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.

 alextroy wrote:
For good or ill, I've rarely seen a new codex where the best options in squads or squad load-outs haven't changed. That is just the way GW has been rolling for decades. Don't go all surprised Pikachu when GW does as GW has always done.

If it was just about list optimization most people wouldn't care, but that's not the problem. It's that GW has made those existing units/models illegal, not merely less ideal for the perfect netlist. If GW sets a character's point cost +30 points above the fair price or introduces Tau-style pricing so that 4x plasma command squads pay an increasing price per weapon for the duplicates those options may disappear from tournament netlists but at least you can still use them. If GW removes the character from the codex entirely and adds a "no more than one of each weapon" rule to command squads then those options are simply gone, screw you for being an existing customer.

 alextroy wrote:

Karol wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Some people equate needing to change their carefully mapped out and painted units as the end of the world... as if GW has been doing that to people for decades.

If it took you 2-3 years to get all models you wanted for a 2000pts legal army, and now you are being told that around 1/4th of the army is illegal and you have to spend more money, you may not have right now, to play your army at the level you played it before, it is not hard to imagine that people are not happy about it. Also a chunk of the community has not been playing for decades. I can imagine that if someone has been playing for 30+ years they do not care, but if you started in 8th ed, had a horrible time with your army in 9th, and now you are told to rebuy it, you may feel as if someone dupped you to waste money and time.

For good or ill, I've rarely seen a new codex where the best options in squads or squad load-outs haven't changed. That is just the way GW has been rolling for decades. Don't go all surprised Pikachu when GW does as GW has always done.

If is truly and outrage, there are many other games you can play. Otherwise, improvise, adapt and overcome. It's just a minatures game after all.

It's not about the optimal loadout changing.

It's about entire units or loadouts being removed entirely.

Asmodios wrote:
See now your stating the game doesn’t need “constant” changes so in fact admitting a game does need changes to stay relevant.

I said no such thing. Please do not be dishonest.

Yarrick was definitely killed off for lore reasons.

Really? What about his story makes this the appropriate time for him to die, apparently of old age rather than anything particularly interesting? Why is his death at most a minor footnote (and possibly not even explicitly said at all) instead of a clear part of his story? What ties does it have to the greater story of the setting?

The answer to all of these questions is that there is no compelling lore reason. Any lore justification is, at best, an after the fact rationalization for GW's decision to discontinue the old metal and finecast kits.

If it was simply that they didn’t want to sell the old model they would have simply released a new kit.

Assuming they had a release slot for it and felt that making a new kit would sell enough copies to justify its cost. And it's not like this would be the first time that GW has discontinued a kit and removed the related unit without any replacement. It's not even the only guard kit being discontinued and removed from the new codex with no replacement!

You have seen them do this with essentially every space marine character but guard characters are dropping like flies sense to time jump (which I believe is the right move)

Why do only some characters die off because of the time jump? As I mentioned already GW has no problem having primaris characters in the same army as characters who died centuries before primaris marines were created. Merely advancing the timeline clearly doesn't require removing all characters who are no longer alive at the present time. So why is Yarrick no longer valid when other dead characters are?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
See now your stating the game doesn’t need “constant” changes so in fact admitting a game does need changes to stay relevant.

I said no such thing. Please do not be dishonest.

Yarrick was definitely killed off for lore reasons.

Really? What about his story makes this the appropriate time for him to die, apparently of old age rather than anything particularly interesting? Why is his death at most a minor footnote (and possibly not even explicitly said at all) instead of a clear part of his story? What ties does it have to the greater story of the setting?

The answer to all of these questions is that there is no compelling lore reason. Any lore justification is, at best, an after the fact rationalization for GW's decision to discontinue the old metal and finecast kits.

If it was simply that they didn’t want to sell the old model they would have simply released a new kit.

Assuming they had a release slot for it and felt that making a new kit would sell enough copies to justify its cost. And it's not like this would be the first time that GW has discontinued a kit and removed the related unit without any replacement. It's not even the only guard kit being discontinued and removed from the new codex with no replacement!

You have seen them do this with essentially every space marine character but guard characters are dropping like flies sense to time jump (which I believe is the right move)

Why do only some characters die off because of the time jump? As I mentioned already GW has no problem having primaris characters in the same army as characters who died centuries before primaris marines were created. Merely advancing the timeline clearly doesn't require removing all characters who are no longer alive at the present time. So why is Yarrick no longer valid when other dead characters are?

I guess it was lost in translation but if you really think any modern game will survive with no changes ever then that's an even worse position. I think few posters believe this game would last long if GW just never released an update again.

I think the fact that he was super old before the time jump is justification enough to have him die. What he died to is speculation as every rumor I've seen said part of his page is redacted. Regardless though I'm fine with it because guard lore is not intended to be like space marines or eldar and my only real complaint is we don't see more deaths, especially for races like tau that are supposed to have even shorter life spans then humans.

As to other characters that are dead but still playable I'm not sure who those are off the top of my head but I'm going to assume space marines. I do think they would be better off removing any dead characters still knocking around. They probably are hesitant though because people just like this lose their minds when a model thats been around for 20 years can now only be used to proxy something or in a narrative game

Edit
Also if you really do want an unchanged list forever there is nothing stopping you from forming a group and playing "x" addition forever. I tried this when they killed fantasy and its also when I learned 99.9% of players don't want a rule set that never changes which brings me back to my original point. But if you can find a dedicated group thats fine with a never changing rule set power to you

Asmodios wrote:
I guess it was lost in translation but if you really think any modern game will survive with no changes ever then that's an even worse position.

Plenty of games survive just fine without changes. I'm currently playing a D&D campaign that's been running for 4-5 years with the same characters and story. We're using the Pathfinder 1.0 rules, having ignored Pathfinder 2.0, D&D 4th, D&D 5th, and whatever new playtest for D&D 6th they're working on. My other D&D game has been running for 3-4 years with a DM who has run games in the same world for longer, all using the D&D 5th edition rules and ignoring all new content. At no point has the game felt like we needed new stuff, nor have we had even the slightest interest in buying whatever new editions were released.

And it's hardly just RPGs. Buying a game as a one-time purchase is the standard for board games and the best games have plenty of replay value with no need for new releases. People even play old editions of 40k and have no interest in buying the new stuff. The endless treadmill of buying new stuff to keep up with everyone else's new stuff benefits GW's shareholders and nobody else.

I think few posters believe this game would last long if GW just never released an update again.

