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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.

They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.

No that is not the way , especially not considering inequality whenever a Edition drops and for certain worse in regards for those at the end of a cycle.
In an optimal world all factions would get their fully tested dex at the Same time. However since gw is a shareholder coperation that is wishfull thinking unless they have something to Make up to the consumer aka 8th, since they want to equalise them.

Meh, I'd rather we see beta rules or something at the start of the edition to give a boost to the books that won't release right away than keep a cycle that pushes to cram the entire game into a 3 year cycle and still misses updating armies.

I mean that allready would be a massive improvement aswell...

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly it'd be unreasonable to assume GW will support every product ever created forever. Stuff eventually has to go at some point. I know I've annoyed people by pointing out that the Space Marine codex is way to overbloated and it's time to just pull the bandage off and start culling first born (I'm NOT saying all of them at once, but they could start with the old bikes and anything still in Finecast). That book has over a hundred datasheets and is in some desperate need of pruning.

Considering how out of balance most of their systems end up anyways I don't think it's expecting too much for them to keep supporting models they made with rules. It costs them literally nothing but some time and brain power and how much time does it take them to say, think up rules for Ogryns which have been pretty crap a long long time. Marines are pretty easy to point balance and give stats to, they are literally the standard by which everyone else measures themselves. So no I don't think it's at all unreasonable especially when you've paid them many hundreds of dollars for them. They aren't tech which breaks down, they are a table top representation for rules, rules should be easy for the workshop of games to make.

You are literally using sunk cost fallacy as justification here.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

Considering how out of balance most of their systems end up anyways I don't think it's expecting too much for them to keep supporting models they made with rules. It costs them literally nothing but some time and brain power and how much time does it take them to say, think up rules for Ogryns which have been pretty crap a long long time. Marines are pretty easy to point balance and give stats to, they are literally the standard by which everyone else measures themselves. So no I don't think it's at all unreasonable especially when you've paid them many hundreds of dollars for them. They aren't tech which breaks down, they are a table top representation for rules, rules should be easy for the workshop of games to make.

If you can say "they aren't tech which breaks down" concerning model (and rules) across editions, I have to conclude that you've never actually played a game across rules editions.

Because there are lots of models that GW puts out that end up being "This models concept is that it's a bit better than that other model in this situation, and it ends up that way using this mechanic." How many times has GW redone the close combat rules, and the related morale rules? And every single time, that's invalidated model concepts.

If you went back to the 3.5 Chaos Space Marine codex, and looked at the some of the model options there, you'd be able to find all sorts of upgrades where the effect didn't matter or didn't exist (or wouldn't work) in the next edition of the rules.

Previous editions of the rules allowed mixed toughness in units, and dealt with mixed stats in a unit to greater or lesser success. And in previous editions, there were upgrades and model concepts that centered around exploiting that mechanic. Simplify the rules in a new edition (9th edition compared to 5th), and those model concepts get invalidated.

Specific example: A T4 leader model. Add a bunch of T6 'body guard' models. In edition X, you just put the leader model and the body guards in the same unit and you're done--it's harder to wound the leader while the body guards exist. In 9th, in order to make the body guards work, you need special rules.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly it'd be unreasonable to assume GW will support every product ever created forever. Stuff eventually has to go at some point. I know I've annoyed people by pointing out that the Space Marine codex is way to overbloated and it's time to just pull the bandage off and start culling first born (I'm NOT saying all of them at once, but they could start with the old bikes and anything still in Finecast). That book has over a hundred datasheets and is in some desperate need of pruning.

Considering how out of balance most of their systems end up anyways I don't think it's expecting too much for them to keep supporting models they made with rules. It costs them literally nothing but some time and brain power and how much time does it take them to say, think up rules for Ogryns which have been pretty crap a long long time. Marines are pretty easy to point balance and give stats to, they are literally the standard by which everyone else measures themselves. So no I don't think it's at all unreasonable especially when you've paid them many hundreds of dollars for them. They aren't tech which breaks down, they are a table top representation for rules, rules should be easy for the workshop of games to make.

You are literally using sunk cost fallacy as justification here.

