Annd Time of death for 9th is 4/14/2022

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.

**jeff white**

If the game were better then more collectors may play…

**nou**

jeff white wrote:
If the game were better then more collectors may play…

Not really, at least not all of them. None of my collecting only friends are interested in playing any sort of game with their minis. They are modelers, not players and are not interested what the rules are or if they are good or bad.

**H.B.M.C.**

PenitentJake wrote:
As discussed previously, and vociferously: 9th ed 40k does not pander to any particular type of player- it does its best to pander to ALL of them.

And I continue to vehemently disagree. 9th is Tournament Edition 40k. The "balance" sheets, the FAQs, the 'seasons', the actual "Tournament Packs", the people play-testing the game, the emphasis on ITC-style terrain, that 'metawatch' malarkey; they have geared just about everything in this edition towards competitive and tournament matched play.

I mean think about with it any level of honesty:

What dominates the discussion at this place and other forums?
1. Discussion about the latest FAQ/balance sheet/tournament results.
2. The new crusade relics/battlescar tables in the last Warzone book?

"But Crusade???"

Yeah? What about it? It's something they've stuck into every Codex so there's another way to play 40k. It's a progression system that can help campaigns and it is certainly welcome - I certainly think it's great - but it's not the emphasis in this edition. Hell, most of the crusade-related material GW has made already out of print. They didn't even announce a separate Crusade book to go alongside the upcoming Warzone book. Even the people pirating GW's Codices leave out the Crusade sections, FFS.

"But Open???"

... exists because "3 ways to play" sounds better for marketing speak than "2 ways to play".

This is Tournament Edition 40k. Pure and simple.

**Backspacehacker**

PenitentJake wrote:
As discussed previously, and vociferously: 9th ed 40k does not pander to any particular type of player- it does its best to pander to ALL of them.

25PL / 500 Point games of ANY type pander to new players without large armies.
100PL/ 2k point armies pander to long time players who have a lot of models already and are used to 2k as a sort of pick-up standard.
150PL/ 3K point games pander to collectors of multiple factions who have a massive number of models.

Beyond that, OPEN panders to beginners who want to get playing fast without being bogged down by too many rules and restrictions.
Crusade panders to those who want to tell a story over multiple linked games.
GT Mission pack Matched play panders to people who want to play in events.
Tempest of War Matched play seems to have been designed for Matched players who want casual pick-up games.

You can rest assured that if GW just wanted any one of these demographics, they would not have developed so many options.
Since they did develop these options, you can rest assured that GW wants ALL of these players.

And again, we can debate about how well GW did or did not achieve that objective. Games that focus exclusively on only ONE of the above demographics probably will create a better product for that smaller more narrowly focused audience... but said game would leave all the other demographics out of the equation.

Hard hard HARD, disagree there man. 9th ed is very much a tourny game. The FAQs if you watch them, are always in direct response to tournaments. If 9th ed really was the edition to pander to everyone you would see lists/armies that are not doing good being buffed, but you arnt. Guard have been in the gutter on the tournament scene for pretty much all of 9th and they have never been buffed to any meaningful extent. Why? because they are not causing a problem on the tournament level, the FAQs are all these to gut/nerf the current meta.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Which is kind of weird, because you'd think that a tournament focused game would try to bring all armies up to the same level instead of leaving them in the gutter.

**Backspacehacker**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Which is kind of weird, because you'd think that a tournament focused game would try to bring all armies up to the same level instead of leaving them in the gutter.

If their only goal was to run tournaments it would be, but its not. They are there to sell models first and formost, which if you notice, they always are buffing unit that are not, or did not sell well or were models that a lot of people did not really buy in the past.
Notice how with eldar dark reaper such swamp water in terms of tournament scene? that was not by random chance.

The name of the game is buff units, sell units, nerf units, repeat.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Backspacehacker wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Which is kind of weird, because you'd think that a tournament focused game would try to bring all armies up to the same level instead of leaving them in the gutter.

If their only goal was to run tournaments it would be, but its not. They are there to sell models first and formost, which if you notice, they always are buffing unit that are not, or did not sell well or were models that a lot of people did not really buy in the past.
Notice how with eldar dark reaper such swamp water in terms of tournament scene? that was not by random chance.

The name of the game is buff units, sell units, nerf units, repeat.

That makes sense, and is a part of the problem.
The executive's pockets might be healthy, but the game as a whole sure isn't.

