Switch Theme:

Comparing 8th Codex Rules to 9th Codex Rules  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I wanted to offer some commentary on a phenomenon I've seen floating around, and we'll call it "current isn't current" (newspeak; it requires doublethink! )

A lot of the time I see people compare a unit from an 8th edition (but still current) book (e.g. CWE or IG) to a similar unit from a 9th edition book, and people often say "well, that's an invalid comparison because it's 8th edition codex so of course it's worse."

But... why is it an invalid comparison? Both are current rules for those units, over a whole year into an edition (which will likely last 2 or 3 years, based on prior patterns).

The "current rules" for an army are the current rules, and inevitably at the current release rate some armies will spend the majority of 9th with 8th edition books. Are people not allowed to compare them to 9th edition books until it's nearly 10th?

In general, this post serves to point out that you should compare "current rules for similar units" regardless of edition of release. If we've become so inured to GW's shenanigans that we say "well, of course the X book is better than the Y book, because the Y book is older, and you're dumb to even compare them", then I think we've crossed into full-on powercreep mode, except this time it's okay because it's demarcated by an edition line.

So, a proposal:
If GW wants to change design paradigms, they should design each army to the new paradigm and release them all at once. This means that:
1) You don't end up with powercreep (i.e. newer=better)
2) You don't end up shifting paradigms between codex releases (this used to happen all the time with GW, and will almost certainly again)
3) Your game is balanced for all players, meaning that "old" books are just as good as "new" books (or rather, eliminating this distinction entirely).

Furthermore, the playerbase should agitate for this type of change, rather than tolerating the "newer=automatically better and you're a fool to compare backwards" mindset. Thoughts?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





It really depends on what you're talking about and it isn't a black and white thing. Some old books have held up well. Others have not.

To me the community concept of powercreep is overstated.

On design paradigms - you can definitely see GW's thinking of mechanics develop more over the edition and it would be nice to see them smooth that out, but they're doing it as they roll things out and I don't think it would be practical to expect GW to hire the staff they need to simultaneously produce the variety we see, playtest, and then roll it all out.






This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/02 17:22:14


   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Beaverton OR


I get where you are coming from, but there is DEFINITELY a power creep in the new dex's IMO.

I played a 500pt game with a current marine dex vs. thousand sons (8th dex) and didn't even lose a single dude. I know that's fairly anecdotal, but I've heard a lot of similar things regarding the non-updated codex's.

I think that, obviously, it is going to depend on the codex in question as to how badly it needs an update, but it's also a bit of wishful thinking to believe that the current state of new vs. old really is "balanced" in a significant way.

Oh, and that being said:

I FULLY endorse the idea of releasing all the new dex's at once! Honestly, that should have ALWAYS been the policy. I get why they would want to stagger them out for sales, but it would help so many things if they all came out with the new edition.
   
Made in ie
Been Around the Block




Pretty sure at this point power creep is an implicit policy - look at the are articles on Warhammer community for any new codex, the rules they preview aren't particularly thematic or interesting, they tend to be straight up buffs.
   
Made in gb
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot




UK

Don't forget that in a lot of cases, 9th versions of units are often worse than their 8th incarnations because of re-done stats or not gaining Core.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





SideSwipe wrote:
Pretty sure at this point power creep is an implicit policy - look at the are articles on Warhammer community for any new codex, the rules they preview aren't particularly thematic or interesting, they tend to be straight up buffs.


This is not correct. Previews often do not match with the strongest units as often as they do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/02 17:49:42


   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







People who don't like the comparison don't see anything wrong with saying "everyone can participate for about the six months right before the new edition every four years, otherwise you have to buy a new army or sit out the game three quarters of the time."

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

I think having codexes from both 9th and 8th coexisting is fine, as long as the points accurately take the relative power differences of the units in them into account. Which they often don't. But that can also be said for units that have already received their updates. Which seems to point to gw just needing to pay more attention when writing CA. But I'm not keen on lambasting the rules writers now that we know how they're (under)paid.
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch





 Bosskelot wrote:
Don't forget that in a lot of cases, 9th versions of units are often worse than their 8th incarnations because of re-done stats or not gaining Core.


CWE says troo story

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...But I'm not keen on lambasting the rules writers now that we know how they're (under)paid.


