basically a card game with models now.



Perhaps not directly churn in and of itself, but the direction terrain and boards have gone in 40k is reall really sad. Every event I've been to in the last year, every single 40k board is the same collection of L shaped carboard ruins and maybe a handful of fdm shipping crates all arranged on absurd angles to each other in defiance of god and sane city planning. AOS boards, kill team, lord of the rings, all still look great and are often full of gw's own expensive terrain, but bottom line is it actually looks like the battle have some leve of effort and immersion. The churn has gobbled up not just sane army construction and points but seemingly most players willingness to care even 1% about world building or the boards they play on.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think change for change's sake is rarely ever a good thing. However, it might be more bearable if the changes didn't consistently make the game worse.

e.g.

Customisation has been hammered into the dirt. It wasn't exactly spectacular in 9th but now it's basically non-existent for many armies. Here is your character. Here is his permitted weapon loadout. You may not change weapons. You may not add any additional wargear. You may not add warlord traits. You may not choose psychic powers. You may give him this single, state-approved artefact, but ensure that in doing so you do not exceed your daily allotment of fun.

The character rules are worse than the Independent Character rules of old, and miles worse than the rules in 8th/9th. Characters are now glorified sergeants who must start the game glued to specific units and cannot ever leave said units or join new units, even if their starting unit is killed to a man. There is no explanation for this beyond "writing is hard". We also have baffling abilities that work on the character while he's in a unit but then cease affecting him if his unit dies. I guess Resurrection Orbs are defeated by loneliness?

USRs exist again... except for all the rules that are endlessly reprinted but still not USRs. But at least everyone and their dog now has one of the three USRs GW bothered to make. That's good, right?

Unit loadouts are rigidly fixed to match the boxes... except for the units that aren't even permitted weapons that exist in the box. Sorry, Wyches, your Wych weapons no longer exist because GW designers are too lazy even to hit Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.

"Points"... oh dear Lord. I remember in 8th edition (the last recorded instance of effort) when point costs of weapons and units were tweaked so that the majority of units and gear actually felt like they had a place (or, at the very least, wouldn't be a detriment if taken). Well, obviously we can never have that happen again. You never know when the Russians will detonate an EMP device and destroy all of little Timmy's calculators, thus leaving him powerless to add 7 to 4. No, now the system is that you just take the best weapons on every unit because they all cost the same and units are priced with the assumption that they'll be carrying the best gear available. How lucky we are to have reached such an epic age of balance.

etc.

The forcing of power levels on to everyone is such a terrible idea for reasons you described. 40k is basically a card game with models now.



Perhaps not directly churn in and of itself, but the direction terrain and boards have gone in 40k is reall really sad. Every event I've been to in the last year, every single 40k board is the same collection of L shaped carboard ruins and maybe a handful of fdm shipping crates all arranged on absurd angles to each other in defiance of god and sane city planning. AOS boards, kill team, lord of the rings, all still look great and are often full of gw's own expensive terrain, but bottom line is it actually looks like the battle have some leve of effort and immersion. The churn has gobbled up not just sane army construction and points but seemingly most players willingness to care even 1% about world building or the boards they play on.

That's not churn doing that, it's the domination of the competitive ideal in 40k - it's to bring balanced and repeatable whilst cost effective terrain sets that have the required needs for comp play, which is the "default" now.

Before people a load of people get uppity, that's not a dig at competitive players, simply a factual observation of why tables all loosely look the same now at events, i.e.: https://ttcombat.com/products/municipium-sector-2021-board-bundle?_pos=2&_sid=a7383eb64&_ss=r

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Pyschic powers are, in theory, good. In actuality, the lack of options and overall blandness of them makes them not really fun. For me, at least.

And that so many of them only function if the psyker has a unit with him.

Yeah, that Leader thing where it doesn't work if they're alone is DUMB.