Yeah I paid for them, I want to keep using them, period. I really don't need more justification than that. They want to drive away any money they will get from me, squat all my old marines.It may not matter to them just me, others ? It just may. The customer is who they need to keep happy, or they don't have anything of worth. I know it's cool we bow down before the corpo overlords of our day, but we are the ones with the ultimate power. Whales won't keep them afloat forever and ever rising costs will eventually push even them out. So yeah, keep my old marines around, in like a decade, I don't give a crap as I may not even still play then let them eat Primaris cake all they want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 solkan wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

Considering how out of balance most of their systems end up anyways I don't think it's expecting too much for them to keep supporting models they made with rules. It costs them literally nothing but some time and brain power and how much time does it take them to say, think up rules for Ogryns which have been pretty crap a long long time. Marines are pretty easy to point balance and give stats to, they are literally the standard by which everyone else measures themselves. So no I don't think it's at all unreasonable especially when you've paid them many hundreds of dollars for them. They aren't tech which breaks down, they are a table top representation for rules, rules should be easy for the workshop of games to make.

If you can say "they aren't tech which breaks down" concerning model (and rules) across editions, I have to conclude that you've never actually played a game across rules editions.

Because there are lots of models that GW puts out that end up being "This models concept is that it's a bit better than that other model in this situation, and it ends up that way using this mechanic." How many times has GW redone the close combat rules, and the related morale rules? And every single time, that's invalidated model concepts.

If you went back to the 3.5 Chaos Space Marine codex, and looked at the some of the model options there, you'd be able to find all sorts of upgrades where the effect didn't matter or didn't exist (or wouldn't work) in the next edition of the rules.

Previous editions of the rules allowed mixed toughness in units, and dealt with mixed stats in a unit to greater or lesser success. And in previous editions, there were upgrades and model concepts that centered around exploiting that mechanic. Simplify the rules in a new edition (9th edition compared to 5th), and those model concepts get invalidated.

Specific example: A T4 leader model. Add a bunch of T6 'body guard' models. In edition X, you just put the leader model and the body guards in the same unit and you're done--it's harder to wound the leader while the body guards exist. In 9th, in order to make the body guards work, you need special rules.

I don't see how any of that somehow means they can't keep making rules for the models, unless I'm missing something.

It's called a FALLACY for a reason.

Your argument is like insisting that Ford still make parts for the Model T just because you bought one. At some point it becomes untenable to continue supporting legacy products and they have to be dropped.

Marines have reached levels of codex bloat that push that up even sooner. You may not like it, but something has to give in that book. When they go to legends just use them as Primaris and you'll be fine.

I think that would be less of a problem if GW wasn't surrounded by the "cult of officialdom."

If you have a Model T, you can make your own parts (or have a mechanic/machinist make your parts).

If you have an old GW model, you could, similarly, just write rules for them in the current edition...

...but you lose the inherent advantage 40k has over other wargames in that you can play it anytime, anywhere, with anyone (at least by comparison). Because the average 40ker is a cultist of officialdom and is hesitant to step out of that comfort zone against a stranger or acquaintance, especially for a pickup game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think that would be less of a problem if GW wasn't surrounded by the "cult of officialdom."

If you have a Model T, you can make your own parts (or have a mechanic/machinist make your parts).

If you have an old GW model, you could, similarly, just write rules for them in the current edition...

...but you lose the inherent advantage 40k has over other wargames in that you can play it anytime, anywhere, with anyone (at least by comparison). Because the average 40ker is a cultist of officialdom and is hesitant to step out of that comfort zone against a stranger or acquaintance, especially for a pickup game.

That is very much an issue around GW, but more so around 40k. Blood Bowl for example has a massive homebrew community who will gladly tell GW to sod off if they don't like GW's rules, but that came out of them basically keeping the game alive for well over a decade and even adding to it over time. Inq28 spun off the original Inquisitor game, and I've heard of people doing stuff with Mordheim, and Battlefleet Gothic as well.

AoS seems like a more laidback community as well that's more open to casual experiences, while 40k has continued to double down (at least in the public discourse, less so in the actual community off the internet) on being a competitive game often to the detriment of the casual or homebrew experience, but that's solely on the community for that. I feel as a community we're the ones limiting our own fun in that regard.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's called a FALLACY for a reason.

Your argument is like insisting that Ford still make parts for the Model T just because you bought one. At some point it becomes untenable to continue supporting legacy products and they have to be dropped.