Can we still lambast GW for putting so little effort into making the rules actually work?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in pl
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




I think the difference between 8th and 9th Codizes wasn't that bad if GW had released proper FAQs for all the factions that have to wait (like they did for some SM supplements that had to wait... two months or so.)
If CSM would be really cheap now it would still be narratively dissatisfying, but at least you stand a chance. But when comparing my CSM power levels with DG in crusade it's just sad.
Overall I have the impression though that powercreep has been held at bay since 8th edition with CA and FAQs. They just dropped the ball with 9th where they needlessly repointed everything, despite the edition's rules being nearly the same, so they could have taken what they learned from 8th. But someone decided everything has to be divided by 5 now...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/02 18:20:53


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I wanted to offer some commentary on a phenomenon I've seen floating around, and we'll call it "current isn't current" (newspeak; it requires doublethink! )

A lot of the time I see people compare a unit from an 8th edition (but still current) book (e.g. CWE or IG) to a similar unit from a 9th edition book, and people often say "well, that's an invalid comparison because it's 8th edition codex so of course it's worse."

But... why is it an invalid comparison? Both are current rules for those units, over a whole year into an edition (which will likely last 2 or 3 years, based on prior patterns).

The "current rules" for an army are the current rules, and inevitably at the current release rate some armies will spend the majority of 9th with 8th edition books. Are people not allowed to compare them to 9th edition books until it's nearly 10th?

In general, this post serves to point out that you should compare "current rules for similar units" regardless of edition of release. If we've become so inured to GW's shenanigans that we say "well, of course the X book is better than the Y book, because the Y book is older, and you're dumb to even compare them", then I think we've crossed into full-on powercreep mode, except this time it's okay because it's demarcated by an edition line.

So, a proposal:
If GW wants to change design paradigms, they should design each army to the new paradigm and release them all at once. This means that:
1) You don't end up with powercreep (i.e. newer=better)
2) You don't end up shifting paradigms between codex releases (this used to happen all the time with GW, and will almost certainly again)
3) Your game is balanced for all players, meaning that "old" books are just as good as "new" books (or rather, eliminating this distinction entirely).

Furthermore, the playerbase should agitate for this type of change, rather than tolerating the "newer=automatically better and you're a fool to compare backwards" mindset. Thoughts?


Your entire premise is MASSIVELY flawed. 1st, no one has the imaginary conversation you did. Books are compared 8th to 9th all the time. What actually happens is people make that comparison and say 'I hope X weaker unit sees a buff/redesign In the new codex.' Or something similar. No one just says 'it's older so of course it's worse!' Who isn't an idiot.

Second, the majority of 9th books aren't particularly stronger than their 8th ed counterparts or if they are it'sbecause their 8th book sucked. Sisters and Space marines are arguably worse. SW and BA are sidegrades at best. Necrons, DG and DA are stronger but were VERY weak before and didn't get bumped above the end of 8th standard powercurve so that's actually a good thing. Orkz are better but they seem so far to be in line with SoB, DA, and DG.

Only DE and Admech have represented meaningful powercreep, so really you're only talking about 2 specific books that have already seen a round of nerfs each.

In general, whether a book is powerful or not has been completely random. There's this idiotic myth that GW makes new releases OP on purpose but GW has never had enough nuance or game knowledge for that to be a tenable proposition for them.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Just addressing the "imaginary conversation" part, I've seen it happen on 2 occasions I can recall specifically. I can add quotes and links to the original posts if you REALLY WANT, but:

Comparing Bloodcrushers to the new Ork squig cavalry - the bloodcrushers were worse, but that was accepted as "okay" because it's an older 8th edition book - with the implication that the comparison was therefore invalid.

Secondly, I saw it with War Walkers and Sentinels compared to AdMech lascannon chickens - both the WW and Sentinels were worse, but again, it was accepted as "okay" that this is the case because they are from 8th edition books.

EDIT:
Essentially, the tone was "of course they're better, they're from 9th edition!" which is the point I am trying to make. That's one step removed from "of course they're better, they're newer!" which is literally just embracing power creep as a positive feature of the game, rather than an undesirable NPE-cause.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/02 18:28:31


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Daedalus81 wrote:
SideSwipe wrote:
Pretty sure at this point power creep is an implicit policy - look at the are articles on Warhammer community for any new codex, the rules they preview aren't particularly thematic or interesting, they tend to be straight up buffs.


This is not correct. Previews often do not match with the strongest units as often as they do.

Heh, it's just a marketing tactic to encourage the purchasing of some units . . . But leaving the door open for other vectors of power-purchasing once the book comes out.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Just addressing the "imaginary conversation" part...


