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.

 Sim-Life wrote:

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.

That’s how every big business works. The emphasis is always on THIS quarter’s reports.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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?

It seems people who aren't seen as active players - based on GW's own definition - are not the target audience for the survey. Otherwise those people would have gotten questions along the line of "what would it take for you to come back to the game?" and such.

WarCom was apparently (again) ill-informed.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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?

It seems people who aren't seen as active players - based on GW's own definition - are not the target audience for the survey. Otherwise those people would have gotten questions along the line of "what would it take for you to come back to the game?" and such.

WarCom was apparently (again) ill-informed.

You'd think for a game that was looking to EXPAND the survey would be targeted at people who aren't currently playing.

Asking only people who are currently playing about rules is going to result in a positive skew on the results.

The only excuse would be targeting players like me who enjoy it somewhat but think improvements could be made... which I think would require a more narrow set of questions.

I think that it is certainly possible to contribute meaningfully to discussion without actual play experience; however I do also think that those who have actual play experience can offer more insight- since they can speak from both theory and practice, rather than theory alone.

As for soliciting advice from those outside the current version to encourage growth: it does make sense, to a certain extent.

However it might also lead to a situation where there is both an influx of new players AND an exodus of those who are already here, resulting in a net zero gain, or worse, a loss.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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?

It seems people who aren't seen as active players - based on GW's own definition - are not the target audience for the survey. Otherwise those people would have gotten questions along the line of "what would it take for you to come back to the game?" and such.

WarCom was apparently (again) ill-informed.

You'd think for a game that was looking to EXPAND the survey would be targeted at people who aren't currently playing.

Asking only people who are currently playing about rules is going to result in a positive skew on the results.

The only excuse would be targeting players like me who enjoy it somewhat but think improvements could be made... which I think would require a more narrow set of questions.

Targeting the people that made their stock explode with their survey makes more sense than you’d think. Granted, growing the hobby means bringing other people in, but the focus is those who were responsible for the massive growth the hobby gained. The marketing research is very targeted to figuring out how to scrape another boom together in stock prices. Those who were dissatisfied with 9th edition at the beginning of it were not involved in the explosion of the stock prices unless they were still hooked on the plastic crack barring an enjoyable game, which does exist. These people will continue to make purchases barring a game they enjoy however. They know that the formula for making 40k accessible is in the 8th and 9th edition core rules because the 8th and 9th edition is what made the game palatable to the masses.

Again, profit motive. It happens in every industry. Musicians like REM will abandon the fans that kept them from starving in the early part of their career at live shows in favor of appeasing the masses of fans that enjoy their more poppy sound because they put a metaphorical Ferrari in their garage. GW is not in the business of making you happy, they are in the business of making money and they have been doing an amazing job of it.

I don’t like it any more than you do and I absolutely do not believe that this is right, but in capitalism the only moral constraint is growth and profit. You are not in the pool of players that will contribute to another boom in stock prices because you are a small niche of players along with everyone else screaming for a better game, myself included. They don’t want to make a better game. They want to make a game that will generate more profit. To understand this, play any phone app game (which are rediculously profitable and terrible in terms of pay to win mechanics).

Which is a great summation of why I've been exploring independent games to use my toys with.

 Eldarain wrote:
Which is a great summation of why I've been exploring independent games to use my toys with.

You sir are winning. Have you found any winners? It seems like every other major game system has a 40k adaptation like bolt action 40k

The explosion in profit was due to sales, right? Like, GW didn’t receive a fat check every time someone completed a game, right? Only buying minis counts towards their profits?

It seems odd for them to believe that the people currently playing the most recent edition, during a pandemic, were the only people buying minis.

The people that were buying the minis without playing probably don’t depend on new rules to keep buying minis unfortunately. Not the extent that whales buying a codex and army release would.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The explosion in profit was due to sales, right? Like, GW didn’t receive a fat check every time someone completed a game, right? Only buying minis counts towards their profits?

It seems odd for them to believe that the people currently playing the most recent edition, during a pandemic, were the only people buying minis.

The trend follows people bought and painted a lot in lockdown to play games once they can, so their concern seems to be that the players who were consuming during lockdown, are dissatisfied with the rules enough not to come back.

This likely isn't the problem at heart, but as others have pointed out, they're not looking at expanding in this survey, or drawing in people from 2+ years ago, they're interested in contraction and not losing the people who have been paying them inside the lockdown window.

Meanwhile an odd group of people seem really disturbed at the idea of people voicing their opinions of the game unless they are 'experts' at playing it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Meanwhile an odd group of people seem really disturbed at the idea of people voicing their opinions of the game unless they are 'experts' at playing it.

