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.

vict0988 wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
How long can GW draw out 9th Ed until it requires a reset due to codex creep and stat creep?

Forever. Are there any fundamental problems with the core rules? If not then codexes can be replaced, SM and CSM 8.0 got replaced by 8.5 and 8.1 codexes respectively to bring in new units and in the case of SM to increase power. SM 9.0 could have been released in 8th edition. Codex and stat creep does not require an edition update. Most likely if GW is going to release 10th edition it is going to be a radically different system, otherwise they have no reason to update it. 8th had tonnes of rules changes at the end, those have all been incorperated into 9th. 9th might need a re-release to update character rules and stuff like that, but I don't think changes have been radical enough to call for a new edition change.

With warhammer working on a D6 system and a unit statline ranging from 1-10, I am wondering for how long units and weapons can get stronger and stronger.

Yugioh still exists, so basically forever. GW could come out any day they want and nerf multi-melta to Heavy 1 S10 and remove the dark lance buff with an errata. There is also no rule about 1 codex per army per edition, most editions it was 0-2, now it is 1-2, but GW could change it to 2+ for 9th edition.

You didn't just use YuGiOh as an example of a game that handles power creep well, right? Cause that game turned ridiculous ages ago.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, I think faction bloat is a problem in 40k in general.

There are a lot of folks who agree with you- I suspect that the majority of Dakkanaughts feel this way. I think that's because most Dakkanaughts are competitive players for whom balance is the highest priority, and there is no denying that the more factions you have, the harder it is to balance.

However, your average Dakkanaught =/= your average player, and I think the number of factions in our game one of the reasons for both its longevity and the fact that it is currently the best selling war game in the world. The high number of factions is one of the things that makes this game unique, and it's why I personally find most games are limited and shallow by comparison. I think torpedoing factions would be the most damaging thing the company could do to itself.

Just my opinion of course, and I don't expect anyone here to share it.

I never got the faction bloat argument. As you said, 40k thrives on it's vast setting and multitude of factions. I wouldn't remove a single faction from GWs roster. In fact, if I could, I'd add in things like dark mechanicus, exodites and squats...though only if every current faction in need of it like eldar and guard have had their model line updated.

Tiberias wrote:


I never got the faction bloat argument. As you said, 40k thrives on it's vast setting and multitude of factions. I wouldn't remove a single faction from GWs roster. In fact, if I could, I'd add in things like dark mechanicus, exodites and squats...though only if every current faction in need of it like eldar and guard have had their model line updated.

Its the Greener grass issue. If someone else's army is getting new stuff and mine didn't....

They do need to do a better job of updating everything but it's not zero sum. If Faction A gets a new kit, nothing says Faction B lost out on one they would have gotten. The Monty Haul summer campaign where everyone and their sister shows up on the same planet at the same time is a little silly though.

Tiberias wrote:
You didn't just use YuGiOh as an example of a game that handles power creep well, right? Cause that game turned ridiculous ages ago.

It proves that a game can survive despite handling power creep as badly as possible. It also proves the problem with bloat, I wanted to get back into Yugioh but it's just too bloated to try, if you play online against both on and off meta decks you might need to know a thousand cards by heart to play the game and there is no list that contains the top 1000 cards to know, so do how do you catch up? Having this experience of being unable to rejoin Yugioh is why I continue to advocate against power creep and bloat. The game should be easy to join and rejoin, Warhammer 40k should not be a TV show you bingewatch, it should be a monster of the week type of show where it is enjoyable even if you don't stick around from start to finish and know every gotcha Stratagem and OP chapter tactic and updated abilities that can blow up an entire army.

PenitentJake wrote:

Spoiler:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, I think faction bloat is a problem in 40k in general.

There are a lot of folks who agree with you- I suspect that the majority of Dakkanaughts feel this way. I think that's because most Dakkanaughts are competitive players for whom balance is the highest priority, and there is no denying that the more factions you have, the harder it is to balance.

However, your average Dakkanaught =/= your average player, and I think the number of factions in our game one of the reasons for both its longevity and the fact that it is currently the best selling war game in the world. The high number of factions is one of the things that makes this game unique, and it's why I personally find most games are limited and shallow by comparison. I think torpedoing factions would be the most damaging thing the company could do to itself.

Just my opinion of course, and I don't expect anyone here to share it.

