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 not sure AA can work with how large w40k games are. I know that sudo AA the way Ifinity has it, work good with limited number of models.
Having an AA w40k or AA would probably require the reworking of all the rules to be more squad/squadron based with infantry models being more like wound or weapon tokens, then actual singular units forced in to formation of a squad, which have their own LoS, cover etc. Also balancing heroes between unimportant buff bots and deathmachines killling whole armies, could be a problem too. The main barrier for such a change is that GW would have to reset the whole game, and give each faction not just the core rules, but new faction rules too. And something like that can take decades for GW to prepare.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm still waiting to see the mythical AA rules that work well.

In general? See any of the many previously mentioned games, personal favorite being Epic Armageddon with risk-management baked into faction dependent operational reliability.

For painless 40k conversions? Try this:

- No player turns, only a combined round.
- At the beginning of the round, count the number of units each player has. Put that many coloured dice in a bag.
- Draw dice from the bag until the colour changes. The indicated player makes a full 40k-turn with all phases (barring Morale) with that many units of their choice. No unit can be activated multiple times during one round.
- Units that are charged get one free go at striking back.
- Psionic buffs, strats, command abilities etc. last only until the end of the round, so better prioritize what you start with.
- No repeating strats in similar phases of the mini-turns, just like regular 40k.
- Morale for everyone at the end, recalculate the unit count, new round begins.

Some edge cases are bound to pop up here and there, given how 9th ed puts layers on top of all things, but from tabletop experience I can say even a very simple system like this has been much more fun to play with. Depending on the players, it is easy to start tweaking it further to their liking.

Wouldn't such a game system more or less kill any army that works around formations of 2-3 models/units, often with buffing and debuffing being spread over multiple sub phases?

There should be an option to not allow AA conversations in a topic, or maybe people should just stop bringing it up when it is totally 100% irrelevant to the topic (dataslate released 4/14/2022). The 1000s club have all weighed in on AA. If someone gaks on it or glorifies it and you feel it should be glorified or gakked on then you can simply not respond.

I am guilty of doing the same on the topic of whether 9th was made for competitive 40k and to get back on topic, I think the dataslate has changed my mind. HotE and AoC were made to fix external balance issues seen in tournaments at the cost of narrative, something I don't think GW have done a lot of. Being a casual 9th edition player this has annoyed me greatly. Although the win rates do look about as good as one can hope for, so now I suppose I can play competitive 40k while trying to ignore my my gauss rifles supreme uselessness against (C)SM and Sororitas tanks until competitive is ruined by the next OP codex.

If you really want to debate AA start a new thread and ensure that everyone posts how their minds can be changed on the subject of AA, because otherwise, the discussion is worthless. Consider whether you really want to have your mind changed and whether you can really change someone's mind on the subject. Otherwise, you might just write a Dakka article on your opinions and link to it every time the discussion comes up so people can see your unchanging opinions on the subject.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm still waiting to see the mythical AA rules that work well.

OnePageRules

"Mythical AA Rules that work well"
I feel you might just not like that kind of rule.

As a former Space Marine player and then Imperial Guard player I can confidently say that AA or conditional activation rules would be nothing but be a benefit to the game

Basically there just needs to be a system to handle activation count. Perhaps something that broadly groups equivalent points worth of activations together to avoid the peril of activation spam (something like splitting your list into 4 activation groups) and then that's the only real downside solved.

In SW Armada AA was balanced at first by having cards that guaranteed first/last activation on a particular turn for a particular unit, which in 40k could be a strategem for particularly tactical factions (i.e Ultramarines, Vect's Dark Eldar, Creed, etc)

They then switched it to a system that there is now where the side with less activations get pass tokens, but that would work less well in 40k

Something similar to X-wing's initiative system could certainly be interesting in 40k. Tl;dr low initiative move first but shoot last in the two movement/shooting phase equivalents. Then the entire game system could be balanced around the fact that Imperial Guard will always shoot last.

Both systems feel strategic and skill based, far more than any game of 40k I ever had, and that's why I gradually switched to playing both and then played 40k rarely for a while. X-wing's rules nosedived a bit just recently due to change in management but that's a whole 'nother story.

