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.

nou wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

nou wrote:

Like it or not, 8th ed 40K is thriving because many people like it immensely.

Sorry to jump in, just an observation about this - an high number of people liking something does not mean that this something is good.
Look, as an example, at the current state of "popcorn" cinema.

Well, that is a fundamental question to ask really - what constitutes something is "good". What I'm arguing is that in case of commercial enterprises, popularity is the key factor in being "good enough". I tend to exclude personal taste and far ends of normal distribution from all my analysis, as those usually bear no statistical significance. Just to remind you all who read my posts - I do not like and do not play 8th anymore. I "borrowed" bits of it into "my 7.5th" but otherwise it is just not a game that I find entertaining. But I also don't like many other "good games" or "good things" in general and often see virtues in things that are very unpopular. I suppose your and mine POV on "state of popcorn cinema" also vary greatly, judging from the tone of your sentence on this subject...

In modern "popcorn" cinema, we generally have rehashes that only superficially borrow from an original to deliver a shallow product. See Covenant vs the original Alien, to say.
BTW same director and good visuals anyway for most part, but less creative, and fundamentally different writers.
The fandom mentality created a sense of "belonging" that obfuscates any critical thinking about how the money are spent on the product. "Just turn off your brain, dude".
Does it remember you anything?
To bring the point home, the good old SMBC

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's what it all comes down to: taste, imo.

The problem with taste is that it's subjective.

Thus, whether or not a game is good or not is subjective, at least if you abandon "popularity" as the metric by which goodness is measured.

Saying "8th is a bad game" is comparatively meaningless, because someone could equally say "8th is a good game!" and have just as much rationale as the first statement: "My sense of taste is satisfied/not satisfied."

This is normally a good thing, because people naturally gravitate towards things that they believe are good, and repel things that they believe are bad. One might suspect that this would result in the people who participate in a hobby being fairly likeminded.

Unfortunately, however, 40k does not, for whatever reason. Many people who don't play, and who hate the game, still participate on its hobby boards because they "can believe it can be better." Fundamentally, that means that they find the point of view of the people who like it as-is to be so abhorrent that they have to move MOUNTAINS to try to "fix" the game, instead of just being repelled because it no longer matches their subjective tastes.

Either that or you could use popularity as a metric.

Huge part of the reason why 40K community is exactly how you describe it is the amount of time and effort needed to participate in this hobby, expecially when one is an invested painter/converter. It can be hard to simply "move on" and people cope with discontent in many various ways, some of which are positive/constructive and some are not but all those ways are there to provide some degree of relief. Another thing is that 40K is a complex phenomenon, and you can be totally hooked on one aspect of it and totally despise another so it is possible to be in constant state of dissonance. Pretty much like in toxic relationships...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

nou wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

nou wrote:

Like it or not, 8th ed 40K is thriving because many people like it immensely.

Sorry to jump in, just an observation about this - an high number of people liking something does not mean that this something is good.
Look, as an example, at the current state of "popcorn" cinema.

Well, that is a fundamental question to ask really - what constitutes something is "good". What I'm arguing is that in case of commercial enterprises, popularity is the key factor in being "good enough". I tend to exclude personal taste and far ends of normal distribution from all my analysis, as those usually bear no statistical significance. Just to remind you all who read my posts - I do not like and do not play 8th anymore. I "borrowed" bits of it into "my 7.5th" but otherwise it is just not a game that I find entertaining. But I also don't like many other "good games" or "good things" in general and often see virtues in things that are very unpopular. I suppose your and mine POV on "state of popcorn cinema" also vary greatly, judging from the tone of your sentence on this subject...

In modern "popcorn" cinema, we generally have rehashes that only superficially borrow from an original to deliver a shallow product. Se Covenant vs the original Alien, to say.
BTW same director and good visuals anyway for most part, but less creative, and fundamentally different writers.
The fandom mentality created a sense of "belonging" that obfuscates any critical thinking about how the money are spent on the product. "Just turn off your brain, dude".
Does it remember you anything?
To bring the point home, the good old SMBC

Spoiler:

I really, really don't want to derail this thread and go off-topic. We could argue that some of those "rehashes" have value exactly because they are rechashes, a sort of "meta level". Or we could discuss what "popcorn cinema" actually means, as many of new and popular titles are a good piece of cinematic craft and some "intelectually demanding" high-end niche films are simply pretentious, but this is a subject for a whole new thread and a whole new flame war (to be clear, I'm NOT defending Covenant by this post )

nou wrote:

