The "Problem" with 40K today or, "Did GW Break 40K?"

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.

**Alpharius**

So, this thread isn't about GW's 'recent' financial woes - that thread is over here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/573800.page

Instead, this is more about the game of 40K itself, as it currently stands.

Of course, many of the reasons why 40K is in the state it is now can probably be blamed on GW's current state, but...

I stumbled across this post recently, and it pretty much sums it all up nicely, at least for me:

What I see when I look at the Tyranids codex is that GW has completely painted themselves into a corner with this edition, allies and sub-codexes.

When you put out a codex that isn't allowed to ally with anyone, all of a sudden they have a tremendous issue...the disparity between the types of armies that competitive 40k players use these days is so wide between what most would consider a 'fluffy theme list' that it's almost like two different games. There was a time when you'd go to a tournament and you'd see the guys who were playing army lists that they built just cause they liked the way the army looked, and those guys would get their butts handed to them, but their armies weren't THAT far from being viable. Now, with allies, and sub-codexes allying with their parent codex, etc, you're getting insane deathstar special rules combos, 2++ re-rolls, etc...the 'casual' army guy just gets utterly blown out of the water now.

I honestly don't think that GW even recognizes all the insane combos that combining codexes provides, or if they do, they just don't care like they don't care about how stupid D weapons are for no additional points cost (compared to other weapons Lords of War can take).

So against most armies built from a single codex, I think the Tyranids have a fighting chance...but when you run up against a Broadside unit joined by a Buffmander and an allied Farseer casting perfect timing, you're now talking about shooting units that can obliterate one MC a turn pretty much no matter what. So what the heck does GW do at this point since Tyranids don't ally with anyone per GW's own fluff reasons? Do they make the codex so amazingly powerful that it can walk over most over single-codex builds to compensate? If so, what happens if people are playing in a non-ally setting or GW later goes and cancels or limits allies (like they could with 7th edition)? All of a sudden then the Tyranid codex becomes perhaps *too* powerful.

The other common suggestion is that they should have just let the Tyranids ally with themselves...because all of a sudden the way to 'balance' things is to completely break the force org chart and that's the *only* way to save the day?

It's just nuts. GW have broken their game.

You can still have fluffy themed games as long as both players purposely agree to play that way. Or you can play competitively (with most armies), using allies, etc, but those 'armies' sure don't look like anything you've ever seen or read about in GW's background.

And that's really what it comes down to. Any game system is going to be competitive if players have access to the same units; they can always find similar types of things to pit against each other and play in a competitive environment. But those competitive armies do not match the background of the game anymore, and once you've hit the point where your game rules fail to represent the fiction the game is drawn from, then you have failed as a game based on it's background (which 40k is supposed to be).

The problem now seems to be - what's the way back for GW and 40K?

**filbert**

It's an excellent summary of the state of 40k currently.

Personally, I think nothing short of a full reboot of the rules - from the ground up - would be enough to stop the rot but I think there is little appetite for that, both internally at GW because of the cost involved in doing it, and externally with the fanbase, because imagine how pissed off people are going to be at having to buy rulebooks and codexes yet again, so soon after 6th.

It's a delicate situation for GW. Stick with the status quo and accept the flaws in the edition and try to fix them next go around or be pro- active in trying to solve them now at the risk of alienating customers further.

**EVIL INC**

To be honest, GW could get rid of 95% of the problem with allies by removing the battle brothers aspect.

Bugs can pretty much do anything the other armies can through biomorphs and then some so the oly thing they are missing out on are the possible extra slots.
To fix that, let them ally with themselves or bring out the genestealer cults and let them be allies. From the looks of it though, with them bringing out the 3 sub-codices for bugs, it looks like that will be covered.

The article appears to just be another sour grapes one that can be added to the list of others. If GW were to wake up and learn some basic econmonics, they wouldlearn that just jacking up prices and tossing out unready product is notthe way to increase revenues. Lowering rices would being them an expoinential ammount of new customers and revenue and being more careful of what they release to ensure it has been playtested properly (heck, even proofREAD would help) would ensure more customers stayed customers and increase stability.

