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.

 catbarf wrote:

 kodos wrote:
as one unit sitting still and watch how the other one is slaughtered 2 meters away is not more realistic as an army all moving at the same time while the opponent waits

If the tangible outcome of a different activation sequence or reaction system or command and control mechanic or whatever is that an army responds in at least some fashion to the enemy as they act rather than sitting completely static until the enemy says 'your turn', then it is de facto more realistic, because that is closer to how armies behave in the real world even if it isn't a perfect representation of simultaneity.

This idea that all options are equally bad if none of them are perfect is just contrarianism, and for some reason it comes out a lot more with activation systems than other mechanics.

40k has had activation systems in the past, any time you can do something in your opponent's turn that is an activation. Overwatch is the best example, where you get to shoot when one of your units get charged. Added a lot of dice rolling to the game for a mechanic that typically had like a 2-3% chance of doing anything.

Nothing about AA suggests it's more realistic than IGOUGO or that "realism" should be pursued over anything else. We used to have armor facings on tanks, that was more realistic than the current system. It went away when game designers focused on efficiency and trying to get through a game in a couple hours.

It's a tabletop game, not a computer game. Not everything needs to react instantaneously for it to seem real.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Given what usually happens when GW burns a thing down and tries to reboot it (Kill-Team, Warcry, Sigmar, 8e, Aeronautica) I can guarantee you that if they do burn down 9th and do a reboot for 10th they'll pick the wrong things to keep and the wrong things to throw out, and I don't think more of the same is practical given the horrorshow of bloat they've managed to bring back to the game just two editions after the last time they burned the game down to clear out the bloat.

Personally I think if they did xenos books for Heresy and just called that 10e that'd go a long, long way towards making a game that actually worked; it doesn't have alternating activations, no, but the reaction system still manages to make you sit up and pay attention during your opponent's turn, they've had the discipline thus far not to go wildly overboard with statlines while also breaking with some of the more illogical assumptions of older systems, Rites of War are still a better army-comp system than anything in any other version of Warhammer, and they managed in one of the greatest miracles of the modern age to figure out how to make Knights feel big and stompy without also making them feel unfair to play against.

The biggest issue Heresy would have to get over is the transition into supporting competitive play and balance updates. Heresy right now has even worse balance than 40k with every competitive game basically being dreads and terminators.

 techsoldaten wrote:
40k has had activation systems in the past, any time you can do something in your opponent's turn that is an activation. Overwatch is the best example, where you get to shoot when one of your units get charged. Added a lot of dice rolling to the game for a mechanic that typically had like a 2-3% chance of doing anything.

I dunno if you're bringing up Overwatch to imply that that time-wasting, non-interactive kludge for one of the most visible issues of IGOUGO is proof positive that AA is a bad mechanic, but if so, that's a pretty silly argument. 'Any time you can do something in your opponent's turn is an activation' is also neither an industry-accepted definition nor one anyone else is using here, so maybe I'm misunderstanding.

HH2.0's reaction system is a far better approach to layering interactivity into an otherwise IGOUGO structure, and even if it isn't perfect it adds a lot to the game.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Nothing about AA suggests it's more realistic than IGOUGO or that "realism" should be pursued over anything else.

Putting a lot of words in my mouth there. I don't think realism should be pursued over anything else. I think fun and playable gameplay should be the #1 consideration. And going to make a sandwich while my opponent takes his movement phase, before conceding before the start of my first turn because he's alpha-striked me into a condition I cannot recover from, is about as far from fun gameplay as you can get. You don't need everything to react instantaneously for it to be fun or 'seem real', but some systems are better for verisimilitude than others.

Anyways, I certainly don't think 40K needs to be a Clausewitzian simulation, I just find it weird how 40K players will swear up and down that having their entire army sit around and do nothing while the enemy acts with impunity is 'just as realistic' as systems and mechanics that were designed to better represent friction, command and control, overwatch, initiative, and other staple concepts of warfare. It's a strange hill to die on.

 catbarf wrote:

Anyways, I certainly don't think 40K needs to be a Clausewitzian simulation, I just find it weird how 40K players will swear up and down that having their entire army sit around and do nothing while the enemy acts with impunity is 'just as realistic' as systems and mechanics that were designed to better represent friction, command and control, overwatch, initiative, and other staple concepts of warfare. It's a strange hill to die on.

