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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

pgmason wrote:
Here's what I put in the free text box

I like what you wrote. I wish I'd thought've Unit Actions, as I think that's a great system that could be expanded upon - Cultists performing rituals, Priests 'cleansing' areas of the battlefield, Necrons beinging arcane technology back online, and so on.

Y’all worded stuff so much better than I did. Also i wish I said some of the things you did... I mostly griped about getting supplements for codices that don’t work and about the rules being a barrier to entry for new players, as well as a barrier for retention, along with the financial barrier the rules are creating.

You're right about all of those things, but I intentionally avoided bringing up costs, GW prices and things that, whilst important, aren't necessarily specific to 40k.

If this'd been a whole "How are we doing?" survey for GW in general, sure, there were a bunch of things I would have added, but I tried to avoid mentioning other games unless it was a direct comparison (and I stuck to other GW games, rather than bringing up other things I play like BattleTech).

It's very easy to get lost in a rant, so I had to set a kind of boundary for tangents I wouldn't go off on, no matter how much I wanted to.

Doesn't make you wrong for doing so - someone needs to say it! - but my response was long enough as it was and I had to maintain a focus on just 40k.

The interesting thing about this to me is (assuming GW isn't just throwing this feedback into the trash and only doing it as PR thing), this suggests that they haven't finalized even basic elements of 10th edition like whether stratagems will still exist or not. That or they have, but they've been given such cold feet by recent problems with the game that they're considering ripping up what they previously came up with and starting again essentially from the ground up.

Based on the normal 3-year timeframe, 10th is only a year and a half away. According to GW's normal development schedule, the rules would be essentially done at this point aside from small adjustments based on playtesting.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're right about all of those things, but I intentionally avoided bringing up costs, GW prices and things that, whilst important, aren't necessarily specific to 40k.

If this'd been a whole "How are we doing?" survey for GW in general, sure, there were a bunch of things I would have added, but I tried to avoid mentioning other games unless it was a direct comparison (and I stuck to other GW games, rather than bringing up other things I play like BattleTech).

It's very easy to get lost in a rant, so I had to set a kind of boundary for tangents I wouldn't go off on, no matter how much I wanted to.

Doesn't make you wrong for doing so - someone needs to say it! - but my response was long enough as it was and I had to maintain a focus on just 40k.

I was going to not say it too but they did ask about accessibility to new players. It’s not like they couldn’t use a subscription for periodic payments or the models themselves to implement a pay to win system...

PenitentJake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Thadin wrote:
Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me

And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!

They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.

The real reason is that if it's been more than a year since you played, you probably can't actually offer any worthwhile, experience-based feedback on the current edition. If I recall correctly, the SM and Cron dexes came out in October of last year- which would mean technically, you might be able to offer feedback on playing with those dexes for a couple of weeks, but beyond that, you're just a rules analyst/ Internet echo chamber junkie/ armchair quarterback.

While I frequently disagree with Sim, I'd never accuse the dude of being stupid, so I would assume he thought of this and just decided to sh!tpost anyway?

I find it very hard to let opportunities to gakpost go by. Its a crime to see a gakpost and not do it.

Discarding feedback if you havn't played for a while is the right thing to do considering the questions in the survey.

Kicking you out immediately after that question though was dumb. They should have just filtered answers based on that question without telling the customers.

I'm fine with the rules.

Only thing I'd really wish is to significantly slow down the releases, especially the rules. 5 years editions for starters, and codexes that last that much at least but are still ok even if they were released one edition behind.

Spoletta wrote:
Discarding feedback if you havn't played for a while is the right thing to do considering the questions in the survey.

Kicking you out immediately after that question though was dumb. They should have just filtered answers based on that question without telling the customers.

I think it’s a bit of a lost opportunity and shows there lack of regard.

A simple page of, what is important to you in 40k. To see what players may be still interested in.
A when did you last purchase a 40k kit. And then comments at the end.

 Blackie wrote:
I'm fine with the rules.

Only thing I'd really wish is to significantly slow down the releases, especially the rules. 5 years editions for starters, and codexes that last that much at least but are still ok even if they were released one edition behind.

"Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."

I think that this will be a 5 year edition.

Spoletta wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm fine with the rules.

Only thing I'd really wish is to significantly slow down the releases, especially the rules. 5 years editions for starters, and codexes that last that much at least but are still ok even if they were released one edition behind.

"Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."

I think that this will be a 5 year edition.

Have you somehow never heard marketing speak before?

Spoletta wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm fine with the rules.

Only thing I'd really wish is to significantly slow down the releases, especially the rules. 5 years editions for starters, and codexes that last that much at least but are still ok even if they were released one edition behind.

"Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."

I think that this will be a 5 year edition.

Good, make it a standard lifespan of a 40k edition then

Technically "some years off" could mean 1.5 years, like 2023. Same old crappy 3 years cycle .

 Blackie wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm fine with the rules.

Only thing I'd really wish is to significantly slow down the releases, especially the rules. 5 years editions for starters, and codexes that last that much at least but are still ok even if they were released one edition behind.

"Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."

I think that this will be a 5 year edition.

Good, make it a standard lifespan of a 40k edition then

Technically "some years off" could mean 1.5 years, like 2023. Same old crappy 3 years cycle .

I find the edition length interesting, my brother was lamenting the fact nids have stopgap rules and are being passed over until seemingly the back end of next year at the earliest, but if all armies are updated by 2023 and this is a 5 year edition, the only thing GW seem to have up their sleeves from that point is PA style tack-on books. I can't imagine 2 years of an edition without any "compulsory for your army" releases.

Oh don't worry.
There will be SM 2.0 and all the vanilla supplements.

