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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Which leads me to wonder why GW still has players at all. It's losing them, certainly, and at an alarming rate, but forcing something like this on a playing population and expecting battered housewife syndrome seems a business strategy that should have seen them exit the marketplace nearly 15 years ago.

Is GW losing players? At least locally, I'm seeing more and more people getting into 40k, and I expect a further influx with Dark Vengeance-- not to mention the crossover people who will be pulled in by The Hobbit!

Every financial report they give indicates a continuing loss in sales volume that is made up for by a continuing rise in product prices. Something to the tune of 10% lower volume annually.

Where I play we are seeing a lot of 2nd/3rd/4th edition gamers coming back after 6th release. They skipped 5 but are jumping in at 6th.

Also reduction in sales is not in and of itself an indication of lowering player base. It could also be effected by the large amount of product being sold second hand with more and more people going to ebay and craigslist to get their armies.

Its also possible people buy their army and then play for 10 years without buying a new model. Sales do not indicate who is playing.

 Melchiour wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Which leads me to wonder why GW still has players at all. It's losing them, certainly, and at an alarming rate, but forcing something like this on a playing population and expecting battered housewife syndrome seems a business strategy that should have seen them exit the marketplace nearly 15 years ago.

Is GW losing players? At least locally, I'm seeing more and more people getting into 40k, and I expect a further influx with Dark Vengeance-- not to mention the crossover people who will be pulled in by The Hobbit!

Every financial report they give indicates a continuing loss in sales volume that is made up for by a continuing rise in product prices. Something to the tune of 10% lower volume annually.

Where I play we are seeing a lot of 2nd/3rd/4th edition gamers coming back after 6th release. They skipped 5 but are jumping in at 6th.

Also reduction in sales is not in and of itself an indication of lowering player base. It could also be effected by the large amount of product being sold second hand with more and more people going to ebay and craigslist to get their armies.

Its also possible people buy their army and then play for 10 years without buying a new model. Sales do not indicate who is playing.

True, but neither do anecdotes.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Which leads me to wonder why GW still has players at all. It's losing them, certainly, and at an alarming rate, but forcing something like this on a playing population and expecting battered housewife syndrome seems a business strategy that should have seen them exit the marketplace nearly 15 years ago.

Is GW losing players? At least locally, I'm seeing more and more people getting into 40k, and I expect a further influx with Dark Vengeance-- not to mention the crossover people who will be pulled in by The Hobbit!

Every financial report they give indicates a continuing loss in sales volume that is made up for by a continuing rise in product prices. Something to the tune of 10% lower volume annually.

Rest assured that GW is not losing anywhere close to 10% of its playerbase annually. Such a drop would be enormous and send the company in panic mode. As it is, last financial report had modest gain in sales value, which seems to imply marginally growing or stale playerbase. Which is the case with most estabilished gaming systems, including many whichs' parent companies supposedly do things better than GW...

 Mannahnin wrote:
I appreciate your effort, there. It's a legit question. I think he does want a not-broken system. I recognize that 6th ed has some really sad, silly, and seemingly basic editorial errors, holes and problems. In some ways it's less clear and functional than 5th was.

Yep, I definitely want a not-broken system.

I don't think 6th is broken. Does it have issues? Yep. Has every edition of 40k had issues? Yep. Heck, pretty much every tabletop RPG game I've ever played has had issues. I think 6th is a bit less clear due to adding in a bunch of stuff that wasn't in 5th. I also think they could have done a better job of editing/writing, but I've thought that in every edition as well.

Backfire wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Which leads me to wonder why GW still has players at all. It's losing them, certainly, and at an alarming rate, but forcing something like this on a playing population and expecting battered housewife syndrome seems a business strategy that should have seen them exit the marketplace nearly 15 years ago.

Is GW losing players? At least locally, I'm seeing more and more people getting into 40k, and I expect a further influx with Dark Vengeance-- not to mention the crossover people who will be pulled in by The Hobbit!

Every financial report they give indicates a continuing loss in sales volume that is made up for by a continuing rise in product prices. Something to the tune of 10% lower volume annually.