Do we want smashammers again where leaders are not to lead but solo?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Perhaps not directly churn in and of itself, but the direction terrain and boards have gone in 40k is reall really sad. Every event I've been to in the last year, every single 40k board is the same collection of L shaped carboard ruins and maybe a handful of fdm shipping crates all arranged on absurd angles to each other in defiance of god and sane city planning. AOS boards, kill team, lord of the rings, all still look great and are often full of gw's own expensive terrain, but bottom line is it actually looks like the battle have some leve of effort and immersion. The churn has gobbled up not just sane army construction and points but seemingly most players willingness to care even 1% about world building or the boards they play on.

That's not due to gw but due to players. Guys like itc make proflt by tournaments so are fooling people to competive 40k fantasy for sake of profits.

Regardless of gw rules doesn't matter if players decide to restrict their games to pretend they play competitively

Dudeface wrote:

That's not churn doing that, it's the domination of the competitive ideal in 40k - it's to bring balanced and repeatable whilst cost effective terrain sets that have the required needs for comp play, which is the "default" now.

Before people a load of people get uppity, that's not a dig at competitive players, simply a factual observation of why tables all loosely look the same now at events, i.e.: https://ttcombat.com/products/municipium-sector-2021-board-bundle?_pos=2&_sid=a7383eb64&_ss=r

What's telling about GW's competence here is that this tournament terrain was designed to mimic terrain functionality GW already had and then randomly removed for no reason other than not having any idea of what constitutes a good game.

tneva82 wrote:


Do we want smashammers again where leaders are not to lead but solo?

Are we pretending these extremes are the only option?

Other GW games have managed to have both buffing and smashing characters exist and be worth taking. Hell, every other edition of 40k has had a multitude of characters viable via the buffs they bring or the smashing they excel at. And there was a time when they didn’t even have to be named characters!

10th edition is not so much a staggering step backwards in terms of game design, it’s straight up fallen off a bridge and down a ravine.

Dudeface wrote:
That's not churn doing that, it's the domination of the competitive ideal in 40k - it's to bring balanced and repeatable whilst cost effective terrain sets that have the required needs for comp play, which is the "default" now.

I agree but I think the churn is also related to fostering that competitive ideal: every three years, the game resets so everyone has to decode the new edition. It builds hype, jump-starts army composition debates, and just when the edition has been optimized, GW starts all over again.

I'd love to see the product sales figures to see just how much money GW makes with each reset. It seems to me that their main source of income is these reboots, which is why they went from five to three years. Growing the hobby is no longer something they try to do.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I'd love to see the product sales figures to see just how much money GW makes with each reset. It seems to me that their main source of income is these reboots, ...

Kirby said as much in one of his various investor statements, IIRC.

I wouldn't think what was happening when Kirby was around is still the case though, given how often people just tell others to hit up sites of questionable legality.

From the Peachy videos there was an indication that the average GW customer doesn't last all that long (say 18 months to 2 years).

Partly that's people moving on in life to other things. Partly that will be people getting a 2kish point 40k army together and thinking that's it. Maybe they get a new codex each edition, but they aren't meaningful customers any more.

The edition churn is therefore a tool to keep on bringing in new customers. Theoretically there's no reason you couldn't have sold the 8th edition starter for 6-10 years, with an ever expanding list of FAQs, supplements etc, but I feel that's not really how marketing works.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I wouldn't think what was happening when Kirby was around is still the case though, given how often people just tell others to hit up sites of questionable legality.

I would. People have always been pirating the books. My first codex way back in 2nd edition was a photocopy of Codex: Ultramarines supplied by a helpful older club member while I was getting started on a practically non-existent disposable income. It's fairly obvious just from looking at store sales that new edition releases drive a lot of sales, and I doubt that piracy makes much of a dent in that. (Not an endorsement of the practice, just an observation).