Ask a fan of 9e "why are my CSM so terrible?" and I guarantee you'll get to "wait for your 9e Codex and then you can play again!" within a few sentences.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...But I'm not keen on lambasting the rules writers now that we know how they're (under)paid.


Can we still lambast GW for putting so little effort into making the rules actually work?

Sure. Just realize that one of the ways that they do that is that they pay the people writing the rules for their multi-million dollar company flagship wargame like they're manning the french frie station at the local fast food joint.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...But I'm not keen on lambasting the rules writers now that we know how they're (under)paid.


Can we still lambast GW for putting so little effort into making the rules actually work?

Sure. Just realize that one of the ways that they do that is that they pay the people writing the rules for their multi-million dollar company flagship wargame like they're manning the french frie station at the local fast food joint.


It's a pity that people will work for that low wage at a job that should pay so much more. They must really be passionate about Warhammer.

I saw the twitter/reddit thread you are referencing, and I cannot fathom how GW can find people to actually work that hard for that wage. I mean, I can - there's plenty of people who LOVE 40k and probably wish it was their job - but yeah, tis pity.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...But I'm not keen on lambasting the rules writers now that we know how they're (under)paid.


Can we still lambast GW for putting so little effort into making the rules actually work?

Sure. Just realize that one of the ways that they do that is that they pay the people writing the rules for their multi-million dollar company flagship wargame like they're manning the french frie station at the local fast food joint.


It's a pity that people will work for that low wage at a job that should pay so much more. They must really be passionate about Warhammer.

I saw the twitter/reddit thread you are referencing, and I cannot fathom how GW can find people to actually work that hard for that wage. I mean, I can - there's plenty of people who LOVE 40k and probably wish it was their job - but yeah, tis pity.
Unfortunately rather common . . . particularly in the game dev industry. It's not healthy.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
SideSwipe wrote:
Pretty sure at this point power creep is an implicit policy - look at the are articles on Warhammer community for any new codex, the rules they preview aren't particularly thematic or interesting, they tend to be straight up buffs.


This is not correct. Previews often do not match with the strongest units as often as they do.

Heh, it's just a marketing tactic to encourage the purchasing of some units . . . But leaving the door open for other vectors of power-purchasing once the book comes out.


The marketing "tactic" is 'here's new stuff - buy it!'. That's it and that's all they need.

   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





SideSwipe wrote:
Pretty sure at this point power creep is an implicit policy - look at the are articles on Warhammer community for any new codex, the rules they preview aren't particularly thematic or interesting, they tend to be straight up buffs.

Literally just today they previewed a Thousand Sons psychic power that's nerfed compared to its PA version.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
SideSwipe wrote:
Pretty sure at this point power creep is an implicit policy - look at the are articles on Warhammer community for any new codex, the rules they preview aren't particularly thematic or interesting, they tend to be straight up buffs.


This is not correct. Previews often do not match with the strongest units as often as they do.

Heh, it's just a marketing tactic to encourage the purchasing of some units . . . But leaving the door open for other vectors of power-purchasing once the book comes out.


The marketing "tactic" is 'here's new stuff - buy it!'. That's it and that's all they need.
If you say so. But it's pretty clear it could be more than that, especially if they're hyping buffs. "This stuff is gonna be sooo goodd, you wants it!", then the next level is the bait and switch when other units wind up being more competitive. I'm not saying it IS happening, but I'm saying it's pretty obvious it COULD be happening.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...But I'm not keen on lambasting the rules writers now that we know how they're (under)paid.


Can we still lambast GW for putting so little effort into making the rules actually work?

Sure. Just realize that one of the ways that they do that is that they pay the people writing the rules for their multi-million dollar company flagship wargame like they're manning the french frie station at the local fast food joint.


It's a pity that people will work for that low wage at a job that should pay so much more. They must really be passionate about Warhammer.

I saw the twitter/reddit thread you are referencing, and I cannot fathom how GW can find people to actually work that hard for that wage. I mean, I can - there's plenty of people who LOVE 40k and probably wish it was their job - but yeah, tis pity.


You'd think that anyone so passionate about the game that they're willing to work for peanuts would be passionate enough to write better rules....
I mean, look around this place. It's FULL of passionate people producing better(?) Rules - for free!
If GW were to pay you a crap wage would your quality dip?
   