I think it's because that's all 40k players know and don't want to learn any new turn structure, outside the one troll here that said 40k was somehow better designed than Infinity LOL

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Anyways, I certainly don't think 40K needs to be a Clausewitzian simulation, I just find it weird how 40K players will swear up and down that having their entire army sit around and do nothing while the enemy acts with impunity is 'just as realistic' as systems and mechanics that were designed to better represent friction, command and control, overwatch, initiative, and other staple concepts of warfare. It's a strange hill to die on.

I think it's because that's all 40k players know and don't want to learn any new turn structure, outside the one troll here that said 40k was somehow better designed than Infinity LOL

Neither are overly realistic? Igougo represents a concerted force relaying and actioning orders across the army and working in coordination. AA represents more fluid dynamic movement, showing units individual reactions to the opponents units movements and actions.

It's about as realistic to claim that the whole army acts their orders out as the other army sits there and waves as the units kindly wait in turn to get shot one after another while pretending not to notice their buddies 2ft away getting sliced apart.

Neither are wholly "realistic".

Well games are games. If they weren't games, then stuff like wrestling, football or anything else would not be games, but insted brawl or war.

The job of a picked system is to be enjoyable to as many players as possible within existing core rules any game has. Any variable or big change has to make the game, of any kind, more enjoyable for at least the majority of people taking part in it. If it is not then it generaly not well recived.

On top of that people also tend to not like to buy or remake their armies just for the sake of change, especialy when the game does not become more fun for them, if the change happen. I understand that some people like OPR, but when you are a Knight player and start it and you notice that you can't play a Knight army other then a walking the dogs list, or that any thematic army like a terminator list or bike list is impossible, you are not going to like the OPR set of rules.

And how the activiation works stops to matter, when you can't play the army you want to play.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Anyways, I certainly don't think 40K needs to be a Clausewitzian simulation, I just find it weird how 40K players will swear up and down that having their entire army sit around and do nothing while the enemy acts with impunity is 'just as realistic' as systems and mechanics that were designed to better represent friction, command and control, overwatch, initiative, and other staple concepts of warfare. It's a strange hill to die on.

I think it's because that's all 40k players know and don't want to learn any new turn structure, outside the one troll here that said 40k was somehow better designed than Infinity LOL

Pretty much. I don't think it's at all a coincidence that GW's IGOUGO games are the ones with large existing player bases that would throw a fit over "too much" change. Meanwhile Kill Team, Adeptus Titanicus, and Aeronautica Imperialis all use alternating activation systems that work much better than 40k.

Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.

Because 40k still has the lore and aesthetics of the 40k universe and the best way to use our models and tell our stories is for GW to make the 40k rules into a better game. The fact that some people stubbornly defend a deeply flawed game and will be unhappy about changes, even positive changes, is not really something I care about.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.

Because 40k still has the lore and aesthetics of the 40k universe and the best way to use our models and tell our stories is for GW to make the 40k rules into a better game. The fact that some people stubbornly defend a deeply flawed game and will be unhappy about changes, even positive changes, is not really something I care about.

So basically "Facilitate my viewpoints and feth anyone else"? Pretty much what I guessed...

 Just Tony wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.

Because 40k still has the lore and aesthetics of the 40k universe and the best way to use our models and tell our stories is for GW to make the 40k rules into a better game. The fact that some people stubbornly defend a deeply flawed game and will be unhappy about changes, even positive changes, is not really something I care about.

So basically "Facilitate my viewpoints and feth anyone else"? Pretty much what I guessed...

That's the attitude of everyone, you included.

As a purple ork, I myself am good with the same train, I feel like there are some things that need balance such as some stat changes for units. But other than that, I am good with what we have!

But on the other hand, is scrapping everything for a new edition much better for the time being? if there was a random drop, it should be at a perfect time when they have the capability to release all the new things.

Anyway, purple ork is going back to invisible, HAVE A GOOD DAY

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.