**Alpharius**

If GW stays the GW that is in there today, there's no doubt that they'll just be 'sticking with it' and release more incomplete Codices, DLC and expansions that further tilt the balance even more out of whack.

I wonder what the weekly "White Dwarf" will end up doing to the game as a whole if there really are going to be new rules in it as well.

Especially as it is not something that is going to be widely available...

**sgtpjbarker**

I don't think I have ever seen GW print anything about supporting the kind of GT game we all play here in the states. I have seen them print in a White Dwarf and the BRB that they want the game to be non competitive and that you should just play to have fun. I think they have added all the data slates, D weapons, and fortifications because they want the game to be fun and more exciting. I have to agree with them. I have played the game with the new stuff and it has made it like no game I have ever played. The added units make it into a richer and more complex game that is fun and unpredictable. The game that it's rival, Warmahordes is very competitive, but every game is a "line up my toys and walk across the board" kind of game. It is played on a 4 x 4 with little art or style of maneuver. The players all say Horses are a joy so don't play them competitively so I know that game suffers from the, " why bother making that model" syndrome, but that is my favorite kind of unit. My biggest issues is that, the one unit the would make the game competitive is outclassed by the rule set. I would submit that the game GW makes is much more a game and much more fluid in game play than any I have played to date.

**Alpharius**

Interesting summary...but then I've also yet to see a convincing argument that a balanced game that would work on a competitive/tournament level would be a bad thing for any type of game though.

**WarOne**

I think we've already seen that GW will not balance their game for the players sake.

Rather, it does have to be balanced by the community in order to address any issues we see.

GW makes the models and lays out the rules. It's us the players who have to find a way to make it fit into our wants and dreams for what we would like to do with the two things GW provides us.

**Savageconvoy**

I'd have to disagree that GW makes a fluid or colorful game. The way GW prints it's rules alone makes me feel more like a librarian than a tactician. All the additional books just keep piling up just to add a bit of flavor onto a jumbled mess already.

Here's a good example:
I'm going to Play Tau.
-Starting off with BRB and Codex: Tau Empire.
But not just any Tau. I'm playing Farsight Enclave.
-So now BRB, Tau codex, and Farsight Enclave.
But now I want to try out these allies. I'll try Eldar.
-BRB, Tau codex, Farsight Enclave, and Eldar.
Oh, but you guessed it. I'm going to play the Eldar supplement too.
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement.
Now throw in some superfortifications and lord of war
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.

8 rule books does not make for a very casual game. There shouldn't be any game like that. Especially from a company that claims it's a model company first. When looking into the actual power imbalances in the game it's disgusting. To write it off as just rules for "casual" games is just saying you have no idea on how to make rules but still willing to charge a premium price for it.

**Zweischneid**

I think the summary is a good one, but the sequencing is probably off.

The financial report shows numbers running up to December 1st. It doesn't include the time of Escalation, crazy Christmas datasheets, etc.. .

They are, more probably, a reaction to the mess they saw coming over the past year.

The time period that shows the poor performance covers, roughly, the Eldar Codex, the new Apocalypse, the Space Marines Codex and some Fantasy stuff, most notably the massive overhaul of Dark Elves. That was, by 6th Edition standards, not yet the crazy time of Lord of War-slots and tank-hunting Riptide-formations for everyone.

The same 6th months the year before, when GW did so much better, included the Ork Flyers, a little Daemons-wave (Plaguebearers, Blue Scribes), 40K 6th Edition, Dark Vengeance and the CSM Codex.

**WarOne**

Savageconvoy wrote:
8 rule books does not make for a very casual game. There shouldn't be any game like that. Especially from a company that claims it's a model company first. When looking into the actual power imbalances in the game it's disgusting. To write it off as just rules for "casual" games is just saying you have no idea on how to make rules but still willing to charge a premium price for it.

DnD gets like that sometimes with the number of different books needed in order to play a game and have options available, but that is roleplaying which is a savage beast all unto itself.