The thing that jumps out for me here is - We've heard statistics before from various sources that the majority of players only stick with the game for a year or so, and very few last more than 5. If that's true, then it would seem that edition churn, while annoying for the minority who stick around for longer than those hypothetical 5 years, wouldn't actually be detrimental to sales overall, because the majority of customers are only ever buying a single edition, or two at most.

Which leads to the question of how much bigger that veteran group would be without the edition churn, and whether or not retention of that group would have a knock on effect to retain some of those other players who otherwise drop out sooner. Which is anyone's guess, really.

Also lets face it the BIG thing that gets attention isn't the new rules. It's the two main armies getting a huge chunky update in one big go and the potential for "better rules".

I'd wager GW could still clean up great sales if they stuck to a fixed core set of rules and a new edition was more of a big update to the rules in terms of adding all the FAQ/Errata date of the last 3 years into them and then on top of that adding in a few extra bits here and there, but not rebuliding.

Heck how many of us get the Big Rule book either because of lore and artwork (and not rules because its stupid big for rules); or because it came in the boxed set with new models we want.


The "rules" being reworked aren't what seems to sell a new edition.

Plus I agree, if GW improved its rule writing quality it would likely retain more older customers. Heck we 100% saw this when GW improved things and turn them around signfiicantly compared to what they were - GW did that and they all but killed PP and restored themselves with a huge market gain.

One can also look at the gains of games like Battletech. Or how Warmachine almost stole all of GW's long term customers with better tighter rules being a big part of that.



There is evidence everywhere that if GW improved rule writing they would likely see great profits.
Thing is I'd argue that as the market leader (by a massive way) GW has got a system that works and they don't want to rock the boat too much from what they know works.
I wager we also have issues in that we have both rules staff who are set in their non-strict rules style (seriously they consider the double turn in AoS to be a huge bonus feature) and also in management in not allocating greater resources to rules writing.

Two big attitudes that might not shift under a new generation of staff works their way up.

Uptonius wrote:
...
Where once upon a time Warhammer was the coolest thing ever to me, it's now become a deep regret and it feels like I've wasted 25 years of my life.

Ah, that was a sad story to read. :(
The best part about old editions of tabletop games is that they cannot be replaced. You and like-minded people can continue to play it or update it yourselves with the lessons GW learned from newer editions.

I feel like this edition churn is due to GW not knowing what kind of game they want 40k to be, besides profitable. They sort of "packaged" classic 40k into HH 2.0 and have been trying to evolve it into something new for 8th, 9th, and 10th. I personally like the direction they took with 10th compared to 8th, but if they really go all in on selling this rough, half-baked, beta release then I ain't buying.
A shame, too, because I think overwatching on your enemy's turn is the kind of thing that let's IGOUGO still work.

If GW can keep cooking this edition, keep trying to balance it before rolling out the books, I'd call it a success.

 Crablezworth wrote:
The churn has gobbled up not just sane army construction and points but seemingly most players willingness to care even 1% about world building or the boards they play on.

I'm part of a 40k terrain group on Facebook and there's always tons of great stuff.

And then every now and again someone comes along to show off the 'great boards' they saw at a recent event, and every single one is a symmetrical swarm if identical L-shaped buildings, just paintee differently from table to table. Some even use city street mats and put buildings in the streets.

Cancerous.

tneva82 wrote:
Do we want smashammers again where leaders are not to lead but solo?

Would you like to make real argument rather than some hyperbolic staw-filled black and white statement?

Characters doing nothing when not part of a unit is a problem. That personal wargear like P-Hoods simply cease functioning when a Libby isn't with friends is stupid, and has nothing to do with Smash Captains or any other nonsense.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And then every now and again someone comes along to show off the 'great boards' they saw at a recent event, and every single one is a symmetrical swarm if identical L-shaped buildings, just paintee differently from table to table. Some even use city street mats and put buildings in the streets.

Cancerous.