Because 40k still has the lore and aesthetics of the 40k universe and the best way to use our models and tell our stories is for GW to make the 40k rules into a better game. The fact that some people stubbornly defend a deeply flawed game and will be unhappy about changes, even positive changes, is not really something I care about.

So basically "Facilitate my viewpoints and feth anyone else"? Pretty much what I guessed...

That's the attitude of everyone, you included.

No, because if I am changing 40k to something I like I am not hurting the people that like Apoc or 1p40k. If I was convinced people wouldn't like a change I wouldn't advocate for it. I might say I'd personally enjoy something or find it sensible and insist it deserves to be playtested. When I say keep Strats it's not because I think feth the 70% of players fed up with them, but rather that I think people wouldn't be fed up with the mechanic if it had a different implementation.

 vict0988 wrote:
No, because if I am changing 40k to something I like I am not hurting the people that like Apoc or 1p40k. If I was convinced people wouldn't like a change I wouldn't advocate for it. I might say I'd personally enjoy something or find it sensible and insist it deserves to be playtested. When I say keep Strats it's not because I think feth the 70% of players fed up with them, but rather that I think people wouldn't be fed up with the mechanic if it had a different implementation.

You're never going to make everyone happy at the same time and no matter what you change or don't change there will always be someone who vehemently disagrees with whatever you did. Every single person takes a position of "screw them" to at least one group of players.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.

Because 40k still has the lore and aesthetics of the 40k universe and the best way to use our models and tell our stories is for GW to make the 40k rules into a better game. The fact that some people stubbornly defend a deeply flawed game and will be unhappy about changes, even positive changes, is not really something I care about.

So basically "Facilitate my viewpoints and feth anyone else"? Pretty much what I guessed...

That's the attitude of everyone, you included.

No, it isn't. Don't EVER speak for me. If KOW was a superior system to WFB (Which I don't think it is) or AOS (Which I most assuredly think it is) I wouldn't advocate for WFB and/or AOS to be turned into KOW. I'd simply play KOW. It stems from me not being an egocentric spoiled entitled narcissist.

Tell you what, zippy: I challenge you to go through my posts and find ANYTHING remotely like me asking for anything like you are. You won't.

 Just Tony wrote:
No, it isn't. Don't EVER speak for me. If KOW was a superior system to WFB (Which I don't think it is) or AOS (Which I most assuredly think it is) I wouldn't advocate for WFB and/or AOS to be turned into KOW. I'd simply play KOW. It stems from me not being an egocentric spoiled entitled narcissist.

Tell you what, zippy: I challenge you to go through my posts and find ANYTHING remotely like me asking for anything like you are. You won't.

Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game?
-You

You just told everyone who wants a better version of 40k to GTFO and go play some other game, giving up on the lore and aesthetics of 40k to do it, because you want 40k to remain as it is. I prioritize my enjoyment of 40k over yours, you prioritize your enjoyment of 40k over mine. We're exactly equal.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
No, it isn't. Don't EVER speak for me. If KOW was a superior system to WFB (Which I don't think it is) or AOS (Which I most assuredly think it is) I wouldn't advocate for WFB and/or AOS to be turned into KOW. I'd simply play KOW. It stems from me not being an egocentric spoiled entitled narcissist.

Tell you what, zippy: I challenge you to go through my posts and find ANYTHING remotely like me asking for anything like you are. You won't.

Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game?
-You

You just told everyone who wants a better version of 40k to GTFO and go play some other game, giving up on the lore and aesthetics of 40k to do it, because you want 40k to remain as it is. I prioritize my enjoyment of 40k over yours, you prioritize your enjoyment of 40k over mine. We're exactly equal.

You seriously can't see the difference between telling someone who said they ALREADY fething ENJOY ANOTHER GAMING SYSTEM to stick with that rather than appeal to have a separate system forced to become what they like, tossing out everyone who does not WANT to play that other system NOR do they want that in their game they play currently. YOUR version feths large swaths of gamers over if made reality as they wouldn't have an alternative option other than retrogaming with a severely small group of people. MY version changes no existing options. Want your Guard army to play like you're playing Infinity? Run your Guard in Infinity with whatever rules match the army the most.

We are not the same.