Rest assured that GW is not losing anywhere close to 10% of its playerbase annually. Such a drop would be enormous and send the company in panic mode. As it is, last financial report had modest gain in sales value, which seems to imply marginally growing or stale playerbase. Which is the case with most estabilished gaming systems, including many whichs' parent companies supposedly do things better than GW...

If I recall, the last financial report showed a very modest gain in revenue, which was primarilly driven by the rerelease of their paint line and supported with addiitional price rises beyond inflation. The actual increase in revenue was too small too account for anything but a slowing of sales volume (which they did not state, something that is telling) considering that their revenue should have increased by a noticeable amount given what happened in the report. A 10% loss in players year over year wouldn't send the company into panic mode, 10% is not a huge up or down number for a single year. The trend is troubling, but the company has shown time and time again that it doesn't have a strong 10 year plan.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

If I recall, the last financial report showed a very modest gain in revenue, which was primarilly driven by the rerelease of their paint line and supported with addiitional price rises beyond inflation. The actual increase in revenue was too small too account for anything but a slowing of sales volume (which they did not state, something that is telling) considering that their revenue should have increased by a noticeable amount given what happened in the report. A 10% loss in players year over year wouldn't send the company into panic mode, 10% is not a huge up or down number for a single year. The trend is troubling, but the company has shown time and time again that it doesn't have a strong 10 year plan.

I'm afraid you do not understand just how much 10% is. It would be very large drop. And as said, their last few financial reports contain zero evidence of such a massive drop.

Backfire wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

If I recall, the last financial report showed a very modest gain in revenue, which was primarilly driven by the rerelease of their paint line and supported with addiitional price rises beyond inflation. The actual increase in revenue was too small too account for anything but a slowing of sales volume (which they did not state, something that is telling) considering that their revenue should have increased by a noticeable amount given what happened in the report. A 10% loss in players year over year wouldn't send the company into panic mode, 10% is not a huge up or down number for a single year. The trend is troubling, but the company has shown time and time again that it doesn't have a strong 10 year plan.

I'm afraid you do not understand just how much 10% is. It would be very large drop. And as said, their last few financial reports contain zero evidence of such a massive drop.

A 10% drop in sales volume and a 10% drop in playerbase is not the same thing, neither are huge. Companies can report a 50% loss in operational revenue and still be considered healthy, especially in industries with periodic but slow product release schedules. You are conflating sales volume to playerbase and assuring me that I don't know what I'm talking about. I will admit that I don't have the report in front of me, but there are financial professionals on this board and they've reviewed these reports every time they've come out. Their findings are typically that which I have stated, regardless of your assurances to the opposite.

Backfire wrote:
I'm afraid you do not understand just how much 10% is. It would be very large drop. And as said, their last few financial reports contain zero evidence of such a massive drop.

The armchair accountants (who are in many cases also real accountants) who spend time analysing the GW financials thoroughly believe that GW's volume of sales has been dropping. This is determined from flat or decreasing revenues from core business lines coupled with knowledge of average price increases, which are not reported in GWs financials. The drop in volume sales is masked to the casual observer by the severe cost cutting measures GW has been employing for the last few years, rising revenue from non-core business lines (FW, BL, and royalties) and in the last year, the phenomenally successful but once-in-a-lifetime release of the new paint sets.
10% is probably too high - the figures others have arrived at are in the region of 3-5%. Check out the warseer threads on the topic for more in-depth analysis.

Personally I'm happier with this edition of 40k so far. The issue is that pretty much every edition of 40k has been fine until the first 3-4 codices are released. Its the codices which screw over GW games, not the core rules. Hopfeully, GW will stick to its principles and attempt to use the large number of Universal Special Rules to represent various army's traits rather than coming up with new rules. The best games on the market work this way, and the less brand new stuff in each release, the easier it is to keep it balanced.

I'm grateful that the FAQ has come out so quickly. I'm hoping that the print edition of the book will be continuously updated with the errata in the FAQ, though this probably won't happen. 40k is a very complicated game, and given the huge amount of players and their various armies, tactics, ages, backgrounds and perspectives on play, its only natural that there will be the occasional question that needs answering, wording that needs tightening or edge case situation that gets overlooked. I'm glad that they've decided to get ahead of the game.

First the competitiveness of MTG and now the financials of GW. Could we just talk about the FAQs for a while?