Completely agree.
I go out of my way to not play mirror matches. there is nothing more unfun than looking across the table and seeing the same units, in the same poses, played the same way.
I like the fact that I could play as(for me); Salamanders, Bloody Rose, Metalica(Knights/skitarii), Ynarri, Flawless Host, Traitor Guard.
Wide variety.
I like the fact that I can play versus everything;
green tide orks to speedfreaks
Speedy Elves to choppy elves
Tiny bugs to titanic bugs
Mortal & Daemon chaos
"Good" normies to transhuman warriors
Wide variety.

This leads to diversity in play, which leads to diversity in models, which...so on...and so on...

A balanced game with 4 factions and 30 types of datasheet shared between them sound lame.

For all its current problems, I'll take 40k any day.

When Flames of War transitioned from Version 3 to Version 4 they cleaned up some rules in a good way but they really streamlined the armies, cutting out whole swathes of specialized lists. It was a self-inflicted disaster. A veteran player said it to me best: they stripped out all the flavour.

Perhaps the success of the transition to 8th and then 9th has been that they streamlined and changed rules but left, for the most part, the armies alone. Look at the angst when some Death Guard weapon options got simplified for a taste of what happens when armies get streamlined. Ask the R&H players on the board about their thoughts on cutting "faction bloat." Bloat always seems to be in someone else's army.

At the end of day rules can come and go as long as our armies remain playable.

How long?
Not fast enough. Get it over with.

For myself, I am done anticipating changes.
I look at new codices as collectibles, after moving so often.

With opportunity, the next 40k books that I buy will be replacing old 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed books.
I will consider buying another GW book new if Cawl is in chains and numarines retconned as OG weenies from tall people genes.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
When Flames of War transitioned from Version 3 to Version 4 they cleaned up some rules in a good way but they really streamlined the armies, cutting out whole swathes of specialized lists. It was a self-inflicted disaster. A veteran player said it to me best: they stripped out all the flavour.

Perhaps the success of the transition to 8th and then 9th has been that they streamlined and changed rules but left, for the most part, the armies alone. Look at the angst when some Death Guard weapon options got simplified for a taste of what happens when armies get streamlined. Ask the R&H players on the board about their thoughts on cutting "faction bloat." Bloat always seems to be in someone else's army.

At the end of day rules can come and go as long as our armies remain playable.

Well, the fault there still lies with adding it in the first place, at which point it becomes a "sacred cow" because if ou remove it to streamline the game, somebody is going to be upset if it's their army that got chopped even if the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and consolidating would be better for the overall game.

But 40k does have a huge amount of bloat. There are a lot of things that can and should be consolidated with slight variation. E.G. Guard and R&H are basically the same thing, you would just swap Imperium for Chaos or whatnot. no reason those couldn't be in the same book. No reason the special snowflake SM chapters can't be in a single book or, better yet, in the main codex. All of that is an example of faction bloat.

Wayniac wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
When Flames of War transitioned from Version 3 to Version 4 they cleaned up some rules in a good way but they really streamlined the armies, cutting out whole swathes of specialized lists. It was a self-inflicted disaster. A veteran player said it to me best: they stripped out all the flavour.

Perhaps the success of the transition to 8th and then 9th has been that they streamlined and changed rules but left, for the most part, the armies alone. Look at the angst when some Death Guard weapon options got simplified for a taste of what happens when armies get streamlined. Ask the R&H players on the board about their thoughts on cutting "faction bloat." Bloat always seems to be in someone else's army.

At the end of day rules can come and go as long as our armies remain playable.

Well, the fault there still lies with adding it in the first place, at which point it becomes a "sacred cow" because if ou remove it to streamline the game, somebody is going to be upset if it's their army that got chopped even if the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and consolidating would be better for the overall game.

But 40k does have a huge amount of bloat. There are a lot of things that can and should be consolidated with slight variation. E.G. Guard and R&H are basically the same thing, you would just swap Imperium for Chaos or whatnot. no reason those couldn't be in the same book. No reason the special snowflake SM chapters can't be in a single book or, better yet, in the main codex. All of that is an example of faction bloat.

At the risk of having another 30 page thread about rolling all chapters into a single book, what you call bloat is a matter of perspective. "Needs of the many" arguments can work in some contexts, but I am not sure what cutting armies gains the community.

Faction Bloat wouldn't be a problem if GW didn't change the edition every 3 years. Just look at Lotr, basically the same basic rules since 20 years, more factions than I can count, problems with balance might arise at top tables only or because of House rules that allow fighting good vs good.

