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.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Points efficiency is, essentially, a synonym for being overpowered, it's silly to try and draw a distinction.

Points efficiency is largely restricted to the scope of the codex, whereas overpowered makes a statement about the balance relative to other codexes.

If you lose every game spamming the best unit in your codex is that OP?

This is next level pedantry.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Points efficiency is, essentially, a synonym for being overpowered, it's silly to try and draw a distinction.

Points efficiency is largely restricted to the scope of the codex,

No it isn't. Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines vs CSM is an entirely reasonable basis for a conversation about efficiency and is in no way limited to specific books. It's utterly elementary to compare similar units across codexes and make a call on which offers greater points efficiency, a "point" isn't worth more in one codex than another.

whereas overpowered makes a statement about the balance relative to other codexes.

Yes, because, as I said, excepting a few corner cases they're the same thing.

If you lose every game spamming the best unit in your codex is that OP?

If that's the best you've got, probably better concede the point and move on dude.

The best way to prevent spam is to make sure two conditions are fulfilled.

1: Different units have different jobs, no one unit can fulfill every job at the same time.
2: Those jobs are all necessary, so that focusing on one to the exclusion of all others is a poor strategy.

Though there is a limit to what we can consider spam, mostly because outside of a very narrow definition (a list consisting entirely or almost entirely of a single unit with a single loadout) it starts to break down very quickly. Is a list with no vehicles "infantry spam", or just an infantry list? Is a Tyranid list with few or no shooting units "assault spam", or are Tyranids just a choppy army? Is a Tau list with no melee units "shooting spam", or are Tau just a shooty army? Is a parking lot list "vehicle spam", or just an armor list?

Alcibiades wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:

pismakron wrote:
The stormravenlist is not the problem. Missions without objectives to hold IS a problem.

This is really silly. Pitched Battles have been apart of war throughout history. The problem is SPAM.

If you can't play a balanced game during a pitched battle without terrain. Then the game is unbalanced.

Spamming a whole flyer list should be against the rules.

They need restrictive rules on Spam.

Spam has also been a part of war throughout history.

"Oh man, how can I deal with all those hoplites? Hoplites OP."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There should be a peltist tax.

Because most of warfare is fought with men. And you are in correct. Especially in modern warfare. They have huge arrary of tools units artillary tanks jets etc. They don't just use Jets. Though often air suprurity is the first option. But it does not work unless you can paint a target. Thus unit diversity




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
The best way to prevent spam is to make sure two conditions are fulfilled.

1: Different units have different jobs, no one unit can fulfill every job at the same time.
2: Those jobs are all necessary, so that focusing on one to the exclusion of all others is a poor strategy.

Though there is a limit to what we can consider spam, mostly because outside of a very narrow definition (a list consisting entirely or almost entirely of a single unit with a single loadout) it starts to break down very quickly. Is a list with no vehicles "infantry spam", or just an infantry list? Is a Tyranid list with few or no shooting units "assault spam", or are Tyranids just a choppy army? Is a Tau list with no melee units "shooting spam", or are Tau just a shooty army? Is a parking lot list "vehicle spam", or just an armor list?

I think the same unit type over and over and over and over again that is not infantry. Seems to be fluff breaking Thus it seems to annoy some people.

 ForceChoke wrote:
\Because most of warfare is fought with men. And you are in correct. Especially in modern warfare. They have huge arrary of tools units artillary tanks jets etc. They don't just use Jets. Though often air suprurity is the first option. But it does not work unless you can paint a target. Thus unit diversity

This is 40k, not the real world. In the real world we have to use infantry because we can't just slaughter everything in our path. We have to care about not killing civilians, wiping cities off the map, etc. That's not true in 40k. Civilian casualties in a battle are an extra bonus, as every civilian killed on the battlefield is one less civilian that has to be rounded up and exterminated once you win the war. So yes, it's entirely thematic to have a 40k army that consists of nothing but aircraft. The army gets air superiority, bombs every target into rubble, and leaves only burning ruins in its wake.

PS: this rather obscure and poorly known battle would seem to be a counter to your idea that battles aren't fought with aircraft alone.