**EVIL INC**

Savageconvoy wrote:
I'd have to disagree that GW makes a fluid or colorful game. The way GW prints it's rules alone makes me feel more like a librarian than a tactician. All the additional books just keep piling up just to add a bit of flavor onto a jumbled mess already.

Here's a good example:
I'm going to Play Tau.
-Starting off with BRB and Codex: Tau Empire.
But not just any Tau. I'm playing Farsight Enclave.
-So now BRB, Tau codex, and Farsight Enclave.
But now I want to try out these allies. I'll try Eldar.
-BRB, Tau codex, Farsight Enclave, and Eldar.
Oh, but you guessed it. I'm going to play the Eldar supplement too.
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement.
Now throw in some superfortifications and lord of war
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.

8 rule books does not make for a very casual game. There shouldn't be any game like that. Especially from a company that claims it's a model company first. When looking into the actual power imbalances in the game it's disgusting. To write it off as just rules for "casual" games is just saying you have no idea on how to make rules but still willing to charge a premium price for it.

You have a point. years ago, they did this and were always releasing new rules and such in white dwarf. In my area I was the only one with a subscription and had to bring my white dwarfs to games to use the new rules and they other guys were always mad cause i was the first to get the rules and they didnt always take the time to borrow the magazine off of me and worldwide it got so bad that after a while GW made the change to get away from that and go to the codex without those extras or to just put the extras in the codex to bgin with. Now, they have gone back that route where in order to do anything different ya gotta buy more and more books. Add to that that half of them dont have hard copies but are only available on computer readers and it is made worse. a large portion of players dont have the money to buy those fancy lil hand computers (we spend it all on models lol) and dont really have access to them.
i would say if they want to add in those extras, just hold off on the release of the codex till they are done and just put them in there to begin with.

**Savageconvoy**

Point conceded. There should be some games with 8+ books.

**WarOne**

Savageconvoy wrote:
Point conceded. There should be some games with 8+ books.

Eh...not that there should be, but because roleplaying is supposed to simulate pretty much any concept (within an alternate reality such as a fantasy setting), many, many books will be needed in order to cover all the variables, the different tastes of each player, the different campaign settings, ect.

You are correct though that for GW's 40k game specifically especially with time constraints on games to keep them manageable, 8 or more different sources gets crazy after a while.

Gonna spoil how the train can derail here:

Spoiler:

**UlrikDecado**

Savageconvoy wrote:
I'd have to disagree that GW makes a fluid or colorful game. The way GW prints it's rules alone makes me feel more like a librarian than a tactician. All the additional books just keep piling up just to add a bit of flavor onto a jumbled mess already.

Here's a good example:
I'm going to Play Tau.
-Starting off with BRB and Codex: Tau Empire.
But not just any Tau. I'm playing Farsight Enclave.
-So now BRB, Tau codex, and Farsight Enclave.
But now I want to try out these allies. I'll try Eldar.
-BRB, Tau codex, Farsight Enclave, and Eldar.
Oh, but you guessed it. I'm going to play the Eldar supplement too.
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement.
Now throw in some superfortifications and lord of war
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.

8 rule books does not make for a very casual game. There shouldn't be any game like that. Especially from a company that claims it's a model company first. When looking into the actual power imbalances in the game it's disgusting. To write it off as just rules for "casual" games is just saying you have no idea on how to make rules but still willing to charge a premium price for it.

Ahem. You just chose two armies with four supplements... Not what I call "very casual game". You remind me guy who goes to car salesman and want basic car...but with extra aircon...oh and special tyres...aaand...another engine...and of course different color...HOW MUCH? I just wanted basic model!

**Savageconvoy**

Wasn't my point that adding in supplements and expansions, to the point of feeling like a librarian, isn't exactly a casual game?

Which was the point made a few posts above. That GW markets 40K as a casual game, but makes the most confusing way of managing rules into as many books as possible.

**Makumba**

Zweischneid wrote:
I think the summary is a good one, but the sequencing is probably off.

The financial report shows numbers running up to December 1st. It doesn't include the time of Escalation, crazy Christmas datasheets, etc.. .