Gotta wheel out those essays of maths no one cares about and split them strategems into seven broad categories to have an opinion on this game, right?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Meanwhile an odd group of people seem really disturbed at the idea of people voicing their opinions of the game unless they are 'experts' at playing it.

Gotta wheel out those essays of maths no one cares about and split them strategems into seven broad categories to have an opinion on this game, right?

Right next to the odd group of people who are disgruntled by the fact the survey isn't aimed at them.

The questions are asked towards people who play the game, other input is not required atm and WarCom was wrong as usual. There is no need to discuss the validity of specific opinions/experience.

Just as a food for thought, though: At the beginning of the edition nobody was thinking Slaanesh would be good just from reading the rules. And I think we are still waiting for a SM list making 1st place with 18 Eradicators. I believe melee was declared dead as well. Slow gunlines aren't exactly the meta.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Meanwhile an odd group of people seem really disturbed at the idea of people voicing their opinions of the game unless they are 'experts' at playing it.

Gotta wheel out those essays of maths no one cares about and split them strategems into seven broad categories to have an opinion on this game, right?

Right next to the odd group of people who are disgruntled by the fact the survey isn't aimed at them.

The questions are asked towards people who play the game, other input is not required atm and WarCom was wrong as usual. There is no need to discuss the validity of specific opinions/experience.

Just as a food for thought, though: At the beginning of the edition nobody was thinking Slaanesh would be good just from reading the rules. And I think we are still waiting for a SM list making 1st place with 18 Eradicators. I believe melee was declared dead as well. Slow gunlines aren't exactly the meta.

I'd consider myself a 40k player even though I'm not actively playing. 30 years of game/hobby experience doesn't just vanish from your head because you haven't played for a year.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's fun to have an official avenue to be ignored by GW.

Anyway, I write a 2,500 word essay. That should be enough.

Correct. I won´t bother replying to them. Waste of time. Though I will mention my ideas for improvement here. I played 40K like this for more than a decade and will never go back to "official" nonsense of new edition tax to play the game:

1. Implement alternate activation. Period. No discussion.

2. Implement boni for favourable positioning of units for "Crossfire". Take a look in the Epic Armageddon (EA) ruleset how it is done.

3. Implement a mechanic for pinning or staggering units. Take again a look at EA which uses the blast marker mechanic to emulate this. Shooting at units needs to have other effects than just a simple decision of dead or alive.

4. Reintroduce abstract area terrain again. Swiss cheese plastic terrain kits won´t give cover for your models. Or even better: Build your own terrain.

5. Abolish flyers and large walkers (IKs, Stompas, etc.) from ROUTINE 40K missions. They just don´t fit the scale of the game. Instead create special scenarios in which it would make sense to use them. And while you are at it improve their stats by a LARGE margin. It never felt right to me that an infantry model gets a save when stomped by an IK...

5. Reintroduce USR into the game. Also do this: Sell boxed sets of models which INCLUDE small data cards which lists the USR and faction specific rules those models might have. Saves the players time looking them up in the rulebook.

6. Banish all aspects of "MtG" which has leaked into 40K. If I want to play MtG then I play MtG and not a cheap copy of it.

 Sim-Life wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Meanwhile an odd group of people seem really disturbed at the idea of people voicing their opinions of the game unless they are 'experts' at playing it.

Gotta wheel out those essays of maths no one cares about and split them strategems into seven broad categories to have an opinion on this game, right?

Right next to the odd group of people who are disgruntled by the fact the survey isn't aimed at them.

The questions are asked towards people who play the game, other input is not required atm and WarCom was wrong as usual. There is no need to discuss the validity of specific opinions/experience.

Just as a food for thought, though: At the beginning of the edition nobody was thinking Slaanesh would be good just from reading the rules. And I think we are still waiting for a SM list making 1st place with 18 Eradicators. I believe melee was declared dead as well. Slow gunlines aren't exactly the meta.

I'd consider myself a 40k player even though I'm not actively playing. 30 years of game/hobby experience doesn't just vanish from your head because you haven't played for a year.

Plus, of all people to call out (me) who has posted in this very thread that they have played 9th back in the summer, but apparently that is not good enough to be part of the 40k zeitgeist…

For my feedback, I stayed very focused and discussed how their Points Value system for Match Play actively encourages Min-Maxing and discourages armies that look like they are supposed to in the 41st Millennium. I used the classic example of the poster boy Tactical Marine.

10 Tactical Marines cost the same if they are 2 5-model units or 1-10 model unit. And yet you get two sergeants for the same points value in the 2 5-model units, not to mention two units for actions and have to worry about Morale less with the smaller units. You are rewarded for taking the smaller units for the same points!

 Strg Alt wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's fun to have an official avenue to be ignored by GW.