Frankie and Reece on the podcast 547 start gaking on Tau again. Reece... are you crazy? Yea spam lists are a problem, but you list the Tau commander spam list despite the fact that is easily gets swept by flyer spam lists? Man you have got to have some serious data to make those claims. Show me the numbers and data.

Have you seen the insane loss rates of the Tau all across the internet? Not just suit spam from 7th but proxied lists with commanders and other lists too not doing great?

I get it you don't like spam lists I don't either, but if you kill this list for the Tau its over from a competitive stand point. You need to look past your own ideas of what Tau are to see how bad they are right now. Forget 7th it's gone. Look at how bad they are now.

Starts around 17:41 ish.

He is very committed to his Tau are "fine" angle. I will hand him that.

Im inclined to think that most Tau players aren't yet adjusted to the idea of lots of Fire Warriors. Vehicles and "monster" type units have gotten expnsive, and I'd imagine that some of their combo habits are hard to break.

I loved to see that stormraven list run into a necron gauss pylon.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:
\Because most of warfare is fought with men. And you are in correct. Especially in modern warfare. They have huge arrary of tools units artillary tanks jets etc. They don't just use Jets. Though often air suprurity is the first option. But it does not work unless you can paint a target. Thus unit diversity

This is 40k, not the real world. In the real world we have to use infantry because we can't just slaughter everything in our path. We have to care about not killing civilians, wiping cities off the map, etc. That's not true in 40k. Civilian casualties in a battle are an extra bonus, as every civilian killed on the battlefield is one less civilian that has to be rounded up and exterminated once you win the war. So yes, it's entirely thematic to have a 40k army that consists of nothing but aircraft. The army gets air superiority, bombs every target into rubble, and leaves only burning ruins in its wake.

PS: this rather obscure and poorly known battle would seem to be a counter to your idea that battles aren't fought with aircraft alone.

How is that fun?

 ForceChoke wrote:
How is that fun?

How is playing your ideal list with lots of infantry spam fun? How is playing a list without a ton of flyers fun?

Being a MtG player my first thought was three 500 point submitted sideboards and five to ten minutes to read your opponent's main list and decide on and submit which sideboard you intend to use.
Was still thinking that when I tagged Sideboard in the vote.
As somebody pointed out though such a move probably wouldn't help anything much, probably just make it harder to convince new blood to buy in.

Got a reminder on Facebook of just how much advertising happens with Wizards employing Deadpool's ironic idea of "Maximum Effort" in the month leading up to each new set of cards and how much information is spread and gathered in every card spoiler.

That and the release of the new Rules and Indexes made me think a yearly or even two year edition schedual would be wonderful for "balance", the best balance I've found is when everyone is still adapting.
Couple of bright shiney new toys for each army, booksales that don't stay relevant long enough to have resale value, everybody back on level ground and less people with five years of grief to rage about might bring new players into the game.
Also with consistent practice GW might get good at making balanced units and writing balanced rules or at least have those few months where people believe there is balance - even MtG gets it wrong every now and again.

Honestly a sideboard would just be a cool thing in general, like you WANT to bring all your models so maybe you'd get a chance to use them. It kinda fits the reinforcements theme.

Sideboards don't work in 40k because of the point increment problem. It's simple in MTG because every deck has the same one-card increment for adding or removing stuff. So you give everyone the same 25% of your total deck, and everyone swaps single cards in and out at a 1:1 ratio. But that can't be done in 40k because not all units/upgrades have the same cost increment. If you have, say, a 250 point sideboard then many armies aren't going to hit that 250 points exactly. They might have a 150 point unit and a 75 point unit, and 25 points wasted. Then the units in their list that they want to swap out might be 165 points and 70 points, so now they have to lose even more points and play at a lower point total after sideboarding. It's just really awkward to get the swaps to work out right and if you manage to get effective use out of your sideboard it's probably due to sheer luck rather than good skill in list construction.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sideboards don't work in 40k because of the point increment problem. It's simple in MTG because every deck has the same one-card increment for adding or removing stuff. So you give everyone the same 25% of your total deck, and everyone swaps single cards in and out at a 1:1 ratio. But that can't be done in 40k because not all units/upgrades have the same cost increment. If you have, say, a 250 point sideboard then many armies aren't going to hit that 250 points exactly. They might have a 150 point unit and a 75 point unit, and 25 points wasted. Then the units in their list that they want to swap out might be 165 points and 70 points, so now they have to lose even more points and play at a lower point total after sideboarding. It's just really awkward to get the swaps to work out right and if you manage to get effective use out of your sideboard it's probably due to sheer luck rather than good skill in list construction.