This is true, but not because games inherently require updates. It's only true because 40k is not in anything remotely resembling a final state, and the only thing keeping people from realizing how bad the rules are is the constant treadmill of new releases making things change too fast for anyone to stop to think about it. If, by some miracle, GW managed to produce a well designed and balanced final version of 40k there would be no need for further updates.

I think the fact that he was super old before the time jump is justification enough to have him die. What he died to is speculation as every rumor I've seen said part of his page is redacted. Regardless though I'm fine with it because guard lore is not intended to be like space marines or eldar and my only real complaint is we don't see more deaths, especially for races like tau that are supposed to have even shorter life spans then humans.

So why are other characters, even other guard characters, from the same era still alive despite having only a mortal lifespan? Do you honestly think that it's purely a coincidence that the only characters GW removed were old metal/finecast models that GW wanted to discontinue?

They probably are hesitant though because people just like this lose their minds when a model thats been around for 20 years can now only be used to proxy something or in a narrative game

So in a narrative game, where story is the most important thing, you can use dead characters that don't fit the current timeline. But in a tournament game, where competitive balance is more important than story, you can't use those characters because they don't fit into the current story? That seems completely backwards.

Can't wait to see their defense for Tycho being ran right next to Primaris units. "Yarrick was killed for lore reasons" LMAO

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I guess it was lost in translation but if you really think any modern game will survive with no changes ever then that's an even worse position.

Plenty of games survive just fine without changes. I'm currently playing a D&D campaign that's been running for 4-5 years with the same characters and story. We're using the Pathfinder 1.0 rules, having ignored Pathfinder 2.0, D&D 4th, D&D 5th, and whatever new playtest for D&D 6th they're working on. My other D&D game has been running for 3-4 years with a DM who has run games in the same world for longer, all using the D&D 5th edition rules and ignoring all new content. At no point has the game felt like we needed new stuff, nor have we had even the slightest interest in buying whatever new editions were released.

I find it rather humorous that your defense of a system not needing to change to survive is to point out you are using Pathfinder 1.0, a game that is on it's second edition, which is a knockoff of D&D 3rd Edition, a game that is working on it's 6th Edition

The point Asmodios was trying to make is that modern games need to change, expand, or update to keep the publisher in business. Otherwise you are left with games on life-support like Blood Bowl was until GW decided to revive it. And Blood Bowl along with Battle-Tech are to two games that best survived having little to no support from their publishers. Miniatures games wilt on the vine without constant support these days.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I guess it was lost in translation but if you really think any modern game will survive with no changes ever then that's an even worse position.

Plenty of games survive just fine without changes. I'm currently playing a D&D campaign that's been running for 4-5 years with the same characters and story. We're using the Pathfinder 1.0 rules, having ignored Pathfinder 2.0, D&D 4th, D&D 5th, and whatever new playtest for D&D 6th they're working on. My other D&D game has been running for 3-4 years with a DM who has run games in the same world for longer, all using the D&D 5th edition rules and ignoring all new content. At no point has the game felt like we needed new stuff, nor have we had even the slightest interest in buying whatever new editions were released.

And it's hardly just RPGs. Buying a game as a one-time purchase is the standard for board games and the best games have plenty of replay value with no need for new releases. People even play old editions of 40k and have no interest in buying the new stuff. The endless treadmill of buying new stuff to keep up with everyone else's new stuff benefits GW's shareholders and nobody else.

I think few posters believe this game would last long if GW just never released an update again.

This is true, but not because games inherently require updates. It's only true because 40k is not in anything remotely resembling a final state, and the only thing keeping people from realizing how bad the rules are is the constant treadmill of new releases making things change too fast for anyone to stop to think about it. If, by some miracle, GW managed to produce a well designed and balanced final version of 40k there would be no need for further updates.

I think the fact that he was super old before the time jump is justification enough to have him die. What he died to is speculation as every rumor I've seen said part of his page is redacted. Regardless though I'm fine with it because guard lore is not intended to be like space marines or eldar and my only real complaint is we don't see more deaths, especially for races like tau that are supposed to have even shorter life spans then humans.

So why are other characters, even other guard characters, from the same era still alive despite having only a mortal lifespan? Do you honestly think that it's purely a coincidence that the only characters GW removed were old metal/finecast models that GW wanted to discontinue?

They probably are hesitant though because people just like this lose their minds when a model thats been around for 20 years can now only be used to proxy something or in a narrative game

So in a narrative game, where story is the most important thing, you can use dead characters that don't fit the current timeline. But in a tournament game, where competitive balance is more important than story, you can't use those characters because they don't fit into the current story? That seems completely backwards.

A narrative game can be anything including recreating a classic battle. Which if I’m doing a war for Armageddon I don’t see why I wouldn’t break him out. In a purely tournament setting I’m surprised they don’t remove/ add more data slates. Many competitive games remove whole expansions out of ply each season. GW is actually probably one of the best for keeping 99% of stuff in circulation even for competitive.

Last time I checked aren’t the a lot of classic guard characters are gone and or dead. Creed is locked in a time capsule/yarrick is now dead (old age or battle)/ Bastonne we got his sword last supplement and he was killed. The simple answer to why they aren’t all dead is simply they weren’t all as old as yarrick

Also D&D isn’t really the same type of game as Warhammer but the way you are describing how you play is how you would play old editions. You can still go play ever old campaign book and edition but we also get updates… I’m not huge into D&D but I believe they still release regular material? Like isn’t it on its 5th or 6th edition with tons of different campaigns. Using your own logic any new D&D stuff that comes out is a cash grab that players should reject.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well yeah, if you've built an exact 2k army with no extra infantry etc based on the 8th ed codex, then yes, it'll be invalidated. Ultimately the shift to a new codex would facilitate point changes, different power units if that's your jam and likely a change of forces anyway.

I'm talking about units, not armies. Currently I have a veteran squad with 3x plasma guns and a missile launcher. They're built, painted, and based as a single unit with shared details and they are always played as that specific unit. Technically the models that make up those units can still be used for something but the unit is invalidated. I can no longer use them as their lore dictates, I have to stick the plasma guns in random squads where their aesthetic details don't match the rest of the unit, add the basic infantry to some other unit, etc. If all that was changing was the points I could add a new unit to fill in points, only play with some of my collection at once if points go up too much, etc. That would be fine but that's not what we're getting.

But, like I said, these are issues that the WAAC meta chasers don't care about so the new codex will be great as long as it's as overpowered as the squats.

Hoss, I don't know if you know this or not, but taking a unit of guys that have worked together well and been successful, breaking that unit up and sending the pieces to scatter across a multitude of other worthless units to try and make them just a tiny bit better, is a thing that militaries have been doing since AT LEAST Roman times, and DEFINITELY have been doing a LOT of in the last two centuries. There's nothing in the lore of WH40k that suggests that the Imperium of Man somehow has a more understanding approach, either.