They are, more probably, a reaction to the mess they saw coming over the past year.

The time period that shows the poor performance covers, roughly, the Eldar Codex, the new Apocalypse, the Space Marines Codex and some Fantasy stuff, most notably the massive overhaul of Dark Elves. That was, by 6th Edition standards, not yet the crazy time of Lord of War-slots and tank-hunting Riptide-formations for everyone.

The same 6th months the year before, when GW did so much better, included the Ork Flyers, a little Daemons-wave (Plaguebearers, Blue Scribes), 40K 6th Edition, Dark Vengeance and the CSM Codex.

If sells go down in the time they bring out their flagship product the sm codex , and sm are huge part of their sells , then they are in real trouble.
Good or bad there is nothing in w40k or WFB that can compare to SM as far as sells go .

And about the books . The supplements they have now aren't what other games would call supplements . Their content should be in the codex. They are closer to DLC , but w40k is not a game . Most of the players are used too much to actual models and physical things .

**Mr Morden**

I am in two minds about this - in particular with regard to supplements...

On hand GW have, with these, done exactly what alot of us have been asking to do for a long time - bring out the Codexes quikcly and also do more unusual and intersting stuff.

The problem is not the concept but the execution, an army should be fully playable with a basic codex for the most part they are - asupplement or similar, should in my view offer you a new way of playing within your own army choice or different advantages /challenges. What it should not do is be is a automatic purchase if you want to play an army.

Now there is the ultra competative crowd who are always going to look for the most explotiotative combinations but thats just a fact of life and needs to be considered to some degree in creation of the codexes.

I am happy that we might actaul get some form of Codex fro all the armies before a new eiditon comes out plus some new stuff. I dont really understand some of the decisions behind the Codexes/Supplements however - does anyone?

We have a cool idea for the Combat Tactics for different Marine Chapters - but we don't do the same for Chaos Marine Legions, Sororitas Orders or Tryanid Hive Fleets which all would have been cool.
We have supplements for individual Companies not Chapters - why? Digital say its a Crusade butdo we get units for all the Crusade elements and enemies - nope.
We create lots of fluff about the Farsight splintering off but then let them have all the usual Tau units.............
We create Special characters int eh books but don;t actually make them in the game - except when they do - so the Farsight Enclave gets what 8 Special Characters, Iyanden and Iron Hands none - why - their fluff has them ready and able to go but no game stats?
Esculation has a eceltic selection of units - including dubious availability of the Revenant for the Dark Eldar and nothing for the Sororitas.

etc.....

**Kilkrazy**

WarOne wrote:
Savageconvoy wrote:
Point conceded. There should be some games with 8+ books.

Eh...not that there should be, but because roleplaying is supposed to simulate pretty much any concept (within an alternate reality such as a fantasy setting), many, many books will be needed in order to cover all the variables, the different tastes of each player, the different campaign settings, ect.

You are correct though that for GW's 40k game specifically especially with time constraints on games to keep them manageable, 8 or more different sources gets crazy after a while.

Gonna spoil how the train can derail here:

Spoiler:

Imagine starting your DnD adventure simple such as on Oerth with the standard fantasy tropes such as fighers, rogues, wizards, clerics, ect. You need at least four books (3 core, 1 campaign setting). One of the characters dies so he wants to reroll something special such as a monstrous humanoid fighter. You'll need the rulebook detailing monstrous humanoid characters (or the core book that might have such a character. Then as the campaign progress several of the characters want to invest in prestige classes or mutliclass. Tack on 1 or more books here. Now the challenges are not stimulating enough so you invest in other books detailing other dangers and monsters (assume another book or more). Gak gets weird as the campaign now involves other dimensions of reality which could also involve other Prime Material Plane settings. Well, you've just probably landed on book 20 or so by then so at this point you might as well have your own personal library or digital collection tabbed ad infinitum just to keep up with all the things that are now going on in the campaign setting.

You make a good point however I don’t 100% agree so I want to make some comments.