**Backspacehacker**

The problem is GW has switched to the burn and churn marketing method. They basically brought the worst aspect of MTG which is "New set is out, pretty designed exclusively to counter the previous meta, so all those decks are very suboptimal and you need to buy the new hotness"
Whats gonna happen is, GW is gonna run outta things to burn and churn out, its a lot easier to print up an entire new set then it is to create an all new model set.
On top of that GW basically abandoned their promise from 8th. With 8th was going to be the "living edition" and we were meant to get regular chapter approved updates, that would be collective FAQs to correct problems. That, however, was only kept for like all of 6 months then GW wanting to pander to the tournament scene who were demanding more and more frequent FAQs in the name of "balance" got what they wanted.

Now the FAQs are so bad, that GW put out a list of approved and non approved rules and they are still pumping out more FAQs. Hell Nids got an FAQ before they even came out.

**ERJAK**

Backspacehacker wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
As discussed previously, and vociferously: 9th ed 40k does not pander to any particular type of player- it does its best to pander to ALL of them.

25PL / 500 Point games of ANY type pander to new players without large armies.
100PL/ 2k point armies pander to long time players who have a lot of models already and are used to 2k as a sort of pick-up standard.
150PL/ 3K point games pander to collectors of multiple factions who have a massive number of models.

Beyond that, OPEN panders to beginners who want to get playing fast without being bogged down by too many rules and restrictions.
Crusade panders to those who want to tell a story over multiple linked games.
GT Mission pack Matched play panders to people who want to play in events.
Tempest of War Matched play seems to have been designed for Matched players who want casual pick-up games.

You can rest assured that if GW just wanted any one of these demographics, they would not have developed so many options.
Since they did develop these options, you can rest assured that GW wants ALL of these players.

And again, we can debate about how well GW did or did not achieve that objective. Games that focus exclusively on only ONE of the above demographics probably will create a better product for that smaller more narrowly focused audience... but said game would leave all the other demographics out of the equation.

Hard hard HARD, disagree there man. 9th ed is very much a tourny game. The FAQs if you watch them, are always in direct response to tournaments. If 9th ed really was the edition to pander to everyone you would see lists/armies that are not doing good being buffed, but you arnt. Guard have been in the gutter on the tournament scene for pretty much all of 9th and they have never been buffed to any meaningful extent. Why? because they are not causing a problem on the tournament level, the FAQs are all these to gut/nerf the current meta.

That's a really, really skewed interpretation. GW has ALWAYS had far more factions that were too weak than too strong and far more unusably bad units that OP units. They've also been incredibly reluctant across...basically all of their game systems to buff anything outside of the codex cycle. At least as far as systemic power increase is concerned. Fixing systemic issues with specific factions/units takes time and careful thought. Resources GW has no interest in spending on tounament gaming.

All they want is the lowest effort way they can find to SEEM like they really support each subset of the consumer base. The lowest effort way to do that with tournament play is to fix unintended rules interactions and play whack-a-mole with nerfing top lists.

They don't actually do anything to make 40k a more palatable tournament game, like fix systemic issues present in weaker factions outside of the codex cycle, they just do enough lip service to trick people into thinking they care.

**Toofast**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Which is kind of weird, because you'd think that a tournament focused game would try to bring all armies up to the same level instead of leaving them in the gutter.

They definitely want that. They just can't because they love the profit margin on printed books which means most of their balancing will be addressing a 6-8 month old meta. They also love giving people 47 different ways to play an army because "fluff" even if some of those are horribly broken and others are unusable. They need less rules sources and a digital release strategy if they ever want to get the game to a decent state balance wise.

**Backspacehacker**

It still does not decract from my point. GW only has been dealing with tournament meta lists.

Guard for example have been aweful this entire edtion, and the only things they have gotten is a crappy buff to their indirect fire, a laughable 6 to hit wounds, and 2+ on their tanks in the edition of armor saves me absolutely nothing.

GW has had the entire edition to correct guards issues, but they are not an issue in the tournament scene in any capacity so, they have gotten zero attention. Oks, same way, the one thing they had going, nerfed instantly after it dominated tournaments.

**ERJAK**

Backspacehacker wrote:
The problem is GW has switched to the burn and churn marketing method. They basically brought the worst aspect of MTG which is "New set is out, pretty designed exclusively to counter the previous meta, so all those decks are very suboptimal and you need to buy the new hotness"
Whats gonna happen is, GW is gonna run outta things to burn and churn out, its a lot easier to print up an entire new set then it is to create an all new model set.
On top of that GW basically abandoned their promise from 8th. With 8th was going to be the "living edition" and we were meant to get regular chapter approved updates, that would be collective FAQs to correct problems. That, however, was only kept for like all of 6 months then GW wanting to pander to the tournament scene who were demanding more and more frequent FAQs in the name of "balance" got what they wanted.