I was thinking more of a side-grade kinda thing.

Seems like with this edition the main point level being built for is 2000, right? So you'd build for 2000, and then your "side-grade" is an extra 500 points you can tailor to your opponent. So kinda like a 2500 game, except 500 points are whatever your want and will change per game.

That's why PL can help. Sideboard your upgrades or units.

Alternating draft is an even better idea. Player A picks a Stormraven, Player B picks anti-air. It doesn't get more simple than that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seems like with this edition the main point level being built for is 2000, right? So you'd build for 2000, and then your "side-grade" is an extra 500 points you can tailor to your opponent. So kinda like a 2500 game, except 500 points are whatever your want and will change per game.

Again, the problem is getting multiple useful 500 point blocks. Like, say you have a 150 point unit and a 300 point unit that you want to use. You probably can't find a meaningful 50 points, so now you play every game at 2450 points. Or it could be worse, and the gap might be more than 50 points unless you throw in random powerfists and stuff just to fill up points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That's why PL can help. Sideboard your upgrades or units.

Power level does not help because you still have uneven power level increments.

Alternating draft is an even better idea. Player A picks a Stormraven, Player B picks anti-air. It doesn't get more simple than that.

And how exactly do you make that work? It's unlikely that the Stormraven and AA are going to have equal point costs.

Sideboards don't actually create balance in MtG either.

My suggestion was more edition releases.
Shiny new toys for each army.
New Indexes.
New Rulebook.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
My suggestion was more edition releases.
Shiny new toys for each army.
New Indexes.
New Rulebook.

This doesn't create balance, it creates complexity creep and change for the sake of change. New releases work in MTG because you have a very low investment in a particular set of cards, unlike the level of time and emotional investment people put into their 40k armies. So WOTC can afford to keep the complexity of the game under control by completely cutting the previous stuff out of the game when they release new sets. Imagine if GW tried that with 40k, 9th edition arrives and space marines no longer exist. And even WOTC isn't stupid enough to keep releasing new editions of the core rules. MTG has very stable and well-refined core rules, while making new 40k editions that are different enough to drive the kind of balance cycle you're talking about would mean changing tons of stuff just for the sake of changing things. The game would never get better through iterative development, and would likely become even more of a dumpster fire than the current edition.

If you all hate 8th so much, feel free to PM me regarding selling your armies, whatever they might be Nobody is forcing you to play the current edition, and if you don't appreciate it you might as well let someone who does appreciate the game have at it.

The game is not broken, you just need to rethink strategy. User error. Git gud. Maybe play the thing for more than a month and realize that the old tactics don't work as well in this edition - this has happened 7 times now. We should all be familiar with this.

Sorry your favorite toys keep dying. Maybe find a way to prevent that with your own tactics instead of nerfing everyone who isn't you.

 Jarl of Vashon wrote:
If you all hate 8th so much, feel free to PM me regarding selling your armies, whatever they might be Nobody is forcing you to play the current edition, and if you don't appreciate it you might as well let someone who does appreciate the game have at it.

IOW, "POSITIVE COMMENTS ONLY I REFUSE TO ACCEPT CRITICISM OF MY BELOVED GAME".

The game is not broken, you just need to rethink strategy. User error. Git gud. Maybe play the thing for more than a month and realize that the old tactics don't work as well in this edition - this has happened 7 times now. We should all be familiar with this.

Sorry your favorite toys keep dying. Maybe find a way to prevent that with your own tactics instead of nerfing everyone who isn't you.

You might have a point if the criticism of 8th was only coming from people who couldn't win as much with their 7th edition armies and tactics, but there are plenty of us criticizing 8th edition for entirely legitimate reasons. I mean, I play IG FFS, I could easily drop a conscript horde or melee Baneblade stupidity or whatever on people and win games, but I still think 8th is terrible.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seems like with this edition the main point level being built for is 2000, right? So you'd build for 2000, and then your "side-grade" is an extra 500 points you can tailor to your opponent. So kinda like a 2500 game, except 500 points are whatever your want and will change per game.