Made in it
Focused Fire Warrior





 AnomanderRake wrote:
People who don't like the comparison don't see anything wrong with saying "everyone can participate for about the six months right before the new edition every four years, otherwise you have to buy a new army or sit out the game three quarters of the time."

100% this.
We're still waiting for 12 codices (14 with TS and GK coming out in two weeks time) and 7 marine supplements (BT on top of the 6 released in 8th ed). The Orks codex is still missing its proper release as well.
Total: 20 faction books still missing. One per month and we arrive easily into early 2023. Even with two per month, starting from September, we'd get to mid 2022.
Best case scenario: we get a whole year of "complete" 9th ed where a decent meta could form. Worst case one: 4-6 months of that before 10th ed drops, at most.


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
SideSwipe wrote:
Pretty sure at this point power creep is an implicit policy - look at the are articles on Warhammer community for any new codex, the rules they preview aren't particularly thematic or interesting, they tend to be straight up buffs.


This is not correct. Previews often do not match with the strongest units as often as they do.

Heh, it's just a marketing tactic to encourage the purchasing of some units . . . But leaving the door open for other vectors of power-purchasing once the book comes out.


The marketing "tactic" is 'here's new stuff - buy it!'. That's it and that's all they need.
If you say so. But it's pretty clear it could be more than that, especially if they're hyping buffs. "This stuff is gonna be sooo goodd, you wants it!", then the next level is the bait and switch when other units wind up being more competitive. I'm not saying it IS happening, but I'm saying it's pretty obvious it COULD be happening.


So...they somehow dupe people into buying the bad models and then those people say, 'ha ha' I really meant to buy these models!

Because your premise assumes you have someone who will buy before they see the codex and then after they see the codex they buy more. If this hypothetical person is making judgements when they see the codex why would they be making a purchase before then?

What exactly do you think they were selling today when they showcased the TS Cult of Time spell getting nerfed? Am I going to open the codex and find out I need to buy not-psykers for my Thousand Sons?

   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
SideSwipe wrote:
Pretty sure at this point power creep is an implicit policy - look at the are articles on Warhammer community for any new codex, the rules they preview aren't particularly thematic or interesting, they tend to be straight up buffs.


This is not correct. Previews often do not match with the strongest units as often as they do.

Heh, it's just a marketing tactic to encourage the purchasing of some units . . . But leaving the door open for other vectors of power-purchasing once the book comes out.


The marketing "tactic" is 'here's new stuff - buy it!'. That's it and that's all they need.
If you say so. But it's pretty clear it could be more than that, especially if they're hyping buffs. "This stuff is gonna be sooo goodd, you wants it!", then the next level is the bait and switch when other units wind up being more competitive. I'm not saying it IS happening, but I'm saying it's pretty obvious it COULD be happening.


So...they somehow dupe people into buying the bad models and then those people say, 'ha ha' I really meant to buy these models!

Because your premise assumes you have someone who will buy before they see the codex and then after they see the codex they buy more. If this hypothetical person is making judgements when they see the codex why would they be making a purchase before then?

What exactly do you think they were selling today when they showcased the TS Cult of Time spell getting nerfed? Am I going to open the codex and find out I need to buy not-psykers for my Thousand Sons?
You're overcomplicating it. My premise is that someone sees a preview unit with nice new model and percieved buffs. And they get excited about said units and buy a bunch. And the units aren't necessarily bad either, there just happen to be additional revelations once a codex comes out or the meta has settled. The same person will discover that although the unit they purchased is reasonable, there's now some other unit that it absolutely meta-changing or whatever and this person will be encouraged to get that/those units in addition to (or even in replacement of) all the other purchases (and possibly over-purchases) they've already acquired.

It could happen totally organically, mind you. But it could also be planned out by GW to an extent. There is a lot of churn by design, and some of that is long term. But some could also be pretty short term.

The TS example is easy to shrug off since it doesn't have to be happening all the time in order for it to happen some of the time, because sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. In both directions, too.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/02 19:30:01


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







ccs wrote:
...You'd think that anyone so passionate about the game that they're willing to work for peanuts would be passionate enough to write better rules....
I mean, look around this place. It's FULL of passionate people producing better(?) Rules - for free!
If GW were to pay you a crap wage would your quality dip?