Marines have reached levels of codex bloat that push that up even sooner. You may not like it, but something has to give in that book. When they go to legends just use them as Primaris and you'll be fine.

How is something like a full plastic space marine , GK etc modeel line comperable to a model T ?

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's called a FALLACY for a reason.

Your argument is like insisting that Ford still make parts for the Model T just because you bought one. At some point it becomes untenable to continue supporting legacy products and they have to be dropped.

Marines have reached levels of codex bloat that push that up even sooner. You may not like it, but something has to give in that book. When they go to legends just use them as Primaris and you'll be fine.

How is something like a full plastic space marine , GK etc modeel line comperable to a model T ?

I was talking about the Firstborn in Codex Space Marine. No one is talking about replacing Grey Knights when the Grey Knights don't even have Primaris Karol.

Well me too. The whole model line, is plastic models, with maybe some characters being in resin. Maybe if GW wanted to intreduced a new type of marine, instead of forcing people to rebuy their entire army. they should just have said this are the new bigger marines, we are going to be remaking models for them for the next few years. Marines players also wouldn't be in that strange limbo, of characters without jump packs or bikes, when they clearly could be an option, but GW will not print the rules for them without spreading the releases over 10 years.

Karol wrote:
Well me too. The whole model line, is plastic models, with maybe some characters being in resin. Maybe if GW wanted to intreduced a new type of marine, instead of forcing people to rebuy their entire army. they should just have said this are the new bigger marines, we are going to be remaking models for them for the next few years. Marines players also wouldn't be in that strange limbo, of characters without jump packs or bikes, when they clearly could be an option, but GW will not print the rules for them without spreading the releases over 10 years.

We both know that while GW *should* do something, they won't do anything that threatens their bottom line.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think that would be less of a problem if GW wasn't surrounded by the "cult of officialdom."

If you have a Model T, you can make your own parts (or have a mechanic/machinist make your parts).

If you have an old GW model, you could, similarly, just write rules for them in the current edition...

...but you lose the inherent advantage 40k has over other wargames in that you can play it anytime, anywhere, with anyone (at least by comparison). Because the average 40ker is a cultist of officialdom and is hesitant to step out of that comfort zone against a stranger or acquaintance, especially for a pickup game.

I don't think its fair to keep referring to it as a cult. While GW fans do have issues with moving outside their comfort zone the reason so many stick to the official rules is more out of convenience than thinking they're the GOAT ruleset. Its much easier to organise a game by saying "2000pts, matched play?" and thats the end of the game arrangement discussion because everyone knows what that means.

But if that is the case, then if someone has an unupdatable army, the last few years they would just be wasting time and money, waiting for an update. Specially when GW told that they are going to support all factions, and they didn't finish updating all factions from 8th ed yet.

Karol wrote:
But if that is the case, then if someone has an unupdatable army, the last few years they would just be wasting time and money, waiting for an update. Specially when GW told that they are going to support all factions, and they didn't finish updating all factions from 8th ed yet.

They haven't finished updating all factions from 7th yet, if you count FW stuff.

I mean they did update all the factions to 8th. Then they removed certain ones in 9th so they no longer had to update them.
I mean yeah RIP R&H but to me, they died in the switch to 8th when they became a flavourless army with nothing going for it.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.

 Gert wrote:

Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.

Short answer: if they're shocked it's because they're stupid & clueless.

Longer answer: the above + a number of them just need something to be angry about/hold against GW each day.

ccs wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.

Short answer: if they're shocked it's because they're stupid & clueless.

Longer answer: the above + a number of them just need something to be angry about/hold against GW each day.

I'm not shocked, but I feel GW dropped the ball on how they refuse to update statlines for many books until they get their proper books.

Honestly they need to just give every army a beta rule update at the start of every edition for free via FAQ.

It's silly to act shocked when GW is simply doing what they've always been doing.

The awareness doesn't make it any less frustrating, though. Having an army stuck in development hell, or even worse completely squatted, is always going to be a miserable bitter experience.

ClockworkZion wrote:You are literally using sunk cost fallacy as justification here.

ClockworkZion wrote:It's called a FALLACY for a reason.

Sunk cost fallacy is when you've invested in something but it isn't working, so you keep investing further into it to try to make it work, rather than getting out and trying something else. It's a psychological fallacy, not an argumentative one.

Dumping more and more money into a hobby you don't enjoy in the hopes that it will become good, simply because you're already so invested, would be a sunk cost fallacy.

Expecting continued support for the products you bought is not sunk cost fallacy. It might be unreasonable for other reasons. Throwing the names of fallacies around does not an argument make.

ccs wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.

Short answer: if they're shocked it's because they're stupid & clueless.

Longer answer: the above + a number of them just need something to be angry about/hold against GW each day.

Gimme a break. Yeah, there's a pandemic, yeah it's forced GW to cut back on releases. But nobody said GW had to do "get you by" indexes for loyalist snowflake chapters AND IMMEDIATELY GIVE THEM SUPPLEMENTS as the edition launched. I don't even really begrudge GW for starting with Codex: Space Marines, we all know how that goes. But to prioritize the snowflakes *who had pretty solid stopgap rules* over real factions was just insane. Like, GW could've mostly covered the armies by now without amping up the number of releases they've done during the pandemic if they just prioritized a little better.

And I don't think what I'm saying is super naive either. Yeah, as I said above, loyalist SM will always get the attention. But in the past they didn't elevate the snowflake SM chapters to the exclusion of Chaos/Xenos like they did in 9e. That's new, it's bad, and your smugness on that topic is unearned

Karol wrote:
Well me too. The whole model line, is plastic models, with maybe some characters being in resin. Maybe if GW wanted to intreduced a new type of marine, instead of forcing people to rebuy their entire army. they should just have said this are the new bigger marines, we are going to be remaking models for them for the next few years.

Only to howls of condescension and nerdrage and a million 'malibu Stacy, but now with a new hat!' memes from the simpsons with badly photoshopped images. Firstly im pretty certain gws perspective is a new line of primaris will sell better than redoing the old. I personally don't disagree.The same people complaining about how primaris are bad/don't fit would just be complaining about gw being lazy and incompetent ('they had this great opportunity to introduce something NEW, maybe even refresh the line, but instead they bottled it and just made 'bigger' marines as a lazy cash grab. And I already have marines, there's no way in hell I'm forking over any cash for something this blatant when I don't need to') because the whole point is that its about complaining about a decision gw makes, whatever that is. Doesn't matter if its good or bad or makes sense from this perspective or that, the hobby is complaining about gw. Gw can't win, regardless of what they do, don't do or try to do or whether they do the other thing instead.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.

Short answer: if they're shocked it's because they're stupid & clueless.

Longer answer: the above + a number of them just need something to be angry about/hold against GW each day.

Gimme a break. Yeah, there's a pandemic, yeah it's forced GW to cut back on releases. But nobody said GW had to do "get you by" indexes for loyalist snowflake chapters AND IMMEDIATELY GIVE THEM SUPPLEMENTS as the edition launched. I don't even really begrudge GW for starting with Codex: Space Marines, we all know how that goes. But to prioritize the snowflakes *who had pretty solid stopgap rules* over real factions was just insane. Like, GW could've mostly covered the armies by now without amping up the number of releases they've done during the pandemic if they just prioritized a little better.

And I don't think what I'm saying is super naive either. Yeah, as I said above, loyalist SM will always get the attention. But in the past they didn't elevate the snowflake SM chapters to the exclusion of Chaos/Xenos like they did in 9e. That's new, it's bad, and your smugness on that topic is unearned

it's even more funny when we consider that instead of releasing the book of rust separately, increasing logistical burden that way, they quite likely could've been more consumer friendly and released the cut content in the respective dexes... So basically their greed is sabotaging them more than the pandemic.
Especially considering that other companies don't have nearly as much logistical pains.

 Gert wrote:
I mean they did update all the factions to 8th. Then they removed certain ones in 9th so they no longer had to update them.
I mean yeah RIP R&H but to me, they died in the switch to 8th when they became a flavourless army with nothing going for it.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.

I'm not shocked that all 9th edition codexes are updated.

I'm frustrated that WHICH 9th edition codexes have gotten updated so far is so clearly and obviously just tied to GW's marketing strategies rather than them attempting to make the game as good as possible. You'll notice that my example of 'where we could be' is based on the assumption that GW would only be able to release the same quantity of rules they've released right now in the time frame between the launch of 9th and now.

Deadnight wrote:
... Doesn't matter if its good or bad or makes sense from this perspective or that, the hobby is complaining about gw. Gw can't win, regardless of what they do, don't do or try to do or whether they do the other thing instead.

I don't agree. If GW started listening to their playtesters, distributed rules for free instead of insisting that the overpriced artbooks are somehow crucial to their business model, did smaller updates to more armies at once instead of locking in their math errors for editions at a time, tried to make sure everyone's models stayed legal from book to book, stopped wiping their asses with Forge World and telling us we should be grateful for any rules at all, and tried to spread releases out more evenly instead of doing a whole new Space Marine range every other edition and giving everyone else nothing for decades at a time I bet they'd see a lot less complaining, not more.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Gert wrote:
I mean they did update all the factions to 8th. Then they removed certain ones in 9th so they no longer had to update them.
I mean yeah RIP R&H but to me, they died in the switch to 8th when they became a flavourless army with nothing going for it.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.

I'm not shocked that all 9th edition codexes are updated.

I'm frustrated that WHICH 9th edition codexes have gotten updated so far is so clearly and obviously just tied to GW's marketing strategies rather than them attempting to make the game as good as possible. You'll notice that my example of 'where we could be' is based on the assumption that GW would only be able to release the same quantity of rules they've released right now in the time frame between the launch of 9th and now.

Why would you operate under the assumption that GW could only release the quantity of rules they have released? They could have released updates for everyone in this time. It is an intentional act that they have no released updates for all armies. Just as it is intentional what armies have gotten updates. You should be frustrated. We all are.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Gert wrote:
I mean they did update all the factions to 8th. Then they removed certain ones in 9th so they no longer had to update them.
I mean yeah RIP R&H but to me, they died in the switch to 8th when they became a flavourless army with nothing going for it.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.

I'm not shocked that all 9th edition codexes are updated.

I'm frustrated that WHICH 9th edition codexes have gotten updated so far is so clearly and obviously just tied to GW's marketing strategies rather than them attempting to make the game as good as possible. You'll notice that my example of 'where we could be' is based on the assumption that GW would only be able to release the same quantity of rules they've released right now in the time frame between the launch of 9th and now.

Why would you operate under the assumption that GW could only release the quantity of rules they have released? They could have released updates for everyone in this time. It is an intentional act that they have no released updates for all armies. Just as it is intentional what armies have gotten updates. You should be frustrated. We all are.

Wait, I'm confused. Is GW a major company that could produce "good" rules (here at least meaning "new") and has chosen not to for nefarious reasons, or are they a collection of incompetents that couldn't produce good rules to save their own lives? I've heard both arguments now, and they feel mutually exclusive.

I'm sure that the answer for some is both...

 Octopoid wrote:
Wait, I'm confused. Is GW a major company that could produce "good" rules (here at least meaning "new") and has chosen not to for nefarious reasons, or are they a collection of incompetents that couldn't produce good rules to save their own lives? I've heard both arguments now, and they feel mutually exclusive.

Not necessarily - they could be generally nefarious but incompetent to the point that their plans only work occasionally.
Note: I don't think that's the case, I suspect general incompetence/apathy to be the root cause instead of outright malice.

 Octopoid wrote:
...Wait, I'm confused. Is GW a major company that could produce "good" rules (here at least meaning "new") and has chosen not to for nefarious reasons, or are they a collection of incompetents that couldn't produce good rules to save their own lives? I've heard both arguments now, and they feel mutually exclusive.

GW has chosen a business model reliant on producing bad rules because the advantages for their profit margin outweigh the effect of bleeding players who've been through a nerf cycle and no longer care. The business model they've deliberately chosen for nefarious reasons relies on being a collection of incompetents that couldn't produce good rules to save their own lives.

Well its not like they couldn't hire better rules writers. There are literally hundreds of new games published every year with concise, clear and balanced rules and it wouldn't be difficult for them to pick up a few of these designers and have them work together to revamp 40k, but they don't. Instead they seem to hire GW store staff who've never actually designed a game and hope for the best.

Like if GW hired the designers of Forbidden Stars, Root and War Of The Ring together to design 40k 10th Ed and didn't interfere with their process/playtesting I would travel to Nottingham to shove my money directly into their face.