With a proper, stabile rules system you could add campaigns and factions as you wish. You'd have to keep track and balance them of course but it's not impossible. Do I want 9th to last eternally? Well it's good, but it still lacks interactions / activations like every prior edition which still makes me hope for a new Edition at some point. If 10th doesn't change that I'm pretty open to stick to 9th because for the first time ever at least they seem to nail the balance issues pretty good.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Faction Bloat wouldn't be a problem if GW didn't change the edition every 3 years. Just look at Lotr, basically the same basic rules since 20 years, more factions than I can count, problems with balance might arise at top tables only or because of House rules that allow fighting good vs good.

With a proper, stabile rules system you could add campaigns and factions as you wish. You'd have to keep track and balance them of course but it's not impossible. Do I want 9th to last eternally? Well it's good, but it still lacks interactions / activations like every prior edition which still makes me hope for a new Edition at some point. If 10th doesn't change that I'm pretty open to stick to 9th because for the first time ever at least they seem to nail the balance issues pretty good.

The game should not have more than 100 Stratagems. 80 factions with 5 strats on average is 400 strats, that's too much homework. I don't care if it's theoretically fair you have a gotcha strat, if I don't know about it the gameplay will feel unfair. Relics and WL traits? I don't care if there are a billion of them, as long as they aren't too complex or OP. That being said I think WL trait imbalance was too big and choices too few in 8th, I have not read all the 9e traits but I doubt things have changed.

 vict0988 wrote:


The game should not have more than 100 Stratagems. 80 factions with 5 strats on average is 400 strats, that's too much homework. I don't care if it's theoretically fair you have a gotcha strat, if I don't know about it the gameplay will feel unfair. Relics and WL traits? I don't care if there are a billion of them, as long as they aren't too complex or OP. That being said I think WL trait imbalance was too big and choices too few in 8th, I have not read all the 9e traits but I doubt things have changed.

The thing is, no matter how many strats there are in the GAME, the only ones you need to think about are the ones YOUR army uses.

Now I know, competitive players think they have to memorize every rule book in order to win, and they need to calculate every statistical average of every unit vs every other unit... But that is not how all of us play, and I don't think it was ever GW's intention that anyone played the game that way, all though 9th's enthusiastic embrace of the tourney scene does suggest that GW currently is interested in facilitating that way to play.

Through that lens, you are correct; GW walks the line between giving the story/ narrative/ collector/ painter set what we want, which is an endless sandbox of limitless options, and giving the competitive set what they want, which is perfect balance. Similarly, you are right that that there is a place where it will be increasingly harder to keep both groups happy. GW will run the numbers to figure out which group is more important to keep happiest once they have to. Until then, they'll walk the line.

PenitentJake wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:


The game should not have more than 100 Stratagems. 80 factions with 5 strats on average is 400 strats, that's too much homework. I don't care if it's theoretically fair you have a gotcha strat, if I don't know about it the gameplay will feel unfair. Relics and WL traits? I don't care if there are a billion of them, as long as they aren't too complex or OP. That being said I think WL trait imbalance was too big and choices too few in 8th, I have not read all the 9e traits but I doubt things have changed.

The thing is, no matter how many strats there are in the GAME, the only ones you need to think about are the ones YOUR army uses.

Unfortunately, that is not correct. You also need to think about the stratagems your opponent's army uses. It's all good and dandy to know your army has a stratagem that allows you to re-roll hit rolls and wound rolls by a unit, but if you don't know your opponent has a stratagem that prevents you from re-rolling to hit or wound against his unit, you are in for a world of disappointment.

PenitentJake wrote:
...The thing is, no matter how many strats there are in the GAME, the only ones you need to think about are the ones YOUR army uses...

And all the ones that your current opponent uses.
And all the ones that your ally/allies use, if it's a multiplayer game.
And all the ones that your other opponents use, if it's a multiplayer game.

Well again, minority opinion; my play style is to build the best army I can; I do look for combos in my list, and it's usually those that communicate the character of the army to me; I've said it before... The rules tell you more about the character of your army than the fluff ever will, because fluff is hyperbole from unreliable narrators, whereas as rules tell you what the army is really like.

From the combos I like, and the models I like, I build the army that makes me happy- I name the characters, figure out the story behind each unit. Then I find someone who wants to play, and I do my best, knowing that I'm gonna fall to gotcha moments, just like real soldiers do, and that I'm likely to catch my opponent in a couple of my own, and that this is actually by design, and it's part of the game.

I only really tend to play against people who have the same attitude, and it tends to be awesome.

I play more than one army (Sisters, Drukhari, Deathwatch, CSM, Daemons of Slaanesh, Inquisition and I may be venturing into CWE if GW treats them right this ed). So I am familiar with the intricacies of those, but I am not wasting a single minute to "study" anything I don't play, and I don't mind losing.