 Mannahnin wrote:
I don't think there's anything jerklike about playing full reserve. IMO it was a really nice element of 5th, and provided a great counter option for really shooty alpha-strike armies. It was always a gamble, because your stuff tended to trickle in, and might just get pounded as it came on; but better to have an active choice in the matter, I think, rather than being forced to deploy targets.

That said, as long as there's good terrain on the table, this way is okay too.

And it certainly makes all-DS armies like pods and daemons more special, and prevents people countering their unique shtick too easily. Pods went from awesome in 4th to not all that good in 5th because of the option to full reserve. I'm not sure this is the fix I'd have chosen, but so far I find it's okay.

Thanks for that. I have my Paladin army with Draigo, Libbie, 2x5 Paladins, 2xStormravens, and 2x Dreads. That's at 2000 points, obviously not competitive and made for fun. In 5th I could deploy all or none of it depending on the mission, never had anyone complain at tournaments or friendly games about the list. In 6th I can still choose to not deploy anything if I embark it all, but then I lose automatically. I didn't feel like I was being a jerk playing the list and I don't feel like a jerk asking how I'm supposed to play the list now that I MUST reserve the flyers... but CAN'T reserve everything... even though it all rides on the flyers. In 5th I could deploy my Ravens if I wanted, and usually did to avoid coming in piecemeal... now I don't have that option AND I lose automatically if I embark the units where they are supposed to go. Grey Knights can't take Pods either so yeah.

The rules just seems awkward and pointless to me, forcing you to put useless units on the board if you intend to play a flyer based army. You must reserve flyers, but if that is your entire army... you lose. So just suck it up and get an Eldrad with some Pathfinders then I guess...

 BladeWalker wrote:
The rules just seems awkward and pointless to me, forcing you to put useless units on the board if you intend to play a flyer based army. You must reserve flyers, but if that is your entire army... you lose. So just suck it up and get an Eldrad with some Pathfinders then I guess...

Pathfinders would be perfect forward observers for a flying strike force. Without some sort of boots on the ground, you can't even be sure you're going to show up to the right engagement/battlefield.

 pretre wrote:

 BladeWalker wrote:
The rules just seems awkward and pointless to me, forcing you to put useless units on the board if you intend to play a flyer based army. You must reserve flyers, but if that is your entire army... you lose. So just suck it up and get an Eldrad with some Pathfinders then I guess...

Pathfinders would be perfect forward observers for a flying strike force. Without some sort of boots on the ground, you can't even be sure you're going to show up to the right engagement/battlefield.

I admire your perspective and will strive to be less pissed about my "rule of cool" army getting hosed when it wasn't even very good to begin with.

Adapting and overcoming with each new edition and book is part of the fun over the years, I'll be getting some IG reinforcements before I ever ally with the pointy ears though! I just hate that they all have to be put to the sword post-batte...

 pretre wrote:
First the competitiveness of MTG and now the financials of GW. Could we just talk about the FAQs for a while?

This. Various OT posts have been deleted; if they reappear, I may take more stringent action.

 BladeWalker wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I don't think there's anything jerklike about playing full reserve. IMO it was a really nice element of 5th, and provided a great counter option for really shooty alpha-strike armies. It was always a gamble, because your stuff tended to trickle in, and might just get pounded as it came on; but better to have an active choice in the matter, I think, rather than being forced to deploy targets.

That said, as long as there's good terrain on the table, this way is okay too.

And it certainly makes all-DS armies like pods and daemons more special, and prevents people countering their unique shtick too easily. Pods went from awesome in 4th to not all that good in 5th because of the option to full reserve. I'm not sure this is the fix I'd have chosen, but so far I find it's okay.

Thanks for that. I have my Paladin army with Draigo, Libbie, 2x5 Paladins, 2xStormravens, and 2x Dreads. That's at 2000 points, obviously not competitive and made for fun. In 5th I could deploy all or none of it depending on the mission, never had anyone complain at tournaments or friendly games about the list. In 6th I can still choose to not deploy anything if I embark it all, but then I lose automatically. I didn't feel like I was being a jerk playing the list and I don't feel like a jerk asking how I'm supposed to play the list now that I MUST reserve the flyers... but CAN'T reserve everything... even though it all rides on the flyers. In 5th I could deploy my Ravens if I wanted, and usually did to avoid coming in piecemeal... now I don't have that option AND I lose automatically if I embark the units where they are supposed to go. Grey Knights can't take Pods either so yeah.

The rules just seems awkward and pointless to me, forcing you to put useless units on the board if you intend to play a flyer based army. You must reserve flyers, but if that is your entire army... you lose. So just suck it up and get an Eldrad with some Pathfinders then I guess...

Every new edition and every new codex invalidates one army or another. What worked today, may not work next month depending on where your armies are in the cycle. I think everyone of us have been burned by this in one form or another. Some of us to the tune of hundreds of dollars. However, if this is your first time experiencing this yourself, all I can say is welcome to the club.

Its clear to me that from the FAQ GW is clearly trying to get rid of all wounding shinanigans for units of multi wound models. They want you to remove whole models when your unit takes enough damage to do so. Thus they have made it so. It matters not if your unit is points expensive, or if that is how they worked for the last 4 years, or even if it was the last viable unit in your codex. Its not how they are going to work today.

I actually find this definitive stance a little refreshing.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Its clear to me that from the FAQ GW is clearly trying to get rid of all wounding shinanigans for units of multi wound models. They want you to remove whole models when your unit takes enough damage to do so. Thus they have made it so. It matters not if your unit is points expensive, or if that is how they worked for the last 4 years, or even if it was the last viable unit in your codex. Its not how they are going to work today.

The interesting thing is that they REMOVED the "remove whole models" rule, which means that non-complex units (such as a unit of Hive Guard) can end up with each model having taken one wound, provided they occurred at different times - you just have to make sure that wounded models move further away from the enemy before they can finish them off.

Nice catch Janthkin!

Edit: wait wasn't that true pre-FAQ for 6th edition? I thought you always allocated wounds to the nearest model in the unit?

 Jayden63 wrote:

 BladeWalker wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I don't think there's anything jerklike about playing full reserve. IMO it was a really nice element of 5th, and provided a great counter option for really shooty alpha-strike armies. It was always a gamble, because your stuff tended to trickle in, and might just get pounded as it came on; but better to have an active choice in the matter, I think, rather than being forced to deploy targets.

That said, as long as there's good terrain on the table, this way is okay too.

And it certainly makes all-DS armies like pods and daemons more special, and prevents people countering their unique shtick too easily. Pods went from awesome in 4th to not all that good in 5th because of the option to full reserve. I'm not sure this is the fix I'd have chosen, but so far I find it's okay.

Thanks for that. I have my Paladin army with Draigo, Libbie, 2x5 Paladins, 2xStormravens, and 2x Dreads. That's at 2000 points, obviously not competitive and made for fun. In 5th I could deploy all or none of it depending on the mission, never had anyone complain at tournaments or friendly games about the list. In 6th I can still choose to not deploy anything if I embark it all, but then I lose automatically. I didn't feel like I was being a jerk playing the list and I don't feel like a jerk asking how I'm supposed to play the list now that I MUST reserve the flyers... but CAN'T reserve everything... even though it all rides on the flyers. In 5th I could deploy my Ravens if I wanted, and usually did to avoid coming in piecemeal... now I don't have that option AND I lose automatically if I embark the units where they are supposed to go. Grey Knights can't take Pods either so yeah.

The rules just seems awkward and pointless to me, forcing you to put useless units on the board if you intend to play a flyer based army. You must reserve flyers, but if that is your entire army... you lose. So just suck it up and get an Eldrad with some Pathfinders then I guess...

Every new edition and every new codex invalidates one army or another. What worked today, may not work next month depending on where your armies are in the cycle. I think everyone of us have been burned by this in one form or another. Some of us to the tune of hundreds of dollars. However, if this is your first time experiencing this yourself, all I can say is welcome to the club.

Its clear to me that from the FAQ GW is clearly trying to get rid of all wounding shinanigans for units of multi wound models. They want you to remove whole models when your unit takes enough damage to do so. Thus they have made it so. It matters not if your unit is points expensive, or if that is how they worked for the last 4 years, or even if it was the last viable unit in your codex. Its not how they are going to work today.

I actually find this definitive stance a little refreshing.

I've been through several editions and codex changes. Has there been one that made it so your army literally lost automatically unless you deployed it differently than you had a week before?