First, some might say that the D&D example shows only that the D&D people are as greedy and excessive as GW. There are plenty of (arguably equally good) games that manage with much fewer books. If you want to play Savage Worlds you just buy the core rulebook and a background book if you want one.

Another thing is that Farsight Enclave used to be in the Tau Codex. GW increased that from 64 to over 100 (?) pages yet included enough less content that they had to release it as another book? Looks like a money grab. I don’t want to bog down into price arguments, though.

If you want to play Eldar Allies too... a lot of us think it’s allies that help break the game, so we don't want to allow it. That brings the total of books down.

My final point is about Escalation and so on. Looking at the old Cities of Death supplement, it gives you detailed rules for expanding an aspect of the core game. Escalation etc introducing superheavies and fortresses with mega weapons isn’t like that. It’s more like having nuclear weapons in a modern naval war game. They exist, but the option to use them completely changes the game and makes it tactically less interesting.

To sign off, I would like people to consider that a lot of us who are moaning about the 6th edition are keen, experienced long term players who had fun throughout 4th and 5th. If we think 6th has gone badly wrong, maybe it really has.

**Alpharius**

That's a good point - I rather enjoyed 40K 4th and 5th.

6th, not so much.

Time will tell if sales continue to drop beyond this period.

If they do...

**UlrikDecado**

Savageconvoy wrote:
Wasn't my point that adding in supplements and expansions, to the point of feeling like a librarian, isn't exactly a casual game?

Which was the point made a few posts above. That GW markets 40K as a casual game, but makes the most confusing way of managing rules into as many books as possible.

Or you can just buy basic rules, codex and play. Believe me, its fun. And when you want, you can add this and that...if you need to. Extra tires...

**Tannhauser42**

Alpharius wrote:
Interesting summary...but then I've also yet to see a convincing argument that a balanced game that would work on a competitive/tournament level would be a bad thing for any type of game though.

Bad for the game? No.
Bad for GW? Yes, because they would have to be involved with the community and provide continual support and updates for the product.

The only real fix for 40K is an all new edition with all new codexes all released at the same time (let's face it, 4th - 6th are just revisions of 3rd, not actual new editions). There's nothing wrong with the idea of allies, flyers, fortifications, or superheavies in the game. It's been the integration of them into a game that wasn't originally designed for them that is causing the problems.

**Lanrak**

I believe the 40k game has broken under the strain of trying to sell too much , the current game rules simply can not cope with the variety of models GW currently want to push into it.

The rules could cope quite happily with a large skirmish game .But as time has gone on and the model count in the game kept rising.
And so the game play has move firmly into the battle game genre.

If a new rule set was written using more appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods , it would be possible to cover much more of the 40k universe, delivering more game complexity , without the over complication the rules currently suffer from.

When rules are written with clarity , brevity and elegance ,It is possible to have a 'unit creation' system where players can make up their own units and FOC s if they want to.
There would be core rules and army lists suitable for pick up and play games.
And then have expansions for narrative campains where templates for new units and FoCs for several armies could be released together.(Armies with similar play styles could be covered with one expansion book.)

So the players just buy the core rules (including basic army lists,) for 'balanced pick up games' eg suited to competitive play.

Then the expansions can take the game , (and set factions,) in set directions for more narrative fun armies.
Still fun to play and reasonably balanced forces against other forces in the same expansion.

And the really wacky match ups, (just because you want to), forces from different expansions to see what happens just for fun.

So at the very most you would need a core book and 2 expansion books, to cover the spectrum of balanced competitive play to completely wacky fun.

But the only way to fix all [i][ut]he current problems with 40k, is a complete rules re-write, focusing on game play , not short term product sales.

**Savageconvoy**

UlrikDecado wrote:

Or you can just buy basic rules, codex and play. Believe me, its fun. And when you want, you can add this and that...if you need to. Extra tires...