Now the FAQs are so bad, that GW put out a list of approved and non approved rules and they are still pumping out more FAQs. Hell Nids got an FAQ before they even came out.

That middle bit was entirely made up. No one ever said it was going to be a living edition and regular chapter approved updates were always understood to be point changes and little else. Same as the Age of Sigmar GHB they copied the format from.

The tournament scene has also never demanded an FAQ that wasn't the direct result of GW utterly failing to write rules in a way that made sense. You're continually blaming people who play tournaments for problems GW created.

You're also, just straight up lying about stuff that never happened now because you don't like tournaments.

**Backspacehacker**

ERJAK wrote:
Backspacehacker wrote:
The problem is GW has switched to the burn and churn marketing method. They basically brought the worst aspect of MTG which is "New set is out, pretty designed exclusively to counter the previous meta, so all those decks are very suboptimal and you need to buy the new hotness"
Whats gonna happen is, GW is gonna run outta things to burn and churn out, its a lot easier to print up an entire new set then it is to create an all new model set.
On top of that GW basically abandoned their promise from 8th. With 8th was going to be the "living edition" and we were meant to get regular chapter approved updates, that would be collective FAQs to correct problems. That, however, was only kept for like all of 6 months then GW wanting to pander to the tournament scene who were demanding more and more frequent FAQs in the name of "balance" got what they wanted.

Now the FAQs are so bad, that GW put out a list of approved and non approved rules and they are still pumping out more FAQs. Hell Nids got an FAQ before they even came out.

That middle bit was entirely made up. No one ever said it was going to be a living edition and regular chapter approved updates were always understood to be point changes and little else. Same as the Age of Sigmar GHB they copied the format from.

The tournament scene has also never demanded an FAQ that wasn't the direct result of GW utterly failing to write rules in a way that made sense. You're continually blaming people who play tournaments for problems GW created.

You're also, just straight up lying about stuff that never happened now because you don't like tournaments.

Uhhhh yes they did lol

8th ed was marketed as being like the AoS rules IE a living rule set with annual updates this was discussed in their live stream. They also started off doing this by intorducing beta rules through WD, which players would test, provide feed back, and then if good implament and or change before implementing it. This lasted all of 6 months before they went back to their old habbits.

**ERJAK**

Backspacehacker wrote:
It still does not decract from my point. GW only has been dealing with tournament meta lists.

Guard for example have been aweful this entire edtion, and the only things they have gotten is a crappy buff to their indirect fire, a laughable 6 to hit wounds, and 2+ on their tanks in the edition of armor saves me absolutely nothing.

GW has had the entire edition to correct guards issues, but they are not an issue in the tournament scene in any capacity so, they have gotten zero attention. Oks, same way, the one thing they had going, nerfed instantly after it dominated tournaments.

It destroys your point. Dealing with 'tournament meta lists' is not 'catering to tournaments' it's the smallest, most miniscule interaction possible.

You also have this insane idea that 'being bad' ISN'T a major tournament issue and it absolutely is. It doesn't effect as many people as a Voidweaver being 50% too cheap, but it is absolutely a prevalent and concerning issue that tournament players DO care about.

You're mistaking GW picking ONE low hanging fruit for GW successfully tending the orchard.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backspacehacker wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Backspacehacker wrote:
The problem is GW has switched to the burn and churn marketing method. They basically brought the worst aspect of MTG which is "New set is out, pretty designed exclusively to counter the previous meta, so all those decks are very suboptimal and you need to buy the new hotness"
Whats gonna happen is, GW is gonna run outta things to burn and churn out, its a lot easier to print up an entire new set then it is to create an all new model set.
On top of that GW basically abandoned their promise from 8th. With 8th was going to be the "living edition" and we were meant to get regular chapter approved updates, that would be collective FAQs to correct problems. That, however, was only kept for like all of 6 months then GW wanting to pander to the tournament scene who were demanding more and more frequent FAQs in the name of "balance" got what they wanted.

Now the FAQs are so bad, that GW put out a list of approved and non approved rules and they are still pumping out more FAQs. Hell Nids got an FAQ before they even came out.

That middle bit was entirely made up. No one ever said it was going to be a living edition and regular chapter approved updates were always understood to be point changes and little else. Same as the Age of Sigmar GHB they copied the format from.

The tournament scene has also never demanded an FAQ that wasn't the direct result of GW utterly failing to write rules in a way that made sense. You're continually blaming people who play tournaments for problems GW created.

You're also, just straight up lying about stuff that never happened now because you don't like tournaments.

Uhhhh yes they did lol

8th ed was marketed as being like the AoS rules IE a living rule set with annual updates this was discussed in their live stream. They also started off doing this by intorducing beta rules through WD, which players would test, provide feed back, and then if good implament and or change before implementing it. This lasted all of 6 months before they went back to their old habbits.

They literally didn't do or say any of that for AOS either. Straight up lies. The only beta rules they ever had was the Sisters of Battle Beta codex. Players said they WANTED a living ruleset and they said they'd do a yearly update the way they did with the GHB that would be focused around points.

The rest of it was wishlisting from the playerbase you mistook for marketing.

**Backspacehacker**

https://spikeybits.com/2017/04/confirmations-ideas-new-8th-edition-40k-rules.html

Spike bits article on the live stream for 2017, one of the points were it being a living edition with annual updates.

Here is also an old warhammer community post on FAQs including this
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/22/the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answeredgw-homepage-post-2/

"Will the rules be updated annually (ala, the General’s Handbook)?
What a great idea! We’ve had such a fantastic response to our community-led approach with the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules updates that we’re committed to doing the same for Warhammer 40,000. You’ll be able to submit your questions and queries on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page and we’ll make sure we continue to evolve the game as feedback rolls in."

**ERJAK**

Backspacehacker wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2017/04/confirmations-ideas-new-8th-edition-40k-rules.html

Spike bits article on the live stream for 2017, one of the points were it being a living edition with annual updates.

An article that literally doesn't say anything about a living ruleset and specifically calls out the annual updates as being about POINTS AND says that it was only implied. Literally no aspect of that suggested that rules would see significant changes and everyone who had seen the livestream at the time knew they were just copying the GHB.

Your own article doesn't agree with you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backspacehacker wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2017/04/confirmations-ideas-new-8th-edition-40k-rules.html

Spike bits article on the live stream for 2017, one of the points were it being a living edition with annual updates.

Here is also an old warhammer community post on FAQs including this
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/22/the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answeredgw-homepage-post-2/

"Will the rules be updated annually (ala, the General’s Handbook)?
What a great idea! We’ve had such a fantastic response to our community-led approach with the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules updates that we’re committed to doing the same for Warhammer 40,000. You’ll be able to submit your questions and queries on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page and we’ll make sure we continue to evolve the game as feedback rolls in."

By that definition, they've done EXACTLY what they said they would, and you're STILL mostly making things up.

The GHB never had meaningful rules update outside of missions until third edition. It was points and a couple of new scenarios. They've done EXACTLY what they said they would, you're just salty it's not the scenario you made up in your own head.

**Backspacehacker**

Check the Community post from war hammer, they literally say they are going to do it like AoS rules, IE annually update the codex and be al living ruleset, just like AoS, which that lasted all of a few month before it changed.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/22/the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answeredgw-homepage-post-2/

"Will the rules be updated annually (ala, the General’s Handbook)?
What a great idea! We’ve had such a fantastic response to our community-led approach with the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules updates that we’re committed to doing the same for Warhammer 40,000. You’ll be able to submit your questions and queries on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page and we’ll make sure we continue to evolve the game as feedback rolls in."

Bro thats an offical FAQ from warhammer, thats not a marketing quote, they literally said yes we will being doing it like generals handbook because the feed back was so good.

8th ed was sold as being a living rule set, and was going to be getting annual updates /chapters approved and that did not last at all. You can pretend that it never was that way, but GW right there is saying it, stop moving the goal post with "WeLl ItS jUsT MarKeTiNg" cmon man.

**H.B.M.C.**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Which is kind of weird, because you'd think that a tournament focused game would try to bring all armies up to the same level instead of leaving them in the gutter.

That assumes that they:

1. Aren't trying to do just that.
2. Are just really bad at it.

**Hecaton**

Toofast wrote:

GW have stated numerous times that the majority of their models sold are never used in a game. The game could cease to exist and they would still sell a ton based on people who like the models/lore and just want to collect them.

While 40k has a significant barrier to entry and many people never play, I think if the game went away entirely many people who don't play games would be less interested.