I have no problem with the wound allocation rules, I have a problem with not being able to field a flyer army without putting some model on the board as a token victim for shooty armies (or to uselessly hide).

Brainstorming a IG News Crew to cover the arrival of Draigo from the Warp as my "must deploy durrr" unit.

 wyomingfox wrote:
Nice catch Janthkin!

Edit: wait wasn't that true pre-FAQ for 6th edition? I thought you always allocated wounds to the nearest model in the unit?

Sorry for the confusion - yes, the 6e ruleset has never had the "remove whole models" rule of 4e/5e. My point wasn't about the FAQ, but about Jayden63's comment on GW's intent. While GW does seem to be reducing the opportunity for strange edge cases through LOS!, the underlying ruleset has returned to a place where any mutliwound unit can end up with wounds spread out.

Reminds me of 2e, when my Ogryn would ram a unit in their Chimera, flip the Chimera, and all take a wound in the process.

 Janthkin wrote:

 wyomingfox wrote:
Nice catch Janthkin!

Edit: wait wasn't that true pre-FAQ for 6th edition? I thought you always allocated wounds to the nearest model in the unit?

Sorry for the confusion - yes, the 6e ruleset has never had the "remove whole models" rule of 4e/5e. My point wasn't about the FAQ, but about Jayden63's comment on GW's intent. While GW does seem to be reducing the opportunity for strange edge cases through LOS!, the underlying ruleset has returned to a place where any mutliwound unit can end up with wounds spread out.

Reminds me of 2e, when my Ogryn would ram a unit in their Chimera, flip the Chimera, and all take a wound in the process.

Im fine with it, you have to creatively move your stuff around, not the end of the world. It also is still the case where single turn shooting cant be shell gamed around like 5th or pre FAQ LOS.

Backfire wrote:

 Nagashek wrote:


And yet PP just comes out with new casters, new units, and new models without doing so at the expense of everything that came before. Builds change and shift based on meta, and the balance of power does shift within lists, but the factions are still balanced against each other. "Dumb Companies" break things for fun and force change. "Smart companies" entice you with new fun and invite change. Forced change loses players who become fed up with getting jerked around. Invited change keeps players excited. For those who continue to play, both make money, but one has a diminishing player base, the other an increasing one. "WotC" is a smart company. They made Magic: the Gathering. That stuff never goes obsolete, and with two tournament types and super low cost, it likely never will. (Yes, I know that some cards aren't allowed in tournament play anymore, but those are primarily first editions. Most other first edition cards are still in play and with the same rules. How many Rogue Trader units can say the same?)

I have dozens of Magic cards which are totally obsolete - either they can't be played at all under current rules (all the Ante cards),

First edition

they are banned (Channel etc),

First Edition

core rules have changed so that the cards are almost totally useless (Plague Rats),

First Edition

they have non-functioning rules (Banding)

First Edition

or WotC have released new, better versions of the card making the old cards useless (lots of cards, particularly creatures).

Which DOES matter if you play unlimited style tournies or casually with friends, but only if your friends are buying new cards and you aren't. As I mentioned in my post, I did admit that MTG had these issues too, but had a caveat listed.

"Super low cost"? Ok...whatever...

On the other hand, you claim that nerf to assault makes assault units "obsolete" (ie. unplayable). Your definition of "obsolete" seems to be pretty flexible.

The buy in cost for MTG is significantly lower than WH40k. If you want to buy the latest netlist for MTG vs the same for wh40k the MTG is a significantly lower money and time investment than 40k.

There are assault units that are not obsolete. My comments have been primarily concerned with my armies assault units being obsolete and the problems inherent in the assault phase in general.

Obsolete:
Adjective: No longer produced or used; out of date.
Verb: Cause (a product or idea) to be or become obsolete by replacing it with something new: "we're obsoleting last year's designs".