The gist of it is this; in the current state of balance, whenever I've played Imperial Guard the most important roll of the game is always the initiative roll. You can mitigate being shot at on turn one but you can't mitigate your opponent having 3 good shooting phases before you have had 3. And no matter what way you cut it, getting to shoot first with your entire gunline is always a huge advantage because a competently built one can destroy a list that didn't expect or adequately plan to come up against triple Russes and triple heavy arty (Bas/Mant) or 6 Russes or w/e can be crippled on turn one. And if you're facing an equally good gunline, whoever shoots first typically wins unless his rolling is so bad he sees red or he plays an extremely inefficient game.

To tie it into the thread; as a longtime AM player, I think the changes are daft. When the only way to balance AM is to make Infantry Squads with a Lascannon, plasma pistol and plasma gun an auto-take, there is a massive problem with the system. The rot that led to this level of absurdity started in 8th with GW being unable to balance morale and swarms. Either it was one 30pt Commissar turning a blob of 50 Conscripts into a completely indestructible, impassable object, or Conscripts were basically worthless, because blocking reliably or having an OP damage output from force multiplication has only been the reasons to take them. We are now in the latter stage again. Joy.

AM routinely swing between being excellent and too mediocre to be considered truly competitive entirely on the basis on how much GW feel like letting them have one-turn-destructive-capability or broken defensive gimmicks this month. They were amazing in 5th Edition with leafblower and 130 pt Vendettas, then they were mediocre in 6th and 7th and largely overshadowed by armies they couldn't rinse with just a good shooting phase like Tau and Eldar. Then 8th happened and overnight a Leman Russ that was previously useless against a Riptide was now better or equal than the Riptide because it could actually do multiple wounds to the latter. Fearless Conscript swarms that couldn't be deleted with templates and weapon balance that hadn't yet caught up was just the icing on the cake that was having Leman Russes that countered everything. I won a few tournaments in 8th because of those changes.

Then when I saw the rules for 9th penalizing units with 10 models or more with D6 weapons, bubblewrapping etc I felt my enthusiasm to get back into the game take a nosedive. I am absolutely not surprised we are in this state of affairs where a balance patch gives AM gives free upgrades and auto-wounds on 6s to hit in light of that.

IGOUGO cannot be turned into a good rules system. It disproportionately rewards having the best faction rules/stats and luck on the initiative roll while player skill takes a backseat. You can only put band aids on it and watch the pendulum swing back and forth. And that is what GW have been doing for years.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"Mythical AA Rules that work well"
I feel you might just not like that kind of rule.

He has participated in a lot of discussions in the past on AA and yeah that was the distinct conclusion I had also drawn - he was just not into those kinds of rules.

While I do not doubt that AA would result in a more fun game just because there more interaction, I seriously doubt that any of the game's problems would go away.

As long as the same four dudes are in charge of the rules, they will continue to make the same mistakes they have been make for the last decade.

 Jidmah wrote:
While I do not doubt that AA would result in a more fun game just because there more interaction, I seriously doubt that any of the game's problems would go away.

As long as the same four dudes are in charge of the rules, they will continue to make the same mistakes they have been make for the last decade.

What would you consider the biggest problems to be, if they are not related to the turn order itself in some way?

Off the top of my head, the largest pitfalls of traditional IGOUGO 40k currently are:

- Long uninteractive player turns. AA removes this by involving all sides in the decisionmaking all the time.
- Lethality. AA removes most of the problematic elements of this, since both players get to swing at each other effectively at all times. One side isn't playing catch-up on kills and staying power.
- Layered rules combinations of buffs and tricks in perfect coordination. An AA version should end up with a more localized use of buffing models and more interesting play in timing of those abilities, which can in turn also be disrupted by the opponent so there is more interplay than you get in the "whole army moves into perfect position and kills things with max buffs".
- Scoring advantage depends on being first or second. With combined AA rounds instead, that problem just doesn't exist.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
While I do not doubt that AA would result in a more fun game just because there more interaction, I seriously doubt that any of the game's problems would go away.

As long as the same four dudes are in charge of the rules, they will continue to make the same mistakes they have been make for the last decade.

What would you consider the biggest problems to be, if they are not related to the turn order itself in some way?

The biggest problems of 9th edition, just like all editions before are:

- Codex creep, inability to stick with design paradigms, not going back to fix released codices
- Rules team playing favorites with factions, not just in terms of power, but also in terms of quality and effort put in
- Rules team not actually knowing their game well enough to tweak it

Off the top of my head, the largest pitfalls of traditional IGOUGO 40k currently are:

- Long uninteractive player turns. AA removes this by involving all sides in the decisionmaking all the time.

Absolutely.

- Lethality. AA removes most of the problematic elements of this, since both players get to swing at each other effectively at all times. One side isn't playing catch-up on kills and staying power.

Lethality is still a problem in AA. Some 40k units on top of the arms race are lethal enough to wipe two or even three units in one shooting phase. It would reduce the impact of lethality, but it would not solve the problem.

- Layered rules combinations of buffs and tricks in perfect coordination. An AA version should end up with a more localized use of buffing models and more interesting play in timing of those abilities, which can in turn also be disrupted by the opponent so there is more interplay than you get in the "whole army moves into perfect position and kills things with max buffs".

Same as above. If units still have auras and you can still drop 12 CP to shoot twice, re-roll everything, get +1 to hit, wound, damage and tying your shoelaces, it doesn't rally matter whether your opponent gets a turn after your combo has wiped out all his anti-tank. AA doesn't inherently solve this, so there is a good chance of GW fething it up anyways.

- Scoring advantage depends on being first or second. With combined AA rounds instead, that problem just doesn't exist.

I don't think this is a huge problem in the current game, but scoring and performing actions would definitely be more interesting with AA.

In the end, a more interactive AA which sucks just as much as the currently IGOUGO would probably still be a better game. I have no illusions of GW not making it a game on par with any of the AA games that keep being referenced in these discussions though.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
While I do not doubt that AA would result in a more fun game just because there more interaction, I seriously doubt that any of the game's problems would go away.

As long as the same four dudes are in charge of the rules, they will continue to make the same mistakes they have been make for the last decade.

What would you consider the biggest problems to be, if they are not related to the turn order itself in some way?

Codex creep is definitely the biggest problem, not everyone plays on the same league at some point. AA/IGOUGO means nothing when an army belongs to Premier League and the opponent to Championship.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
While I do not doubt that AA would result in a more fun game just because there more interaction, I seriously doubt that any of the game's problems would go away.

As long as the same four dudes are in charge of the rules, they will continue to make the same mistakes they have been make for the last decade.

What would you consider the biggest problems to be, if they are not related to the turn order itself in some way?

The biggest problems of 9th edition, just like all editions before are:

- Codex creep, inability to stick with design paradigms, not going back to fix released codices
- Rules team playing favorites with factions, not just in terms of power, but also in terms of quality and effort put in
- Rules team not actually knowing their game well enough to tweak it

Off the top of my head, the largest pitfalls of traditional IGOUGO 40k currently are:

- Long uninteractive player turns. AA removes this by involving all sides in the decisionmaking all the time.

Absolutely.

- Lethality. AA removes most of the problematic elements of this, since both players get to swing at each other effectively at all times. One side isn't playing catch-up on kills and staying power.

Lethality is still a problem in AA. Some 40k units on top of the arms race are lethal enough to wipe two or even three units in one shooting phase. It would reduce the impact of lethality, but it would not solve the problem.

- Layered rules combinations of buffs and tricks in perfect coordination. An AA version should end up with a more localized use of buffing models and more interesting play in timing of those abilities, which can in turn also be disrupted by the opponent so there is more interplay than you get in the "whole army moves into perfect position and kills things with max buffs".

Same as above. If units still have auras and you can still drop 12 CP to shoot twice, re-roll everything, get +1 to hit, wound, damage and tying your shoelaces, it doesn't rally matter whether your opponent gets a turn after your combo has wiped out all his anti-tank. AA doesn't inherently solve this, so there is a good chance of GW fething it up anyways.

- Scoring advantage depends on being first or second. With combined AA rounds instead, that problem just doesn't exist.

I don't think this is a huge problem in the current game, but scoring and performing actions would definitely be more interesting with AA.

In the end, a more interactive AA which sucks just as much as the currently IGOUGO would probably still be a better game. I have no illusions of GW not making it a game on par with any of the AA games that keep being referenced in these discussions though.

So about GW not going back to fix broken errors or update codexes, here is the problem: Every man hour spent on writing or developing or researching the proper fix to previous codexes is a net loss for the company. You don't go backwards, because there is zero money in releasing a free update. There is only lost money in paying someone to do so. GW has done this for 40k 9th, it feels like, more so than any edition I've seen 7th, 8th, 8.2, 9th. It feels like they are making an honest effort in correcting the flood of errors, but if they really want to fix these sort of issues, literally hire a proofer, or a proofing division. Correct the spelling issues, the horrible grammar resulting in RAI/RAW arguments (Scions recently) and someone who checks the consistency of rule interactions. Make one of the current rule teamers a new title, and force them with a 2' length of pipe to find and fix errors.

GW is kind of a dinosaur. It's basically the only major table top miniatures company that has it's roots in the 70s. In way, it's the obvious analoge to the D&D branch of WotC, in that both are simply going to stick with trying to refine old fashioned mechanics than switch to new ones. 40k is always going to rely on mass d6s, it will always be IGOUGO, it will never have a true living rulebook, etc. Just like D&D will always be beholden to the d20 and insist on using spell slots.

It's a perfectly fine academic argument, but 8 edition was in many ways the biggest shake up to 40k ever, and certainly the biggest in 20 years. Redrawing 40k with activating alternations would be a completely different game. Now, that might be a better game for some people, but that's throwing out 30 years of institutional knowledge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

So about GW not going back to fix broken errors or update codexes, here is the problem: Every man hour spent on writing or developing or researching the proper fix to previous codexes is a net loss for the company. You don't go backwards, because there is zero money in releasing a free update. There is only lost money in paying someone to do so.

I'm not sure that's true. Certainly if fixing an old codex makes a unit usable or stronger, that might juice sales of that unit. Further, people feel more comfortable knowing that their purchases are receiving at least some update. Given the relatively small cost of updating materials, even a tiny bump in goodwill or sales more than makes up for it.

GW has done this for 40k 9th, it feels like, more so than any edition I've seen 7th, 8th, 8.2, 9th. It feels like they are making an honest effort in correcting the flood of errors, but if they really want to fix these sort of issues, literally hire a proofer, or a proofing division. Correct the spelling issues, the horrible grammar resulting in RAI/RAW arguments (Scions recently) and someone who checks the consistency of rule interactions. Make one of the current rule teamers a new title, and force them with a 2' length of pipe to find and fix errors.

GW absolutely has a proofreader, probably multiple. Some errors slip through, but that's more because the game is incredibly complicated than because they don't do proofreading or editing. the scion thing was a classic corner case in which they forgot that they had a codex, then a supplement, and the supplement monkeyed with the key words.

I got a document the other day at work, and it had been reviewed by at least two different attorneys. I read through, and immediately noticed that it listed the name of the recently retired executive, instead of the current person acting in the role. Does that mean it wasn't reviewed, or that I shouldn't trust the work? No, it just means I caught a different mistake from the prior two people. And if a fourth person looked at it, they'd catch something everybody prior missed.

I would rather GW commit to week two errata, which will quickly fix all problems, than try to hunt down everything before had.

8th was the biggest shake up for 40k yet the same mistakes were made that caused the problems in previous editions

the main problem are the Codex rules
call it power creep, bad balance, etc, but the problem is always related to the codex rules

yet GW always goes for the cheap fix by changing the core rules in hope that they catch all the Codex problems at once without the need to adjust each single army

they do it always this way and it does not matter how often or in which way they change the core rules again, as long as GW trys to fix individual Codex problems with generic changes for everything, the game won't become better

I think the "codex plus new dice, datacards, and maybe some new models" release schedule is also one of GWs vestigial attributes. Games with higher levels of balance don't use that model... although I think you can poke your head into a discussion of any game, and find people screaming about poor balance. I mean, ranking factions in tiers is a time honored tradition, so I'm not sure simply switching models would fix 40ks balance.

 Jidmah wrote:

The biggest problems of 9th edition, just like all editions before are:

- Codex creep, inability to stick with design paradigms, not going back to fix released codices
- Rules team playing favorites with factions, not just in terms of power, but also in terms of quality and effort put in
- Rules team not actually knowing their game well enough to tweak it

A huge problem with 9th (and 8th) is that the core rules are so bare bones. It leaves very little design space and lacks mechanical depth that it forces game mechanics / rules to be added into the codex which is something that other codexes cannot reasonably design around. Generally a codex's special rules are mostly modifying what you can do with the core rules (move, shoot, chop, die) so it really limits how much more a unit or weapon can do. This results in a lot of power creep as the codex pumps up those numbers (number of attacks, to hit, to wound, damage, saves, wounds, etc) without really having any sort of way to counter play it without just having even more pumped up numbers or USRs (unique special rules in this case). This also causes a lot of rules layering which creates a huge amount of tall bloat (that stacking effect which rapidly escalates power creep or balance issues) where as the older rule sets tended to have a lot of wide bloat (a large amount of niche stuff which tends to cause less power creep issues but more rules questions due to GW's generally poor way of wording its rules). Formation rules in 7th showed how problematic this could be but I would argue that the wide bloat style of the BRB helped make a lot of formations interesting without just being a number pump.

Hmm, that's interesting to define the tall bloat vs. wide bloat. The former will supercharge everything, but the latter is when you get goofy stuff like an old FW unit interreacting weirdly with a new codex rule.

I don't think 8th/9th are too bare bones, I think that GW wants each army to play in a wildly distinct way, and just runs out of design space. there are what, about two dozen major books, most of which have 5 or 6 subfactions, plus supplements. Look at three different superfaction rules from the last year alone: Miracle dice, strands of fate dice, and luck of the laughing god rerolls. These are all different ways to manipulate dice rolls, how do you balance these? Experieince is showing that the rerolls are better than strands, and Miracle dice have already been buffed but bring up the rear.

I think GW thinks that layers of rules are cool, and I don't think they're wrong, but it's the layers of rules that can result in things breaking.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So about GW not going back to fix broken errors or update codexes, here is the problem: Every man hour spent on writing or developing or researching the proper fix to previous codexes is a net loss for the company. You don't go backwards, because there is zero money in releasing a free update. There is only lost money in paying someone to do so. GW has done this for 40k 9th, it feels like, more so than any edition I've seen 7th, 8th, 8.2, 9th. It feels like they are making an honest effort in correcting the flood of errors, but if they really want to fix these sort of issues, literally hire a proofer, or a proofing division. Correct the spelling issues, the horrible grammar resulting in RAI/RAW arguments (Scions recently) and someone who checks the consistency of rule interactions. Make one of the current rule teamers a new title, and force them with a 2' length of pipe to find and fix errors.

Except it has been proven across multiple games that a decent game will attract more player and generate more sales.

It also doesn't matter at all if GW sacrifices a IGOUGO game for the quick buck or if they do the same for an AA game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
I think the "codex plus new dice, datacards, and maybe some new models" release schedule is also one of GWs vestigial attributes. Games with higher levels of balance don't use that model... although I think you can poke your head into a discussion of any game, and find people screaming about poor balance. I mean, ranking factions in tiers is a time honored tradition, so I'm not sure simply switching models would fix 40ks balance.

The release schedule is not an excuse for blatant power-creep and having some codices feel like master-crafted clockworks while others don't even have their transport rules written in a proper way.

 Jidmah wrote:

Except it has been proven across multiple games that a decent game will attract more player and generate more sales.

That's true, but being the only wargame with a full wall of mini in most LGS kinda counteracts the fact that the game is poor. Some random kid wanting to play wargames will most probably have heard of 40k before any other ones, and is gonna be able to walk in his store to pickup a start collecting/combat patrol.

40k is the most discussed online wargame
40k is the game with the most content on youtube
40k is the biggest.

GW reached a point where the sheer inertia of the franchise will carry them through tough times

 Vankraken wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

The biggest problems of 9th edition, just like all editions before are:

- Codex creep, inability to stick with design paradigms, not going back to fix released codices
- Rules team playing favorites with factions, not just in terms of power, but also in terms of quality and effort put in
- Rules team not actually knowing their game well enough to tweak it

A huge problem with 9th (and 8th) is that the core rules are so bare bones. It leaves very little design space and lacks mechanical depth that it forces game mechanics / rules to be added into the codex which is something that other codexes cannot reasonably design around. Generally a codex's special rules are mostly modifying what you can do with the core rules (move, shoot, chop, die) so it really limits how much more a unit or weapon can do. This results in a lot of power creep as the codex pumps up those numbers (number of attacks, to hit, to wound, damage, saves, wounds, etc) without really having any sort of way to counter play it without just having even more pumped up numbers or USRs (unique special rules in this case). This also causes a lot of rules layering which creates a huge amount of tall bloat (that stacking effect which rapidly escalates power creep or balance issues) where as the older rule sets tended to have a lot of wide bloat (a large amount of niche stuff which tends to cause less power creep issues but more rules questions due to GW's generally poor way of wording its rules). Formation rules in 7th showed how problematic this could be but I would argue that the wide bloat style of the BRB helped make a lot of formations interesting without just being a number pump.

If anything those three issues were worse in 7th that they were in 9th. Codex creep was rampant then, pet armies received buffs and tons of powerful formations, while armies the team didn't care about received nerfs and half-assed rules which were not play-tested once.

9th was a perfectly fine edition until Codex: Durkhari and could have stayed that way if the rules writers hadn't fallen back into their old habits.

 aphyon wrote:

As a matter of fact that is exactly what our group does. we play core 5th ed rules but any codex of your choice is allowed from 3rd-7th. so we do get all the best (most lore accurate and flavorful codex) choices for recreational play. all of those editions are very cross compatible as well as the fact that many codexes existed for years across multiple editions given GWs release model.

Huh. That's an interesting idea.

But does it not create issues with USRs, psychic powers or other such changing between editions?

e.g. if I'm remembering correctly, psychic powers in 5th were cast just with a leadership test, usually in your movement or shooting phase. However, in later editions you had whole tables of randomly-determined psychic powers, cast using the Magic Phase from WHFB - including power and dispel dice.

How do you resolve that sort of thing?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Except it has been proven across multiple games that a decent game will attract more player and generate more sales.

That's true, but being the only wargame with a full wall of mini in most LGS kinda counteracts the fact that the game is poor. Some random kid wanting to play wargames will most probably have heard of 40k before any other ones, and is gonna be able to walk in his store to pickup a start collecting/combat patrol.

40k is the most discussed online wargame
40k is the game with the most content on youtube
40k is the biggest.

GW reached a point where the sheer inertia of the franchise will carry them through tough times

...and yet it has never reached the same level of success as WoW or MtG or LoL or D&D or any other game which has embraced the truth of "make your game better = more $$$".
Maybe they hit the cap of how much plastic and paper they can sell during the beginning of 9th and decided that they don't want to be better anymore?

 Jidmah wrote:


...and yet it has never reached the same level of success as WoW or MtG or LoL or D&D or any other game which has embraced the truth of "make your game better = more $$$".
Maybe they hit the cap of how much plastic and paper they can sell during the beginning of 9th and decided that they don't want to be better anymore?

WoW/LoL : Online games which automatically have more exposure and is easier to get into (just download the client and play)
MtG : i can start playing for 20$ and its the other big LGS game.
D&D : Still cheaper to get into than 40k, more accessible since you can "do anything" in it. (and it also got released 10 years before 40k IIRC?)

Wargames just arent as accessible as these other kind of games, telling someone they have to drop hundreds of bucks, then assemble/paint their models is a big ask.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


...and yet it has never reached the same level of success as WoW or MtG or LoL or D&D or any other game which has embraced the truth of "make your game better = more $$$".
Maybe they hit the cap of how much plastic and paper they can sell during the beginning of 9th and decided that they don't want to be better anymore?

WoW/LoL : Online games which automatically have more exposure and is easier to get into (just download the client and play)
MtG : i can start playing for 20$ and its the other big LGS game.
D&D : Still cheaper to get into than 40k, more accessible since you can "do anything" in it. (and it also got released 10 years before 40k IIRC?)

Lol, no, D&D has been with us since 1974.

 vipoid wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

As a matter of fact that is exactly what our group does. we play core 5th ed rules but any codex of your choice is allowed from 3rd-7th. so we do get all the best (most lore accurate and flavorful codex) choices for recreational play. all of those editions are very cross compatible as well as the fact that many codexes existed for years across multiple editions given GWs release model.

Huh. That's an interesting idea.

But does it not create issues with USRs, psychic powers or other such changing between editions?

e.g. if I'm remembering correctly, psychic powers in 5th were cast just with a leadership test, usually in your movement or shooting phase. However, in later editions you had whole tables of randomly-determined psychic powers, cast using the Magic Phase from WHFB - including power and dispel dice.

How do you resolve that sort of thing?

I don't recall exactly how Aphyon resolved the psychic power side of thing. At a minimum, you can do things where a unit references the USR that matches the rulebook edition that was in use when the codex came out.

Honestly, with regard to psychic powers, you can just ignore all the fancy psychic power points and just have it where a psychic can just cast 1 power per turn or up to two powers per turn if it knows more than one. Works fine and is much less fiddly. Maybe that's what Aphyon does.

ccs wrote:

Lol, no, D&D has been with us since 1974.

i thought 40k got released in the mid-late 80's?

If that were true, why does just this forum alone have hundreds of pages in active threads riddled with people complaining about the rules?

Don't you think that their gakky rules have an impact on how many models and books people buy?
Don't you think it affects how many people are recommending 40k to their friends?
How about all those people actively discouraging others to buy books and models from GW?

Why did the only communities of 40k grow and prosper each time 40k was in a decent state and started to stagnate and lose people each time GW fethed up balance hard?
Why do tournament attendances drop each time the game is in a bad state?

But sure, keep telling yourself that 40k is special and unique and not just yet another game whose only saving grace is a unique vast background and iconic models.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Except it has been proven across multiple games that a decent game will attract more player and generate more sales.

That's true, but being the only wargame with a full wall of mini in most LGS kinda counteracts the fact that the game is poor. Some random kid wanting to play wargames will most probably have heard of 40k before any other ones, and is gonna be able to walk in his store to pickup a start collecting/combat patrol.

40k is the most discussed online wargame
40k is the game with the most content on youtube
40k is the biggest.

GW reached a point where the sheer inertia of the franchise will carry them through tough times

The thing is, that if the logic is that 40K will be successful despite its rules (i.e. inertia, market presence, IP-value, etc. is enough to carry its success) and that the game will continue to be successful regardless of what they do to their rules, then there isn't any reason why making the rules better wouldn't translate into potentially more success.

Except - I'm also not sure about the the above. 6th and into 7th edition was clearly a troubling time period and 40k did seem to be in decline a bit. It's common knowledge that 8th edition brought a lot of people into the game (or back into it). Was it "just" the idea of it being a clean-start or was it actually because of the greatly simplified core rules that made it easy for people to try it out and check out the buzz?

So, for GW, yes they could invest in a "better" rule system - but I wonder if they are hesitant to do that because they got such a positive market response from the streamlined 8th edition. If they feel that better (using AA or something else) also mean's more-complex, I could see GW deciding that the complexity isn't worth losing relatively more audience than they would gain by appeasing to hardcore wargame enthusiasts with a better design.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ccs wrote:

Lol, no, D&D has been with us since 1974.

i thought 40k got released in the mid-late 80's?

'74 for D&D, '87 for 40k.

Not sure if ccs was trying to insinuate that you over- or under-estimated the gap, TBH.