I really, really don't want to derail this thread and go off-topic. We could argue that some of those "rehashes" have value exactly because they are rechashes, a sort of "meta level". Or we could discuss what "popcorn cinema" actually means, as many of new and popular titles are a good piece of cinematic craft and some "intelectually demanding" high-end niche films are simply pretentious, but this is a subject for a whole new thread and a whole new flame war (to be clear, I'm NOT defending Covenant by this post )

Is less off-topic than you can think. I stated "pop-corn cinema" because I wanted to exclude the "niche" movies from the equation outright, with no comment whatsoever. Focus on the "popcorn one" but I used the term in no demeaning way. Hear me out.
I used Alien as an example because I see a parallelism with 40k. The original had themes, even serious ones (the rape leitmotif - of course I would never demand this from 40k, Slaanesh notwithstanding!) and was visceral, and part of the fascination was with the lovercraftian mystery. Still popcorn movie and that's fine. You can make a smart popcorn movie or a dumb one. You can make a beautiful arthouse movie or a load of pretentious nonsense. Hell I used the tem "lovercraftian". I ADORE lovercraft, but he was not a good writer. Still so influential. And so visionary, that a nobel prize like Borges homaged him with a tale he wrote.
Now look what they did with Covenant, and what are they doing with the Heresy in 40k. Is the same pornographic approach to lore and background. Feth you, mystery.
But people, at least in part, will go to watch Covenant because they want to feel the same thing of the old movie. Also, we transformed many pop-culture icons in literal memes to the point that people identify as "nerds" and will go to watch Star Wars no matter Lucas (then) or Disney (now) will put on the screen. This is, among other things, another aspect of the emotional investment you very cleverly just described. It works the other way around, too.
(Also, then I finish with the off-topic: there are rehashes with some value and thought put in. See Blade Runner 2049).

You can say the same about a ruleset.

So does the "sunk cost" or "gambler's" fallacy apply to emotion?

I get that it's a lot of time, money, effort, and emotion into an army. I have the same problem when I'm told I can't play my army for whatever reason.

But if you don't enjoy it any more, then investing even more time, effort, money, and emotional energy is just going to be painful.

It's like throwing good money after the bad.

Overall 8th feels very
"Meh"

Better then 7th? Yeah, but 7th was a fine base rule set that was destroyed by mismanagement. Works just fine for 30k.

My biggest issues are
1.Cover rules are a joke.
2.Vehical facings are a joke. My tire can totally shoot that las cannon!
3.CQC is a pain when your enemy falls back for free and then guns you down. There should at least be a check of some kind. Part of the defense of melee has always been getting stuck in so you can not be shot.
4. Primares Fluff hurts my soul, but the rest of the lore updates are honestly pretty great.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

nou wrote:

I really, really don't want to derail this thread and go off-topic. We could argue that some of those "rehashes" have value exactly because they are rechashes, a sort of "meta level". Or we could discuss what "popcorn cinema" actually means, as many of new and popular titles are a good piece of cinematic craft and some "intelectually demanding" high-end niche films are simply pretentious, but this is a subject for a whole new thread and a whole new flame war (to be clear, I'm NOT defending Covenant by this post )

Is less off-topic than you can think. I stated "pop-corn cinema" because I wanted to exclude the "niche" movies from the equation outright, with no comment whatsoever. Focus on the "popcorn one" but I used the term in no demeaning way. Hear me out.
I used Alien as an example because I see a parallelism with 40k. The original had themes, even serious ones (the rape leitmotif - of course I would never demand this from 40k, Slaanesh notwithstanding!) and was visceral, and part of the fascination was with the lovercraftian mystery. Still popcorn movie and that's fine. You can make a smart popcorn movie or a dumb one. You can make a beautiful arthouse movie or a load of pretentious nonsense. Hell I used the tem "lovercraftian". I ADORE lovercraft, but he was not a good writer. Still so influential. And so visionary, that a nobel prize like Borges homaged him with a tale he wrote.
Now look what they did with Covenant, and what are they doing with the Heresy in 40k. Is the same pornographic approach to lore and background. Feth you, mystery.
But people, at least in part, will go to watch Covenant because they want to feel the same thing of the old movie. Also, we transformed many pop-culture icons in literal memes to the point that people identify as "nerds" and will go to watch Star Wars no matter Lucas (then) or Disney (now) will put on the screen. This is, among other things, another aspect of the emotional investment you very cleverly just described. It works the other way around, too.
(Also, then I finish with the off-topic: there are rehashes with some value and thought put in. See Blade Runner 2049).

You can say the same about a ruleset.

Funnily enough, I thought about throwing Blade Runner 2049 "at you" in my previous post I think I see where you're coming from with this (IMHO still rather far stretched) analogy. One thing though - there is substantial difference between active participation and investment in hobbies like 40K and passive participation in things like, say, Marvel Cinematic Universe. It is now quite a time burden to watch all those movies released since first Iron Man to be "up to date" with every plot since, but you really don't loose anything if you decide not to follow MCU further (for whatever reason you might have) if you started in 2008. With 40K however, after couple of years of "being up to date", collecting and painting your models you have invested not only time and money - there is a strong factor of personal achievement/personal growth in 40K. Quitting 40K after few years is more akin to changing career path or parting ways with your significant other (of course to much lesser extent, but still. I'm speaking from personal experience of switching/quiting/not being able to further participate in various hobbies/professions/careers in last 20 years, including quitting 40K for 15 years) than quitting on Dr. Who after n-th season... I think what you describe is more a feeling of dissapointment with how things develop than parting/forfeiting with something you held dear.

The sunk cost mentality definetly hurts 40k in some ways. Almost everyting GW ever realeased has to be included in the newer editions of the game. People get very upset (rightfully so) when their conversions are no longer legal but it means that GW never gets rid of its luggage.

Magic has 3 ways to play as well, and between them they vary wich cards are allowed and not allowed. It's community as far as I know does not mind as much as ours does.

On the movement debate, there is more I want to say but I can't find a good way to say it so maybe later.

It amazes me how often dakka polls turn into functional bell curves. It's actually rare for that sort of distribution to be repeated so often. It shows a remarkable degree of cohesion as people are clearly listening to one another, to draw even dissenting opinions closer to the norm so consistently.

But yeah, I think CA is showing a real trend of continuous improvement for the game. I think most people still upset are either those who resent their army having to wait for their codex (which is understandable), found their own personal play style/army composition neglected, or just hate the edition at its very core and can't be swayed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Earth127 wrote:
Magic has 3 ways to play as well, and between them they vary wich cards are allowed and not allowed. It's community as far as I know does not mind as much as ours does.

That's because MTG is very clear about how cards will be invalidated over time. If you sink money into standard you are aware a lot of that value is going to be lost a few years down the line. However, when they do restrict something in modern that was previously a mainstay, you do see a lot of anger. It just doesn't happen much. They also don't dare do it in legacy, that would be anger that would make the nastiest 40k community seem nice.

I think 8th is pretty great so far. Not perfect, but pretty great.

Personally I'm glad vehicle facing is gone. How many times do I have to argue no, you don't actually see my side. Yes, you can charge backwards to keep your front armor facing a certain direction. Is the front of the sponson a part of front armor or side armor?

It simplifies things for the better. For every "my tire can totally shoot this lascannon!" it eliminates 3 "charge with my ass, swivel in ways that make no sense to keep this side facing this direction, etc"

And firing from the barrels of the gun is gone, and I'm glad too. It's hard enough trying to put my face against the table to see if my unit can see another unit. You want me to do it for every weapon on my leman russ? You want me to squint from 4 different directions? How can you even know what the hull lascannon sees? You're never behind it.

 auticus wrote:


I don't think anywhere I posted that my *opinion* was the defacto for the world. It is my *opinion*. Also never mentioned anything about wargames and simpler rules not being wargames. So take it down a couple notches there Ultimate Warrior.

Now a "wargame" has up until very recently involved two key factors that are absent from 40k. That being... maneuvering pieces being crucial, and battlefield management being key (managing terrain). In card games like Magic... or in board games like Battleship... or Dominion, or pick any of the hundreds of board games or card games that have us fighting our opponent, maneuver either doesn't exist at all (like card games) or is very benign (like board games).

So you are left with a game that, *to me*, is more similar to a board game or a card game than it is a wargame.

This has nothing, zero, nada to do with simplicity or any of the other straw man points you pulled. Dragon Rampant has a very siimple ruleset and is more of a wargame than AOS is. Kings of War has maneuver and feels like a wargame. Age of Simgar is like 40k, its more like a board game or a card game because *to me* maneuver and battlefield management don't really exist in either system. Its all about target priority (just like magic and board games) and its all about list building (deckbuilding). Gates of Antares is absolutely a wargame that feels like an actual battle being played, and not two people deckbuilding some combos and then playing them out.

Oh right, you can say anything because all OPINIONS are valid. Be that as it may, I'm still calling you out on it. How much maneuvering you feel a game has is a terrible distinction for what a board game or wargame is. Chess is a board game and it's all about maneuver.
So no, 40k is not a board game, nor is noting a perceived similarity to a board game a valid criticism of a wargame.

On this Peregrine vs nou debate: Peregrine is largely correct. It's not a particular great game, I personally prefer other games too (it's the wargaming equivalent of the marvel movies, lets not get tripped up with the analogy please). You're missing the point nou is making though.

People still like it, it might not be a test of skill or mental ability, but the experience delivered is pleasing to many people. 40k is more popular with this edition and I was already the most popular wargame ever.
I realise it's not an experience that you are looking for (nou and I feel the same), but that does not make it bad. Your criteria seem to be the reasonable for how a wargame should be judged (I like those things too), but that is not what the people GW want to sell to care about (fools, I know). You're judging a fish on it's ability to climb a tree.

8th edition? Absolutely loving it and I've been playing since the early days of Rogue Trader. I've seen what each edition brought to the table and as much as I loved 5th through 7th, 8th has become my absolute favourite.

I certainly agree that it isn't 100% perfect and that the changes are going to turn more hard core wargamers away but for the newer players to the hobby and those players who play more casual or narrative games this edition is the bee's knees. I have a much easier time remembering rules, how combo's work and just getting my head around things than I did previously. I've had better games under 8th and a lot more fun. I think the problem is that people are largely looking at 8th edition as a new edition of 40K when really you need to look at it as a whole new game. What you used to do and what you used to play will have changed so much and trying to stick to the old ways just won't work. Perhaps GW are looking at directing the game towards a different market dynamic now and hoping that established players will stick with it.

As for balance I have yet to see an unbalanced game thus far. Codex doesn't necessarily trump an Index army. Nor have I seen or played a game where I felt that the game was determined either by one army or another at the start or after the results of turn one. I have seen one what I would call an alpha strike list featuring Guilliman, a stormraven and two stormtalons but that player lost in the end because he couldn't hold the objectives.

At the end of the day, 8th edition is a fun more casual game than can be played competitively but only if you can let go of the past and have fun with it. In my opinion at least.

I think part of the issue is, as said before, the sunk cost fallacy. Which is also why I think people put up with 40k sometimes; they don't want to look stupid for spending hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars on a crappy game.

Ultimately though GW's decision to not invalidate things is going to cripple them, because it needs to be done. Look how they backtracked on the index stuff and now there's a ton of abusive combos by taking index wargear with codex updates (see: Eldar Autarch with wings and Dark Reaper launcher and the trait that lets him snipe characters).

They should have upfront said this will invalidate some model choices, but it has to be done to properly balance the game. People would still be upset, sure, but at least there'd be a valid explanation from GW about why it's being done, and I bet a lot of people would agree that it probably is for the best. It's the same reason Windows is such crap, all the legacy junk that Microsoft is forced to keep around so that crappy business still running a program written for windows 98 20 years ago can still run. It might suck but somebody who still is using models from Rogue Trader might not be able to currently use them 30 years later, nor should they expect (nay, demand) to be able to.

40K is dead to me. Been enjoying 30K, Infinity and Star Wars Armada. I'm going to try our Necromunda but have zero plans of ever playing 40K again

Oh right, you can say anything because all OPINIONS are valid. Be that as it may, I'm still calling you out on it. How much maneuvering you feel a game has is a terrible distinction for what a board game or wargame is. Chess is a board game and it's all about maneuver.
So no, 40k is not a board game, nor is noting a perceived similarity to a board game a valid criticism of a wargame.

k. You go on with your bad self.

Wayniac wrote:
I think part of the issue is, as said before, the sunk cost fallacy. Which is also why I think people put up with 40k sometimes; they don't want to look stupid for spending hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars on a crappy game.

Ultimately though GW's decision to not invalidate things is going to cripple them, because it needs to be done. Look how they backtracked on the index stuff and now there's a ton of abusive combos by taking index wargear with codex updates (see: Eldar Autarch with wings and Dark Reaper launcher and the trait that lets him snipe characters).

They should have upfront said this will invalidate some model choices, but it has to be done to properly balance the game. People would still be upset, sure, but at least there'd be a valid explanation from GW about why it's being done, and I bet a lot of people would agree that it probably is for the best. It's the same reason Windows is such crap, all the legacy junk that Microsoft is forced to keep around so that crappy business still running a program written for windows 98 20 years ago can still run. It might suck but somebody who still is using models from Rogue Trader might not be able to currently use them 30 years later, nor should they expect (nay, demand) to be able to.