Frankly, you have all the lore/narrative/storyline reason you need to split those guys up and put them wherever you want. The Lord Commissar demanded that this unit over here get stiffened up with some veteran blood, or they were all injured and recovered at different times so they ended up being redeployed with different units, or their unit got confused in the middle of a big battle and recovered with different units so now they fall in over THERE instead of over HERE.

Not trying to be offensive or anything - I get that you want to see them in a group all the time. They're your guys. But I've NEVER been deployed with the same guys twice. Hell, we rarely even have the same guys in our platoons when we do our field exercises! So it's not as narrative-breaking as you seem to feel.

Asmodios wrote:
In a purely tournament setting I’m surprised they don’t remove/ add more data slates.

Why would they want to do something that profoundly stupid?

Although hmm, you might have a point there. Maybe I should be a bit surprised GW hasn't been dumb enough to do it when they've certainly demonstrated their capacity for bad decisions.

Last time I checked aren’t the a lot of classic guard characters are gone and or dead.

And, again, there are dead characters that are still in the game because their models are still in production. Dead or alive in the lore has nothing to do with it.

Bastonne we got his sword last supplement and he was killed.

Bastonne was removed multiple editions ago, long before GW needed a name for a relic. And that removal was purely about not having a specific model, the lore that would be added years later had nothing to do with it.

Also D&D isn’t really the same type of game as Warhammer

In what relevant ways is it different?

I’m not huge into D&D but I believe they still release regular material?

They do, the point is that we ignore all of that new material. It isn't necessary, and if WOTC stopped printing new material we wouldn't even notice. And yet somehow this update-free game continues to be fun and engaging for years of play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dadx6 wrote:
Hoss, I don't know if you know this or not, but taking a unit of guys that have worked together well and been successful, breaking that unit up and sending the pieces to scatter across a multitude of other worthless units to try and make them just a tiny bit better, is a thing that militaries have been doing since AT LEAST Roman times, and DEFINITELY have been doing a LOT of in the last two centuries. There's nothing in the lore of WH40k that suggests that the Imperium of Man somehow has a more understanding approach, either.

Of course they do that. But when a unit is broken up and distributed among other units the veterans don't keep the uniforms/equipment/etc of their original units. The veteran from third company (yellow stripe on the shoulder pads) joining seventh company (green stripe) doesn't keep the yellow stripe and 3 iconography. When you mix squads on the table it's very obvious that you're using proxy models that haven't been painted correctly, not representing how the real unit would look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it rather humorous that your defense of a system not needing to change to survive is to point out you are using Pathfinder 1.0, a game that is on it's second edition, which is a knockoff of D&D 3rd Edition, a game that is working on it's 6th Edition

Why is that funny? Those newer editions weren't necessary for our game to survive. In fact, from our point of view they might as well not exist at all. I'm not disputing the fact that WOTC has continued to print new material, only the idea that they must print new material or the game will die.

The point Asmodios was trying to make is that modern games need to change, expand, or update to keep the publisher in business. Otherwise you are left with games on life-support like Blood Bowl was until GW decided to revive it. And Blood Bowl along with Battle-Tech are to two games that best survived having little to no support from their publishers. Miniatures games wilt on the vine without constant support these days.

Again, why? Why are updates necessary if a game is in a polished final state? What value is being added, and what prevents the game from continuing on in that final state without having change for the sake of change?

And Blood Bowl wasn't on life support because of a lack of updates. It was a beloved game that many people still played, and its only problem was that the physical components were all OOP. If GW had continued to sell the original game there would have been no problem at all.

Not sure if this is even worth pointing out given people complaining on this thread of Guard plasma spam of all things, but datasheet restrictions are not good for the game in any way.

Datasheet restrictions do not improve balance:
Datasheet restrictions are not good for business:
Finally, this nonsense is wasteful:

I understand if a guard player has gone into so much more detail than most on their Scions, to the extent that they have painted numbers on shoulder pads for each squad why they'd be annoyed. Particularly if they used a paint mix rather than straight from the pot, making it difficult to repaint those pads.
That aside however there should be some things worth noting:

1) If you have been playing command squads without flags and voxs the past 4 months, you've really been neglecting our secondaries. Particularly deepstriking Scion command squads that find it ridiculously easy to get a flag into an opponents deployment for VPs for both the flag and for the Boots quarter. The vox is exceptional for inflexible command because it can drop anywhere you want it behind obscuring to get you a lovely 24" bubble. The utility of these squads significantly outweighed the damage output of the 4x plasma/melta suicide squad. 2 of these squads gave you so much flexibility for a mere 80pts - the same cost as 1 squad of suicide droppers. (What I will miss is the 4x HSVG squad that dropped and shot from distance as these often stayed alive a lot longer and racked up significantly more damage for their points overall in many battles, as opponents were often less likely to focus on these compared to plasma and melta ones - much to their detriment).

2) With exploding 6's, extra range on the hotshots and Take Aim now giving +1 to hit and -1ap (plus keeping HotE), 1 plasma pistol, 2 plasma, 2 melta and 5 hslgs are now doing more damage on average against every single type of target, from chaff to marines to tanks. That's without taking into account easy access to reroll 1s for both hit and wound.

3) Command squads getting LOS is huge with the buffs they bring. Now the opponent can't just focus on screening out obscruring terrain areas. They will stay around longer and so as long as they get to shoot twice they will get as many shots in as a suicide squad (4 activations of a special weapon over 2 turns rather than 4 activations of a special weapon in 1 turn then dying immediately). Now 110pts for the combination of the squad and Prime does seem a little overcosted however.

I say this as a guy who has 170-180 Scion Infantry.

If you haven't painted them as seperate individual squads - your Scions just got massively buffed despite the 2 of the same special per squad restriction.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
In a purely tournament setting I’m surprised they don’t remove/ add more data slates.

Why would they want to do something that profoundly stupid?

Although hmm, you might have a point there. Maybe I should be a bit surprised GW hasn't been dumb enough to do it when they've certainly demonstrated their capacity for bad decisions.

Last time I checked aren’t the a lot of classic guard characters are gone and or dead.

And, again, there are dead characters that are still in the game because their models are still in production. Dead or alive in the lore has nothing to do with it.

Bastonne we got his sword last supplement and he was killed.

Bastonne was removed multiple editions ago, long before GW needed a name for a relic. And that removal was purely about not having a specific model, the lore that would be added years later had nothing to do with it.