As someone who produces better(?) rules in my spare time I can say that I don't have any more time to playtest them than GW does. If GW were to pay me a crap wage, expect me to be in an office five days a week, give me no more resources or time to playtest than I've got right now, and give me stupid arbitrary restrictions based on what the model sculpting team does I think my quality would probably dip, yeah. At least right now there are no stupid arbitrary restrictions based on what the model sculpting team does.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 AnomanderRake wrote:
ccs wrote:
...You'd think that anyone so passionate about the game that they're willing to work for peanuts would be passionate enough to write better rules....
I mean, look around this place. It's FULL of passionate people producing better(?) Rules - for free!
If GW were to pay you a crap wage would your quality dip?


As someone who produces better(?) rules in my spare time I can say that I don't have any more time to playtest them than GW does. If GW were to pay me a crap wage, expect me to be in an office five days a week, give me no more resources or time to playtest than I've got right now, and give me stupid arbitrary restrictions based on what the model sculpting team does I think my quality would probably dip, yeah. At least right now there are no stupid arbitrary restrictions based on what the model sculpting team does.

Right, restrictions. We don't know what restrictions are placed on the rules writers. Sure, we know they have to write the rules for the models after they see them, but what other restrictions are they under? Take the CSM rules in Faith and Fury for example: everyone wanted new Legion traits, but that wasn't what the writers were supposed to do. They were supposed to give the remaining 6 Legions what Black Legion got in Vigilus: new stratagems, warlord traits, and relics. Stop. They may have REALLY wanted to write new Legion traits, but that wasn't what their bosses wanted them to do. If they had done that, then those new Legion traits would probably have been tossed and they would have gotten chewed out for not following orders. There's more going on than just what the writers want to do.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
ccs wrote:
...You'd think that anyone so passionate about the game that they're willing to work for peanuts would be passionate enough to write better rules....
I mean, look around this place. It's FULL of passionate people producing better(?) Rules - for free!
If GW were to pay you a crap wage would your quality dip?


As someone who produces better(?) rules in my spare time I can say that I don't have any more time to playtest them than GW does. If GW were to pay me a crap wage, expect me to be in an office five days a week, give me no more resources or time to playtest than I've got right now, and give me stupid arbitrary restrictions based on what the model sculpting team does I think my quality would probably dip, yeah. At least right now there are no stupid arbitrary restrictions based on what the model sculpting team does.

Right, restrictions. We don't know what restrictions are placed on the rules writers. Sure, we know they have to write the rules for the models after they see them, but what other restrictions are they under? Take the CSM rules in Faith and Fury for example: everyone wanted new Legion traits, but that wasn't what the writers were supposed to do. They were supposed to give the remaining 6 Legions what Black Legion got in Vigilus: new stratagems, warlord traits, and relics. Stop. They may have REALLY wanted to write new Legion traits, but that wasn't what their bosses wanted them to do. If they had done that, then those new Legion traits would probably have been tossed and they would have gotten chewed out for not following orders. There's more going on than just what the writers want to do.
^This

Two words: Cooperate bosses.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Which is sort of my point. If GW were to pay me a crappy wage my quality would dip over writing rules on my own, not because the wage is crappy but because of the strings attached to working for GW.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Just addressing the "imaginary conversation" part, I've seen it happen on 2 occasions I can recall specifically. I can add quotes and links to the original posts if you REALLY WANT, but:

Comparing Bloodcrushers to the new Ork squig cavalry - the bloodcrushers were worse, but that was accepted as "okay" because it's an older 8th edition book - with the implication that the comparison was therefore invalid.

Secondly, I saw it with War Walkers and Sentinels compared to AdMech lascannon chickens - both the WW and Sentinels were worse, but again, it was accepted as "okay" that this is the case because they are from 8th edition books.

EDIT:
Essentially, the tone was "of course they're better, they're from 9th edition!" which is the point I am trying to make. That's one step removed from "of course they're better, they're newer!" which is literally just embracing power creep as a positive feature of the game, rather than an undesirable NPE-cause.


The "9th edition powercreep" is actually seen only on one specific category of models, the heavy melee ones, which started with BGV. GW wasn't happy with the performance of those in 8th so they are buffing the category. It would be very very nice if they could just fix the other heavy melee models with points until they get their dex...
In your ballistari example though, there was just one comment which said "yeah, 9th vs 8th", but actually it followed with a discussion about the differences between a ballistari and a war walker which did show that there isn't really that much of a difference between the two... yeah, the ballistari is a bit better in the end, but it is also considered a broken good 9th edition model, not exactly par of the course for the edition.
So no, I don't see this general power creep.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: