Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am starting to get frustrated by the teasing out of 9th edition. I want to introduce friends to the game but given we have incomplete information of the new edition, and the pitfalls of ingraining the rule-set of a previous edition, I am left telling them to hold off on learning the game.

I understand the need to create hype. But I feel like this company moves at a snails pace when it comes to releasing even core game mechanics and it has downsides to their business that they probably aren't recognizing.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Leth wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
They weren't selling many vehicles in 8th, aside from those with fly. Doesn't take a galaxy brain to put two and two together and figure out what they want to make attractive for people to purchase at the release of 9th.

Isn’t that a circular argument though? They don’t sell because they are underpowered, so by fixing imbalance they are going to sell more.

So getting mad at them for fixing imbalance seems counter productive.

Except the idea is not to fix imbalance, it's to tilt it to make poorly selling models OP.

I'm not saying GW is doing this-I don't actually believe they understand their own game well enough to do so without being SO blatant that people might refuse to participate-but the idea is there.

That assumes that people only have what is currently the most efficient models and nothing else. I think for a large part of the community it is just going to result in more models that they own seeing the table.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's likely tied into streamlining the rules and preventing any gaming around the heavy weapon guy.

On the plus side they might make infantry heavy weapons cheaper as a result.

Gaming around the Heavy Weapon guy? Do you get tired of defending GW no matter what?

Pft, accusing me of being a white knight just because I'm trying to put myself in the dev's shoes and see why they made certain choices?

I never said it was a good change, I just said why I think they changed it.

Regardless I suspect GW is holding info back to keep the community riled up. They ignore a lot of questions that would soothe a lot of minds on how 9th will work with stuff like falling back even when they keep getting posted nearly a dozen times during the streams. Basically I feel like they want people to be worried and upset so we stay invested in the next news nugget to see if they address whatever we're worroed may be broken.

 Ysclyth wrote:
I am starting to get frustrated by the teasing out of 9th edition. I want to introduce friends to the game but given we have incomplete information of the new edition, and the pitfalls of ingraining the rule-set of a previous edition, I am left telling them to hold off on learning the game.

I understand the need to create hype. But I feel like this company moves at a snails pace when it comes to releasing even core game mechanics and it has downsides to their business that they probably aren't recognizing.

If you're trying to get your friends into the game, there is no point in sparing them of the truth of GW: incomplete information, errors in data sheet, and sprawling rules that span distal publications, with little-to-none attempts made to unify a database or create a coherent roadmap for newbies. Sure you could ask the folks in the GW store, their answer: BUY IT ALL! Just tell them to embrace the suffering, there is no respite.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:

 Ysclyth wrote:
I am starting to get frustrated by the teasing out of 9th edition. I want to introduce friends to the game but given we have incomplete information of the new edition, and the pitfalls of ingraining the rule-set of a previous edition, I am left telling them to hold off on learning the game.

I understand the need to create hype. But I feel like this company moves at a snails pace when it comes to releasing even core game mechanics and it has downsides to their business that they probably aren't recognizing.

If you're trying to get your friends into the game, there is no point in sparing them of the truth of GW: incomplete information, errors in data sheet, and sprawling rules that span distal publications, with little-to-none attempts made to unify a database or create a coherent roadmap for newbies. Sure you could ask the folks in the GW store, their answer: BUY IT ALL! Just tell them to embrace the suffering, there is no respite.

We actually do know of a roadmap for 9th: Kill Team into Crusade.

-1 to hit if anyone part of a unit moves is different.....well back to older ediitons. Must admit i liked the ability ot move other units.

 Ysclyth wrote:
I am starting to get frustrated by the teasing out of 9th edition. I want to introduce friends to the game but given we have incomplete information of the new edition, and the pitfalls of ingraining the rule-set of a previous edition, I am left telling them to hold off on learning the game.

I understand the need to create hype. But I feel like this company moves at a snails pace when it comes to releasing even core game mechanics and it has downsides to their business that they probably aren't recognizing.

Well, it stands to reason that most, if not all, of the info for the ruleset will be out by the end of the month.

Usually there is a two week preorder timeline, and maybe that's when it would be best to approach it witht hem.

 Mr Morden wrote:
-1 to hit if anyone part of a unit moves is different.....well back to older ediitons. Must admit i liked the ability ot move other units.

Is this confirmed?

 puma713 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
-1 to hit if anyone part of a unit moves is different.....well back to older ediitons. Must admit i liked the ability ot move other units.

Is this confirmed?

If this from WHMC is correct yep

 Leth wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
They weren't selling many vehicles in 8th, aside from those with fly. Doesn't take a galaxy brain to put two and two together and figure out what they want to make attractive for people to purchase at the release of 9th.

Isn’t that a circular argument though? They don’t sell because they are underpowered, so by fixing imbalance they are going to sell more.

So getting mad at them for fixing imbalance seems counter productive.

Yes. So they will make previously underpowered stuff OP so that people will buy new models to replace old ones. And eventually they will swing it back into another way to sell more stuff.

It's not about balance but about sales.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ysclyth wrote:
I am starting to get frustrated by the teasing out of 9th edition. I want to introduce friends to the game but given we have incomplete information of the new edition, and the pitfalls of ingraining the rule-set of a previous edition, I am left telling them to hold off on learning the game.

I understand the need to create hype. But I feel like this company moves at a snails pace when it comes to releasing even core game mechanics and it has downsides to their business that they probably aren't recognizing.

Pace is about same as for 8th ed that was even bigger change.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leth wrote:
That assumes that people only have what is currently the most efficient models and nothing else. I think for a large part of the community it is just going to result in more models that they own seeing the table.

Those will switch to the next OP then. But guess what? People who already have everything aren't GW's customers. As far as GW cares those can quit alltogether and GW doesn't care. If they already have everything they need they aren't buying models and thus are just non-customers for GW.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Well, 9th edition seems like it's more than the "round up all errata and updated datasheets" I thought it would be and is also "throw a bunch of random, untested new rules in the mix" as well.

They had a sizable playtesting team, but go on claiming they don't playtest.

Point of order, we've had pages and pages long discussions where some of us wished they play tested enough to find simple broken combos or items that are found within minutes of reading a new codex and some have argued, perhaps yourself, that they couldn't possibly put in enough time to play test to find out these errors before final product would be sent out to printers.

Now they apparently have a sizable play test team ? Where was this play test team with most of the marine stuff ? Iron hands for instance, You can support the company all you want but people shouldn't then say they can't possibly play test enough and then months later say they had plenty of play testing so the changes are fine. Which is it ? Do they have plenty of play testing done or not enough time/people ? Either way I think any reasonable person will be worried some of these changes may be half baked.

Like for instance why have we gone all the way back to 4th edition where if anyone in the squad moves they all move ? We back to man spreading and knocking everyone over all the time ? Seems a bit silly to me.

 Sasori wrote:

 Ysclyth wrote:
I am starting to get frustrated by the teasing out of 9th edition. I want to introduce friends to the game but given we have incomplete information of the new edition, and the pitfalls of ingraining the rule-set of a previous edition, I am left telling them to hold off on learning the game.

I understand the need to create hype. But I feel like this company moves at a snails pace when it comes to releasing even core game mechanics and it has downsides to their business that they probably aren't recognizing.

Well, it stands to reason that most, if not all, of the info for the ruleset will be out by the end of the month.

Usually there is a two week preorder timeline, and maybe that's when it would be best to approach it witht hem.

This. When 8th edition was the hot new edition, the rulebook was leaked pretty entirely a couple weeks before it's actual release date (actually I think it was 3 weeks). Either way, we'll probably see the whole rulebook leaked by the end of this month anyways. Also, yeah, the slow pace of releases kind of kills any excitement for the new edition. But Games Workshop has been doing this teasing for over a year now, so it's probably just going to be the norm for all new announcements they make.

Doctor-boom wrote:
Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...

tneva82 wrote:
Yes. So they will make previously underpowered stuff OP so that people will buy new models to replace old ones. And eventually they will swing it back into another way to sell more stuff.

It's not about balance but about sales.

I find it actually surprising that people keep putting themselves in the crosshairs of GW harpooning whales. Change what's good every edition and competitive and wannabe competitive players build new armies. Get them used to that enough and maybe they'll build a new army twice a year to keep up with the latest hotness.

Seems like 40k is better when you don't try to always make your list as strong as possible. A greater number of units become "viable" and are no longer relegated to the shelf. More scenarios available because you don't necessarily restrict yourself to just matched play scenarios as readily as wannabe competitive players do. Overall hobby cost goes down as start collecting, starter set, battleforce boxes, versus boxes and easy to build are all on the table. As are the latest bad thing that the whales are dumping on the 2nd hand market to help pay for their new power list.

 Mr Morden wrote:
-1 to hit if anyone part of a unit moves is different.....well back to older ediitons. Must admit i liked the ability ot move other units.

I had to check my old mini-rulebooks, as I did not remember when they switched movement status from a unit as a whole basis, to a per figurine basis.
4th (2004-2008) and 5th edition (2008-2012) were per whole unit. Certainly 3rd too, but I did not played this game back then.
6th edition (2012-2014) introduced the per figurine granularity. Along with incentives to move your infantry models more.
We will be switching back, certainly for simplicity sake.

But I feel we will still have to move infantry a lot.
This means trying to make use of squads with a heavy weapon may not be a good choice.

 Eldarain wrote:
Adding power from paint makes balancing a nightmare.

Is this a marine faction ability or just for those that don't field grey models?

As for "playtesting", after what came out in the 8E codexes following the indexes, I don't trust nor count GW's Ivory Tower claims of playtesting as real, significant playtesting. Beyond maybe, alpha-level playtesting.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Adding power from paint makes balancing a nightmare.

Is this a marine faction ability or just for those that don't field grey models?

As for "playtesting", after what came out in the 8E codexes following the indexes, I don't trust nor count GW's Ivory Tower claims of playtesting as real, significant playtesting. Beyond maybe, alpha-level playtesting.

The addition of abilities not factored into the points costs based on what subfaction you're playing. They are the most egregious example

I'd bet real money that whoever wrote the new infantry HW rule forgot/didn't know that 8th changed it to model rather than unit.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'd bet real money that whoever wrote the new infantry HW rule forgot/didn't know that 8th changed it to model rather than unit.

It was by model in 6th and 7th as well wasn't it?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'd bet real money that whoever wrote the new infantry HW rule forgot/didn't know that 8th changed it to model rather than unit.

It was by model in 6th and 7th as well wasn't it?

That didn't mean it made sense.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'd bet real money that whoever wrote the new infantry HW rule forgot/didn't know that 8th changed it to model rather than unit.

It was by model in 6th and 7th as well wasn't it?

That didn't mean it made sense.

Yeah, everyone knows that the guy on the other side of the bunker shifting slightly makes you shoot like a stormtrooper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ravajaxe wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
-1 to hit if anyone part of a unit moves is different.....well back to older ediitons. Must admit i liked the ability ot move other units.

I had to check my old mini-rulebooks, as I did not remember when they switched movement status from a unit as a whole basis, to a per figurine basis.
4th (2004-2008) and 5th edition (2008-2012) were per whole unit. Certainly 3rd too, but I did not played this game back then.
6th edition (2012-2014) introduced the per figurine granularity. Along with incentives to move your infantry models more.
We will be switching back, certainly for simplicity sake.

But I feel we will still have to move infantry a lot.
This means trying to make use of squads with a heavy weapon may not be a good choice.

Not that it was before either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Well, 9th edition seems like it's more than the "round up all errata and updated datasheets" I thought it would be and is also "throw a bunch of random, untested new rules in the mix" as well.

They had a sizable playtesting team, but go on claiming they don't playtest.

Point of order, we've had pages and pages long discussions where some of us wished they play tested enough to find simple broken combos or items that are found within minutes of reading a new codex and some have argued, perhaps yourself, that they couldn't possibly put in enough time to play test to find out these errors before final product would be sent out to printers.

Now they apparently have a sizable play test team ? Where was this play test team with most of the marine stuff ? Iron hands for instance, You can support the company all you want but people shouldn't then say they can't possibly play test enough and then months later say they had plenty of play testing so the changes are fine. Which is it ? Do they have plenty of play testing done or not enough time/people ? Either way I think any reasonable person will be worried some of these changes may be half baked.

Like for instance why have we gone all the way back to 4th edition where if anyone in the squad moves they all move ? We back to man spreading and knocking everyone over all the time ? Seems a bit silly to me.

They straight up admitted that they ignored the playtest team for IH. They caught it, they just waited until two weeks after the book was out to do anything about it.

It's all that man spreading goin on in the battlefield, they all bump each other and and need their personal space. Really it makes perfectly good sense. Now maybe once you can make a whole woman squad, maybe then I'll be like " No way, change the rule " but until then, it's totally fluffy.


Edit: Well how much faith should anyone put in to a company that ignores its play test results to sell books then ? Honestly admitting they knew it was broke as a joke but decided to let it fly just proves they are crooked and not inept which I guess is good ? All it means is you shouldn't trust their play testing so they could a million play testers of amazing skill, if they won't listen to them and leave problems baked in to fix it later, what good is it ?

Yeah, the "well we knew IH was totally overpowered and our playtesters were telling us but we released it anyway LOL oops sorry guys" thing doesn't really reflect well on how seriously they take playtesting.

Everything at GW these days is suit-driven in the first instance. Then the developers do whatever they want with the rules, and the playtesters give feedback that is ignored if it conflicts with the dictates from the suits about when something is going to come out, whether it's ready or not.