 Just Tony wrote:
You seriously can't see the difference between telling someone who said they ALREADY fething ENJOY ANOTHER GAMING SYSTEM to stick with that rather than appeal to have a separate system forced to become what they like, tossing out everyone who does not WANT to play that other system NOR do they want that in their game they play currently. YOUR version feths large swaths of gamers over if made reality as they wouldn't have an alternative option other than retrogaming with a severely small group of people. MY version changes no existing options. Want your Guard army to play like you're playing Infinity? Run your Guard in Infinity with whatever rules match the army the most.

We are not the same.

And your version of 40k screws over people like me. We are exactly the same, you aren't morally better just because you defend the status quo.

Once again, you'd have a game to go to. Period. Your version eliminates that for the many to cater to the few or the one. You aren't immoral, simply egocentric.

 Just Tony wrote:
Once again, you'd have a game to go to. Period. Your version eliminates that for the many to cater to the few or the one. You aren't immoral, simply egocentric.

Which game do I have to go to? Nothing on the market currently allows me to play in the 40k universe with my 40k models. You say "just play your guard in Infinity" but Infinity doesn't support 100+ models, tanks and aircraft, etc. So what am I left with? Some obscure third-party alternative 40k? Or some homebrew rules that nobody else plays? Why is it ok for you to say "I'm fine with you having nobody to play with as long as I get my version of 40k with a large player base" but it's not ok for me to say the same?

And why do you get to just assume that my version only benefits few people while the majority want yours? Currently over 75% of the people who expressed an opinion in this poll voted for a major reset with 10th, so it looks like it's YOU who wants to sacrifice the needs of the many to cater to the few or the one.

I'd rather learn the system we already have, than try to learn a whole new system, that's probably only juuust different enough that I'll be doing the "wait, do we do XXX in this edition, or was that 9th?) BS. Sticking as close to the system as possible, while clarifying, rewording, etc would do wonders.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Once again, you'd have a game to go to. Period. Your version eliminates that for the many to cater to the few or the one. You aren't immoral, simply egocentric.

Which game do I have to go to? Nothing on the market currently allows me to play in the 40k universe with my 40k models. You say "just play your guard in Infinity" but Infinity doesn't support 100+ models, tanks and aircraft, etc. So what am I left with? Some obscure third-party alternative 40k? Or some homebrew rules that nobody else plays? Why is it ok for you to say "I'm fine with you having nobody to play with as long as I get my version of 40k with a large player base" but it's not ok for me to say the same?

And why do you get to just assume that my version only benefits few people while the majority want yours? Currently over 75% of the people who expressed an opinion in this poll voted for a major reset with 10th, so it looks like it's YOU who wants to sacrifice the needs of the many to cater to the few or the one.

You're assuming first that this poll represents the majority of gamers. This isn't even a good metric to make an educated guess, let alone correlate data. That's mistake #1.

Mistake #2 is your refusal to accept anything other than "Have my cake and eat it, too" as far as 40K goes. 40K is what it is. Don't like IGOUGO? Play one of the MANY video games which take place in real time. Dawn Of War is just as playable now as it was when it came out.

Mistake #3 is assuming I actively want anyone to not get their gaming experience, which is what YOU are asking for by asking for 40K to be changed into something it's not. Ultimately it doesn't affect me as I play 3rd Ed. and have no problem finding opponents. However, I speak for others in this regard as they get punished just so you can be overdemanding.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game?
-You

You just told everyone who wants a better version of 40k to GTFO and go play some other game, giving up on the lore and aesthetics of 40k to do it, because you want 40k to remain as it is. I prioritize my enjoyment of 40k over yours, you prioritize your enjoyment of 40k over mine. We're exactly equal.

because there will never be a better version of 40k, as GW has no interest in making a good version of 40k and keep that one running until the end, they want a new game every few Edtion so that people have to learn everything new, need to buy everything new, need to adjust their collections, and need time to realise which flaws the new game has and by that time GW will already release a new game and everything starts again

if you want a good game and not just for a few months, leaving the current version of 40k, going back to play and adapted old Edition or a game from a different company is the only valid options

I think here is the point that is often misunderstood, we don't say that certain game systems are bad or that they won't work for a SciFi game, we say GW has no interest in writing an actual game system, so no matter what you hope or wish for, GW won't be able to do it right because they suck at designing games, intentionally as their interest is in writing short small scale stuff so they can bring in new ideas, but don't want to write a coherent large game system were everything is on the same level (hence why it works better for Kill Team, Underworlds or Warcry)

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:Which game do I have to go to? Nothing on the market currently allows me to play in the 40k universe with my 40k models.