**Arbiter_Shade**

Backspacehacker wrote:
Check the Community post from war hammer, they literally say they are going to do it like AoS rules, IE annually update the codex and be al living ruleset, just like AoS, which that lasted all of a few month before it changed.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/22/the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answeredgw-homepage-post-2/

"Will the rules be updated annually (ala, the General’s Handbook)?
What a great idea! We’ve had such a fantastic response to our community-led approach with the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules updates that we’re committed to doing the same for Warhammer 40,000. You’ll be able to submit your questions and queries on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page and we’ll make sure we continue to evolve the game as feedback rolls in."

Bro thats an offical FAQ from warhammer, thats not a marketing quote, they literally said yes we will being doing it like generals handbook because the feed back was so good.

8th ed was sold as being a living rule set, and was going to be getting annual updates /chapters approved and that did not last at all. You can pretend that it never was that way, but GW right there is saying it, stop moving the goal post with "WeLl ItS jUsT MarKeTiNg" cmon man.

You argument would make sense if we weren't onto the third edition of AoS....

We are getting updates in the form of Chapter Approved, which is the 40k equivalent of the General's Handbook. Now if you are going to argue that GW didn't follow through with this supposed promise with either system then...It really seems like you are just making up the living rule set promise or it was poorly veiled marketing speech.

**H.B.M.C.**

The fact that we're onto the third edition of AoS kinda proves that they abandoned that idea, not that it was never their intent.

**Backspacehacker**

Not making up anything, AOS at the time of 8th launch was running off the "living ruleset" 8th ed said it would be like AoS's rule set.

they 100% did NOT keep that promise thats for damn sure. My point is they at one point were aiming for annual updates to 40k, very much like AoS was at the time. Which they did not follow through with that at all.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
The fact that we're onto the third edition of AoS kinda proves that they abandoned that idea, not that it was never their intend.

Basically this, they abandoned the "living ruleset" for 8th ed right around the time of the rule of three because thats when GW actually got their first taste of what the tournament scene was like. A couple of thier rule writers went to an LVO and got stomped by flying nid circus list and then went back and changed the rules to prevent it.

**Toofast**

"This all sets things up for a living edition that never expires. Things just get tweaked annually as we go"

LOL that aged like milk. Spikey Bits really thought GW was going to give up selling you a $65 rulebook every 2-3 years and a $50 codex every year? I want to try whatever strain they were smoking when they wrote that.

**Karol**

Didn't AoS require a fans only lifeline when it started, because of the small problem of not having points for units?

**Backspacehacker**

Toofast wrote:
"This all sets things up for a living edition that never expires. Things just get tweaked annually as we go"

LOL that aged like milk. Spikey Bits really thought GW was going to give up selling you a $65 rulebook every 2-3 years and a $50 codex every year? I want to try whatever strain they were smoking when they wrote that.

Apparently it was what ever GW was smoking when they said they were going to do that and thought they actually could lol.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Didn't AoS require a fans only lifeline when it started, because of the small problem of not having points for units?

Yes, AoS was actually very close to being DoA until GW scrambled to put actual points in the game. In was really really bad.

**Karol**

I tend to accept the fact that if GW says it will do, which will mean that people will have to buy more of their products or buy them at a higher price, then the stuff GW says is true and will happen. Everything else is just talk. Maybe they do it, or maybe they won't . the more work it requires, the less chance of it actually happening.

**Toofast**

Backspacehacker wrote:

Yes, AoS was actually very close to being DoA until GW scrambled to put actual points in the game. In was really really bad.

^ This. That's why the post about "next edition will be PL only" was so funny to me. They already tried that and people literally had peaceful protests where they lit their armies on fire over it. It was probably the biggest backlash GW has ever faced on any single issue.

**TheBestBucketHead**

Toofast wrote:
^ This. That's why the post about "next edition will be PL only" was so funny to me. They already tried that and people literally had peaceful protests where they lit their armies on fire over it. It was probably the biggest backlash GW has ever faced on any single issue.

Wasn't that more about deleting an entire system and world people spent a lot of time and money getting attached to?

**Backspacehacker**

Toofast wrote:
^ This. That's why the post about "next edition will be PL only" was so funny to me. They already tried that and people literally had peaceful protests where they lit their armies on fire over it. It was probably the biggest backlash GW has ever faced on any single issue.

Nah, them literally flushing the entire fantasy setting down the toilet and replacing it with the AoS setting was the single biggest mistake GW ever made, and regrets doing it every single day. Old world being proof of that regret.

**Toofast**

IMO it was because AoS seemed to be a joke game on release. It was the cards against humanity of wargames after years of Warhammer being a more serious, rank and flank, historicals but with fantasy models type game. Replacing that with "no points, and whoever has the longest beard gets a buff" was a huge insult to the playerbase.