Which ultimately comes down to even WAACers realizing that for the game to function it needs pieces that block LOS without blocking movement, ie. the area terrain that GW in their infinite wisdom removed from the game in 2008. We could have still had nice tables if GW hadn't forced players to improvise their own solutions for missing essential mechanics.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And then every now and again someone comes along to show off the 'great boards' they saw at a recent event, and every single one is a symmetrical swarm if identical L-shaped buildings, just paintee differently from table to table. Some even use city street mats and put buildings in the streets.

Cancerous.

Which ultimately comes down to even WAACers realizing that for the game to function it needs pieces that block LOS without blocking movement, ie. the area terrain that GW in their infinite wisdom removed from the game in 2008. We could have still had nice tables if GW hadn't forced players to improvise their own solutions for missing essential mechanics.

Being a tournament player or a TO does not make you WAAC.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Do we want smashammers again where leaders are not to lead but solo?

Would you like to make real argument rather than some hyperbolic staw-filled black and white statement?

Characters doing nothing when not part of a unit is a problem. That personal wargear like P-Hoods simply cease functioning when a Libby isn't with friends is stupid, and has nothing to do with Smash Captains or any other nonsense.

If my Cryptek has a value of 60 in a unit and a value of 25 outside a unit and the Cryptek has a cost of 40 then I will not take any outside units. Smash Captains and Daemon Princes were undercosted. They provided a brick of stats with a value of X, that brick was improved by their re-rolls aura applying to themselves giving them an additional value of Y and then separately they provided a re-roll aura for other units with a value of Z. The unit's cost was A, the value was X+Y+Z. But the value of X+Y was higher than A. Removing Y does increase the likelihood that the unit is bad unless you get Z. Is it still possible for the brick without re-rolls to have a higher value than cost? Yes, but it is less likely than if the unit also got the value of re-rolls.

 kingpbjames wrote:
If GW can keep cooking this edition, keep trying to balance it before rolling out the books, I'd call it a success.

This is not how GW works.

Right now the earliest point we might see "lessons learned" from actual 10th edition gameplay in printed books is with some of the codizes in early 2024. All books to be released in 2023 are already done and either printed already or to be printed in the next few weeks.

Small "course corrections" in the form of point and rule adjustments can of course come at any time, the upcoming balance patch is set for September if I remember correctly. With how long the lead times on printed stuff is though, none of these early changes will get incorporated in there until early/mid 2024 - if at all.

Most of the actual "we have seen A and B do not work as intended in 10th edition, and we will implement C and D as a response" might not happen before 11th edion. I would rather bet money on them doing somethign completely different...

and this was already obvious in 8th and 9th, when we got solutions to problems of the previous version of the game instead of the current problems

and while all changes have influence, it won't solve the problems

so expect the problems of 10th Edition books to be solved with 11th Edition core rules, but than again having the same problems with 11th Edition books

 kodos wrote:
so expect the problems of 10th Edition books to be solved with 11th Edition core rules, but than again having the same problems with 11th Edition books

Either this, or "nah, we just do something new instead".

3rd to 7th editions are (sort of) cross-compatible, in the sense that the basic rules frameworks and each units stats share the same system. From 3rd to 4th one could see a clear and deliberate attempt to actually evolve the rules instead of "change for changes sake". There were even early versions of rules printed in White Dwarf to gather actual player feedback!
There were also introductions of completely unnecessary "innovations" though, especially during 6th and 7th. Those edition changes felt more like "new ruleset is the bestest ever... also necessary to play the new hotness!" (flyers and superheavies). Which... they were.

Maybe the "lesson learned" for GW from the crashing and burning of 7th edition was just "evolving ruleset = bad". Which would be a shame, but at the same time very on brand for GW.

I think the lesson GW learned was (from 7th to 8th)

the worse the previous Edition is in the end, the more the new one sells

and if the rules are bad enough people are happy to buy everything again after a reset as if they are happy with the current version of the game, a "change" is not well received

and as it is much cheaper of not investing anything to improve the current version of the game and just "let it happen" this makes a nice and successful sales strategy for a game