Grimdark Future is exactly that with GDF Firefight as smaller version (hence I see it running into similar problems as they really try to have every single unit of 40k in their game no matter if there is any use for it or not)

Warpath, with a different SciFi Universe in the back, with WP Firefight being the smaller version, though you would need to adapt as not every single unit has a 1:1 replacement (which is or the better) but you can play your Guard with Tanks, Airplanes Infantry etc.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Once again, you'd have a game to go to. Period. Your version eliminates that for the many to cater to the few or the one. You aren't immoral, simply egocentric.

Which game do I have to go to? Nothing on the market currently allows me to play in the 40k universe with my 40k models. You say "just play your guard in Infinity" but Infinity doesn't support 100+ models, tanks and aircraft, etc. So what am I left with? Some obscure third-party alternative 40k? Or some homebrew rules that nobody else plays? Why is it ok for you to say "I'm fine with you having nobody to play with as long as I get my version of 40k with a large player base" but it's not ok for me to say the same?

And why do you get to just assume that my version only benefits few people while the majority want yours? Currently over 75% of the people who expressed an opinion in this poll voted for a major reset with 10th, so it looks like it's YOU who wants to sacrifice the needs of the many to cater to the few or the one.

Dakka is not even close to being the majority of 40k players. Do you really think that? There's discords with a larger, more active playerbases that enjoy 40k. There's Reddits that enjoy 40k with larger, more active player bases than Dakka. Dakka is also well known for being very negative about 40k in general to most of the playerbases outside of it given who constantly tends to post along it.

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.

Did 40K turn into [insert other game] in the shift from 7th to 8th, and should the people who felt 7th Ed was bloated and unwieldy have just quit whining and gone to play [insert other game] instead?

Maybe 40K wasn't solely defined by AV and blast templates, isn't solely defined by pure IGOUGO, and has the potential to improve beyond legacy mechanics from 80s game design without compromising its core identity.

Horus Heresy has already done it, and I don't see many sky-is-falling posts about how the reaction system has turned HH2.0 into Infinity or whatever.

 catbarf wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.

Did 40K turn into [insert other game] in the shift from 7th to 8th, and should the people who felt 7th Ed was bloated and unwieldy have just quit whining and gone to play [insert other game] instead?

Maybe 40K wasn't solely defined by AV and blast templates, isn't solely defined by pure IGOUGO, and has the potential to improve beyond legacy mechanics from 80s game design without compromising its core identity.

Horus Heresy has already done it, and I don't see many sky-is-falling posts about how the reaction system has turned HH2.0 into Infinity or whatever.

Your point falls flat when that is what people did. GW lost market share and thus changed things as a result. However 9th hasn't lost people in droves and thus there isn't an incentive to change as the market isn't on the side of need to change.

 vict0988 wrote:

No, because if I am changing 40k to something I like I am not hurting the people that like Apoc or 1p40k. If I was convinced people wouldn't like a change I wouldn't advocate for it. I might say I'd personally enjoy something or find it sensible and insist it deserves to be playtested. When I say keep Strats it's not because I think feth the 70% of players fed up with them, but rather that I think people wouldn't be fed up with the mechanic if it had a different implementation.

How would you convince someone who likes terminator armies or who plays knights to "like" the OPR system? One player gets limited by the limitation of tough units and how many characters can be run in 2000pts army, the other player can not play his army unless he is playing a walking the dogs lists, if he wants to play with 2-3 knights, then he has to play 3-4k pts. There is not a single game system that doesn't create a meta game or the optimal way to play, nor is there a rules change that doesn't make it really unfun for some people. And this is in general not just GW implemantation of things. We can't forget though that the new AA rule set, assuming it would potantialy drop in 11-12th edition, would have GW design team work on it and write it. And as always with GW, the sales guys could always come and say make X uber. Expectations are nice, and dreams are nice to dream, but reality is a whole different thing.

