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.

 Kagetora wrote:

As far as the best games in the world, they do, if your definition of best is limited to "best selling" or "most popular." That said, some of their previous games were real standouts for me, but it was always the "off stuff" that they failed to support. We had endless hours of fun with old-school Bloodbowl/Dungeonbowl leagues, Necromunda leagues, Mordheim leagues, and Epic: Armageddon. Those games were just...fun.

Funnily enough, I recently started Warmaster - a game GW abandoned back in 2013, but which various fans have kept going (the current version is called Warmaster Revolutions).

One of the nice things is how cheap it is to get into, as the rules are free and (thanks to 3D printing) you can buy an entire army for most factions for ~£45-60 on ebay.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
As I've said to you before, literally every mechanic is a bad idea if you assume GW will go out of their way to implement it badly. It's valid to point out possible pitfalls that would need to be avoided, but it's not valid to say that an idea is bad because there's a way to diabla ex machina it into being executed badly.

It's also completely unreasonable to assume that the GW will successfully implement something that they have tried and failed to implement across multiple editions and games, including the current iteration of Warhammer 40k.

Assuming that there will never be a successful implementation of psychic disciplines where three or more powers are fairly balanced across multiple psyker profiles is a fairly safe bet.

For psychic powers GW could copy current AoS.
There each faction has 2 or 3 general spells & individual casters each have their own bespoke spell. Each spell has a 2d6 casting value.
Works well enough & I don't see why it wouldn't work for 40k.

Please never suggest that the 40k team copy from AOS - that's where the current stupid fixed to-hit values in melee came from.

 Dysartes wrote:
Please never suggest that the 40k team copy from AOS - that's where the current stupid fixed to-hit values in melee came from.

Fine, keep your 1 psychic power per character....
Just because an idea is in AoS doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

They should also import the idea of endless spells/manifestations into 40k.

ccs wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Please never suggest that the 40k team copy from AOS - that's where the current stupid fixed to-hit values in melee came from.

They should also import the idea of endless spells/manifestations into 40k.

I really hope they don't. Endless Spells are one of the things keeping me from wanting to dive into AoS.

Multiple spells per caster each with their own casting value would be *okay*. That's more or less how 9th worked, and 9th is more or less how 3rd-5th worked. It's one of the better systems they've tried. Personally, I don't like psychic tests where you failure means your librarian or warlock suddenly forgets how to use their powers.

 Dysartes wrote:
Please never suggest that the 40k team copy from AOS - that's where the current stupid fixed to-hit values in melee came from.

AoS has, and currently does, have a few rock solid ideas that would've proved beneficial to 40k.

That GW chose to copy the absolute dullest element is yet another representation of the main team's broad-strokes incompetence with regards to game design, rather than a negative reflection on every concept which exists and has existed in AoS.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Please never suggest that the 40k team copy from AOS - that's where the current stupid fixed to-hit values in melee came from.

AoS has, and currently does, have a few rock solid ideas that would've proved beneficial to 40k.

That GW chose to copy the absolute dullest element is yet another representation of the main team's broad-strokes incompetence with regards to game design, rather than a negative reflection on every concept which exists and has existed in AoS.

Yeah. I prefer 40k to AoS, and I prefer the 3rd-7th game to 8th and onwards.
But just because a system is generally worse (for me, at least) doesn't mean there's nothing to learn from it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Please never suggest that the 40k team copy from AOS - that's where the current stupid fixed to-hit values in melee came from.

They should also import the idea of endless spells/manifestations into 40k.

I really hope they don't. Endless Spells are one of the things keeping me from wanting to dive into AoS.

Multiple spells per caster each with their own casting value would be *okay*. That's more or less how 9th worked, and 9th is more or less how 3rd-5th worked. It's one of the better systems they've tried. Personally, I don't like psychic tests where you failure means your librarian or warlock suddenly forgets how to use their powers.

^ Seconded.

I don't enjoy the idea of buying models for spells that I may or may not get to use in a game...

But I kinda secretly loved Perils of the Warp and enjoyed watching a Psyker blink out if existence with a really bad Psychic Test.

It's going to be even more appealing to the lowest common denominator and even worse for anyone else, not that anyone else is left playing it at this point.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
It's going to be even more appealing to the lowest common denominator and even worse for anyone else, not that anyone else is left playing it at this point.

I’m really enjoying 10th. I don’t consider myself the lowest common denominator either, been playing 40K for all 10 editions and can see the good and bad in all them, some more than other obviously. So I will still be playing and so will my mates and many others. I’m hoping for and confident we will get a tweaked version of 10th. Less confident but still hopeful is that codexes will carry over and get replaced in time.

Andykp wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
It's going to be even more appealing to the lowest common denominator and even worse for anyone else, not that anyone else is left playing it at this point.