GW's reasons for invalidating things is fairly obvious and it has nothing to do with game balance but what wargear comes on the sprue/sculpt. Using balance as justification to remove stuff like rough riders or autarch wargear options would just be a bold faced lie and the community could call them out on it before you could say "chapterhouse". 8th was GWs attempt to cut off the old dead weight and start fresh but in roughly 6 months we are right back with multiple source rules bloat and inconsistent game design decisions.

nou wrote:

Funnily enough, I thought about throwing Blade Runner 2049 "at you" in my previous post I think I see where you're coming from with this (IMHO still rather far stretched) analogy. One thing though - there is substantial difference between active participation and investment in hobbies like 40K and passive participation in things like, say, Marvel Cinematic Universe. It is now quite a time burden to watch all those movies released since first Iron Man to be "up to date" with every plot since, but you really don't loose anything if you decide not to follow MCU further (for whatever reason you might have) if you started in 2008. With 40K however, after couple of years of "being up to date", collecting and painting your models you have invested not only time and money - there is a strong factor of personal achievement/personal growth in 40K. Quitting 40K after few years is more akin to changing career path or parting ways with your significant other (of course to much lesser extent, but still. I'm speaking from personal experience of switching/quiting/not being able to further participate in various hobbies/professions/careers in last 20 years, including quitting 40K for 15 years) than quitting on Dr. Who after n-th season... I think what you describe is more a feeling of dissapointment with how things develop than parting/forfeiting with something you held dear.

Your analysis may be correct and explain more the phenomenon than the fanboyism - I can concede this without any problem.
Nonetheless, I think that the fanboy culture has been pushed somehow in the, as I call it, post Big-Bang-Theory world in which "nerdity" has been made more normal because is easier to have consumers in this way. Look what happened to Star Wars (that was just a nice overrated space opera movie before*).
If what I say looks too far fetched again, I can argue that GW brought it to a whole new level. "Hire for attitude"
The design team is composed by "exalted" fanboys, and their creativity, enthusiasm and complete amateur approach is reflected in the product.
A positive loop between fanboys if you wish. This can explain the Black Library, too!

*not completely correct because merchandising started from day 2 and Sir Alec Guinness understood it from day 0.

I'm kinda unclear on how removing units from the game is in service of improving the game as a whole, or even reducing overall game bloat. I fail to see how the removal of rough riders from the rules improved the game as a whole for example.

You can argue having the courage to remove things is good, but to what end? Magic does it because it prevents the artificial rarity of their products from swelling the price of said cards to the point it's impossible for a newcomer to enter the game. What purpose does it serve specifically in context of 40k?

SilverAlien wrote:
I'm kinda unclear on how removing units from the game is in service of improving the game as a whole, or even reducing overall game bloat. I fail to see how the removal of rough riders from the rules improved the game as a whole for example.

You can argue having the courage to remove things is good, but to what end? Magic does it because it prevents the artificial rarity of their products from swelling the price of said cards to the point it's impossible for a newcomer to enter the game. What purpose does it serve specifically in context of 40k?

Well, not one of game play at all. It's just so GW can grip its IP in a stranglehold and try in vain to stave off third-party manufacturers. In my opinion a poor decision all around.

After Dumpster Approved i bought Blood Bowl, and its SUCH a breath of fresh air, TONS of fun, 40k just ended up being frustateing.

My club embraced BB so easely aswell, guess i wasent the only one getting burned out.

 Luciferian wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
I'm kinda unclear on how removing units from the game is in service of improving the game as a whole, or even reducing overall game bloat. I fail to see how the removal of rough riders from the rules improved the game as a whole for example.

You can argue having the courage to remove things is good, but to what end? Magic does it because it prevents the artificial rarity of their products from swelling the price of said cards to the point it's impossible for a newcomer to enter the game. What purpose does it serve specifically in context of 40k?

Well, not one of game play at all. It's just so GW can grip its IP in a stranglehold and try in vain to stave off third-party manufacturers. In my opinion a poor decision all around.

As good as GW is doing, Asmodee still more than doubled its profit. They are making strides to be sure, but I am not convinced they will be able to knock off Xwing, You do usually see new editions do quite well in every game, staying power is more impressive. Even D&D 4th edition (roundly considered pure trash) sold very well when it came out. Dark Vengeance did very well when it first debut as well.

SilverAlien wrote:
I'm kinda unclear on how removing units from the game is in service of improving the game as a whole, or even reducing overall game bloat. I fail to see how the removal of rough riders from the rules improved the game as a whole for example.

You can argue having the courage to remove things is good, but to what end? Magic does it because it prevents the artificial rarity of their products from swelling the price of said cards to the point it's impossible for a newcomer to enter the game. What purpose does it serve specifically in context of 40k?