Did 40K turn into [insert other game] in the shift from 7th to 8th, and should the people who felt 7th Ed was bloated and unwieldy have just quit whining and gone to play [insert other game] instead?

Wasn't that what happened though? GW was not happy that their main sells source was losing players fast, and in the wake of plans to kill WFB, they needed a "solid" w40k, especialy as they had a whole reset of models ready for the main work horse of the game.
It says a lot about GW luck that other companies had a combination of logistic problems and incompetent leadership+brand killers, that it didn't end real bad for them before 8th started.

well, if someone likes to play unbalanced games, not need to chance to a more balanced game anyway

and I know there are people who want to play 1:1 what they play in 40k and not adjust a single model
but, fun fact, they won't be able to do that with the next Codex/Edition in 40k as well, so this is a non-argument as it will happen anyway, question is just if they want to do it by changing to a different rules system, or must do it because GW changes things

 catbarf wrote:
Did 40K turn into [insert other game] in the shift from 7th to 8th, and should the people who felt 7th Ed was bloated and unwieldy have just quit whining and gone to play [insert other game] instead?

yes 8th was a different game than 7th and not "the same but improved" and from what from what I have seen around the web prior 8th, GW just copied ideas from other games (the whole Stratagem stuff was already out there and not invented by GW) but messed it up with the Codex rules later on

and there were enough players quitting the game with 8th because GW ruined the game they loved, while those that thought 6th/7th ruined the game they loved returned

the same will happen with 10th, 11th, 12th, those that really like the current version will leave because it is not their game any more, their armies are not playable etc, while others come back because "this time GW will do it right"

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Your point falls flat when that is what people did. GW lost market share and thus changed things as a result. However 9th hasn't lost people in droves and thus there isn't an incentive to change as the market isn't on the side of need to change.

If GW only changed their rules when market share drops, I would agree. But that isn't remotely the case.

GW's going to release a new edition whether there's market incentive to change or not. It might involve less drastic changes than when the flagship product showed signs of failing, but there will be changes for the sake of improvement, streamlining, and modernization. Someone out there is going to think those changes are unfamiliar and strange, even if in the long run it makes for a better game.

Frankly, changing up the pure IGOUGO structure is really not as drastic as some seem to think. GW already did it when they added Overwatch, and again when they added Stratagems. HH2.0 did it in a much more significant way, and it seems to have gone over fine, even with that game catering much more heavily to old-40K grognards. The specialist games- even those intended either as an entry point to 40K (Kill Team) or an offshoot for 40K players (Apocalypse)- use some flavor of AA. It isn't 2002 anymore; pure IGOUGO is not the baseline default from which any deviation is a bold and controversial choice.

Besides, Tony's argument isn't based on market incentives, it's essentially 'I like it as it is, hands off my 40K'. Well, some people really liked 7th. Some people really liked any particular edition you name. Changing things is always going to alienate someone who likes things the way they are, but if it makes for a better game, them's the breaks.

Edit: And I mean, just to be clear, my point was that if someone in 7th Ed said 'If you don't like AV, templates, and formations, and praise non-GW games that don't use those, why don't you go play those instead of advocating for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game?', that's a pretty bs response. Ditching those elements of 7th Ed didn't turn 40K into Bolt Action and ditching pure IGOUGO wouldn't either.

 catbarf wrote:
GW's going to release a new edition whether there's market incentive to change or not. It might involve less drastic changes than when the flagship product showed signs of failing, but there will be changes for the sake of improvement, streamlining, and modernization. Someone out there is going to think those changes are unfamiliar and strange, even if in the long run it makes for a better game.

are we talking about a different GW here now?

because comparing 3rd Edition with 9th and I see a side-grade at best, no long term improvement or anything like that
same I cannot see how 6th was an upgrade to 5th but actually a down-grade that was somehow fixed by 7th but made worse over time

GW changes for the sake of change and sales and not for improvement, streamlining or modernization, that is the wrong company to talk about those things