Let’s not pretend now that there won’t be a massive amount of FAQs and errata 2-4 weeks after release...
There is going to be tons of missed changes.
Tons of units from codexs with rules that no longer make sense or don’t work.
There is going to be rules with unintended changes.
I honestly don’t expect a clean book especially while looking at the rules jobs for recently obviously rushed PA books.
To be fair 8th edition for all the changes they had actually did a decent job.

Exactly and I'm not trying to drag this point out but they have released day 1 fixes to books that were released messed up before. If I recall correctly they did so at least once with Dark Angels and Space Wolves. They could have released fixes for that day 1.

They released the current guard codex with issues they obviously knew they wanted to fix, Commissars and Conscripts for instance, they could have had a day 1 fix there but no.

So long as they want missteps or crazy OP stuff to stay in books just to nerf it after release and people have snatched up the items it takes away any semblance of trust any wise person should have with them. You are left to ask over and over " Is this for balance ? Is it for the good of the game ? Is it all just to sell stuff or stir up hype ? Do they not know what they are doing or are they just ignoring balance in favor of money ? "

You never know, so anyone should question each change they hear as even with board size changes people are saying that was done just for selling things and had nothing to do with the good of the game. When you admit to ignore correct information for " reasons " you can't blame people for no longer trusting your " Professional " work.

I don't think they're competent enough to deliberately release OP stuff then nerf it two weeks later. I think that frankly gives them too much credit. Plus it's not like they do it every time - there are plenty of books they release that are just kinda garbage.

I think the truth is that they have release schedules they will not deviate from, and that informs everything. It's going out, whether it's ready or not. It doesn't matter if it's filled with embarrassing typos; it doesn't matter if it's filled with badly thought out rules interactions that are going to break the game's balance. If it's overpowered and that causes people to buy stuff you can nerf later...so much the better, the suits always love more $$$, but it's not the original plan behind it.

Some cases are clear however they knew there were issues, there is no way to assume that it wasn't until two weeks after the codex release for Guard Commissars and Conscripts were broke, they'd been so since the index, anyone could see that from the first game using them.

They admit they ignore play test stuff from IH, why ? The only reasonable excuse is for profit, as their experts said it was over the top so its not like they didn't know it was nuts.

GW is more clever than they are given credit for. I'm sure they don't always know what is up. However sometimes they do tend to ignore obvious issues just to fix it later and expect a big pat on the back, mold the meta to sway sales side to side and very few units have been bad forever. Well, except for Ogryns, they are pretty bad now and always.

Edit: There is no reason even if they need to meet deadlines to not release day 1 fixes if issues slipped by and they knew stuff was broke but couldn't be caught in time for the printers. It happens all the time with deadlines and it's not like people wouldn't respect that and they've expected us to accept it before. It would at least give hint to them wanting to release a quality product and frankly I think many of us would like it as it would show they care.

I don't think that's necessarily true. The other possibility is they ignored the IH issues because the suits said "it's coming out, whether it's ready or not, deal with it" and it took them as long as they did to issue the initial FAQ precisely because the issues were *so* big that it wasn't a question of just fixing a typo or something like that. They had to actually go back to the drawing board and work things over to figure out how they wanted to nerf the monster they had created. In point of fact, they didn't do enough, and had to nerf it a second time because it was *still* over the top.

That works for IH, but how does that fly for the Guard codex ? There was a lot of lead time that hinted to those two needed to be fixed issues that could have had an easy day 1 fix. Are we to believe they didn't get the touch of grace to see the problem and ponder a fix until two weeks after the proper codex dropped when the problems were there since the index ?

Did they not have time to brainstorm some fixes for IH in the time it took from book going to printers, then be released ? It's not an instant process. I'm sure the play testers could have even had some ideas on the matter. I get there is schedules but if you claim to be a quality product and you charge a mint for your items people should expect effort worth the cost.

Edit: It leads to a feeling like there will be many issues from this new edition that will be broke as hell on release and we'll be getting yet another broken product, paid for with a high price and lacking day 1 fixes for stuff people will pick up on from the first week out in the wild. That is what people are worried for and concerned of.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, the "well we knew IH was totally overpowered and our playtesters were telling us but we released it anyway LOL oops sorry guys" thing doesn't really reflect well on how seriously they take playtesting.

Everything at GW these days is suit-driven in the first instance. Then the developers do whatever they want with the rules, and the playtesters give feedback that is ignored if it conflicts with the dictates from the suits about when something is going to come out, whether it's ready or not.

The community backlash from that might have them listening a lot more closely than they were before.

Plus 8th had Cruddace running around, but now Stu Black seems to be head cat herder, so maybe someone who isn't directly involved in the rules being involved will help get them listening to playtesters more.