Spoletta wrote:
Oh don't worry.
There will be SM 2.0 and all the vanilla supplements.

I'd forgotten about all the vanilla supplements. I dare say we'll get chaos supplements this time too.

Its not going to be a 5 year edition, don't worry.

Wierd survey...
I think its pure lip service. The one last year was a lot better IMO. This seemed to only allow answers that support 40k.. It was hard to give any real feedback until right the end.

Basicaly wrote - Core rules very bare bones. Too many supplementary rules in codex/supplament to compensate creating a mess of "bespoke" rules which seem to do the same thing across armies but are worded slightly differently making it frustrating mess trying to remember unit rules.

Also - Ad mech level of power creep is bad for the casual players who happen to come across such armies and for competitive players who don't want to bother going to an event..

Also - Replace fine cast - all of it. Update armies more equaly.

I called for bringing back some unique flavour to units instead of stripping out abilities or replacing them with generic Mortal Wound effects.

Have a look through the IA Compendium and see how many units lost unique stuff, stuff that wasn't even competitive or complicated in any form or manner.

 Argive wrote:
Wierd survey...
I think its pure lip service. The one last year was a lot better IMO. This seemed to only allow answers that support 40k.. It was hard to give any real feedback until right the end.

In a slight bit of fairness to GW, the article on WHC does seem to frame it specifically as a survey about 40k, rather than a general GW survey.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its not going to be a 5 year edition, don't worry.

3 years will be the standard. 4 years if we're lucky.

We've been on a no longer than 3 year edition lifespan in both flagship games since 2012.

Yet people still come out each time saying they think it will be 4+ years as the game doesn't "need" it.

It's a guaranteed sales bump each summer one takes place. Wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Old World line up so they don't have a summer without a big edition launch.

If we get a longer than 3 years cycle is because all the releases have been delayed so far.

Spoletta wrote:
If we get a longer than 3 years cycle is because all the releases have been delayed so far.

If a worldwide pandemic did not stop them releasing a new edition of 40k then nothing will, things being "ready" be damned.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If we get a longer than 3 years cycle is because all the releases have been delayed so far.

If a worldwide pandemic did not stop them releasing a new edition of 40k then nothing will, things being "ready" be damned.

They likely had 9th ready to go well before the pandemic, it also sold like hotcakes and was the perfect lockdown distraction for a lot of people which lead to record profits.

The bubble has burst now people are starting to have to get back to the office/see people/lost jobs/etc.

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If we get a longer than 3 years cycle is because all the releases have been delayed so far.

If a worldwide pandemic did not stop them releasing a new edition of 40k then nothing will, things being "ready" be damned.

They likely had 9th ready to go well before the pandemic, it also sold like hotcakes and was the perfect lockdown distraction for a lot of people which lead to record profits.

The bubble has burst now people are starting to have to get back to the office/see people/lost jobs/etc.

If I was a GW exec, that'd scream to me "get 10th out as soon as possible to inflate our sales numbers again!" not "let's take it slow with 10th edition."

yukishiro1 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If we get a longer than 3 years cycle is because all the releases have been delayed so far.

If a worldwide pandemic did not stop them releasing a new edition of 40k then nothing will, things being "ready" be damned.

They likely had 9th ready to go well before the pandemic, it also sold like hotcakes and was the perfect lockdown distraction for a lot of people which lead to record profits.

The bubble has burst now people are starting to have to get back to the office/see people/lost jobs/etc.

If I was a GW exec, that'd scream to me "get 10th out as soon as possible to inflate our sales numbers again!" not "let's take it slow with 10th edition."

Nah I think they realise a lot of people lacked the chance to get much 9th ed experience and games in (hence a lot of the angry responses to the poll), so replacing a lot of stuff that people never got chance to use for external reasons is a bad look. I'm not in marketing but it seems common sense.

Are there angry responses?

Most of the responses I've seen are
"Oh, neat, here's the changes from 9th I'd like to see"

Dudeface wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If we get a longer than 3 years cycle is because all the releases have been delayed so far.

If a worldwide pandemic did not stop them releasing a new edition of 40k then nothing will, things being "ready" be damned.

They likely had 9th ready to go well before the pandemic, it also sold like hotcakes and was the perfect lockdown distraction for a lot of people which lead to record profits.

The bubble has burst now people are starting to have to get back to the office/see people/lost jobs/etc.

If I was a GW exec, that'd scream to me "get 10th out as soon as possible to inflate our sales numbers again!" not "let's take it slow with 10th edition."

Nah I think they realise a lot of people lacked the chance to get much 9th ed experience and games in (hence a lot of the angry responses to the poll), so replacing a lot of stuff that people never got chance to use for external reasons is a bad look. I'm not in marketing but it seems common sense.

GW marketing does not work based on common sense. It works on how much money can they make RIGHT NOW.

Replied strongly about stratagems. Other pages seemed built to allow only confirming responses, e.g. what do you like about X? Suggested that new rules be plug in play based on prior editions and allow players to select levels of realism and detail.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Are there angry responses?

Most of the responses I've seen are
"Oh, neat, here's the changes from 9th I'd like to see"

There were initially a lot of people who haven't played for over 2 years angry they couldn't feedback. They since opened it out a little more, but obviously these people now just get questions about 9th which may not be relevant.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Are there angry responses?

Most of the responses I've seen are
"Oh, neat, here's the changes from 9th I'd like to see"

There were initially a lot of people who haven't played for over 2 years angry they couldn't feedback. They since opened it out a little more, but obviously these people now just get questions about 9th which may not be relevant.

Here's a question:

do you have to play a rule set before you know whether you'll like it or not? Could you tell just by reading?
If not,
Then why shouldn't you be able to give recommendations on the ruleset that would make it more likeable to you?