Anyway, I write a 2,500 word essay. That should be enough.

Correct. I won´t bother replying to them. Waste of time. Though I will mention my ideas for improvement here. I played 40K like this for more than a decade and will never go back to "official" nonsense of new edition tax to play the game:

1. Implement alternate activation. Period. No discussion.

This requires a lot of the other guts of the game to be ripped out but that's probably a good thing.

2. Implement boni for favourable positioning of units for "Crossfire". Take a look in the Epic Armageddon (EA) ruleset how it is done.

3. Implement a mechanic for pinning or staggering units. Take again a look at EA which uses the blast marker mechanic to emulate this. Shooting at units needs to have other effects than just a simple decision of dead or alive.

These go hand in hand for me, morale shouldn't just be guys run away or pointless, likewise shooting shouldn't just be dead or alive. Even if the additional stuff comes in via morale.

4. Reintroduce abstract area terrain again. Swiss cheese plastic terrain kits won´t give cover for your models. Or even better: Build your own terrain.

No thanks, the midground we have now is fine, I don't want any more "my toe is in a ruin on my riptide so I have a cover save" crap again.

5. Abolish flyers and large walkers (IKs, Stompas, etc.) from ROUTINE 40K missions. They just don´t fit the scale of the game. Instead create special scenarios in which it would make sense to use them. And while you are at it improve their stats by a LARGE margin. It never felt right to me that an infantry model gets a save when stomped by an IK...

Meh, that cats out the bag, it's here to stay but the big models need to be more engaging to interact with.

5. Reintroduce USR into the game. Also do this: Sell boxed sets of models which INCLUDE small data cards which lists the USR and faction specific rules those models might have. Saves the players time looking them up in the rulebook.

They could do this just be expanding the manuals to have some icons that refer to some rules tbh. I'd not be against datacard packs to buy either.

6. Banish all aspects of "MtG" which has leaked into 40K. If I want to play MtG then I play MtG and not a cheap copy of it.

Nothing about 40k is cheap! Jokes aside, I don't play magic so can't really comment but I don't design a deck of cards for my army so unsure? If you mean reactionary actions and what are in essence "power ups" via strats, the former needs to be there in some capacity and the latter needs to be reigned right in.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'd consider myself a 40k player even though I'm not actively playing. 30 years of game/hobby experience doesn't just vanish from your head because you haven't played for a year.

It doesn't, but again, the survey is aimed at people playing the current game and their input on it. If they wanted to know what has to be done for lapsed players to return to the game, they would not have kicked you out after the first question.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'd consider myself a 40k player even though I'm not actively playing. 30 years of game/hobby experience doesn't just vanish from your head because you haven't played for a year.

It doesn't, but again, the survey is aimed at people playing the current game and their input on it. If they wanted to know what has to be done for lapsed players to return to the game, they would not have kicked you out after the first question.

Jokes on you. They changed the survey shortly after it went up and let lapsed players get past the second question. I did it twice, both times saying I haven't played in 2 years (though Dudeface informed me I played at least a year ago, thanks lockdown for screwing up my perception of time) and the second time I got the full survey.

 Sim-Life wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'd consider myself a 40k player even though I'm not actively playing. 30 years of game/hobby experience doesn't just vanish from your head because you haven't played for a year.

It doesn't, but again, the survey is aimed at people playing the current game and their input on it. If they wanted to know what has to be done for lapsed players to return to the game, they would not have kicked you out after the first question.

Jokes on you. They changed the survey shortly after it went up and let lapsed players get past the second question. I did it twice, both times saying I haven't played in 2 years (though Dudeface informed me I played at least a year ago, thanks lockdown for screwing up my perception of time) and the second time I got the full survey.

Not gonna lie, I thought the necron book was older as well!

I totally thought Slaanesh would be good when I read the 9th book. As soon as it said "you lose several square feet of play space" I knew I was going to get first turn charges.

What I didn't anticipate was *how* good (since gunlines evaporated overnight)

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'd consider myself a 40k player even though I'm not actively playing. 30 years of game/hobby experience doesn't just vanish from your head because you haven't played for a year.

It doesn't, but again, the survey is aimed at people playing the current game and their input on it. If they wanted to know what has to be done for lapsed players to return to the game, they would not have kicked you out after the first question.

Thanks for sharing the survey here! I haven't been keeping up with WarCom as much so I would have missed.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Jokes on you. They changed the survey shortly after it went up and let lapsed players get past the second question. I did it twice, both times saying I haven't played in 2 years (though Dudeface informed me I played at least a year ago, thanks lockdown for screwing up my perception of time) and the second time I got the full survey.

That's gopd, then everybody can leave feedback. Let's hope the changed question path is not just for show.