Again, the problem is getting multiple useful 500 point blocks. Like, say you have a 150 point unit and a 300 point unit that you want to use. You probably can't find a meaningful 50 points, so now you play every game at 2450 points. Or it could be worse, and the gap might be more than 50 points unless you throw in random powerfists and stuff just to fill up points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
That's why PL can help. Sideboard your upgrades or units.

Power level does not help because you still have uneven power level increments.

Alternating draft is an even better idea. Player A picks a Stormraven, Player B picks anti-air. It doesn't get more simple than that.

And how exactly do you make that work? It's unlikely that the Stormraven and AA are going to have equal point costs.

People already try to fill points with maybe useless upgrades simply because it feels nice to get as close as possible. That would mostly mean you kinda plan for what you need (So 500 ready for Anti-Swarm, Tank, Objective Grabbing, etc). I don't really think it's as much a problem as you'd like to believe. The only issue I can think of is that, until a perfect balance is achieved, it's plausibly a win-more button for certain armies.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:
How is that fun?

How is playing your ideal list with lots of infantry spam fun? How is playing a list without a ton of flyers fun?

sorry, maybe I was not clear. Personally I like at least 3 troop choices. And then armor support then eltes etc. Never run flyers myself never have never will feel it ruins the spirit of the game.

I definitely have criticisms of all the editions, but this happens every time a new edition is dropped. People hate it until they figure out how it works, and in the meantime spam and cheese takes the cake. The game has never been balanced, and the power shifts from edition to edition are how GW forces long term universe narrative. That is why strategy is key, and also how infantry can take down superheavy stuff that they are widely outpointed by without getting squibbed.

If you don't like it, play Malifaux or Hordes or something instead. Vote with your dollars (or euros or rands or rupees or whatever you feel like using) and sell me the armies you don't need anymore.

It's only been a month. Growing pains are expected. Opening up salt mines over some rule changes, however, is just angsty teenager gak.

 ForceChoke wrote:
Never run flyers myself never have never will feel it ruins the spirit of the game.

And IMO not having flyers ruins the spirit of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jarl of Vashon wrote:
The game has never been balanced, and the power shifts from edition to edition are how GW forces long term universe narrative.

No, it has nothing to do with GW forcing long term universe narrative. Good and bad units happen apparently at random, there is absolutely no tie to any narrative events. It is purely a result of GW's rule authors being incompetent.

That is why strategy is key, and also how infantry can take down superheavy stuff that they are widely outpointed by without getting squibbed.

Err, what? What does that have to do with anything involving balance or edition changes?

If you don't like it, play Malifaux or Hordes or something instead. Vote with your dollars (or euros or rands or rupees or whatever you feel like using) and sell me the armies you don't need anymore.

IOW, "POSITIVE COMMENTS ONLY IF YOU DON'T LOVE MY GAME GTFO".

Opening up salt mines over some rule changes, however, is just angsty teenager gak.

Thank you for proving my point. You are dismissing legitimate criticism of 8th edition as "opening up salt mines" and "angsty teenager gak", and that is not acceptable behavior.

In nearly thirty years Magic the Gathering hasn't discovered the unshakable formula for balance.
Centuries old IGoUGo board games haven't got it either.
You don't need to create complexity just to bring out a new edition or did you forget how much of the current edition is copy/pasted from older 40k editions and Age of Sigmar?
Blending together things that worked got us 8th.
Hell, in considering 9th edition you could take a shot at making 7th/6th not a dumpster fire.
Yeah we might end up with an edition or two of dumpster fires but we just had two straight editions of that so even the knowledge that we'd only have to put up with a year or two of each dumpster fire is an improvement in its own right.

The Indexes needed some proof reading and maybe some re-arranging, unless you - like me - were happy to run a stanley knife down the spine of yours and use a printer and display folders to get easy use. Frankly they're still better than the overpriced Codexes from 7th and five new indexes for each edition means each new edition is a fresh chance at balanced units even if nothing else changes.