I’m really enjoying 10th. I don’t consider myself the lowest common denominator either, been playing 40K for all 10 editions and can see the good and bad in all them, some more than other obviously. So I will still be playing and so will my mates and many others. I’m hoping for and confident we will get a tweaked version of 10th. Less confident but still hopeful is that codexes will carry over and get replaced in time.

Such things are not unprecedented, but they also don't make GW nearly as much revenue as forcing you to buy a new $60 Codex ever few years. I'd expect a moderate re-vamping of certain rules (hopefully terrain), but I'd also expect every Codex to be immediately invalid and to start that process over again "balancing" things for the new rules tweaks.

How would invalidating the codices yield them more money?

If you still buy codices, you need to buy one irrespective of whether you are getting your rules from an index or an old book.

If anything, it saves them money because they don't need to create full indexes for everyone, though the quality of the game would be worse initially.

 Jidmah wrote:
How would invalidating the codices yield them more money?

If you still buy codices, you need to buy one irrespective of whether you are getting your rules from an index or an old book.

If anything, it saves them money because they don't need to create full indexes for everyone, though the quality of the game would be worse initially.

Because they're already having underpaid staff cook up the next set of indices so they'll be ready to go when they release 11th?

There's little difference in that and going through every single rule in every single published book to attempt to FAQ and Commentary them into compliance with changed rules. I'd argue coming up with new indices is significantly easier for staff who may or may not know the rules well enough to modify older ones to be relevant.

GW is a business, and it's run like a business. Unless you think the Old Guard like Gav are being kept alive in stasis to grant new rules to each edition with their incredible psychic powers.

The business model is to pay staff writers and editors minimum wage to do minimum wage editing duties, have those "OK'd" by someone higher up, then publish new rules and let the mess shake itself out over several months to a year. All the while selling you new minis and books. Do you imagive everyone working at GW is a dedicated Warhammer fan and hobbyist? News flash. That was 40 years ago.

I'm just hoping for a Codex for 11th... since we got pushed back... and then back some more... and then forgotten about.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I'm just hoping for a Codex for 11th... since we got pushed back... and then back some more... and then forgotten about.

You'll get a 10e Codex. How long you'll get to enjoy it before 11th arrives is the question.

 Kagetora wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
How would invalidating the codices yield them more money?

If you still buy codices, you need to buy one irrespective of whether you are getting your rules from an index or an old book.

If anything, it saves them money because they don't need to create full indexes for everyone, though the quality of the game would be worse initially.

Because they're already having underpaid staff cook up the next set of indices so they'll be ready to go when they release 11th?

There's little difference in that and going through every single rule in every single published book to attempt to FAQ and Commentary them into compliance with changed rules. I'd argue coming up with new indices is significantly easier for staff who may or may not know the rules well enough to modify older ones to be relevant.

GW is a business, and it's run like a business. Unless you think the Old Guard like Gav are being kept alive in stasis to grant new rules to each edition with their incredible psychic powers.

The business model is to pay staff writers and editors minimum wage to do minimum wage editing duties, have those "OK'd" by someone higher up, then publish new rules and let the mess shake itself out over several months to a year. All the while selling you new minis and books. Do you imagive everyone working at GW is a dedicated Warhammer fan and hobbyist? News flash. That was 40 years ago.

-Edited-

Writing 11th edition codices for every army yields the exact same amount of money whether you write an index or not.
Writing an index for 11th edition is zero money earned.
Not writing an index costs less money than writing it.

Making 10th edition codices compatible with 11th edition would make more money, but likely result in a worse game.

ccs wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Please never suggest that the 40k team copy from AOS - that's where the current stupid fixed to-hit values in melee came from.

Fine, keep your 1 psychic power per character....
Just because an idea is in AoS doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

They should also import the idea of endless spells/manifestations into 40k.

They should copy the magic in TOW. While not as flavourful as previous WHFB editions, it's functional enough with more flavour than 40k has currently.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Kagetora wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
How would invalidating the codices yield them more money?

If you still buy codices, you need to buy one irrespective of whether you are getting your rules from an index or an old book.

If anything, it saves them money because they don't need to create full indexes for everyone, though the quality of the game would be worse initially.

Because they're already having underpaid staff cook up the next set of indices so they'll be ready to go when they release 11th?

There's little difference in that and going through every single rule in every single published book to attempt to FAQ and Commentary them into compliance with changed rules. I'd argue coming up with new indices is significantly easier for staff who may or may not know the rules well enough to modify older ones to be relevant.

GW is a business, and it's run like a business. Unless you think the Old Guard like Gav are being kept alive in stasis to grant new rules to each edition with their incredible psychic powers.