It lowers the barrier of entry for new players. It's a real pain in the ass for the best models to be ones that don't even exist and you have to go hunting on 3rd party bitz sites to find the pieces for.

I've been playing 40K since 2nd edition, and I've to say 8th is the best edition thus far. Though I still have to say it is unbalanced, yet sufficiently fun. It is just that the level of imbalance is much more tolerable; the difference between the top units and armies and bottom tier trash is way lesser than in many previous editions.

I liked most of the streamlining of the core rules, though I have to say they wen't too far with the terrain. I also did not like the removal of weapon options in the indices, and I was really disappointed that with codices there often were not more gear options, there was even less! Having a lot of gear options is the sort of complexity I like, simply for the reason that it allows personalising the models more. On the other hand I feel the codices have added some unneeded complexity and created some balance issues. I was afraid that this would happen when they announced subfaction traits for all armies; some traits would simply be vastly better than others making some subfactions no-brainer choices from competitive perspective. And of course this was exactly what happened. Frankly, I think the game would have been better without such traits.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
I'm kinda unclear on how removing units from the game is in service of improving the game as a whole, or even reducing overall game bloat. I fail to see how the removal of rough riders from the rules improved the game as a whole for example.

You can argue having the courage to remove things is good, but to what end? Magic does it because it prevents the artificial rarity of their products from swelling the price of said cards to the point it's impossible for a newcomer to enter the game. What purpose does it serve specifically in context of 40k?

It lowers the barrier of entry for new players. It's a real pain in the ass for the best models to be ones that don't even exist and you have to go hunting on 3rd party bitz sites to find the pieces for.

"Kitbashing is scary. In the grim darkness of GWs future, there is only monopose."

I like 8th. It has a lot going for it....enough to bring me back after 14 years. I still play 2nd.

Building a list for 8th is more fun. Playing 2nd is more fun.

I get tired of rolling hundreds of dice....even moreso the rerolls.

I get annoyed that no matter how you 'protect' a unit with vehicle screens or bubble wrap your opponent can shoot at whatever it seems almost always.

ofc the cover rules and lack of LOS barriers are an issue.

Less dice, some type of target priorities, better terrain rules and (all weapons outside of flamers and pistols should shoot farther than 12 "...If I can move about double my weapons range...there is a problem)

Actually, that is another thing that has really bugged me about 40K this year.
We have seen nothing but a solid year of Marine releases for 40K. New 'better' marines, 'better' marines sneaky guys, 'better' marines jumppack guys, 'better' marines bastardised hybrid skimmer tank, etc. Of course, we have also had Chaos releases, but they have also been marines, so that doesnt really count...
In the meantime, as Marines are getting their billionth undeserved (loyalist anyway) update and new line (and then you wonder why they sell well?) SoB players are still stuck with £5.50 - a - model 23 year old monopose models, Guard are still using 16 - 18 year old infantry and vehicles and several xenos races are also showing their age.
It would be nice to see something other than marines and bolterporn being shoved in my face every once in a while.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Actually, that is another thing that has really bugged me about 40K this year.
We have seen nothing but a solid year of Marine releases for 40K. New 'better' marines, 'better' marines sneaky guys, 'better' marines jumppack guys, 'better' marines bastardised hybrid skimmer tank, etc. Of course, we have also had Chaos releases, but they have also been marines, so that doesnt really count...
In the meantime, as Marines are getting their billionth undeserved (loyalist anyway) update and new line (and then you wonder why they sell well?) SoB players are still stuck with £5.50 - a - model 23 year old monopose models, Guard are still using 16 - 18 year old infantry and vehicles and several xenos races are also showing their age.
It would be nice to see something other than marines and bolterporn being shoved in my face every once in a while.

Well, we know there's going to be some new Nurgle daemons early next year so there's that.

Wake me up when you add an option for playing older editions and not being incentivized to even pick up the current game.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
I'm kinda unclear on how removing units from the game is in service of improving the game as a whole, or even reducing overall game bloat. I fail to see how the removal of rough riders from the rules improved the game as a whole for example.

You can argue having the courage to remove things is good, but to what end? Magic does it because it prevents the artificial rarity of their products from swelling the price of said cards to the point it's impossible for a newcomer to enter the game. What purpose does it serve specifically in context of 40k?

It lowers the barrier of entry for new players. It's a real pain in the ass for the best models to be ones that don't even exist and you have to go hunting on 3rd party bitz sites to find the pieces for.