If there's a plan to phase current marines out for the lackluster Primaris Marines it's either a really long-term goal or as lackluster as the Primaris Marines themselves.
Some examples of shiny new toys for every army.

#9th edition
Starter kit - Sisters of Battle vs Traitor Guard (even monopose snapfit is better than metal).
Update a few metal kits to plastic, most Xenos and Chaos armies have them.
Update a few failcast kits to plastic, most Xenos and Chaos armies have them.
As for armies that are fairly up to date a different kind of Drone, some different posed Fen Mutts, Winged Jump Packs and a new Bike kit will probably see you through.

Legit criticisms are fine. There are definitely plenty to be made. After all, the game was created by humans. This is one of the most polarizing releases I've seen for 40k. MOST people I talk to love it and think the changes have been a long time coming. A good chunk hate it though and wanted a reboot already. I'm just gonna play it for a few months at least before I start calling for nerfs or rewrites, because after all, those fallible humans have made a career out of creating a universe and game that I love and spend WAY too much money on. They just might have a reason for doing things the way they did. We don't even have codices yet for frack's sake.

If you don't like the rule sets for the army or unit you played in the past, there's probably other armies or units you might like better now. I used to play Orks exclusively. I have since moved on because I didn't like how Orks played in 7th, so in 7th I played Nurgle. Nurgle now is definitely competitive but lost the appeal in my eyes, so I switched to Space Wolves. Still on the fence for them, but I've never been interested in marines much.

It's a game. If you don't like a unit's rules, fill the gap with something else. If you have an opponent with a particularly annoying rule set, make them your next target. Like I keep saying, find the weak spots. Sure, you might get your booty kicked for awhile, but how gratifying will it be when it all clicks? And how boring would it be if nothing ever changed?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
In nearly thirty years Magic the Gathering hasn't discovered the unshakable formula for balance.
Centuries old IGoUGo board games haven't got it either.

No, but they have come far closer than GW can even dream of. Don't fall into the trap of "nobody has perfect balance, so balance doesn't matter".

You don't need to create complexity just to bring out a new edition or did you forget how much of the current edition is copy/pasted from older 40k editions and Age of Sigmar?

No, you don't need to add complexity for a new edition. It's possible to have a new edition simplify the game. But you do have to add complexity to have your proposal for having more new releases. You can't remove the old stuff MTG-style, so every new release adds more complexity to the game.

Yeah we might end up with an edition or two of dumpster fires but we just had two straight editions of that so even the knowledge that we'd only have to put up with a year or two of each dumpster fire is an improvement in its own right.

It's not just a year or two, and that's the problem. Good game design uses an iterative development cycle where you start from a clear vision of the game and each new edition fixes the problems of the previous edition and brings it closer to your design goals. As the cycle continues the changes get smaller and smaller as you converge on your ideal game, and at some point you stop having new editions because there's no more reason to change the rules. That's what MTG has done with their core rules, over time they've settled on their final version of the core rules and that's it. But when you're making major changes each edition in an effort to shake up the metagame you're never learning from your previous mistakes. Each edition throws out the lessons of the past in favor of something completely new and untested. 9th would be a dumpster fire, 10th would be a dumpster fire, and so on indefinitely. And if by some miracle GW managed to stumble into a decent version of the rules they'd be obligated to destroy it and replace it with another dumpster fire, or be forced to abandon their entire business model. So not only would your proposal mean being stuck with a dumpster fire in the immediate future, it would mean the end of any hope that the situation ever gets better.

#9th edition
Starter kit - Sisters of Battle vs Traitor Guard (even monopose snapfit is better than metal).
Update a few metal kits to plastic, most Xenos and Chaos armies have them.
Update a few failcast kits to plastic, most Xenos and Chaos armies have them.
As for armies that are fairly up to date a different kind of Drone, some different posed Fen Mutts, Winged Jump Packs and a new Bike kit will probably see you through.

That's talking about model changes, not rules changes, and model changes don't change the metagame.

So let me get this straight...

You hate GW's business model.
You think practically every edition is a dumpster fire.
You anticipate all future editions to be dumpster fires.
You clearly don't enjoy the game.

Yet you are still in the hobby.