The business model is to pay staff writers and editors minimum wage to do minimum wage editing duties, have those "OK'd" by someone higher up, then publish new rules and let the mess shake itself out over several months to a year. All the while selling you new minis and books. Do you imagive everyone working at GW is a dedicated Warhammer fan and hobbyist? News flash. That was 40 years ago.

Writing 11th edition codices for every army yields the exact same amount of money whether you write an index or not.
Writing an index for 11th edition is zero money earned.
Not writing an index costs less money than writing it.

Making 10th edition codices compatible with 11th edition would make more money, but likely result in a worse game.

You're not 100% wrong, but the breaking point comes down to how different 11th edition turns out to be. Make enough changes, that'll invalidate the codices in and of itself. Make minor tweaks to the rules, it might be worth keeping the old codices around until they're updated with new editions. One can also look at how GW has handled it for the last 40 years, and see that it doesn't tend to go the way you're describing it.

-Edited to remove my own snotty, childish remark.-

 Kagetora wrote:

the breaking point comes down to how different 11th edition turns out to be. Make enough changes, that'll invalidate the codices in and of itself.

True. The precedent with 8th transitioning into 9th was that indeed, Codices from 8th were valid into 9th until the 9th edition version dropped.

 Kagetora wrote:

Make minor tweaks to the rules, it might be worth keeping the old codices around until they're updated with new editions.

Well again, if the follow the 8th into 9th precedent, then yes, it absolutely will be appropriate to hang on to the outgoing codices, because they will be legal right up to the day the codex of the incoming edition drops.

 Kagetora wrote:

One can also look at how GW has handled it for the last 40 years

Well not really. Second edition was a hard reset of Rogue Trader. Third was a hard reset of Second. I think 6th was an attempted hard reset that was such a failure it only lasted a year and a half, and then I think 7th was a hard reset. Then 8 and 10 were hard resets.

So what most people seem to think is that from 8th on, we will have consistency: And what that looks like is a brand new edition with indexes, lasting three years, followed by a soft reboot which does include a new BRB and new dexes, BUT doesn't require indexes because dexes continue to be valid, until the new one drops.

We won't know until 11th drops whether this is the new pattern or not, but people are speculating that that IS the new pattern, and we suspect GW will stick to it because predictability has value when you're running a publicly traded company. Personally, I'm looking forward to the confirmation one way or the other.

I don't think the edition history prior to 8th is consistent enough to establish a pattern, but 8th, 9th and 10th are looking super consistent, and once 11th drops, we'll know for sure.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Kagetora wrote:

the breaking point comes down to how different 11th edition turns out to be. Make enough changes, that'll invalidate the codices in and of itself.

True. The precedent with 8th transitioning into 9th was that indeed, Codices from 8th were valid into 9th until the 9th edition version dropped.

 Kagetora wrote:

Make minor tweaks to the rules, it might be worth keeping the old codices around until they're updated with new editions.

Well again, if the follow the 8th into 9th precedent, then yes, it absolutely will be appropriate to hang on to the outgoing codices, because they will be legal right up to the day the codex of the incoming edition drops.

 Kagetora wrote:

One can also look at how GW has handled it for the last 40 years

Well not really. Second edition was a hard reset of Rogue Trader. Third was a hard reset of Second. I think 6th was an attempted hard reset that was such a failure it only lasted a year and a half, and then I think 7th was a hard reset. Then 8 and 10 were hard resets.

So what most people seem to think is that from 8th on, we will have consistency: And what that looks like is a brand new edition with indexes, lasting three years, followed by a soft reboot which does include a new BRB and new dexes, BUT doesn't require indexes because dexes continue to be valid, until the new one drops.

We won't know until 11th drops whether this is the new pattern or not, but people are speculating that that IS the new pattern, and we suspect GW will stick to it because predictability has value when you're running a publicly traded company. Personally, I'm looking forward to the confirmation one way or the other.

I don't think the edition history prior to 8th is consistent enough to establish a pattern, but 8th, 9th and 10th are looking super consistent, and once 11th drops, we'll know for sure.

Good insights, I guess I was also writing my opinions from the standpoint of having been a pretty hardcore WFB player also. When you factor in more of GW's games I'd argue a stronger pattern of abandonment appears, but I could be mistaken. It certainly felt that way when you were living through it.

I, for one, hope you're right, and from here on out it's tweaks and changes, clarifications and clean-ups, instead of wholesale slaughter.

if it is true that GW is going to make a sm 2.0 or index/codex for non ultramarine marines at the end of 10th, it is going to be so prior editions, When 11th comes and removes all those books.
In a perfect world the last year or so of an edition shouldn't be used for codex, but for giving new options here and there (potentialy forshadowing next edition changes), new sesons of course/new missions and stuff like that. Non of that well this is the second edition in our 2 edition cycle, guess whose book was legal for 1-3 months, and prepare for waiting for a new one for 18-24 months?

