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.

I was thinking - which is often dangerous territory - about how we evaluate 9th edition. Unfortunately, if trying to produce any data on how things are being played, we have to rely on the limited resource of tournament results, as people won't accept other reports as valid. However, we should probably think about how these report are chunked up as released come out, in order to give a stable window of what we're looking at.

For example, I think you could get away with saying that data from Indomitus' release up until Saturday would be phase 1 of the edition - thanks to COVID, there weren't (m)any organised events going on when it released, or even by the time the new power levels & initial FAQs dropped a couple of weeks later. However, until the set of weapon profile updates came out this week, I don't think there have been any significant changes to the game between the first FAQs and the the two upcoming codex releases.

I'll note that there are a couple of forks that need to be considered, in the form of the Crusade book and the Tactical Deployment set. I'd probably view Crusade as a parallel track, which probably isn't having much data gathered for it. Tactical Deployment I'd kinda view as a fork from the main tournament track - if we see events using it, then it'll be interested to see what the combination of phase X of core plus TacDep is, but I imagine people would want to view that data as distinct from the non-TacDep data.

Moving forwards, the question becomes when do we next say "this is the end of one phase, and the beginning of another!" Should we do so after every 'dex, after every Supplement, and after the FW book is released? Does a MFM release or mass power level change require one? If we assume the "Big FAQ" approach remains in 9th, do they mark a change as well? How about the "2 week" FAQ after each book comes out (again, assuming that continues)?

Personally, I'd lean towards each book and each Big FAQ being the start of a new phase, but probably not each "2 week" FAQ. It's a little arbitrary, but that's still going to cause a lot of slices of the data - heck, we've got 3 Supplements and a full 'dex coming out before the end of 2020, with the possibility of the FW book dropping as well - if you're wanting true accuracy as you measure how things shift with these releases, you kinda need to do this, and I'm not certain the stats sites will split things up so finely.

What do y'all think?

It'll be the Phase of "Necrons and SM are op because they are the newest books and get all the new toys."

Then we'll get a string of supplements to make Space Marines even more overpowered.

Then we'll get an Eldar codex with no updates to their 20 year old sculpts but instead get some randomly created new Aspect Shrine that was actually lost for like 10 millennia but Eldrad knew existed all along and now chooses to reveal it that get 4 wounds each, 2++ save and 72" Assault 16 S10 Ap-6 Damage 12 weapons. For 12 PPM.

Then the Ork codex will come and remove all wargear options from their units. And we'll have Primork Boyz.

Repeat until 10th edition comes along and magically decides that "Hoard Armies are too weak, so we're going to nerf all the Elite armies you bought for 9th and now you can buy new Hoard armies for 10th!"

 Dysartes wrote:
I was thinking - which is often dangerous territory - about how we evaluate 9th edition. Unfortunately, if trying to produce any data on how things are being played, we have to rely on the limited resource of tournament results, as people won't accept other reports as valid. However, we should probably think about how these report are chunked up as released come out, in order to give a stable window of what we're looking at.

For example, I think you could get away with saying that data from Indomitus' release up until Saturday would be phase 1 of the edition

I'd call it the Open Beta phase. Most of the features aren't public or live, but people can pay to play around in the sandbox.

Seems like we’re in the “Edgy Hot Take Phase” judging by responses so far...

We’re in midst of an ongoing pandemic and first Codexes drop today. I don’t think editions really run in “phases”, just rolling changes.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Seems like we’re in the “Edgy Hot Take Phase” judging by responses so far...

We’re in midst of an ongoing pandemic and first Codexes drop today. I don’t think editions really run in “phases”, just rolling changes.

^^^ Pretty much this. Although, the last couple of editions have actually had 2 phases (maybe 2.1 phases if you consider the time between initial release and first Codex a phase). Generally you have the first half, which all follows the same trend of Codex design, with all the usual GW randomness as far as power level goes. Then about halfway through there's often some Great Idea(tm) that changes things up, which I really wish GW would stop doing.

In 7th it was detachments, which changed the whole way you chose armies and created a huge divide between the haves and have-nots. In 8th it was Psychic Awakening (which didn't really seem to have much to do with psykers, in hindsight) which just seemed to be an opportunity to buff SM more. My hope is that GW take a more considered approach in 9th, though I'm not sure they will because their business model doesn't really work that way.

At the very least I think we'll be in the first phase for a while as Codices get updated with new Crusade rules and generally brought into the 9th edition way of doing things.

Theres 3 general phases:

1) The honey moon phase.
The beginning. The new edition arrives, the new starter set of SM vs ? is released. Great excitement. The majority* - company, company shills, on-line geniuses, & players of all experience lvs - laud the edition as the best ever and sing its praises. And the delusional pin all their gaming hopes on "THIS time...." & "finally!".
Even with glaring flaws sitting in plain view to all.

*theres a minority of veteran players who, having seen & done this edition change thing plenty of times, simply grit our teeth & hope that as the proper Codex books roll out (phase 2) that our armies don't get too fethed over (rules or model wise).

This phase lasts a fair bit & overlaps with the early stages of phase two. Though with all the leaks & previews etc GW has shortend it (counting from when the edition goes on sale).
I dont think this is a good thing.

2) Codex phase/growing discontent.
Everyone's Codex gets updated. New units are added. (Except if they dont...).
Thats the good news.
The bad? Ever growing dissatisfaction with the edition, forces, etc as people see the flaws, lose models, can't handle losing games to the newest-bestest pattern GW almost always follows etc. And now days GW is all to happy to both add fuel to that fire & capitalize on it with constant erratta/faqs/tweak$.
Until....

3) The end phase. Mopping up.
Heralded by the coming of the Sisters of Battle.
All the codex books have been updated, most of the new models have been released, and most of you have tweaked your armies a few times due to the constant tinkering (thank$). And ideas have been finalized for the next edition.
The next edition requires time to write/plan though. So you get around 6-12 months of filler material (can you say Psychic Awakening?)

And then the cycle begins anew.