Also D&D isn’t really the same type of game as Warhammer

In what relevant ways is it different?

I’m not huge into D&D but I believe they still release regular material?

They do, the point is that we ignore all of that new material. It isn't necessary, and if WOTC stopped printing new material we wouldn't even notice. And yet somehow this update-free game continues to be fun and engaging for years of play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dadx6 wrote:
Hoss, I don't know if you know this or not, but taking a unit of guys that have worked together well and been successful, breaking that unit up and sending the pieces to scatter across a multitude of other worthless units to try and make them just a tiny bit better, is a thing that militaries have been doing since AT LEAST Roman times, and DEFINITELY have been doing a LOT of in the last two centuries. There's nothing in the lore of WH40k that suggests that the Imperium of Man somehow has a more understanding approach, either.

Of course they do that. But when a unit is broken up and distributed among other units the veterans don't keep the uniforms/equipment/etc of their original units. The veteran from third company (yellow stripe on the shoulder pads) joining seventh company (green stripe) doesn't keep the yellow stripe and 3 iconography. When you mix squads on the table it's very obvious that you're using proxy models that haven't been painted correctly, not representing how the real unit would look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it rather humorous that your defense of a system not needing to change to survive is to point out you are using Pathfinder 1.0, a game that is on it's second edition, which is a knockoff of D&D 3rd Edition, a game that is working on it's 6th Edition

Why is that funny? Those newer editions weren't necessary for our game to survive. In fact, from our point of view they might as well not exist at all. I'm not disputing the fact that WOTC has continued to print new material, only the idea that they must print new material or the game will die.

The point Asmodios was trying to make is that modern games need to change, expand, or update to keep the publisher in business. Otherwise you are left with games on life-support like Blood Bowl was until GW decided to revive it. And Blood Bowl along with Battle-Tech are to two games that best survived having little to no support from their publishers. Miniatures games wilt on the vine without constant support these days.

Again, why? Why are updates necessary if a game is in a polished final state? What value is being added, and what prevents the game from continuing on in that final state without having change for the sake of change?

And Blood Bowl wasn't on life support because of a lack of updates. It was a beloved game that many people still played, and its only problem was that the physical components were all OOP. If GW had continued to sell the original game there would have been no problem at all.

1.Many competitive games (especially card games) rotate cards in and out to not only keep the game fresh but to keep it more balanced. I'm not advocating for this at all but it would be much easier to balance without as many data slates. I mean you can call it stupid but many very successful games have done this exact thing
2.Yes I know there are models still in the game that are dead.... doesn't change the fact they didn't go this route with yarrick and it doesn't really bother me at all. If it were up to me you would just move characters like his to the legends data slate which they might do
3. He was officially confirmed KIA this edition.... and this just shows they have had multiple deaths in the guard in the last few years, just like yarrick and creed (even though hes technically alive)
4. its different because its a roll playing playing game not a mass battle game? this is like saying monopoly and warhammer are the same because you roll dice and move figures around
5.So they still release material that people buy and play. You choose to play an earlier edition and don't play the new stuff. How is this any different from warhammer? what's stopping you from just freezing the rules now and playing with your group? Unless your group wants updated rules thus proving my point that most people want updated rules

Asmodios wrote:
1.Many competitive games (especially card games) rotate cards in and out to not only keep the game fresh but to keep it more balanced. I'm not advocating for this at all but it would be much easier to balance without as many data slates. I mean you can call it stupid but many very successful games have done this exact thing

I don't know about "many" successful games, it's mostly CCGs that do it and CCGs are mostly successful because they're really good at exploiting gambling addiction. From a game design point of view aggressive rotation like MTG has is very bad, it's just a very good tool for getting the addicts to keep buying. A hypothetical version of MTG where WOTC found a conscience and decided to market a game based on genuine merits instead of exploiting gambling addiction would work just fine with a much slower pace of new releases, or even with a fixed card pool that never changes once the game is complete.

2.Yes I know there are models still in the game that are dead.... doesn't change the fact they didn't go this route with yarrick and it doesn't really bother me at all. If it were up to me you would just move characters like his to the legends data slate which they might do

Cool. So we're in agreement that Yarrick being removed from the game has nothing to do with lore and is purely about GW discontinuing metal and finecast models?

3. He was officially confirmed KIA this edition.... and this just shows they have had multiple deaths in the guard in the last few years, just like yarrick and creed (even though hes technically alive)

Sure. But that confirmation had nothing to do with the original removal. Back when he was actually removed GW didn't bother with any lore explanations at all, they just removed the entry from the next version of the codex when "no model no rules" started to be a thing.

4. its different because its a roll playing playing game not a mass battle game? this is like saying monopoly and warhammer are the same because you roll dice and move figures around

I asked what relevant differences there are. Obviously the game mechanics are very different but those differences have nothing to do with the question of whether or not change is required to keep a game alive.

5.So they still release material that people buy and play. You choose to play an earlier edition and don't play the new stuff. How is this any different from warhammer? what's stopping you from just freezing the rules now and playing with your group? Unless your group wants updated rules thus proving my point that most people want updated rules

I'm not sure what your point here is. You claimed that change is required for a game to survive, I pointed out examples of games surviving without change, and now you seem to be in agreement with me that games survive without change. The fact that companies continue to print new material doesn't mean that it is necessary for them to do so if they want to keep the games alive.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
"Patiently waits for a different wargame that focuses on tactics, or for 10th edition"

You won't be able to win at that one either.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
1.Many competitive games (especially card games) rotate cards in and out to not only keep the game fresh but to keep it more balanced. I'm not advocating for this at all but it would be much easier to balance without as many data slates. I mean you can call it stupid but many very successful games have done this exact thing

I don't know about "many" successful games, it's mostly CCGs that do it and CCGs are mostly successful because they're really good at exploiting gambling addiction. From a game design point of view aggressive rotation like MTG has is very bad, it's just a very good tool for getting the addicts to keep buying. A hypothetical version of MTG where WOTC found a conscience and decided to market a game based on genuine merits instead of exploiting gambling addiction would work just fine with a much slower pace of new releases, or even with a fixed card pool that never changes once the game is complete.

2.Yes I know there are models still in the game that are dead.... doesn't change the fact they didn't go this route with yarrick and it doesn't really bother me at all. If it were up to me you would just move characters like his to the legends data slate which they might do

Cool. So we're in agreement that Yarrick being removed from the game has nothing to do with lore and is purely about GW discontinuing metal and finecast models?