Most of Dakka (to hear you all talk) would kick my ass and likely table me by the end of turn 3, and possibly sooner. My goal against this opponent is not to win, but to get the Agenda points that I can get- my opponent is usually too busy winning to stop me from making sure that everyone who could earn some experience and level does so.

It's another reason I prefer Crusade. Go ahead, kick my ass. If I manage to pick up a battle honour or a territory (DE has this baked into their Crusade rules; other armies need to work within our campaign to make it happen), I leave the game feeling like a winner despite the loss. If I don't get a battle honour or territory, I usually focus on whichever unit was the MVP of my losing game, and figure out what to add to their base, or who gets the purity seal for the battle or whatever.

The best game I ever played was a loss. Couldn't have cared less, because my Palatine, Jahalla Athebraxis, managed to find Saint Katherine's shield buried beneath the Altar of a beneath the Chapel of Saint Katherine's Aegis. After the game, I converted a new model to represent her on the table, and wrote a short story about it. Not only did my team ultimately lose, I might have been the lowest scoring player (there were 6 of us playing a MASSIVE apocalypse battle). Still walked away feeling like I won- prouder of my performance in that game than any game I ever won.

Obviously, I know everyone isn't like me, and I'm cool with that. But there'd be a lot less bitching on the internet if people could just play this thing like the game it is rather than try to turn it into a sport or a job.

Just my two cents- none of y'all are wrong- I see your point of view. I just don't share it. And I hope that's cool with you.

I'm a pretty competitive player, I try my best to win, I try to get better etc. etc. But even absent all that I just don't like gotchas, it was not a thing in the game previous to 8th as far as I remember.

If the information is not specifically hidden from the players, like assassins, relics and fanatics used to be in WHFB 7th, if anyone who can get their hands on the relevant books can read them if you'll know them after experiencing them just once, then they are public knowledge and if they are public knowledge then there is no reason why you cannot know them and if you can know them and that would help you win the game then you should know them.

It also helps makes the game go faster when you know Stratagems and reduces the chances of someone forgetting how their Stratagem works.

With the campaign books and frequent points updates, GW has set up a system where they can easily keep an edition going indefinitely even without a full cycle of new codices. They can also, very easily, do a 9.5 codex that doesn't change anything and just consolidates all the rules from side releases, points updates, and errata into a new 'complete' codex for new players as well as players who just want to carry a single book around. This makes them money and keeps a steady drip of content coming to keep all of us interested.

At the same time, if things go sideways they can always opt to pull the cord and push us into 10th edition with larger rules changes and reimagined systems that are hard to bolt onto an existing edition.

With COVID, I could see 9th lasting until 2024. I can see GW still recovering and restructuring their organisation until the end of this year or early next year.

Once they finally hit the ground running they'll smash out the remaining codexes throughout 2022. Maybe release more expansions in between codex drops. 2023 might see some new armies to spice things up, such as:

Imperium:
- Adeptus Arbites: Actually a decent amount of options.
- Knightly Orders: Imperial Knights reformed to have a more fully fledged codex. Perhaps with their own detachments with LoW slots instead of HQ. The old options of pure Knights would still exist but this allows them to have a way to hold objectives with cheap units without breaking a future super-doctrine.
- Ab-humans: Ogryns, Bullgryns, Ratilings, Beastmen, Squats, etc.

Xenos:
- Tau Auxiliaries: More Kroot and Vespid. An introduction of Demiurg, Nicassar, and maybe even an option for Gue'vesa (with rules similar to Brood Brothers).
- Eldar Exodites: A more traditional Eldar. Always found in the lore but never in the table top.

Chaos:
Chaos need more non-marine and non-daemon allies. Something to represent the more common masses of cultists.
- Renegades and Heretics: Going off the amazing models from Blackstone Fortress. Perhaps even Astra Militarum options (similar to above with rules like Brood Brothers).
- Dark Mechanicum: With their own Tech-Priest counterparts and daemon infused machinery. Support to take Chaos Knights.

We'd probably only get one or two of these. There will be a lead up of 9th editions own Psychic Awakening and then in 2024 there will be a new rulebook that will push the lore slightly further.

That's my idea anyway.

Jarms48 wrote:

- Eldar Exodites: A more traditional Eldar. Always found in the lore but never in the table top.

Exodites had rules in 1st and 2nd edition, as well as the epic systems associated with both.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:

- Eldar Exodites: A more traditional Eldar. Always found in the lore but never in the table top.

Exodites had rules in 1st and 2nd edition, as well as the epic systems associated with both.

Good to know, I started in 3rd and had no idea.