Emphasis mine. I understand that everyone feels this way about their assault units, and I feel for BA players (despite my belief that a T4 3+ save FNP assault units are touched far less by this than others) but T3 armies that rely the alpha strike to succeed really get hammered hard by this. Even with the AP2 addition to Incubi, its not worth taking assault units in a DE army. As I (and others) had pointed out often, the PW nerf was universal, so giving AP2 back to Incubi makes no difference. Killing in close combat is no longer an option for eldar, so taking one unit that can kill termies in CC only paints a big target on their transport, where as flooding the field with ranged AP2 weapons is far mor reliable (as in it CAN work, rather than WILL RARELY OR NEVER work). The meta shift lowered the variety of builds in DE, for certain, and it sounds like many other armies were hit in the same way.

5th bothered me at first, and I stopped playing it because of how far it left my first army behind (Tau) and the changes in playstyle for my third army (marines). I could still do well with my Necrons, but I needed cash and had to sell them off. The rules for 5th I didn't bother me, in fact I found them to be solid, innovative, and well balanced. Being able to choose to keep your army off the table allowed for more flexibility and helped keep the game from being determined by a die roll the way it often seemed to in 4th. Transports were great, but that was only as compared to 4th ed, and became more pronounced as more codecies were released and transport costs continued to plummet. Outflanking was fantastic, the total removal of sweeping advance meant that assaulting was a risk, but you at least got to take a unit out once you got there before being rapid fired to death and if you got lucky in your consolidation, you might be able to hide your assaulters for another chance next turn (unless your enemy manuvered on you and wiped them out.) Once I found an army that fit 5th ed well (DE) I reveled in the edition, finding an army that worked well within the rules and my playstyle to excell not through brute force, but through precision, planning, and manuver. 6e does not favor a combined arms approach (unless by combined arms you mean different kinds of ranged weapons for anti-tank/anti-infantry) The FAQ's themselves to me do not show the game to be any more or less poorly written than previous editions. I simply do not like the extra randomness, the allies system (not the idea, merely the implementation, which ideally should have been worked into an expansion) and the nerf to assaults (making them even MORE of a gamble than in 5th, even WITHOUT random charge ranges.) The vehicle changes I could get used to. Maybe I will like 6th more once the Tau Codex is released or after I've finished modelling my leftover Reavers into a Seercouncil (obviously a group of Dark Eldar studying sorcery in defiance of Vect's Law, possibly even exiled from Commoragh or never practicing within its bounds. I will DEFINITELY like 6th more if a campaign expansion is released. It will allow me to shift my entire thinking about 40k and get and hold onto more players in my meta.

My Plague Rats and Channels are Revised (3rd ed), not First.

 Janthkin wrote:
My Plague Rats and Channels are Revised (3rd ed), not First.

How does Magic the Gathering pertain to the subject of 40k FAQ?

Yeah, most of that stuff was removed/banned somewhere within 3rd to 5th edition...I think Banding wasn't removed until 6th or so?

As I see it, "obsolete" means something which can't be used at all, or is so ineffective it's pointless. In case of BA, Sanguinary High Priest is obsolete because there are no longer rules for the unit (though model can still be used as some other unit). Assault Marines might be nerfed (are they? I dunno) but they are not obsolete.

Backfire wrote:
In case of BA, Sanguinary High Priest is obsolete because there are no longer rules for the unit (though model can still be used as some other unit).

Other than Corbulo (who is in the current codex) how many Sanguinary High Priest models have GW released?

For whatever reason, I thought that SHP once had its own model. I remember there were complaints (when BA White Dward codex came out) how it was obsoleted (along with some other BA stuff).

 Janthkin wrote:
My Plague Rats and Channels are Revised (3rd ed), not First.

No need to be pedantic. My Space Marines were made in 4th ed. Does that mean that Space Marines were not in Rogue Trader? No. PR and Channel were first introduced in Alpha (ie 1st ed.)

 Nagashek wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
My Plague Rats and Channels are Revised (3rd ed), not First.

No need to be pedantic. My Space Marines were made in 4th ed. Does that mean that Space Marines were not in Rogue Trader? No. PR and Channel were first introduced in Alpha (ie 1st ed.)

Not being pedantic - if your argument is that all the problem cards you mentioned were Alpha, then I wanted to remind you that those mechanics persisted past Alpha, and those cards were printed past Alpha. I have Revised Plague Rats I can't use right now (if I still played Magic), so I have non-first edition cards that are actually obsolete.

I also have a Lost and the Damned Army, but we're actually close to the point where that's usable again - just need the new CSM codex, and allied IG.