3. He was officially confirmed KIA this edition.... and this just shows they have had multiple deaths in the guard in the last few years, just like yarrick and creed (even though hes technically alive)

Sure. But that confirmation had nothing to do with the original removal. Back when he was actually removed GW didn't bother with any lore explanations at all, they just removed the entry from the next version of the codex when "no model no rules" started to be a thing.

4. its different because its a roll playing playing game not a mass battle game? this is like saying monopoly and warhammer are the same because you roll dice and move figures around

I asked what relevant differences there are. Obviously the game mechanics are very different but those differences have nothing to do with the question of whether or not change is required to keep a game alive.

5.So they still release material that people buy and play. You choose to play an earlier edition and don't play the new stuff. How is this any different from warhammer? what's stopping you from just freezing the rules now and playing with your group? Unless your group wants updated rules thus proving my point that most people want updated rules

I'm not sure what your point here is. You claimed that change is required for a game to survive, I pointed out examples of games surviving without change, and now you seem to be in agreement with me that games survive without change. The fact that companies continue to print new material doesn't mean that it is necessary for them to do so if they want to keep the games alive.

1. arguing their practice any any worse then any other companies seems counter productive and off topic. These games simply rotate out cards to keep the game easier to balance and fresh and i give props for GW for delivering the amount of balance they do with keeping 99% of units in the game all the time
2.some of the other characters that are dead but in game have fine cast and metal models. other models have received new models instead of being killed off. So it clearly isnt just for a model purpose as they would just release the new one or continue to sell the old. There is both lore and modeling reason for it/ if it was only model purposes there would e no metal or fine cast in the game
3.i mean your not removed until you are removed. If it was just no model no rules then yarrick wouldn't be going away. the fact is certain kits and character get updates and some don't even if they are plastic.... see the sentinel
4.uhhhhhh yeah its a relevant difference. A roll playing game with a dm that's about story/acting is not going to be as reliant on fresh rules (despite these companies releasing new rules). A mass battle game like any game that's naturally player vs player experience is going to require updates to keep the vast majority of the player base engaged (just look at the constant talk about 10th edition already... people are always looking for the next update)
5. Yes these companies need to have updates to sell more material to keep the game going..... you disproved your own point by using D&D as an example that i looked up and the company still produces new content. I mean your reasoning is that if I get my brother and go play a game of 8th edition fantasy the game is still "alive" and GW will be able to just not release anything new for any game system. I mean using your definition warhammer online age of reckoning is still "alive" because i know a guy that plays with like 50 other people on a private server. But if you seriously see no point to updates and a game is "alive" if someone is playing it why does any of the effect you? why dont you just play without the codex? you just said that these updates are useless and not necessary so simply play without it. Its a self defeating argument. If you can play those old editions without need of any new material.... then play the old edition without the new material

Asmodios wrote:
1. arguing their practice any any worse then any other companies seems counter productive and off topic. These games simply rotate out cards to keep the game easier to balance and fresh and i give props for GW for delivering the amount of balance they do with keeping 99% of units in the game all the time

They say they do it for balance. The reality is they do it to exploit gambling addiction as effectively as possible. And GW gets zero credit for having the decency to not target their game at gambling addicts at the expense of everyone else. Keeping 100% of units in the game at all times is the expected bare minimum, not something that gets you praise.

2.some of the other characters that are dead but in game have fine cast and metal models. other models have received new models instead of being killed off. So it clearly isnt just for a model purpose as they would just release the new one or continue to sell the old. There is both lore and modeling reason for it/ if it was only model purposes there would e no metal or fine cast in the game

Discontinuing a metal or finecast model without a new plastic replacement is still a sales decision, not a lore decision. There is zero lore reason for Yarrick to be removed while dead characters are not.

4.uhhhhhh yeah its a relevant difference. A roll playing game with a dm that's about story/acting is not going to be as reliant on fresh rules (despite these companies releasing new rules). A mass battle game like any game that's naturally player vs player experience is going to require updates to keep the vast majority of the player base engaged (just look at the constant talk about 10th edition already... people are always looking for the next update)

You aren't demonstrating any cause and effect here. Why does a mass battle game require new rules if the existing rules are already working fine? Why are you starting from the assumption that a game has limited replay value and is only fun if it's a completely different game every few years?

And the reality is that people are looking for 10th edition because the game is a raging dumpster fire and they hope that a new edition will fix the problems. People are looking for new codex updates because their current codex has a 30% win rate and they know power creep in the new book will get them to 60% for a while (and at least 40-50% for even longer). Obviously a broken and unbalanced game needs updates but that doesn't mean that all wargames require them to survive.

5. Yes these companies need to have updates to sell more material to keep the game going..... you disproved your own point by using D&D as an example that i looked up and the company still produces new content.

You weren't paying attention to the point then. The point is not that WOTC is not releasing new material, it's that people can and do play D&D without any updates at all. Their game experience does not in any way require new material, nor is new material even desirable. Your claim that a game inherently requires an endless treadmill of change for the sake of change is simply false.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
In a purely tournament setting I’m surprised they don’t remove/ add more data slates.

Again, why? Why are updates necessary if a game is in a polished final state? What value is being added, and what prevents the game from continuing on in that final state without having change for the sake of change?

And Blood Bowl wasn't on life support because of a lack of updates. It was a beloved game that many people still played, and its only problem was that the physical components were all OOP. If GW had continued to sell the original game there would have been no problem at all.

This section here is really, really wrong.

Almost ANY kit that GW makes (or basically any product ever) sells probably 80% of what it's going to over its lifetime very shortly after it's release. The exact timetable changes based on the product (PC components it's days, something like warhammer it's months), but it's almost always the way it works out. Exploiting that fact is how Apple made its bajillions of dollars. GW needs to constantly release new kits or it's sales will stagnate like a still pond in a Louisiana summer.

Also, Bloodbowl wasn't on lifesupport because it was already dead. I'm sure a lot of people loved it, I'm sure a lot of people still played it. You know what they WEREN'T doing, though? Buying it. That stuff wasn't OOP out of nowhere. That stuff was OOP because maintaining the infrastructure necessary to produce it was costing more money than it was making (or at least making less money than they could make using those resources elsewhere).

Finally, games that intend to have any significant longevity, usually NEED to change over time. There are exceptions, Chess, Checkers, Tic-Tac-To (for some reason), but for everything else, lack of change equals death. League of Legends stays relevant by constantly tweaking and adding new features season over season. Same with just about every other Esport (which is the closest analogue to wargaming, regardless of what the board game purests want to believe). 40k settles into a meta after about 3 months following a competitively relevant release. If the meta is healthy, it'll hold players for about another 9 months before people get bored and start going elsewhere. After 18 months, you'd be down to just the diehards and the collectors.

Changing the meta is also one of the only ways to drive sales of older kits.

It's entirely possible to have "change" in the game without removing things that were previously there. Change can be accomplished by adding things.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
It's entirely possible to have "change" in the game without removing things that were previously there. Change can be accomplished by adding things.

I'm just waiting for them to defend Tycho still being able to be ran alongside Primaris units

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
1. arguing their practice any any worse then any other companies seems counter productive and off topic. These games simply rotate out cards to keep the game easier to balance and fresh and i give props for GW for delivering the amount of balance they do with keeping 99% of units in the game all the time

They say they do it for balance. The reality is they do it to exploit gambling addiction as effectively as possible. And GW gets zero credit for having the decency to not target their game at gambling addicts at the expense of everyone else. Keeping 100% of units in the game at all times is the expected bare minimum, not something that gets you praise.

2.some of the other characters that are dead but in game have fine cast and metal models. other models have received new models instead of being killed off. So it clearly isnt just for a model purpose as they would just release the new one or continue to sell the old. There is both lore and modeling reason for it/ if it was only model purposes there would e no metal or fine cast in the game

Discontinuing a metal or finecast model without a new plastic replacement is still a sales decision, not a lore decision. There is zero lore reason for Yarrick to be removed while dead characters are not.

4.uhhhhhh yeah its a relevant difference. A roll playing game with a dm that's about story/acting is not going to be as reliant on fresh rules (despite these companies releasing new rules). A mass battle game like any game that's naturally player vs player experience is going to require updates to keep the vast majority of the player base engaged (just look at the constant talk about 10th edition already... people are always looking for the next update)

You aren't demonstrating any cause and effect here. Why does a mass battle game require new rules if the existing rules are already working fine? Why are you starting from the assumption that a game has limited replay value and is only fun if it's a completely different game every few years?

And the reality is that people are looking for 10th edition because the game is a raging dumpster fire and they hope that a new edition will fix the problems. People are looking for new codex updates because their current codex has a 30% win rate and they know power creep in the new book will get them to 60% for a while (and at least 40-50% for even longer). Obviously a broken and unbalanced game needs updates but that doesn't mean that all wargames require them to survive.

5. Yes these companies need to have updates to sell more material to keep the game going..... you disproved your own point by using D&D as an example that i looked up and the company still produces new content.

You weren't paying attention to the point then. The point is not that WOTC is not releasing new material, it's that people can and do play D&D without any updates at all. Their game experience does not in any way require new material, nor is new material even desirable. Your claim that a game inherently requires an endless treadmill of change for the sake of change is simply false.

1. you say its for "gambling" but i think from a design aspect it would be much easier to balance 200 cards vs 2000 or 200 data slates vs 2000... I think things like random card packs target things like gambling. not rotating cards in and out to adjust the meta
2. I mean the reason to would be a lore decision. we will never know unless we were sitting in the meeting where they decided but considering they sometimes make new model and sometimes they don't shows that its not some standardized business decision based solely on the model/ profits. lore clearly has a roll in it.
3. A mass battle game needs updates to keep players engaged.. its just a fact what mass battle game is popular currently that is not updated? why are things like warhammer fantasy not played by the exact same amount of people that played them the day they shut down? Are you saying their is no correlation between updates and player base size? Because that just seems disconnected from reality.
Calling 9th a dumpster fire seems to be all the rage on forums like this despite actual statistics showing the game is more balanced then ever. That and a growing player base that was only set back number wise because of covid. But once again if modern updated rules aren't important why do any of these people care about 9th 10th 11th ect just got play 2nd 3rd 4th or whatever you consider the peak
5. You are missing the point... people also still play old editions of 40k (you can actually find groups that play old versions of basically every popular game) that doesn't mean that these games do not need updates to survive because a "dead game" does not mean there are 0 people playing it. it means it has a shrinking player base that hinders your ability to actually play the game. Once again for example i was a huge fantasy fan. i continued to play after it was wiped out but without the updates the game died.... and i say dead knowing there are a few people in my area that still play. But 5 people playing a game every weekend of WHFB around me vs 500 playing WH40k is two different things. One is an unsupported "dead" game one is an "alive" game, want to guess which is which?

You dodged the primary question though. If a game doesn't require updates to stay alive and all it takes is you playing it... then why don't you simply ignore this codex and keep playing. You can ignore this update just like you said you ignore all the D&D ones so your models and army comp are actually 100% unaffected

ERJAK wrote:
Almost ANY kit that GW makes (or basically any product ever) sells probably 80% of what it's going to over its lifetime very shortly after it's release.

I am highly skeptical of this claim. An 80/20 split would mean that 80% of GW's sales are going to existing customers who are ready and eager to buy it on (or shortly after) release day, while the remaining 20% is split between existing customers who buy the new thing later and new customers. That's a possible scenario, but it's one that stands in direct contrast to GW's business practices. We know for a fact that the metrics GW judges their retail employees by are overwhelmingly focused on sales to new customers, while GW's stores are actively hostile to long-term customers. If GW really was generating 80% of its sales from long-term customers you'd see way more emphasis on customer retention beyond the three purchase model (initial, birthday, christmas). But instead GW continues to focus on a high-turnover model of recruiting customers as fast as possible and treating it as a nice bonus if they stick around.

Exploiting that fact is how Apple made its bajillions of dollars.

That's not really a comparable situation. Apple didn't make their money by figuring out the 80/20 split, they made it by an incomprehensible success of marketing: convincing people that buying an incremental improvement over the previous version of their inferior product is somehow a status symbol, and that if you don't own the latest iphone you're poor and a loser and you should probably kill yourself out of shame. There's nothing even remotely like that in 40k. If anything the prestige goes the other way, an army full of obscure OOP miniatures from 30 years ago will get you way more respect than buying the latest primaris marine toy.

Also, Bloodbowl wasn't on lifesupport because it was already dead. I'm sure a lot of people loved it, I'm sure a lot of people still played it. You know what they WEREN'T doing, though? Buying it. That stuff wasn't OOP out of nowhere. That stuff was OOP because maintaining the infrastructure necessary to produce it was costing more money than it was making (or at least making less money than they could make using those resources elsewhere).

Do you have numbers that confirm it was losing money? Remember that this is the era where GW was aggressively cutting everything but their core games under the absurd assumption that all GW products were interchangeable and all the BFG/Blood Bowl/etc players were fans of Spending™ Money­™ On™ GW™ Products™ who would obediently transfer all of their spending to space marine tactical squads if GW got rid of all the side games. Stuff was getting cut even if it was still making a profit because GW thought they could make more profits by moving all those players to 40k.

And you'll note that, having realized the sheer stupidity of that assumption and brought back the side games, Blood Bowl remains in production despite having very little new content.

After 18 months, you'd be down to just the diehards and the collectors.

Fortunately that's still the majority of customers. Supposedly the majority of customers don't play at all and even among the people who do play the ones who care about the e-sport meta are a tiny minority. A narrative player doesn't care how the meta changes or doesn't change because they're making list choices based on the story, and there are always new stories to drive new purchases. A casual player who plays a handful of games in a year doesn't care if the meta changes month to month. Someone who mostly paints but occasionally plays a game doesn't care about a stagnant meta when they're buying models primarily based on what looks cool on the display shelf. And TBH given how chasing the e-sport crowd is driving some poor game design decisions we might be better off if GW ignored that market entirely.

=========================================================================================================================================================

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
1. you say its for "gambling" but i think from a design aspect it would be much easier to balance 200 cards vs 2000 or 200 data slates vs 2000... I think things like random card packs target things like gambling. not rotating cards in and out to adjust the meta

Exploiting gambling addiction is why you have 2000 cards instead of 200 cards, because you need to keep printing new cards for the addicts to buy. If you stop at a healthy and stable 200-card game then once the addicts successfully get all of the cards they don't have any reason to keep buying. MTG's goal, above all, is to make sure that as soon as the addicts get anywhere near winning they move the goalposts and start the cycle over again. That's why you've seen WOTC increase the pace of new releases on top of adding layers and layers of alternate super-rare cards, collector packs, etc.

2. I mean the reason to would be a lore decision. we will never know unless we were sitting in the meeting where they decided but considering they sometimes make new model and sometimes they don't shows that its not some standardized business decision based solely on the model/ profits. lore clearly has a roll in it.

You keep saying "lore has a role" but you have yet to provide a single compelling lore argument for why Yarrick was removed but other characters weren't.

3. A mass battle game needs updates to keep players engaged.. its just a fact what mass battle game is popular currently that is not updated? why are things like warhammer fantasy not played by the exact same amount of people that played them the day they shut down? Are you saying their is no correlation between updates and player base size? Because that just seems disconnected from reality.

Why does a mass battle game require updates? You keep pointing to games which have updates but haven't said one bit about why those updates are necessary.

As for WHFB it died while it was still receiving regular updates so it's pretty clear that its lack of popularity has nothing to do with the fact that GW isn't printing more rules for it.

Calling 9th a dumpster fire seems to be all the rage on forums like this despite actual statistics showing the game is more balanced then ever.

Balance is not everything. A game where the winner of the roll to go first wins 99% of the time is very well balanced. Each player has the same 50% chance to win the game-deciding roll, each faction will have a 50% win rate in tournaments. But the game would obviously be a miserable dumpster fire that would rapidly lose all of its players.

5. You are missing the point... people also still play old editions of 40k (you can actually find groups that play old versions of basically every popular game) that doesn't mean that these games do not need updates to survive because a "dead game" does not mean there are 0 people playing it. it means it has a shrinking player base that hinders your ability to actually play the game.

Again, there's a difference between a broken dumpster fire of a game (9th edition 40k) that receives no further updates and a complete balanced and engaging game that receives no further updates. 40k needs updates to fix its massive flaws but that doesn't mean that all wargames require an endless treadmill of change for the sake of change.

Fortunately that's still the majority of customers. Supposedly the majority of customers don't play at all and even among the people who do play the ones who care about the e-sport meta are a tiny minority. A narrative player doesn't care how the meta changes or doesn't change because they're making list choices based on the story, and there are always new stories to drive new purchases. A casual player who plays a handful of games in a year doesn't care if the meta changes month to month. Someone who mostly paints but occasionally plays a game doesn't care about a stagnant meta when they're buying models primarily based on what looks cool on the display shelf. And TBH given how chasing the e-sport crowd is driving some poor game design decisions we might be better off if GW ignored that market entirely.

So you early in the thread have said you are not a meta chaser and are more concerned with the paint job on you guys shoulders "The models that are all painted as third squad complete with 3s on their shoulder pads can no longer be played together, all my units will have a random mix of numbers. Maybe that doesn't matter for the e-sport crowd, where models might as well be cardboard tokens, but for those of us who care about the lore and aesthetics of the game it's a huge problem" So aren't you a player that falls under the category of "Someone who mostly paints but occasionally plays a game doesn't care about a stagnant meta when they're buying models primarily based on what looks cool on the display shelf." from your post. so by your own logic of not requiring updates and them not really mattering for casual player I'm just having a hard time trying to understand why this change has you so upset.

I'm not knocking you at all I'm honestly curious. I consider myself a casual player who cares more about how my guys look in the display case as well, I just consider a frequently updated game as part of a healthy and lasting game system. If you see these as disconnected I just don't see why the changes affect you at all. isnt it an either or choice. Either only meta chasers care about changing rules/ so us non meta chasers can just play old editions forever like your D&D example OR my fluffy army is about to be invalidated because a updated set of rules is important to the game and community so I'm going to play using the update

Asmodios wrote:
So you early in the thread have said you are not a meta chaser and are more concerned with the paint job on you guys shoulders "The models that are all painted as third squad complete with 3s on their shoulder pads can no longer be played together, all my units will have a random mix of numbers. Maybe that doesn't matter for the e-sport crowd, where models might as well be cardboard tokens, but for those of us who care about the lore and aesthetics of the game it's a huge problem" So aren't you a player that falls under the category of "Someone who mostly paints but occasionally plays a game doesn't care about a stagnant meta when they're buying models primarily based on what looks cool on the display shelf." from your post. so by your own logic of not requiring updates and them not really mattering for casual player I'm just having a hard time trying to understand why this change has you so upset.

Once again: 40k is not currently in a state where it can function without updates, it has way too many problems. That doesn't mean that updates are required for games in general to survive, or that GW shouldn't be aiming to get 40k to a state where updates are no longer needed.

Exploiting gambling addiction is why you have 2000 cards instead of 200 cards, because you need to keep printing new cards for the addicts to buy. If you stop at a healthy and stable 200-card game then once the addicts successfully get all of the cards they don't have any reason to keep buying. MTG's goal, above all, is to make sure that as soon as the addicts get anywhere near winning they move the goalposts and start the cycle over again. That's why you've seen WOTC increase the pace of new releases on top of adding layers and layers of alternate super-rare cards, collector packs, etc.

You seem to think number of cards has a direct correlation to gambling.... why does all the top gambling games on earth all use the same 52 card deck invented hundreds of years ago? I think you are confusing sales tactics with gambling. Random card packs encourage gambling like behavior, not new cards in the game. Heck not sure about MTG but like i said i played hearth stone competitively and i could just forge the cards i wanted with resources earned in the games. I don't see how one of those cards moving out of rotation was supposed to turn me into a gambling addict. once again random rng packs isnt the same thing as rotating cards


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
So you early in the thread have said you are not a meta chaser and are more concerned with the paint job on you guys shoulders "The models that are all painted as third squad complete with 3s on their shoulder pads can no longer be played together, all my units will have a random mix of numbers. Maybe that doesn't matter for the e-sport crowd, where models might as well be cardboard tokens, but for those of us who care about the lore and aesthetics of the game it's a huge problem" So aren't you a player that falls under the category of "Someone who mostly paints but occasionally plays a game doesn't care about a stagnant meta when they're buying models primarily based on what looks cool on the display shelf." from your post. so by your own logic of not requiring updates and them not really mattering for casual player I'm just having a hard time trying to understand why this change has you so upset.

Once again: 40k is not currently in a state where it can function without updates, it has way too many problems. That doesn't mean that updates are required for games in general to survive, or that GW shouldn't be aiming to get 40k to a state where updates are no longer needed.

So it does need updates.... say like changing the composition of squads?

Asmodios wrote:
You seem to think number of cards has a direct correlation to gambling.... why does all the top gambling games on earth all use the same 52 card deck invented hundreds of years ago?

Because in blackjack/poker/etc you're directly gambling on the outcome of a random draw from the deck of 52 cards, in MTG you're "gambling" on the contents of the pack you buy. In blackjack the reward is money and you always want more money. In MTG the reward is a desirable card and if you already own all of the desirable cards you have much less incentive to keep playing. That means that MTG needs a constant supply of new cards to ensure that even when the addicts spend thousands of dollars on their addiction they still have rewards to chase. As soon as WOTC stops printing new content the addicts will complete their collections and stop buying, at which point the game has to succeed on its highly questionable gameplay merits.

And remember, MTG is not literally gambling like a casino game, it's exploiting gambling addiction as a sales tactic. It's a physical equivalent of F2P loot box games where the game is nothing more than a platform to sell you loot boxes and the target of the game is the whales who will spend thousands of dollars on packs/loot boxes chasing the thrill of opening a rare card/item.

I don't see how one of those cards moving out of rotation was supposed to turn me into a gambling addict. once again random rng packs isnt the same thing as rotating cards

It doesn't turn you into a gambling addict. It exploits the minority of the population that is already gambling addicts, or at least prone to gambling addiction. Remember, like F2P cash shop games, the target is the whales and normal players like you are just a nice bonus. You don't see it because you don't feel that overwhelming urge to buy "just one more pack" even if it means you won't be able to afford your rent this month.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
So it does need updates.... say like changing the composition of squads?

No, it absolutely does not need updates like changing the composition of squads based on what the sprue designer put in a specific box 20 years ago. Those changes do not address any balance or gameplay issues, they're purely about GW trying to destroy the market for third-party bits sales.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
You seem to think number of cards has a direct correlation to gambling.... why does all the top gambling games on earth all use the same 52 card deck invented hundreds of years ago?

Because in blackjack/poker/etc you're directly gambling on the outcome of a random draw from the deck of 52 cards, in MTG you're "gambling" on the contents of the pack you buy. In blackjack the reward is money and you always want more money. In MTG the reward is a desirable card and if you already own all of the desirable cards you have much less incentive to keep playing. That means that MTG needs a constant supply of new cards to ensure that even when the addicts spend thousands of dollars on their addiction they still have rewards to chase. As soon as WOTC stops printing new content the addicts will complete their collections and stop buying, at which point the game has to succeed on its highly questionable gameplay merits.

And remember, MTG is not literally gambling like a casino game, it's exploiting gambling addiction as a sales tactic. It's a physical equivalent of F2P loot box games where the game is nothing more than a platform to sell you loot boxes and the target of the game is the whales who will spend thousands of dollars on packs/loot boxes chasing the thrill of opening a rare card/item.

I don't see how one of those cards moving out of rotation was supposed to turn me into a gambling addict. once again random rng packs isnt the same thing as rotating cards

It doesn't turn you into a gambling addict. It exploits the minority of the population that is already gambling addicts, or at least prone to gambling addiction. Remember, like F2P cash shop games, the target is the whales and normal players like you are just a nice bonus. You don't see it because you don't feel that overwhelming urge to buy "just one more pack" even if it means you won't be able to afford your rent this month.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
So it does need updates.... say like changing the composition of squads?

No, it absolutely does not need updates like changing the composition of squads based on what the sprue designer put in a specific box 20 years ago. Those changes do not address any balance or gameplay issues, they're purely about GW trying to destroy the market for third-party bits sales.

You just said that until a game is balanced changes are necessary to get it to your prefect state where it will no longer need changes. So up until that point they should continue to change and tweak things until they hit the magical "no changes needed" point. I see no reason why unit size or composition should be treated as holy ground that cant change. If the game is in such a "dumpster fire" status as you believe then any and all options should be used to make it playable

The "reason" is that the changes to unit composition and options has absolutely nothing to do with achieving "balance". It's because it matches what's in the box. And everyone knows it.

Asmodios wrote:
You just said that until a game is balanced changes are necessary to get it to your prefect state where it will no longer need changes. So up until that point they should continue to change and tweak things until they hit the magical "no changes needed" point. I see no reason why unit size or composition should be treated as holy ground that cant change. If the game is in such a "dumpster fire" status as you believe then any and all options should be used to make it playable

Once again: these changes are not driven by balance concerns. They are a direct result of what the sprue designer put in a specific box, usually in a completely different edition of the game. If they improve balance it will be purely by coincidence.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
You just said that until a game is balanced changes are necessary to get it to your prefect state where it will no longer need changes. So up until that point they should continue to change and tweak things until they hit the magical "no changes needed" point. I see no reason why unit size or composition should be treated as holy ground that cant change. If the game is in such a "dumpster fire" status as you believe then any and all options should be used to make it playable

Once again: these changes are not driven by balance concerns. They are a direct result of what the sprue designer put in a specific box, usually in a completely different edition of the game. If they improve balance it will be purely by coincidence.

That's impossible. Skitarii Rangers and Vanguard can only take 1 of each Special Weapon for balance reasons!