You're still missing the point. GW is pushing more and more books for what used to be in the standard army books while still under the premise of being a friendly casual game.
Running the standard army: One book
Wanting to use a fluffy or themed supplement (As already mentioned with Farsight by Kilkrazy): One additional book.
That's for one stand alone army.
If you want to use an ally: One additional book.
If your ally uses a themed or fluffy supplement: One additional book
If you want more than the brb fortifications: one additional book
If you want a LoW: At least one additional book until you start getting into FW territory.
Also if you want any FW units: One additional book.

You can go stock. Yes. But the company that is pushing a casual friendly game is making it difficult by adding more and more books onto the pile.
I could play without allies, but then why is GW making allies if not to enrich the casual friendly gaming experience.
I could play without supplements, but then why is GW making supplements if not to enrich the friendly gaming experience.
I could play without extra fortifications, but then why did GW release Stronghold Assault if not to enrich the friendly gaming experience.
I could play without a Lord of War, but then why did GW release Escalation if not to enrich the friendly gaming experience.
I could play without Forgeworld units, but then why did GW give them the 40K stamp of approval if not to enrich the friendly gaming experience.

The problem is that when there is the possibility to take 8+ books for a single army you have to ask were all of those really necessary, desirable, or even asked for. I don't remember anyone complaining in 5th about how they ONLY had to use two books for a standard game, maybe three or four if playing Apocalypse.

**Zothos**

The moronic inclusion of allies and superheavies have made the game rather silly.

Our gaming group does not allow these things and in turn, we are having a blast playing 6th edition.

Collectively we find it interesting reading about complaints of overpowered armies and such, when the solution is simply to us a single force org with no allies.

**Alpharius**

Yes, that is a solution - but it isn't the game of 40K that GW is promoting these days!

**Zothos**

Indeed. However what they are promoting is silly. If more people recognized and rejected such idiocy out of hand, we would not have these issues.

Allies and escalation are blatant money grabs. I dont mind a money grab from a company, but allies are an abomination to the game.

I do hope people start seeing how bad for they are for the game as a whole soon...

**AlmightyWalrus**

Alpharius wrote:
Yes, that is a solution - but it isn't the game of 40K that GW is promoting these days!

Actually, I'd argue that it is. They've been pushing the whole "make the game the way YOU want it to be played!" all 6th edition.

**Boggy Man**

I would fix Nids by writing a Gene Stealer cult BB supplement. (Of course, I'm a retro-geek, so I'd stick zoats in there somewhere.)

Fixing the rules themselves would need a complete re-write. A d-6 base is for skirmish games but tedious for large-scale battles. Otherwise, the only way to polish that turd is by yanking out rules left and right. In the end they'red be very little of substance left.

**Makumba**

Zothos wrote:
Indeed. However what they are promoting is silly. If more people recognized and rejected such idiocy out of hand, we would not have these issues.

Allies and escalation are blatant money grabs. I dont mind a money grab from a company, but allies are an abomination to the game.

I do hope people start seeing how bad for they are for the game as a whole soon...

Am not saying that the new codex are not stupid , they are . But making them illegal is a dangerous game . If escalation or stronghold is removed , then what will stop people from saying that this or that codex isn't legal too.

**StarTrotter**

Savageconvoy wrote:
I'd have to disagree that GW makes a fluid or colorful game. The way GW prints it's rules alone makes me feel more like a librarian than a tactician. All the additional books just keep piling up just to add a bit of flavor onto a jumbled mess already.

Here's a good example:
I'm going to Play Tau.
-Starting off with BRB and Codex: Tau Empire.
But not just any Tau. I'm playing Farsight Enclave.
-So now BRB, Tau codex, and Farsight Enclave.
But now I want to try out these allies. I'll try Eldar.
-BRB, Tau codex, Farsight Enclave, and Eldar.
Oh, but you guessed it. I'm going to play the Eldar supplement too.
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement.
Now throw in some superfortifications and lord of war
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.

8 rule books does not make for a very casual game. There shouldn't be any game like that. Especially from a company that claims it's a model company first. When looking into the actual power imbalances in the game it's disgusting. To write it off as just rules for "casual" games is just saying you have no idea on how to make rules but still willing to charge a premium price for it.

Don't forget the FAQ!