I've started all my armies only because of the possibility of conversions

I hate monopose models and in fact I consider all the triumvirate guys, the death guard and primaris the ugliest miniatures in GW history, thousand sons are quite awful as well. All of them don't offer many possibilities of doing customizations and conversions.

I've created my own models that don't exist as official models since 3rd edition when I was 14 years old. For someone this may be a pain in the ass, for me it's the first reason I started collecting and playing my armies.

nou wrote:
This is pretty much the answer I was predicting from you, on all accounts. Please, reread my previous post carefully and try for once LEARN something new about the world... Just to clear two things for you:

I've learned plenty. I've simply learned your opinion, then discarded it as wrong.

1.) Strategic depth as you described is pure mathematical depth in context of game theory. Rulesets of all sorts are pretty much camouflaging basic game theory concepts into more or less obscure artificial decision making setup. As long as you cannot invent new actions mid-game, all games are games theory subjects and even if you can invent new actions mid-game you can approach such anvironment from a game theory standpoint, especially if you have any estimation of how likely it is to encounter such non-catalogued actions.

That sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't match reality. People aren't doing game theory calculations when they're making decisions mid-game, and there's a definite difference between the strategy vs. counter-strategy decisions I mentioned and the pure mathematical analysis of things like average damage output per point. Pointing out that technically game theory is considered to be in the overall field of math from an academic point of view is not really relevant to this discussion.

2.) Game design in context of this thread is NOT what you wish it to be - "a POV stripped to just core rules". You try hard to make it so and in the process you fail miserably at seeing the big picture. Game design in context of any-scale commercial enterprise is about all those factors I mentioned. It would be probably less confusing for you if I were to use term "40K experience" instead of "40K game" in my posts. Actual ruleset is only a portion of entire picture that "40K experience" is and even in that portion there are many different "attractors" game designer can choose as a basis for it's foundation, which you repeatedly neglect or call "bad design". And overall, broad picture factors heavily influence or even determine what choices can be made to output most succesfull "end result experience from a game". Football (soccer for those from US) is a terrible set of rules yet it is the most popular sports game on earth, making it a good game design from "total football experience" POV.

Context matters. The context here is a discussion of the 8th edition rules, not how much you enjoy the aesthetics of the new space marine kit and how that improves your enjoyment of the game experience as a whole. Please don't move the goalposts and try to turn this into a discussion of GW's successes in the plastic model kit business, as if making an aesthetically pleasing model has anything to do with the quality of the 8th edition rules.

Like it or not, 8th ed 40K is thriving because many people like it immensely.

We both may not be such persons, there may be a large-but-still-insignificant number of people who loose their interest in this game after codices started coming out, but you simply cannot deny observable fact, that 8th ed is a major success and days of doomsayers have ended.

Not only can I deny it, I will deny it. 8th edition has not been a success. Why? Because it has fallen well short of its potential. It has only managed to bring back in the people that pretty much any new edition would have recovered, assuming even an absolute minimum of competence in fixing the obvious flaws of 7th edition. Deleting invisibility and formations and re-rollable saves, in a one-page errata document for 7th, would probably have had almost the same effect. But look at this thread: even on a heavily pro-GW forum about 40% of the votes are some version of "not happy with 8th edition", and a lot of people are commenting with specific complaints about where the rules are poorly designed. A major success would have been a game that convinced even the doubters that it's a good game, a game where only the bitterest of GW haters can find anything bad to say about it. This is not that game.

But really, it's a reflection of GW's overall business philosophy. They're content to be a small player in a niche market, and consider it a "success" as long as they make a modest profit every year. They have zero interest in growing the company beyond their niche and achieving any kind of mainstream success or matching the profit numbers of larger companies. 8th edition is just that on a smaller scale: adequate to keep a net profit for the year, not enough to really change the game.

From my perspective this is 3rd ed all over again - a reshuffle in playerbase with more incoming new players stream than quitting old players stream. A couple of years from now there won't be anything left from 3rd-7th "core engine" and post-8th new editions will recreate the cycle of growing complexity, to keep new generation of players hooked. As was with WHFB and AOS, as is with all perpetually updated games undergoing a major shift in paradigm.