But we don't get perfect we get regular world only.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Well not really. Second edition was a hard reset of Rogue Trader. Third was a hard reset of Second. I think 6th was an attempted hard reset that was such a failure it only lasted a year and a half, and then I think 7th was a hard reset. Then 8 and 10 were hard resets.

Minor point, but I don't think of 6th as being a hard reset because the codices of 5th were still useable, there was just a list of adjustments made in certain areas like CC weapons gaining profiles. 7th was similar in that it was really just a further adjustment of 6th, and codices from the prior edition/s were still compatible. The main rules for each edition were still based on the foundation set up by 3rd ed.

This is in great contrast to 3rd and 8th in particular, both of which necessitated releasing "index" armies alongside the rules because the foundation of the game was so different. 10th offered index armies, although I'm not sure the rules deviated enough to necessitate it, actually. (haven't played 10th much, so unsure)

 Insectum7 wrote:
This is in great contrast to 3rd and 8th in particular, both of which necessitated releasing "index" armies alongside the rules because the foundation of the game was so different. 10th offered index armies, although I'm not sure the rules deviated enough to necessitate it, actually. (haven't played 10th much, so unsure)

I don't think 10th needed the indexes in the same way as 3rd and 8th, but it was the only way they could cleanly reset the codex creep/lethality which had reached insane levels.

You can argue things like the USRs - but really its late 9th written up in a different language.
If you really wanted I think you could make them compatible - but the issue is who is going to be excited if their 10th edition codex is a fundamental downgrade in power compared with 9th?

Tyel wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
This is in great contrast to 3rd and 8th in particular, both of which necessitated releasing "index" armies alongside the rules because the foundation of the game was so different. 10th offered index armies, although I'm not sure the rules deviated enough to necessitate it, actually. (haven't played 10th much, so unsure)

I don't think 10th needed the indexes in the same way as 3rd and 8th, but it was the only way they could cleanly reset the codex creep/lethality which had reached insane levels.

You can argue things like the USRs - but really its late 9th written up in a different language.
If you really wanted I think you could make them compatible - but the issue is who is going to be excited if their 10th edition codex is a fundamental downgrade in power compared with 9th?

Characters would've needed a LOT of erratas, though.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Minor point, but I don't think of 6th as being a hard reset because the codices of 5th were still useable, there was just a list of adjustments made in certain areas like CC weapons gaining profiles. 7th was similar in that it was really just a further adjustment of 6th, and codices from the prior edition/s were still compatible. The main rules for each edition were still based on the foundation set up by 3rd ed.

This is in great contrast to 3rd and 8th in particular, both of which necessitated releasing "index" armies alongside the rules because the foundation of the game was so different. 10th offered index armies, although I'm not sure the rules deviated enough to necessitate it, actually. (haven't played 10th much, so unsure)

Cool- I wasn't sure about 6th and 7th- those are the only two editions I sat out. So yeah, that reinforces my point even more- edition schedules were really inconsistent prior to 8th.I do really believe 11th will be a soft reboot, which will lock the post 8th rhythm in place. And while I would prefer a single six year edition rather than a 3 year Part A and a 3 year Part B, it does help hobby planning to know the pattern. For example, you'd know that if you started an army in an Index edition, you'd be guaranteed to be able to use that army into the following edition. By the same token, you might choose not to buy in to a Part B edition, knowing that in 3 years or less, indexes are just going to blow the whole thing up. For me, it means three extra years to Crusade before a hard reset invalidates the progression system.

there will be a lot of promises, and a lot of let-down after the fact. I would like them to turn combat patrol into something more balanced and appealing, like it is in Spearhead. AoS Spearhead is not perfect, but it is an absolute blast to play. GW Hyped up Combat Patrol so much, and then never did it justice.

What Will 11th Edition Be Like?

It is better with pictures



Followed closely by GW updates-

Probably more of the same with tweaks.

I hope someday they do away with rerolls, and limit stratagems/special powers to a few per armies that you can show your opponent at the beginning of the game, to avoid gotcha moments.

Also Combat patrol needs to go and Boarding Actions needs to become the new 500 pts standard.

Also hope that they create a scalable system ie the more points on the table, the more streamlined the gameplay.

Oh and Alternate activations per phase please, just like Legions Imperialis.

Do away with the 'you can only use it if it's in the box' rule. Nu-GW wears the skin of kitbashing encouragement but the spirit isn't there. Catachans, for example only get flamers because their 25 year old box only has them. (but I'm SURE we need three new special weapon Primaris squads instead!)
Just bring back 7th/9th era complexity, maybe make it optional. Suckin' off WYSIWYG players, oversimplifying and removing wargear costs leads to much less complexity and really makes 40k into a beer n pretzels game IMO. A good beer n pretzels game, mind you, but there's a lot less nuance in listbuilding. We had Force Org charts for a reason