I don't follow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also don't understand the comparison between a deck building card game and tabletop wargaming. Talk about Apples and Oranges. More like Apples and Sausages. Not just different games, different types of games, different target demographics, different literally everything about them beyond being games.

 Jarl of Vashon wrote:
You anticipate all future editions to be dumpster fires.

No, you missed the point there. That was a response to Dakka Wolf's proposed future path for 40k, not the real game. I do anticipate future editions to be dumpster fires like 8th until GW fires their entire "game design" staff as they should have done years ago and replaces them with competent people, but things could get better. They absolutely won't under Dakka Wolf's proposal.

I also don't understand the comparison between a deck building card game and tabletop wargaming. Talk about Apples and Oranges. More like Apples and Sausages. Not just different games, different types of games, different target demographics, different literally everything about them beyond being games.

The comparison is relevant because the common claim is that 40k is impossible to balance because of its complexity. Games like MTG manage to have vastly higher complexity but also have much better balance and rules that function without any ambiguity. The differences between the genres aren't relevant to this specific problem.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
In nearly thirty years Magic the Gathering hasn't discovered the unshakable formula for balance.
Centuries old IGoUGo board games haven't got it either.

No, but they have come far closer than GW can even dream of. Don't fall into the trap of "nobody has perfect balance, so balance doesn't matter".

I'm not saying balance is impossible so give it up, perfection is just another word for stagnant.
Wizards are doing the best possible things with their releases of MtG and even Wizards constantly tweaks the core rules.
The new GW is making those tweaks.
I'm saying that with a constant edition schedule GW would be able to either bring up a new method or go back to an old method that worked with a few new ideas or even take another crack at an edition that did not work with better ideas.

You don't need to create complexity just to bring out a new edition or did you forget how much of the current edition is copy/pasted from older 40k editions and Age of Sigmar?

No, you don't need to add complexity for a new edition. It's possible to have a new edition simplify the game. But you do have to add complexity to have your proposal for having more new releases. You can't remove the old stuff MTG-style, so every new release adds more complexity to the game.

I think you're going to have to seperate your complexities before I tackle that one. If the new edition simplifies and streamlines the game it doesn't add complexity.

Yeah we might end up with an edition or two of dumpster fires but we just had two straight editions of that so even the knowledge that we'd only have to put up with a year or two of each dumpster fire is an improvement in its own right.

It's not just a year or two, and that's the problem. Good game design uses an iterative development cycle where you start from a clear vision of the game and each new edition fixes the problems of the previous edition and brings it closer to your design goals. As the cycle continues the changes get smaller and smaller as you converge on your ideal game, and at some point you stop having new editions because there's no more reason to change the rules. That's what MTG has done with their core rules, over time they've settled on their final version of the core rules and that's it. But when you're making major changes each edition in an effort to shake up the metagame you're never learning from your previous mistakes. Each edition throws out the lessons of the past in favor of something completely new and untested. 9th would be a dumpster fire, 10th would be a dumpster fire, and so on indefinitely. And if by some miracle GW managed to stumble into a decent version of the rules they'd be obligated to destroy it and replace it with another dumpster fire, or be forced to abandon their entire business model. So not only would your proposal mean being stuck with a dumpster fire in the immediate future, it would mean the end of any hope that the situation ever gets better.

That's pretty cynical even by my standards.
You don't throw out the lessons of the past you file them for later examination, I might be giving GW more credit than they deserve but even Wizards still make tweaks because their system isn't a finished product.
Games Workshop has only just conceeded that like-it-or-not they are game designers. A few editions of the release schedule and they might stumble on two or three bases they can swap between with an improvement on each as they go back to revisit it. As far as I'm concerned 8th is a solid enough base to consider it their first stumble onto the goods.

#9th edition
Starter kit - Sisters of Battle vs Traitor Guard (even monopose snapfit is better than metal).
Update a few metal kits to plastic, most Xenos and Chaos armies have them.
Update a few failcast kits to plastic, most Xenos and Chaos armies have them.
As for armies that are fairly up to date a different kind of Drone, some different posed Fen Mutts, Winged Jump Packs and a new Bike kit will probably see you through.

That's talking about model changes, not rules changes, and model changes don't change the metagame.