That makes no sense at all. Why would GW want to hit the reset button like that and dump their existing customers, when a well-designed new edition could bring in new customers AND keep the existing ones? That's suicide from a business point of view. And it doesn't match what we know of GW's business model, where the core of the business is high-turnover sales to kids. A 14 year old buying a space marine starter set doesn't know about 6th edition or the history of the rules over the past few years, and probably won't be playing when 9th edition arrives. The only people who are going to be drawn into the game specifically because of an edition change are lapsed customers who are persuaded to reinvest in the hobby by something positive about the new edition. And you know what's better than trying to chase returning customers with a new edition? Not letting those customers go in the first place.

nou wrote:
This is pretty much the answer I was predicting from you, on all accounts. Please, reread my previous post carefully and try for once LEARN something new about the world... Just to clear two things for you:

I've learned plenty. I've simply learned your opinion, then discarded it as wrong.

1.) Strategic depth as you described is pure mathematical depth in context of game theory. Rulesets of all sorts are pretty much camouflaging basic game theory concepts into more or less obscure artificial decision making setup. As long as you cannot invent new actions mid-game, all games are games theory subjects and even if you can invent new actions mid-game you can approach such anvironment from a game theory standpoint, especially if you have any estimation of how likely it is to encounter such non-catalogued actions.

That sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't match reality. People aren't doing game theory calculations when they're making decisions mid-game, and there's a definite difference between the strategy vs. counter-strategy decisions I mentioned and the pure mathematical analysis of things like average damage output per point. Pointing out that technically game theory is considered to be in the overall field of math from an academic point of view is not really relevant to this discussion.

2.) Game design in context of this thread is NOT what you wish it to be - "a POV stripped to just core rules". You try hard to make it so and in the process you fail miserably at seeing the big picture. Game design in context of any-scale commercial enterprise is about all those factors I mentioned. It would be probably less confusing for you if I were to use term "40K experience" instead of "40K game" in my posts. Actual ruleset is only a portion of entire picture that "40K experience" is and even in that portion there are many different "attractors" game designer can choose as a basis for it's foundation, which you repeatedly neglect or call "bad design". And overall, broad picture factors heavily influence or even determine what choices can be made to output most succesfull "end result experience from a game". Football (soccer for those from US) is a terrible set of rules yet it is the most popular sports game on earth, making it a good game design from "total football experience" POV.

Context matters. The context here is a discussion of the 8th edition rules, not how much you enjoy the aesthetics of the new space marine kit and how that improves your enjoyment of the game experience as a whole. Please don't move the goalposts and try to turn this into a discussion of GW's successes in the plastic model kit business, as if making an aesthetically pleasing model has anything to do with the quality of the 8th edition rules.

We both may not be such persons, there may be a large-but-still-insignificant number of people who loose their interest in this game after codices started coming out, but you simply cannot deny observable fact, that 8th ed is a major success and days of doomsayers have ended.

Not only can I deny it, I will deny it. 8th edition has not been a success. Why? Because it has fallen well short of its potential. It has only managed to bring back in the people that pretty much any new edition would have recovered, assuming even an absolute minimum of competence in fixing the obvious flaws of 7th edition. Deleting invisibility and formations and re-rollable saves, in a one-page errata document for 7th, would probably have had almost the same effect. But look at this thread: even on a heavily pro-GW forum about 40% of the votes are some version of "not happy with 8th edition", and a lot of people are commenting with specific complaints about where the rules are poorly designed. A major success would have been a game that convinced even the doubters that it's a good game, a game where only the bitterest of GW haters can find anything bad to say about it. This is not that game.

But really, it's a reflection of GW's overall business philosophy. They're content to be a small player in a niche market, and consider it a "success" as long as they make a modest profit every year. They have zero interest in growing the company beyond their niche and achieving any kind of mainstream success or matching the profit numbers of larger companies. 8th edition is just that on a smaller scale: adequate to keep a net profit for the year, not enough to really change the game.

From my perspective this is 3rd ed all over again - a reshuffle in playerbase with more incoming new players stream than quitting old players stream. A couple of years from now there won't be anything left from 3rd-7th "core engine" and post-8th new editions will recreate the cycle of growing complexity, to keep new generation of players hooked. As was with WHFB and AOS, as is with all perpetually updated games undergoing a major shift in paradigm.

That makes no sense at all. Why would GW want to hit the reset button like that and dump their existing customers, when a well-designed new edition could bring in new customers AND keep the existing ones? That's suicide from a business point of view. And it doesn't match what we know of GW's business model, where the core of the business is high-turnover sales to kids. A 14 year old buying a space marine starter set doesn't know about 6th edition or the history of the rules over the past few years, and probably won't be playing when 9th edition arrives. The only people who are going to be drawn into the game specifically because of an edition change are lapsed customers who are persuaded to reinvest in the hobby by something positive about the new edition. And you know what's better than trying to chase returning customers with a new edition? Not letting those customers go in the first place.